May 2, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings I would like to welcome to the gallery today a group of eleven "Exceptionally Able Learners" Level II and III, from the Marystown Central High School in the District of Burin-Placentia West, accompanied by teachers: Vivian Rose and Stephen King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate six students from the Burin Peninsula who will be competing this weekend in the provincial "Festival D'Art Oratoire", a speakoff competition that promotes the use of French as a second language, as well as offer students to apply the French skills they have learned in their study.

These six students were selected from different divisions to represent the Peninsula at this provincial speak out. They include, from my district, Gillian Bungay and Crystal Miller of Pearce High, as well as Gaetan Kenway and Kyla Holloway of Marystown Central High.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that two students, Jessica Clarke and Claire Tesniére of St. Lawrence Academy, from the provincial district of Grand Bank, are also attending the regional speak out.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish these students well in this provincial competition and congratulate them for their excellence in the Burin Peninsula regional competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of two men from my district, Mr. Anson Pittman and Mr. Martin Pittman of Bird Cove, who passed suddenly away on Thursday, April 25, 2002, while sealing in the Strait of Belle Isle on the BC Venture.

Anson and his uncle, Martin, were fishermen who worked diligently to provide the necessities of life for their families. Anson and Martin, along with Martin's brothers, Tom, Primus and Desmond worked together as a team - a family unit - to ensure survival in an area economically depressed. Whenever possible, they would include other family members. Murray Caines and his brother-in-law David Chambers accompanied them. The entire community of Bird Cove, as well as the Ramea areas, have been affected. This is a tightly knit community and a tragedy such as this affects everyone and their own families.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to thank the hon. members of this House, as well as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who have offered their condolences. I wish to thank them for their prayers and many kind offers of support.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in again offering condolences to the Pittman families and the entire community of Bird Cove and surrounding areas on the passing of Anson and Martin.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a group of students from Rigolet who participated in the Labrador Regional Theatre Festival April 19-21 in Cartwright. A record number of schools from various regions of Labrador participated in this educational event.

Six students who comprise Les Rigolette Theatre Group from Northern Lights Academy placed first in the event by performing a play called Overtones.

The six students were Stephanie Nochasak, Candice Elson, Crystal Michelin, Desery Wolfrey, Edith Sheppard and Kelly-Anne Blake who managed the technical aspects of the show.

Mr. Speaker, these students will now travel to Gander for a non-competitive showcase of High School Theatre talent from across the Province May 9-11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Les Rigolette Theatre Group on their accomplishments. Also, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the hon. Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and the Member for Gander invite all residents from Gander and surrounding areas to drop by next week and view the festival being held in Gander.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize the volunteer efforts of three generations of the Randell family of Bonavista who were recognized on April 21 in St. John's with the Family Volunteer Award.

Greta Randell, her sons, Shawn and Curtis, daughter Bonnie Abbot, granddaughter Kayla, grandson Dion and daughter-in-law Rhonda are the recipients.

The Family Volunteer Award was presented for the first time this year by the Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and it recognized a family that volunteers together, shares volunteer duties or is committed to volunteer work both together and separately.

Collectively, the Randell family has been volunteering for sixty-nine years with many organizations including: the Royal Canadian Legion, the Town of Bonavista, the Volunteer Fire Department, the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, the Golden Heights Manor Senior Citizen's Home and various church groups. Greta Randall has been a volunteer for thirty-two years with the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and currently holds the position of president.

Mrs. Randell's son, Shawn, is Bonavista's youngest town councillor. He has also served as a volunteer firefighter for ten years. His brother, Curtis, has served eight years as a volunteer fireman, and for twelve years has looked after the local gymnasium in the town. Rhonda, Curtis's wife, is a member of several Anglican Church groups, including the choir, while his daughter, Kayla, is also involved in the church and helping seniors at Golden Heights Manor.

Mrs. Randell's daughter, Bonnie Abbott, lives in Grand Falls where she continues the family tradition as a leader in the Air Cadet movement. Her son, Dion, has been an Air Cadet for five years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Randell's have been nominated by the Mayor of Bonavista and the Town of Bonavista, and I am sure that everybody in this Assembly joins with me in saying a sincere thank you to the Randell family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that tomorrow is National Aboriginal Diabetes Day. The Labrador Métis Nation will be joining the Aboriginal groups across Canada to raise awareness on this day.

A number of events are planned, including those directed at school children. These events include completion of colouring and activity sheets culturally relevant to Labrador and healthy living.

There is also a community walk planned which will include groups located throughout Labrador West, Central Labrador, southeastern Labrador, and The Labrador Straits. By participating in these walks the people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their appreciation for their diverse culture and heritage.

This is another example of how the Labrador Métis Nation is working with surrounding nations in an effort to preserve their way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that everyone in this hon. House join me in extending full support to all of those who will be participating in Aboriginal Diabetes Day, and also to congratulate the Labrador Métis Nation on the work that they are doing in our Labrador communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the staff and volunteers of All Hallows Elementary in North River for successfully hosting the Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge. The event was held on Saturday, April 6, at the school.

Allan Caldwell of McDonald Junior High in St. John's, captured top honours. Denzil Patterson of Matthew Elementary School in Bonavista, took second place and Christopher Layte of Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts finished in third place.

The first place winner receives an all expense paid trip to Ottawa to compete in the National Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge being held from May 18 to May 20. Twenty-four of the top students representing Canada's provinces and territories will compete in The National Finals in the National Museum of Nature being moderated by Alex Trebeck of the television quiz show, Jeopardy.

The Challenge began earlier this year with classroom competition where school winners earned the right to qualify for the provincial championship. The contest is designed to generate an interest in geography among school-aged children and to do so in a fun and interactive fashion. Mr. Carl Dyke, assistant vice-president of HSBC Bank Canada and manager of the St. John's branch was on hand to present awards to the students.

The top two finalists of this year's national final will be competing with the Canadian team at the International Olympiad to be held in July of 2003.

The Challenge is organized nationally by the Canadian Council for Geographic Education with the help of hundreds of local teachers and volunteers. National Cooperate sponsors include the presenting sponsor: the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the HSBC Bank Canada, as well as official sponsors: Bell Canada, Esso Kids Program and Canadian Geographic.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we offer congratulations to the school community of All Hollows Elementary in North River for certainly hosting this event, and hosting it successfully. We wish that Allan Caldwell of McDonald Junior High has all the success in Ottawa later on this month.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise hon. members that Ms Lori Cameron, the Executive Director of the Energy Council of America and Ms Kelli Robinson, the Energy Council's meeting co-ordinator, are visiting the Province from Dallas, Texas and are seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: They are accompanied by Ms Beverly Wiseman of the Department of Mines and Energy.

The Energy Council is a legislative organization of ten energy-producing states ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. These member states produce more than 80 per cent of the U.S. oil and gas output and include leading coal, uranium, and renewable energy-producing states. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province of Alberta and the nation of Venezuela are the Energy Council's three international affiliates. United by a common interest in energy resources, the elected legislators of the council participate in the formation of energy policy at all levels.

Mr. Speaker, northeastern natural gas supplies and electric transmission constraints are two major examples of energy infrastructure concerns being raised throughout New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions. The energy concerns of the northeast, one of the biggest consumer markets in the United States, are of interest to anyone involved with domestic energy issues and particularly Newfoundland and Labrador as we are poised to become a major energy supplier to the this region.

Building upon their National Energy Strategy work in the United States and the emerging role of Newfoundland and Labrador as an energy supplier, and recognizing the energy concerns of the northeast, the Energy Council and the Center of Legislative Energy and Environmental Research (CLEER), the research arm of the Energy Council, will hold a collegial dialogue in St. John's this summer. The Council and CLEER will host the Northeastern Energy Forum 2002 on August 24-27, at the Fairmont Hotel.

To successfully plan for the forum, Ms Lori Cameron and Ms Kelli Robinson will be attending meetings with the Department of Mines and Energy and with various other stakeholders today.

Mr. Speaker, this conference will provide this Province with new exposure to potential energy markets. We are hopeful that this will encourage new investment in our energy sector and attract new exploration interest in our offshore areas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that hon. members give Ms Cameron and Ms Robinson a warm Newfoundland and Labrador welcome to our fine Province and wish them two days of successful meetings while they are here with us, preparatory to the conference in August.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly on behalf of the Official Opposition, we, as well, join with the minister in welcoming both Ms Cameron and Ms Robinson from Dallas, Texas, as they engage in what we hope to be very meaningful important preparatory discussions for this important event that is taking place in our capital city later on this summer.

It is important to note, as the minister has indicated, that Newfoundland and Labrador is one of only three other jurisdictions outside of the United States of America who form part of the membership of this very important council.

The fact that this meeting is taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador is most significant, I say to the minister and to all members, because it provides an opportunity for this Province to showcase its very rich natural resources as it continues to find other partners, other markets, whether it be other Canadian provinces, other corporations, or indeed other American States, who want to join with us in the development of these very important natural resources.

I say to the minister that I certainly look forward to the receipt of the invitation that I am sure the minister will extend to his critic so that he, too, may participate in this very important event -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to join with other speakers in welcoming these representatives here from Dallas, but I should warn them that our experience, in this country at least, is that when we hold a conference in St. John's, your attendance records go up much higher than you would expect in any other place. We just experienced that with the Junos, so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is important that this Province be a part of this Energy Council, particularly as we are a new producer of oil and, hopefully very soon, gas resources. I hope it is an opportunity for us to learn what other jurisdictions are doing, to find markets for our products, and to learn from the mistakes of others. We can see the United States -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - with the Enron debacle and the deregulated energy and gas markets in California, what can happen if you adopt the wrong policies.

It is a learning experience for us. We do have a lot to learn. We have a new industry in this Province, and we want to do it right and for the maximum benefit of the people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last month, the Premier, through the Minister of Finance, presented the estimates or the Budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and in it they went to great lengths to explain to people that they were trying to achieve a balance. In that, they said that government's only required borrowing this year would be $93 million. That was last month. Now, this month, on top of this Budget estimate, Mr. Speaker, we see a bill before the House where the Premier and his government have asked this Legislature for a carte blanche cheque of $200 million. Take the $93 million Budget forecast deficit away from that, and they are looking for $107 million more, and we don't know why.

My question for the Premier today is: Why is it that you want the approval of this Legislature to provide you a cheque worth $107 million, without you providing us what the items are you are going to spend it on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the real leader of the Official Opposition is so anxious to debate this particular issue.

There is a bill before the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, dealing with that. It will be fully debated in terms of the borrowings. I want to make this one correction - and if there are more details you can get them from the Acting Minister of Finance today in subsequent questions. The $93 million is not talking about the borrowing for the Province. The $93 million in the Budget declares to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that in this fiscal year, from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, we intend to spend, Mr. Speaker - it has nothing to do with borrowing. There is lots of borrowing that goes on every day to manage cash flows and so on. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowing that goes on by governments all over the country, all over North America every day to manage cash flows.

What we said in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, is that when the year is over, at year end, March 31, next year, we have told the people of the Province that we plan to spend $93 million on their behalf, more than we will take in from all sources. That is a completely different and separate debate, Mr. Speaker, from what our borrowing requirements are on any one day, and we will gladly debate the full contents of the bill that asks for borrowing of $200 million, because we can debate that for hours during the regular debate of the Legislature. I will gladly have the Acting Minister of Finance give more details if that is what he wants to spend Question Period on today. It is a complete difference between borrowing requirements and the Budget that says we are going to spend $93 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, that would be a great answer if it was totally true. That would be an acceptable answer to the people of the Province and to the Opposition if it was entirely correct, but that is not the case.

The bill clearly sets out that the $200 million that this government is looking for and it says it is a carte blanche to cover "actual or estimated deficiencies between provincial revenues and expenditures", and here is the kicker, "or to provide for expenditures made or to be made."

The fact of the matter is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

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

The fact of the matter is that this government is looking for an additional $107 million. I will ask the Premier this question: Is it for expenditures you have not listed in your Budget? It can only be that. Is it for projects that you are working on, that you have yet to announce, that you did not declare in this Budget? What is it for, Premier? Because I can assure him of this: if he does not tell us, we will be debating it for more than hours; we will be debating it for weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, I am not sure if it is going to be a better answer than yesterday; it will be the same answer with some more detail. If it is possible to satisfy, in any way, the inquisitiveness, the curiosity of the members, we, on this side of the House, are happy to oblige with information.

The fact of the matter is that the borrowing bill is a normal bill that comes before this House regularly. The bill that is before the House now, that is requesting authority to borrow $200 million, is for purposes of refinancing some of our debt. It is for purposes of retiring some of our pension obligations. It is for purposes of managing our cash flow better, and it is for purposes of generally ensuring that we have the capacity, as a government, to run the financial affairs of the Province in a fiscally prudent manner, to spend their money when it is best spent, to borrow when it is cheapest to borrow, and to do business in a most prudent manner.

The hon. members should know that in 1999, Mr. Speaker, when we had a balanced budget in this House, we had a borrowing requirement for $250 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The borrowing bill that is before the House has nothing to do directly with the $93 million. That is only a part of the issue, that is only a part of the equation. The hon. member, I am sure, understands this. I am not sure where he is trying to lead -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This government has never had a balanced budget. They have attempted to tell people they have had it, but they have never had it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, either the minister is not in possession of all of the facts or he is refusing to release the facts. Yesterday, he said in the House, the money was for authorization to refinance existing securities coming due during this fiscal year. That is obviously not the case, Mr. Speaker. The resolution before the House states that the $200 million they are looking for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - is in addition to - in addition to - the sum or sums of money required to retire, repay, renew or refund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Will the minister release the truth and the facts today and provide an itemized list to this House of what the government is intending to do with the $107 million extra that they did not put in the Budget? What are they going to do, and what are they going to use it for? Will you provide to the people of the Province an itemized list of why we should give you an additional $107 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member's question: Of course, when we debate this bill in the House, as we will do before we leave for this spring session, we will be glad to provide all of the detailed information, as the Premier has indicated would be appropriate, and it would be the appropriate time to do it.

I, frankly, Mr. Speaker, was expecting the hon. member today to rise in the House and ask me a question, or ask the Premier a question, as to what our comment would be, what our commentary is, on the very good news from RBC Dominion when today they reported, or yesterday they announced, that we, this year, will, for the third or fourth time in the last five years, be leading the country in GDP growth at a rate of 5.4 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member would be interested in aiding and abetting us in spreading some good news and some positivity around the Chamber that we are sitting in, and around the Province, and report on what is actually happening in the economy of the Province, and that is: growth and prosperity and continued expansion of our economy as a result of fiscally good management on behalf of this government, by this government, for the last twelve or thirteen years, and I predict for another twelve or thirteen years, well into the future, when you and I, too, are probably well into retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Question Period is the appropriate place to debate and answer questions, I say to the Minister of Finance. He suggested, Mr. Speaker, that maybe I should ask different questions. If the questions that he would write are anything like the answers that he will give, I will stick with my own faculties, I will say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the $107 million that they are looking for is not for capital construction. They have already provided for that in the Budget under capital expenditures. It makes up the lion's share of the $93 million deficit forecast for the year. So, I will ask the minister again: There must be some reason or some reasons why you want to borrow the extra $107 million. Why is it that you are so adverse to standing up in an accountable, transparent way and telling the Official Opposition, and through us the people of the Province, what it is that you are going to spend $107 million on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to allege any particular type of physical or mental condition to the hon. member, but I am almost to a point of suggesting that he is a bit slow. The fact of the matter is, I have told him two or three times why we were borrowing or asking for provision to be able to borrow $200 million this year. I know he has great respect for the bureaucrats who work within the system, particularly the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance, who are very capable, very competent people. So, for his greater level of comfort and certainty, so he can sleep better tonight, let me read for him the explanatory note that has been provided by the officials who are very, very knowledgeable and very, very accurate in the information that they provide for us. The note says this, Mr. Speaker - and I know they do not want to hear the truth. I know they do not want to hear it, but they are going to hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: They are going to hear it because they need to hear it, and we will repeat it again if we have to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The loan bill authorizes the borrowing of the amount required to cover the budgetary deficit in addition to amounts which are applied to the retirement of or refunding of the Province's debt, including retirement of pension liabilities paid into the Sinking Funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do understand why he neglected to read further because it talks about money that is either going to be used or expenditures are made or to be made, which means yet to be defined or yet to be declared.

Let me ask him this question. During the Budget submission, the government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasure Board went a long way to talk about the balance that they were trying to achieve. So let me ask him this question: Is the $107 million extra that you did not declare in this Budget going to be used for the real balance that you are concerned about, which is where you are in the polls now and where you hope to be a year from now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to have a debate with respect to how the polls have been tracking over the last year, we would be happy to have that debate. We would be happy to enter into that discussion. We would be happy to share that dialogue with him. If he wants a projection as to where we think the polls are going to be in a years time, we would even prognosticate on that because we believe the information that we would share with him would be good for us, but would certainly be disconcerting for him.

The hon. member knows that the bill before the House, seeking authority to borrow $200 million, is for a combination of purposes that have a norm, that happen year-over-year, and are for reasons as outlined by me verbally and as presented by me in the note that has been provided by the officials. If the hon. member has some real questions that he has not asked, I would offer him leave to get up and try again to ask the question that he seems to be having great difficulty bringing some creditability to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I understand that the Premier and the minister met this morning with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the positive report coming out of the meeting, can I assume that the minister got a commitment that all allocations of northern shrimp will be made with adjacency being the first and only guiding principle, putting the people in areas like Canada Bay on the Northern Peninsula ahead of people in areas like Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick in any future access decisions on northern shrimp?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not heard the news since the meeting we had with the minister this morning. I don't know if it was a positive or a negative spin that was put on it, but with regard to the allocation of shrimp off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, it has always been the position of this government that we are adjacent to that resource and it should be solely for the use of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there was no commitment, so I will ask the minister this: Did he get a commitment that in the absence of immediate action by European nations, Canada would extend custodial management to the NAFO regulatory area, so that foreign fishermen fishing outside the 200-mile limit will fish with the same regulatory and enforcement regime as Canadian fishermen fishing inside of this are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the media did a good job in reporting the topics that we discussed with the federal minister this morning. Mr. Speaker, we discussed the IPAC report that he made reference to with regard to shrimp. We also spoke about foreign overfishing and the need to curb that, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. We put forward our position on that, and it was that we should have custodial management of those fisheries, not just for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but those who have a historical right to fish those stocks as well. That has been the position of this government, always has been and always will be, that we should extend jurisdiction and take custodial management of the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the media reported. I do know the minister had a press conference and he tried to put a positive spin on it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker: Given the accolades that the Premier and the minister heaped on Minister Thibault this morning, can I assume, again, that they were successful in convincing the federal minister to allow the seal hunt in this Province to continue this spring until such time as the markets have been satisfied and the processors decide that the hunt should stop?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again I haven't heard any media reports, but I am not aware that I heaped any accolades on the federal minister this morning, except that I complimented him for taking the stand that he did with regard to the Faroese and the Estonians. When they are talking about what commitments we got from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, I guess when the federal leader of the Progressive Conservative Party comes here this week, or next week, whenever he is scheduled to come, that he will certainly give a commitment to send the gunboats out. When he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, back in 1992, he certainly would not do that, but I guess talk is cheap now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, now that the Hay consultants report - and the minister has been refuted and the minister has disassociated himself with some comments in the report with respect to the emergency department physicians, and now that the Janeway emergency physicians are asking the HayGroup to retract those offending sentences, will the minister disassociate the government from those comments that he commissioned, that he paid for, or will he now join with the emergency department physicians and ask for a retraction and apology from the HayGroup? Will he join with them and ask that request?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, some days ago in the Legislature, posed, from my perspective, relatively the very same question. My response has not changed since last week. It did not change this week in terms of my response to questions in this House. The position has been, of this government, that we do not agree with the comments that were contained in the Hay Report as they relate to the emergency operations of the Janeway Hospital.

In response to that question here, I indicated that. We have indicated in this House, because of the concerns expressed by the physicians themselves, if it was an apology from this minister they wanted, I gladly gave it.

To what the hon. member is suggesting now, I have also stated publicly, and I have stated it repeatedly: the authors of the report have indicated that they stand by what is in the report. I listened to the comments on Open Line this morning - I saw the transcript. I did not hear it because I was out attending to other business on behalf of the people of this Province. In referencing the comments that were made with regard to the dealing of the report, I gather from the comments that were contained there by your leader, that if he were to become Premier of this Province, any report that would be produced for his government would certainly go through an editing process first before it would be released to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: That is exactly what was said. Mr. Speaker, if that is what the hon. member is advocating, this minister does not subscribe to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health and Community Services has disassociated this government with the statements in that report about the emergency department physicians, I ask the minister: Are there any other comments about any other group of people at the Health Care Corporation, comments that are equally damaging, equally misleading, that the minister now would like to stand and disassociate himself with any other comments in the report? Are there other comments in that report that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - you now want to disassociate yourself with? Stand publicly and do it, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the line of questioning from our long and dear and abiding and life-long friend from Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of our Province, are very pleased that a potentially very disruptive and very problematic circumstance this morning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that my other life-long friend, the real Leader of the Opposition, might let me speak and give the answer, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased today that a situation that would have been potentially very disruptive and very difficult at the Janeway Children's Hospital was averted and avoided. Unfortunately, what we have is this: what we have is the Leader of the Opposition, who still wants to play politics on it, on the radio this morning, on the public airwaves, with issues that the doctors say they do not want said because it is damaging their reputation, going on the airwaves to say: Let me repeat, Bill, for those who have not heard it, here are the damaging remarks in the Hay Report. So, just in case somebody did not hear it, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition wanted to bring it up again, when the doctors are saying: Please apologize, please make those statements go away -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the person trying to keep them in the media, in the press, Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition and now our hon. friend from Trinity North.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: we have done what we have done this time and we are true to our word. We commissioned a report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We asked people to give their view. We gave it to everybody in the Province so we could all work through the issues together. We did not make the comment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Premier that we, too, were delighted that walkout was averted this morning. In fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, my question was very much to that point. My question to the minister was: Does he want to stand in the House today, does he want to take this opportunity and stand in the House and refute any other damaging statements that are in there before that blows up in their face?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Is there any other group out there that has been insulted and damaged by that report? If so, take the opportunity and stand here now and retract that as well!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Heath and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to listen to the hon. member couch his questions here and talk about and be all so concerned about what has happened to a particular group of physicians, well-respected individuals in this Province, because of an independent report that was produced.

It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker. The day that I arrived on the job as the newly sworn in Minister of Health, I was made aware of the concern with regard to the Janeway. The first time I heard it. The deputy that day did a briefing with the media in response to a media request, gave the relevant information, explained the situation. It was covered in the media. I never saw another thing. When the hon. member raised the question in the House, in fact, the media that day chose not to follow up on the issue. If the hon. member will listen? I listened to the hon. member. I ask him to accord me the same courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in response to his questions in this House, there was no follow-up from the media, no coverage at all on it. The next reference to it was, in fact, by a physician himself, who had been out of the Province at the time. I read the article on the weekend, drawing attention to it. Again, it is back in the media. So, do not accuse this minister-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - or this government of being out there and fueling this. You, Sir, are doing it by standing in the House and raising it today, and I ask you to stop!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. This morning, Mr. Speaker, myself and my colleague from Labrador West - in fact, our entire caucus - was at the airport -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - with MP, Lorne Nystrom, representatives from the airline industry, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, and the alliance of travel agencies, joining to support a national campaign to have the federal government repeal the $24 round-trip air traveller security tax.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair tax. It is the highest in the world, three times what the Americans are charging. It is discriminatory to airline travellers, and it is particularly harmful to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where people have to travel by air and 65 per cent of our tourists get here by air.

Will the Premier take a strong position on this issue, more than what was done in late March, merely sending a letter from a couple of ministers to Minister Collenette and Paul Martin? Will the Premier and this government take a stronger position on this issue, support this campaign to repeal the tax, and play an active role in trying to eliminate this unfair burden on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I want to inform the hon. member that we have a committee of Cabinet looking into air-access in this Province, in addition to other items, but specifically looking into air-access. We have been on top of this problem since September 11, realizing what has happened to the aviation industry in Newfoundland since that particular time with the integration of Air Canada and Canadian National. This committee is working feverishly, fervently and diligently with as much interest and with as much compassion for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the government is on top of this issue and we will do whatever is in our power to ensure that that excessive air security rate is either eliminated or substantially reduced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what problem the minister is on top of. Certainly, all we have seen so far is hot air, which we know rises to the top.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: All we got so far is a press release on (inaudible). What in concrete terms has this minister, has this government done to try and force the Government of Canada to repeal this tax?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this committee has been very active since its formation and we have been meeting with all of the major airlines. We have been meeting with other officials who have influence in the airline business, and we are going to be meeting with federal government officials who have influence. So we are going to be lobbying, Mr. Speaker, and have lobbied to this point in time with all of the major airlines, and when we get our facts together - unlike hon. members opposite, we want to have our facts together, we want to have our research in place before we go out and start prattling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to present a petition on behalf of the people in Rocky Harbour, Norris Point, and Sally's Cove. I will read the prayer:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS redevelopment is proposed for the existing Rocky Harbour Elementary School; and

WHEREAS parents and residents are concerned that issues such as cafeteria size and safety, adequate site plan development, separation of elementary and high school students, adequate storage space, and outstanding repairs have not been addressed;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to resolve these issues before commencing this project, as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, parents in Rocky Harbour, Norris Point and Sally's Cove are very frustrated with what has been happening. They have seen Rocky Harbour Elementary School proposed to be turned into a K-12. The parents there have acted with the school board in a right and proper manner in the official capacity, but they have become so frustrated that both Chairs have resigned from the school councils because they felt they had no other choice than to do so.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, they pulled their children out of school on Friday, April 26, and felt they had to do such action. It was an extreme action, they realize that, but they felt they had to do this action in order to draw the attention to the very serious situation here. A school does not get built in a community every other day and they feel that it is extremely important to get it right. They just do not want to go out there and have this school just for the sake of getting it done. They want to see the importance of what this school is to their children, and those parents have been involved for a long time. It has been five years or more that we have been talking about getting a new school there. We did not know the school had to be closed in Norris Point, but when the time comes that there is going to be money allocated for this school, all of a sudden it will be very much of a rush issue. Those parents felt they were not treated properly and they were not given an adequate opportunity to come in. They felt that their concerns were not being listened to.

After pulling their kids out of school, and that extreme action, they decided to have a meeting on Saturday and see where they would go from here. They felt that one of the things which had not happened up to this point was to have all involved parties at the table at the one time. They felt that if there was a solution offered that it should be able to be scrutinized by everybody around the table and say: yes, it is workable or no it is not. They proposed that but yet the Department of Education has declined to come to such a meeting in Rocky Harbour and they feel it is very unfortunate that this would happen.

So, out of this frustration the parents are left there now without knowing where to go and what to do because they know unless they get an opportunity to sit down and work their way through this issue that it will not be resolved, that we will go through the runaround again. That is what they have had up to this point. They feel there has been nothing but a runaround. I really believe that the parents here deserve to have their concerns addressed before this school gets built in Rocky Harbour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador; hundreds of names, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of names which I will submit. The petition has a prayer and I certainly hope that the people of Labrador has a prayer in getting the road completed.

The petition is to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act requires that money in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal Government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million would be taken out of the Labrador Transportation Fund and added to the general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the Act;

We the undersigned petitioners believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the Labrador Transportation Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday on this petition, I talked about how neglected the people in Labrador feel when it comes to transportation. We have heard, today, a question from my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, about the airline tax that is imposed on people and the cost of transportation, particularly to people who live in places like Labrador, whose access is mainly by air. Road transportation, Mr. Speaker, is very important to all people in the Province, but particularly to those who live in our northern regions. The people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, believe that government removing this $97 million really jeopardizes the feasibility and the ability of this government to complete Phase III as they intend to do.

Now, I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the ministers's statement yesterday, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he said that this government is committed to completing Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are still committed, he said, we are willing to put it on paper. Mr. Speaker, the $97 million in the Labrador Transportation Fund was on paper. So, that does not mean anything to the people of this Province or to the people in Labrador, in particular, on this issue, because the minister is already prepared, and this government is prepared, to tear up and destroy the piece of paper that is there today, the legislation that is in this Province that is supposed to have protected the money in this fund. So, a new piece of paper, Mr. Speaker, will be just as easy for this government to destroy as the previous one.

So, we don't take any comfort -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - from that, Mr. Speaker, at all, don't take any comfort whatsoever, and the people of Labrador are very upset with government's decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Labrador are very upset with government's decision, and this petition is calling on this House of Assembly to direct government to not take money out of this fund, but to spend that money for the purpose for which it was intended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some thirty-two residents of the District of Humber East. I presented this petition to the Table, and the Table has indicated to me that everything is in the appropriate form and all the appropriate words that are necessary are contained in the petition.

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

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation has anticipated the demand for a long-term health care facility in the region and that it did commission a study and that that study was concluded and that it did recommend that a new facility for long-term health care be constructed; and

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

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

WHEREFORE the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland, served by the Western Health Care Corporation, request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately begin implementation of the plan to build the required facilities as identified in the study.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is signed by some thirty-two residents, primarily from the City of Corner Brook, the Town of Pasadena, Irish Town, and a few other communities down the bay. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the participants are generally from the region and they recognize that there is a need in Western Newfoundland for a long-term chronic health care facility.

Mr. Speaker, having been a resident of that area for the last twenty years, it is very clear to me that the existing facilities, at the J. I. O'Connell Centre, which was the original hospital in Corner Brook and which was subsequently converted to a senior citizens' facility or a Level III and IV, is woefully inadequate. As well, Mr. Speaker, the Inter Faith Citizens Home which was originally built for Level I and Level II residents has outlived its usefulness and there are now, within that facility, a large number of individuals and residents who are requiring extended and chronic care.

As well, at the Western Memorial Hospital itself, in the last several years the fifth and the sixth floors have been converted from an acute care facility to chronic care. We have on the fifth floor, a situation where we have a number of resident who are in protective care because many of these patients are suffering from a dementia of one form or another, and on the sixth floor we also have residents who are requiring long-term health care.

The study that has been done, Mr. Speaker, very clearly points out to a need to bring these facilities under one central roof; one central long-term facility that will serve the needs of the Corner Brook Western Newfoundland area. It is very important that we should point out that this is not simply a request for a facility in Corner Brook alone. It is a facility to serve all of Western Newfoundland to provide our seniors with a quality health care facility where they can receive the type of care which they have so richly earned over these last many years.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to join with these thirty-two individuals and I do anticipate, over the next several -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: I expect over the next several days and weeks that we will receive many such petitions before this hon. House of Assembly requesting the same type of a facility from people in all parts of Western Newfoundland and, Mr. Speaker, it would be my great honour and my great privilege, and those of the other members of my caucus who represent Western Newfoundland, to rise in our places and to make this request of government to accede to the construction of this long-term health care facility for Western Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to discuss and debate An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province. (Bill 4)

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 4, An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns with the bill. We did go to Resource Committee on the bill and there was progress made at the Resource Committee. A number of the amendments that we put forward were accepted. A number of the amendments that we put forward were withdrawn. There was significant progress made at the Resource Committee, I will say. Having said that, we still have some concerns with the bill. We will elaborate a little bit on some of those concerns now.

Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns under section 13(1), "The minister may establish in the department a Registry of Water Rights and where that registry is established (a) the minister may, in writing, designate an employee of the department to be the Registrar of Water Rights and the Registrar shall maintain the Registry of Water Rights as required by the minister."

Mr. Chairman, we feel that the minister should be required to establish a Registry of Water Rights and appoint a Registrar of Water Rights. At the very minimum, Mr. Chairman, I think there should be a Registrar or Registry of Water Rights in the Province. By doing so, the general public, members of the House, corporations, businesses that have an interest in using or utilizing water, may have access to the Registry of Water Rights to determine what rights they may have in a particular body of water or what they may apply for or if that particular body of water already have water rights designated. If that Registry were available, Mr. Chairman, I feel that there would be much greater disclosure to the general public.

I do not know if the minister wishes to stand and elaborate on this point a little bit. I will give the minister the opportunity on 13(1) to give some explanation as to where he or the department is on this particular section.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to take a second here to respond to the Opposition critic for this portfolio. I want to thank the former Minister of Environment for his good work in bringing forward this legislation. I want to thank him for the effort that he put into the public consultations and also the effort that the committee did in reviewing the different amendments put forward by the Opposition. We welcome that homework that was done. We have agreed to a number of the amendments.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, from my review of it with our officials, this is one that we did not agree to. It basically says in the act itself that: "The minister may establish in the department a Registry of Water Rights and where that registry is established (a) the minister may...." What the member opposite is trying to get established is that the minister be required to do so.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the way the legislation is written is strong enough to deal with this issue, that this will occur, and that this is the way it has been written in other pieces of legislation and throughout the legislation here, this piece of legislation, that this wordage is used. We have every intention of ensuring the registry is in place, and we believe at this point that language should suffice.

My understanding is that the committee put forward recommendations and, at the end of the day, we have agreed on certain recommendations, amendments that we will allow to go through today and put forward. This one here, we believe the wording is sufficient and we will leave it there.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the minister just stated that the government has every intention of putting in place a Registry of Water Rights. I see absolutely no reason why we should not delete the words, "the minister may", and substitute with, "the minister shall".

If we are going to have a Registry of Water Rights, I feel that there is legitimacy in guaranteeing that there is a Registry of Water Rights. There is legitimacy in ensuring that we have a Registry of Water Rights. The minister just stated that they are going to put in place a Registry of Water Rights and that government has every intention of doing so. By leaving it as it is, there is no guarantee that is going to happen. If we change the words, "the minister may", to, "the minister shall", then we are guaranteed a Registry of Water Rights; the people of the Province are guaranteed a Registry of Water Rights. Every indication that I see from the department, from the minister, is that the registry will be put in place. Having said that, I see no harm in changing the words to, "the minister shall".

I give the minister another opportunity to respond to that and hopefully see our point of view, because I feel there is no harm in doing that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, the member is making a very proactive argument. The previous discussions on this matter, the officials in my department have indicated that this language should suffice. What I will do is, I will check with the officials in the next few minutes. I will undertake to do that, just to see what their further advice is on the matter so that we can move to further items. I understand what the Opposition critic is trying to accomplish.

Also, what the present bill does, with the registry, it allows for the setting up of a Registry of Water Rights and it also indicates in section (b) that, "...an application made for them under this Act shall be registered in the Registry of Water Rights...". So it really sets up the process.

I will check with our officials but, I mean, the process previous to this has been discussed further, previously to the House, and I will undertake to check. I will come back in a few minutes once I get further advice on the matter. I am still open-minded because we have allowed a number of changes, but I will undertake in the next few minutes to get a further response for you on this.

CHAIR: Before we proceed, the Chair would like some clarification. The clause 1 was called. I note that we are now debating clause 13. What is the wish of the House on how we wish to proceed on this particular bill?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with clause 1. What I was intending to do was to just point out some of the areas where we had some concerns and then maybe we could go back and pass it clause-by-clause at that point. If that is okay, otherwise we can go back as you please, Mr. Chairman. We can pass clause 1.

CHAIR: The Chair is simply looking for clarification as to how the House wishes to proceed. Do they wish to proceed clause-by-clause or to jump over the bill as they wish and then come back at the end of the day and approve all the clauses from 1 through?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, we would (inaudible) any procedure that facilitates the process. Whatever hon. gentlemen want we will go along with it, as long as it facilitates and helps the process.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Understood.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I thank the Government House Leader for that and Mr. Chairman. We are not going to unduly tie up this bill. We have had three or four months of debate on the bill. We have gone to Resource Committee on it and so on. So, I think that this would probably expedite the discussions today and debate, and hopefully, with a little more cooperation between us and the minister, maybe we will get a couple of more amendments passed and that would make everybody happy, and we will see the bill passed today.

Mr. Chairman, the next area of concern I would like to raise is section 14 (4), "The minister may post public notices of the application for a licence, plans referred to in subsection (3) and those other things that the minister considers necessary or that are required by regulation." We feel here that disclosure of information about licence requests should be mandatory. What we are asking for here is to delete the words, "the minister may" and again, substitute with the words, "the minister shall".

I will give the minister an opportunity here to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Again, this part of the act indicates, "The minister may post public notices of the application for a licence, plans referred to in subsection (3) and those other things that the minister considers necessary or that are required by regulation."

Given the fact that this is new legislation, and that we are also trying to make this as transparent as possible, I believe we will give that matter some consideration in the next few minutes. I will just recheck with the officials, but I think we are open to that further change. That does nothing but strengthen it a little more. I will reserve the right to check with my officials to make sure that we are comfortable. So on that one, I think, we are able to move.

Again, I want to thank the minister who is here in the House now, the former Minister of Environment, for a good job done on this act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I know the critic for the Opposition agrees with me when I say that. I think that he has done a great service for the Province by leading the public consultations, with his officials around. I looked at the results of those discussions, and the documents, and again, a very positive process. I want to thank the former Minister of Environment for the very good work he did on this effort, and also the Opposition for their input into this.

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

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

I accept the minister's explanation, and hopefully they will get back to us with word that they are going to accept our amendment here.

Mr. Chairman, the next theory that I would like to address is section 16.(1). I will read that. It says, "Notwithstanding section 15, the minister may, in accordance with the regulations, reserve unappropriated water from a body of water in order to determine how the water may best be used and may authorize the allocation of the whole or a part of that water among applicants for a licence as he or she thinks is in the best public interest."

Mr. Chairman, the minister should not have sole discretionary power to determine what is in the best public interest. What we are suggesting here is to delete the words "as he or she thinks is in the public interest" and substituting therefore the words "according to the public interest".

We feel again that this is one of the areas of the bill that gives discretionary power to the minister. That discretionary power may not always be used in the public interest, and therefore we are asking that this amendment also be considered. I will ask the minister if he would like to expand on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, again, this matter was discussed in committee and there was agreement on a number of amendments. This one we had hesitation on. When you look at it, it is related to unappropriated water. Under 16.(1), "the minister may, in accordance with the regulations, reserve unappropriated water from a body of water in order to determine how the water may best be used and may authorize the allocation of the whole or a part of that water among applicants for a licence as he or she thinks is in the public interest."

Basically what is being suggested by the Opposition critic is rephrasing that and putting in "according to the public interest". Again, the minister will end up making that decision, according to the public interest.

I do not see a major problem with that change of wording, but again I am just going to ask the officials who are outside to give us a final assessment of that. I believe that one is one that does not change the context of the amendment of this part of the act. We will look at that and accordingly respond in a few minutes.

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

Again, I appreciate the minister's explanation and I feel that this amendment will only strengthen the act and protect the general public. I appreciate the minister's explanation and we await word from his officials as to whether or not this is another area that they can look at acceptance.

The next area, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to speak on is section 21.(2). Under section 21.(2) it says, "The minister may, on receiving a complaint that a licence holder is receiving water from a supply to which another licence holder has a priority of right under this Act, direct an inspector to investigate the matter and submit a report to the minister on that investigation as soon as is practicable."

We feel that the minister should be required to investigate allegations that a licence holder is receiving water from a supply to which another licence holder has a priority right. What we are suggesting here is that, by deleting the words "the minister may" and substituting therefore the words "the minister shall", what this does, Mr. Chairman, basically, again it strengthens the bill. It strengthens the legislation and gives greater power to the legislation as opposed to the minister. What this does is ensure that an investigation will be carried out. If there are allegations made then we know that there will be an investigation, as opposed to that investigation being subject to the discretion of the minister or the officials in that department.

Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for here, essentially, is to strengthen the bill to delete the words "the minister may" and substitute with the words "the minister shall", strengthening the legislation and giving better security, better protection to the environment.

I ask the minister to give explanation on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Again, this amendment was discussed earlier by the committee, at earlier proceedings, and was discussed at length. It had been decided up to that point that there was not an overpowering reason to change that wording.

When you look at, again, the context of the subsection, Priority of Right, "the minister may, on receiving a complaint that a licence holder is receiving water from a supply to which another licence holder has a priority of right under this Act, direct an inspector to investigate the matter and submit a report to the minister on that investigation as soon as is practicable."

My understanding from the officials is that the reason "may" is there is that it allows some judgements to be made depending on the complaint. The complaint could be a frivolous complaint, so therefore it has allowance with that wording. That is the advice provided. Actually, most of the legislation is written this way to allow for some flexibility.

Again, seeing that it is dealing with a complaint that would come from a licence holder related to water, that is a serious issue and is one that should be dealt with appropriately and seriously, I will have them review that again to see just the context under which it is there. I do not have an overriding argument against not doing it. The advice from our officials, the writers of the legislation, is that the "may" phraseology works better when it comes to the regulations; but, I will come back before the next hour is out. I will add that to the list of what we are looking at. Again, we have agreed to some amendments previous to this and these were discussed earlier.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that - I have read the legislation in other jurisdictions and they, too, use the words "the minister may" in many cases as opposed to "the minister shall". We are hoping that the department will have another look at this. It strengthens the legislation and it ensures that, if there is an allegation made, that allegation will be followed through. The only way we can find out if it is a frivolous allegation is to investigate, and once that allegation is investigated, if it is guaranteed that it will be investigated, we can take comfort in the fact that it will be investigated. Once that allegation is investigated to determine that a licence holder is not receiving water from the supply in which another licencee has the rights to, then that would satisfy the allegations.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will move on to the next amendment that we have proposed and that is to 21.(3). The wording of the legislation is, "If, following an investigation and report under subsection (2), it is established that a licence holder is receiving water to which the licence holder is not entitled the minister shall take the action that he or she considers necessary to ensure reallocation of the water under the terms of the licence".

We believe here that the minister should be required to effectively restore the integrity of the licence, not simply to make a good effort. What it is saying here is that the minister will make a good effort. So, we are asking here that this subsection, this amendment that we are proposing to the subsection, be accepted.

I will give the minister a chance to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Is the member referencing again 21.(2)? Is that what he is referencing?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Section 21.(3).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Section (3), sorry. Okay. Does he have a copy of that amendment that he is proposing? If he could send it over. Go ahead.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: John, can you give the minister a copy of your amendment?

Mr. Chairman, while that is being delivered, I will just explain the amendment we are proposing for the minister. We are asking that in 21.(3), that the words, "take the action that he or she considers necessary" be deleted. We feel that those words diminish the ability of this subsection. What we believe is that the minister should be required to effectively restore the integrity of a licence, not just to make a good effort. If those words remain there, then basically the minister has the discretion to do what they consider necessary or what they believe to be necessary as opposed to being required to restore the integrity of a licence. So, I will ask the minister to respond to that. Did the minister get a copy of that? Section 21.(3).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Looking again at the context of the clause that is here on the Priority of Rights and water rights, (3), "If, following an investigation and report under subsection (2), it is established that a licence holder is receiving water to which the licence holder is not entitled the minister shall take the action that he or she considers necessary to ensure reallocation of the water under the terms of the licence." Taking out "that he or she considers necessary" does not substantially change that clause. Again, that was discussed earlier also within the committee and had not been formally agreed to. I will, again, just ask the officials for one final comment on it.

The context of that clause pretty well stays the same if you leave it in. It just gives a view of what the minister would consider necessary, and that would have to determined in any case. I think that one is somewhat questionable in looking at making any further change to it, but again I will ask the officials to give us final advice on that.

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

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

Again, I will restate our position that by deleting the words, "take the action that he or she considers necessary", if those words were deleted, essentially the clause would read: If following an investigation and report under subsection (2), it is established that a licence holder is receiving water to which the licence holder is not entitled the minister shall take the action necessary to ensure reallocation of the water under the terms of the licence.

That would give much greater strength to the legislation and would ensure that the integrity was reallocated or restored. So, I ask the minister to take that into consideration again. I ask his officials to take that into consideration, because what we are asking for is that it not be left discretionary, that it be required upon the minister to effectively restore the integrity of a licence.

The next section I would like to draw the minister's attention to is section 22.(3). That reads, "In the case of a dispute as to the quantity of water used or diverted, or the capacity of works, the minister may order an inspection of the works and that inspection may include flow measurements."

What we are recommending here is that the word "may" be deleted wherever it occurs in the subsection and substituted with "shall". Therefore, the subsection would read: In the case of a dispute as to the quantity of water used or diverted, or the capacity of works, the minister shall order an inspection of the works and that inspection shall include flow measurements.

Again, it just strengthens the legislation and takes away a little bit of that discretionary power that the minister has. I ask the minister to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the critic, I am starting to wonder what we are talking about when we are talking about trying to get this legislation approved in the House of Assembly. We are going through all the amendments that were already discussed at the committee, and he is going through almost every one of them again.

You have a report here that tells me that there was an agreement, basically, to deal with a number of amendments that we had agreed upon. Now we are going back over, I think it was five in a row now that had been already agreed to at the committee stage.

I am just wondering, when I look at the fact that we are here at the House after so many months of deliberation, that this legislation went to a committee, that these amendments were thoroughly discussed, and we had agreed to four or five which he has not raised yet. As a matter of fact, not one has been raised as to what we had agreed upon. I am just wondering if the member can let me know how many more he had coming, or are we going to go through the whole suggested thirty-odd or forty-odd that he had.

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

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

My understanding of this process in the House is that it is Committee stage and what was not agreed to by a Select Committee of the House, which was basically six or seven members, could be debated and talked about in the House with all forty-eight, so that any member in the House who was not presented at that Select Committee stage could have the ability to hear some of the amendments that were put forward, to debate some of the amendments that were put forward, perhaps, and maybe a couple of the other amendments that we have here, that were not accepted, could be accepted through this Committee stage of the House of Assembly.

My understanding is, that is what Committee stage of the House was established to do. So my intention, I guess, is to carry on with some of the amendments just to raise them in the House, to bring light to all forty-eight members of the House.

We are not going to unduly tie up this legislation. It is our hope that this legislation will pass today. It is our intention that it will, but I would like to read into the record of Hansard, so that the general public can have access to some of the proposed amendments that we are making. Maybe some of those can be accepted by government and maybe some of those can be accepted today, some of those that were overlooked in the Select Committee. At least the general public, through televison and through Hansard on-line, can have access to exactly what this debate is all about.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, I indicated in the beginning that we would do anything to facilitate the process, and we will. The purpose of committees is to expedite the passage of bills in the House. If you are going to set up committees and go through it all again, it doesn't do very much for the committee. That is the process of the committee. But, if the hon. member wants to read it into the record, we will not object.

What has been agreed to by the minister has been agreed to, and he understands that. The government have agreed to what they are going to change, but if the hon. member thinks that the public should know the recommendations that he is making, we will sit back and just let him make all the recommendations, as he is doing, if that is what he wants to do, and allow him to do it expeditiously. The minister has agreed to what the changes will be, but if that is what he wants to do, that is fine.

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

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

The next amendment, Mr. Chairman, was to section 29, and part of that was accepted in the Select Committee and part of it was not. I think that in the Select Committee we have agreed to the way this one was handled, and we now give power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet, as opposed to the minister, under section 29.(1). We are happy with the way that was handled in the Select Committee.

The next one for discussion is section 30, subsection (1), Mr. Chairman. That reads, "The Minister may, in cooperation with other departments of the government of the province, undertake (a) an inventory and mapping of wetlands, flood plains, shorelines, coastal waters and other aquatic systems; (b) the classification of aquatic systems depending on their sensitivity and productivity; and (c) research on hydrology and the management of aquatic systems and the assessment of the impact of development activities."

Our argument here, basically, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister should be required to compile data on flood plains, shorelines and wetlands. So, what we are asking for is that the word "may" be deleted and substituted, therefore, with the word "shall". It would read: The minister shall, in cooperation with other departments of government of the province, undertake the following items.

I wonder if the minister would like an opportunity to respond to this, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, what I am going to do, I think, is I am going to respond towards the end. I will listen to the hon. Opposition critic as he outlines any other proposed changes that he has.

I just want to let the House know that, my understanding from the committee was that it was agreed to let the spelling of the words be dictated by whatever convention was used in the provincial legislation, and that is basically what we have here. So, most of the proposed changes that he is talking about, the committee agreed that whatever the normal language is in the legislation that is normally put forward would be agreed upon.

So, if he want to, for the record, read it in again, I have no problem. I will take notes as we go through and then will respond at the end.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the minister: What we agreed to in the Select Committee was the spelling, whether it be British parliamentary spelling or American spelling. We agreed to just let the spelling go as it was. However, we were somewhat astonished, I guess, that the same word was spelled two different ways in different parts of the legislation, which kind of led us to believe that it was a cut and paste job, that they took sections of legislation from other provinces, put them here and sections from other provinces and put them there, because the same word was spelled two different ways. But, that is not what we are talking about here. We have agreed, I say to the minister, to let that go and whichever way the word was spelled let it be spelled. That is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is the actual language, not the spelling. We are looking at deleting the word "may" and substituting with the word "shall", which has nothing to do with the spelling of the word.

Mr. Chairman, the next section here that I would like to raise is section 30(2), "The minister may control and determine the use of, or modifications which shall apply to, wetlands, including the drainage, infilling and permanent flooding of wetlands and the addition of wastewater or stormwater discharges to or the physical, chemical or biological modification of wetlands where, in the minister's opinion, there may be an impact upon the hydrology of that wetland or its recreational, aesthetic or other natural functions and uses."

What we are asking for here is that an environmental impact is something that is either objectively determinable or subject to debate and should not be determined merely according to the minister's opinion. What we have asked for is to delete the words and commas "in the minister's opinion". That is in section 30(2).

I will give the minister a chance to respond to this.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is there any further debate on Bill 4?

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, we just went through, I do not know how many weeks of debate on this whole bill and now - this is called cooperation, Mr. Chairman - we are going to go through all the amendments again one by one. I just indicated, I am sitting here, I am going to listen to proposals. I am making notes. I have officials on standby. I am going to consult with them towards the end, once I know he is getting close towards the end.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is fine, so we can understand the process. That is fine.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Am I to assume - the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, you cannot assume me, I say to the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we are looking at, probably, another hour or so on this bill. Basically, what we are looking for is just some cooperation back and forth between us and the minister; get the minister's opinion on some of the amendments that we are putting forward.

Anyhow, the next section that we are looking at here, Mr. Chairman, is section 32, "The minister may enter into agreements with the government of another province or territory of Canada and of Canada to investigate, develop and regulate water resource management and the minister may carry out those acts, transactions and things that are necessary to implement an agreement entered into under this section."

This amendment ensures that all intergovernmental agreements on the management of a resource within the provincial jurisdiction are subject to the approval of Cabinet. What we are looking to do here is basically delete the words, "the minister may enter into agreements", and substitute those words with,"the minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, enter into agreements". Essentially, what we are trying to do here is ensure that if there is going to be an agreement between this Province and another province of Canada, or another jurisdiction of Canada, that it is not an agreement that is entered into only by the minister. That the minister seeks guidance and agreement from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet, prior to entering into an agreement with another province or jurisdiction of Canada.

I wonder if the minister would wish to respond to this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a very good suggestion. Again, we have considered it in the committee. This is recommended by the officials as being the most effective way to carry out this responsibility for the minister. We do appreciate those suggestions by the Opposition critic.

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

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

The next amendment, Mr. Chairman, relates to flood risk areas, section 33. What we are looking at amending here, Mr. Chairman, "The minister may designate flood risk areas and, where applicable, floodways by delineating them on the flood risk maps in natural flood prone areas of the province."

Again here, Mr. Chairman, the minister should be required to designate flood risk areas to regulate development in such areas to establish a flood forecast centre to help flood prone communities and to establish construction guidelines for such areas. What we are asking for here, Mr. Chairman, is to delete the words, "the minister may", wherever they occur, by substituting therefore the words, "the minister shall".

I am not going to ask the minister to respond to this because we have essentially covered this under previous subsections and amendments, and it is essentially the same thing. It is just a matter of wording in this particular clause but basically, what we are asking for is that the minister be required to designate flood risk areas as opposed to leaving it at the discretion of the minister.

The next subsection, Mr. Chairman, is section 36(2), "Where a person undertakes or proceeds with the construction, extension or a change of the sewage works referred to in subsection (1) without first obtaining the permit referred to in that subsection, the minister may order an investigation of the works and the location of the discharge of effluent and may order changes to be made in the works or in the location of the discharge of effluent that the minister considers necessary and the investigation and changes shall be made at the expense of the person or municipal authority."

What we are looking for here, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister should be required to investigate instances where sewage works are constructive or modified without the permit required to do so under the section. Again, we are looking at having the words, "the minister may order an investigation" deleted, and replace it with the words, "the minister shall order an investigation". So, again, it is a matter of language in this particular section. We want to ensure that the minister is required to investigate instances as opposed to leaving it at the minister's discretion.

I will not ask the minister to respond here because it is, again, a matter of language. Actually, I think I will. I mean it is important, so I think I will ask the minister to respond to this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Again, this clause deals with the approval of sewage works and, again, the change being requested or asked for by the Opposition member talks about changing it from "may", to, "shall". Again, the advice from our officials and the Justice Department is that the word "may" allow for the flexibility to deal with issues as they come up and that this wording is the wording that has been used throughout the legislation and is used across Canada in other provincial jurisdictions. It allows for the minister to have the authority to act and, given the circumstances, ensuring that there is a reason to act, then that is why that legislation is written in this way.

But, again, we appreciate the suggestion by the hon. member.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: The next amendment that we recommended, Mr. Chairman, was agreed upon, in part, in committee. We had asked that the words, "in the opinion of the minister" be deleted, and also delete the word "may", and substitute it with the word "shall". Part of this was accepted. The word "may" is going to be replaced with the word "shall". The committee accepted this with that amendment. It was an amendment that was accepted in part, and I think that was agreed upon by both sides in the Select Committee.

The next section, Mr. Chairman, is section 37(2), "Where a person undertakes or proceeds with the establishment of waterworks or the extension of or change in an existing waterworks, without first obtaining the permit referred to in subsection (1), the minister may direct that an investigation of the waterworks and the source of water supply be carried out and may direct those changes to be made in the waterworks or in the source of water supply, that the minister considers necessary, and the investigation and changes shall be made at the expense of the person."

Very similar to the amendment that was just put forward. Again, the minister should be required to investigate instances where waterworks are constructed or modified without a permit. We were asking that the words "the minister may direct" be deleted and "the minister shall direct" be inserted. I think that was just covered by the minister so his response, I would anticipate, would be the same on this as previous.

The next, Mr. Chairman, is section 37.(4) which says, "Where, in the opinion of the minister, it is in the public interest to do so, the minister may refuse to grant a permit under this section or may grant a permit on those terms and conditions that the minister considers necessary."

Again, the public interest is something that is either objectively determined or subject to debate and should not be determined merely according to the minister's opinion. A permit should not be provided except when it is in the public interest. What we have asked for here is to delete the words and commas "in the opinion of the minister" and, by deleting the word "may" wherever they occur and substituting it therefore with "shall".

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, in committee, in 36.(4), a very similar amendment, and in 36.(4) we accepted the changing of the word "may" to "shall"; however, we were not prepared to accept the words "in the opinion of the minister".

I ask here for the minister to respond. Basically, they are the same amendment. It is the same language used in section 36.(4) as in section 37.(4), and I am asking that at least we look at the word "may" and change the word "may" to "shall". That was probably an oversight by the Select Committee, because it is basically the same language in both sections, the same amendment in both instances. We are hoping that maybe, with a little bit of co-operation, that at least the word "may" here can be changed to "shall".

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, the reasoned suggestion of the Opposition critic there, given that he was present at the hearings at the committee discussions, I think we can agree there that that one is pretty well similar to the previous amendment we just discussed earlier, that we have agreed to with clause 36.(4) and that we can agree to that one there for 37.(4). We can agree with the substitution "may" to "shall". So, I think we can - I will do one more final check on it, but we will look at that.

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

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

The next section is 37.(5) and it reads: "Where, in the opinion of the minister, an adverse effect has occurred or may occur to water, water is or may be in an unwholesome condition or an existing waterworks requires alteration, the minister may direct the person operating the waterworks to alter or make additions to the waterworks and in the manner and within a time that the minister considers necessary."

Here, Mr. Chairman, if water is adversely affected, the problem must be remedied immediately. Where it is unclear whether the water is adversely affected, the situation must be investigated and, where required, remedied immediately. Where there is reason to believe a state of affairs threatens the water, the problem must be investigated. Here, public information is essential. What we have asked for is to amend, by deleting the words and punctuation of subsection 37(5) and substituting therefor the following words, punctuation and paragraph notations:

"(a) Where an adverse effect has occurred to water, where water is in an unwholesome condition or where an existing waterworks requires alteration, the minister shall direct the person operating the waterworks to alter or make the appropriate additions to the waterworks immediately and shall take whatever other measures are required to ensure public health and safety.

(b) Where it is reported or reasonable to believe that an adverse effect may have occurred to water or that water may be in an unwholesome condition, the minister shall commission an immediate investigation and, where the adverse effect or an unwholesome condition is established, shall act in accordance with paragraph (a).

(c) Where a waterworks is expected to cause an adverse effect or an unwholesome condition in water, the minister shall commission an immediate investigation and shall require the appropriate alternation of a waterworks to prevent the damage.

(d) The minister shall immediately and fully inform the public of all reports, investigations and actions taken or ordered to be taken under this section as and when they occur".

I will give the minister a chance to respond there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, again this was discussed at length previously with the committee. We do appreciate the suggestion brought forward by the Opposition member, but we believe clause 5, as defined, will serve the purpose quite well, as it does in other jurisdictions similar to, for the purposes that it is meant to do. We do appreciate the suggestion by the member opposite.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague, the Member for St. John's South, is presenting, I think, some very important amendments. I, too, sat on the committee when we dealt with this at committee stage. In fact, I realize that at the time it was a different minister from the minister who now has responsibility for the Department of Environment.

My colleague has raised a few points. For example, going back to section 36.(2) where it indicates and where there was some discussion talking about the approval of sewage works. The point that was made by my colleague stated in part that the minister should be required to investigate instances where the sewage works are constructed or modified without the permit required under this section, obviously changing the discretionary role of the minister to (inaudible), in this particular case, making the decision of the minister mandatory to respond to certain conditions. The same thing we see in section 37.(5) with respect to the approval of waterworks.

The minister, in his response, repeatedly states that in other jurisdictions the language is discretionary as opposed to mandatory; however, I do not know if that explanation is good enough. I realize that we have gone through this at committee stage, but I would be interested in finding out clearly from the minister his rationale when he simply states that other jurisdictions have, in fact, accepted the more discretionary role of the minister. I am not really clear what the minister's rationale would be in simply accepting that because it is done in other jurisdictions. I think the question that is being raised by my colleague is - and it is a very legitimate question - if these amendments place a demand and a function upon the minister in his role as minister, to be more definite in decision-making and to make a decision that is mandatory upon his officials to further investigate. That seems to me, when we are dealing with the potential of water contamination, to be a much more reasonable and realistic approach in terms of remedying a problem or a foreseeable problem.

I am interested in finding out from the minister exactly his rationale as to why his role as minister should not be more of a compulsory and mandatory role as opposed to merely discretionary when we are talking about such real problems as potential water contamination issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing that we are just looking at some - we are not re-discussing everything that happened at the committee again. I say to the hon. member, the legislation is written this way by Justice officials who outlined it this way, and they do this with a variety - we have this throughout a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Assembly.

Where it says here, for example, in the opinion of the minister, it is not just the opinion of the minister; it is the officials advising the ministers, the officials who have to do up reports and give advice to the minister about dealing with certain matters. If we are going to write in here - and this is again the advice from the Department of Justice and our officials - the exact direction that you will take automatically, no matter what the circumstances are, then we will definitely have a Department of Environment that will be doing a lot of things that may be, for some parts, not necessary.

That is the rationale behind ensuring that the actions can be taken and should be taken and will be taken, but that it is written in this way by the legislative writers and drafters. It is written this way to allow for the decisions to be taken. That is the explanation of that. That is not new. That is the way that the legislation is written and has been written. This has been thoroughly discussed, and this is as good a legislation as there is across the provinces of Canada. We are very pleased with it and we believe it gives full authority for the minister and the officials of the minister to ensure that they can deal with these issues which are serious matters.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Madam Chairperson, the point raised by my colleague for St. John's East is a valid point. In response, the minister said it is not just the opinion of the minister, it is the opinion of the bureaucrats and the department officials; but that is not always the case, as we see with the decision last week regarding Windmill Bight Park.

It is my understanding from sources that I have within that department, and from information obtained by CBC, that the advice of the officials in the department, you are not to proceed with that park, but it was the minister's decision to proceed with the park. That is why, precisely, we looked at strengthening the legislation, because at times, Madam Chairperson, the legislation, if it leaves too much discretion to the minister - and this new legislation will even give greater discretion to the minister than previous legislation. If that minister, whomever the minister should be, has a greater discretion than what is in place at present, we will perhaps see even more decisions such as we saw last week with Windmill Bight. That is not always good for the Province, I say.

Madam Chairperson, Section 39.(6) again is just a matter of language. The probability of water quality impairment is something that is either objectively determinable or subject to debate and should not be determined merely according to the minister's opinion. We asked here that the words in commas "in the minister's opinion" be deleted, so that it is not simply in the opinion of the minister, that the legislation itself has much greater power than the authority of the minister. Once you give absolute discretion or absolute authority to the minister it diminishes the power of the legislation. It is only a matter of language that we are talking about here, but I think it is very important language. What we are seeing here, as a common thread throughout this legislation, is that the minister has much greater power, almost absolute discretion, and diminishes the ability of the legislation to control the minister. The minister now controls the legislation.

This is essentially the concern that we have with the legislation, and this is why we are putting forward the amendments that we are putting forward. This is why we want the amendments read into the record, because we want the public record to show that we have some concern with the discretionary power that the minister has and will have.

The next section, Madam Chairperson, is section 40, "Where it appears likely that an undertaking, works, practice or activity may lead to an adverse effect on water that is or may reasonably be expected to be used for drinking or domestic purposes, the minister may, in writing, order the person responsible to carry out water quality analysis and take the action that the minister considers necessary to prevent that adverse effect."

If adverse effects are likely, then testing and effective remedial action should be mandatory. We have seen, in this Province, more boil water orders than any other province in all of Canada. We have seen a number of problems over the last four or five years with water quality, drinking water quality, and therefore we believe that remedial action should be mandatory, not just at the discretion of the minister.

We are asking here to delete the words "the minister may" and substitute, therefore, the words "the minister shall", and delete the words "take the action that the minister considers necessary" therefore ensuring the safety of drinking water and of water quality by ensuring that effective remedial action be mandatory and not just at the discretion of the minister.

I ask the minister to respond here.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, I have to say that we are always pleased to stand and be recognized.

I will not respond to the Opposition critic's couple of other commentaries today. I think we will do that at another time, but on this issue here, again, it allows for the minister to act on a substantive matter that needs to be dealt with. Again, that is the way it is written and that is what Justice advises and that is what the officials advise, and that is exactly the way it is done in other provinces; again, pretty well the same context. It is not the minister's discretion. It comes down to the advice the minister gets, and the minister, whoever he or she is, does not make decisions on his or her own, I can tell you that. That advice comes from officials with options as to what they should do at the end of the day. That is, again, in reaction to this suggestion here.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The next amendment is to section 41.(3), the testing of water. This amendment clarifies that it is the effect not merely the intent of the actions that is important. The problems must be effectively remedied. What we are asking is to delete the words "to take the action that he or she considers necessary". Essentially, by doing that, Madam Chairperson, we would be saying that the minister may, as a result of a report submitted under subsection (2), direct an owner, operator or person responsible to take the action to remedy an adverse effect revealed by that report, instead of just "that he or she considers necessary".

Madam Chairperson, again, the answer that the minister just gave on the last one, I would imagine, would be his response on this. We are not saying that we are satisfied with that. I do not believe that it is always the decisions of the department officials that are carried out by the minister. We saw an example of that last week with Windmill Bight. We have seen examples of that before where the minister's discretion was used to make a decision, not necessarily the opinions and recommendations put forward by officials in the department. That is precisely why we are recommending these amendments: to strengthen the legislation.

Subsection 41.(4), water testing and remediation must be timely, effective and publicly reported in a timely and thorough manner. What we are asking for here is to delete the words and punctuation of subsection 41.(4) and substituting, therefore, the following - and I will read the existing 41.(4), "The minister may direct the time and manner in which a direction made under this section is to occur." What we are asking is that be replaced with, "The minister shall ensure the timely and effective completion of all actions directed under this section and shall immediately and thoroughly inform the public of the details and results of those actions".

I ask the minister for his response here. I will say, keeping in mind and I will refer to my colleague from St. John's East, that in the Select Committee that dealt with this, we dealt with the amendments that the department were ready to pass immediately, we dealt with the amendments that we were prepared to drop immediately, and many of the amendments were not even discussed on this bill in the Select Committee. We did not even get into the discussion. Therefore, I think it is necessary, and I think as a responsible stand as members of this House of Assembly, we have an obligation to review thoroughly these amendments because many of these amendments, in fact, most of the amendments were not even discussed. On this particular bill we simply looked at the amendments that government were prepared to accept, we dealt with those. The amendments that we were prepared to drop, we dealt with those. Other than that, there were no other amendments dealt with or discussed at that Select Committee.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, this issue is a serious issue. The fact is that this issue, the testing of water, is very much an issue that is to the forefront in the public across Canada and this Province. A number of changes to policy have been made. What this legislation does is enable us to make stronger regulations. In recent times, just recently, new regulations have been put in place; new protocols have been put in place. As a matter of fact, water test results are posted on our Web site. We understand the direction that the hon. member wants to go there in his suggestion, but we believe here, that again, this legislation is quite strong enough to ensure that the public notifications, especially with the protocols by regulation that are now in place, and what this legislation does is enabling legislation to allow us to do that. It allows us to ensure we have regulations in place that can deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis, making sure that the officials deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis with the appropriate, proper, protocols followed so that if there is an issue with a water supply, that the information is received quickly and dealt with appropriately. We believe that the legislation deals with that fully.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are a couple of other amendments that I am going to put forward here as well. Section 44.(2), what we are looking at here is, "Where the minister considers it necessary for public safety, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property or to comply with this Act the minister may direct the owner or operator of a dam or other structure to (a) arrange a safety inspection of that dam or other structure in the time specified in the order or as may be prescribed by regulation."

What we are asking for here is instead of "where the minister considers it necessary" to "where it is necessary", and instead of the minister "may", to say the minister "shall". Again, it is a matter of language and I feel that this is an important section of the legislation. I will ask the minister to respond.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, again, this section deals with the safety of waterworks: Where the minister and officials consider it necessary for public safety, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property or to comply with this act, the minister may direct the owner or operator of a dam or other structure to do a number of things here outlined.

What this legislation does, it enables the minister and officials to deal with the issue through regulation. Regulations are established and more will be established through this legislation that will ensure dealing with waterworks issues. Again, the legislation is written this way as suggested by our drafters and by Justice and by our officials for practical administration of the act. We will see that occur once this legislation, which is the best water resources legislation in Canada, is proclaimed.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are a number of other amendments there that are all very much the same: The minister may, the minister shall, where the minister feels it is necessary.

Madam Chairperson, in 48.(7) "Where the minister is of the opinion that a proposed undertaking should not proceed, the minister may decide that a permit not be issued with respect to the proposed undertaking".

What we would like to see there - "the minister may decide that a permit not be issued", should be "the minister shall not issue a permit". That is under section 48.(7). I will ask the minister to respond.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, again, that amendment we have agreed in the committee stage to accept, so we will be agreeing to that amendment that is put forward by the hon. member.

Section 48.(7), which will see again, "where the minister is of the opinion that a proposed undertaking should not proceed the minister may decide that a permit not be issued".

The officials believe there that the replacement of the word "shall" can work and allow and not overly restrict what evaluation has to be done when these issues arise. That one is practical. That can work. So that amendment we have accepted in committee and will accept here today.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Section 52, "The minister may, without issuing a permit, approve the diversion or alteration of a body of water on terms and conditions that he or she considers advisable where that diversion or alteration is required for the length of time and under terms that the minister may prescribe by regulation".

What we are asking for here is, instead of it being "the minister may" and the discretion of the minister, we would like to see "subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may" Therefore, what we are asking is that it be subject to Cabinet. "The minister may.... on the terms and conditions that he or she considers advisable...", we are asking that that be replaced with "under appropriate terms as established by the minister in conjunction with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council".

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, I hope you can have the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi hold back on his assault on me. I would appreciate it.

Exceptions to permit, section 52 of the act, if we were to agree to that, the problem would be, and the advice of the officials, is that you would really tie up and delay decisions that are made on an ongoing basis when it comes to diversions or alterations of a body of water. These are dealt with by our water resource officials in our department who are very capable and are really done on an ongoing basis, on a weekly basis, for construction activity. It is done for household activities; people may have problems of flooding near their residences and so on. These are the types of permits that are sought, and are all done with the science people in water resources division, all planned out appropriately, and it is felt that the authority that is recommended here, providing that to the minister and officials of the minister - because we often delegate that authority to the officials because they are able to deal with that fully. We believe this works quite well, and that further amendment would probably tie up the system a lot longer, cause major delays that do not need to occur. This is one of our best processes that work within our department, water resources, and we have some great expertise in our department.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to ask a question, too, about the protection of water. I want to deal particularly with section 30 of the act which is a permissive section, permitting the minister to undertake an inventory of wetlands, flood plains, shorelines, coastal waters and other aquatic systems, and also to control and determine the use of, or modifications which will apply to wetlands, including the drainage, infilling and permanent flooding of wetlands and the addition of wastewater or stormwater discharges.

I want to ask about that, particularly in the context of the Windmill Bight ecologically sensitive area which the minister wants to build a golf course on. Part of that golf course demands an irrigation system. The irrigation system, according to the proponents, will cost $575,000; so we can imagine what kind of irrigation system it is going to be, and the need for water to be used for the golf course.

Within the area of the proposed golf course, this environmentally unique sensitive area in the Province, there is a body of water which is proposed to be used for irrigation purposes, to supply irrigation water to the golf course. That body of water is actually a part of, or adjacent to, a peat bog, a unique peat bog - it is called a plateau bog - which is also a unique feature of this particular ecosystem.

I want to ask the minister, given that this act requires that type of an inventory of wetlands and the control by the minister of wetlands, does he propose to allow this body of water next to the golf course to be an irrigation source, to drain the bog around there so that it is no longer a peat bog, that the whole area, not only the golf course itself, not only where the proponents plan to put the golf course right on top of the sensitive dune area, that they will also be draining, through irrigation purposes, this bog, which is part, again, of the particularly unique ecosystem that is there?

Has the minister considered that aspect of how he is going about protecting the water resources and the wetlands of this Province, which we all know not only as being unique features of a particular ecosystem such as this; these wetlands are very important sources of food and habitat for numerous bird species. This particular area is particularly prolific in the number of different species that use it. Does the minister propose to use his powers here to protect those wetlands? What considerations have been given to the consequences of irrigation for the needs of a particularly thirsty golf course being on top of sand dunes where you obviously have to bring in a lot of water to make grass grow, to make the kind of grass that grows on golf courses grow, fertilizers, pesticides, and everything else that goes with that? Has the minister given consideration to the effect on the wetland itself? Could the minister deal with that question?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I welcome the thoughts of the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. As a matter of fact, during the environmental assessment process our water resources division would have reviewed that information in the substantial document that was put forward by the proponents of this project. They will be dealing with the water issues and water protection in this proposed development. There will be permits required from our department.

The Environmental Protection Plan that is going to be developed for that proposed development will be worked on with our officials from water resources. They will work to ensure and deal with the sensitivity of the area there as the development unfolds and as it starts to develop. Prior to any development occurring, the issue of how we deal with the sensitive habitat in that area will be defined clearly in a plan and there will be an outline of how you deal with sensitive habitat in that area.

That process will be started as to dealing with a protection plan, developing the protection plan, dealing with the sensitive habitat and water habitats in that area. We believe that this can be dealt with in an appropriate way with the proper development plan here in place and also protect sensitive habitat at the same time.

That issue will be dealt with. It was assessed in the environment assessment process by our water resources division. They will now be required, and our water resources division will be working with the other officials in the development of the Environmental Protection Plan that will see habitat protected before any development can occur at that site.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The minister talks about an environmental protection plan. In fact, that was his excuse the other day for releasing this particular project from environmental assessment. He removed it from further environmental assessment by his department, and came up with this notion of an environmental protection plan which does not appear anywhere in the Environment Act, Madam Chair. Now, I realize we are not talking about that particular act, we are talking about the water act.

What I want to know is: Has the minister, in fact - this is just enabling legislation here, but it provides for the minister in cooperation with other departments of the government to undertake an inventory and mapping of wetlands, flood plains, shorelines, coastal waters and other aquatic systems. I want to ask the minister: Is that something that is proposed to be actually done, or is it something that already has been done? Did the previous minister, when he was minister, have it done, or is that something new that the government is proposing to do, thinking about doing, might do, and just wants to have the power to do in this legislation?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, previously we have had watershed protection documents and mapping done, over the past number of years. What this does is enable that to occur again through the act, but it has been done previously, and more will be done in the future. We have some of the best watershed protection plans in Canada worked out in many areas of the Province to protect our water supplies. So, this enables us to do that and to undertake to do that, and that will happen in due course on an ongoing basis, Madam Chair. Again, it will help us in decision making processes, and it will help us as we go forward in the Province to protect and preserve and also to develop.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, dealing with this particular section and the ability of the minister here to control and determine the use of this particular type of area, such as coastal plains, wetlands, flood plains, shorelines and coastal waters: We have heard, in the media, the debate about Windmill Bight Park, for example. We have heard people say: Oh, well, you know, ATVs go down there anyway. The place has been degraded somewhat. You know, this really has not been protected at all. I get the impression, Madam Chair, that people seem to think they can actually drive ATVs in through this provincial park area, along this shoreline, along these sand dunes, and that the people in the area seem to think that this is an area that has never been protected, that you can actually do that.

In fact, one of the chairmen of the golf association, golf committee, said: I can go down there any time of the day and load up my pickup with sand. I wonder, Madam Chair, if the chairman of the golf association thinks that is the way that this area has been treated in the past, what has this government been doing and what has this minister, or his predecessor, been doing to protect this kind of habitat?

I know, Madam Chair, I have been out there several times as a tourist, as a person with his family staying in that park, travelling around that area. As a matter of fact, I brought it to the attention of a minister of the Crown several years ago, that there was some ATV damage, that you could see some damage to the system by ATVs. This is in a provincial park, now, where ATVs are not permitted to be used, along coastlines where ATVs are not permitted to be used. My submission, Madam Chair, is that any degradation that happened was (a) illegal and (b) not prevented or nothing done about it by this government. So, if there has been some damage, and I acknowledge there has been some - not as much as Cape Freels, not as much as other areas. The fact of the matter is Cape Freels was so much damaged by use and previous use that it was delisted by the committee that the minister now wants to go back to and propose Cape Freels or some other place as a replacement for Windmill Bight. But, what did the government do in terms of either park wardens or in terms of enforcement to try to protect this area from the small amount of degradation that it has already received?

I wonder can the minister can address that question?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, we have enforcement officers in different regions of the Province who are working on a constant basis to protect and ensure that the law is followed. I have heard references made by persons about some of that activity occurring on that site and some other sites in the Province. Where that has occurred, you know, we have officials in the field, inspectors in the field who are out there trying to curtail that activity. We are also out there trying to have everybody sensitive to this environment and hoping that people are going to ensure protection and work at protecting the region and getting people in the region to work on that themselves, and they have been doing that. So, not everybody is at it. There are some people who decide to break the law. But we do have, and we have had more infractions ruled on and more infractions handed out by our enforcement officials in the last two or three years than we have had in our history in the last ten or fifteen. The officials who do enforcement of our law in the areas have been doing their work. There may be a scattered occasion where that is occurring but, again, what we are trying to do, Madam Chair, is to see, at the end of the day, if we can have good legislation here, which it is, that can protect our water supplies of the Province, that can deal with waterworks in the Province, and, at the same time, also good environmental legislation that will see us protected and preserved at the same time, see development occur.

Also, we look forward to, in the area referenced, in Windmill Bight and in that area of Deadman's Bay and so on, seeing some ecological protection put in place and also seeing some work done to assist in that area that can see our ecosystem heritage protected; and, at the same time, see more people visit the area to see the ecological integrity of the region, and, at the same time, enjoy some activity.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

While we are on the topic of protecting water and watersheds, I wonder - maybe the minister doesn't know about this particular area. If he does, I would be happy to hear his answer. I wonder, sometimes, about the protection of watersheds for existing water supplies, such as Windsor Lake nearby the City of St. John's, part of the City of St. John's water supply. I remember a few years ago, Madam Chair, I am sure hon. members will remember, the difficulties that a particular couple who lived on Thorburn Road had trying to get a permit to build a house on Thorburn Road, where there are houses all around it. Because it was in the watershed area the Metropolitan Area Board wouldn't let them do it. There were court cases and there was a (inaudible) for awhile. There were a lot of people who felt that this couple were actually being crucified unnecessarily by regulations because it happened to be technically in a watershed, but there were houses on both sides of the lot that they wanted to build on and they wouldn't let them do it. The family lived in a trailer for awhile and various other things happened.

Yet, I noticed, Madam Chair, when I drove past Windsor Lake the other day on the way to Bell Island, that as you drive down Portugal Cove Road past Windsor Lake, you can now see Airport Heights up higher than Windsor Lake. It seems to be creeping down closer and closer and closer all the time. Surely, if Thorburn Road, miles away from Windsor Lake, with houses on both sides of it, can be protected from further building that areas very close, over and above the Windsor Lake area, can equally encroach on the watershed and the water supply for the City of St. John's.

I wonder, does the minister know anything about that? Obviously, he does not. He would probably have to his officials about it. Certainly, it seemed to me to be totally incongruent given the kind of fight that had taken place with this couple who were trying to get a house built.

In fact, the golf course - the minister should be aware of this - on Thorburn Road, proposed across the street from this area where there was a sod farm and a person wanted to build a golf course and was turned down because of the problems where a golf course, the nature of golf courses, pesticides, fertilizers and all of that which would have the properties of leaching into the watershed area.

Can the minister address those particular questions?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, that development that is occurring within the city boundaries - there is a watershed protection boundary established. I will certainly undertake to provide that information to the member. It will allow certain activities and will not allow certain activities. There is an established water protection plan.

There is development occurring in the Airport Heights area. I have been there visiting myself in that region. The City of St. John's and Municipal Affairs take those issues very seriously when it comes to development activity.

I will certainly undertake to get information as to the watershed protection boundaries, the plan, conditions and so on, and I will make sure that we get that from our officials and provide it to the member as we go forward. Water supply is extremely important and we have very strong law for protection and we want to make sure that it is in the future.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to have a couple of words on Bill 4, the protection of water, clause 30. I would like to say to the minister that it is a very important issue and it is a very serious situation in my area of this Province, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is very serious, what I am talking about. It is the issue of our water supply, the Exploits regional water system.

On the road leading into the incinerator we have signs all over the place saying: No Fishing. No Boating. Do nothing in the watershed area. There is a popular swimming hole there that people, if they are caught swimming there, could be charged. But, right in the middle of two water supplies, the Botwood water supply and the Grand Falls-Windsor water supply, we have an incinerator. People like the countryside and they like to go in the woods in that area. If they are going to be charged for dropping a line in a lake, or dipping in a popular swimming hole, then what should happen to the government who allows an incinerator in the middle of two water supplies?

There is a lot of concern by the people because of the high rate of cancer in Central Newfoundland. If it is wrong for an individual to participate in any outdoor function in that area, then why should government participate and allow such a mass pollution of water supplies?

I would just like to say to the minister and the department, work with our council, our community council and our regional water board to find results sooner rather than later, not seven years from now. As the former minister said to me one day: within seven years we will have something done about that problem. I do not think we can wait seven years. I think this problem needs to be addressed now. Something has to be done now. In seven years' time maybe none of us will be here to worry about it. I know, I understand that, but the people of Central Newfoundland are there all the time. They are concerned about this situation.

I have met with different groups. I have met with people in the Exploits District, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Grand Falls-Windsor, all being affected by pollution going into our water supply. It is there because I have seen it. I made a special trip into our water supply one day, the smoke coming out of the incinerator was right down on the lake. You could not see twenty feet out on the lake with the amount of smoke that was on that water supply. If anybody can prove to me that there is no pollution going into that water supply, then they are going to have to do an awful good job to convince me that incinerator is not polluting two major water supplies.

I say to the minister, testing is done sometimes. Testing in the basin is not done. We need testing done, not only right at the outflow of the water supply, the intake, we need testing done in five or six, probably ten kilometres of the watershed area to find out what affect this smoke is having on the watershed area because the water that is back five or six kilometres from the pond is flowing into the pond. That type of pollution should not be acceptable anymore. The department has to do not only biological testing, they are going to have to be doing testing for chemicals, carcinogens, any type of chemicals that could cause cancer. With the rates of cancer in Central Newfoundland, there are an awful lot people who are worried about it. A lot of people are saying it is because of the water supply. Even though a lot of people in government are saying that the water supply is safe - maybe it is, I have no proof from testing because I do not have the money myself. If I did have the money to do it, I would get necessary testing done and prove whether it is or it isn't safe to drink.

One thing I know for sure, I say to the minister, is that smoke is getting into our water supply and in that smoke there has to be something that is causing pollution in our water supply. If you can prove to me, the council or anybody can prove to me that enough adequate testing is done so that we do not have to worry about any rates of cancer because of our drinking water, then I will accept it. But until the department tables the studies, tables the testings, not only just in testing for biological testing, it has to be done - I understand that this testing for dangerous chemicals is not done on a regular basis. It is only done at certain times of the year, probably once or twice a year. It may be at a time, in the spring probably when there is a lot of water, a lot of runoff from snow and rain; but is it done in August month? Is it done in July? Prove it to me. If you can prove to me that this testing is done at that period of time and the results are positive, then I will accept it. The people who come back to me and ask me if the testing is done, and if they say the water safe and you can prove that the water is safe, then I will certainly accept that. I will tell anybody who calls me and give them the facts that the department has or the town has. I will certainly present the facts to anybody who contacts me and show the proof to them that this water is safe of dangerous chemicals.

At this point in time I do not think the information is there for anybody to access, that there is not dangerous chemicals, if not in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Botwood's water supply. If the minister could tell me today there is no problem with the Botwood water supply, then I would have a question: Why are you looking for a new water supply? Why are you prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars to get a new water supply for the Town of Botwood if there is not a problem with the existing one? So how can the minister sit over there and ask me if the water is fit to drink, when the government is worried about pollution in the water supply? If you are going to do something for one water supply, then do it for everybody in the Exploit's region. Make sure and convince the people that this water is safe, not only for the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and Bishop's Falls, but also for the people of Botwood.

If anybody thinks there is no lobbying going on to do something about the water supply in Botwood, then I can tell you that there is. There is a lot of lobbying going on. Today we do not know exactly if the minister knows what their plans are, but I can tell you, I do not know what the plans are for government to go in and do something about the water supply. There are rumours that they are looking for a new water supply, or they may do something with putting them on the New Bay Lake or Northern Lake water supply with Grand Falls-Windsor. I do not know that, but it is serious enough that something has to be done soon. This is right in the Premier's own district, that people's health is being jeopardized. We need answers quickly; soon. We need the minister of the department and the Premier himself, in his own district, to have something done as soon as possible. I understand that people all over the Province are concerned about their drinking water supply.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: I am telling the minister and the Member for Harbour Grace, he has problems in his district with his drinking water.

MR. MANNING: Tell him not to be making a joke of it.

MR. HUNTER: He shouldn't be making a joke of drinking water in this Province. No member on that side should be laughing or making stupid comments about drinking water in this Province, because it is a serious issue when there are thousands of people dying with cancer in this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I think it is better for the member to listen.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, the water in my district has been tested. He is referring specifically to Harbour Grace, and the tests have come back positive. There are no impurities in the water. The water is good quality drinking water. The government has checked it. The town has checked it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why were you laughing?

MR. SWEENEY: My laughter was at the innuendo that the member was making, the blind innuendo that the member was making, trying to fearmonger, scare the people of this Province about drinking water.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point that I would like to make to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is that it is not a laughing matter when we are talking about drinking water in this Province.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible) laughing.

MR. HUNTER: The member was laughing and making jokes about it. If he wants to have a debate about it, we can certainly debate it. I know my colleagues are wanting to have a few comments and words to say about it, but it is a serious issue, and it is a serious issue in the Exploits-Grands Falls-Windsor area. We need something done soon and not wait seven years, I say to the minister in the department. Have it done as soon as possible.

Government has to be serious about committing to health care, serious about committing to doing something about our incinerators and water supplies. There has to be a shorter plan, not a long-term plan, because people are dying every day. Long-term plans work in a lot of cases but when you are talking about the health of our people and the drinking water supplies, incinerators, we have to shorten up that span. We have to make this happen quicker, sooner rather than later.

I would say to the members on the other side, we all should be concerned. It is not a laughing matter. Let's get it done. Let's see some results for the protection of our water supplies.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for a few minutes to have that to say on that. I pass it on to some of our other colleagues who want to make comments on it.

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise today to make a few comments as the former Minister of Environment. I just want to address the concerns raised by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He is right, it is a serious issue that he has raised. There is no doubt about it. We, on this side of the House, take water very seriously. I know that the hon. member has been paying attention to what has been going on with water in the Province, and he will recall that when I was Minister of Environment last year, we did some testing on some dioxins and furans which he had raised, I think it was last fall. We had done the testing prior to that, and his concern, of course, was incineration. As most of us know and recognize, incineration is not what we want to see in this Province. We have undertaken to eliminate it by 2008 but, Mr. Chair, we cannot eliminate the incineration until we have an alternative for the waste that is generated in this Province.

The hon. member knows very well that we undertook, as a government, to find out, for our information, and for the people of this Province, to test for dioxins and furans in the vicinity of the Bonavista Peninsula where an incinerator was closest to a water supply. The results came back very, very positive in terms of the impact that the incinerator was having on the water supply in that area.

We then undertook, in January, to test the water supply in Harbour Grace, to take a look at what was happening in Harbour Grace in terms of incineration. Mr. Chairman, the results of that test came back very, very positive. In fact, there was very, very little impact on the water supply.

Now, the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale rises today and talks about all the danger that exists out there in his area with incineration and the close proximity to the water supply. If the hon. member would take a look at what we have done, he would know full well, with the testing we have done, that the water supply to this Province is safe.

I would say to the hon. member, and to the people of this Province, that there should not be any fear, that the water in this Province is tested on a regular basis, that we are indeed pretty certain that the case of incineration is not impacting upon our water supply. For the hon. member to rise in his place today and to imply that there is a danger in his area to the water supply is inaccurate, Mr. Chairman. I am saying that we are doing a good job and we are going to continue to be vigilant in the testing of water supplies in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say these words today just to relay to the House, and to the people of the Province, that the water supplies in this Province are safe, they are being tested, and the people can rest easy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) to do some minor amendments, or refine some minor amendments, so we can come back and pass them, so we are going to recess for a few minutes.

CHAIR: It is agreed?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I concur with the Government House Leader. We are at the final stage, in terms of the Committee stage. There are a couple of amendments that need to be refined. Both the minister and our critic have agreed upon them, so they have just gone to get that to ensure that when we get the legislation and make the amendments here it is done and complete. We concur. It will only be a brief few moments and then we will be back to conclude our business on this particular piece of legislation.

CHAIR: The Committee does stand in recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We will take over from the bill we were doing previously and carry on with calling the various clauses and amendments.

CHAIR: Bill 4.

On motion, clauses 1 through 14, carried.

Shall clause 15 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are putting forward an amendment to this clause, Mr. Chairman, by deleting the words "the minister may alter the priority use" and substituting therefore, the words "the minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, alter priority use".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 15 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 16 through 28, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 29 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are putting forward an amendment that the bill, An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province, be amended at subsection 29(1) by deleting the word "minister" and substituting therefore the words "Lieutenant-Governor in Council".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 29 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 30 through 35, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 36 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are making an amendment here at 36(4) by deleting the word "may" and substituting therefore the word "shall".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 36 as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 37 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we are recommending an amendment at 37(4) by deleting the word "may" wherever it occurs and substituting it therefore with the word "shall".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 37 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 38 through 47 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 48 carry?

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

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

We are recommending an amendment here by deleting the words "the minister may decide that a permit not be issued" and substituting therefor the words "the minister shall not issue the permit".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 48, as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 49 through 70 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 71 carry?

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

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

We are asking here that an amendment be accepted to 71 by adding immediately after subsection (2) the following subsection, "(3) Information and samples gathered during inspections under subsection (1) shall be used for no purpose other than to determine compliance with this Act."

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 71, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 72 through 86 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 87 carry?

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

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

We are recommending an amendment here at 87(3) by deleting the words and numeral "14 days" wherever they appear and substituting therefor the words and numeral "30 days".

On motion, amendment carried

On motion, clause 87, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 88 through 103 carried.

Motion, that the committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Bill 1, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection.

CHAIR: Bill 1, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we have a number of amendments here, I think, that are acceptable by the minister as well. There is one other amendment that I would like to make to this particular act and that is concerning inspections similar to the Water Resources Act, to put the same clause in very similar to the Water Resources Act. If that is acceptable to the minister, Mr. Chairman, I can go and prepare those particular amendments and bring them back to the House. I think at that point we are prepared to go through Committee on this particular bill as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, we are agreeable to that. If it is the same amendment as to the other act that we were just talking about, where the same provisions are, it is agreeable for us. We have already agreed on the other amendments at committee and if those are the amendments plus that other amendment we are fine with that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair does not have the amendments. We need to have the amendments before we can proceed to vote. What is the wish of the House Leaders?

MR. LUSH: I think the hon. member mentioned, or did I gather from his statement, that he wished to recess for a minute again, where he has the amendment? If that is the case, we will agree to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Okay.

CHAIR: This House does stand in recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will resume discussion on Bill 1.

On motion, clauses 1 through 45 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 46 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are proposing an amendment here by deleting the words, punctuation and paragraph notations: The purpose of this part is to facilitate the wise management of the natural resources of the Province and protect the environment and quality of the life of the people of the Province, and to substitute therefor the words punctuation and paragraph notations: The purpose of this part is to protect the environment and quality of life of the people of the Province and facilitate the wise management of the natural resources of the Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before we proceed with the vote on the amendment of clause 46, the Table needs to confer on the specific wording as read.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chair, the committee agreed to that amendment earlier in the committee and we are agreeable again today.

CHAIR: Just for the information of the House, the Table Clerks are conferring with the individual who moved the amendment, to clarify the wording, the amender. We will just take a few moments while that is occurring.

I ask the hon. the Member for St. John's South to read the amendment that is being proposed for clause 46.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Clause 46 is deleted and the following substituted: protect the environment and quality of life of the people of the Province and facilitate the wise management of the natural resources of the Province.

CHAIR: The Table Clerks have asked me to read the amendment in its entirety again. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 46 are deleted and the following are substituted: (a) protect the environment and quality of life of the people of the Province; and (b) facilitate the wise management and natural resources of the Province.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 46, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 47 through 48 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 49 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 49(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words "that minister may require" and substituting the words "prescribed by the minister".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 49, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 50 through 59 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 60 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Paragraph (b) of subclause 60(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the commas and words "in his or her discretion".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 60, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 61 through 66 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 67 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 67(3) of the Bill is amended by deleting the commas and words "in its discretion", whenever they occur.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 67, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 68 through 69 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 70 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Clause 70 of the Bill is amended by deleting the commas and words "in his or her discretion".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 70, as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 71 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 72 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 72(4) of the Bill is amended by deleting the commas and words "in its discretion".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 72, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 73 through 78 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 79 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 79(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words "may decide that an approval not be issued" and substituting the words "shall not issue an approval".

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you repeat that? I did not understand that.

CHAIR: Perhaps I should read that for clarification. The amendment to 79(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words "may decide that an approval not be issued" and substitute the words "shall not issue an approval".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 79, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 80 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 80(5) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words and comma "Where the minister considers it necessary, he or she" and substituting the words "The minister".

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 80, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 81 through 93 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 94 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Clause 94 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after subclause (2) the following: "(3) Information and samples gathered during inspections under subclause (1) shall be used for no other purpose other than to determine compliance with this Act".

CHAIR: I believe the mover mentioned subclause (1). I am informed that it is subsection (1). Just for clarity.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 94, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 95 through 107 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 108 carry?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subclause 108(4) of the Bill is amended by deleting the figures "14" where they first occur and substituting the figures "30".

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 108.(4) carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 108, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 109 through 125 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 1 and Bill 4 carried, with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment, I make an announcement concerning a couple of committees. The Government Services Committee will meet on Monday, May 6 at 9:00 a.m. in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission; and the Resource Committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Before moving the adjournment, I would like to mention that one hon. member amongst us is celebrating a very important milestone today. The Premier was born this day several years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: And you have done it, wishing him a Happy Birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Members sing Happy Birthday]

MR. LUSH: I don't think these people would get into the Junos.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.