Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 19 November 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 35)
1999-11-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 19, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 35
The House met at 9:00 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to report today that for the second year in a row the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Petroleum Board is reporting a new record for land sales as a result of the 1999
Call for Bids in the offshore area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: As we are aware, Mr. Speaker, last year's Call for Bids in the
offshore area resulted in work expenditure commitments of $175 million, an increase from
the previous high of $126 million which was registered in 1996.
This year, compared to the previous record of $175 million, $192.5 million in bids were
received - that is a record in itself - including the largest single bid this year ever
recorded in the amount of $110.2 million by Petro Canada and Norsk Hydro for exploration
in the Flemish Pass area of the Grand Banks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: The previous high single exploration bid was back in 1995 when Amoco
bid $90.3 million for a parcel of land northeast of the Terra Nova field.
Petro Canada and Norsk Hydro were also successful in two other areas of the Flemish
Pass with bids of $60.2 million and $20.3 million.
Pan Canadian bid $1.5 million for a parcel in the Flemish Pass and Corridor Resources
was successful with a $275,000 bid for a parcel in the offshore West Coast area of the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, it was less than two week's ago that we heard great news from Husky
Oil regarding this year's delineation program at White Rose which identified
substantial amounts of oil, gas and natural gas liquids in that field.
The success of Husky's program tells us that White Rose is the forerunner for our
next petroleum development project in the Province. The well results also identified our
largest recoverable gas resource, 2 trillion cubic feet or more. White Rose is more than a
potential near term oil development; we believe it represents the beginning of a natural
gas industry for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has significant gas resources,
more than 8 trillion cubic feet of discovered natural gas, and an undiscovered potential
estimated at more than 50 trillion cubic feet. We believe White Rose will provide the
impetus to unlock this tremendous potential.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Grand Banks production will grow substantially within the
next few years. Hibernia Management Development Corporation has indicated that Hibernia
production could reach more than 180,000 barrels per day this year. Terra Nova is
scheduled for production late next year. With White Rose and Hebron/Ben Nevis developments
to follow, production could reach better than 400,000 to 500,000 barrels per day by the
year 2004.
The offshore activity in this Province is strengthening and gaining local, national and
international attention. This announcement today confirms the growing confidence and
interest in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore resource.
This high level of industry confidence has not occurred just as a by-product to
successful exploration. It also results from the combination of the development of a
competitive generic offshore royalty regime, substantial investments in infrastructure and
a competitive, well-trained and available workforce.
All of these elements combine to support a major expansion of the Province's oil
and gas industry over the next several years. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the
successful bidders for 1999 and wish them well in their exploration activities in
Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for a copy in advance. I thank the minister as well for an update
on this great Tory legislation, of course, as found -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and as enshrined in the Atlantic Accord, the results of hard
work, dedicated work, by both levels of government on both the provincial and federal
levels.
On behalf of members of this side of the House I too wish to congratulate the
successful bidders. It is indeed a serious undertaking, a very significant undertaking,
with respect to offshore development. I too was excited when recently we learned of the
great potential with respect to White Rose and of course, as the minister indicated, it is
only a matter of time before hopefully all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will see the
benefits of this great natural gas industry.
What is important, I say, is the reference that is found towards the end of this
Ministerial Statement when the minister refers to a "generic offshore royalty regime,
substantial investments in infrastructure and a competitive well-trained and available
workforce." I say that our offshore industry will not have peaked until any
Newfoundlander who is trained in the offshore field, whether it be a technologist, whether
it be an engineer, when those trained individuals upon graduation of their particular
program can say as a matter of choice: I would like to stay in my home province and
exercise and perform my expertise in my home province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, that is when we will have peaked in the offshore
industry. Until that happens we have a lot of work to do. Because as I say, there are too
many graduates from our technological colleges. There are too many electrical engineers -
in fact, the vast majority - who must say upon graduation: I must go to Texas, I must go
to Alberta in order to perform my expertise.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is at that time when we will have peaked
and we must continue to strive to reach that goal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I must agree that this is
indeed good news. I'm wondering when we are going to hear the great news, the great
news being what we do with the oil and gas once we get it offshore. In this Province today
we have one oil refinery, and that refinery is not allowed to sell one liter of oil in the
rest of this country.
The oil that is coming offshore from Hibernia and other developments will not be
positive for this Province in a real sense until there are jobs that can be created in the
Province through the development of the natural resource, the processing, and all of the
secondary employment that comes from that. So while this is good news, the great news will
not be until we get the secondary jobs in this Province so that as people graduate, as
people come out of school, they will have a place to go and will find jobs in a good
industry that are well paid.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to remind hon. members that while tomorrow is National Child Day, this
government is committed to children and families every day throughout the year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.
In recent days we have seen the opening of Family Resource Centres on the Northern
Peninsula and here in St. John's, under the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Plan,
and will be opening more in the coming days. This week, in keeping with Addictions
Awareness Week, we sponsored a conference in Labrador on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to raise
awareness about this preventable condition. Yesterday, I announced the formation of a Teen
Tobacco Team to help address the issue of youth smoking. As well, yesterday, the federal
government announced the launch of a pilot project in the southwestern region of the
Province which will look at ways pre-school children learn and develop physically,
emotionally, socially and cognitively.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce and inform hon. members of our
continued commitment to children by announcing the commitment of more than $2.2 million,
over the next three years, for autistic children in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Autism is a complex developmental disability that typically
appears during the first three years of life and can occur in as many as 1 in 500
individuals. While it is more prevalent in boys than girls, it knows no racial, ethnic or
social boundaries. Family income, lifestyle and educational levels do not affect the
chance of autism's occurrence. Children and adults with autism typically have
difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or
play activities. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with others and relate
to the outside world.
Evidence shows that early intervention results in dramatically positive outcomes for
young children with autism. To be effective, any approach should be flexible in nature,
rely on positive reinforcement, be re-evaluated on a regular basis, and provide a smooth
transition from home to school to community. While a cure for autism may seem unrealistic
in terms of today's understanding of brain-based disorders, better understanding of
the disorder has led to the development of better coping mechanisms and strategies to deal
with the disability.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point and acknowledge my colleagues, the hon. Roger
Grimes, Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. Anna Thistle, President of Treasury Board;
my colleague, the Minister of Education, Minister Judy Foote, for their continue advocacy
and working with us to develop this strategy.
We have started a two-year project which is an early intervention program for twenty
children ages 18-42 months with Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PPD). In
addition, we have explored other options to enhance autism services in the Province and a
plan has been approved by Cabinet which includes the following:
1. The Autism Pilot Project will be expanded with additional funding of $55,000 in this
1999-2000 fiscal year; $200,000 in 2000-2001; and $150,000 in 2001-2002. This funding will
allow the project to expand to provide services to fifteen children between the ages of 43
months and school-age. These children will be provided with Discrete Trial Applied
Behavioural Analysis up to school entry, at which time their ongoing requirements will be
a assessed and transition services provided.
2. Funding will also be provided to train professionals in preschool and school
treatment options. My department and the Department of Education will work together to
ensure community and educational professionals and paraprofessionals throughout our
Province receive the appropriate training to work with these children.
3. Funding will also be provided to create positions for three Child Management
Specialists to provide services to all children with special needs, including children
with autism.
4. Three Professional Development Consultants through the Department of Education will
provide training and transitional planning for school entry and exit.
5. An annual grant of $40,000 per year to the Autism Society of Newfoundland and
Labrador which will be used to help them establish a provincial office and a one-time
$20,000 grant for a needs assessment for adults with Autism/PDD.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Autism Society of
Newfoundland and Labrador for their work with community leaders and the private sector,
and particularly the President, Joyce Churchill. I would also like to commend and
acknowledge Carolyn Forsey, a parent, an advocate, and an autism consultant, for her
efforts to raise awareness of autism in our Province. I believe Ms Forsey joins us here
today as well for this announcement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Today's announcement means that autistic children in
Newfoundland and Labrador and their families will receive help, training and support which
otherwise may not be accessible to them.
There are many other departmental initiatives currently underway to help children in
our Province. For example, we are moving forward on our new Child, Youth & Family
Services Act, and during the fall sitting of the House I intend to table new legislation
to govern adoptions in our Province. We are investing in many areas of need for our
children and we will continue to do so through our investment of $10 million through our
National Child Benefit.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a busy week. This morning I had the pleasure of having
breakfast and serving some of the children at the Froude Avenue Community Centre. We are
celebrating Addictions Awareness Week, and we are also celebrating Early Childhood
Education Week. I would like to thank the Association of Early Childhood Educators of
Newfoundland and Labrador who today have provided me with blue ribbons to distribute to
all MHAs with the hope that you will all recognize and celebrate, tomorrow, National Child
Day.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister made reference to tomorrow being National Child Day, and certainly it is a
very important day. In fact, tomorrow, November 20, the celebration is extra special this
year because it is the tenth anniversary, I might add, of the adoption of the United
Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child by the UN National Assembly. There are
special events planned right across the entire country tomorrow. That adds a special
significance.
With reference to the main thrust of the minister's statement, apart from
reference to that, I would like to comment briefly. It is about time we started to move on
this bill, Bill 37, that was introduced over a year ago here, respecting child, youth and
family services. It is about time they started to do something. They were so rushed and
positive to get it moving and then it seemed to have grounded and nothing happened. I
might add that the performance has been terrible.. The minister, in the previous
department responsibility, had a responsibility for this specific area, as she addressed
in her statement today. Three years ago I sat over in the department with people trying to
do something for autism. We had to undergo an $80,000 fund-raising effort for a
constituent of mine to go to the U.S. to get the early intervention they need in this
Province. Autistic and PDD children in this Province have been neglected and they have not
had something in place. A pilot project now to address twenty people is welcome any time.
We should have gone through that stage, minister. We should have a comprehensive
Province-wide program for assessing and dealing with people who have PDD, autism and other
related disorders of that sort.
Minister, it is almost four years dealing with this with you as minister. Right back
from HRE minister and now. The response is certainly welcome. It is not comprehensive and
Province-wide enough. It is not enough to address the problems out there, and it is about
time something gets moving on this. Because there are people out there in need today with
autism and other related disorders that are in bad need of assistance here. This
government has not given the leadership and the resources to get something done about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her Ministerial Statement. I think
this is a topic that I certainly welcome. I welcome this news because I happen to be the
godfather of an autistic child. It is quite a while ago now, but I know what the family
went through for the past twenty odd years. This is quite good news to hear. A lot of
people in this Province have sacrificed greatly, financially and in other ways, to take
care of their children with autism. Really, a few years ago there was not a whole lot
known about the subject and people did, as the former speaker said, take their children
down to the States at great sacrifice.
It is good news. It is welcome news. I would like to say also that it is not just with
the children, because as these children become adults they still need special attention,
their families still need special support. I hope that this Ministerial Statement and the
actions by the minister today will lead to that.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This morning I rise to inform my hon. colleagues of the latest company to be approved
for EDGE status under the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises program.
This program is a successful business attraction tool that is working for our Province.
To be designated an EDGE corporation, an applicant must show potential for minimum capital
investment of $300,000 or incremental sales of $500,000 annually, the potential to create
and maintain at least ten permanent jobs, and must provide a substantial net economic
benefit to the Province, among other requirements.
Mouyal Corporate Group, of Montreal, Quebec, is establishing a sales and marketing
centre in St. John's. The centre will initially house sixty-five seats and is
scheduled to begin operations in the next two to three weeks. At that time, approximately
twenty-five full-time jobs will be created. Eventually, the company will hire 120 people
full-time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that EDGE is the only support being
received by this company from the provincial government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mouyal Corporate Group operates two main divisions. International
Business Directories compiles, publishes and markets speciality business communications
directories, and Merchant Transaction Supplies markets point-of-sale transaction paper and
supplies. The centre will service both North American and European markets, and will
handle sales calls for both divisions.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the contribution of NETWORK Newfoundland
and Labrador in bringing this new business venture to our Province. This organization is a
partnership between our government and Newtel Communications, and was established to help
attract call centres to this Province.
NETWORK Newfoundland and Labrador worked with Mouyal Corporate Group over the past
several months to establish our Province as the preferred location for the new centre.
The EDGE program was a key factor in Mouyal Corporate Group's decision to locate
to this Province, which shows that EDGE is a successful business attraction tool that will
continue to bring economic benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador. To date, sixty-seven
companies have received EDGE status, investing $73.6 million into our provincial economy,
and creating 1,482 jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I am pleased to welcome Mouyal Corporate Group to Newfoundland and Labrador, and wish
it every success as our newest EDGE company.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister this morning for a copy of her statement in advance.
I would like to say to the minister that we as well welcome this new company to our
Province, and can only hope that the news that you have said here, and hopefully the 120
jobs, will become a reality, not like the ten years' work we promised to the people
of Marystown -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: - that seems to have gone into a hole, that seems to have been hidden
away. I hope that this crowd lives up to their commitment to the people of this Province,
and they live up to their EDGE status, not as has happened in Marystown, Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: That is reality, boy. That is reality for you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise hon. members of efforts by all Ministers of
Education across the country to enhance access and quality in post-secondary education.
Access to affordable and high quality post-secondary education is critical, which is
why this government injected an additional $11 million in our public post-secondary
institutions last year to freeze tuition for two years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Earlier this week, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and of
Human Resources Development Canada announced the launch of a wide ranging review of
Education initiated with their Report on Public Expectations of Post-secondary Education
in Canada, which was released in February 1999.
All premiers endorsed this report in August 1999 at the Annual Premiers'
Conference. In the report, the Ministers of Education identify what Canadians can expect
mobility and portability, relevance and responsiveness, research and scholarship, and
accountability.
HRDC has collaborated with CMEC on its work in post-secondary education through a
significant financial contribution and by participating in the development and ongoing
activities of this project.
Through the CMEC, Ministers of Education are working on developing innovative policies
in key areas such as transition from secondary to post-secondary education, access as a
force for social and economic mobility, the use of technology to enhance access,
inter-jurisdictional mobility, and financing issues.
Ministers of Education and all Canadian Premiers have called on the federal government
to fully restore the Canada Health and Social Transfer, a portion of which is aimed at
supporting post-secondary education. They noted that full restoration is essential to
ensuring that post-secondary systems continue to have the capacity to respond to the
growing demands of a knowledge-based economy and to assist provinces and territories
respond to the issue of student debts.
While the measure taken to freeze tuition shows the commitment of this government to
enhancing access to post-secondary education, to ensure an prosperous future for all
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, this government as well is matching dollar for dollar
the $25 million being raised by Memorial University through its Opportunity Fund. Access
to a high quality post-secondary education is crucial for our students and we are
endorsing what the Ministers of Education and the Premiers have done in calling on the
federal government to fully restore the Canada Health and Social Transfer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for providing me with this release prior to the House sitting this
morning.
Again, it is encouraging to find our minister dialoguing with the ministers across
Canada, coming together and talking. I also hope that the minister is listening to the
policy directives that this Council of Ministers may put forth, that she will bring it
back to the Province and perhaps action it, unlike many of the reports that have been
ignored. I refer again to the Canning Report where, yesterday, the minister indicated that
we are out to lunch if we expect the government to follow the directives of a report that
they commission.
When we look at this Province and what the Province has done with regard to
post-secondary action, the student debt in this Province once again is a very serious
problem. The freeze of tuition levels is a start, but the post-secondary students are
waiting for more action from this government. If indeed the Council of Ministers of
Education are putting forth policies and suggestions as to how this can be dealt with, I
would encourage the minister to listen and to act.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: Act is the main thing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement.
The access to education is one of the most important things in our society. I would
like to point out and say that of the many problems that young people in this Province
today are experiencing, one is the access to education, and second, and just as important,
is the support for them while they are obtaining an education.
I can assure you that I, like many members in this House probably do, get a lot of
calls to their office about students who, a lot of times, have to drop out of educational
institutions simply because they do not have anything to support them while they were
going. The student debt load in this Province encourages people to leave when they finish
post-secondary training, even if they can find employment in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: Because if they can find employment in other places that pay more,
they need to make that to get their lives back in order by paying off their student debt.
Thank you.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Earlier this week in
Question Period, on Tuesday, when I questioned the Premier about Inco, the Premier said -
and I quote from Hansard of that day, page 1159 - that "Inco is coming back to
recognize that there will not be a mine/mill development unless there is 100 per cent
processing of concentrate in this Province. They are putting on the table a proposal as to
how that can be achieved."
I would like to ask the minister this question. Is the proposal that is on the table
before you as minister and before the department that Inco has put forward is to build a
test plant in Argentia, similar to that of what has been done in New Caledonia, in Goro,
to test a new process in nickel concentrate for processing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe to bring some further clarity to the issue, there is and has been no formal
proposal from Inco to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since last spring, we
have maintained regular and ongoing contact with representatives of Inco and Voisey's
Bay Nickel. I guess in the information and the exchange there has been one constant. The
constant has been a message repeatedly to the representatives of Inco and Voisey's
Bay Nickel that if they expect to have an operation in Newfoundland and Labrador, the only
reasonable proposal that would ever even be considered by this government would be one
that includes a proposal that details processing of the nickel in this Province.
My understanding is that they are in a position where they would like to bring a
proposal. They understand that the only proposal that would ever be accepted by this
government has to include secondary processing of the nickel concentrate in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We still await the possibility that sometime in the not too distant future
they might actually come forward with a formal proposal that would then engender some
public discussion in Newfoundland and Labrador about what is in the proposal, what it
contains or does not contain, what the components of it are, and whether or not the
government has assessed that it is good, bad or indifferent for Newfoundland and Labrador,
and whether or not we are willing to recommend acceptance of it.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: To bring some further clarity to the issue, it my understanding
minister - we will not call it formal discussions, you do not like that word - that you
have been informally discussing for four months now the process by which the nickel
concentrate in Voisey's Bay will be developed. It is my understanding that what - I
will use your own words again - has been informally proposed is that there will be a test
plant in this Province similar to that of what is in Goro, New Caledonia.
I would like to ask the minister this. Is it government's view that such a test
plant, based upon his own analysis and his own department's analysis, which I know he
has done, in this Province would be acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The government will gladly state to the people of the Province whether something is
acceptable or not if and when it is proposed to us. At this point in time, we are not
engaged in the process of speculation and what ifs. We expect and we fully believe that we
are within a very short period of time of actually getting a formal proposal from the
representatives of Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel. If that occurs, if we get a formal
proposal, we are confident that it will contain provisions for the full processing of the
concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no point or purpose, as we see it, in
speculating if it might be like Australia, Goro, Sudbury, Manitoba or lots of things.
There are dozens of operations in the world, all of which work, all of which use different
technologies. If there is going to be one proposed for Newfoundland and Labrador, we look
forward to having a public total acknowledgment from Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel
that they do understand that in Newfoundland and Labrador there will not be a mine and a
mill in Labrador unless there is processing of the concentrate somewhere else in the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very careful, as he should, I
guess, with the words, but he did not answer the question. I will ask it directly to him
again. Would a pilot test or a test plant similar to what is in New Caledonia and similar
to what operates in Goro - you must have, as minister, looked at all the options in your
informal four month discussions; you must have looked at something - be acceptable to the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? A process that is operating right now by Inco in
Goro, New Caledonia, a test plant, a pilot plant, is that an acceptable option for the
people of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition obviously seems to be quite
interested in: What if this were to be offered, would that be acceptable, what is that
were to offered, would that be acceptable? Maybe he would like to answer for the people of
the Province now that if something like what was operating in New Caledonia were to be
offered, what would the Opposition say about it?
I will tell you one thing. We are not interested at all in speculating about something
that may or may not be offered to Newfoundland and Labrador as a means of having a full
integrated operation - mine, milling, processing - so that what leaves the Province is a
final nickel product instead of some other intermediary product. That is the position of
the government.
Experts and officials have looked at operations worldwide because our interest is in
making sure that what is proposed, that we would understand what it is - we have done that
background work - that there will not be any surprises, and that we would like to be able
to respond to it fairly quickly rather than to say: Well, give us a proposal, and it might
take us five or six months then to check it out.
We have done some preliminary work but we see no purpose whatsoever in stating for the
public record that, if Inco comes forward and says: We will do in Newfoundland like some
other company is doing in Australia, is that okay? If Inco. comes forward and says: We
will do in Newfoundland what some other company is doing in Finland, is that going to be
okay? We will wait and see what is proposed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. GRIMES: We have analyzed all the different operations in the world. We will be
able to make a fairly quick judgement as to whether or not it is a good process for
Newfoundland and Labrador and whether or not it gets full and fair benefits in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister has not answered the question again. This is the same
minister who last spring speculated publically about shipping - maybe shipping - some of
the nickel concentrate; and this is the issue here, Mr. Speaker, the nickel concentrate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask him again, in this way: It is fine for government to make
a policy position known on any issue. Is a test plant or pilot plant similar to other
parts of the world? Is that an acceptable option for the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, yes or no, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all I can say, with great sincerity to the House of
Assembly and to the people of the Province , is that I do not know what could possibly be
gained - within days or weeks of hopefully getting an actual proposal from the people who
want to invest billions of dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador in a nickel mine, a nickel
mill and concentrator, a nickel processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador - I
don't know what could possibly be achieved, accomplished or gained by speculating
about what if some particular part of it might or might not be part of the proposal.
We will have a proposal, hopefully soon. The proposal will entail and certainly contain
provisions for full processing of nickel concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador. When
that proposal is made available to us, it will undergo necessary scrutiny. It will be
certainly publically debated in this Province. We will certainly then describe to
everybody in the Province, and in this Legislature fully debate the merits or lack thereof
of every single component of the proposal. To stand now today and say something that may
or may not ever be part of a proposal -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. GRIMES: - is it okay or not, to me serves absolutely no purpose.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A final question to the minister. Let me ask this, in terms of the process that we are
talking about that operates in New Caledonian, Goro. It is my understanding, and I believe
it is yours as well, that the refining process, what's left, the concentrate, that it
is not a finished product with respect to completion of smelting and refining, where it is
concerned, and that in those areas, in that test plant or those test plant operations,
that concentrate has to be taken from where it is, sent elsewhere to be further refined.
Has government said to Inco that when it comes to the further refining, or refining,
that all refining, as the Premier said on Tuesday in the House, 100 per cent must be done
here from A to Z? Is that the position of the provincial government with respect to any
suggestion or any informal proposal that has been put forward to your department
indicating that a pilot project is the way Inco. wants to go? Has there been any
suggestion to that, and what has been government's response? Has it been: No, we are
not interested unless every bit of concentrate is processed in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the government - I will state again for the official
record in the Province - has not received a formal, official proposal from Inco or
Voisey's Bay Nickel. However, in the informal discussions that have gone on for
several months, the repeated message from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
anyone and everyone involved is: Please, do not waste anybody's time by coming
forward with a proposal that does not allow for the full processing of nickel concentrate
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We understand that if a proposal comes forward, the proposal will allow for the full
processing of nickel concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we hope we get the
actual proposal soon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this morning are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Four
years ago, in St. John's, a seventeen-year-old girl who is developmentally delayed
was acting out in her home. Her mother called for assistance. The young girl was taken to
the Remand Centre, searched, stripped and handcuffed. Four years later this same
individual, still with the same behavior management program, when she acts out in her home
and her mother seeks assistance, the policemen come to her home, the only option is the
lockup. Minister, what is the government's policy to take care of developmentally
delayed individuals who are in this situation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I have to say I find it very offensive when a member across the House would
stand up and speak about an individual case and expect some sort of a response about an
individual case. I think it is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is important and I say it time and time again - I said
it here in the House again to the same member last year; I have said it to members
opposite - if there are individual cases where behaviors are deemed inappropriate or there
are questions around it, I think it is only right and fitting, first of all, that the
boards have the courtesy of the information, and that I would have the courtesy of the
information, to try to do something for that particular individual in that particular
case.
Mr. Speaker, my view in this regard is that this question is nothing more than another
example to get a headline in the paper and not really deal with the issue. I would like to
have the information. I, too, would be concerned and would like to deal with those sorts
of issues.
One has to ask, when a question is put forward -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; I ask if you would conclude
your answer please.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One has to ask the intent and the motive behind the question, and if they are truly
concerned about those issues again -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - or if they are trying to get on Open Line or make a headline
with the people up in the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The intent behind this is to have this policy changed. I have called the RNC, I have
called the Waterford. The policy is: Take them to the lockup. The minister should know
this; it is her department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: It is not one individual; it is the policy. I have checked. The
minister should know what the policy is in her department, and it is not just one
individual, Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask her to get to her question.
MS S. OSBORNE: Can the minister tell me why there aren't facilities in place
at the Waterford Hospital or any other similar institutions to take care of these
individuals so people who are developmentally challenged will not have to suffer the
degradation of being locked up with criminals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is all coming out right now. You know, what I
heard from that member is that they are opposed to the integration of the physically and
mentally challenged into our communities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let them hear it! Lock them up in the Waterford
Hospital? Put them in the Waterford? That is appalling.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you are developmentally delayed, suffering, having a behavior management problem,
would you rather have a psychiatric unit or the lockup under the Courthouse?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say it again. Let the people of the Province hear that the question asked to
me and the answer given by the same member is: Lock them up in the Waterford Hospital. I
think it is shameful!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has not recognized the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Police officers have told me that they are appalled about having to
bring people to the lockup. They have no choice. Individuals in such circumstances are
detained under
section 12 of the Mental Health Act, which specifies that officers must
"take him or her to a treatment facility or other safe and comfortable place..."
Does the minister consider the lockup or the Remand Centre to be a treatment facility or
safe and comfortable place appropriate to hold developmentally delayed individuals until
they are seen by physicians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) just proved herself a liar (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Did I just hear that she just proved herself to be a liar from the
Minister of Mines and Energy?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. minister knows that he cannot say those things in this Chamber. I ask him to
withdraw.
MR. GRIMES: Absolutely withdrawn, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the rules of the
House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is also important to note, based on the previous question, the member's
own views on her whole perspective on institutionalization and integration. I also want to
say that I do not second-guess the judgement of the RNC. She read out the policy. They
make a judgement. We do not any more bring people to the Waterford Hospital to put them
there. There are judgements made about levels of violence and public safety, and I think
the member opposite knows as well as I do that this is nothing more than trying to get her
position across on the integration of people and her views against integration of people
into the community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. When some
bacteria, minister, is present in Gander Lake or other water supplies, and someone may
contract beaver fever, your department issues a warning to people to treat the water.
For the last three years the department has known of the presence of a toxin,
trihalomethane in drinking water, a chemical that causes cancer and produces birth
deformities. Why didn't your department issue a warning to people in those
communities? Why didn't you advise them what they could do to avoid the horrible
consequences of ingesting this toxic? You do it for beaver fever, minister. Why do you not
do it for trihalomethane?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With your permission, I would like to go into a bit of history here to -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I just want to inform the hon. minister that if he considers the question due a rather
lengthy answer, he should take it under advisement and report at another time.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: There is some information (inaudible) she wants to pass to the Opposition
to let them know, and to let the public of the Province know. I recognize that the Speaker
has made the right ruling, but in view on the interest of the public and the Opposition in
this question, I wonder if they would give leave for the hon. gentleman to give a somewhat
lengthy answer so that they could have the information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
Are you speaking to the point of order?
MR. SULLIVAN: I would be delighted if myself and my next colleague could finish
their questions in Question Period today, maybe in the next question, rather than use up
Question Period. We can allow it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen - whatever time the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Government House Leader to get to his point.
MR. TULK: Yes, get to the point. If indeed the hon. gentleman uses up five minutes
to give this lengthy piece of information to him -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: Hold on now. I will say to him that we will extend Question Period by
that same amount.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I understand that whatever time the hon. minister now takes to answer this question,
this amount of time will be added on to question period?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that at 9:51 a.m. the minister stood
and was recognized to answer this question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I will not take a long time, but what I want to say to
the members opposite and say to the House is that we are talking about the report written
by an official with the Department of Environment and Labour. That particular report was a
working document between the officials in the Departments of Health and Municipal and
Provincial Affairs. They share the information that was in the report.
In that report there were thirty-five municipalities that were listed with THM results.
The statistics that were given in that report for those thirty-five communities, one of
those communities exceeded the Canadian guideline at that particular time, which was 350
micrograms per litre. The department, after looking at that particular report, began then
- by the way, that particular report and statistics gathered on those thirty-five
communities were gathered between the years of 1986 and 1990. Between 1986 and 1990.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LANGDON: Let me finish. The people in the department then, in consultation with
the municipalities across the Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LANGDON: Let me finish!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Then the people in the department, in consultation with other
officials, began to work with the municipalities and today we have information on 190-plus
communities in the Province, not the thirty-five that were in the report. Of those 190
communities that are listed today, some forty-nine of them exceed the new Canadian
guideline which is 100 micrograms per liter.
I'm hoping before even the day or the session is out that I will be able to have
the information for the House to average out what the particular exceeding of those
guidelines are. In fact, two of those communities that were listed out of the forty-nine
exceeded the guidelines in 1998 but fell below the guidelines in 1999 considerably.
I have asked the people in the department to get the information to distribute it to
the House, because to suggest that out there there is a crisis in the Province in drinking
water is nothing more than alarmist. That is what it is, instigating fear in the people in
the Province when there is no need for it. Many of those communities out of the forty are
marginal, like 106, 120.
AN HON. MEMBER: There are not all marginal (inaudible).
MR. LANGDON: No, they are not all marginal. That is what I want to be able to -
MR. SULLIVAN: Marginal answer. Did you ever hear tell of it?
AN HON. MEMBER: Marginal intelligence, yes, Loyola.
MR. LANGDON: Yes, you have that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LANGDON: I withdraw. I apologize. I did not mean to do that. I apologize to the
hon. member. I did not want to say that.
Mr. Speaker, here is the situation. The communities across the Province have been
working with the department. Yesterday it was suggested - and suggested by my critic again
this morning - that I, as the minister, and the department, have been hiding things from
the municipalities.
I think, if you listened to Bill Hogan this morning, the Mayor of Dunville, I was
vindicated; because when they called the CBC reporter, he said: Well, I have the report. I
have the analysis here in front of me. When they called the town clerk from Bonavista, he
said: I went to the office. I looked and it was below the level.
So every person - the Mayor of Gander has said it. I talked to some other mayors last
night, and they have the information. The water has to be chlorinated because not to
chlorinate the water would be worse than to chlorinate.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is not a health hazard here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a note to hon. members that the time for
that question was four minutes, so we will extend by four minutes?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the Minister of Health and Community Services: Both the Premier and the Minister of
Environment have tried to excuse the coverup of this information by saying it is safer for
people to drink trihalomethane poisoned water than to drink non-chlorinated water; but,
Minister, it is not their choice to make. If people had been warned of the presence -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.
If people had been warned of the presence of THMs in the water, you could advise them
what to do to protect themselves. They have been drinking clean water for the past three
years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, will you confirm that they could have been drinking clean
water for the past three years if you had told them so?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to the House that the municipalities
are aware of the THMs within their water supply. Also, there has been information from the
department to tell the municipalities of ways to reduce the THMs; for example, putting a
filter on the water in the house, the tap. You can buy, from any general store, a
particular jug that has a filter in it; to refrigerate the water. It reduces the THMs
significantly. That information has been given by my department to the municipalities and
they are aware of it. To suggest a coverup just does not make sense.
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: This is a very serious matter,
Minister. The people of the Province can only assume from your silence on these matters,
Minister of Health, that you do not care about their health.
Now I ask you, Minister: Isn't it a fact that you are more interested in
protecting your Cabinet colleagues than protecting the health of people in those
communities?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to the people of this Province, and
the 194 communities that have been tested in this particular Province, the information has
been disseminated to them. The people in my department have been working with the councils
in ways to reduce the THMs.
As I said earlier, today I will deliver to the House the information on those
forty-nine communities. I will not name them because I have already drafted a letter and
asked them if I could do it, to release the information that will be posted today, but I
will give an average of the number of communities, out of the forty-nine, how many of them
exceed the level and by how much. Then not only will the individual who lives in town X,
like Placentia, know when the information is disseminated, but any other community in the
Province as well. Any media can phone any community like they did this morning and get the
information if they want it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. Are you, Mr.
Minister, concerned that the environment minister has had in his possession, and to this
point has failed to disclose, a report showing that some forty-nine municipalities in the
Province have toxic water and that it exceeded acceptable Health Canada levels of
chemicals that possibly - possibly - could cause cancer and other health defects?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the premise on which the hon. member just asked the
question is wrong. I gave you the information earlier this morning in Question Period when
I told you there were not forty-nine communities in the report. There were thirty-five
communities listed in the report - I told you that earlier - and of the thirty-five
communities that were listed in the report, one of them exceeded the Canadian average at
the particular time that the testing was done, and there was sparse information that was
gathered between 1986 and 1990.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General: Are you concerned, Mr. Minister,
that your colleague's failure to disclose this information to the residents of these
municipalities could leave this government vulnerable to possible legal action? As the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this Province, Mr. Minister, are you concerned
of the liability issue that could arise as a result of the non-disclosure of this
information by this minister to the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Can you just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the question that was just asked? I
just told the House of Assembly this morning that the information in the book - it was
just a working guide between the officials in the department - were statistics. I think
the people in the Province should realize this. The information in the book, that was a
working document between the departments, was gathered between 1986 and 1990.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who was there?
MR. LANGDON: No, no, I want to get this point across. It does not matter who was
there. I am not suggesting anybody who was there. I just want to get the information
straight. The information was gathered between 1986 and 1990. That is between thirteen and
ten years ago. Now the information that we have out there today, that the communities
have, have been tested in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. The communities have it, so what is
the coverup?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a quick question.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs. Will the minister confirm that Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing's regular home repair assistance program - not the urgent repair program -
has run out of funding since mid-September for the Avalon region and there will not be any
funding until the next fiscal year which begins in April, almost six months from when the
money ran out? Does the minister have any plans to put any money into this program, in the
interim, until the end of April, 2000?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, there was an allocation of I think $8.3 million this year in the Housing
Corporation for the provincial home repair program and the urgent repair program; $7
million for the capital side of it, if you like, and $1.3 million for the urgent repair
program.
We do try every year to get that money allocated as early as we can in the year because
a lot of it is of a capital nature that has to be done outside the House as well as
inside, and most of the money was allocated by September. The work is ongoing and I expect
that by the end of this fiscal year the expenditure of the budget will have taken place on
the basis of the allocation of identification of work that has already been identified.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
MR. GRIMES: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of privilege, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I waited until the end of Question Period but I would like
and beg the leave of the House for just a minute or so to state a point of parliamentary
privilege, because I do believe that our privileges have been abused here in this House
today in Question Period by a line of questioning from the Member for St. John's West
with respect to the treatment of developmentally delayed persons when there is some kind
of problem in the home and when the police are called to the house.
I apologized at the time for indicating that the member was lying, because that is
contrary to the rules of the House and I should not have used that language.
The point of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, in asking her question,
suggested clearly in asking the Minister of Health and Community Services that there was a
policy for which the minister was responsible, a policy of the government for which the
minister was directly responsible, which is why she was asking the question. Her version
of it in her question was that there was a policy that stated that if the police come to
the home where there is a developmentally delayed person and there has been a disturbance
in the house, the policy says that the police must take the developmentally delayed person
to the lockup. That was her question to the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr.
Speaker.
I suggested that was a lie because there is no such policy and I am not allowed to say
that. I apologize for it and I will not say it. However, later in a supplementary, the
same member -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: The point of privilege is what I am addressing, Mr. Speaker.
The same member in a supplementary took a piece of paper which was not tabled - because
we asked for the policy - and said: There is a policy within the RNC Act that says: If
there is a disturbance, you must take the person to a treatment facility or other safe
location.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how it is that anything but our privileges are abused
when members can stand up and absolutely, totally misrepresent information and suggest
that it is the responsibility of the minister, and if that is not the abuse of our
privileges.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is on a point of privilege (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair will hear what the hon. minister has to say on this point of privilege, and I
ask him to get to it quickly.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Using that as the example which just occurred in our Legislature in Question Period,
for my own clarification - because I certainly feel that my privilege has been abused - if
in fact I am instructed by the rules of this Legislature to accept that every statement
made in this House is true - therefore I am not allowed to say that it is a lie, the rules
prohibit it - then if the statement is true, are not my privileges abused when the
speakers themselves then in a later question admit that what they proposed, the question
before, was not true?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of privilege, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I refer the Speaker to Beauchesne, page 121, where in
section 409(7) it is talking
about the decorum of the House. It says: "... in terms of inferences, imputing
motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it."
Certainly the Member for St. John's West did nothing in her question to cast
aspersions, to make inferences or anything else. However, it is quite clear that both the
Ministers of Mines and Energy and Health and Community Services this morning cast
aspersions as to the motive of the Member for St. John's West.
I refer as well to page 142 of Beauchesne where in
section 484(3) it says: "In the
House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any
reflections on the House itself as a political institution..." The phrase I want to
use is the next one: "or to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for
their actions in a particular case..."
This morning the Minister of Health in her statement in reply to the question from the
Member for St. John's West in my opinion certainly indicated that the Member from St.
John's West had a unworthy motive. She indicated that the member was more interest in
getting headlines than in seeking to bring to this House the concerns of a particular
person.
I say as well that in this particular case the Member for St. John's West has done
nothing that was outside the orders of the House. In fact, her privileges here were
interfered with because she was accused of having motives that certainly are not
consistent with her rights to ask questions and to make representation on behalf of the
people to this House. This is the people's House, this is where people's issues
get brought up, and that is exactly what the Member for St. John's West was trying to
do this morning, and trying to abide within the rules. If there was any interference with
the rules of this House it was by the Minister of Mines and Energy and by the Minister of
Health herself.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: To that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is right,
this is the people's House, but the truth of the matter is that in this Legislature
you are also required to give correct information and the hon. gentleman knows that. The
truth of the matter is that the Member for St. John's West, either knowingly or
unknowingly - I would suggest, perhaps even unknowing -
AN HON. MEMBER: No, I would not.
MR. TULK: I would. I would give her that benefit of the doubt, because I have known
the lady for some time. Let me say this to you. Here is what she did say in this House.
She said in this House that the RNC are forced to take people who are developmentally
delayed to the lockup. That, she said, is the policy of the government. Then she stood up
a few minutes later and here is what she read out of the policy. She said: Take them to a
treatment facility or other safe location.
Even though she wants to come in here and get her face on the television or get her
face in the news, I want to suggest to her this morning that is not correct behavior in
this House to come in here and try to say that something is what it is not or unknowingly
do it. The truth of the matter is that in that policy -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to get to his point quickly.
MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is, and I will finish here, that in that
statement that she read the RNC have the option of taking somebody to the Waterford if
they wish, to a hospital if they wish, or indeed wherever they wish. She should stand up
and apologize to the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: Sheila, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen,
boy. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair will take under advisement the point raised by the hon. Minister of Mines and
Energy. We will review the Hansard to see exactly what has been said and will rule on it
accordingly.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue made a statement here to the Member for St.
John's West that it runs in their family. I ask him to withdraw that remark because
that is a personal insult to this member and her family.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) for making that comment. What I was indicating was that
the hon. Member for St. John's South all summer was calling into open line with
misinformation about a project.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair has asked for some order to be restored. The Chair will leave here until some
order is restored and then come back. The Chair will recess the House. If hon. members are
not going to pay attention to the rules then the Chair will recess the House until the
hon. members show some respect for this institution. This has gotten out of hand. The
comments that have been made here today and the kinds of things that are happening should
not happen in this House. The Chair does not want to see this kind of thing happening
again.
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An
Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following
bills:
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund Act
1966".
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code".
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act".
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Forest
Resources and Agrifoods, I give notice that he will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act".
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?
Answers to questions for which notice has been given?
MR. TULK: Mr,. Speaker, (inaudible) notice of the Minister of Environment. I am
wondering if we can revert to that? He wants to give a notice of another bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety
Act". (Bill 33)
Orders of the Day
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. Order 6, "An Act To Provide For The Conservation,
Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province", (Bill
31), otherwise known as the bulk water act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to continue, and I will be very brief this morning to follow on a few points I was
trying to make yesterday, this is a very important piece of legislation that I understand,
when the partisan politics is taken out of it, has the support of the House of Assembly.
It may very well be unanimous in terms of the support of the Bill.
I did, though, want to continue on the line of a few comments that were made yesterday
because the Leader of the Opposition in particular has made, in his opening comments with
respect to the Bill, a couple of statements that cannot be left as part of the public
record, because he has stated them as if they are facts, when I think he would now
acknowledge, if given the opportunity, that they are not factual.
In Hansard from yesterday, just to make sure again that we understand exactly what the
Leader of the Opposition said, he indicated that - and these are his words exactly:
...your federal cousins and your buddies in Ottawa have asked for a national ban because
of the implications on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I believe now that if I were to give leave and he were to rise and speak today, he
ever asked any of the provinces to engage and involve in a national ban on the bulk export
of water because of implications on the Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, they have asked
the provinces, through the Environmental Ministers' Table, to institute and support a
ban on bulk water for environmental reasons only.
Then, in the same few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition did speak, he mentioned
that there is nobody who understands this issue better then the Member for St. John's
South. Nobody, that is his exact word, but before it is over... It goes on to say as well
that the Member for St. John's South clearly understands the implications of this
both nationally and internationally. Before he finished speaking, however - before the
Leader of the Opposition, who made those two statements finished speaking - he said that
the Member for St. John's South has pointed out clearly, both inside and outside the
House in speaking engagements, that there are serious concerns about the implications of
exporting bulk water. Not that he knows that there are implications, because he does not.
He does not because, in fact, the last information that has been public on this issue,
with respect to trade issues, is that not only in the North American Free Trade Agreement
- which is Canada, the United States, and Mexico - but in the World Trade Organization,
which is all of the trading partners in the globe, worldwide, the United States
representatives, the Senator from the United States, the Canadian representative, and the
Mexican representative, on behalf of the North American Free Trade Agreement, are going to
the next session of the World Trade Organization because they fear that other trading
partners in the world are trying to have bulk water declared as a good for trade in the
world. The United States are sending a representative saying: We will not agree to that;
we do not want it. Canada is sending a representative saying that. Mexico is sending a
representative saying that, because in the North American Free Trade Agreement there is no
reference whatsoever to bulk water as a good for export.
The Maude Barlows of the world, the left-wingers - here is one of the strangest things
in this - of the country who are normally affiliated with our friends from the New
Democratic Party, all of a sudden have bosom buddies in the Tories, which are the
right-wing of Newfoundland and Labrador, supposedly. The Tory Member for St. John's
South, the Tory Leader of the Opposition, who says that he will stake anything that he
says on information from the Member for St. John's South because he is the
world's foremost expert on this issue - the world's foremost expert on bulk
export of water is the Member for St. John's South, in the words of the Leader of the
Opposition. Their only authority that they can get to agree with them, that there may be
some implications, is Maude Barlow from one of the leading left-wing think tanks in the
country.
Now you have the left-wingers and a right-wing Premier with an expert from St.
John's South, self-proclaimed and endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, who are
now bosom buddies. Despite the fact that we can get nobody from the offices of
nobody from Mexico, to suggest that water itself, in bulk form, is a good under the Free
Trade Agreement, these couple have concluded that it is - they are going to say that it is
- but one minute they suggest they know there are implications and that the expert over
here is the expert, and in the next breath the same leader says: Well, our expert has
spoken inside and outside the House and he has said in speaking engagements that there are
serious concerns about the implications. Not that there are implications and I can tell
you what they are. What they are saying is: You know, there might be a problem because
somebody in the United States, or somebody in Mexico, might put something in the courts to
challenge as to whether it is or is not.
The authors of the Free Trade Agreement never ever suggested it should be. The Free
Trade Agreement is silent on the matter but in the meantime the Leader of the Opposition,
if given a chance, if I acceded my time right now, would surely stand in the House and
want to admit that he would not want the record to show that he, as the Leader of the
Official Opposition, would stand by a statement that says - his words, "...that your
federal cousins and your buddies in Ottawa have asked for a national ban..."
His reason - this is why he is concluding what he is - is because he believes, with the
advice of his expert from St. John's South, world-renowned expert, that the reason
Trade Agreement. Not true.
The whole basis of the big scene that they had laid out in the summer - oh, if
something happens in Gisborne Lake there are going to be problems with free trade. Then,
of course, the other big issue that we talked about yesterday: By the way, Bill, by the
way Bas, by the way George, by the way Jim - as they call the radio shows - I have no
proof of this.
Here was the great cover: I have no proof of this, but don't stop me from putting
out a big lie. I don't have any proof of it but don't stop me from using the
public airways of the Province to suggest - here is the language they used. They said:
Don't make any mistake, Jim, don't make any mistake Bill, don't make any
mistake Bas, don't make any mistake George, there has been a golden handshake - wink,
wink, nod, nod. There has already been a deal. This government has already given
permission. Don't be fooled.
Just in case somebody might come back, I have no proof of this.
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Mines and Energy has been on his feet this morning, earlier, accusing
people on this side of the House of lying. He has managed to speak now the past six or
seven minutes and he has referred to people on this side of the House as putting out the
big lie. It is unparliamentary for him. I want him to withdraw that remark and apologize
for it. Mr. Speaker, I expect that you heard it also.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, is he speaking to the point
of order?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me conclude just by saying this. I just wanted to make those couple of points
because I am convinced -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly I look forward to participating
at the Committee stage.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to give him leave?
MR. J. BYRNE: Give who leave? He took leave of his senses years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address what the Minister of Mines and Energy was saying here
yesterday. He was on his feet for twenty-one minutes yesterday afternoon and he did not
refer to the legislation, not once. What he did do was he attacked people who do not sit
in this House of Assembly, who are not here to defend themselves, namely, first, Sue Dyer,
and second, Maude Barlow. He was up attacking these individuals who do not have the
opportunity to sit in this House and defend themselves!
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: We all realize that the hon. gentleman wants his friends protected, but
does he really want them protected that badly?
MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order as usual from the Government House Leader, who is
supposed to know something, who is supposed to have a clue about the rules and procedures
in this House. He is batting 1,000 on not knowing, Mr. Speaker.
Now, what I will say up front and I am not supposed to -
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
(Inaudible) hon. gentleman will answer the question. Does he really want his friends
protected that badly?
MR. J. BYRNE: I will address that in due course, I say to the hon. House Leader.
We see `Sir Gisborne' of Bellevue, I will address his concerns, and how he cannot,
in all honesty, stand in this House of Assembly and vote in favour of this legislation. He
is a member who pointed to the Premier and said: You are wrong and I will be proven right.
How can he stand and vote in favour of this legislation? The Minister of Mines and Energy
was saying it was going to be unanimous, but I will predict that `Sir Gisborne' of
Bellevue, the hon. Member for Bellevue, will either not be in his place when the vote is
taken or he will get up and go against what he said publicly and in this House of
Assembly. What does that make the Member for Bellevue, I would say to the minister? What
will that make him, Mr. Speaker.
I have no problem to stand here and say up front, within the first three or four
minutes, that I do support the spirit and intent of this legislation. Now we shall see as
we go through the legislation when we debate
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Tory?
MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know what he is. If he is a Tory I would not want him
over here, I tell you that.
Mr. Speaker, when we get into this legislation I am going to speak on the intent here
and the spirit of the legislation, and how I support it. I find it so ironic that we have
members on that side of the House who only a few short months ago - and we had the Member
for Bellevue talking about the open line show, we had the Minister of Mines and Energy
talking about this on the open line show, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talking
about it - now are over there trying to twist it back to us yesterday that we do not
support this. How childish, immature and simpleminded. That is what you said.
The Government House Leader stood in his place yesterday and pulled a fast one with
respect to this legislation. We had discussed with our House Leader and the House Leader
had discussed what would be -
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman knows that the day before I read it what we were going
to do, but his own Member for St. John's South got up and presented a petition asking
that this legislation be brought before the House. We obliged him.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: What went on here yesterday, and you can get Hansard and check it, I
say to you, Mr. Speaker... The day before yesterday, before the House closed, the
Government House Leader stood in his place and said: We will be discussing tomorrow bills
such and such. It was agreed upon.
Yesterday they came in here and trying to be coy and smart, and being the headline
hunters that the Premier and the members on that side are, they tried to twist it back to
us that we were not going to support this legislation. Again, I say, how foolish. It did
not work. The Government House Leader decided to call the legislation anyway, which he had
the authority to do, and he did not even know it until somebody had to tell him that we
had already had first reading. Then he called it and went back on his word.
Back to what I said earlier. We had the Mines and Energy Minister up twenty-one minutes
yesterday and by the way, another nine minutes this morning, and only once did he refer to
supporting this legislation. Do you know what he said? He did not say he supported it. He
left some doubt actually, because he said this may not be unanimous. Now was he talking
about himself? Because had been on the open line show just a few weeks ago condemning
bringing in legislation about the exporting of bulk water. He was saying it was no
problem, we should be exporting bulk water.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who?
MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy. He was on Open Line saying that.
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, he did. Definitely. I heard him myself.
AN HON. MEMBER: You heard him say what?
MR. J. BYRNE: I heard him say that he supported the exporting of bulk water. We
should be doing it.
AN HON. MEMBER: When did he say that?
MR. J. BYRNE: He said that a few weeks ago on the open line show when he came on to
defend the Minister of Environment, when the Minister of Environment was out trying to say
to support it, and throwing out all kinds of misconceptions. The Minister of Mines and
Energy got on and tried to back up the Minister of Environment. We did not know who was
supposed to be the Minister of Environment at the time. We had the Premier on talking
about one thing, the Minister of Mines and Energy saying something else, the parliamentary
assistant to the Premier saying something else, and the Minister of Environment saying
something else.
I will tell you about the confusion within that caucus over there. What really went on
is that the Premier himself - talk about this legislation - made an announcement that he
was going to bring in legislation to this House of Assembly banning the exporting of bulk
water out of the Province, at the very same time that the Member for Bellevue was on
extolling the attributes or the benefits of doing it. The Minister of Environment
didn't have a clue about what was happening. The Minister of Mines and Energy
didn't know. No one knew on that side of the House. I can only imagine when they had
their first caucus meeting the next day, or whenever it was within that time period, what
must have been discussed then. I would say the Premier came in and sat down. I would think
that the Member for Bellevue, if he had any guts whatsoever, had to go up one side and
down the other side of the Premier, if he had any guts.
Now other members, the Minister of Environment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that term. That has been ruled already as
unacceptable.
MR. J. BYRNE: Which one is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: Guts.
MR. J. BYRNE: Guts? That is no problem. Okay, I withdraw it.
MR. SPEAKER: Check Beauchesne.
MR. J. BYRNE: It isn't parliamentary?
MR. SPEAKER: No, it is not.
MR. J. BYRNE: If he had any spunk, he would have had went up one side and down the
other side of the Premier. Did he? We do not know. Intestinal fortitude, those are the
words I am looking for. I would venture to guess that the Minister of Environment did not
know about this. Now they are all over there supporting this legislation, and rightly so.
It is something we had in our policy manual during the last election, and we were
ridiculed in this House of Assembly.
The Member for St. John's South brought this up two to three years ago, making the
point with respect to the shipment of bulk water, the impacts it would have, and he talked
about job creation in secondary processing. Why would we send our water out of this
Province to create jobs elsewhere? That is the point we were making. That is the key
issue, in my mind, and he was laughed at. The Premier ridiculed him here in this House of
Assembly. I would say many other members on that side -
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.
MR. EFFORD: I don't know what has come over everybody on that side, if it is
Friday morning or if it is something they did Thursday night, but something definitely
happened over there.
The point I want to make is that the hon. member spent his first ten minutes condemning
the Minister of Mines and Energy of not referring to one clause in the Bill, and yet he
spent ten minutes and he has not mentioned one word about the Bill whatsoever. Is it just
that he has no knowledge of what it is going on, or something happened last nigh that has
him all knocked astray this morning in the House?
MR. TULK: It is the frost. The frost struck his head last night (inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: The frost.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No point of order, as usual, and that is my
preamble.
By the way, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Mines and Energy spoke
for thirty minutes. I have been up ten. I have also, right up front, said I support the
intent and the spirit of this legislation. The Minister of Mines and Energy never ever
said it once, in half an hour, I say to the minister.
I am talking about what has happened, the history of how he got to this point, how he
got this legislation in this House of Assembly, because the Member for St. John's
South, members on this side of the Assembly, the people put the pressure on the Open Line
shows to the Premier; so much pressure that he announced that he would bring in
legislation that the ministers, his Cabinet did not even know. The first thing they heard
of it was on the news, that they were going to bring in this legislation.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Just a point of personal privilege.
Because I enjoy the rhetoric and the speech making of my critic and hon. member
opposite, I would ask that he give me due notification when he is going to speak in the
House, because I have missed part of his speech and I know by missing part of his speech I
have been unduly ‘disenriched' this morning.
I would ask the hon. member to let me know when he is going to speak. I want to be here
when he is on his feet because the quality of his rhetoric is something to behold. He is
like pure music to listen to; he is like poetry to watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would point out there is obviously no point of personal privilege here, and
again I would remind all hon. members, as I did yesterday, that I think we should be very
cognizant of the rules of this House and not be abusing the rules of the House. That
applies to everyone who has the privilege to sit in this Chamber.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A good ruling because I have been on my feet ten or twelve minutes and there have been
three ministers on that side of the House up already, trying to cut into my time.
If the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is so concerned that he did not
hear what I had said in the beginning, I ask the House to give me leave to start again so
he can hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will start again.
Mr. Speaker, in this House yesterday the Minister of Mines and Energy stood in his
place for twenty-one minutes - I am starting again now - and never once confirmed that he
supported this legislation. That is the beginning of it. I can go on if you want.
Mr. Speaker, again I will get back to the point that I mentioned with respect to people
being attacked in this House who are not here to support themselves. The Minister of Mines
and Energy did it twice - yesterday and today.
I was saying that I find it ironic that members on that side of the House were so
opposed to us having in our policy just back in February, during the election, the point
of banning the exporting of bulk water out of this Province, but I can understand where
they are coming from because it was a solid issue right from the beginning. The Member for
St. John's South was on solid ground when he brought this up two or three years ago.
It took a long while for it to sink in to the skulls and to the brains of the people on
the other side of the House, but it finally did sink in because of pressure from members
on this side of the House, from pressure from the public, pressure from people like Sue
Dyer, who the Minister of Environment has some kind of problem with. The minister has some
kind of a problem but the lady, when she gets up to speak, knows what she is talking
about, I say to the members on the opposite side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, Bill 31,
An Act To Provide For The Conservation,
Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province, is a good
bill, so far as we know it today. We are reviewing this piece of legislation and I hope
that we will be supporting it. I know I support the intent and the spirit, but oftentimes
when we in this House of Assembly try to rush legislation through the House, as the
minister or the Government House Leader tried to do yesterday - tried to pressure us by
using political tactics to try and rush something through the House of Assembly - we
oftentimes make mistakes. It has happened in the past. We it with other legislation where
it was rushed through the House. Within the next sitting, this government, this
Administration, had to bring it back and make amendments and changes to the legislation.
When you look at this legislation, and if you think about the benefits to the people of
this Province, the long-term benefits - if we shipped water out of here in bulk, in
tankers, all we are doing, and I think people on the other side of the House would agree,
is shipping jobs out of this Province. We have been doing that for too long. We have been
doing it in the past for years and years and years.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I am not going back at him now. I had enough to say about him.
Mr. Speaker, we have been doing it for years. We did it with our fishery. We shipped
out of here in bulk, salt cod and the frozen fish that was shipped out of the Province. We
have done it with our forestry, when we shipped the logs and the wood out of here for
secondary processing. We have shipped our ore out of this Province. We shipped it from
Bell Island years and years ago. We are shipping it from Labrador today.
With respect to Churchill Falls again, all kinds of money flowing out of this Province,
all kinds of jobs flowing out of this Province, and here we are...
I think the Minister of Education was up this morning talking about post-secondary
education. What we need to be doing is to be training people to stay here in this Province
and getting into the secondary processing of our natural resources that have been raped
for years and years. Only for the Member for St. John's South and members on this
side of the House, we were right on the verge of doing the exact same thing again. We were
right on the verge of doing it, shipping the water out of here for people to create jobs
in other provinces and other countries.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the poor Minister of Mines and Energy is at it again,
over there trying to throw comments to this side of the House.
I will just give you an example how the Minister of Mines and Energy tries to deflect
and how he tries to protect the members on that side of the House. He is the mouthpiece
when the Premier is not here. The Minister of Mines and Energy is the mouthpiece for the
Premier.
He stood in his place this morning, when the Member for St. John's West stood in
her place and asked good, legitimate, bonafide questions to the Minster of Health, and
what happened after Question Period? The Minister of Mines and Energy stood in his place
and tried to create another issue to deflect the real attention from the issue that the
member brought up, to create another issue, but I don't think this time that the
media fell for it. I really don't think the media fell for it. Those are the tactics
they use.
When we bring up stuff in the House of Assembly - questions, say, like yesterday, on
Voisey's Bay, Churchill Falls or IPL - the Premier is on his feet right away saying
that were are here being irresponsible, asking irresponsible questions. What do they want?
What does the government want, I ask you?
We, as elected representatives, are in this House of Assembly to do that very thing.
That is what democracy is all about. Last week, November 11, we were all out on parade,
laying wreaths in honor of the war vets - who are getting fewer and fewer at these
functions each year - for the very right for us to be in here, in this House of Assembly,
and to stand and ask questions. They try to ridicule us every time we are on our feet.
Every time we are on our feet they are trying to ridicule us. not to be asking those
questions. Mr. Speaker, what is this Province coming to?
Talk about coverups. The questions that were are asking, in trying to get to the bottom
of it - this morning, Voisey's Bay, asking questions on that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: It is like this now. With respect to the Minister of Education, she
is a constituent but I can tell you one thing: she didn't vote against me.
MR. SHELLEY: She knew it was a waste of time, Jack.
MR. J. BYRNE: She knew it was a waste of time to vote against me, that's
right.
MR. SULLIVAN: He won by twenty-some hundred. He got all the other votes down there,
didn't he?
MR. J. BYRNE: Every vote in her lane where she lives.
MR. HARRIS: If she was smart, she would vote in her own district.
MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly.
As I was saying, we are talking about coverups here. The Minister of Mines and Energy
is very good at this kind of stuff, to get up deflecting the issue, not answering the
questions and coming back with responses - non-answers. When he was Minister of Education,
he carried the government through this whole shemozzle with the education reform when it
was going on. Anyway, I told the people what they should do. I did what my district told
me to do.
Now he has the Voisey's Bay situation and he will not answer questions on that. He
will not answer questions on Churchill Falls. These are the issues that are directly
basically related to this legislation. I will make the connection with respect to
relevance, because I am sure someone over there is going to it say soon. I am talking
about our natural resources. This piece of legislation is referring to a natural resource,
the shipment of bulk water that the Minister of Mines and Energy was opposing us on all
summer long in the Open Line shows, opposing us, saying that we basically are being
foolish.
AN HON. MEMBER: He said we lied.
MR. J. BYRNE: I am not going to use that word in the House of Assembly. I am not
going to say that in the House of Assembly, the word, the big L word, unless it really
applies.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Jack, do you know why liar is one of his favourite words?
MR. J. BYRNE: Why?
MR. T. OSBORNE: Because it rhymes with retire.
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes.
This legislation, when it is passed in this House of Assembly - when it is passed, I
say - it is going to be good news for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, contrary to
what many on that side of the House thought a few short months ago. It is going to allow
us, hopefully - because the demand for water worldwide is increasing day by day. For
example, in this Province alone, we do not know what ten or fifteen years down the road is
going to bring, or what kind of demands we are going to need for clean, fresh water. We
saw an example the past three days in the House, where we are asking questions with
respect to water supplies in the Province. What impact now will this have on us in the
future?
An individual told me the other day that David Suzuki, a well-known scientist, says
that in a number of years, five or ten years down the road, Newfoundland will not know
what snow is. So what impact will that have on our water reservoirs in the future if, in
fact, that is true? Especially with the snow melting in the spring of the year and running
into our water reservoirs.
I say that to the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he were listening. David Suzuki, a
well-known scientist, stated that in five or ten years' time Newfoundland may not
know what snow is. We may not see it because of the global warming. I am saying, what
impact will that have on this Province with respect to this legislation? I am saying that
this is going to be a good thing for us, not only from the aspect of secondary processing,
creating jobs and what have you, but it is going -
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member could further clarify what the
connection is between concerns raised by pre-eminent people like David Suzuki over water
levels, and whether they are there or not in fifteen years, as to whether that has
anything to do with whether the water is put into a bottle or not? Suzuki's concern,
as I understand it, is that there may not be water to use, either to put into a bottle or
not put into a bottle, and I do not understand the connection and the relevance to this
piece of legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot believe that the Minister of Mines and Energy, the man that this Province has
in charge of our natural resources with respect to ores, trees, water, got up and asked
that question and could not make the connection. To me, it is unbelievable. If that is the
case and he truly believes what he just said, he should resign. I would be embarrassed if
I were him. I am embarrassed to have him as the Minister of Mines and Energy. It is
pathetic that he would ask that question. Can he not understand that in Newfoundland and
Labrador, our water supplies, the ponds and the rivers in this Province, are so heavily
dependent upon the spring runoff?
When we have a lot of snow, it brings our reservoirs up and helps get us through the
summer months. Does he understand that if there is less water in these reservoirs that the
demand for water all the time in the Province is going to be more important to us, rather
than shipping it out of here in bulk, which is what he was supporting all summer long? We
have him as the Minister of Mines and Energy. I am embarrassed to have him as the
minister. I really think we should put someone in his place, someone like maybe the
Minister of Environment.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, because I am following the
commentary very closely, I understand, then, that when we get to the Committee stage the
hon. Member for Cape St. Francis will be suggesting that we delete
section 5. Because, if
the concern is that we are going to have environmental global warming and that there will
be a lack of water in Newfoundland and Labrador, then certainly he will not agree to a
statement that says the water can be shipped out in containers; because if we do not have
any, which is the point he is making, it makes no more sense to send it out in a container
than it does to send it out in bulk. Is he suggesting that he will be moving to delete
section 5?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Here, again, the minister is deliberately misunderstanding, in my mind, my words. What
I am saying is that we should delete the minister!. That was pretty clear. I thought what
I was saying here was pretty clear; but if I have to put it in black and white, I will
write it down for you: resign!
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. TULK: I wonder if the hon. gentlemen wants leave to do that?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: I was saying that we should be deleting the minister, no problem
there, but if we had to pick someone from that side of the House - who? We need new blood
over there. Ten years, fifty years for the Government House Leader. Let's put some
new blood in there. The Member for Bay of Islands, he looks like he might be alright,
young new ideas. That is what we should be doing.
Let it be clear -
MR. TULK: Do you want me to delete him?
MR. J. BYRNE: If I had him on the computer and I could hit the delete button, he
would be gone long ago. If I had him on the internet, he would be gone.
Let it be clear on this side of the House that I, as one, and everyone on this side of
the House, certainly support the intent and the spirit of this legislation. In the days to
come we will be discussing this clause-by-clause .
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Could I?
I have been asked by the Government House Leader if we could take a vote to delete the
minister. I say, we have sixteen on this side of the House and we have one over there, the
Bay of Islands, and Sir Gisborne of Bellevue will vote for it for sure.
Let it be clear, because I am still not clear where the Minister of Mines and Energy
stands on this legislation.
AN HON. MEMBER: He will be out of the House.
MR. J. BYRNE: He may be out of the House, because he was against it all summer. He
stood in the House of Assembly and didn't say he supported it. Half an hour of
speaking and he did not say he supported it. Not once did you say you supported it.
Twenty-one minutes yesterday, nine minutes this morning. Two good ones sitting together
now, Statler & Waldorf, the two that may oppose this legislation. I hope they will
not. I hope it is unanimous, but I will say that the Member for Bellevue has a real
dilemma on his hands, a real struggle in his own conscience: What is he going to do?
I would say he either will not be here for a vote or he will go against his conscience
and go with the Premier, because the Premier will turn around and point and say, up, and
up he gets. That is what is going to happen, especially if he deletes the Minister of
Mines and Energy.
This is very important and very serious legislation, in my mind. I am hoping that it
will get approval in due course in this House of Assembly. I think it is going to impact
in the future upon the people of this Province probably more so than any other piece of
legislation that we have had here in some time. That is why we have to be so very careful
in what we are approving in this House of Assembly, that we do not rush like the
Government House Leader wanted us to do yesterday.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he was trying to rush it through the House yesterday.
In my mind, as I said, we will be supporting this legislation in due course, I think,
when we all go through the clauses, clause-by-clause , in second and third reading or what
have you. I do not know what other legislation - we have some here that is going to some
before us in the near future.
I would say this is probably one of the most important that I have seen here,
although... That is another point. Yesterday, the Government House Leader was on his feet
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, here we have a couple of sheets. We have had
legislation here a half inch thick, that is probably not as important as this piece of
legislation, but the Government House Leader was on his feet yesterday saying: Sure, there
is nothing to it. It is only a couple of pages.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Who? Oh, the Premier. I am sorry, I stand corrected. I apologize to
the Government House Leader. The Premier said that.
It is only a couple of pages long but the content and the quality of legislation,
although it may appear to be brief, is very, very important. I think we will prove it in
due course and I will be supporting it in due course.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is really interesting to hear the debate back and forth across the House of Assembly
on this Bill that they wanted to rush through on second reading and not have anything to
say about. It is really interesting to hear especially the minister -
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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Inaudible) understand that the hon. gentleman obviously has floating around in his
head. There is no rush to get the legislation done. Let me just say to the hon. gentleman
that we wanted to introduce it and give everybody a chance to debate it and then pass it,
but there is no big rush to get it through, to say, don't speak or don't do this
or don't do that. Just get it together. You fellows wanted it passed. We said: Yes,
let's do it. Let's give everybody a chance to say their stuff.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order
MR. TULK: There is no rush.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: As usual, since this debate started and they tried to rush second
reading through the House, it is the same again. There is no point, there is no order, and
there is no point of order as you have said.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: They did, on the second reading, but we decided that with such an
important piece of legislation - which I will speak to directly - that we will be looking
at it very, very closely. Just because it is a couple of pages, as was said yesterday by
the Premier, just a couple of pages, one line is all it takes for a mistake. One word is
all it takes for a mistake. If you want to go further than that, one letter can make a
mistake in a piece of legislation, which has been seen before.
There have been a few typos by this government over the last few years. That is where
the mistakes start; that is where the typos start. One of the typos could have been easily
corrected - like the Member for Cape St. Francis said - by hitting the delete button on
the computer.
AN HON. MEMBER: There's a whole bill of them, look.
MR. SHELLEY: Yes, there are all kinds of - remove anomalies and errors in the
statute of law. There are all kinds of examples of -
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) recall that was made in this Legislature in terms of
legislation was made, I think, some two years ago when I trusted, to the ability of the
Opposition Leader, the Member for Kilbride, when he came across here with an amendment
that he wanted made to some bill. I thought, to be frank with you, I had faith in him, I
had all the confidence in the world in him, and said: Yes, if you say so then we will do
that.
I discovered later that my confidence in the Leader of the Opposition was ill-founded.
To be frank with you; yes, I confess that we had to call the House back in the middle of
the summer to change the mistake that the hon. gentleman had made. That is the only
amendment that I know that has had to changed by this government, and that was made.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, in my efficient research -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: In my efficient research, in some thirty seconds since the minister
stood to his feet to say there was only one mistake, I just happened to reach down at the
desk, with my colleague's helped -
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this can't go on all day.
MR. TULK: I am going to do this, and this is the last time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman, as usual, is trusting somebody else to do his little
bit of research. The Leader of NDP just had to inform him about a piece of legislation.
That is a mistake, I say to the hon. gentleman again, that was made - your research is
wrong again - by governments other than this one.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the first point is: How come it has taken you
ten years to correct it? Secondly, in the statute of law, twenty-nine errors and anomalies
in one piece of legislation. Then you wonder why the minister doesn't know what is
going on.
First of all, when this whole debate started - I will get back to my point - the
Minister of Mines and Energy gets on his feet and starts to talk about our experts. Well,
he should remember, if he let his memory float back a little bit... I remember the day in
the House of Assembly when the Member for St. John's South first raised the issue on
this whole situation with bulk export, and talked about NAFTA. It is not reported in
Hansard. Do you know why? Because there was no response from him - verbal response. Do you
know what they did? Three or four of them - I can pick them out and tell you - laughed.
What is he talking about NAFTA? That is not connected to NAFTA. What a load of rubbish.
What a load of nonsense.
Of course, the Minister of Mines and Energy continues to say - like he called the Open
Line one day. He was the Acting Minister of Environment and he was the Acting Minister of
Health, and he was the acting minister of something else another day, and he calls in and
says: Hello, Bill. This is the Minister of Mines and Energy, but I am not calling on mines
and energy today but something else.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Yes, they are going to hit that delete button real soon now, Mr.
Speaker.
He wasn't the minister of what he was supposed to be - he was acting, acting,
acting - to tell us that this is all hogwash, that these implications we were talking
about with NAFTA are not going to happen, and he continues to say that, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the question I have for the Minister of Mines and Energy - if you believe what you
are saying, if you believe that all this is rubbish, if you believe that there are no
implications for NAFTA, the simple question is - why is the government, your government,
your Cabinet, now supporting it? What is your reason for now supporting it, if you tell
all of us here today that it is all rubbish? That is the hypocritical part that I cannot
get hold of, and I would like the minister - and I am sure he will get up again - to
explain that to us. If it was all that he said on the Open Line, if it was all that he
said here today, why are we standing here in this House of Assembly today with a
government that is going to support it?
Unless the Minister of Mines and Energy is, on D-Day, going to stand in his place and
vote against the government, maybe. Mr. Speaker, I doubt it very much, because the truth
is that this debate that has started on this whole issue all derives from the debate in
this Province of resource giveaways. That is why this issue got so sensitive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have recognized the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The reason why this debate has started as loud as it has by the people in the Province
- a lot that government underestimated by the way. That was their mistake in this whole
venture; they underestimated the sensitivity of this particular issue as it relates to
resource giveaways. This is at the top of their list now. They have seen the Churchill
Falls, they have seen IOC and the pellet plant, and year after year they have seen it with
the fish, they have seen it with the forestry, they have seen it with everything, and this
was at the top and they said, this is it. This was the last draw for people in this
Province, to say: Not again; we are not sending it out.
Then we had those silly, silly arguments that, instead of letting water flow to the
ocean every day, we can make money by sticking in a tanker and sending it out.
I was away recently on a trip in another country where they actually talked about the
shortage of water and how valuable water will be in the very near future. Here we are in
the small Province of Newfoundland, in this big world or ours, and it is time for us to
realize what a valuable resource we had right under our noses. That is the whole point. Do
you realize that is in some parts of Asia - this is a fact now, something for the Member
for Bellevue to understand. Because we don't know really where he is yet. I am sure
he is going to point at me like he pointed at the Premier's chair the other day and
said the Premier was wrong. He said it twice. He said: The Premier is wrong, and he
pointed at the chair.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?
MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Bellevue pointed in the House of Assembly right to the
Premier's chair twice, not once, and said he was wrong. He stood - and it is in
Hansard, if you do not believe what I just said - and said: In ten to fifteen years from
now, I will be proven right, that bulk water should go out of the Province. That is what
he said in Hansard.
Some facts you gather up as you go along the way. In Asia, do you know how much a small
bottle of water costs right now? One bottle. You can get it on the Internet, too. I have a
list of prices on the Internet.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SHELLEY: Just let me tell you, if you are interested. Do not push it away. You
can get it on the Internet, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, if he wants to
look it up. Eight dollars for one bottle in parts of Asia. You can look it up on the
Internet. Anybody can find out. I will give you a web address for Water Vision. Here is an
address for the Member for Twillingate & Fogo to get some information. Now get your
pen ready, I say to the Member for Bellevue, for some information, because obviously you
do not use the computer much. I'm going to give you an address now: If you are
interested in getting facts, look it up. That is the World Water Vision. There is a lot of
information there on prices, about all the studies done on water. There is everything on
that. There is an incredible amount.
It really goes to show you that if you want to look outside our Province and go
worldwide on this particular issue, which this Province should -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SHELLEY: I do my research, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. When
you go on that Internet and if you keep looking around for information, it is incredible.
I will put all that rhetoric aside. It is really incredible when you really get out there
in the world, in the global market, and look at how important water is. It is incredible.
Eight dollars for a bottle of water in Asia. In Russia I think it is $6. As a matter of
fact, when you go to the stores in Asia and parts of South America and so on, you can get
beer, liquors and wine cheaper than you can get water.
We have right under out noses. Everywhere you go in the world, it is mentioned of the
pristine water of Canada, but especially Newfoundland, that we have in our environment. It
is incredible. Right under our noses.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SHELLEY: That is a government problem that you should have handled a long time
ago.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) House of Assembly (inaudible)!
MR. SHELLEY: We are not talking about the municipalities' water supply, you
(inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SHELLEY: I said "id." It came close, though.
Mr. Speaker, that is the fact of it, that we have that very resource right here in this
Province under our noses. We all should be very tight on this so-called two pages of
legislation. We should all be very careful before we all jump up and say yes.
Yes, we all support the spirit and the intent of the bill, but we are going to make
sure, down to every word, letter and period in that bill, that it is the best, it is solid
and fool-proof. That is what we have to do. That is why the Member for St. John's
South keeps bringing up the points. He has said there may be implications, and that what
he has said over and over. That is apparently the Premier's argument now for
supporting it, according to yesterday's press conference. According to
yesterday's press conference, the Premier's reason for bringing this legislation
in is to make sure that the implications and to follow the national agenda -