The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings of the day, the Chair would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today, in the Speaker's gallery - and I want to welcome these people on behalf of all members - Mr. Jean Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, accompanied by Mr. Robert Jenkins, the Chief Electoral Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador; Mr. Paul Landry, Elections Canada; and Ms Isabelle Collins, Director of Elections Operations for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of privilege. On Friday morning in this House, I asked some very serious questions about a very tragic fire in Come By Chance, only to find out that several hours later the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had issued a press release. In the press release, the minister states, “...it is ‘inaccurate, erroneous and misleading' for Opposition Member Bob French to suggest that families of victims of the Come By Change oil refinery fire/explosion have not been given any information since the incident occurred of March of 1998”.

Mr. Speaker, on my point of privilege I would like to inform this hon. House and the minister that not twenty minutes ago I spoke to Mrs. Joan Kieley in Holyrood who assures me that she has received absolutely nothing since her husband was killed in this very tragic fire. I will refrain from telling the minister what she told me that I probably should say. I find this press release to be very offensive towards me, not factual.

The minister goes on to say, “I can only conclude that this is nothing other than an attempt to grab a headline at the expense of victims of this very tragic event.”

I would like to say to you, Minister, that this lady happens to be a very dear, personal friend of mine, and I find that remark to be very insulting to me. I would like for that remark to be withdrawn because it is certainly not true. It is certainly inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect. I would wish also, Mr. Speaker, that there would be an apology made to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually reflected long and hard over the weekend with my officials and indeed had come to the conclusion that I needed to read into the record a statement yesterday in the House, but I refused to do so, asking the hon. member, in fact, to offer an apology to this House and to me for what was in my judgement and in the judgement of the officials both in my office and in collaboration with what was recorded in Hansard to the press release that he issued.

I will refrain from trying to quote directly until I get both my press release and his press release in my hand, but my recollection - and Hansard has recorded what I said in answer to his question in the House on Friday. What I said was that there is a level of information available to the families and/or their representatives. I stand by that statement as of March 3, by virtue of court order on March 2. There was, by court direction and with court restrictions in place, a level of information appropriately available to both the families and/or their representatives.

This government, and I as minister, have no interest in suppressing, withholding, or otherwise deferring the release of information to the unfortunate families who were so tragically affected by this explosion in Come By Chance. Having said that, we are at the direction of the Department of Justice and to some extent at the mercy of the courts in terms of what information is available, the level of that information, and the format in which it can be made available.

I can tell the hon. member that there was no intention on my part, in my statement to the press, to do anything other than to correct the actual and the factual record as stated by me in my answer to his question in the House on Friday morning past.

If there is anything that appears in my statement that is worthy of an apology, or requires further consideration, I will be the first in this House to so make that available to the hon. member. I have no intention, particularly in the context of this very, very serious matter, to in any way play anything by way of politics by way of anything on this issue. It is too serious a matter for that. Two lives were lost, two families will be affected for the rest of their lives because of that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish up his point.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Others were injured. I will say this to the hon. member. I will take under advisement his statement today and I will clarify the issue at the earliest possible moment, either in the House today or certainly not later than tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point that the hon. member raised under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

As you may recall, this employment support program is a joint initiative between the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. The pilot program helps single parents on income support obtain full-time employment and work toward becoming financially independent.

When the department began this pilot program in the fall of 1998 we promised to keep everyone updated on the success of the program. The early results are very exciting. In just one year, 124 single parents completed the classroom and job search components of this program. Seventy-nine of these participants are employed in either full- or part-time work. That is 64 per cent of the participants who entered the program who are now employed. In addition, six of these participants have completely eliminated their reliance on income support and an additional two participants are very close to self-reliance.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to addressing the issue of child poverty and promoting a healthy and productive lifestyle for all families in the Province. The Single Parent Employment Support Program has proven to be an asset in addressing issues and concerns that are unique to single parent families. This project's success is due to important community partnerships that offer resources which meet the needs of today's family.

These resources include regular income support throughout the six week program, child care allowance, extended drug card coverage and an earned income supplement. All of these components together helps single parents discover they are truly better off when they become less reliant on income support. It is also important to point out that these program components would not be possible if it were not for the combined resources of the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Single Parent Association. This is a great indication that community partnerships really do work.

The next task for this project is to consider how we may expand the program. The Single Parent Association is currently preparing an overall evaluation of the pilot. This evaluation will inform all community partners on the applicability of the pilot program model to other geographic localities, other client groups and other sponsoring agencies. The evaluation will also include cost benefit analysis of the current program as well as examine the potential implications of program expansion.

We are all very proud of the accomplishments we and our clients have made with the Single Parent Employment Support Program. I have shared various statistics and details about what the program offers. However, the true success of the program can be demonstrated in the feedback we have received from many of the participants. When a client says a program has improved and changed her life forever, it is a solid indication that government, along with community support, is moving in the right direction in supporting families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm sure all members of the House of Assembly will share in my continued enthusiasm over the Single Parent Employment Support Program. I look forward to keeping people updated on future accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I regret that we on this side did not receive a copy of the statement in time for the House. However, I do note that it may have inadvertently been delivered to the member's office for the District of St. John's West.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also did not receive the statement in advance but I understand the minister is going to do something about it.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that regular income support, child care, extended drug card and an earned income supplement will help a single parent to be part of the workforce. This is the second time the minister has reported on this pilot project. A pilot sets out the direction. What this policy needs is a captain to ensure that the ship gets to port. If this program works, as we know it did, it ought to be available to all single parents in the Province who want to avail of it. Because we do want single parents to have the support that they need to be able to provide properly for their families and to ensure that whatever problems that family has can be resolved through the parent being able to work.

I ask the minister to immediately adopt a procedure of having this policy in effect for all single parents in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the development of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Pilot Program which will help us to identify and address prescription drug abuse and misuse in our Province.

This new program is the result of a collaboration of government, physicians, pharmacists and other related health care professionals. Government has committed $600,000 over the next two years for this pilot project.

Despite efforts to contain the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs almost all sectors of society are now affected in some way as health care and regulatory officials try to contain the problem.

Medications are accessed both through legal and illegal means. For example, medications have been accessed through break and entry and armed robbery, fraudulent prescriptions, multiple doctoring, and excessive or inappropriate prescribing by physicians.

Medication abuse and misuse is of great concern, not only because of the health care costs increase, but of far greater consequence is the number of people whose lives are negatively impacted from such abuse. Prescription drug abuse and misuse can have a significant impact on many areas of daily living including parenting, school attendance and performance, employee attendance and performance, domestic relationships, and a person's overall health status.

The new Program will provide a means of monitoring the purchases of certain classes of medications with a potential for abuse and misuse. The program will be operated by the Newfoundland Medical Board, NMB, along with an advisory board consisting of other health care professionals. The Newfoundland Medical Board will have the authority to act on the resulting information and/or inform the appropriate parties when a situation is identified.

I would like to emphasize that this program will be operated by health care professionals who are already very familiar with the importance of patient confidentiality. A number of safeguards have been put in place. Only the Newfoundland Medical Board will have access to patient identifying information. The advisory board, while not privy to this information, will advise the Newfoundland Medical Board of the types of circumstances which may require followup by other organizations such as the RNC.

This monitoring initiative will help us to identify and address areas of concern, be it individual patients in need of treatment services, or the need to educate health care professionals in areas of appropriate drug use and identification of signs of abuse and misuse.

Legitimate use of prescription drugs will not be affected. In fact, we are focusing on three main groups: narcotics, benzodiazepines which include Valium and Librium, and also controlled drugs such as Ritalin. What we will be targeting is the abuse and misuse which often results when medications are used inappropriately, either not for the intended purpose or for longer periods or at higher doses than recommended. It is important to note as well that other medications like heart medications, antibiotics and other drugs are not included in this prescription monitoring program.

Government is pleased to be able to collaborate with all of our partners on this initiative. Working together with them and our advisory board, I am certain that we can help address these issues, for the betterment of the health and safety of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The pilot project, over the two years, will give us an opportunity to actually be able to evaluate, to use good, solid evidence, before we make any permanent commitment to funding and utilization of our resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We on this side of the House, Madam Minister, welcome this initiative and your announcement. We note the participation of physicians, pharmacists, nurses and other health professionals. I would assume as well, when it comes to the Ritalin, that we will be interacting with the school system to make sure that we can have potential problems identified and dealt with.

Madam Minister, again we welcome the opportunity that you are providing to have these problems properly identified. We note your commitment to confidentiality and your statements that legitimate use of all prescription drugs will not be in any way affected. There is a level of comfort there; people who are using their drugs properly need not have any concern whatsoever with this monitoring program.

We say as well that we should be offering counseling services. We should be well aware that many of these problems arise because there aren't resources available in the community. We should note as well that family resource centres, other counseling programs and sites would be a welcome initiative on behalf of the department as well.

Madam Minister, we on this side support your initiative and we give you credit for bringing it forward at this particular time, because we want to see this problem addressed thoroughly and completely in our Province and try to rid our streets and our communities of the negative affects caused by the unwise use and abuse of all kinds of drugs.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement in advance. We agree, too, that there is need for greater control and access to prescription or non-prescription drugs over the counter. It creates a lot of havoc in society and I would say, from reports and things you read in the paper, it is probably more serious a problem than probably alcohol even. I think it is important that we create a system whereby tighter control can be exercised.

I would also like to say to the minister that the most important part of this, once it is identified, is getting proper help in place for the people who are addicted to the drugs and people who are abusing them. I think that speaks well to the point that addiction counseling and agencies in this Province should be funded greater than they are now to allow the people who do have addictions access in their communities to agencies that will help them fight their addiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The supply management system for eggs in Canada is one of the best that exists today. It is the envy of many producers in other parts of the world. The system ensures consumers of a fresh and healthy product, at reasonable prices, through its high standards and constant inspections. All provinces of Canada and the Northwest Territories are part of the system through federal-provincial agreements.

The national system sets the egg production quota in Canada and in turn, it is allocated between the provinces and territories. As in the case for fish, we have to operate within the quota limits that are set for the Province. In dealing with eggs, we are imposed a penalty if the Province exceeds the quota that was established.

The egg production in Newfoundland and Labrador has a positive impact on the economy, with eggs being produced in all regions of the Province and providing much needed employment to the rural areas.

In our Province today we have fifteen farms producing approximately 6.7 million dozen eggs. The total egg industry is worth $8.5 million to the Province. Approximately 28,000 weeks of work are supplied on farms in the Province through this management system.

With improved production technology and declining population, Newfoundland and Labrador produced more eggs than were required for the market. Our surplus rose to over 30 per cent so our Province, under several programs offered by the Canadian Egg Market Agency, reduced the allocation by approximately 100,000 hens. As a result, the Newfoundland and Labrador allocation was reduced by approximately 310,000 layers. Today we are still producing more eggs than is required for our local market and as a result, we ship out approximately 2 million dozen eggs to plants Ontario and Quebec. Even though we reduced our production, we are still in a surplus situation.

Traditionally, under the supply market system, eggs move freely between provinces, therefore, some businesses market their product in our Province.

Since 1992, ten quotas have been sold within the Province. The present market value for quota is between $25 and $40 per unit, depending if it is strictly quota or quota plus farm assets. When you consider the cost paid by registered producers, or new entrants for quota, anyone who operates outside the system has a very big advantage compared to the rest of the farmers operating within.

The total levy being paid by our producers to maintain the provincial and national system is twenty-one point four cents per dozen. This gives an unregulated person a big advantage to compete in the marketplace. Since the price is set by a national cost of production, an unregulated producers can use the system to his or her advantage and price their eggs accordingly.

In 1992, the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board, as did many boards across Canada, reduced unregulated production from 499 to one hundred layers per producer. In addition, it is prohibited to house multiple flocks under one roof. A public notice was posted by the Egg Marketing Board. Anyone who could supply proof that they owned up to 499 layers prior to June 1992 had their flock size verified and were grandfathered into the system. The producer who has been in the media has recently stated that he was in production for many years before 1992. He was aware of the grandfathering clause and never requested to be grandfathered into the system until this past summer.

The egg, like the dairy industry, is important to this Province. Each operates under a supply management system, whether it is national or provincial. The systems were developed to stop the price wars and to institute and maintain stability in the industries. The present system gives the producers confidence when investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into their farms that they can expect to repay their debts and make a living for their families.

The Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board is totally funded by the egg producers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with our officials, we also have a new Egg Marketing Scheme that we will be bring further to the House of Assembly, and we are also going to be appointing a Consumer Representative to the Egg Marketing Board in the next few weeks.

Further, given all of that, I have asked the Egg Marketing Board in the next couple of days that they will be meeting to review the matter of the producer who has been three times unfortunately legally convicted of producing. I have asked them to review the matter to see whether or not there is a way to deal with it. I wanted to make sure that we understood what the Egg Marketing Board does and also how it operates within the Canadian system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding over a copy of his statement.

This is admitting that our farming industry is facing a lot of problems in the near future, and in the long-term future in this Province. Because of declining populations, the inability of our government to keep people in Newfoundland employed and keep them here in the Province, and the inability of this government to come up with better ideas and better ways to use our resources, to come up with new ways to use our new processing techniques using eggs, I think we will need some good news when it comes to our farming industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I do recognize the quota system in Newfoundland and Labrador, and also the problems with people who are not covered under the quota system.

I think, in the near future, we are going to have to sit back and look at this industry in a different light, and I think this government and the department are going to have to address some of these problems concerning the out-migration that affects a lot of industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we are going to maintain our industries and maintain a good quality of working conditions, and a good workforce in this Province, then we have to address the out-migration problem. This is only one incident where it is having a devastating effect on that industry.

I would just like to say that maybe in the near future the minister will consider an overview and probably a new way of looking at the Egg Marketing Board to see if there is any other way we can address some of these existing problems today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. In the statement, the minister kind of begs the question when he starts off by saying that the supply management system for eggs is one of the best that exists today, and then at the end says he has rewritten the policy; and he has not told us why.

Perhaps he can enlighten us further of what his new policy is and what is really wrong with the system. I do agree - and I want to say first of all that we support the supply marketing system in this Province for eggs and for other items, unlike the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs before he was a minister.

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem that Mr. Williams in the Goulds, who has been fined a couple of times recently, has indicated publicly that he was unaware of these rules, and provisions should be made that if, in fact, he can establish that before 1992 he was producing eggs, he should be grandfathered in even at this late date.

I look forward to what the minister plans to do to improve the system that he already regards as among the best that exist today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Yesterday in Question Period, I asked him directly: Would government make a commitment to debate any proposed arrangement with Inco that the government may enter into on behalf of the people of the Province, that before they entered into that debate - or once the agreement was done, sorry - that the opportunity for this Legislature would be provided to debate it in this Legislature.

I would ask the minister today: Does your commitment of May 18 in this Legislature, ensuring to the people of the Province that any proposal and tentative agreement or agreement in principle that may be reached - does it stand that before it is signed and binding on the people of the Province, that this Legislature will have the opportunity to fully debate it and discuss it - all of it - from A to Z?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, in trying to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, maybe I will try to answer the question a little more fully today; because apparently they were quite taken aback by the fact that I could give an answer in one word. They were a little surprised and shocked by that.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope as well that my answers today - I dressed differently. I hope I do not get any insults about my attire today. Actually, as a result of yesterday, I can inform the House that my wife took my suit to the cleaners in hopes that it is going to look a bit different or a bit better than it did yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- primarily a place to debate any necessary change to legislation. We do not contemplate any changes to legislation being required to facilitate and accommodate a Voisey's Bay deal, so we do not expect there will be need for a full debate in the Legislature of any legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is nice to see that the Minister of Mines and Energy is back to his true form today.

Let me be clear,. There was no suggestion, no suggestion on my part yesterday whatsoever, in the question I was asking. He failed to answer the question again today so I will ask it again. On May 18, 1999, you made a commitment that any proposed deal would be fully debated in this Legislature. That is clear. Yesterday I asked you, in view of the fact that you could issue a mining lease without coming to the Legislature, would you make a commitment that any proposed deal, before it is signed and final and binding upon the people of the Province, that it would be debated, fully debated and disclosed in the Legislature? The record said that you said no.

I will ask you again: Will you make the commitment that if you reach an agreement with Inco over the development of Voisey's Bay, that this Legislature, and the people who are elected in this Legislature, can do the job that they were elected to do, to fully debate such a major resource deal on behalf of the people of the Province? The people expect no less. Will you make the commitment right now today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to ensure that we get that opportunity to do it right here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again let me try to answer the question as fully and completely as I can.

I understand - maybe again I can ask a question to the Leader of the Opposition. Is he suggesting that he understands, believes, or would propose, that there should be a full debate with a vote in this Legislature, by all Parties, before any deal is struck with Inco with respect to the development of the Voisey's Bay project? Because that is the crux of the matter of the question.

Mr. Speaker, maybe he would suggest, then, that during the last election, while the Legislature was not open, that there was no public debate of issues in Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought many issues were publicly debated -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - fully in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Legislature was not open. I would like to know exactly what he is proposing with the questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

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

The government can go out across the Province on consultations on the provincial ferry service; yes, it is important. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation goes out across the Province on the Gulf ferry service on consultation; we support it. The government goes out across the Province this fall with respect to consultations on jobs in the economy; we support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This government would not put itself in a position to be like the members opposite when they were the government, with two examples that I bring to mind. The Atlantic Accord, which is the framework for all of the developments in the offshore, was signed outside the Legislature with no debate in the Province by Premier Peckford of the day and the Government of Canada - no reference in the Legislature, one of the biggest issues about resource development ever in Newfoundland and Labrador - and the government of the day saw no need to bring it to the Legislature. We would not do those kinds of things.

What I answered yesterday is that if the Legislature is open, and if there is a requirement for some part of the deal, it will be dealt with in the Legislature the same as I said last spring. If the deal is finished in January or February and the Legislature is not seated, everybody in the Province will know what is in the deal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - whether the Legislature is open or not. If there is anything that requires the approval of the Legislature, it will be done in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I would like to ask the minister today: In discussing the proposal, why is it that this government is intent on circumventing the House of Assembly when it comes to important major public policy issues? Will you stand by the commitment that you made and your leader made to fully disclose and debate this proposed arrangement or this proposed deal before you actually sign it and make it final and binding upon the people of the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe again I am seeking clarification as to what the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition is as to the function of this Legislature. Is he suggesting that matters of important public policy in the Province can only be properly debated if it is done in the Legislature, even though absolutely no requirement or vote is required in the Legislature for any part of it? Is he suggesting that in the formal discussions that we hope to have soon with Inco, that maybe I should take him along as a co-negotiator, and invite the Leader of the NDP, and bring some other members of the public so that we can decide to say to Inco: You are only going to have a deal if not only the government agrees, but the Official Opposition must agree with every part of it and the New Democratic Party must agree with every part of it.

I am sure, just like any other thing that has happened - like the Sprung Greenhouse, for example, which never, ever saw the inside of this Legislature. Not once, not one iota or word was ever verified, debated or sanctioned in this Legislature about that arrangement until after the fact, when the people of the Province were trying to find out what happened to their $23 million, done by the government of the day. Maybe it is because they made such a mess of that kind of thing themselves that they are suggesting that we cannot be trusted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - to make a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador without coming in and talking about it here first. We are going to talk about it everywhere. Now he is saying, if you do not talk about it here you cannot do the deal. What does he want of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I will ask him this question. Earlier this year, the Premier stood up and said: Never again should a government of the Province make long-term agreements of the resource sector of our resources based on short-term political considerations.

If you are committed to the principles that you have outlined one these negotiations, and if what you have asked of Inco and demanded of Inco you are going to get, and if, at the end of the day, you are going to get it, then why won't you debate it here? What are you afraid of, that you will not bring it before this Legislature for everybody to see? I ask the minister: What is it that causes you to have an allergic reaction to the House of Assembly and debating fully this proposed deal with Inco?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, just for the record, because I continue to point out that words are going to be critically important in this debate, there is no proposal from Inco. There is not a proposal from Inco. Hopefully, there will be a proposal from Inco some time soon.

Again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: What is the role of the Legislature that if, in a proposed deal, there is no vote required of this Legislature?

Unlike things like the Churchill Falls deal, in which a brand new law was being brought into place - and, by the way, just for the historical record, the Opposition of the day, the Progressive Conservative Opposition of the day, voted for the Churchill Falls deal in the Legislature because it was required, because there was new law that had to be established in the Province at the time in order for the deal to occur. The law with respect to negotiating an arrangement with Inco was debated in this Legislature last year at this time when the new Minerals Act and the new section 31, with the support of the Opposition, was fully endorsed in this Legislature - unanimous - that the Cabinet - here is what the law says, not the Legislature. It says: The Cabinet is given the right to put processing restrictions on any new mining development in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to -

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition did not ask that the Legislature be given the right, or that it come to the Legislature for approval. They agreed that the Cabinet should have the right, and the Cabinet will exercise the right in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because I certainly agree with him on the relevance of Newfoundland history and the importance of ensuring that it is part of the curriculum in our K-12 system.

There is a significant amount of Newfoundland history in our curriculum today at various grade levels throughout the K-12 system; however, I agree that we really need to focus much more extensively on Newfoundland history and it is a discussion that we have underway presently with interest groups and stakeholders throughout the Province. I thank him for his question and recognize that it is of concern to all of us that we try and make sure that we have more relevance in our curriculum with respect to Newfoundland history.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam minister, again it is good to see that you are on line because the children of this Province who are going through the curriculum in our schools know a lot about probably the Fraser River in British Columbia, but when it comes to our own rich history, our own culture, they are coming out of the system with very little in the way of knowledge with regard to it. Again, many people have expressed concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; he ought to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: Specifically, what are you doing to address it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this very closely as a department, but we are not just limiting it to the people within the department. We recognize that there are a lot of people out there who can make a significant contribution in this area, which is why we have been meeting with all of the stakeholders and the interest groups. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Society came in and met with us. Various artists, including people like Anita Best, have e-mailed me to pass along their support for developing this type of program.

We are consulting and we are having discussions with stakeholders, again because we want to include them in the development of any curriculum. It is not something we want to do solely within the department because we think there is a lot of experience and expertise out there that we can avail of, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

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

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is a broad focus in our curriculum in terms of a focus on history, but there are aspects of the curriculum today that focus on different events within our history. So they look at communities in our Province and look at putting them in a historical context. I would agree with the member opposite that we need more in our curriculum with respect to Newfoundland history. Is there enough? No, there is not. Is there some there? Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing is that we have very creative teachers in our system who make sure that even though it may not be in the curriculum they do ensure that our students have a broad range of topics covered when it comes to Newfoundland history. Our teachers are very good and yes, the teachers take a lead role in this, but what we are going to do as a department is look much more closely at a more comprehensive history program in our curriculum.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Acting Minister of Justice or Acting Attorney General of the Province. A number of weeks ago the results of inquiry surrounding the death of Eugene Rose at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre were released. The presiding judge was limited and restricted in his recommendations by virtue of the very legislation ordering the inquiry into this young person's death. Specifically, Section 49(3) of the Provincial Offences Act states: “The findings of the judge shall not contain findings of legal responsibility or a conclusion of law.”

My question to the acting minister is: Of what benefit is an inquiry to the family of the deceased person when the judge's hands are tied in this fashion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the opportunity to pose a second question and await the response from the hon. minister upon the minister's return.

Not only are the findings and conclusions important to the family, but they can serve as guidelines to all other similar facilities, and indeed the public at large. Will this government take the necessary steps and changes to our legislation to ensure that such findings and conclusions, when presented, can offer assistance to our facilities and the public at large in preventing other similar tragedies from occurring?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, again, we will take that question under advisement and pass it on to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health. Minister, the residents of the area of the Grace Hospital have complained of the soot ash problem in that area for years. The problem has not gotten any better. In fact, the residents have had many complaints over the past number of weeks. My question is this. Will the Health Care Corporation pay the residents of the Grace Hospital area compensation for damage to their property, vehicles and so on?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the member opposite ask the Health Care Corporation what their plans are with respect to that or any other issue around the Grace Hospital.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the residents of Holyrood have experienced damage to their vehicles. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have compensated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The residents of Holyrood have experienced damage to their vehicles and so on. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have compensated the residents of Holyrood. The residents of the Grace Hospital area have gone to the Health Care Corporation asking of this very same issue and they have said no. I am asking the Minister of Health today, why make chalk of one and cheese of the other? Will you step in and ensure that the residents of the Grace Hospital area are compensated for the serious damage that has occurred to their property, vehicles and so on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the member opposite knows, the Health Care Corporation have met with the residents in that area to discuss the issue. They changed from a different type, I believe, from a Bunker C to a different grade of oil to burn, particularly during the warm months. You also know that the plan is to close the Grace Hospital very soon, which I understand is part of the long-term plans with respect to not doing anything at this point in time. As you know, that is slated for the year 2000. So other than that, as I said to the member opposite, you know - and maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy could shed more light on the issue between Hydro and those people and the Health Care Corporation. Mr. Speaker, you have the information as I have it.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. As we watched in the last few days the developments on the Northern Peninsula, I can tell this House that myself and other rural members have had the same types of calls, same type of reactions in our district. There has been a lot of confusion about what is going to happen in the next few days to get to that issue. I would like to ask the minister: What is in place now for the Northern Peninsula to resolve this particular issue as it relates to jobs in that area?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

Let me say to him that we know there are areas - and we are working with the members responsible for that area to try and alleviate as much of the hardship as there is on the Northern Peninsula, as well as in other areas in this Province. There are some other areas in this Province that have some problems as well. Let me also say to him that if he gets calls of that nature, the nature that he is telling us that he gets, we would appreciate hearing from him. I would, certainly as a minister, to see if there is something that can be done to help alleviate the suffering while the economic recovery is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

There are things to react to it. I would like to ask the minister again to answer the first question. What is in place now for the Northern Peninsula to act immediately on the situation on the Northern Peninsula? The second question is this. Can you tell the people of this Province, who are very confused on ministers from Ottawa and ministers from this Province, when will the work - and you can list it anyway you want; they are make-work projects, a lot of them are - be up and running? Will it be before Christmas? I would ask the minister that.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that perhaps it is a question that he should more appropriately address to the federal member for the area. Let me also say to him that last week I think the Premier and the Member for St. Barbe, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, announced in this House approximately $1 million, maybe slightly over or slightly under, for projects that while they are of necessity important to the tourism infrastructure in this Province are also important from a job creation point of view. I understand that work is starting on them today.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, here is the last question I will ask today, then. Many people are asking this in my district today, on both the Green Bay and White Bay side, and Bonavista. I have gotten calls from other parts of the Province, on the West Coast, and so one. Could the minister tell us, with your collaboration with the federal government on the FRAM-ED and FRAM, when can we see action on those?

Because a lot of people are confused when we have our federal minister telling communities that they are going to be starting up next week. We had one situation in my district where the federal minister told them within two weeks. That was two months ago, I say to the minister. There is a lot of confusion out there. What you saw yesterday on the Northern Peninsula is indicative of what is happening around the Province. It is starting to boil over. People want to know exactly when they can start to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that I know that he would love for -

that is not true, I should not say that. I will not say he would love for it because that is not true. It probably might suit some political purpose. Let me just say to him that we have already announced under the FRAM-ED program some $16 million to $17 million worth of projects in conjunction with the federal government. If his attempt is in any way designed to see that indeed there is a split between the cooperation that presently exists between the federal minister and this government, then I have to say to him that he is not going to succeed.

We will do whatever is possible, let me say to the hon. gentleman, to take care of the people of this Province. I think this government has proven this time and time again, in whatever is within our fiscal capacity to do to see that the suffering of our people is alleviated.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation. Would the minister confirm for the House that the concert producer, Wayne Guzzwell, was paid a salary of $35,000 to produced the five week Soiree ‘99 concerts throughout the Province this past summer, and that he will be paid $30,000 to produce Debut 2000, the New Year's Eve celebrations at the St. John's Waterfront, a one night celebration?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures but Mr. Guzzwell has a world-class representation. He helped produced the Olympics in Montreal. He produced a number of significant events across the country. He is responsible in the main for that wonderful gala that was produced for the Confederation series here at the stadium that was carried all across the country. He is, with his team, responsible for Debut 2000. It looks like already he has signed up some fifty-seven television stations which will give us $90 million worth of publicity, so every cent we are paying him is worth every single cent.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Guzzwell also produced the Liberal ads during the last provincial election.

I would like to ask the minister why any of this work was not tendered, why any of the work was not advertised, and why your only criteria seems to be that you were part of the Liberal campaign?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I never heard such foolishness in all my life. He had absolutely zero to do with producing ads for the Liberal Party. In fact, the Premier produced a lot of them in concert with some professional people, much like I would assume the Leader of the Opposition had quite a hand in the production and the design of ads that were required.

Anything that goes to the special celebrations office, the hon. member would know, as a corporation, does not require public tender. It goes out for expressions of interest. For example, Great Big Sea, we did not tender to have them come and play for us on the waterfront, but they will be playing for us on the waterfront. The wonderful group, Kim Stockwood Band, we did not tender for the Kim Stockwood Band, but she will be here and she will be playing. That marvelous group from Deer Lake, The CATCH, the three brothers, they will be playing - Timber and others. We do not go to tender because it is a special celebrations corporation and it is not required to do so under the tender act, but they do go for expressions of interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I know the hon. member cannot handle all the good news, but tourism has grown 31 per cent in the last three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Somebody somewhere in those offices is doing something correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the Annual Report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women for the Province for the fiscal year 1998-1999.

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

I have a petition today on the water export issue.

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share.

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff, secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

We have many of these petitions that have come back to us, and letters of support by mayors of municipalities, by councillors. We have a number of letters of support for the position that we have taken on this, and we know there is legislation that is proposed to this House of Assembly. We have made amendments to that legislation that has been proposed to the House. The legislation, for some reason, has not been brought in for third reading or for Committee at this point. We also know that the Minister of Environment is at a meeting in Alberta where he is meeting with other provincial environment ministers as well as federal officials. We understand that there are a number of provinces, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and so on, that have some concerns and reservations with the national accord that the federal government are proposing, saying that there are weaknesses in that accord and that it has to be strengthened. The Minister of Environment from British Columbia has actually sent out a news statement and criticized the federal government for not making their report stronger. She fears that it may shift some of the focus back on the provinces.

We have no problem on this side of the House with a national accord. We support the idea of a national accord. We support the idea, on this side of the House, of legislation that will ban the export of bulk water from this Province, but we want to ensure that in that legislation there are measures taken to ensure that this Province will not be liable for any compensation if there are challenges to the federal government through the NAFTA agreement or any other such trade agreements. We want to ensure that any challenges that are presented to the federal government, that the federal government of this country face on trade issues related to bulk water, will not have any cost borne to this Province at all, in any way, shape or form.

We support this petition. There are thousands of signatures on the petitions that we have received on the bulk water issue. We support the petition and we will continue to present these petitions in the House of Assembly until such legislation has been passed by the House of Assembly to ensure that bulk water is restricted from being removed or exported from this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South. This member has put forward a great number of petitions on this particular topic and the petitions continue to arrive from all parts of the Province on a daily basis. I can say to the hon. members that we on this side will continue to present these petitions as long as the people of this Province do not get a clear answer from this particular government.

We on this side have said that we are generally in agreement with the intent of Bill 31. During the debate on second reading, nearly every member on this side spoke on this particular piece of legislation. However, as the Member for St. John's South has just said, we have certain problems with the varying interpretations of certain clauses, particularly clause 7.

We know that the legal advice that has been given to our Party indicates that there might be some potential liability to the Province, some significant liability to the Province. We also note that the legal advice given to the government indicates that this legal liability might not be as great as indicated by the legal advice given to the Progressive Conservative Party.

What we are asking for, what the petition is seeking, is a clear statement from the federal government that they will not, in any way, hold this Province liable if this particular piece of legislation does not do what it is intended to do; in other words, to relieve Newfoundland of its liability and to state unequivocally that we will not be adversely affected by the passage of this particular piece of legislation.

That is what the people of this Province want. They want a clear statement. They do not want any possibility. While we can have different lawyers make different statements, we believe the legal advice given to our Party is sound. It is contrary to the advice given to the government by its legal advisors.

There is only one way to address this, and that is if the federal government accepts its responsibility and tells the people of this Province very clearly, in written correspondence, that the people of this Province will not have to bear the responsibility for any adverse effects emanating from the legislation that we have before this House for consideration; which has already passed second reading and which is now ready to go to Committee but has not been recalled by the Government House Leader in the last several days.

When this House opened two weeks ago, we were in a rush to get Bill 31 under consideration almost immediately. After a great deal of debate on second reading, it eventually passed in the second reading stage. It has not been called in the Committee stage. Is that an indication, we ask the Government House Leader, that the government is not now at all certain as to whether or not it is -

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

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

MR. TULK: The answer is no.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: I interpret the Government House Leader to have said that they are not certain as to whether or not this particular piece of legislation can stand up to the rigorous tests that it might have to stand up to if it is challenged and if Newfoundland will, shall we say, hopefully find itself never in a position to have to accept liability for any adverse effects; but certainly there is a difference in legal advice.

We can probably interpret the hesitancy to bring it forward for Committee stage on the fact that there is some genuine concern. The only way to address that is to have the Federal Government of Canada clearly state that they understand the nature of the legislation, they understand the intent that we have expressed in this House, but that the federal government has not, to my knowledge, at this stage, given any commitment that they would accept any responsibility for anything that might happen because of the passage of this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: In other words, we want Newfoundland to be exonerated from any responsibility in the way of compensation to those multinational companies.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not see the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The hon. member wishes to respond.

MR. MANNING: I shall return.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, sorry.

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

I want to say first of all that it is very important that the people have an opportunity to communicate to the House their preference on legislation, especially through petitions. I also want to point out that we do presently have legislation before the House that deals with this particular issue. It is certainly a good piece of legislation that outlines government's position and that reflected in the wishes of the people of this Province in terms of the bulk export of water.

I realize the efforts that have been put into this issue by the member opposite, and the great deal of work that he has done to solicit public opinion and views on this, but there is legislation before the House and I think that we should use that opportunity to debate and discuss the content of the bill to make opinions known, to certainly put forward any information or additions that we feel need to be done during the debate of this legislation.

Having said that, I also want to point out a couple of things. One in particular is that this piece of legislation certainly demonstrates the commitment that this government has to the protection of resources and the development of resources in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When we look at stopping the bulk export of water out of our Province, we do so for the protection of the resource, for the protection of the people, for the protection of the communities in terms of the long-term development that can occur for many of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I wonder would the hon. gentleman consent to calling the Committee and passing the bill right now?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, right on the spot government wants to make policy on the back of an envelope.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, I say to the Government House Leader. Hold your horses. One second. You do not own this place. You are not going to take it on your back. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, first of all, that if you want to put it in Committee stage right now we will pass every clause of that with the exception of the compensation issue. When you produce a letter from the federal government that says the Government of Canada is liable and only liable for compensation, then you can have that too! It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our leader just stated that time that we will pass the legislation except for the clause that has to do -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker, I am raising this issue. He can have every part or section of the legislation of Bill 31 except the section that deals with liability. The reason we raise that issue is because we believe, on this side of the House, that the people of this Province can be held liable for compensation. Until we see the government produce a letter from the federal government saying that they are solely responsible, we are not willing to pass this bill, except for the clause that deals with compensation. That is just a question that we asked. That is why I asked: Where is Bill 31? Because I know that the government are trying to get that letter from the federal government. They are trying to get that commitment from the federal government to say that they are responsible, but the federal government is not forthcoming with the letter that deals with compensation as it relates to Bill 31.

There is the situation that we just went through with the McCurdy group that we are not sure of yet, who is responsible for compensation. We do not have a letter from the federal government stating they are solely responsible for compensation, therefore we have Bill 31 put on the back burner. The purpose of the petition today is just to raise the concern once again in the Legislature and the Province that this is a very important piece of legislation, maybe one of the most important pieces of legislation in the House during this sitting, I say. It is very important and it is something that needs to be debated. It needs to be debated, it needs to be discussed (inaudible), and I am very pleased to stand and present the petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: It is very important that I had the opportunity to stand and present the petition on behalf of the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Is he -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he supporting the petition now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very important that we support something we believe in, and we believe on this side that this legislation does have a flaw in clause 7. I believe no matter how many petitions we present in this House, it is our responsibility and obligation to get up here and support it when we believe in it. I certainly have no problem in supporting the cancellation of bulk water exports, because I truly believe in Newfoundland and Labrador today that this resource that we have is far greater and far better in our future than we realize.

I can see this first hand, particularly in my district in Green Bay, in South Brook there with the True North bottling plant. I believe that if we had a bulk water export policy that allowed for bulk exporting that plant would be closed today. I believe there were attempts made by people that - I am not sure exactly who - tried to make that plant look not viable and make it look like bottling water is not going to be successful in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to protect it every way we can. The purest of the water is probably coming from underneath the ground, which is in the True North bottling plant in South Brook. This water is in a very pure state. We cannot allow any possibility of anybody taking any advantage of this resource and bulk exporting this water. About a year ago I heard there were a couple of companies interested in setting up bulk export from the Green Bay area, and I am very glad that did not happen. If that happened today, we would not have that bottling plant in South Brook.

I'm sure that our bottling plants and other facilities that could use up our water locally would be a great success in our future. This water that we have is so good and so precious that we can be very proud knowing that if a lot of places in this world today only had this resource how glad they would be, and how prosperous they would be if they could utilize that resource for their own consumption in parts of the world today where they do not have that privilege.

Gisborne Lake is probably one of the precious areas in Newfoundland that we also recognize as containing pure water and good water. If that water was allowed to be exported out in bulk, I think in the long term we would have been looking back and saying we did go wrong. This was a wrong move and we should not have done it. I think if the government is serious about passing this legislation then maybe we could have this amendment today and we could probably pass this legislation, excluding this clause 7 and amending it.

I think that the members on the other side also recognize the importance of us not approving this bill. I think if they only tell the truth that they would recognize that we do have a legitimate case.

AN HON. MEMBER: If we would only tell the truth?

MR. HUNTER: If you would only recognize the truth and the importance of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am just proud to stand and speak on behalf of the presenter, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, obviously, by our very actions have fully supported the petition, which is the whole point. There are a few comments I would like to make.

The other thing that has already been exposed to the public - because nobody who sends in a petition expects that members of the Legislature use the presentations of petitions to debate a clause in a bill which has a place on the Order Paper for full debate in a Committee - is that the paid lobbyist that the party opposite brought here from Toronto to argue a certain point of view about compensation, the paid lobbyist -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The paid lobbyist, P-A-I-D lobbyist, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, the minister has obviously been misinformed. The person who was here was here on a voluntary way. He was not paid at all for any of his services unlike, I suppose, the lawyers that were brought in by government. He was not paid at all by anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not by anybody. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: To my knowledge, he came here to -

AN HON. MEMBER: To your knowledge.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are doubting your word.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is their right, to doubt it, I suppose. The people of the Province bore no financial commitment or responsibility for Mr. Appleton, the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador bore no financial commitment, other than the fact that they paid for his plane ticket to come down here. That was it.

MR. E. BYRNE: No services, no contract for services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order that the minister has raised, if the Government House Leader wants to call Bill 31 there is nothing - the only thing that is exposed here is that government controls the Orders of the Day. They decide what legislation they are going to call for debate. We were told this morning it is Bill 28 so we are prepared to debate that. If the Government House Leader on behalf of the government wishes to introduce Bill 31 we will pass -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, now. Will you let me finish? The Minister of Mines and Energy has indicated that we are trying to in some way hold it up. That is not true. We have passed second reading. We have indicated -

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, I say to the Government House Leader. If you would like to hear me out, fair enough. If you are not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

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

If government wants to call Bill 31 and move directly to Committee we will pass every clause with the exception of clause 5(c) and (d) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, will you let me finish? One second. Will you let me finish please? As well, clause 7(2), so that we can properly debate those clauses and make the necessary amendments that we want to make. If government does not believe in those amendments they have the opportunity to vote them down. It is as simple as that. If the government are prepared to do that, fair enough, we will do it right now. Right now, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: So we can put forward amendments that we feel are in the public interest, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. E. BYRNE: What more should the government want or ask for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, the issue has been approved in principle. He stated clearly that they are not willing to pass the bill today, that they are still going to hang on by their fingernails to some supposed problem with the particular bill, some assumed problem that has already been exposed in the public as being non-existent. It is shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that they are abusing the petitioners to enter into this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. REID: Thank you. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the Petition of the undersigned residents of Fogo, Newfoundland, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your hon. House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth;

WHEREAS the existing decision to remove the hospital from Fogo is unfounded, fundamentally erred against all professional advice and opinion, and has caused the effective destruction of an exceptional health care system on Fogo Island; and

WHEREAS the proposed new location will cause taxpayers hundreds of thousands of additional dollars, have inadequate and inferior fire protection, be removed from water and sewer services, be located out of a community and residential setting and jeopardize other health care services constructed to be adjacent to the hospital; and

WHEREAS the decision will have a drastic and negative social and economic impact on the Town of Fogo without compensatory measures and are contrary to the long-term financial commitments of the community; and

WHEREAS the decision has the potential of eliminating the remaining amounts of cooperation and unity on the Island of Fogo;

WHEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to place the decision to remove the hospital from Fogo on hold to allow another assessment of the sites so that a decision may be rendered by a three-person, independent, unbiased commission.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to speak to the petition. I said many times before that there are issues that come before the House that are obviously partisan in nature and we get the opportunity in the thrust and throe of debate to debate alternate points of view.

It is ironic when a member can stand in the House after a budget speech and deliver such a commitment to part of his district that the ensuing events that have occurred could not be forecast. I don't think anyone in this House would have been able to forecast what has taken place.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having the opportunity to respond to the petition presented by the member.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to present a petition on a topic that has been covered already in earlier petitions. I have been asked to present a petition with respect to the issue of bulk export of water. I will read the petition into the record:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has continued and certainly was alive and well during the summer months and in the early fall of this year where there was significant debate, certainly in the communities on the Burin Peninsula, in particular in the community of Grand Le Pierre. It was a debate that was joined by many hundreds, indeed thousands, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had some say and wanted to have some say, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, with respect to this issue of bulk export of water.

It is interesting to note that we do have precedents and we do have examples of where this issue is contentious, not only in this Province, but indeed throughout this country and the United States as well. In fact, we have newspaper articles from The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, and the Canadian Report on Business referring to examples where the issue of compensation is both addressed and debated by academics who raised concern.

The point therefore is that we must always be cautious as to what the potential liability and exposure of this particular issue may be in view of what government's obligation may be to any party or interest that is forthcoming. When it is government, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of this government, I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, simply relax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy that if he wishes to take part in the discussion on the petition there will be an opportunity for him to do that. If he wishes to discuss issues with members on either side of the House, he ought to do that outside the Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister continues in the fashion he has, he will not have the energy to participate in this debate. So I say to the minister, relax. As Mr. Speaker indicated, he will have this opportunity.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in any sort of debate, in any argument, there are two sides to the argument. There are two sides to this discussion. Obviously the minister, the government generally, has brought in individuals who speak to a certain side and to a certain argument representing their position. However, what has been presented by members on this side of the House is an argument and a position that should suggest to members opposite that there is a concern, there is a doubt, there is a debate, there is a issue which has to be fully addressed and debated in this House, and that is what government must take seriously. It must take seriously the very real possibility that there is an issue here with respect to compensation and with respect to the possibility of liability and exposure that ought to be taken seriously. I would suggest that all government do is read a decision in the matter of the North America Free Trade Agreement, a case known as The Sun Belt Water, Inc. Arbitration.

It is a claim with facts that are similar to the situation that we are now facing; and, if government were serious in protecting the interests of the people of this Province, it would take heed as to what is happening in other jurisdictions and revisit and rethink the legislation that is now before the House. We, as a Party, and we, as members on this side of the House, look forward to debating our amendments and proposing our amendments with respect to Bill 31 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - so that we can show members opposite the seriousness of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague with regard to the petition that he has put forth. Again, it is a good opportunity for me to get up and to, I guess, continue the debate with regard to water export in this Province. Again, water export being a very crucial issue that has been ongoing now for a number of years and finally, in the House, legislation brought forth that will decide the issue.

The legislation, again, I support to some degree - except, of course, for the sections that have already been mentioned.

When these people signed this petition, they signed it with the expectation that their concerns would be brought to this particular House. I stand today in support of these people, and I say people because it is very important that we understand what the people are saying out there, that we listen, and not only do we listen but we act. In this particular case, I am very proud to see that today many of my colleagues brought forth these petitions.

With regard to continuing, we have to make sure that the people of this Province are certainly represented in many different ways, and this is one of the ways. If a petition comes in, we have to put it forth, and we will continue.

With regard to the legislation, again it came forth in a rush but sort of slowed down. Again, as we have indicated on this side of the House, there are certain problems with the legislation. These problems have to be addressed, and they are addressed with the proposed amendments to the bill. Water is such a precious resource and it is very important, when we pass this legislation, that we are assured that this Province, that the people of the Province, the people who signed these petitions, are not going to held liable.

With regard to the amendments as well, the expectation is that somehow or another our federal government will send along that particular letter that will alleviate any fears that we might have with regard to the liability that could be incurred. I say could be incurred, but the possibility is there. We must make sure that we do not have a situation whereby this Province is going to be held liable for the actions, or lack of action, of the government in question.

Again, I am very pleased to see that this legislation will be coming forth. I cannot say when. There is obviously some dispute as to when it will come forth, but I am looking forward to debating, especially with regard to the amendments, to make sure that the concerns of the people of this Province are put forth, and that these people whom we represent get a fair return with regard to not only the water resources but any resources to which we are referring.

Again, I stood in support of my colleague. I would encourage others to stand, to make sure that the point has gotten across that, with regard to water export, it is a very, very, I suppose, delicate issue, one that has to be dealt with in a very thorough manner, and a thorough manner in which we make sure that the debate that goes on here is an open debate, that you can get up and, whether it be on a petition or an amendment, that the members here on both sides feel comfortable in getting up and debating this particular legislation.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful opportunity to rise, to support - again I say support - the legislation. I am not getting up and saying that I am not going to support it. I am getting up and saying: Yes, with those amendments we will support it. You can get support from both sides of the House.

The petitions that are coming forward, I hope that more come forward because the more we have, obviously, the more opportunity we have to let this House know how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel with regard to this particular issue.

I look forward to the debate. I am certain that both sides - members on both sides of the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I again make a few quite comments about this particular petition, I apologize for my outburst earlier. I was really so upset with seeing that people on the opposite side, for whom I have so much respect, standing up and suggesting that they support something that I know they do not support. That is always distressing to me. It threw me off that much that I uncharacteristically blurted out a couple of things that I know I should not have. I appreciate being admonished appropriately by the Chair.

The issue is this, as I have indicated: The petitioners, obviously, being very serious-minded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are very pleased today that in fact this whole Legislature, without a single dissenting voice - not one, not a single dissenting voice - has already agreed in principle with the prayer of their petition that water in Newfoundland and Labrador should not be available for export in bulk. Their prayer of the petition has been answered in full.

My good friend, the lawyer from St. John's East, I would bet any money that he would not sign his name to an opinion given, as a lawyer, that he would to take to court, that supports the position that is put forward to suggest that there is liability for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in this issue. He would not argue that case in court, which is why I am surprised that he stood up and suggested that he has concerns over the petition.

We have another lawyer in the Legislature, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who would not - I would bet dollars to donuts - take the case. They would not sign on for the case to try and win that in court because they know there is no substance to it. But, for political purposes, it makes for a half-decent speech and allows them to waste some more time of the Legislature when they are demanding that we must get in here to debate the pertinent, pressing issues of the day.

This issue has been resolved in the minds and hearts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they know - because it has already been exposed - another lawyer, who also happens to be the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for the Province, backed by other experts in the field, and backed by Canadian government experts, has said that this is a non-issue that they are chasing again - chasing, like dogs chasing after the school bus. The only thing I can imagine is that some day the dog will catch the bus, and what is the dog going to do with the bus? It will probably be like the IRA, I suppose, the fellow who burned his lips trying to blow up the bus. It will be the same kind of thing. It will be the same kind of situation.

They are so desperate to try to hang on to and create an issue that does exist, they are even abusing the good-natured people of the Province who, in all honesty and sincerity, sent in a petition with a serious plea that we ban the bulk export of water.

We have acceded to the request, but because they so want to deal with the issues of the day, like the bill we were debating yesterday - the first income tax cut in the history of the Province. Did they want to get back to it and debate it again today? No, they want to abuse the petitioners by suggesting that there might be some fabricated problem with the legislation that bans the bulk export of water.

In fact, they should be totally ashamed of themselves. I am ashamed that I had an outburst, that I could not control myself earlier. I pledge myself to better conduct in the Legislature, provided the Opposition will get serious about debating the issues of the day and not provoke me into misbehaving to the point that I have to be admonished and put in my place by the Chair of this Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Are we on Orders of the Day yet?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order10, Bill 28.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province.” (Bill 28)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it a great pleasure today to rise and, for the House, introduce for second reading a significant piece of legislation, Bill 28, and to read into the record the title of the bill, “An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province”. I guess the short term, in the parlance and normal speak, it will be referred to as the new Mining Act.

This marks again a significant step forward in a major sector of the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. Just as a reminder, in this year past exploration alone in the mining sector reached some $40 million worth of activity. The full export value of the mining sector in the year past was in the range of $800 million - a significant contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. A year or so ago, the mining exports and mineral exports actually reached $1 billion, and it is expected to reach $1 billion and exceed it next year.

The main reason it is down to $800 million this year is because, as all hon. members would know, the prices of commodities such as iron ore out of Labrador West and so on, and nickel in the future, which we hope to export in its purest form from Newfoundland and Labrador, the prices have been depressed through this particular year, the markets have been down, so the value to the Province has decreased marginally this year. But, again, we are talking about $1 billion regular contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at in the introduction of Bill 28 is the maturing and the moving of the whole mining sector into its next and growing phases of responsible and environmentally friendly mining activity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are a number of significant components to the bill. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that they expected Bill 28 to be called today and that they have studied it in depth and in detail and are ready to go through the whole of the bill clause-by-clause if they needed to today. We certainly do not expect that today. We expect the debate in principle, because again it is a significant piece of legislation, but I would understand that all members opposite - because I am sure if they all wanted to speak to something such as the Coat of Arms legislation, if that was significant enough to bring them all to their feet with impassioned speeches for fifteen or twenty minutes, I am sure they are going to take their full half hour allocation, each and every one of them, to speak to such a significant piece of legislation as Bill 28, the new Mining Act. I look forward to the debate and I know we will have some further detail in Committee.

By way of introduction, there are a number of features of Bill 28, An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province, that I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature. I do know for a fact that now, with information technology advanced to the state that it is in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have Hansard basically pretty well on line for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have to wait for hard copies. There are people, I understand, who access the actual events and the recording of what happens in this Legislature on almost a daily basis. There are many who are involved in and interested in the mining sector who might like to check in and find out what is being said about this significant piece of legislation as it is introduced today.

This new Mining Act will define procedures for mineral resource management, for management of the resource, for rehabilitation - a major issue with respect to mining - that, when the mining ceases, what about rehabiliting the mining site and trying to bring it back as close as possible and as near as possible to its natural state? Also, it provides financial assurances - for the first time, by law, in the history of this Province - agreed to and openly and fully participated in by the mining sector and by operators in the mining sector. I want to point that out for the record, that the representatives of the Chamber of Mineral Resources for Newfoundland and Labrador have been intricately involved in the development of this particular piece of legislation and they are delighted that they are going to be able to tell people that they are involved in the sector of Newfoundland and Labrador, and people in the sector in the rest of Canada, North America and the world, that we have very responsible, leading edge, new wave, legislation here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be financial assurances to provide for these rehabilitation plans when mining and milling operations cease, and there will also be provisions providing for the return of mining leases to the Crown if, in fact, some operator finds himself in violation of this new legislation.

The new legislation will apply to anybody who is a lessee, who has rights under the Mineral Act or under the Quarry Materials Act. There are many smaller quarries in Newfoundland and Labrador that have not had coverage under a particular piece of legislation; not to say that the operations have not been well run and have not been according to the laws of the land, but the provisions for rehabilitation and the requirement to put financial insurances in place have been lacking up to now, and they will apply to any leases under the Mineral Act or the Quarry Materials Act.

The holders of any rights to minerals issued under other instruments or grants, such as the Labrador Iron operations, will also have to comply with this particular bill. Any surface lease holder or the operator of a mill license will have to come into compliance with this particular piece of legislation.

Let me take a couple of minutes, if I could, to point out the main requirements of the new act. There are several of them, five that I will highlight in particular. I will not reference the particular clauses at this point in time because I know that the Opposition has done the clause-by-clause and they know exactly where these particular components are.

In providing the lease, the new law will state that, before the lease is issued, the proponent, the company that wants to do that, will have to lay out a development plan that suggests exactly how they are going to operate the mine, if there is to be a mill associated with it, what their production plans are to be, and so on. A full development plant will be known before the lease is issued, rather than just the tradition of past years, which was that companies would get a twenty or twenty-five year lease and then from time to time they would come to the government providing information about possible changes in their production plans, their production schedules, their rates of operation and so on. So a detailed plan for development is required with the application for the lease in the first instance and it is required by law under this new piece of legislation.

Also, there will be a requirement in this particular Bill 28 for operational reporting on an annual basis. This will address a request to operators for such information again as mine plans and production rate, because currently that kind of information is only gathered informally. While the government asks for it, mines can sometimes, much like the Freedom of Information Act in government and so, suggest that some of their production plans and output limits and so on are sensitive for purposes of competition in the marketplace. While they have not refused to give the government the information, they were not compelled to provide the information. So the new legislation addresses requests to operators for such information on an annual basis and will have to be provided as a matter of law rather than as a matter of deciding to have a good working relationship with the government.

There are two other very important pieces along with the financial issue. Progressive rehabilitation. This piece of legislation lays out by law that in the development plan, if a mine moves from one section to another section, and a particular section that has been abandoned or left is not in the future plans of the mine, that if they have depleted what they have wanted and have moved on to some other section - whether it be in an open pit, a quarry or underground - this particular legislation says that the company, the proponent, the operator, must rehabilitate those abandoned sections as they go, rather than leave the total rehabilitation effort for the end of the project when the mine closes. So the notion is that as we move along rehabilitation and reclamation of the site will be a work in progress by law, and that we will not have a circumstance in the Province again whereby we could have a mine and a mill operation abandoned, such as the unfortunate circumstance in Hope Brook, where at the end of the piece an un-reclaimed, uncleaned up site is left, the company is gone, no part of it has been reclaimed, none of the restoration has been done.

This particular legislation says you do not leave the whole operation to the end. When it is determined in your plan that a particular section or portion of that operation has been depleted and you are finished with it and it no longer is part of your future plans, the reclamation for that part is to begin at that point in time, and to be part of your overall development and operating plan.

With respect to rehabilitation generally, this particular piece of legislation brings in the overall legislative requirement that every holder of a lease on which mining has taken place will be required to prepare a detailed plan of how the property in its entirety will be rehabilitated when mining has terminated. So there will have to be a final reclamation plan as well submitted to the government, to the Department of Mines and Energy, to the officials in the department in the mines section when they are seeking a lease. They have to lay out what the plan is for reclamation when the operation will cease.

Because there is one thing that is certain about mining operations when you are dealing with a nonrenewable resource. The certainty - and we have several examples of it in Newfoundland and Labrador - is at some point the only thing guaranteed about the operation is that it will stop. You will deplete the nonrenewable resource. It will no longer be economically or technically feasible or viable to continue the mining extraction operation. So the operation when it starts is one day closer to its end, much like many of us when we are born. The only thing about it, you are one day closer to the day when you will leave the earth than the day before you were born.

It is the exact same thing with respect to mining operations. When there is a plan that comes forward to say: We want to do a mining operation, because we know that it will end, when the plan is put forward, the mine development proposal, before the lease is issued again, part of the plan has to be: How do you plan to try to do the best possible job of restoring the site to as close to its original environmental condition as will be humanly and feasiblely possible at the time?

The assurances are there that a range of options are given. Either the company will be asked to post an amount of cash before they ever start - so that the cash is put there in a fund to be used by anybody, whether it be the company, hopefully by the company because they will stay there and finish their commitments, but if not that the cash would be there - or the government might see fit that a bond might be more appropriate to be posted, much as we do with other kinds of institutions and facilities in the Province. We ask them to post a bond which then the bank pays on their behalf rather than have to put up cash at the beginning. Other kinds of security and collateral will be available and required so that we can have a guarantee that the money will be there at the end to actually deal with the reclamation plan.

The provision of the financial assurance is an essential component basically to ensure that the Province does not become liable for site reclamation upon mine closure, either planned or unplanned. So whether the closure of the mine is a planned event or whether the closure is unplanned because of downturn in commodity prices or things of that nature, we want to make sure that the money is in place, that the financial assurance and security is in place, to make sure that the reclamation can proceed with or without the company still being present.

The environmental issues which must be addressed at the Hope Brook mine, for example, could be substantial. I spoke to the press outside the Legislature today and in response to a question indicated that the preliminary estimates are that the reclamation at Hope Brook to try and contain the different effluents from that particular gold mine operation could be in the range of $7 million to $8 million. We have the potential that the taxpayers of the Province - because the company went into default, because there was not a financial assurance piece of legislation in place, because there was not any backing. They did have a reclamation plan. They did sign on and promised to restore the property to the best possible condition that could be accomplished using modern technology, but they ran out of money. They are in receivership. So the people of the Province may in fact have to, at some point within the next year, spend $7 million or $8 million of their own hard-earned money to try to reclaim and restore the former Hope Brook site. This kind of financial assurance will make sure that will be the last time, if it does happen, that occurs in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we always benefit from learning from issues and potential mistakes of the past.

This kind of situation in Hope Brook could clearly have been avoided had the Province required financial assurance for this site at the time when Royal Oak was given the rights to develop the Hope Brook property, but because there was no legislation requiring it at the time, even if we asked for it, there would have been no way to enforce a financial assurance without the kind of legislation that is before the House now in Bill 28.

The Voisey's Bay Environmental Panel report as well, in recommendation 102, addressed the issue and recommended that appropriate requirements for financial assurances should be attached to the mining lease when it is issued for Voisey's Bay.

While there are a range of options as to how the financial assurances are to be given, the fact is that there have to be financial assurance or there will be no lease given in the first instance and the mine operation and any mill that goes with it will not start without financial assurances in place under and in accordance with this particular Bill 28, the new Mining Act.

It should be known that the implementation of this act, this new Mining Act, will add an incremental cost on new and existing mining projects; because we will also go back to existing projects such as the one, the gold mine at Snooks Arm, and this law will provide, which means that operation will be asked to provide financial assurances for its reclamation plan when the mine and mill operation ceases five, ten, fifteen years down the road.

That is why there is some flexibility given in section 10, so that an operation that has started up and existing, and started under a different set of rules, will not be faced with an onerous burden that might put it out of business, but we will find a way to work with existing companies to find the most reasonable way to put in place financial assurances that they can bear, along with their existing operation, that will also provide a guarantee that the reclamation will actually occur when it is over.

I would actually be remiss in introducing this bill if I did speak for a minute about the gold mine operation in Snooks Arm, because it is and has been touted by the mining sector and also by environmentalists as being a model as to how that kind of operation should operate anywhere on the planet. They did a first-class job, because one of the things they did from the very beginning was: they committed, as a company and an operator, to not only meet and try to meet environmental concerns and environmental targets and goals, but they committed to meet and where possible exceed every environmental requirement that faces a mining/milling operation, not only by Newfoundland law but by Canadian law.

They wanted to show everybody that they could be a leader in the industry and a leader in the sector, and it has been really instructional for us. We have actually sent - I know the Member for Baie Verte-White Bay - an awful lot of people to the mine. Mining sector executives and people from all over North America have visited the Baie Verte Peninsula to look at a sample of an award-winning mining operation in the 1990s, which is the model that we are hoping will actually be attained and used and try to be attained by all other future operators in Newfoundland and Labrador.

From the processing part of it, the mine/mill operation - because I have used this in speeches outside the Legislature and I may have even used it in the Legislature before - again, it has been useful, helpful, and instructive to us because it is the example that we would like to follow on a larger scale with respect to Voisey's Bay.

The story I have told with pride, and I know the member for the area tells it with pride as well, is that on a regular basis supplies go into the Baie Verte Peninsula. People wonder what these trucks are doing rolling down the road - not a very good road, I admit to the hon. member. We are trying to get it upgraded because it really does deserve to be done and needs to be done. They bump over some of the very terrible roads in the area - but there are plans, I think, to address that in the shorter, medium and longer term - and they bring in supplies. They bring in drill bits, blasting caps, explosives, and they bring it underground. They mine rock on the Baie Verte Peninsula that has gold in it. They bring it to the surface, they crush it, and they mill it in a complete operation, a leaching process that is done with every environmental standard known in the country met and surpassed. Then they take the waste rock and take it back into the underground - rather than pile it all over the ground, they put it back underground as part of the operation - and guess what happens on a regular basis?

After all that happens, in comes a Brinks truck and people are saying: What is this Brinks truck doing going down the Baie Verte Peninsula? Well, guess what it is going down there to get? It is going down there to get gold bars; because they start with rock under the ground with blasting caps and all kinds of blasting material and explosives, drills and everything that goes with that, and what leaves Newfoundland and Labrador, under the security of armed guards in a Brinks truck, is gold bars.

This legislation says that they will reclaim areas as they abandon them, they will reclaim the whole site if and when it closes - as it surely will because it is a non-renewable resource - and they will put financial assurances in place. We do know, we acknowledge, and we have discussed it with the industry, that it will add an incremental cost on new and existing mining projects, which is why, when we discuss clause 10 in detail, it is necessary to have some flexibility and several different types of financial instruments available to the companies in section 10. Because, if we went to all of them and said: Tell us what your reclamation plan is, tell us how much it is going to cost, and put the cash in the bank, that may not be the best use of their money. It may do one thing; it may cause the closure, prematurely, for some existing operations. We want to work with them to provide some flexibility on the financial assurances so they can continue to operate, but over the life of the project make sure they have left enough money or collateral so that the reclamation plan can be carried through to its conclusion.

The provision of financial assurances is a requirement of many other provincial and national jurisdictions, and we are glad now that the mining sector is on side with us to say that it is time to bring it to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I conclude the introductory remarks in putting forward Bill 28 for second reading by suggesting that there has been extensive consultation carried out with the main industry association affected by the legislation, which is the Chamber of Mineral Resources, which represents the producing mines, the developing mining projects and the mineral exploration sector in the Province. I am proud to say that, having been involved with officials in the department, with the former minister and others over the last couple of years, that they firmly believe they will be proud to go forward as people operating in Newfoundland and Labrador to suggest that they are leading edge, environmentally friendly, committed to the best possible processes while they are operating, committed to putting forward development plans from the beginning, committed to putting forward reclamation plans as parts of the mine, while still operating, are abandoned, committed to putting forward an overall reclamation plan for any mining project in the Province in the future, and also committed to making sure that the money, that the backing, is there to do it.

One other feature that is in the bill that is noteworthy is that this particular bill also provides, for the first time, for licences to be allowed for milling operations for operations that do not have a mine. Because in the past milling operations existed in Newfoundland and Labrador where there was a mine and the suggestion was that there would only be a mill if there was a mine. It is obvious that officials and the mining sector see circumstances, several of them possibly in the future, where a single mill in a certain location in Newfoundland and Labrador might be able to process ore from several different mines in Newfoundland and Labrador or outside.

We have an example again with the Richmont Mines Inc. situation that there are other small gold deposits in and around the area that may not be able to stand or get the financing for a mill and a processing plant to go with them, but that if the mine is developed and that if the gold ore is taken to the Baie Verte Peninsula, to the Richmont Mines Inc. facility in a processing plant, a milling plant that already exists, that both operations could be viable. Whereas in the other case a potential gold mine might never see the light of day in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So there is a provision, for the first time again, in Bill 28 that allows the licensing of milling, even in the absence of a mine in Newfoundland and Labrador, for other mine operations in the Province and hopefully for the potential import of ore and valuable concentrates from other places to go to milling operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So with that I will conclude my remarks. I certainly look forward to participating in debate and commend the bill to members of the House for their full consideration, and hopefully passage at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and have a few words on Bill 28, An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province. It is very interesting to note that this bill repeals the Mines Act and of course it replaces the Mines Act. This bill reveals to me that several definitions are added. Safety regulations previously referred to the Mines Act have been transferred to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I would only hope that this in no way diminishes our safety aspect by taking it out of one department and moving it into another. I can only hope that in this regard it will strengthen the mining regulations for this Province, and it will certainly strengthen workplace safety, health and occupational safety.

Of course, the nature and type of these development plans have changed as well by the introduction of this bill. Here I would like to say that it is too bad that when we were talking about developing Labrador we did not have some kind of a nature and a type of development plan in place whereby the company could not jack up and go off to Quebec. By doing that, we lost approximately 3,000 jobs in actual construction, and I believe 120 jobs, when the mine is actually completed, which is work that went off to Quebec City and of course, at the end of the day, Newfoundland and Labrador were left out.

It is very interesting to note, too, while I am talking about Labrador, that 80 per cent of the railway which operates involving the mine in Labrador is in Newfoundland and Labrador but yet very small numbers of the people who work there are actually from Labrador. Most of them come from outside our Province altogether. As a matter of fact, I believe the control of the railway is actually being done in Sept-Iles, Quebec. Actually, I guess Sept-Iles has prospered and survived on the mining industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have gone from 1,200 people before the iron ore was starting to be developed in our Province, and now in Sept-Iles there are some 44,000 residents. One would really have to wonder why some of these positions or jobs could not actually be in our own Province.

So I find these things rather strange, and as I said, the nature and type of development would also relate to Voisey's Bay. My understanding is that we are going to develop a new type of smelting and refining of the ore that comes out of Voisey's Bay, and I guess this bill is designed to assist them when they make their submission to government to say: Here is exactly how we are going to mill, here is exactly how we are going to process the minerals that are going to come out of Voisey's Bay.

Here is another thing that is contained in this act. It says Cabinet may now exempt companies from this act. I would really like to know what we are talking about. We are going to exempt them from what? Exactly what are we going to exempt them from? Are we going to exempt them from fines if somebody does not go back and do the clean up that they promised they would do? What exactly are we going to exempt them from? I think that is a section of this act that certainly bears and needs watching. I would suggest that we would certainly have a very keen eye for this particular clause in this bill because I do not like the idea of exempting anybody from this act. Why oh why would we want to exempt a company from a particular part of this act?

Of course, the requirement for financial assurances has been introduced. Financial assurances are saying: We are going to lay down some money - as the minister said - and we are going to guarantee that we are going to do this clean up or we are going to do that clean up. At the end of the day, does that mean we can also exempt them from doing that? Is that what this means, or does it mean that they are going to have to come in and lay out a plan to this Province to show us exactly how they are going to mine, how they are going to refine, and how much money is actually going to be spent in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Does it mean that this will actually show us how many jobs we are going to be able to create in this Province? I can only say that I certainly hope so.

Another thing that this act does, which I am not particularly fond of, is it shows to me a cloak of secrecy has been thrown over the operation of mines and mills in this Province; you know, things we are going to be allowed to tell, things we are not going to be allowed to tell. Why the secrecy? If there is a company coming into this Province and they are going to do mining, they are going to do refining in this Province, then as far as I am concerned they should lay it all out so that we can all have the opportunity to see exactly where they are coming from, what they are made of, where they are going and so on. That is another part of the act that I am not really particularly fussy about. These things should be laid out for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to see and I do not believe in this act that this does it. It creates secrecy, and secrecy is something that I am not particularly fond of.

As well in here several definitions are added. We get the definition of a mill. We get in 2(l) the definition of an operational plan, which means “an annual plan filed with the minister in anticipation of the development of a project for the year following, containing the information that the minister may require.”

That is why, I think, we have asked it in this House that the debate on this agreement be held in this Chamber. To hear the minister say that we are not going to debate it comes as a complete surprise and shock to me; that we are not going to debate even one clause, absolutely nothing, as it relates to this Bill in this particular House.

Over the years the mining industry has been extremely good to this Province. The only thing I would like to see is a royalty regime which again is going to be enacted as it relates to Voisey's Bay. I would like to see that here in this House of Assembly.

Again, we have here of course what happens with a closure plan in 2(p). What it means is: “as prescribed by the regulations acceptable to the minister which describes the process of rehabilitation of a project at any stage of that project up to and including closure, and includes information required by the minister...”

To me, if a company has submitted a plan and that plan is talking about the restoration or the rehabilitation of a site, then I would say to this government that is one thing we should be very strict on and very careful with. When somebody is in here and they are taking the ore out of the ground, when the time comes for them to give it up and to move on there should be something there whereby they should have to restore that site.

We look around the Province now, and all you need do is drive the Trans-Canada Highway and look at some of the holes that have been created. I suppose people will say: That has been done for the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway. That may well be so, but at the end of the day there was absolutely nothing to say that somebody had to go back and restore a site. Again, I think that is wrong. When these things are done, when stuff is taken out of the ground, there should be some kind of a cleanup at the end of the day.

I say that the rehabilitation and closure plan, when somebody is going to close up a mine, is something again that we should have an awful lot of say in and certainly an awful lot of control over.

The safety regulations previously referred in the Mines Act have been transferred to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Bill 28 not only removes references to the safety of employees, but section 24 of the bill transfers the regulations previously made under the Mines Act to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Then section 19 of Bill 28 subject all projects referenced under this bill to the requirements set forth in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

As I said earlier, I can only hope that in this particular area we are not going to jeopardize the safety of our workforce in this Province and that whatever is in Occupational Health and Safety, when the time comes, the rules will be enforced just as strictly as they always were.

As well, it talks about the nature and the type of development plans. It says this bill requires not only a development and operational plan be provided to the minister but it also introduces rehabilitation and closure plans. This bills requires for the lessee to provide a plan for the progressive rehabilitation of the mill or mine site so that it, as it says in 2(o)(i), “is restored as close as is reasonably possible to its former use or condition.”

I have already touched on that, but again I say that we only need drive around various parts of this Province to see holes that have been left in our ground and absolutely nothing done to clean it up. The mess is still there. There has been no protection environmentally for this Province. I say again that that should not be allowed to happen. There has to be preconditions placed on any developer who wants to develop a mine so that when the time comes he is going to have to go back and straighten up any mess or clean up any sight that a person develops.

Section 6(1) stipulates:

“Before commencing a project, a lessee shall submit a development plan to the minister for his or her approval which

(a) contains the information with respect to the mode of development of the project prescribed by the regulations;

(b) includes the measures the lessee will undertake to insure the project conforms to prudent resource management; and

(c) contains the other information and is in the form required by the minister.”

I would say here is where we are probably hitting pretty close to Voisey's Bay. As a matter of fact, I am going to say that this is probably in here because of the development of Voisey's Bay. Section 6(1)(a) says “information with respect to the mode of development,” and again, there is no mode of development that has been announced in this Province. There is absolutely nothing.

Again, I have to wonder about development in this Province. What is going to be the development plan that is going to have to be filed with the department as it relates to Voisey's Bay? What submissions is the minister going to ask them to submit? What rules and regulations will they be governed under? What stipulations will we as a province lay down for the development of Voisey's Bay?

Again, it really bothers me that this particular piece of legislation will not be debated in the people's House. There will be certainly be lots of questions to be asked and lots of questions that will certainly need to be answered. These are things that have to be asked in this House. I do not understand why the minister says no when we ask if the agreement on the Voisey's Bay development will be discussed in this House. I find that rather difficult to accept and understand. Because I, as one in this House, believe that the magnitude of that project should be discussed in this hon. House. The biggest thing of all is, where is a royalty regime? Does that mean that we are not going to even discuss a royalty regime in this House? Are they going to enter into an agreement with Voisey's Bay, and the elected members of this House will have absolutely no input to any royalty regime for the Province?

If that is the case, then that is entirely wrong. Because as elected of this House, I believe that we have the right to stand in our places and to ask questions and to demand - not ask, but to demand - answers as to what royalty regime Voisey's Bay is going to be developed under. I can only trust that will someday come before this House, and the same way with the agreement.

As I said earlier, are we going to develop every bit of iron ore that comes out of the ground in Labrador? Where is it going? Is it going to Argentia or is it going some place else? Are we bringing it in the boats and taking it to the mainland? Why can't somebody now tell us exactly what we are going to do when this stuff comes to pass? I find that stuff very amusing as to why we cannot be told or why we cannot have the opportunity to debate such a serious issue in this House.

As well, section 9(1) requires that “A lessee shall submit to the minister a rehabilitation and closure plan setting out the measures the lessee proposes to take

(a) to progressively rehabilitate a site; and

(b) upon closure of a project...”

Does that mean one month? Does it mean two months? Does it mean six months? Exactly what does it mean?

Again, I have talked about the big holes that have left in this Province. Exactly what is there? What is it going to cost? What stipulations are we going to say to the miners, or to mining companies in this Province, that you have to do this in order to get a permit to mine? What preconditions are we going to put on these various concerns? I can only hope that they will be stringent and that they will be very, very strict.

It says that section 17 of the bill gives Cabinet the authority to define by regulations a project of small scale. Section 3 then allows the minister to exempt the small scale projects from the application of this bill.

What are we talking about when we say small scale, Mr. Speaker? What is meant by small-scale mining. Are we talking about somebody who has ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty, or 100 people employed? Would we consider that a small scale or would we consider it a large scale? Exactly what is our definition of small-scale mining? I do not see it spelled out here, but to me it creates concern and it is a question again that has to be asked.

That, to me, is something that should be known by all people in this Province. How much are we going to spend in wages? Are we talking small-scale smelter and refinery? What are we talking? Are we talking large scale like we were in the beginning, a billion dollar project, or have we now moved our position from there, and have we gone back and scaled it down to something that would be much, much smaller?

These are questions that have to be asked and certainly have to be answered. While the minister was up talking, I did not hear many answers to questions of that nature, but it is questions of that nature that have to be asked and demand to be answered. These are questions that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a right to ask and have a right to have them asked by their representatives in this House. They should have the right to have the minister or somebody on that side of the House stand in their place and give the answers.

Mr. Speaker, when it says that we going require the lessee to produce financial assurances - financial assurances for what? Exactly what are we going to get financial assurances for? I hope it is just not financial assurances that, yes, we are going to go back in two weeks time. We dug a hole over there, we are going to fill it in, and we are going to restore the site to what it was. Is that what it means by somebody providing financial assurances? Because, if that is what it means, then I for one would not be fussy about that.

The financial assurances I want to see are: How much in smelting, how much in refining, how much in taking the ore, how much money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are we going to spend? How much money is Inco going to spend in this Province? How much money is Inco going to spend in Argentia? Is Inco going to take any of the resources from this Province and ship them off to Ontario somewhere so that work can be created in Ontario?

I think what we have to look at here is that our main concern is not jobs for Ontario, or jobs in Montreal. Our main concern here has to be jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That has to be our primary concern. When we talk about financial assurances here, the way I read this section, we are not talking about financial assurances as it relates to the money that is going to be spent here in the Province. What we are talking about is going back and restoring the site.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want anybody else standing on the soapbox, jumping up and down, waving their arms and saying: This is what we got! We only have it when it is signed, sealed and delivered. That is the only time we have it; not like in Labrador where all those jobs went off to Quebec. That is not the type of operation I want to see in the development of Voisey's Bay, because that development will bring us little or nothing.

I think we have to be very conscience of the type of agreement we enter into. Again, I cannot believe that this type of agreement is not going to be presented in this House of Assembly for members on both sides of the House to have the opportunity to stand up and ask their questions on. Those are the things that I have a problem with and I am sure, as we get into this bill, we are going to find more and more of that.

As well, it says, a cloak of secrecy. Subsection 15 indicates that the annual report of operations, the rehabilitation and closure plans, compliance with the plans, information re the financial assurances information obtained by inspectors, geological logs, site, boundary plans -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - underground level plans, service plans, pit development plans, ultimate pit development plans and site boundary plans are to be kept confidential unless an agreement for disclosure is made between the minister and the lessee.

What are we saying there? It says, under the Mines Act, which this bill replaces, the only information to be kept confidential is outlined in section 8, or copies of plans of the underground works existing on December 31 of the preceding year; and, in the event of a suspension of work in a mine, a copy of the underground works existing at the date the work ends.

Again, why all the secrecy? Why can't the government come out and tell us exactly what is going to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I understand that the Government House Leader wanted to get over here so he would have a better understanding and he could hear much clearer exactly what I am saying.

Section 11 allows for the minister to designate inspectors for the purpose of this act, and set out the powers of such inspectors. I do not have a lot of problem with that.

Section 20 indicated that an appeal of a decision under this act rests with the Adjudication Board established under the Mineral Act. I would like to know a bit more about this board. Where does it come from? Who appoints it? What type of people would serve on this particular board? Where do these particular people come from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal.

MR. FRENCH: I am sure of that, I say to my friend from Topsail. If it was left to him, the Member for Topsail, that is all there would be on it. There may not be enough Liberals left, they may be all appointed by then. If that be the case, then that again is certainly wrong. We need people who are going to serve on these boards who have the ability and the knowledge to serve on such a board, not bringing in somebody who knows absolutely nothing about what is going on, but somebody who has the ability to understand what is going on and to understand the Mining Act, and to understand exactly what we are doing here. There are too many holes in this particular piece of legislation, holes that I believe should be full.

Anybody who is out and about in their district, talking to people as to what is going to happen with the development of Voisey's Bay, will soon find out that the people of this Province want to know exactly what is going to transpire here. What is going to transpire?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: He has an hour.

MR. SPEAKER: He has an hour?

MR. FUREY: Yes, by leave, (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I know you are really interested, Chuck. I know you are really intent on what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I used to be your critic. I still criticize every now and then anyway.

Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, these are just some of the concerns that I have on Bill 28. My main concern on Bill 28 is Voisey's Bay and the fact that the minister said in this House yesterday that we are not going to have the opportunity to discuss the agreement in this House. I believe that is wrong. It is wrong for the government to say that, and it is wrong for the minister to say that.

He said something one day and a month or so later he had a different tune. Mr. Speaker, I believe that he will pay a price for that. I believe that the government will pay a price for that. I believe the people in this Province are going to demand that that be debated in here. Not like the Kodak bill that was brought in here in the middle of night, almost in darkness, someone sneaked in and threw it on the table, only to find out after sitting day and night, night and day, at the end of it all, that bill was withdrawn and out it went.

These are some of things that we have a right to know.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy has introduced Bill 28 today. I would like, at this point, just to adjourn debate and have an opportunity tomorrow to discuss in more detail the merits of the piece of legislation, the demerits of it, and I will give one of my most favorite constituents now the opportunity to rise and proceed from there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Private Members' Day, and we will be bringing forward the private member's resolution put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains on postal rates. On Thursday I would think, unless there is some great emergency or the Opposition loses their cool over there again, we will probably be back to the same bill.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.