December 1, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 43

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, there are a couple of things the

Chair would like to do. I would like first of all, of course, to welcome to the

House of Assembly today, on behalf of all members, thirteen Canadian Law

students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, in the District of Port de

Grave. There are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Mercer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On November 24, the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised

a point of privilege with respect to comments made by the hon. the Minister of

Health. It is the contention of the hon. the member that the hon. the minister

knowingly provided wrong information to the House in answering a question in the

House on November 22. The hon. the member cited comments by Department of Health

officials which he alleged were at variance with information the hon. the

minister provided in the House concerning the effects of trihalomethanes in the

water supply.

It is settled parliamentary law that deliberately to mislead the House is a

contempt. It is also the case, however, that the House accepts the word of

members with respect to matters particularly within their own knowledge, even if

the result is that the House must accept two contradictory accounts of the same

incident. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's 6 th

Edition, 494.

The Chair cannot know what the hon. the minister knew or what she intended in

answering a question. It is the Chair's view, therefore, that the point raised

by the hon. the Opposition House Leader is really a difference of opinion

between two hon. members and there is no prima facie case of breach of

privilege.

Furthermore, the Chair must ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader to

withdraw the allegation that the hon. the minister had knowingly misled the

House, as he has used unparliamentary language. I refer him to Beauchesne's 6 th

Edition , 489.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly withdraw the statement, knowingly

misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yesterday, the

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South rose on a point of order concerning a

press release by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I

refer the hon. the member to 31(3) of Beauchesne's 6 th

Edition, and I quote: Statements made outside the House by a member may not be

raised as a question of privilege.

In this case the hon. the member is basing his point of privilege on a press

release, which is not a parliamentary proceeding. There is therefore no prima

facie case of breach of privilege. The hon. member has taken the opportunity to

express, I guess, a difference of opinion with the hon. minister.

I want also to draw members' attention to what has happened here recently,

as there have been a number of points of privilege raised which have been more

in the area of order than privilege. It is important to keep a clear perspective

on the meaning of privilege, which is an important and necessary element of

parliamentary law and which should be invoked rarely. I refer hon. members again

to Beauchesne's 6 th

Edition, 27. If hon. members wish to take issue with something that a member

has said, there are other means of doing that and I encourage them to use those

other methods.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today is World AIDS Day, and the red ribbon which I have for each Member of

the House of Assembly is a world-wide symbol of the efforts to find a cure for

the HIV infection; but HIV infection is not a stand-alone issue. We need to

acknowledge the role that adverse life circumstances may play in making people,

particularly young people, vulnerable to HIV infection.

The factors which determine health are multiple and interactive. Increased

opportunities for learning, family and community support, the development of

marketable skills, as well as coping skills and personal health behaviors all

contribute to the prevention of HIV infection.

There are young people in our Province who require help in achieving goals.

Steps are being taken to improve the health status and life choices of youth in

Newfoundland and Labrador through initiatives such as the Child, Youth and

Family Services Act and the National Child Benefit. These initiatives will build

on the experiences of youth, their families and those who work with them, to

reduce poverty, maltreatment and challenges to youth mental health.

On World AIDS Day, I wish to acknowledge the leadership role of the

Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee on HIV prevention and support. I would

also like to draw attention to the fact that Ms Annette Dimmer of the AIDS

Society is in the gallery today. Through their efforts to develop skills and

experience which may be shared with others, they have partnered with other

community agencies to deliver innovative initiatives such as the HIV and Sexual

Violence Project which was developed in partnership with the Provincial

Association Against Violence. HIV and substance abuse training has been

implemented with Health and Community Services personnel, and there are ongoing

efforts with community agencies to reach youth at risk of HIV infection.

It has been my pleasure, as Minister of Health and Community Services, to

support research on persons with HIV/AIDS through a collaborative partnership

with Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee, Human

Resources and Employment and Health Canada. This research with persons with

HIV/AIDS and their families will form the foundation of a review of the

Provincial HIV/AIDS Strategy in the coming months.

With the other $25,000 in funding this week from the Strategic Social Plan,

the Conception Bay North AIDS Interest Group will develop their self-care

program for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families to improve their

physical, emotional and psychological well-being. I am confident this is the

kind of project that will work well at the community level.

I encourage my colleagues to join me today in acknowledging persons with

HIV/AIDS, their families, and the AIDS Services Organizations, Health and

Community Service providers, educators and researchers who are working with

them, by wearing the red ribbon as a symbol of hope and caring.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly very supportive of any efforts to assist in dealing with the

horrible disease, AIDS, in our society. I certainly wish to compliment, too, the

Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee for their work and the leadership they

have shown over the past number of years in dealing with a very serious disease

here in our Province.

We have to keep in mind that while we are making inroads and we are making

progress in putting an effort there, it is by far one of the most serious

diseases right across the world today. There are 11 million children orphaned

today because of AIDS in the world. Alarming rates of increase are occurring in

certain parts of the world, particularly South and East Africa have a very high

increase in incident rates. While we are just one, I guess we can do our part. I

support any efforts to address it on a local or worldwide basis.

Once again, I congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee for

doing a tremendous job in putting forth this issue, staying on top of it, and

putting the appropriate pressure on government to assist in this process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, want to offer our congratulations to the AIDS Committee in the

Province for the tremendous work they have done over the past while in dealing

with HIV/AIDS. I think education and awareness is critical in the prevention of

people acquiring this disease. It is also important to educate people in the

community, and the public in general, with the awareness of people with AIDS;

because we have all seen the news reports and read the stories about persons

with AIDS being victimized and ostracized in their own communities simply

because people around them do not understand what AIDS or HIV is all about. Any

effort in this area is certainly supported by us.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform hon. members of a gift from the

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the public libraries in the Province, and

at the same time to acknowledge the presence of members of the Provincial Public

Libraries Board in the gallery with us today.

In April 1999, the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board, PILRB,

was invited to apply to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under the Gates

Library Initiative which launched the Canadian Library Partnership Program in

October 1998.

The Libraries board has been advised that sixty-seven of Newfoundland and

Labrador's public libraries will soon have more computers and increased

Internet access because of a gift of $1,007,919 from the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Separately, Microsoft Canada will donate software with a retail

value of $239,000 to all libraries receiving Foundation grants.

The grant, which will provide funding for ninety Internet workstations, is

intended to increase technology access for people who would otherwise not have

access to computers and the Internet. Each computer will be equipped with

software donated by Microsoft.

The Provincial Public Libraries Board will receive three training labs to be

deployed provincially for the training of library staff and patrons. In

addition, technical support will be available from the Gates Centre for

Technical Access.

According to a July 1999 Statistics Canada study, individuals in the highest

income households are nearly five times more likely to regularly access the

Internet than those in the lowest income households. The goal of the Gates

Initiative is to partner with provincial, territorial and state public libraries

to provide access to technology for everyone.

Our public libraries play an important role in educating people of all ages.

This gift, combined with our ongoing initiative of providing public and student

access to the Internet, will give more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the

tools they need to gain knowledge and find jobs in the growing information

economy.

Since the inception of the Gates Library Initiative in 1997, the Foundation

has awarded grants of more than $35 million to 2,200 libraries in the United

States and Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for a copy

of the statement prior to entering the Assembly.

I join with the minister in certainly congratulating, I suppose, the

Foundation for their generosity. It is a resource that is well needed and well

appreciated and the amount of it is certainly a great gift, but again, a word of

caution. When you bring the libraries up to this type of resource you have to

maintain it as well. I really and truly hope that with a gift like this that the

government, in the years that will follow, will maintain that level of service

that is required and put the necessary funds in to keep that level where it is

going to be with this gift from Mr. Gates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open the government gates.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. Again, I say to the minister, it is a great

initiative and one which we are very pleased to see, but again, that word of

caution: we must maintain what we put in there so it does not fall to ruin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased that Mr. Gates, through his Foundation, is sharing

some of his $100 billion of personal wealth with the people of Newfoundland

through the Public Libraries Board.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister and the government do not use that, however,

as an excuse to withdraw funds from the acquisition of books in our public

libraries, which is after all what they were established to do, and I hope that

the cost of maintaining access to (inaudible) that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - is also going to be provided by this government as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I

am pleased to stand in this House today and report on government's state of

readiness for the roll over from 1999 to 2000 or as it has become known, the

Year 2000 issue.

The Year 2000 issue, Y2K, is associated with computer-based systems that rely

on a date to perform particular tasks and have not been programmed to

accommodate the start of the year 2000. This is a serious global issue that has

required much technical and media attention. Leading industry advisors have

estimated the world wide cost of the problem will exceed $1 trillion American

dollars.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, government departments have spent approximately

$15 million to address this issue. This money was spent in a combination of

upgrading existing equipment and systems and, when necessary, the replacement

and modification of affected areas that were non-compliant.

The provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador initially recognized

the need to modify or replace affected computer systems in 1995 when the Motor

Vehicle Registration System was changed to allow the issuance of driver licences

that would expire in the year 2000.

In 1996, NewTel Information Solutions, NIS, reviewed government's major

information systems. The major systems that would require modification or

replacement prior to the year 2000 were identified and work commenced on fixing

potential problems.

I am delighted to inform the House that all provincial departments are

reporting that all mission critical systems are Year 2000 compliant. The

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not expect a problem during the

roll over period. As a precaution, departments have developed contingency and

roll over plans in areas determined to be critical, such as government's

accounting and payment systems.

In terms of the state of readiness in our Province's health care

facilities, the Health and Community Services Association have worked with the

regional boards in addressing Y2K issues. The Association tells us that they are

not currently aware of any equipment related problems that would have a direct

negative impact on patient care and that they will be ready for the year 2000.

Regional Health Boards have expressed confidence that all major Y2K issues with

medical devices, facility systems, computer software and

hardware and the supply of goods and services have been adequately addressed.

Government will spend approximately $2.5 million specifically on related

equipment to address Y2K issues in the health care sector alone.

Officials from government have been in contact with all major utilities

including NewTel, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power. They

have informed us that they are also reporting Y2K compliance.

In addition to the critical systems within government, officials with the

Provincial Emergency Measures Organization of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

are working closely with the Information Technology Branch of Treasury Board,

federal and municipal governments, as well as the RNC and RCMP and all major

utilities in developing a provincial emergency response plan in the unlikely

event of a Year 2000 problem that would require their involvement.

Mr. Speaker, preparations for Y2K have been an initiative that this

government and the previous government have taken very seriously since 1995. I

am confident that by working with key agencies and industries in the Province,

Newfoundland and Labrador will face the year 2000 with confidence and optimism.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say that I guess all the Province will take comfort from the

knowledge that the government is prepared for the Y2K changeover, which of

course is less than a month away.

I note the minister has said that they have been taking it seriously since

1995. However, I do note that the Auditor General in her report last year saw it

necessary to devote three pages of information advising the government to take

it seriously as late as 1998.

I do want to note as well that these assurances are comforting. We do note

that some of the major institutions, the banks and investment companies, have

given absolute guarantees that everything will be okay and there will be nothing

to worry about. I would ask the minister if she is prepared to offer the same

kind of guarantee. What insurances are in place to guard against any liabilities

which may come to the Province by way of problems that might occur if all the

preparations that are in place do not seem to work as they should? Also, that is

asked in view of the fact that your computer systems - the computer system of

government and its agencies - are often, shall we say, on a daily basis

interacting with a lot of other computers and your system may be only as good as

some of the other systems that you interact with daily and hourly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the minister is so confident about this issue, as we

have heard from all sorts of people, from utilities and others, and yet all of

them seem to have an emergency plan. The Prime Minister of Canada will not leave

Ottawa. He wants to be around in case something is happening. The utilities are

having staff on duty round the clock, twenty-four hours, to deal with

emergencies. So while they are claiming confidence, they are also requiring that

they be available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation wants to come into my closet he can do so, provided he is prepared to

let everyone into his closet.

If we are ready for Y2K, why do we have so many people on guard making sure

that things don't go wrong? There is obviously some concern still there, and

the minister should indicate where the concern is.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Yesterday

outside the House the minister indicated to the press clearly that before any

public debate begins on the tentative or potential deal with Inco that the

government will sign it first and release the details later. I would like to ask

the minister today: Is that exactly what he said outside the House yesterday?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, words are very important, and I live by that particular credo. I think

the point was raised earlier with respect to parliamentary reference that those

words spoken outside the House have no real reference inside the House. I

understand on another ruling that we are even allowed to say different things in

here and assume that both of us are telling the truth. These are rules that we

go by in the Legislature.

I just wanted to point out though, for the record, the particular approach

that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be taking in desperately in trying to

find something to talk about with respect to Voisey's Bay. Last week it was

what might be in the proposal that we do not have yet. That was the question for

two or three days. Obviously, I could not answer what might be in a proposal

that we do not have because we do not have it. That was pretty straightforward,

so he gave up on that. Now for three days this week he is trying to suggest that

the biggest issue in the Province with respect to Voisey's Bay is where are we

going to talk about it. Are we going to talk about it inside this building, or

are we going to talk about it in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Are we going to talk about it in the media? Where will the debate occur? That

seems to be the burning issue with respect to the Leader of the Opposition in

this particular whole discussion of Voisey's Bay.

What we are hoping, Mr. Speaker, is that what we announced last week with the

approval of Inco, that there would be a hydrometallurgic process, that there

would be full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that there would be

nickel metal leaving Newfoundland and Labrador, will form the basic components

of a formal proposal that we hope to get from Inco soon. Then we can talk about

all the issues surrounding that. We can talk about when will the deal be done,

when might it be done, is it good, bad or indifferent, once we get a proposal

and we can have a look at it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A great speech. I will ask the question again because he

would not answer it. Yesterday outside the House the minister told the press

that government would sign a deal with Inco and then release the details after

to the public. I will ask the minister again: Is that what you said outside the

Assembly yesterday, that on behalf of government you would sign the deal first

and then release the details after? Yes or no, minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming that in doing his usual detailed research he read The

Telegram of today before he

came to the Legislature. I believe the reporter has it right. The first

paragraph, which I am sure he read before he came here, capsulizes what was said

outside the House. It says: The Newfoundland government will have an

agreement in principal... I will read it again so he understands it: The

Newfoundland government will have an agreement in principal... Although, Mr.

Speaker, I should point out that the spelling in The

Telegram , for the students who

are here, should be `le' instead of `al,' but we will forgive them for that.

It was a rush job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It says: The

Newfoundland government will have an agreement in principal with Inco on Voisey's

Bay..., and this is the answer to the question. He is asking what are we

talking about. The Newfoundland government will have an agreement in

principal with Inco on Voisey's Bay before details of it are released to the

public. Because if we do not have some kind of agreement in principle there

is nothing for any of us to talk about.

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

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

The minister is all over the place. Words here, answers here, questions

there. He will not commit at all. He is willing to talk in public about a $900

billion deal, is willing to talk about how they moved from a smelter-refinery to

a hydrometallurgic process, is willing to talk about all the jobs, but: Sorry,

we do not have a deal yet. That is what he is saying. He can talk about all

components of it with respect to what is going on with Voisey's Bay but cannot

release any details.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what

is going on. I would like to ask him this question. Six months ago the minister

said in the House that before any agreement with Inco can proceed there has to

be some kind of land claims agreement with the Innu Nation. He indicated that

before government would even issue a lease - that is supposing you would reach

an agreement, to use the minister's own words - that all the land claim

settlement with the Innu Nation must be completed. I wonder if the minister, or

some minister, could u pdate us?

In doing some of my research I can quote the words from the Minister of Mines

and Energy (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: From Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To quote from

Hansard of May 18, 1999: ...that there would be arrangements with the Innu

Nation and the other Aboriginal groups that have a direct interest here, and

that these things be put in place before the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador gives any kind of lease, license or permit to anybody...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the -

MR. E. BYRNE: My question to the minister, or any minister, is this.

Could you provide an update on the status of those negotiations with the Innu

Nation on behalf of the Province? At what stage are we? Are we close to an

arrangement so that if you reach an agreement you will be able to provide a

lease?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again noting, as they do agree, that words are very important and when people

do check the record of this debate they will want to know exactly what was said

and by whom, in quoting what I said previously, the Leader of the Opposition,

erroneously again suggested that I referenced that land claims would have to be

settled before we could do a deal on Voisey's Bay.

Even in the quote that he then just read it referenced nothing to do with the

words land claims. It said arrangements would have to be made with the

Aboriginal communities and arrangements would have to be made and agreed to by

the Aboriginal communities. That has nothing to do with a land claim which has

been going on now for fifteen or twenty years and might take another fifteen or

twenty years to finally settle. I do believe and know that he will probably, I

hope, get up and say that he was mistaken or did not mean to say land claims.

What he means to ask, because maybe now I should ask the question for him and

give the answer so we will make sure with certainty -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: What he meant to ask, I am sure, is: Whatever arrangements

are necessary with the Aboriginal communities in Labrador, are we close to

having those arrangements in place? Because it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that

without an arrangement and some kind of recognition of behalf of the Aboriginal

communities that the project can proceed, there will be no project. Everybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador understands that. Does it mean we will have to have

all of the details of a land claim negotiated? Absolutely not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Are there some arrangements being negotiated? Absolutely yes,

Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the

minister then - to use his own words again - in terms of arrangements that are

going on with the Innu Nation, what arrangements have you reached, if any? Can

you update the House on the arrangements, particularly with the Innu Nation,

surrounding the development of Voisey's Bay? Can you speak about at all and

inform the people of the Province what those arrangements might be, or what

those arrangements are going to be, or what the subject matters are that you are

talking about with the Innu Nation with respect to the

ongoing development and possible - to use your words - possible deal with Inco?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the kind of language that the Leader of the Opposition is using.

I do note that in asking his questions he did acknowledge that he did not mean

to talk about land claims. He wants to talk about arrangements that will be

necessary with the Aboriginal communities in Labrador, both the Labrador Innuit

Association and the Innu Nation.

There have been discussions with respect to the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador with both the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit Association, the

LIA, with respect to overall land claims issues. I believe that everybody in the

Legislature recalls and remembers that with the Labrador Inuit Association we

are further advanced, and that in the issue with them we do actually have an

agreement in principle, that they are now in a detailed land selection process.

With respect to Voisey's Bay, that with the Inuit, we actually have an

agreement that there is a footprint carved out in Labrador where the Voisey's

Bay project will actually occur, where the mining will be done, where the mill

will be built, and that they will not at some future date - they have agreed

that they will not - try to claim that particular land or that footprint back as

land under the finalization of land claims that is proceeding.

With the Innu nation, which elected a new president just a little while ago,

the talks with the government are not quite as far advanced; but both the Innu

nation and the Labrador Inuit Association, the LIA, have had detailed and

extensive discussions with Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco respecting benefits

agreements that will be signed to allow the project to proceed, noting that the

proponent and the developer - being Inco in this case - will provide certain

specified benefits -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - to both Aboriginal communities in exchange for the right to

proceed with the project.

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

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

I appreciate the answer from the hon. minister. This is an important issue in

terms of what arrangements surrounding Voisey's Bay have been made with the

Innu nation. All he has indicated is that they are not as far advanced as they

are with the Inuit.

I ask him now, in terms of government's role in facilitating these

arrangements, could you outline what government's role is? What sort of

benefits are we talking about? Are you in a position to discuss those principles

upon which those benefits plans right now are going to be negotiated or decided

upon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker,

is the short answer, and let me elaborate so that people do not get upset;

because obviously the Opposition, when I have tried to give just a one-word

answer in the past, did not like it and probably did not understand it. Maybe

they just didn't understand it, so I will try to elaborate.

No, for this reason: The benefit agreements are being negotiated as a

business arrangement between a development proponent - being Inco and Voisey's

Bay Nickel - and the Aboriginal communities themselves, the LIA in one instance

and the Innu nation in the other instance.

The involvement of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been to

try to continue, because we have given a commitment to do so, to fast-tract the

land claims negotiations, which is a much bigger issue, at the same time. We

have committed to both Aboriginal communities in Labrador, both Aboriginal

groups - which is what I mean by the word communities, not individual towns -

that in fact we will not slow down on the lands claims side while they are

trying to negotiate the benefits agreement for this particular project.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of

Intergovernmental Affairs, and particularly the Labrador Affairs branch of that,

has been working flat out to try to make progress on the larger lands claims

issue while the company, the proponent, is working out the details of a benefits

agreement with the same groups.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Does he think the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to know about any arrangements

surrounding a potential agreement or deal that must - and I repeat, must -

inevitability deal with the alienation of Crown land, resources, sharing of

royalties, how much is involved? Does he think people have the right to know,

and will he - at the point that he believes he is ready, but before any deal is

final and binding - inform the people of the Province about those arrangements

and how they impact upon the deal itself, and how they impact upon the Province

as a whole?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we are finally getting around again to the answer that I gave in the

very first instance several days ago. Before anything happens, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador will know in detail every single aspect of any

arrangement that involves anything that a commitment has to be given by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Every component part of that will be known to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

If there are issues that are between, for example, the company and the Innu

nation that do not involve the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in any

way with respect to land, royalties, monies, benefits and so on, it will be up

to the Innu nation to disclose to their own people and to the people of the

Province if they choose. If there is an impact, direct or indirect, on the

people of the Province, it will be a part of the public disclosure and

discussion of any arrangement that is satisfactorily arrived at with Inco.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St John's South.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment. I welcome him back from the

talks in Alberta on water export and so on. Minister, we have had a NAFTA expert

visit the Province, a person who has acted as lead council on every NAFTA

challenge to the federal government, and he has advised that if the federal

government were to face a NAFTA challenge, our Province could incur financial

costs as well. Government has also brought in experts to the Province who claim

that the Province would not be liable, so there is obviously an uncertainty of

professional and legal opinion on this matter.

I ask the minister this: Has the federal government guaranteed that this

Province will not be on the hook financially if there was a NAFTA challenge

against the federal government?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously there has been some differing of opinion. The Opposition did have a

trade lawyer down here some time ago. We had two people here, Mr. Geoffery

Kubrick and Professor Donald McRae, from independent law firms in Ontario, as

well, who basically said to us that, if there is a challenge under NAFTA, it

would be the federal government that would have to be involved with that because

NAFTA is signed on by the country; it is not signed on by provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

My question was: Has the federal government guaranteed that we would not be

on the hook? That was not answered.

Minister, the Government of British Columbia has stated publicly that they do

not feel the federal accord is strong enough. The Province of BC, as well as

other provinces, has not signed on to the accord.

I will ask the minister again: Has the federal government guaranteed that

this Province will not be on the hook financially if there is a NAFTA challenge

against the federal government on bulk water removals?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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: Mr. Speaker, there is a place, as the Speaker would know, on

the Order Paper - it is called Order 3 - and there is a rule that we follow in

this Legislature and in the House of Commons that, if there is a place on the

Order Paper for a question to be asked or debated, then that is called the rule

of anticipation. Under that rule, I would suggest to you that question is out of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to the point

of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today being Private Members' Day, there is no order of government business

on the Order Paper today. Therefore, that question should be permitted today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This point has been raised on several occasions. The precedent set in this

House is that, when there is a bill on the Order Paper, questions have not been

permitted either during the Private Members' Day or other days of the House.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What is the snipe saying today? Go back to the marsh, I say

to the snipe.

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. On

November 18, 1999, I asked questions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

regarding his responsibility to notify or inform the public of toxins in

municipal and provincial water supply systems. He refused to answer, and he let

the Premier and the Minister of Environment answer of him. I now know why he

refused. All municipalities were not informed.

I ask the minster: Why were some towns not informed or notified of this very

serious situation with the water supplies?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The day before I left to go to the ministers' meetings I did an interview

with The Telegram. The lady

indicated to me that there were two towns that did not get the information, of

the forty-seven towns that had levels above the THMs levels. I went back to my

department - I did not go back to them directly; I asked them over the weekend

to have it checked out for me while I was gone.

In response to one of the towns, the lady did an interview this morning and I

would like to read from what she said. She said: We are really concerned about

it. Up until two weeks ago none of us knew anything about it. I think we need an

awful lot more information and I would like to have that information forthcoming

in the case so that we might be able to have immediate attention brought to our

situation.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a letter, file number 550-01-02-02-038,

written on March 3, 1999, to the town that was in question. It was to the town

clerk, Miss Mary Lou Ginn, clerk, Community Council of Comfort Cove-Newstead. I

will read a portion of what it says here, Previous water quality data for

your community shows high levels of some or all of the trihalomethane precursors

(color and dissolved organic carbon) and/or trihalomethanes higher than the

recommended drinking water limit. These high levels are an indication of

trihalomethane formation or formation potential in your drinking water and we

are looking for your participation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. LANGDON: The last paragraph of the letter: Should you need any

additional information or comments on this water quality monitoring, please

write or fax to 709-292-4365, or call the undersigned at this number.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: We will be happy to answer any questions and provide further

details on any aspect of the monitoring program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will this minister tell the House why an explanation of the

seriousness of these toxins in the municipal and provincial water supply systems

was not given to all towns that did receive some reports? In fact, some towns

were not informed that specific action could be taken to correct these problems.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the department, in addition to the private

water supplies - I think there are twenty of them that are industrial water

supplies that are managed by government in consultation with the community. From

the information I have been given by my officials at the department, all of

these towns were notified as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affair

for some reasons he is afraid to stand in the House of Assembly and respond to

questions with respect to water supply systems that he is responsible for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Minister, are you aware, or were you aware, of the

situation with respect to Comfort Cove, which was not notified - the minister

can say it was - until last week of this problem. The people out there obviously

did not know. The mayor was on, saying they did not know of this problem, and

your department sat on a report for three years. The town has a provincial

system which you are responsible for.

I ask the minister: Was there collusion between your department and the

Department of Environment to cover up this very serious situation? How many more

municipalities were not informed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say first to the hon. member that his suggestion that I am afraid to

stand in the House is greatly exaggerated and is certainly only a concept in

your mind as opposed to a concept of reality.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member could hear and listen and take in information

given as well as he could talk, if he could only listen and hear and retain as

well as he could speak a few words in the House, he would have recognized long

since his second supplementary that the answer has been given. The town that he

refers to has been forwarded the information. The minister has said it half a

dozen times. It is here under the date of March 23, 1999.

I ask the hon. member: What part of no would he not understand, if that was

the answer? What part of y-e-s would he not understand, if that was the answer?

Because, simply put, he cannot understand simple concepts. Talk about words

being important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell you, the ability to be able to hear properly and

retain a minute level of basic information that is being shared is what he is

lacking, not information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - the ability to take information in and understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the minister, there are 3,392 people effected by Alzheimer's in this Province,

and a new drug, Aricept, which is approved by Health Canada, has been proven to

be effective in dealing with this illness. The cost of this drug is about $150 a

month, which is less than $2,000 a year. The cost of caring for an Alzheimer's

resident in a nursing home exceeds $60,000 a year, not even considering the

capital cost of that facility. This drug can allow people, especially in the

early stages of Alzheimer's, to be able to remain in their home possibly for

several years.

I say to the minister, when resources are scarce, effective management

becomes all the more important. I want to ask the minister: Why haven't you

added Aricept to the provincial drug formulary when it could save millions of

dollars in protective care and in home care for people now with Alzheimer's?

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

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

As I said previously, I always like to introduce some fact into the

preamble

that the member opposite has provided. First of all, it costs about $1,800 per

patient per year for the use of Aricept. Second of all, it is not a cure. It is

considered a treatment in some provinces, but that information is not

conclusive. We are continuing to work with other provinces and also looking at

it under active review.

I think it is interesting to note that whenever the member opposite stands on

his feet, his solution is always more money. Unfortunately, when you need to -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite is making a correlation that a drug would prevent

hospitalization or long-term care. He should share that research with the

experts, because I don't think they have that, quiet frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will get to that in a minute, I say to the minister. The minister is

putting out misinformation, I say, on this instance. I have my research.

One lady wrote me, telling me that she and her husband must survive on a

disability pension of $619 a month, topped up by $36 a month from Human

Resources and Employment. She said that this drug works for her husband - she

called it a miracle drug - but she cannot afford to continue buy it. There has

been authorization signed by neurologist and by other specialists attesting to

that, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she act now not only to give this

family the quality of life and the support that they need, but in the process

save potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in long-term care in this

specific case alone?

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

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

On this side of the House, we really try to make decisions based on good,

solid evidence. We have been working with other provinces and, in fact, we know

that in any given year there are numerous new drugs put on the market. I do not

have a bag of money in my office that I can allocate.

I am not insensitive to the needs of those patients and those families

because I know it is a very real issue, but I think it is false to make a

correlation by saying that by giving this drug you will prevent hospitalization

or long-term care. That has not been, in fact, proven. We know now that it is

not a cure. In fact, it is often used - just recently in a couple of provinces;

provinces which, I might add, have a lot more free cash than we have, even

though we have added millions of dollars to our health care budget every year

over the last four years.

I want to say, and it is important to say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue to monitor the situation. We will work with the physicians

and the experts to make the decisions when we have the accurate evidence with

which to make those decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we raised questions on MS with the drugs in this House, because they

were more progressive and advanced, she said no and finally relented. She said

no on schizophrenia because they have seen the light, what other provinces are

doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the

minister: Some provinces have already adopted this, and it is more than two.

They have an agreement that if this drug proves effective after six weeks, the

province will then pick up the cost. Minister, why can't you do the same?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, one might think there are also drugs for

delusions of grandeur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to say this clearly because I have a

lot of respect for the physicians and the experts in -

MR. SULLIVAN: You don't

see the light until years later.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have a lot of respect for the physicians and the

experts involved. The rationale for moving towards schizophrenia type II drugs

and for MS drugs particularly was based on solid evidence from physicians and

experts in the field. That is how we make our decisions, evidence-based

decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I

guess I am seeking clarification from the Chair on a ruling. I don't think I

am out of order in asking for a clarification.

Today, the House Leader stood in the House and, on a point of order, said

that: We, as the Opposition, according to the rules of the House and Beauchesne,

Standing Orders, are not allowed to ask a question with respect to any piece of

legislation that is on the Order Paper. On page 121 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Tourism, one second please.

On page 121, 409(12) it says, Questions should not anticipate a debate

scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate. It goes on to

say - for further information look at Journals, April 14, 1975, pages 439-41.

In that Journal it says clearly, ...a privilege of Members it certainly

now enjoys the status of a right. Much has been said in the precedents about

restrictions and disqualifications or interferences with the right of Members to

put questions. This is not the approach I prefer to take in attempting to

establish a rational approach and understanding concerning how the question

period should operate. I much prefer to take the positive approach of attempting

to arrive at a statement of principle within which questions can be put and to

reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or

restrict a Member's right to do so.

It goes on to say, The third area of confusion is in respect of

anticipating orders of the day. It is a restriction that is not well understood.

If I might express it in my own terms it simply means that if the subject of

debate for today concerns, for example, housing policy, then questions on

housing policy ought not to be taken during the question period.

In other words, if we are debating housing policy today then no member should

be able, in anticipation, to stand up and ask questions about a bill or a piece

of legislation that we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker, again I am seeking clarification. If the rule is that members on

the Opposition are to be confined to such an extent that we cannot ask any

questions with respect to any piece of legislation that is on the Order Paper,

what is it that we can ask questions about? It must be asked.

The rule clearly, as I see it - and I want to be clear that I am not seeking

to challenge the rule of the Chair. I am seeking clarification because this is

very important from the point of view of the Official Opposition and members

here to ensure our right to ask questions.

My understanding, and I have been in this House seven years and I have never

seen it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Seven years, almost, and the rules that we have been

operating under in terms of asking questions about important issues...

I recall sitting in this House for four weeks when there was legislation

before this House on the privatization of Hydro, yet questions continued every

day for four weeks because it was important to do so. What I am asking the

Speaker to do, actually, is to clarify: Can we only be stopped from asking

questions with respect to a piece of legislation because the bill itself is

coming forth today, or is it every piece of legislation that is on the Order

Paper that has been read in? If that is the case, government can load up the

Order Paper with forty or fifty bills if they want to stop the Opposition from

asking questions. They can do whatever they want on the Order Paper and we will

not be able to stand in this House and do the job that we were elected to do,

which is to hold government accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the role, Mr. Speaker, that is the role. If we are

going to denied that basic right, then we have to question: What it is we are

here for?

I am asking clarification of the Chair to ensure that all members understand

this rule, because the Government House Leader - I know he would not do it - or

any future government, based upon what we rule here, could put any matter on the

Order Paper which would, in effect, shut down our ability to question because of

a rule that has been interpreted so narrowly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of

order that the hon. member has raised, the Chair, in ruling today, cited a

precedence that has occurred in this House and based the decision on the

precedence that we have had where, on Private Members' Day, members have

raised questions on legislation that is before the House, and consistently

Speakers have ruled that it is out of order. I will take the points that the

hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised and I will certainly review the points

that he has raised and come back to y ou later.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to

Section 35 of the House of Assembly Act, I am required to table the Annual

Report of the Commissioner of Members' Interests for the period April 1, 1998

to March 31, 1999, and I hereby table this report.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have answers to questions by the Member for

Conception Bay South. I think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

stood to answer the question there Monday evening concerning NAV Canada, so I

have some information for the hon. member.

I think the question was pertaining specifically to Gander, whether there is

going to be any loss of employees there. As hon. members know, back in November

1996 NAV Canada was the first fully privatized air and navigation system in the

world. They look after all aircraft movements in Canadian domestic airspace, and

also the international airspace they are designated to look after.

Anyway, the only place that there may be some movement is in St. John's

when they changed and did a study on the flight information centers. In St. John's

there are thirty-six employees. The estimate looks like they will be left with

twenty-four. Ten to twelve of those employees will be moving, it seems like all

of them on a voluntary basis to Halifax. That is where the flight information

centre will be. In Gander, we have been told, as of November 23 in meetings with

our officials, that there will be absolutely no reduction

in staff in the Gander area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) thirty-eight people (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I can only relate and report what I and my officials have

been told, that there would be absolutely no difference in Gander. In fact, if

any of those people move on a voluntary basis their positions there will be

filled. I think what the hon. member is referring to is there is a study in

place, and phase II of that study showed that if they made some other

adjustments, from Moncton to Gander, then there would be some movements in phase

II.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: That is the information that I have, Mr. Speaker, that

there will no movement in the town of Gander with regard to flight information

services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the

Member for St. John's East I think asked a question yesterday of the Justice

Minister, and I undertook to get some answers. Of what benefit is an inquiry to

the family of the deceased person when the judge's hands are tied? That was

the first question.

A judicial inquiry is meant to do more than benefit a particular family. It

is intended to determine what happened in a specific case. The purpose -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. If we can move into -

MR. TULK: By leave, Mr. Speaker!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: The purpose of an inquiry is not to assign legal fault or make

findings of law. The purpose is to ensure that the cause and manner of death and

the circumstances surrounding the same have been properly ascertained and that

the public can be satisfied that such is the case. It is also the intention of

an inquiry to lead to changes and recommendations that will help prevent other

such incidents. The family immediately impacted by the incident will benefit to

the extent that the inquiry judge will determine what happened in this case. If

a family is contemplating civil action, they will have had a thorough

investigation upon which to base a possible claim.

Because there may be the possibility of criminal prosecution arising from

such incidents, individuals who may be charged must not be implicated criminally

in an inquiry where they do not have legal counsel. For example, if a witness at

an inquiry was later found at fault by the inquiry judge, he or she may be

regarded as convicted by the public even though there was no opportunity for him

or her to avail of the constitutional protections to which every accused is

entitled.

Will this government take the necessary steps and make changes to our

legislation to ensure that such findings and conclusions when presented can

offer assistance to our facilities and the public at large in preventing other

occurrences? That was the second half of the question.

The improvements were already in place by the time the inquiry completed the

Rose inquiry report. In fact, Judge Barnable said, and I quote:

After the death there were a great many meeting[s], reports,

investigations. They were all considered for what they were. A document entitled

`Internal Changes in Response to Eugene Rose Suicide' was exhibited and

demonstrates by the many changes that were made that others were aware of the

need for change.

It is the fact of the Inquiry and the narration of what happened contained

in the report itself, that will aid in the prevention of similar deaths.

That is from page 22, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Being Wednesday

and Private Members' Day, I now call on the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My private member's resolution is as follows:

WHEREAS Canada Post has recently increased its parcel post rates by up to 27

per cent; and

WHEREAS these rates will have a significant, negative impact on commerce and

the quality of life in rural and northern communities; and

WHEREAS these rate increases run contrary to the federal government's

philosophy of ensuring basic services are available to all Canadians at

reasonable costs, regardless of where they live; and

WHEREAS such a rate increase is particularly objectionable at a time when

Canada Post is recording significant profits;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that members of this hon. House call upon Canada

Post to treat the people of rural and northern communities no differently than

people dwelling in other parts of the country; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that members of this hon. House call upon the federal

minister responsible for Canada Post to intervene in this matter so as to ensure

that Canada Post treats rural and northern Canadians in a fair and equitable

manner.

Mr. Speaker, the rate increases will affect the people in the riding of

Torngat Mountains more so than anyone else in the Province. Except for the

communities that are not connected by road in Southern Labrador, everywhere else

in the rest of the Province these rates will not come into effect.

People in the North Coast communities depend upon the mail service as a way

of life. I wonder how many people in this hon. House today would have to depend

upon the parcel post service or Canada Post for 95 per cent of the stuff that

their family relies on, especially Christmastime?

When you live in these rural communities, where for seven to eight months of

the year you are totally isolated, it puts people at a big disadvantage. A

thirty kilogram package shipped out of Goose Bay to St. John's will cost

$17.14. That same package shipped from Goose Bay to Rigolet, seventy miles away,

will cost $96.75. From Goose Bay, Labrador you can send that same package to

British Columbia for $28.

I was in this House last year when the Minister of Human Resources introduced

new measures for people on low income and people on social services. She gave

people in northern communities extra money. When I look at the billions of

dollars that the federal government has, what they are fighting over as to how

to spend it, I find it very difficult. I traveled to Ottawa on an all party

committee when this Province was faced with TAGS and this Province felt it was

not going to get enough money for TAGS.

The people in my riding were denied the right to the TAGS program. I traveled

to Ottawa and I spoke on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

Leader of the NDP and members opposite spoke on how well the Member for Torngat

Mountains spoke for the people: he spoke from the heart. We did get more money,

but not one cent, not one copper, came to the people in my riding. Over the

years, when money flows through, the people in my riding always the least and

were the last to be recognized.

Since I came here in 1996, I have stood in this House and in caucus and

before different members to try and provide a better way of life for the people

in my riding. Imagine a low income family or a single mother who has saved for

months to order her Christmas toys, only to go to the post office and find out

that she cannot afford to buy them because the package costs an extra $40 or

$50. That is the case in Northern Labrador. That is what our federal government

is doing to us.

Canada Post last year recorded a profit of over $40 million, but yet they

decide to pick on northern services. Canada is broken into five different

regions that Northern Labrador is included in. When you look at the surplus that

the federal government has of billions of dollars and the profit of over $40

million, then you ask why.

I know it is difficult for the people sitting in this House, because I do not

think they fully understand. You have to go out there and order the majority of

your stuff from a catalogue, that half the time comes in the wrong size, the

wrong color. Imagine that if you go and get your package out of the post office

only to find out that the company sent you the wrong size or the wrong color,

you take it back to the post office, you have to pay for that package to go back

again. The people in Northern Labrador have been put at a big disadvantage by

Canada Post.

I look forward to the debate in the House here today. I call upon members

from both sides to speak in favour. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking on

my motion later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am pleased today to stand and tell the Member for Torngat that I want to

speak on behalf of our party today in telling you that we will be unanimously

supporting your motion put forward to the floor today.

I want to also commend the member for bringing this forward, especially at a

time when the people in Labrador and the Aboriginals and so on have many

concerns about how they are being treated throughout not just Newfoundland and

Labrador, but throughout this country. When we look at today, especially with

the advances in technology and communications and so on, when I look at the

problems with the ferry service to Labrador, when I look at problems with

airlines - of course, especially now with the prob lems

we currently see in the airline services - every way of going to Labrador - the

Aboriginal lands, the pioneers of this country - every time we look towards

Labrador, in any of those services, we see the costs going up. We see the costs

going up while the services are going down, I say to the Member for Torngat

Mountains. I have heard the concerns the same as he is hearing in his own

district right now on a daily basis, I'm sure.

When we look at his particular motion, we look at a 27 per cent increase. How

ridiculous and ludicrous it is that this would happen in a time when we look at

technology advances, airline problems and so on, as I just mentioned. Then we

also look at significant profits. This rings a bell because there is something

else we look at these days that affects Labrador and all parts of Newfoundland.

There are significant profits recorded by Canada Post, and here they are with

these types of rates on the small population that lives in the northern part of

our Province. It is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous to even think that they

would consider such an increase. An increase at all, I would say that much to

the member. Any increase whatsoever should not be considered when you see the

profits.

Then we see the same situation with another thing that affects the member's

district, and many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we look at the EI

system and how it affects the member's district. Here we are with the profits,

the billions of dollars in surplus to the EI system of this country, and we see

what it is doing to people in this Province. I get the calls, and I know the

member does, and I know members on this part of the House get the calls, of

people who are trying to get to an EI sy stem that is

billions of dollars in surplus and have been booted off the system for the

smallest of reasons. We see people scrambling to survive who are turning to

social services lines for the first time.

That is what we are seeing. That is another example of the federal government

in Ottawa, our central government, turning a blind eye to parts of Labrador when

we look at this service as so significant and beneficial to that part of the

Province. We do not need it to be explained any more in this House because we

know. I think we all know. We know because of members from Labrador who have

raised the issues, which they should, on a continual basis in this House.

I know it from a distance to a point because I lived in Labrador for some

seven years and also have family who still live in Labrador. I hear the same

concerns over and over, all the time, from the ferry service to the airline

service and now to Canada Post and that service, to the EI system, and so on.

The list goes on and on. It just seems so blatantly ridiculous that the

rates 27 per cent. You just wonder up there sometimes if there is a heart at all

in the government that sits in Ottawa.

I'm not going to go on too long about it because the points have been made

over and over, but we do realize on this side of the House and in this party the

concerns raised by members in Labrador that are specific to regions of Labrador,

especially the northern regions in Torngat and all up and down the coast of

Labrador. We certainly do understand it. All we can say today to the member is

that we have discussed this. I will speaking on behalf of this party today,

unanimously supporting your motion, a nd we wish we could

see some changes in the not too distant future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today certainly and support the motion that has been put

forward by my colleague for Torngat Mountains. At a time in this country when we

go to great lengths to heighten the awareness of justice issues on a global

level, you have something like Canada Post with its insensitivities and its lack

of knowledge and well-being for the people of Labrador, which comes in here and

implements policies with no universality and something which they themselves try

and preach is a prevalent part of the delivery of their services in Canada. It

was not obvious in this.

I find myself all too often, as a member in Labrador, presenting unique cases

for people who live in the northern parts of our Province and people who live in

the northern parts of this country. When I make representation for these remote

rural and isolated areas, in a lot of cases, I do so with the hope that there is

a sense of understanding, that there is a sense of sensitivity, that there is

absolutely someone there who is paying attention and has the motive to do

something that is much better. I am very disappointed with Canada Post, a

corporation which, having served Labrador and people in Northern Canada for many

years, should have been educated about the regions, should have been educated

about the people that they serve, and should have been educated about the

limited transportation and options for services that these people have.

I am very disappointed that they could make such a drastic decision to

increase rates, to cause such hardship to people in Labrador and people all over

Northern Canada, inhibiting the way that they live, the way in which they can

receive goods and services into their communities. What they have done is

withdrawn the services of Canada Post for parcel post to the people of Labrador

by simply pricing them out of the market, pricing them out of the availability

of this service. It is the same as if they had just withdrawn it altogether.

I find it very frustrating, and so do the people who live in my district, the

business community. The Member for Torngat Mountains has already alluded to the

fact of the difficulties that people have had in getting Christmas gifts and so

on through Canada Post. You are dealing with small businesses in rural

communities, you are dealing with businesses whose only suppliers can deliver

dry goods by mail. These businesses have all mail order from November and

December up until May and June. They are now restricted in being able to carry

those goods for their consumers, which means there are people in my district and

in Torngat Mountains that are going to be the losers in this. They will be

unable to access these goods.

I want to give you some examples because I think it is worthy of noting. I

did this research based on shipping a thirty kilogram package. Because it is

Christmastime and you are going to send larger packages, and because businesses

have to get supplies in, and usually they buy it in somewhat of a bulk form, so

there are larger packages. If I was going to be in Port Hope Simpson or

Charlottetown or Forteau and have a package that was thirty kilograms come

through the mail from St. John's, I would pay $112.41. I

think it is an outrageous amount to expect any person in this country to pay to

receive such service.

I made that comparison to Happy Valley-Goose Bay which is also a northern

community, classified differently, but if I lived in Goose Bay and I wanted to

get that same package from St. John's, I would pay $21.16. That is the

difference in rate between the cost of shipping into the Northern part of

Labrador, the Southern communities of Labrador and other areas in Northern

Canada, Central Canada or Southern Canada.

The people in my district have been calling, like I am sure they have to

other members in the House, saying: This is what has happened to me today, this

is a package I got in. I have to tell you this story because I think it really

puts things in perspective. I had this one lady who ordered two vacuum cleaner

belts for her vacuum. The belts themselves cost $3.75 for two belts. She ordered

the two belts, they came into the post office, and she paid $11.80 in postage.

Those two belts, if she had to walk into Canadian Tire and purchase them, tax

included, would be $3.75. Because she was in St. Lewis, Labrador, she paid

$20.58 for those same vacuum cleaner belts.

Do you mean to tell me that there is any universality in Canada Post? Do you

mean to tell me that the federal government is doing its job in regulating the

services of Canada Post? Because it is their job. They are the ones who oversee

the Board of Directors, they are the ones who have input into the delivery and

the regulations of Canada Post services in this country. It is unbelievable, in

this day and age, that any person in Canada could live anywhere and have to

endure the hardship of being able

to receive goods and services that the people in Northern Canada have today.

Whether they are in St. Lewis, whether they are in Nain, whether they are in

Iqaluit, or wherever they are, in St. John's, Ottawa, it does not matter. They

should all be treated equally. They should have the benefits of a service that

is universal, of one that services all Canadians, at an affordable, economical

rate that will certainly allow them all to participate in such a service.

There are a couple of other things I wanted to point out because the Member

for Baie Verte alluded to the revenues of Canada Post, and the member is right.

Canada Post's revenues increased to $872 million from over $749 million in

1997-1998. That is a significant increase in revenues for any corporation. I

also want to say that in 1997-1998, Canada Post itself paid out $12 million in

dividends to shareholders of Canada Post, the main shareholder being the

year-and-a-half ago. Today, they are here, they are in this country, and they

are saying: We have to increase rates to people in the northern parts of Canada

not because we need to make a profit, not because our bottom line is down, not

because we have to have a more viable corporation here, not because our

shareholders aren't bringing home a profit. No, but because you live in the

north therefore you should pay what it costs to be serviced in the north. Is

that a rational argument? I don't think so. It is not the Canadian way. It is

not the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's way.

We believe in treating the people of this Province fairly, whether they live

in Labrador, Burin or St. John's. We have been able to adapt our policies as a

government. We have been able to service all people in this Province equally to

the best of our ability, and we expect the same of Canada Post. We expect them

to service the people in Northern Canada the same way as any other Canadian

citizen. We don't expect for the people in the most northerly, most remote

areas of this country, to bear the bru nt of any increase

that they want to accumulate to shareholders in their corporation. They are not

a losing entity. They are earning money, they are earning profits, and now they

want to do it on the backs of the people in Labrador, in our Province, and we

will not stand for it.

I ask every member in this House today to support the motion that was put

forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains. It is a good motion. It speaks well

of the representation that he brings to his people and that this government

brings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to communicate that

will not accept being treated the way that we are and we ask that there be fair

rates in this Province and in this country to serve all Canadians when it comes

to Canadian postal services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the motion put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I think it is another classic example of the insensitivity

of people in Central Canada towards places that are outside Central Canada,

particularly in the north. Not too long ago there was an occasion where a person

who worked in the federal Department of Fisheries who did not know where the

Province was. Now we have the remarks made in Ottawa that they cannot help where

people chose to live in this country. They seem to forget pretty fast that the

people who live in the north contribute greatly to the other regions of Canada.

That is where most of the resources are. That is where most of the wealth that

is generated in the country comes from, northern locations, in terms of mining,

fishing and other areas of our economy. Northern communities have always paid

their share and more besides, and there are many examples of that.

I can say one thing, before I go any further on this, to the Member for

Torngat Mountains, thank God Canada Post was not privatized like they wanted to

do a few years ago. Because if it was privatized, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you,

in my opinion we would be paying a lot more for postal rates than we are even

today. I think it is shameful that Canada Post is trying to extract more from

the people who live in areas of this country, who contribute to the economy of

this country, at a time when they are making huge profits. It is totally

deplorable and it is certainly unconscionable for them to do that.

In northern locations we are used to not having the services that people in

Southern Canada have, and many times we accept that. The choices that we have

are not the same as the choices that people would have in other jurisdictions or

in other parts of this country. If you look at the mail routes that are chosen

by Canada Post as a way to deliver their mail, if you send a letter from here to

Goose Bay it probably ends up in Halifax and gets re-routed back in through.

Everything that is sent, even within the area, as I understand it, has to go

through Halifax first.

On the Coast the realities are that for most of the year the only way to get

things in is by air, and that is for the majority of the year in Northern

Labrador in particular. A lot of the people on the Coast have no other option

but to order things, and as was pointed out by other members here today, many

times the costs they have to pay for delivery of these items are indeed greater

than the cost of the items.

Canada Post today is very healthy financially. I do not think we should sit

back and accept the fact that they want to increase rates to the proportions

that they have, or increase at all, because it is certainly not necessary for

them to do that in order for them to be financially stable.

The other things that we have in northern regions that we are held victims to

is even air travel. You will have seen in recent weeks great seat sales to

travel to Labrador, but now when they know people will be traveling, kids coming

home for Christmas and for other reasons, people visiting their families, you

will not find these super seat sales any more. You will pay through the nose now

for a ticket to go to Labrador. People who have their kids in university out

here will pay the price to have their kids come home for Christmas and return to

school after.

There are all kinds of examples of ways that people who live in northern

areas of this country have to pay over and above what people in other areas of

the country have to pay, not for things that they would like to have, but for

basic necessities and things that we need in order to survive.

I do not want to take up a lot of time on this. I think the Member for

Torngat Mountains has put it quite well, and I think that there is no question

that the support for his motion is very much demonstrated by members of all

parties in this House. We think that in the meantime, as he is carrying on this

fight, we should also fight with him, because people who have been to Northern

Labrador in particular and seen the prices that are charged for basic items

fully understand the cost of living that is associated with living in those

communities. The price that business people have to pay to get their goods and

wares into the communities is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains that we are

supportive, and we will do whatever we can to assist him in this fight.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to take a few minutes to speak to the resolution by the hon.

Member for Torngat Mountains, certainly in support of it.

I have a few facts about Canada Post. I have a map in front of me that shows

all of Canada. It also indicates in different colors the areas that it serves.

It says that the largest geographical area, 72 per cent of Canada, is served by

the northern postal service, where the mail is collected and delivered by air,

serving 257 municipalities all across the north, including the Labrador Coast,

with a population of 260,000-odd people.

It also says on this note that Canada Post used to be a Crown corporation,

but now it is a corporation. Maybe that tends to deal somewhat with the problems

that we have with Canada Post.

The consolidated revenue from operations under Canada Post for 1998 was $5.4

billion. The consolidated net income from that $5.4 billion was $50 million.

That is no small operation. In terms of the Canada Post, the parcel post and the

regular post which is basically what we deal with on the Labrador Coast -

because we do not get into the other kinds of couriers, the express post and

those sorts of things - the revenue is $872 million.

It is unconscionable that Canada Post is doing what it is doing to our

people. In the northern service, Canada Post revenue for mail originating in the

northern sites for 1998 was about $17 million, a very small portion of that $5.4

billion that Canada Post has for a budget. In that $17 million, they have to put

a 27 per cent increase on the rates that they charge for parcel post and other

forms of mail movement on our Coast and also in Northern Canada.

The rate increases that were put across the rest of Canada and the other

regions that Canada Post serves was 5 per cent. For non-northern residents, the

increase that Canada Post ordered for last year, or October 4, 1999, was 5 per

cent.

All of the mainstream of Canada were subjected to a huge increase of 5 per

cent for postal service. For the percentage of northern people we have under

their system, they have initiated a 27 per cent increase for this year and they

have also identified that next year there will be another 25 per cent increase

on top of the 27 per cent we have just seen on October 4.

Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable. It is certainly not acceptable to have

that kind of thing, and have that kind of a system put in place for the people

in Northern Canada. Canada Post should be looking at improving the service and

not levying these huge increases on the people of the north, and let's not

forget and let's all understand that this is not a luxury thing for the people

in Northern Canada. This is a necessity. This is the only way they do business,

and for the majority of the year tha t is the only way they

can get things in a reasonable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be what Canada Post is all about, having to levy

on the people in Northern Canada these kinds of percentage increases, when we

have all other kinds of expenses that we have to incur over and above what the

rest of Canada has in the mainstream.

I have to quote from a representative or a spokesperson for Canada Post in

Ottawa. He says: We have been losing an enormous amount of money getting product

into the north, and until we get caught up on our costs there will be an

increase on an annual basis.

Mr. Speaker, this is only the first. As I said just a moment ago, next year

he will go - he indicates that there should be another increase of 25 per cent

next year on the cost of postal service. I have to say that when we get people

in Ottawa saying these kinds of things, it only tells us much more clearly and

much more vividly how much out of touch they are with the realities of what

happens in Northern Canada.

Northern Canada is a big area. There may not be a lot of people, but those

people should be subjected to the same thing that the rest of Canadians have and

expect, and we will accept nothing less.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to see a better service and a

much more reasonable cost service for our mail on the coast, it is just as well

that they take it away altogether and put in some other process which it is more

reasonable for people to expect. If the mandate of Canada Post is only to serve

the central Canadians, because they are the people they can get mail to and from

in a relatively easy way, then I think they should be wrapped up, maybe like

other things that we should see in the federal government.

I am just going to quote from a letter that was received from a person in

Black Tickle. It says: The only way to get things is through the mail, expensive

by anyone's standards as it happens. Canada Post ups its parcel rates by 27

per cent more for the Coast of Labrador - and this is for the coast because it

does not apply to Goose Bay - and now people have to pay twice the price and

more for an item. This move by Canada Post is most unjust because it applies to

people only where people are isolated and that is the only

access they have to things that they need.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable in anybody's mind and I just want to,

before I conclude, do a couple of comparisons here. Maybe this will be bring

home where the rates are. My colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair earlier identified a few. Regular parcel post for Goose Bay to Ottawa is

$21.15, and the regular post from Port Hope Simpson to Ottawa is $120.94. That

is a difference of $100 on a package that travels an extra 150 miles from Port

Hope Simpson into Goose Bay in order to ge t to Ottawa.

That is what you are paying. Those are the kinds of rates we are looking at in

this particular situation.

Just one other one, from Forteau to Goose Bay or St. John's, previously it

was $28.65 for a 30 kilogram parcel and now it is $96.75. From Forteau to Ottawa

it was $35.85 and now it is $120.94. That is absolutely out of whack. For anyone

in St. John's or Ottawa, as was identified by the spokesperson for Canada

Post, who believes that is reasonable for our people, I think they need their

head examined.

In conclusion, I fully support the resolution by the Member for Torngat

Mountains. One of the things that we are initiating is that the Member for

Torngat Mountains and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and myself

will be traveling to Ottawa to meet with the minister in early January, along

with a number of other initiatives, to try to deal with this issue. We certainly

appreciate the support of all sides of the House in this particular resolution.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I adjourn the debate, again I just want to say that the people in

Northern Labrador are going to be affected in the worst possible way. I think it

is a sad day. I am a proud Canadian, but when I realize that people up in

Coastal Labrador are not going to avail of things for their families and their

children because of an increase in packages that has gone from $28 to $116, I

believe it is totally unfair.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that our government, that this government, will

certainly do something. I would say that it has to be done fast. Every day is a

day too late, and certainly the federal minister and the federal government have

to be brought to task. I only hope that things can be worked out in a reasonable

and fair time.

Again, when you depend upon Canada Post for a way of survival, I guess only

then will you fully understand the importance and what it means to people in

rural communities. To say that the federal government's philosophy of ensuring

basis services are available to all Canadians at reasonable costs, well, it is

not 27 per cent; in some cases it has gone to 300 and 400 per cent. I think when

people in these communities have to absorb that much, it is totally unfair. I

fully wonder at times: Are we being treated fairly as

Canadians?

I have spoken on different issues and I am certainly going to follow this

through. I certainly hope that all members in the House fully understand the

effect that it will have on people in Northern Labrador.

All too often the people in Northern Labrador have made the headlines in a

very sad situation. When you talk of social problems, imagine what will happen

when a mother cannot afford to send for stuff for her son or daughter for a

Christmas present or a birthday present because they have to pay an extra $25 or

$30 that Canadians elsewhere in this Province and in Canada do not have to. I

think it is totally unfair.

In closing the debate, I want to say to this House that I am going to be

heard. I am going to fight this issue, and I certainly hope that this House will

see fit to send a delegation to Ottawa immediately to try and alleviate some of

the hardships that this is imposing on people in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in this Province and I believe in all of us as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I hope that Voisey's Bay will bring benefits

to families in the small coves and bays in Newfoundland as it will in Labrador.

I believe that if we stick together and help one another we can make a way of

life that all Canadians, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, including those

who live in rural communities, can certainly enjoy the benefits that a lot of

people take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, I adjourn the debate and I ask the people in this House for

their support on this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

I declare the motion carried unanimously.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I

could, I don't think we need a standing vote on this but I think all of us

would like to see this resolution recorded in the Journals as a unanimous

resolution of the House. I believe everybody would concur with me on that.

Before you adjourn the House, let me say that tomorrow we are going to start

doing some Committee work in the House. We will do a Committee of the Whole on a

bill,

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

Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province, which is Order 3 on today's

Order Paper. For the advice of hon. members opposite, once that is finished, if

Committee is still in session tomorrow, we will go 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, if we get

that bill finished and move on to ano ther one.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, this House stands adjourned until

tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.