The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will give notice today of my intention to table a new bill entitled an Adoption Act which will replace the existing Adoption of Children Act.

The Adoption Act represents a significant shift in how adoption services are provided in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is consistent with the principles of the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act by focusing on the best interests of children, and giving birth parents and children greater input into the adoption process.

The Adoption Act provides for a variety of options in the deliver of adoption services, and includes the following provisions: children under age 12 years will have an input into their adoption; children will be able to maintain contact with their birth family following the finalization of their adoption; infants can be directly placed with prospective adoptive parents chosen by the birth parents and approved by the Provincial Director of Child Welfare; the ability for one or two adults jointly to apply to adopt a child; an easier process for relative and step parent adoptions; the delegation of authority to Directors of Adoption employed by Regional Health and Community Services and Integrated Health Boards; licensing of adoption agencies to process adoption applications and provide pre- and post-placement support to children, birth families and adoptive parents; the establishment of an open records system for future adoptions; the use of a disclosure veto and /or no contact declaration to protect the privacy of those parties to adoptions which were finalized prior to the proclamation of this Act; the ability to access medical records for minor adoptees, adoptive parents, and birth parents where approved by the Provincial Director and/or Court; and, the ratification of the Hague Convention on Inter Country Adoption.

Our boards will have the responsibility in each region of the Province to administer this Act and provide services to children, youth and their families. Delivering services through community boards will provide opportunities for establishing partnerships with community groups and allow services to be provided within individual communities.

As I have outlined, this legislation is a departure from our existing 50-year old legislation. It provides for a new and a much more open approach to adoption services and enables persons involved in adoption to choose their service providers, while at the same time respecting past promises of confidentiality for adoptions occurring prior to the passage of the new act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement. This bill on the surface certainly appears to be child centered and that is really important. Any legislation that we bring to this Chamber surrounding children should keep uppermost in our minds the affairs and the interests of children.

I am glad to see that children will have an input into the process that will affect them for the rest of their lives, such as contact with their birth family. The ability to access medical records should be a right and not a privilege, because the accessing of medical records is and could be very detrimental to the life of the person, of the adoptee.

The licensing of adoption agencies, I would have to see the legislation around that before I can rubber stamp it, but all in all this looks like it is a good bill. I think it is important that we not only get it on the floor here to be passed but also, once it is passed, that it be proclaimed as soon as possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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. I agree too, this is a progressive step forward when it comes to the adoption process in the Province. I guess we have all been familiar with people who tried to adopt children and the difficulties they encountered, and the red tape and the waiting that they had to go through.

I think it is important also that this recognizes that children will have a right to have input into their adoption process. More important than most things in this act is the right of access to medical information which we have heard a lot about in recent years. It is finally good to see that people who have become adopted will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - have important information regarding their medical history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join today with Mr. Harvey Mott, who is the President of Newfoundland Transshipment Limited, in praising the work of two local engineering firms: Sheppard Green Engineering (SGE) Group and Newfoundland Design Associates Limited (NDAL).

These firms recently completed engineering work on time and significantly under budget for an expansion to Newfoundland Transshipment Limited's Whiffen Head facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this expansion of the facility will accommodate production from the Terra Nova oil field, along with the current production from the Hibernia platform. The expansion, valued at $65 million and employing over 170 people in the construction and design, was announced by the Premier and Mr. Mott at a news conference in January this year. It involves design and construction of new docking and loading facilities and two new 500,000 barrels storage tanks at the Whiffen Head facility. While the engineering work is largely complete, the expansion will be completed in October 2000.

When time came to begin work on the Terra Nova expansion, Newfoundland Transshipment looked to Sheppard Green Engineering and Newfoundland Design Associates, both of which worked on the original Whiffen Head project. Both groups quickly took the lead, formed a cohesive team comprising their own employees, Newfoundland Transshipment Limited staff, and a mechanical engineering services firm, Acres International.

The two groups, SGE and Newfoundland Design Associates, together provided effective communications and a no-surprises work environment that is credited with the success. To give a sense of that success, I will point out that a design project originally estimated to take 18,000 person hours was delivered in about half that time.

Local firms can deliver complex projects on a competitive basis. Work like this adds to the Province's reputation in all sectors of the economy but particularly in the oil and gas sector. It makes the Province more attractive for investment and it means that more work will be done here in the future.

Congratulations are in order to the SGE Group president, Mr. Allan Green, and to the Newfoundland Design Associates Limited president, Mr. Reg Babstock, for a job extremely well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On this side of the House, we obviously join in congratulating the local companies that have been referred to in this statement, namely Sheppard Green Engineering Group and Newfoundland Design Associates Limited with respect to their work at Whiffen Head in the production of the Terra Nova field.

What is important is to again always remember that this particular development, our offshore industry, will only reach full potential when it is our local Newfoundland companies such as these, and local Newfoundland workers, contributing to this development. When we can say that all of our people who want the opportunity and the option to participate in the industry can do so, that is when we have reached full potential.

Again, I recognize these individuals and I recognize these particular entities for their work, and I congratulate them on their success. Once again, we see us moving towards what was so wisely envisaged and predicted by the great Progressive Conservative governments both federally and provincially in the 1980s.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very heartening to see, once again, that Newfoundland firms on the offshore perform on time, under time, under budget, which is very different than what we see with work done in Korea or in Italy which is delayed and overrun and flawed. It is time that we started demanding and become more aggressive in offshore work and insist that we have a designated proportion of the work and not just be involved in international competitive bidding which ends up costing us jobs and costing us work in this Province. It is time we started being more aggressive and more demanding and more insistant.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with Christmas approaching, many people start to think of traditions they have followed over the years and what preparations they need to make for the coming holiday season.

Here at the Confederation Building, we began a Christmas tradition in 1987 that is still going strong today. Like many others, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has been busy making preparations.

Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission has collaborated with provincial and territorial capitals to mark the beginning of the Christmas season in a special way. Newfoundland and Labrador is glad to once again participate in this nation-wide ceremony by displaying lights along the Prince Philip Parkway.

Several other groups in the city have joined our Christmas lighting efforts this year. The College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, the Health Sciences Centre and Heritage Canada at Signal Hill will turn on their Christmas lights at approximately the same time we turn on our lights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Our combined efforts will result in 1999 being the year with the most lights ever placed along the Parkway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The Salvation Army St. John's Citadel Band and the Mary Queen of Peace Glee Club will provide entertainment for this special event, and refreshments will be served.

Over 700 people attended the event last year and I am hoping that we can count on the public's participation again this year. I also encourage Members of the House of Assembly and the media to take time to celebrate the holiday season and national unity by attending tonight's ceremony. I look forward to seeing you there.

Signed: Santa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank Santa for his statement before the House opened today.

First of all, the first thing I notice is that in 1999, being the year with the most lights ever placed on the Parkway, all I can think about is last year when the Member for Cape St. Francis was worried that a DC9 might land on the Parkway. This year we are going to worry if the shuttle is going to land on the Parkway.

We are certainly going to be there at any time to celebrate such festivities across the country and across our Province, especially this year as we look into the new millennium, and of course Canadian unity, as we talk about this country of ours and how great it is, being the number one country in the world. It is a significant time in our history and we will certainly be there to celebrate it.

I would also say that we should also keep in mind, as we talk about in this House many times, without being a humbug, that there are many people at this time of year in time of need that we remember locally - in our own communities throughout the Province when people are looking for work, I say to the minister - and also people across the country who have greater needs than ours. For that I would say yes, we will be there to celebrate with the minister, but also keep in mind the people who need help throughout the (inaudible).

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

When I got off the elevator this afternoon I really thought they were in the Christmas spirit when I saw the table set up. I thought they were going to feed the protesters.

Having said that, I think it is a great occasion to celebrate as we enter a new millennium. I think it is important that we enter it in conjunction with the rest of the country, and we look forward to being there this evening to celebrate as well. I would also say that it is nice at this point in ime, at this time of the year, to remember others who are less fortunate and lend a helping hand wherever we can when we get the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize I have already been outshone by Santa, but in the interest of informing the House I will tell members this.

As hon. members are aware, a section of the water supply system in Eastport was contaminated on Tuesday, November 30, causing the town council to declare a state of emergency. At this time I wish to provide the Legislature with a report on this incident and to indicate the corrective measures which are currently underway.

At the outset, I want to say that officials of the Departments of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Government Services and Lands and Environment and Labour are all cooperating with the town and that government has given its assurance that it will provide whatever assistance is required to correct this unfortunate situation as quickly as possible.

The source of the contamination has been traced to an underground gasoline storage tank at an abandoned service station. It was first noticed by homeowners when water service on this particular section of the line was restored after a brief shutdown by Hydro for maintenance.

There was a break in a section of the waterline near this abandoned tank which corresponded with a break in the tank. This contributed to the tank becoming filled with water, allowing the small amount of gas left in the tank to float to the surface and overflow into the ground, thereby contaminating the soil. When the power was turned off for maintenance purposes, the lack of water in the pipe caused a suction to be created in the service line, and the contaminated ground water entered the system through the break in the service line.

Approximately fifty-seven households are impacted and a small number of businesses. The town has implemented a number of temporary solutions to provide water to residents until this section of the system can be restored.

With the assistance of the various government departments mentioned, the council is now proposing a flushing system, possibly using a phosphate free detergent, in the hope that this will correct the situation. It may be that a more permanent solution will be necessary. A team of government officials is working closely with the town and will be advising me with regard to success or otherwise of this flushing method or as to what other methods may be necessary to correct this situation.

My senior officials have been in contact with the mayor and I believe the town council is pleased with the level of support and cooperation which they are receiving from government. In closing, I wish to assure all residents of the town of Eastport that government will do all that is possible within our means to correct this unfortunate situation at the earliest possible time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for his statement before the House sat. The minister said “...that government has given its assurance that it will provide whatever assistance that is required...” I do not have a lot of faith in this government's assurance of anything with the mess it created with the forty-nine municipalities and the toxins in their water. They are still trying to flush themselves out from underneath that one.

Listen to this. The minister says they are “...proposing a flushing system... It may be that a more permanent solution will be necessary...” and that the town will be advising him “with regard to success or otherwise of this flushing method or as to what other methods that will be necessary to correct the situation.”

I ask the minister: Does your department have a clue what it is doing? With that, obviously with a minister who would rather talk than perform, it does not.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not have an advance copy of the statement, but the measures the minister has announced being undertaken by the town certainly seem to be a serious attempt to resolve the problem.

What I am concerned about is that this is an abandoned service station with a tank. Obviously there was some failure on the part of either government or someone - we do not know how long ago it was abandoned - to, in fact, ensure that this tank was not a hazard to the environment and to the very important water supply of the town of Eastport.

I would like to know whether the Minister of Environment or someone can advise the House as to why this abandoned gas tank was allowed to stay in the state that it was and cause this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. On January 6, 1997, Voisey's Bay Nickel company announced that SNC-Lavalin Inc., with its Newfoundland division BAE Newplan, had been awarded the construction management contract and engineering contract to construct the smelter-refinery complex in Argentia. My understanding is that that company is still the company on record that will be doing it.

The question I have for the minister is this. Will the construction of the proposed hydrometallurgic plant be built in this Province, or will it take the shape of what was done in Goro, New Caledonia, where the fully integrated hydormetallurgic pilot plant was constructed from modules built elsewhere or built in Canada and assembled in Newfoundland and Labrador? So the direct question is: Has Inco proposed that the construction of the hydrometallurgic plant, test plant, or pilot plant, along with proposing that, will that be built here or will it be built elsewhere and assembled here?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see now that the Leader of the Opposition has gone back to a line of questioning about what might be in proposal that we might receive. I can honestly answer that I do not know what Inco will put into a formal proposal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this. Are you leading this House to believe that last Monday, when you went to meet with Inco to talk about whether it was a smelter-refinery or a hydrometallurgic power plant that they were proposing - in your general release, and in the media, you talked about the scope of the project in terms of construction jobs over twenty to twenty-five years - that you did not ask the question that a hydrometallurgic plant, if that is what on the table, if it was going to be constructed here? Is that what you are saying, minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to lead the House to believe anything. I am trying to answer a question.

Again, I enjoyed the comment here this morning on a local radio station about words are important, because they are. Clearly, the question was asked: Do I know, as the minister, whether SNC-Lavalin Inc. is contracted now as they were a couple of years ago? I do not know that. We have not gotten to an issue of saying: Will certain things be built in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because we do not know at this point exactly what is going to be proposed in terms of time lines, time frames. That is what we are hoping to find out soon.

Obviously, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the government would not try to secure full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to Inco, as we have done in every other case - full and fair benefits in all of its aspects means: if something can be done here, it should be done here.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are many great Newfoundland expressions that aptly describe people, and my grandmother had one of them that aptly describes this minister: This minister has enough lip for three rows of teeth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He has not answered anything in the House.

Let me ask him this: In the 1997 Throne Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My grandmother was never unparliamentary in her life, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In the 1997 Throne Speech, government clearly outlined that the construction of the mine/mill in Labrador, together with the construction of the smelter/refinery complex in Argentia, will provide 3,500 jobs.

My question to the minister is this: With the proposed hydrometallurgic plant - and, Minister, I know you know this because you speculated about construction jobs publicly in a press conference - with the proposed hydrometallurgic process, how many construction jobs will there be compared to the smelter/refinery complex?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The notion of the 3,500 jobs that were talked about a couple of years back were in the whole context that there would be a major construction job in Labrador to prepare an open pit mine, to build a mill that would change the ore, the rock, into a concentrate; that there would also be major construction jobs on the Island at Argentia to build a smelter and a refinery, and that in fact altogether there would be about 3,500 jobs in construction.

How many jobs there will be in construction this time will be known only when we get the proposal in terms of what it is they are going to build, when they are going to build it. We have tried to talk as much as we can about those issues in a general way without disclosing anything that we have even discussed informally, and without starting to speculate about anything that might be coming forward in a full-fledged formal proposal from the company. So we really cannot comment on job numbers until there is some project - a twenty-five to thirty year project - defined that we expect to get a proposal for.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This minister knows nothing, if you want to take his word.

I will ask him another question. Directly associated with the construction of a smelter/refinery complex in Argentia, Inco and government suggested that 800 to 900 construction jobs would be associated with the building of that. I will ask the minister this question: How many construction jobs will be associated with the construction of the hydrometallurgic proposed plant for somewhere in the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we are not going to spend very much time analyzing in the Province for any extend period what might have happened three or four years ago. Everybody understands that it is past history now; that, when the discovery was made, Inco themselves - that company, that corporation - came forward and laid out a plan as to how they would look forward to developing this particular project in Newfoundland and Labrador. It included a smelter and a refinery for 270 million pounds of nickel a year.

We went through an Environment Assessment Review Panel that recommended that, that kind of production was way too big, and it recommended that it be cut way down in size, and that it be much less production for a much longer period. Everybody - I thought the record was clear - in terms of the Aboriginal community, the government and Inco, have all agreed with the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel that we build a smaller production type of facility and operation that will last twenty-five and thirty years instead of completely utilizing and using all of the resource in eight or ten years.

I don't know, then, how you can compare something that was speculated about three or four years ago versus something that everybody has now agreed to go forward and do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: There will be a major construction job in Labrador if the project proceeds. There will be a major -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - construction job somewhere on the Island if the project proceeds. We look forward to getting a proposal so that we can talk about how many jobs there will be and what the benefit levels will be, because it will be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do accept the apology given by the Leader of the Opposition for the remark about my lips. I understand that is as close as he can come to coming right out and apologizing.

It is unfortunate, and I hope that very soon we will be in a position to be able to discuss fully and publicly what it is that Inco will propose to do in the Province. To suggest that something has changed - because the Leader of the Opposition would try to make people believe that he has been in a room someplace actually doing these discussions instead of me, because he talks about something as if it is a fait accompli, that a certain proposal has been made.

Let me again state, as I did in a Ministerial Statement last week: We have not received a formal proposal from Inco. We do not have a deal with Inco. We would like to have one. I am sure that the Opposition joins with us in hoping that we do find a way to go forward with this project rather than have it not happen, because the choices are these: To find a manner in which we can proceed with full processing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - get full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador; or, as the government has said it will do, leave the ore in the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am sure that the Opposition would hope that we can find a way to get full and fair benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do full processing, and proceed rather than have to leave the ore in the ground.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary.

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

The minister stated publicly, recently, again in a press conference, about the tax holiday, about the ten-year tax holiday associated with the agreement. He talked about, while that ten-year tax holiday exists there, that government has clearly told Inco that they would have to operate outside of existing law. Has Inco agreed with operating outside the ten-year tax holiday? If so, what sort of tax regime is being envisioned?

I know, Minister, that you have talked about that. All I am asking today is, if you can commit to some principles about what sort of tax regime is being discussed with your informal approach to Inco, and if you can enlighten the House to any extent today on what that eventually will be?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I really would like to provide some more enlightenment but the difficulty again is that maybe the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition has not done any informal discussions and has not done many negotiations. We are hoping to get to a formal negotiation.

What occurs - and maybe again it is from lack of experience in having done any of this in the past - while you discuss many issues, everybody understands that when you are trying to come to a final arrangement, while you may have discussed certain options that you have come to tentative agreement on, nothing is agreed until the whole package is agreed. That is the process that everybody in the public service and everybody that does all kinds of bargaining on a business sense does. So, have we let Inco clearly know - again I am glad to see that he is raising the point that really is the property of the Leader of the NDP, who has raised this issue for about four years. His first question, when this was raised four years ago: Was Inco, with this great deposit in Labrador, going to get a ten-year tax holiday?

The answer given in this Legislature at that time was that no, they were no. From the very first day that Inco bought the rights to the Voisey's Bay property, they were told by this government that the current law which is on the books, that the mining sector very much appreciates and that smaller marginal operations need in order to function in Newfoundland and Labrador, would not apply to Voisey's Bay and to Inco.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: They know it, they have known it from day one, and how and what the changes will be will only be known when we come to a conclusion and finalize an arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier, concerning the vital question of safety in the offshore. The death of Shawn Hatcher of Burgeo last April on the Nordic Apollo was investigated by the Nova Scotia Department of Labor who wanted to prosecute for violation of safety regulations but could not because the jurisdiction of the Atlantic Accord is in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, who have a policy of no prosecution, even in fatalities, and operate with draft regulations.

Will the government admit that the C-NOPB and the Newfoundland Offshore has the same policy and ten-year-old draft regulations without the force of law?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the whole notion that everybody understands in operating in the offshore is that while the federal and provincial governments, through the joint board process, have been looking at ways to give more definite and definitive legislative impact to offshore health and safety regulations, that the law of Canada with respect to offshore occupational health and safety, and the law of Newfoundland and Labrador as it exists today with respect to occupational health and safety, is being enforced in offshore jurisdictions on behalf of both governments by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board to its full extent.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here. One, as determined by the Westray inquiry, the agency which licences a project ought not to have the responsibility for safety of projects as well. That was one of their conclusions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Will this government acknowledge that this problem has to solved and addressed if we are going to have confidence in offshore safety?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member has been referencing outside the Legislature as well as here today in the whole idea of a possible conflict, because in one instance you promote the offshore as a place to explore, to do business and operate, and in the meantime you are the regulator.

Mr. Speaker, the main promoter of the offshore for Newfoundland and Labrador is the government itself, through the Department of Mines and Energy and through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board does very little, if any, promotion. They are regulators. So there is no conflict with respect the actions of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

As I indicated in answer to the first question, because it is the same issue, the two governments - in this case Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador - are looking at mechanisms whereby we may be able to give greater legislative certainty to the full application of Canadian and Newfoundland safety laws offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: But since the very inception, every law and regulation for Canada, and every law and regulation for Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to safety, has been enforced in the offshore by the board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister not acknowledge that the regulations cannot be followed and enforced if, in fact, they are only draft regulations, don't have the force of law, and the C-NOPB has a policy of not enforcing but rather working with industry to improve standards. Mr. Speaker, we need enforceable regulations in the offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Will the minister not acknowledge that is a problem?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board itself in Newfoundland has the greatest enforcement tool of all. In fact, if any operator in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador is found to be in violation and does not comply with orders from C-NOPB to get back into compliance with health and safety laws, then under the Atlantic Accord, under that particular piece of legislation, the board has the right to withdraw and suspend or cancel their license to operate. So the greatest and total sanction of all is in the hands of the C-NOPB and it does use that threat of that sanction to make sure there is compliance for health and safety in the offshore.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. In April of 1995, Mr. Minister, Government Services and Lands became responsible for food premises inspection and licensing activity formerly done by the Department of Health. Mr. Minister, what real advantage was this when your department had fewer food premises inspections than were done by the Department of Health for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, and what is being done to correct this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the food inspections that were transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Government Services and Lands, it was all done in the interest of accommodating all the inspection services within the one department. As far as impacting on the food establishments, we continue to inspect on a regular basis and an as-needed basis. We do not see any negative impact on the food establishments at all.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Minister, why were some food premises not inspected for the full year? Why were a number of food premises operating without a valid license during the time that the Auditor General did her report? What is being done to correct this very serious and potentially dangerous problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the food establishments that he mentions were not inspected for a year, and those operating without licenses, that has been investigated by the department. I would have to certainly go back to the department and see what the results of that inspection were because I do not have it in front of me here.

We have taken the Auditor General's report very seriously and gone back, inspected and looked at all of the ways that inspections are done for the purpose of improving the service. It is always the responsibility of this department to ensure that food establishments are operating in the best interests of the Province and in a safety manner at all times, not only when the Auditor General goes in and looks at the books.

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

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

The minister just admitted, by the way, that he does not know what is going on in his department.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you did.

I ask the minister: Why is it, in light of the fact that the federal Auditor General reported the necessity of regular inspections after some 800 people contracted salmonella poisoning, that follow-up inspections to correct previously identified health hazards are not always being carried out by your department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the response to the first part of his question - if you want to call it a question - food inspections are always done not only on a needed basis but on a regular basis, and this department has always done follow-ups all the time on inspections that we have done throughout the food establishments.

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

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

My questions are to the acting Minister of Finance, or the acting Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, or the acting, acting, whatever it might be.

Mr. Speaker, the government refers to the Marble Mountain facility as a jewel in the crown of the tourism industry. Could the minister inform the House today how many millions this jewel has cost the taxpayers, and why is it necessary for government to continue to offer loan guarantees to cover current account expenditures in addition to the millions of dollars already committed by way of capital liabilities?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I missed the first sentence in his problem. I am not sure what jewel he is talking about, because one of my colleagues here was causing my hearing to be a little impaired. If you would clarify the jewel, I would be happy to -

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

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

For the benefit of the minister, the Marble Mountain facility has been referred by government as the jewel in the crown of the tourism industry. My questions are relative to two things: The millions of dollars in capital money put forward - how much money - and why is it necessary to continue to offer loan guarantees for current account expenditures?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for not hearing the question as originally put, but I actually did not hear the reference or the entity to which he was making reference.

I can only say to the hon. member that while we have been, for many years, supporting the Marble Mountain enterprise, the Marble Mountain Corporation, with funding and with loan guarantees where it has been appropriate, we have done it on the basis of what we have deemed it to be, and that is a good tourist potential revenue generator.

It is a facility that has attracted much attention not only provincially but nationally in terms of the customer base that it attracts when it comes to the mountain. While we do not necessarily subscribe to the concept, as in many, many other enterprises that need government support for tourism purposes and for development purposes, we do not always subscribe to the fact - in fact, we acknowledge in many cases that these things do not always make money as a particular entity - we do say this: The accumulative effect economically of the benefits that enterprises like Marble Mountain brings is worth the effort and investment that we have put in to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The minister should have said that they have put in excess of $20 million in capital funds. He should have said they have just offered $300,000 by way of current account. He should have also told us why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I ask him a question. The question is: In September of 1996, the government transferred the day-to-day operations of Marble to a crown agency called Marble Mountain Corporation. Since then, the Marble Mountain Corporation has not filed a single financial statement in the House of Assembly. When can the weary taxpayers of this Province expect to have a financial statement tabled in this House that shows that their investment of over $20 million is justified?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure when the last statements were filed. I am not sure to what extent the statements are needed to be filed, but let me say this to the hon. member: I will take it under advisement and, in the fullness of time, we will ensure that there will be an appropriate level of filing of whatever statements are required not only by Marble Mountain Corporation but by any other entity out there that is required to report, by way of statements, to government. If it is a requirement of the Legislature that they be tabled in the House, then they will be tabled in the House when we get them, if we do not have them; and, if we have them, we will table them as soon as we can get our hands on them.

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

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

I say to the minister that up until about three years ago the responsibility for this facility was with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Then it got switched to the Minister of Finance. We want to know: Why is the Minister of Finance able to use Marble Mountain as his personnel fiefdom, you might say, and why is it that most of the people who are employed at Marble Mountain indeed are former campaign workers (inaudible) the Minister of Finance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is now apparent that the question that is being posed on third supplementary by the hon. member really has very little to do with his desire to obtain legitimate information with respect to the operation of Marble Mountain. When he gets to the proposition of proposing by way of a question: Why is it the personal fiefdom of the Minister of Finance, and why is it that his campaign workers are all employed there?

I would have to say, number one, that it is not the personal fiefdom of anybody. It is an investment that has been made by the people of the Province, on behalf of the people of the Province, to benefit the economy of the Province; and to the extent that it benefits people who work in the Western region of the Province, I think that is most appropriate and sensible. If it were on the East Coast of the Province, naturally people on the East Coast would be probably the predominant employees who work there.

I am not aware that the proposition he makes has any basis, and I would say to the hon. member, in fairness to the people who work there, in fairness to the volunteers who have put a lot of time and effort to make it happen out there, and in fairness to the Minister of Finance in his absence, if you have evidence to collaborate or to substantiate your allegation, I would suggest you bring it forward and let the list be examined for what it is worth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting Adoptions”. (Bill 45)

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition, and I will read the prayer of the petition:

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

WHEREAS dialysis services are not available to the smaller health care centers; and

WHEREAS patients have to travel three to four hours, or relocate to access dialysis services; and

WHEREAS workable dialysis equipment is being sent from this Province to other countries;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, do hereby call upon the House to ask government to review the situation regarding dialysis equipment throughout this Province, and to provide funding for dialysis equipment in the smaller health care centers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present this petition today sent in to me from people in my district who some two years ago in this very same House, with the Member for Lewisporte, we presented a petition on their behalf asking the same thing. Today I am reporting to this House that things have not changed. If anything, they have gotten worse.

The families who are putting forward this issue have a situation. They said I could use their names here in this House - the Dempsey family from Fleur de Lys, a man who worked all his life and now has to turn to this machine. They have to travel three hours to Grand Falls over some pretty rough roads any time of the year but especially during the winter time. There has been an enormous amount of stress on the family, both financially and emotionally. I have sat in the kitchen with Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey and talked about their situation. It is very similar to the situation described by my colleague from Bonavista South and my colleague for Ferryland who described similar situations throughout this Province.

I am sure that today here in this House there are members, especially in the rural areas, who have sat down with people in their districts who describe the same situation. It is a reality. It is not something we are fabricating; it is not something we are making up. When you take the time to sit down and quietly discuss it with these people face to face, you can see the pain in their faces and the stress on these families.

Another gentleman from my district in La Scie who had it so hard - that is some three-and-a-half hours to the closes dialysis machine - he had to actually, in order to accommodate himself, buy a small cabin near Badger Lake so he could stay there in the winter time so it was not so bad to travel over.

That is how bad the situation has gotten. These are not made-up stories; they are not fabricated. This is what is happening to people in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador who are trying to access dialysis machines. It is growing. The numbers are growing. Every single day in my districts and around the Province we hear of the numbers growing. This government has to very seriously reconsider the location of dialysis machines throughout this Province to alleviate this problem that is getting worse by the day.

It is families like this who have worked all their lives and were unfortunate enough to come onto this situation of having to use dialysis machines. They should not have to put up with this agony. It should not be there. As taxpayers and as people who worked all their lives, like I have said earlier. These people should be able to access this service by not having to drive for three or four hours and put their family through this misery. These people are the real people of Newfoundland and Labrador who deserve that break. Last year when I mentioned this in the House of Assembly the Premier was in his seat. He is not here today, unfortunately, but he did nod and make a remark to me afterwards that maybe we should at least, in the interim, consider some kind of financial compensation for the people who have to do this enormous amount of travel to access this service. I think that is the least thing we can do, but it is not the solution. It may help them a little bit in their financial stress, but emotionally it is still hard on the families to have to travel such a long distance over treacherous roads to access this machine.

I think if the government really took heart to this and listened to it with their heart and soul they would know this is a situation that is for real. It is a situation in this Province that is growing every single day. It is a situation in this Province where people are finally getting to the end of their rope when it comes to stress in the families. I have sat and talked with Mrs. Dempsey, and I continue to talk to her on a daily basis almost, and she is very concerned about this. It is playing havoc with the entire family. Really, to get down to it, these people deserve something more decent than what they are getting, and that is simply that they have access to a dialysis machine.

It is not fair, it should never be in this Province, and I am asking the government today, I would even beg the government today, to bring it to Cabinet and look at this very seriously, and ask the Premier. He was certainly considering what he acknowledged last year to me, that he would consider some kind of financial compensation for the interim while people traveled to these places. They have to stay overnight. They have to have, of course, gas money and so on, all of those things. At least it would be something to show people in this Province that they are being taken seriously.

This issue has to be dealt with and has to be dealt with as soon as possible. I'm going to continue to raise it in this House of Assembly until we do see some action on it on behalf of people in my district, but not only that, for anybody in this Province who is experiencing the same thing. It is a sad day when we cannot help these people through such a difficult experience.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I hope that the government will change their mind as soon as possible and get some changes done to this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just stand today in support of the petition that was so capably put forward by the Member for Baie Verte. Where I hear him bring forward the needs of the people in his district, the needs of people who need to access this particular treatment, living three, three-and-a-half hours away from the treatment center, it reminds me of the petitions I've brought forward in this House.

The plea has been going up again, now from the Baie Verte area. I have brought forward concerns from the District of Bonavista South where people have had to travel the three-and-a-half miles and come in to St. John's to stay here for the whole week. They have to go and rent an apartment, or have to be the residents of the hostel over at the Health Science Complex. They take their clothes and food on Monday morning, put them aboard their vehicle, and come into St. John's to stay here all week. They have to come to St. John's not only by themselves, but this particular gentleman who I am referring to, his wife travels with him as well. He needs his wife's support. In fact, she is the one who has to take the clothes and take the food from his truck up to the room in order for them to be able to stay here, because he is in such a condition with other operations that he has had, and other medical problems, that he is unable to lift anything that weighs any more than two or three pounds.

The plea has gone up. Sometimes, I suppose, when we are all healthy ourselves, and we do not have to access some of those treatments that are not readily available, we kind of pass it off lightly. I suppose if you never ever get sick then it does not matter if you close the hospitals or if all the doctors leave because you have no need for them. It is when you are reminded of this particular need, or when it strikes you personally, that you realize how important such a treatment facility is, and how important it is to allow those individuals to be able to access this kind of medical care within a reasonable distance. Nobody expects dialysis units to be put in every community or in every hospital. There is a great need for them to be located strategically around the Province so at least people can travel and return to their homes on a daily basis.

I think when I refer to those particular cases it is a reminder of what happens to almost everybody else who is not fortunate enough, I suppose if you would, to be living close to Grand Falls, Corner Brook or St. John's. I have one senior, and this particular senior, I think he is seventy-two or seventy-three years old. I am not exactly sure but I know that he is in his seventies. He has had to board up his home out in Bonavista South, come to St. John's, rent an apartment, buy second-hand furniture, and almost spend his whole life's savings in order to get this particular treatment. Had this treatment been available in Clarenville or Bonavista, this gentleman would have been able to remain at home with his wife and with his family. He did not mind traveling for an hour or an hour-and-a-half and be able to return home at night and receive some kind of a normal decent living.

Just the other night I was driving somewhere and I heard this call to an open line show. Here was a gentleman from my own district who had been up to the Health Sciences Complex, at the hostel there now for over four years. He called and very forcibly put his argument and plea forward to government saying: I hope somebody out there would listen and realize what I am going through, what my family is going through. After that call there were at least three other calls in the short period of time before I left my car that came in and referred to the gentleman who had called in up at the hostel receiving dialysis treatment. I can assure you that there is a lot of support out there, and the support is building in order for us to look at this particular need and have the Minister of Health respond to it.

When we hear the government opposite talking about how wonderful we are doing, how the economy is moving along, and that we are now saving a few dollars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this particular need be attended to.

Thank you.

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

I have another petition on the water export issue. The Government House Leader can have his opportunity to speak on this petition after I finish presenting it. The prayer of the petition reads:

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 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, spin off, secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is telling me that it is ridiculous to be presenting petitions on behalf of the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what you are saying. Mr. Speaker, we have thousands of names on this petition, and when this bill is passed and voted on by the members of this House there will not any need to present the rest of the petitions. Although I will present them all in one entire stack at that particular time because each and every person in this Province that signs a petition has a right to have his or her voice heard in the House of Assembly.

MR. TULK: Yes! (Inaudible), you stunned thing.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, is the Government House Leader being parliamentary here? I would like to have a ruling on that. He called me a stunned thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his petition.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am glad to see he is taking it back.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It is an very valuable resource to the people of this Province and we have to ensure that we do it right. I am glad to see we have legislation before the House and I am looking forward to debating it.

The Government House Leader is absolutely correct. Tomorrow, after this is voted on and passed, I will present the entire stack of petitions at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do them now!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know you would like to see that done. You would like to circumvent the voice of the people of the Province, but, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen. Because, while the government refuses to listen to the voice of the people of the Province, we on this side of the House want to ensure that the voice of the people of this Province is heard. They have spoken loud and clear on this issue.

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.

We want to see water that is removed from the water basins in this Province bottled and processed here. I am sure that is what the Government House Leader wants as well. We want to see that the labels, bottles and packaging, if at all possible, are processed in this Province. I am sure the Government House Leader would like to see that as well.

MR. TULK: It is unbelievable that (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: See, he would. Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is saying that it is unbelievable that I am here asking for these things, that I am here presenting a petition on behalf of the people of the Province to request these things. He is saying that it is unbelievable that we are presenting this petition.

I am going to say something. If anybody in this House can believe what any of the members on that side of the House say, or if the people in this Province believed what the members on that side of the House were going to say, maybe they would not be presenting so many petitions and having so many rallies and getting so tormented with what government are saying.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present the petitions to this House of Assembly on this particular issue.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might very well get a chance to vote and see his dream come true that there be no bulk water, as is the dream of all of us, exported from this Province.

Order 3, Committee of the Whole on a Bill, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province,” Bill 31.

I would move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to fulfill the hon. gentleman's dreams so he does not have to stand up here and act so stunned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

Bill 31, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.”

Clause 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Government House Leader is absolutely right, we are about to see my dream come true. This legislation is about to be passed and furthermore, signs of my dream coming true are very visible because not only are we going to ban the export of water in bulk, but we are going to demand the export of Liberals in bulk. It is just about to happen. Their seats are half empty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are the seats half empty or half full?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Of the seats that are full, the people who are in them are probably half empty.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to present some amendments to this legislation. Let me say at the start of this that I agree with the majority of this legislation. I agree 100 per cent with the intent of this legislation. I agree with the proposal to ban the bulk export of water from this Province. So I'm honored to stand here and say that I will be supporting this legislation. However, we will be asking for some amendments to be accepted by the government.

The amendments we are going to present are going to address a couple of issues. Let me just explain why we want to present these.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) copy of the amendments?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are going to send them over, yes.

The most significant flaws within this legislation involve clause 7, which seeks to prohibit compensation claims from those who feel that they have been harmed by the ban of bulk water exports. The Opposition's amendment will ensure that compensation in the section -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Relax, I say to the Government House Leader. Sit back and enjoy the foreplay and you will enjoy the rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

The Opposition's amendment will ensure that the compensation subsection comes into effect immediately after the federal ban comes into force, thereby removing the Province from possible financial burden. The amendment also stipulates that if Ottawa does not enact the ban within one year that this subsection will come back to the floor of the Legislature for debate.

If the Premier, who initially raised the issue of compensation, is so concerned about the compensation issue, then I'm sure he will have absolutely no problem accepting and supporting our amendments to this legislation.

It is ironic that the very legislation that is being introduced in this House by government may threaten this Province financially if there were compensation claims levied against the federal government, and it is the Premier himself who initially raised the issue of compensation.

While I have no problem in seeing passage of legislation to prohibit the bulk removal of water from this Province, I believe that it is necessary to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected by amending this legislation, in particular clauses 5.(c) and 5.(d) and subsection 7 as well, to ensure that the Province does not have to shoulder any responsibility financially if there was a claim levied against the federal government under NAFTA.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments that I am going to introduce once we get into clause-by-clause, I will go through them briefly. We are going to ask that non-commercial is defined, and we are also going to ask that clause 5.(c) be amended, and clause 5.(d) be amended. Part of the reason we are going to ask for these amendments is to close a loophole by ensuring that water exported in bulk for non-commercial purposes is not at any time to be sold for profit, and to close another loophole by ensuring that water exported in bulk to transport food or an industrial product is limited to the minimum amount required for those purposes, and also to ensure that the entire Cabinet, and not just the Minister of Environment, decides when water can be exported in bulk for safety or humanitarian purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that these amendments are justified. We had a NAFTA expert, an individual who has acted as counsel on every NAFTA claim to the federal government in this country, who has written books on NAFTA and free trade, who has advised the Mexican government and American governments and companies and corporations on NAFTA legislation. We feel that this individual has made very valid points regarding the legislation being proposed in this Province. We feel that this individual has raised some very valid concerns.

The only reason we are proposing these amendments is because we want to protect not only our water resources in this Province, but to protect the Province from any financial jeopardy. We realize that government as well have brought in their experts, and their experts refute what our expert has said, but that in itself tells us that there is disagreement amongst experts on the NAFTA legislation, and the possible implications to this Province under NAFTA legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if there is disagreement, if there is uncertainty - and I believe that the expert who has advised us is correct, but maybe government's are correct.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, for clarification purposes.

This expert - I am very interested in this bill, I am very interested in the amendment, and I am very interested in whether I am going to vote for it or not. Therefore, I would like to know where the advice came from. This lawyer that you brought in, was he associated with the Council of Canadians? Was he associated with the Maude Barlow group?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to do what you are told.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, I am very serious about this. I want to know if this lawyer that they brought in, if he was associated with the Council of Canadians and the Maude Barlow group?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

I say to the member who is so interested in a response - he is walking away there now - that if he had listened, I gave a very ample introduction to the gentleman that I am referring to.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is disagreement and uncertainty between experts on this should mean that this Legislature, that the Members of this House of Assembly should take a very cautious approach to this legislation. We should very seriously consider the amendments that we are about to propose on this legislation.

If there is uncertainty, if there is even the slightest possibility of risk that this Province may be on the hook financially, then it is imperative that we do what we can to protect this Province. If there is any possibility of risk in any way, shape or form that this Province may be on the hook financially, then I am sure that in the best interest of protecting this Province, instead of saying, we feel, or our experts feel, that the legislation is fine as it is, if there is uncertainty, if there is doubt, then the amendments should be accepted in the best interest of the people of this Province.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and allow another member of the House to respond to this act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No, I am not closing the debate. I am just responding to some of the things that Tom said.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the member opposite that we have said from the beginning, and will continue to say, that this is an environmental bill, Bill 31. In fact, after being at the Ministers Conference in Alberta this past week, there were a number of provinces that felt the same way as we did and there are a couple of them that need clarification.

One of the interesting remarks made - and this is why, in a sense, people are saying this is an environmental bill. They were talking about the Great Lakes. They were saying that because of the change in climate, climate change, that it is a possibility within five years, ten at the maximum, there would be about a 1.5 metre lower level in the Great Lakes than it is now. If that became a reality, it would mean that Montreal could not become a major shipping port like it is now because of the amount of water that would not be going down the St. Lawrence Seaway. So they basically see this as an environmental problem. That is why Tony Clement, the minister who represented Ontario, really signed onto the accord and basically saw it from an environmental perspective the same as we do.

Regarding the amendment that the hon. member made in - for example, clause 7 - in saying for us not to pass the legislation or enact clause 7 until such time as the federal government does that, it is not the way that we believe. We believe it is irrelevant. It does not really manner if it is signed before or after. There is no cause here. One of the people that we brought in, for example, Professor McRae, said the same thing, that whether it is brought into effect before or after export legislation by federal government is certainly irrelevant. Therefore, in this particular case, we do not agree with the member opposite and for clause 7 we will not accept any amendments on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Basically, if we were to look at some of the fresh fish fillets and so on that leave the Province right now, a lot of it in the transport trucks, some of it does have large quantities of ice that is the equivalent, probably, of using water if it were melted to be able to send it out in bulk form, so that does not matter. Therefore, that is an exception that we are talking about here.

Also, if we were to have some of the other fish sent out - for example, as lobster in holding tanks or whatever - any water of that particular nature would also be covered here. It is an industrial product, but certainly not in the sense to export for anybody to make money on in that particular situation right here.

We see nothing wrong with clause 5(c) as we have it, and we see nothing wrong either for clause 5(d), which states very clearly: “the water is removed for a non-commercial purpose” - it is stated very clearly - “approved by the minister, including for safety or humanitarian purposes.” We think that is very clear as it is. In that sense we are not willing to make an exception to that or an amendment as well. I think that was the other one.

There was one other I think where the group also wanted not the minister, but the Cabinet, to have a say into it. I think that is what the other one was. It is our opinion here that we will not accept that amendment either and we will go with the bill as it was written.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

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

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

I am going to present an amendment to clause 2. I believe the Government House Leader has a copy of my amendment.

MR. TULK: Yes, I do.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you. It reads:

To move the following amendment to Bill 31, An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province:

That clause 2 be amended by renaming paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively and by inserting immediately preceding the renamed paragraph (b) the following paragraph:

(a) “non-commercial” means a transaction that does not involve any profit-making activity at the time of its distribution or at the time of its alienation;”.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is seconded by the Member for Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Is there any discussion on the amendment?

All those in favor of the amendment?

The Chair has called for speakers on the amendment and no one has risen to be recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Yes, the Chair has already called for speakers to the amendment. That is fine.

The Chair will recognize the hon. Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a very brief comment on this, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is there to protect the people of the Province. It is there to ensure that non-commercial means a not for profit-making activity.

I believe that if we are all sincere in this House about protecting our Province, protecting the people of the Province and protecting our resource, that this amendment will have absolutely no problem being accepted by the other side. I implore the members of the other side to accept this.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Clause 5(d) does not define non-commercial. All this is doing is defining non-commercial. This agrees with the intent and the spirit of this legislation. This amendment agrees with the entire intent of this legislation. It is just defining non-commercial. Non-commercial is not defined anywhere else in the legislation other than to say that it is at the discretion of the minister.

We are simply asking that non-commercial be defined. I have seen, and I am sure the Government House Leader in his many years as a parliamentarian in this Legislature has seen many acts being introduced to this House where there are definitions that clearly define phrases, words, and so on that are contained within an act. That is all we are seeking to do here, to define what non-commercial means.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are safe (inaudible)!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Perfect. We will accept the amendment, I take it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to make a couple of comments, particularly with regards to this amendment. The legislation is distinct and says that the water cannot be exported for commercial purposes, only non-commercial.

I want to go back and look at the logic that the Opposition had right from the start in terms of this whole vision of water export. Their argument was there was great concern about the environment. It was an environmental issue. We were afraid that we would have no water left in Newfoundland, we would have no water to drink, no water left to use. They were concerned about the environment.

You know the real reason why they are against this? They are afraid that some person is going to make a profit. It really came out in the debate right now. They are terrified that somebody will make a profit. That is the kind of attitude that is displayed by that side of the House. That is why for seventeen years there was no development in this Province because they drove everybody out of the Province. The only development they had was the Sprung Greenhouse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise because of the comments just made by the Member for Bellevue. When we want to have non-commercial defined properly, we are only following the precedent that is most of the other acts, where in the first clause you will find all kinds of definitions that are there. Our intent is really to define it.

When I listened to the Member for Bellevue when he was saying that we are against making a profit, that certainly gives me concern that we better define what non-commercial is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: That is the whole logic of it. The Member for Bellevue has just confirmed and has supported why we on this side want to have non-commercial defined. Because he looks over here and says: What, are you people afraid that you might make a profit? That is not what we are talking about at all. We simply want to have it defined because it is the right thing to do. The Member for Bellevue confirms the logic of what we are trying to put forward on this side of the House.

I say to all hon. members, let's be very clear. We are not against making a profit on this side. All we are saying is, let's make sure the definitions are clear and consistent, as is done in every other piece of legislation. We call upon the government, for the good of the legislation.

We on this side support its thrust, but let's do it right and let's avoid any misinterpretations like the one just made by the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just as a point there - if fact, I have asked the Clerk if he could find something to the effect whereby the word commercial or non-commercial is defined in any other act. If the Government House Leader knows of any other act where commercial is defined, or non-commercial is defined, and it includes something satisfactory, that they are not-for-profit, then we would not need this amendment there.

I have not been able to find something that specifically defines it. That is the very question, I think, that was raised by the Member for Bellevue that raises that possibility. Is there a concern that there could be some profit-taking incurred in the transaction? If the Government House Leader can provide to me that it is defined, we would be quite content with that, but we have not seen that.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Let me ask the hon. gentleman one question. The act says, as it is written.... Commercial and non-commercial are two opposite words, obviously. Non-commercial is the opposite of commercial.

Let me ask him a question. Can he find a word, can he find any meaning in the language between those two words? Can you find any room for interpretation in between those two words?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, we have found a definition of non-commercial and we have added that it is not-for-profit; we determined it to be. I ask the Government House Leader: Is there anything in any act, or anything that we could apply, that would define commercial and non-commercial? If it is in any act, we will take it as gospel, but -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and that it is the very issue raised, indicating that in the lack of a definition it is open for interpretation, in the lack of a defined definition under the act it removes the interpretation and therefore allows someone to proceed then under a specific restriction. Otherwise it is open for the very interpretation - the Member for Bellevue indicated the reason you do not want to see something go out of here for profit - that is why we do not want it there. Well, the converse of that is, there must be an avenue to make it profit-taking or commercial if it is in the definition.

If that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier's right interpretation of it - I do not know if it is government's official interpretation but that was his interpretation of it, and that is the very reason why we would like it defined.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a little bit perplexed here today. I find that the government is splitting hairs over putting in a definition for non-commercial in Bill 21, yet in Bill 28 we have lessee defined. Why do we have lessee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor or not?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I cannot understand and I would like an explanation for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I am going to give the Member for Bay of Islands -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want to get up and talk?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Well, it is either going to be you or I, but not both of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Now, it is either going to be you or me, but not both.

MR. JOYCE: Go ahead.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Now, what I would like an answer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is either you or I.

What I would like an answer to here today is: Why, in Bill 28, which is, An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province, we find it necessary to define lessee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, but why are we splitting hairs? Is Bill 31 not as important to you? Is the protection of the resources of water not as important to you? Is this what you are telling us? You are over there and you are pretending to be concerned. Is it that you are too stubborn to give in? Is it that we determined that there was something left out that should have been amended? Well, explain why you have lessee defined. Anybody dealing in property knows what lessee is, but you have gone through the trouble of defining lessee.

Mineral is defined here. Minister is defined. Now many of us could give definitions of what a minister is, but in Bill 28 we found it necessary to define what is a minister is. We found it necessary to define what a project is. We found it necessary to define what rehabilitate is. The Opposition wants an amendment in defining non-commercial, and the government is disputing our motives.

MR. GRIMES: No, we are saying we are not going to do it.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, you are saying you are not going to do it, which leads me to believe that you are not really serious about whether profits are made legitimately or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) make a profit?

MS S. OSBORNE: No, but the thing I would like answered here today is, why in one bill we find it necessary to give all these definitions and in another bill we are splitting hairs over whether non-commercial should or should not be put in there for the protection of this resource and for the people of our Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved, by the Member for St. John's South, that clause 2 be amended. Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

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

I have two amendments that I want to make to clause 5. We want to make an amendment to clause 5.(c) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make two amendments to clause 5.

I move the following amendment to Bill 31, An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province,:

That clause 5 be amended at paragraph (c) by adding immediately following the words, “the water is used to transport food or an industrial product out of the Province”, the words, “and is limited to the minimal amount of water required to manufacture, process or transport the food or the industrial product”.

As well, I wish to make an amendment to clause 5, paragraph (d) to read:

That clause 5 be amended at paragraph (d) by deleting the word “minister” in the sentence, “the water is removed for a non-commercial purpose approved by the minister, including for safety or humanitarian purposes” and substituting therefore the words, “Lieutenant-Governor in Council”.

I understand that these amendments are seconded by the Member for Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: I declare the amendments to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will just to speak briefly to the proposed amendments, beginning with the issue with respect to a process in the first instance of replacing ministerial authority with that of the Cabinet. What we are looking at is, again, some attempt, as we see it, to try to make this issue bigger than it is. The bill gives effect to the fact that there will not be bulk export, which is the critical issue in the Province.

There are some fundamentals with respect to other circumstances where it is appropriate for some water that is not in a container of twenty-two, twenty-five litres or less to be used for different purposes. Again, I guess it is probably the inexperience of the hon. member opposite, never having been in government, never having to actually administer a piece of legislation, to suggest that the full entire Cabinet should be seized of an issue as to whether or not an exclusion for some sane sensible reason is warranted.

Everybody understands that the minister is not given the authority to allow for bulk exports. He is allowed to provide for the use of water in bulk form for designated purposes under the act. It would be absolutely unthinkable that the only time that approval could be given would be if the full Cabinet were to be called together and to debate what would be a housekeeping administrative item. The minister can do that with his staff on a daily and timely basis so that people who are operating a business and need some bulk water to run the business - not for export, not for sale, not for commercial use, but just so that they can run their business. It needs to be done on a timely basis and that it would be absolutely unthinkable.

He should probably check with some members of the PC party - some of them are pretty old now - that used to be in a government. He would understand that the suggestion that he is making is totally unworkable, and would be decried by industry and by people out there that need access to some quantities of bulk water. It would be foolhardy to think that you would occupy the time of a Cabinet with an administrative issue. Cabinet is supposed to deal with major policy issues. They will deal and have dealt with the issue of banning bulk export. It is done.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing again, is the idea of trying to be cute, to be seen to be a little more meticulous in detail than the government has been in proposing the bill, to add on another part to a clause that already covers the issue. We do not see either of them as being warranted or serving any particular purpose at this point.

Yes, I am very surprised that the very government that said the reason they could not release information only a couple of weeks ago because it was Cabinet material - and later we find out that the Premier and the ministers did not even hear about it, that in fact it was not a Cabinet document -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, what we are saying here is that instead of leaving it at the discretion of one individual that it is at the discretion of Cabinet. We are asking that it be at the discretion of Cabinet. I see nothing wrong with that. It is still the same government, but it is taking the responsibility out of the hands of one individual on this vital resource of importance.

Let's review for a moment why we want it to be Cabinet as opposed to one individual. Because if you had one individual and they were to make a mistake and it were to trigger implications under NAFTA, it is a lot easier to pick up on such a mistake with a group of people, a Cabinet, the people that are in charge of making all of the important policy decisions in the Province.

We would much rather see that it go to the entire Cabinet where it can be hashed out, discussed, perhaps even debated, as opposed to having one individual make a decision that could negatively affect our water resource. That is the reason we wish to see it by Cabinet. We are not saying to bring it to the House. We agree that would perhaps be unreasonable. We are saying bring it to Cabinet as opposed to one individual.

On the other issue where we say that water is to be “limited to the minimal amount of water required to manufacture, process or transport the food or the industrial product,” British Columbia has similar wording in their legislation in a very similar clause to say: let's limit to the minimal amount that is required. That is all we are asking for here. How can one legislature should as British Columbia be so far off the wall on this particular clause -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) NDP (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Exactly. Maybe they are not.

This clause that we are asking for here is again for the protection of the people of this Province, for the protection of our resource. We are simply asking for an amendment to protect. That is what we are asking for.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did you want the floor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognized the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, while the Minister of Mines and Energy fails to see through rose-colored glasses, I thank his Premier for thanking me for all of the good work I have done on this, and other members on the government side as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think these amendments are very worthwhile and I think they are there for the protection of the people of this Province, and I ask government to very seriously consider these amendments as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, there is nobody who disputes that this hon. gentleman has pursued this issue, but I have to say to him that he is pursuing it to death. The Premier was right, and the Minister of Mines and Energy was right a minute ago when he said that the hon. gentleman has done great work on this. He has worked very hard at it. I am sure he will get whatever credit is due him in history or wherever else we give any credit. I want to tell him it is hard to become an historical figure unless you do it by age like me. The only thing that I will ever have, maybe, is somebody will say, if I stay here for another ten years, that: He was one of the longest serving members in the House. Then you are forgotten.

You have done great work, but you are beating a dead horse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

I say this to him, that if a government decides -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is the only one in the House actually on (inaudible) issue.

MR. TULK: The whip, and one of the upcoming leadership candidates in the year 2007 or 2008, is up there misbehaving. Would you look after him?

Mr. Chairman, the truth is that this is a piece of legislation. If some government - it might even be a PC government in the year 2015, or 2050 - decided they wanted to set out regulations which say: All right, here is the minimum and here is the maximum you can use to transport a bit of ice cream, or whatever you use water for, floating fish or whatever, then I suppose they will set about that through regulation. The legislation sets out the intent of what is supposed to be done and there is no need for either amendment.

You have done great work on this, I say to him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

The way the legislation is written at present, it simply states under clause 5(c): “the water is used to transport food or an industrial product out of the province...” It does not give a minimal amount. If somebody were to take that to court and say: I needed ten cubic meters of water to ship out one block of cod -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, it is up for debate. I am not going to presume what the outcome of that debate will be, but it is up for debate because it is not clearly defined. All we are asking for, with these amendments, is that we give due consideration to protecting this resource and the people of the Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 5(c) be amended. Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

It has been moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 5(d) be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 5 and 6, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

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

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

I am going to introduce an amendment here which reads as follows:

To move the following amendment to Bill 31, An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province:

That clause 7 be amended by adding immediately following subsection (2) the following subsections:

(3) Subsection (2) shall be proclaimed into force by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a date immediately after Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada brings into force legislation or regulations which create a permanent ban on the bulk removal of fresh water from the territory of Canada.

(4) If Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada has not, within one year of the coming into force of this Act, brought into force legislation or regulations which create a permanent ban on the bulk removal of fresh water from the territory of Canada, then section 7 shall be brought back to the House of Assembly for debate.

I realize that this is, perhaps, the most controversial amendment that we have made to this Act in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. This is the one that we have had considerable discussion on from the person who we brought in as an expert on NAFTA and the people who the government have brought in. There is obviously disagreement, there is obviously confusion, on whether or not this amendment is needed, whether or not this amendment will protect the Province. I think it is agreed by all that it would protect the Province, but the government experts say that they do not believe it is necessary.

Whether it is necessary or not, and if there is confusion and if there is debate, then that only brings into reason why we need an amendment on this particular bill. If there is confusion, then let's protect ourselves.

What we are saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that if there is a risk, even the slightest risk, then let's put the protection in the legislation. If it is not needed, great, but if it is needed, if there is a risk, then at least we have protected ourselves. I am asking that this amendment be accepted. It is seconded again by the Member for Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It has been moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 7 be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 7, carried.

CHAIR: Does clause 8 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 8 of this bill is about an issue that is very important to this Province for all of its natural resources. Clause 8 is about royalties. Royalties is a matter of very great importance in this Province. In fact, it has been of very great importance for about 150 years, ever since we started developing our natural resources, our mines, our forests, and other activities in this Province. One of the ongoing debates, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, has been the extent to which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from the exploitation of our resources.

Again and again, government after government has made arrangements and deals, agreements, contracts, with private industry to develop natural resources, in the process of which they have negotiated what is known as economic rent. What are the benefits that are going to accrue to the people of Newfoundland through its government and in other ways from resource development?

We have today, having listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy talk about the Voisey's Bay project, the government telling Inco that the law of the land will not apply to them. The law of the land is not going to apply to Inco. Special provision is going to be made for Inco. They are not going to be given the tax holiday that is set out in the amendment to the Mineral Tax Act that was passed in this House in December 1994.

I am glad it is not, because that would give a tax holiday on royalties to the Inco developers of Voisey's Bay nickel. The Minister of Mines and Energy keeps telling us that is not going to happen. Every time I ask the question he tells us that is not going to happen, but we have yet to see passed in this House, aside from second reading of a bill in December of 1995 that died on the Order Paper, any changes to the mineral tax regime for the mineral development in this Province.

So the law is not going to apply to Inco. What is going to apply to Inco is whatever deal is made by the Minister of Mines and Energy, or has already been made but he has not told us about it, whatever deal is made by the minister, by the government with Inco. That is going to be agreed to, then he is going to tell us about it. Then he is going to maybe allow it to be debated in the House of Assembly, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who elected members to this House, will not have a say in whether that deal is approved or not.

Now we have had many deals with corporations, special legislation for example for the Iron Ore Company of Canada made in 1938, I'm reliably informed by the Member for Labrador West, my colleague. In 1938 there was special legislation, special deals, special provisions made for the Iron Ore Company of Canada, made through legislation now in 1938.

In 1938 the government did not have to trouble themselves with going into the House of Assembly, I say. They did not have to trouble themselves in going into the House of Assembly in 1938. Do you know why? Because there wasn't a House of Assembly. There was no House of Assembly. The government could do exactly what they wanted. The Commission of Government could do exactly what they wanted! They could pass whatever laws they wanted, make whatever deals they wanted, and the people be damned! That's much the same as what this government wants to do now with Inco! They do not need the House of Assembly. They are like the Commission of Government. They can make special rules with Inco. They can make special deals with Inco.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order. I have to tell the hon. gentleman that he is starting to sound like one of the most conservative, right-wing people that we know in this Province that spoke yesterday at the Board of Trade. Will you stop sounding like Crosbie?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you said, there is no point of order. The member was just trying to stop me from reminding the people of this House and the people of the Province that this government acts the very same as the Commission of Government acted in 1938 when they passed laws without having a House of Assembly to refer to, because they did not have any obligation under law. The same words, I think, that the minister used in the House yesterday: Every law that we have to follow we will follow. The Commission of Government followed every law that they had to follow. They did not have to call together a House of Assembly. They did not have to consult with the people. They did not have any elected representatives to worry about! I say that the Minister of Mines and Energy and his government over there think that the people of Newfoundland are as complacent today as they were in 1938 during the Depression and Commission of Government.

I have news for them. The people of Newfoundland are not happy to be run by a modern day Commission of Government. They want to participate in the future of this Province. They want to be involved in decisions that affect their future. They want to examine what this government is doing and they want to have their say.

Now I would like to move an amendment to the bill before the House, to move an amendment to clause 8, for the purpose of having the House, for the first time in this government's lifetime, have some say in royalty regimes for our natural resources. Now, this might not be the most important resource in terms of the amount of revenue to be obtained from natural resources. I know if you listen to the new Liberal Member for Burin St. George's, I think it was $5 million a week. The new Liberal Member for Burin St. George's told us that the royalty revenues from Gisborne Lake were going to be $5 million a week, and that by banning the bulk export of water we were throwing away this opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have been (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister now says that they could have been and they might be. They might be yet, I suppose.

I'm moving an amendment. Clause 8(2) says: “The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing the amount of a royalty on water resources.” I want to move an amendment to add after the word “regulations” in 8(2) of the bill the words: as may be approved by resolution of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I ask first of all for a ruling whether this amendment is deemed to be in order by the Chair.

CHAIR: The amendment is in order.

MR. HARRIS: The amendment is in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is there a seconder for that amendment?

MR. HARRIS: My understanding of the rules, Mr. Chairman, is that there need not be a seconder for an amendment in Committee. I am sure I can find one if there is a need for one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think the hon. gentleman is right, but it would be interesting to see if the other half of his caucus agrees with him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if need be, seconded by the Member for Labrador West.

There is a very great interest in the issue of royalties, and how they affect the ability of this Province to meet its constitutional obligations and other obligations to its citizens in all sorts of areas which it is failing to do to date, particularly the areas of education, health care, social services for our citizens, and in the area of nutrition and child health and welfare, making sure that we have healthy children who are able to learn in our schools.

Right here today we should start a process that would require royalty regimes for natural resources of the Province be brought before this Legislature for a full debate. I am quite happy to see the Minister of Mines and Energy or the Minister of Environment and Labour - although I do not know what responsibility, frankly, the Minister of Environment and Labour has over royalty regimes for natural resources, although the bill is in his name. I would expect that the Cabinet is certainly capable of arranging for the drafting of regulations. I certainly think they are capable of coming up with some rationale to support them.

What this resolution would say do is say that after you have done your work, after you have decided what you think is best as a government for the people of Newfoundland, that it is brought before this Legislature, and the people have a say through their Legislature in determining whether the royalty regime is appropriate.

What I heard the Premier say here was that they were going to consult with industry and decide on an appropriate regime for bottled water exports for royalties. Consult with industry. That is typical of this government. We are going to consult with only one party, and that is industry, to determine what level of royalties they are prepared or willing to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I see the Minister of Mines and Energy agrees with me. He says that is a brilliant analysis of what happens when this government - we see the minister himself beating a path to Inco. We see the minister himself beating a path back and forth to Toronto to talk with the people in Inco, to consult with industry on what appropriate regimes there might be by way of taxes and benefits. When Inco tells them the maximum amount they are prepared to pay, then we might have a deal and he will approve it, and then sometime down the road will tell the people in Newfoundland what they in their wisdom have done.

I am not happy with that any more then I am happy with this government unilaterally, without recourse to the House of Assembly, passing royalty regimes. We do have a problem in this country with royalty regimes for bottled water. I would be the first one to acknowledge it. In fact, the only royalty regimes for bottled water in the country are that of the New Democratic government in British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to say that they are adequate, not at all, but at least they have them. Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island do not. I could go on. Nobody else does, except the Government of British Columbia and the -

MR. HARRIS: I would imagine they did, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) better check it out, Jack. Go check it out (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on the bulk water export and on the amendment as proposed. I think that it is important that a full input from the people of the Province take place when we are talking about our natural resources. I think it is not just the issue of bulk water, it is a question of all natural resources in the Province.

I would like to respond to a comment that was made by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo about Labrador trading jobs for retirements. I would like to say to the member that if he spent thirty-five years in forty or fifty degrees below zero at a bus stop with a lunch can breathing dust for eight to twelve hours a day, he would be more than happy to retire as well. That was a virtue of that through layoffs.

MR. REID: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would remind the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that I recognized the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, the bulk water exports in this Province is another example of not getting the benefit from our resources. If we had a royalty regime in place where we could get a fair share of return on our resources, be it water, nickel, iron ore, forestry or whatever, then we would be in a much better place to provide better for the people of the Province.

MR. TULK: Tell us what you knew on January 29 that you did not tell the people in Labrador West.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, the regime for royalties for bottled water is going to be more important in time to come than probably any other commodity. It is important that we are in a position to take advantage of what we can achieve -

AN HON. MEMBER: Randy, (inaudible)?

MR. COLLINS: What I knew on January 29 is that the Liberals would have at least one member less when the House returned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: The question of water and the development of that natural resource is critical because it sets the stage for further development in other areas of the Province as well. When our resources are being exploited to the tune they are today, and the people of this Province are not getting the fair share of return from them, then that is wrong. Anything that affects the royalties of our natural resources, resources that are owned by the people of this Province, should come in for full debate in this House.

I conclude my comments by saying that the hon. members across may not agree with this, but I can assure you that if they knew as much as they professed to know they would still have a member in Labrador West today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: That is why your Premier is afraid to show up!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I've recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is obviously so much noise here that the members cannot even hear who you are recognizing.

If I might, I will elaborate for a few moments on the importance of this House of Assembly having a say in royalty regimes, not only for water resources, but also for every other natural resource. If we did have that, if there was open debate in this House of Assembly, we might not have the generic oil regime that we have for the offshore, we might not have special deals for Terra Nova and Hibernia. We might not have the kinds of things that the public has not even got an inkling about in terms of what the alternatives might have been for our offshore in Hibernia, in Terra Nova, and in terms of the generic oil regime. We have revelations made by the Parkland Institute in Alberta as to what is happening in their oil industry, in their royalty regime, as a result of their implementation by the Alberta government. An implementation of a generic royalty regime in Alberta has cost the Alberta treasury untold billions of dollars.

We need to have a full debate in this Province, we need to have a full debate in this House, of what the benefits are to the treasury of this Province. Going way back to May 1996, the Premier of this Province was quoted in the newspaper as saying: We might have to trade royalties for jobs in the development of Voisey's Bay. That is what he said. That is how important royalties are, that the Premier would say, and be quoted in the paper as saying: We might have to trade royalties for jobs.

That is a very serious issue, a very serious problem, and I say that the place to debate this issue and to debate this problem is here on the floor of the House of Assembly. We know we have a serious problem with equalization payments. We are treated for equalization payments in the same way, in many respects, that a person on social assistance or on employment insurance is treated when they get a job. That they, after a very short amount of income, lose dollar for dollar what they earn.

That has to change, but that is only going to change if we have a full opportunity for all the people of this Province to understand what the issues are, to understand the importance of the issues, to understand the need for certain basic changes in our relationships between companies and this Province and this government, and between this government and the Government of Canada.

That is only going to happen through open debate, not the Commission of Government type approach that this government is adopting in terms of its dealing with Inco, in terms of its dealing with the offshore oil companies. In this case, what the Premier suggests he is going to do is have a meeting, have a chat, have a discussion with the bottled water operators and determine what is an appropriate level of royalty.

I don't think we are going to get rich quick on royalties from bottled water resources, but it is kind of interesting to note that bottled water retails for about twice the price of gasoline. I see the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island looking startled at that. He just jumped to attention when I mentioned that the price of bottled water retails for twice the price of gasoline at the pumps.

This government, this Province, the people of Newfoundland through taxes - I think the member in his role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance can probably confirm - get about sixteen cents a litre in revenue on gasoline at the pumps. Is that about right? He nods his head. It is about there. It fluctuates with the price of gasoline. So the Province gets sixteen cents a litre for every litre of gasoline sold in the Province. I wonder how many cents a litre will be the royalty on bottled water? We will not even have an opportunity to debate that, because the government will pass a regulation some Thursday morning in Cabinet. When the House is not sitting, the government will pass the regulation, it will be gazetted the following Friday. Sometime The Newfoundland Gazette, that very well-read newspaper, that newspaper that is widely circulated and read in every household in the Province, will tell us what the royalty is for bottled water when the House is not sitting, and nobody will have a chance to debate it.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you would be very interested in a debate in this House of Assembly on this issue of royalties for bottled water, because then we would be able to compare whether or not the Province's take on bottled water compares in any respect to what its take might be on gasoline that is bought by our own citizens.

I commend the amendment to the House. I think it has a great deal to offer in terms of the people of this Province understanding how royalties work. There will be full opportunity for the Minister of Mines and Energy to give lectures on the issue, and he can talk at length on the issue about how royalties work and do not work. He can tell us all about negotiating royalties and what the market will bear and all that stuff. We will all be more enlightened and it will be a democratic process. We will all have our say and those who are elected in this House by the people of this Province will be able to present the views of our constituents and the views of our various caucuses and parties on this very important issue facing the future of this Province: how do we, as a people, maximize the return on our assets, on our natural resources, in this case one of our most important resources, that of the water of life itself.

I think aqua vitae it is called sometimes. Water is very important to life and here we are talking about a product that has a value in the marketplace in terms of bottled water, speciality waters. Here is an opportunity for the House to debate and discuss and pass on any regime that might be put in place on the issue of bottled water.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

We are now voting on the amendment to clause 8.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, clause 8, carried.

A bill, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.” (Bill 31)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Bill 1, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne

MR. HEDDERSON: I just rise today to reiterate what I said the other day in the second reading. This bill certainly is a bill that is going to move us forward with regard to apprenticeship and occupational certification. It addresses the concerns of the industry and the education system, and again we have no difficulty in putting forth this particular bill without any amendments. We would just leave it at that.

On motion, clauses 1 through 14, carried.

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification.” (Bill 1)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

Coming from an experience I had myself in the last couple of weeks, it is very important to keep up with the technology because others are keeping up with the technology.

MR. TULK: I know what (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: We all have our problems, I say to the Government House Leader, and you have yours after what I have seen here today. The only difference in my problem and your problem is mine can get corrected. A wink and nod, Mr. Chairman, says a lot of things. I would say that the Government House Leader now is under much stress but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Under the spell.

MR. MANNING: He could be under the spell but he is under much stress. I would say to the Government House Leader that the only peace of mind he has is that there is competition on that side of the House, because the Minister of Fisheries has been earmarked also. You are not the only one. I have heard the comments. The Minister of Fisheries has been earmarked also. I tell him that he is running a close second.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: He is running a close second, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Fisheries that after having the experience of attending a few Christmas socials with him back here a few years ago, I am looking forward to the party next week to see what will happen. You never know when people are enjoying the festive activities.

To get back to the piece of legislation, it is a very important piece of legislation because it is about the security of the files that are within government. It is very important that these be kept safe and hopefully, in keeping up with today's technology, the Minister of Government Services and Lands is taking this piece of legislation very importantly and making sure that people's files are electronically kept up with today's technology, but at the same time are kept safe also.

I look across the floor and I see that things are starting to heat up because the Minister of Fisheries and the Government House Leader have called in legal counsel on this very important issue. The Member for Topsail has been called in for a legal opinion on what the Government House Leader and the Minister of Fisheries are going to do over the next few days. It is great to see that they have people on their own side of the House they can depend on.

I would just like to say that we on this side of the House certainly have no major concerns with this piece of legislation. It is not something that is earth-shattering but it is still something that is important. It is great to see that we have at least an act now that will permit documents to be filed electronically, and that they will keep in concert with what is happening in other parts of the country as it relates to security. This side of the House certainly has no problem with this piece of legislation. The Minister of Government Services and Lands has done a fine job so far, I say, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to make a few remarks on the bill now before the House, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. This is an area of great complexity and I do not profess to understand the operations of all the securities laws in the country. In fact, what we are doing here is bringing our law into keeping with the other provinces and the federal law of securities. I think it is kind of a recognition that you cannot really have a whole bunch of different security laws in different provinces of the country because it makes for not only an inefficient economy, but also for a duplication of effort, and lots of room for error and manipulation by corporations of the rules in various provinces in order to get around whatever does not suit them, which companies are quite happy to do if they can manage to do it.

What I find interesting is that we do not have any legally binding rules for offshore safety of human beings in our offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have is a set of draft regulations without the force of law, as the Nova Scotia government found out when they tried to prosecute a company for violation of health and safety stands and regulations. They found out that they did not have the authority any more, that jurisdiction had gone to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, just as it has, in Newfoundland, gone to the C-NOPB, and that there were no legally binding regulations in force. Not only that, there was a policy in the C-NSOPB not to prosecute by rather to work with industry to set standards and bring about improvements to safety. That would make, in this Province, the offshore oil and gas industry the only industry in this Province that is not subject to offshore health and safety regulations that have the force of law and that are allowed to be prosecuted in the courts, just as the mining and fishing industries are. Any other industry that operates in this Province has to follow the rules, and if they do not follow them they are subject to prosecution, except in the offshore.

I think we have to recognize that the offshore is one of the most dangerous industries that we have. We have very volatile chemicals, for example, off the offshore platform at Hibernia. We have in gas wells, production wells, exploration wells and the marine environment itself, a very serious circumstance. In fact, the very same problem with a watertight door which unfortunately caused an injury that cost the life of Shawn Hatched in fact sank his ship in 1985, as is recognized by the Canadian Coast Guard in a report that a failure in a watertight door caused the sinking of a ship. I do not think that in that particular case there was any loss of life, but in this particular case, some fourteen years later, there was another incident with a watertight door that cost the life of a young Newfoundlander.

The Nova Scotia government found out that it did not have the ability to prosecute because they did not have legally binding rules for the purpose of prosecution, because that authority had been given to the C-NSOPB, just as we have in Newfoundland the authority given to the C-NOPB. The laws of the land - in this case, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - do not apply offshore when it comes to occupational health and safety.

While we are giving this authority to make legally binding rules in the Director of Securities with the approval of the minister, we do not even have in our own offshore - the Minister of Environment and Labour sat in his place today, the minister responsible for occupational health and safety, while the Minister of Mines and Energy answered questions about occupational health and safety in the offshore. That will tell you what is going on here.

What is going on in this Province is that occupational health and safety in the offshore is treated as a part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Mines and Energy. It is treated as a part of the responsibility for offshore development. Treated, in the case of the C-NOPB, as a responsibility, along with many other things, to guide and provide standards and to work with industry to improve things; not to have an enforceable mechanism with the force of law that we have in the mining industry, that we have in the fishing industry, that we have in the factories, that we have in the construction industry, and that we have in the refinery industry in Come by Chance, but not in the offshore oil and gas industry. That is a very important developing industry in this Province and one that can be responsible, as we have tragically seen in the past with the Ocean Ranger, in many deaths of Newfoundlanders working in that environment.

I raise this not to cause alarm but to raise the alarm in the hopes that we will find a solution that will make sure that our offshore is as safe as it can possibly be. I believe that can be best achieved by having regulations with the force of law enforced in the same way as our occupational health and safety rules onshore are enforced by our Department of Labour: by specialized investigators and inspectors who can ensure that the rules are in place and that they are complied with, that they are up to date, that they are modern; that they have one responsibility, and one responsibility only, and that is to ensure that the rules are adequate, that they are followed, that they are enforced, and people and companies are punished if they do not follow those rules.

While we support this legislation, and we support the integration, if this is what this is - and I guess it is to some extent - of our securities regulations and securities legislation with that of other provinces in the Government of Canada, we also look to see that this government takes its responsibility for the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in our offshore with the same degree of seriousness as it should be taken, as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want the offshore safety issues to be taken. That requires some change in attitude, I would submit, by this government if we are going to have the safest kind of offshore that we need to have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

On motion, clause 1, carried.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 9)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few comments - no, not amendments - just a few particular concerns with doing away with the Medicare Commission and moving it under the umbrella of the department. There are certain concerns. When it is housed in the Department of Health it is subjected to the administrative and political control basically of the minister. That is not necessarily good, especially when the files do contain -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

Clause 3 deals with the confidentiality of patient records, that no person employed in the administration of the act shall communicate information to another person, but there are exceptions, and some of these exceptions, to say the least, are a bit worrisome. For example, the minister - and presumably members of her staff, for instance - can access confidential files for consultation with the medical or dental association. That is in clause 3.

At her discretion, it says in 3(1)(e), she can give information to anyone “engaged in health or medical research...,” and any of those records. There is concern there. If these loopholes exist there, we can have private files opened for any purpose for which the minister and her colleagues deem fit. That is an option there that is more arm's length when it is under the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission now.

Further, in clause 3, it says, if we are exposed to political control, for example - this bill will do it, really put it under political control now - there must be extraordinary measures taken, I must say to the minister, to ensure that those files that are with MCP now will remain confidential. That is important. People should feel some security in knowing that their personal and medical history are kept confidential and secret, except in the most exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to be able to release such information.

My final comment on this is in clause 3. Also, it talks about the maximum penalty not exceeding $100 or thirty days of jail, it says here. The government cannot be sued if information is released to an unauthorized person. No one can sue the minister or an employee of the Department of Health for defamation resulting from the unauthorized use of information in a person's MCP file.

I think it is important that, if we are going to try to ensure that, that the maximum penalty there is not going to be so lenient, because it does not give a high amount of credence and support to maintaining and protecting the confidentiality of people's information.

I cannot see it operating in a penalty. There is control there. There is an appointment of all these boards that is done by the minister, so how can you say it has the degree of independence and the preservation and the confidentially that could be subjected other than strictly medical purposes.

These are concerns, I say to the minister, that I have with these particular sections here in this particular act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to ask a point of clarification to the minister. The concern I have is with clause18.(3) of the bill, “The minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer...”.

I ask the minister if this is a fee in excess to the $12.56 that is presently paid by every insured vehicle in the Province now. I understand there is something like 436,000 vehicles insured in the Province. I understand that the insurer of each insured vehicle compensates the government today somewhere in the tune of $12.56 for each insured vehicle. I would like to ask the minister if this is a further charge or if it is cleaning up something in the bill as it presently exists.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is important to restate again, because I think members opposite may have missed it, that the sole purpose of what we are proposing in this amendment is to make the changes that are necessary to provide for the administration of the act. I said it earlier, there is not one other piece changed. This is the same legislation that you people were available in the House for in 1994. Nothing else has changed. The question on the levy is exactly the same as it was before. There is nothing else changed.

The only thing I will say is that we have had meetings with the Medical Association on this. We have agreed, with the Medical Association - I think it is important that this whole bill, the whole Medical Care Insurance Act that we are proposing right now, is allowing the Department of Health and Community Services the ability to provide for the administration of MCP. That is the only intent of this bill. There is nothing else changed in the bill. It is the same bill that they were here - they must have missed the last debate in 1994 when it came to the House, but it is exactly the same. I have said it many times. The levy is the same. It is not over and above the existing levy, it is the same levy.

With respect to people being sought after to pay for insurance, that is not the intent. It was not the intent in 1994 when most of you were here when it was passed. It is exactly the same as it was then. The only persons involved would be the insurers of people. No individual is asked to pay up for any third-party liability.

The question the Member for Ferryland asked about, if a person gets in a fight or something, or if they have some sort of a come-to, would we then go after those people? No, of course he would know, that would be a civil or criminal action and that would not in this particular case follow through.

What this piece of legislation says is basically -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, the minister, as I have just answered, would not go after them. The minister only deals through this particular act with the insurers and not the individual, only if the individual has insurance. This has not changed in 1999 any different than it was when it was originally passed in 1994.

The only thing that is different in the old bill from the new bill is allowing - and it says very clearly, the sole purpose is to allow my department, the Department of Health and Community Services, to administer the MCP program. Most of the sections are identical although they are renumbered. There is no other change in the levy system, in the formula system, in the ability to obtain money from the insurance companies to offset third-party liability and damages. That has not changed in any way. I will say it again: The sole purpose of these amendments is to make the administration of the MCP possible by my department, no other changes other than renumbering.

On motion, clauses1 through 29, inclusive, carried.

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Administrative of Medical Care Insurance”. (Bill 26)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: While we are in Committee now and they are the only two basically that are in Committee at the moment, and we do not have any particular speakers on these, we are quite content to move and get these out of the way, providing it is not going to take an undo amount of time. If we can do them in a few minutes - five minutes, we will say.

CHAIR: Is there an agreement?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure if there are any speakers. We have already exhausted these. These bills are just formalities really, just a bit of housekeeping..

CHAIR: Do we have an agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Orders 6 and 7.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4, carried.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act”. (Bill 27)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried

CHAIR: What was the other one?

MR. TULK: Order 7, Bill 29.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Just a few words, ten or fifteen minutes, I suppose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: So he should. With the performance he put on in this House this past week or so, he should cry, the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak to the bill before the House, the Coat of Arms Act. This is an act which I guess prevents arbitrary use of the Coat of Arms in the Province on products that we would not want to have the Coat of Arms on. For example, jackets made in Indonesia being distributed by government. That is an example of what would be an inappropriate use of the Coat of Arms of the Province.

MR. HARRIS: It would be an inappropriate use of the Coat of Arms of the Province to have it on jackets or other souvenirs -

MR. J. BYRNE: Products.

MR. HARRIS: - or products made in Indonesia that are being distributed by the Government of Newfoundland. That would be inappropriate. What it does is protect emblems of the Province from being misused and being misrepresented.

MR. MANNING: I think the Minister of Tourism needs protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Where government money is spent, people have a concern about it. Where government money is spent the people of this Province have a right to have a concern about it. Let me tell you, they do have a concern about it, regardless of how embarrassing it might be to the government of the day. I want to make sure that they understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He said you were a corner boy.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, but see, he thinks that is an insult to be called a corner boy. I want to tell the minister that I do not feel insulted by being called a corner boy. I am proud of being a corner boy, Mr. Chairman, and I have no hesitation in saying so. If he has a problem with that, well, let him go somewhere else.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: There is only one thing I want to say. I understand the hon. gentleman should not feel bad about being a townie or a corner boy or anything like that, but when he is a real boy in the way he acts when he gets up, he should be ashamed.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: I am devastated by the insult. I have a body blow. I am devastated by the verbal body blow from the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you are cornered now.

MR. HARRIS: I am cornered by the point of order. A verbal body blow. I do not have any hesitation -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I indicated that if someone could be wrapped up in five minutes maximum - and it has gone beyond that. We do not wish to give any leave to continue further because I am not sure how long we are going to go on here with this. It could go on forever. We do have commitments. I know I have commitments after, I know some of our members have right after here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order.

I agree with the hon. member that we did give - and the hon. gentleman down there shook his hand at me and said the same thing. Since he chooses to get up and go on with this, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the Committee now rise and report progress and report bills -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has a motion for the Committee to rise. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

If we do not have order we will be here all evening, and as has already been pointed out, some people do have other places that they can go to, and I'm sure there are some people who probably figure they have better places they can go to this evening.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled there is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report having passed Bills 31, 1, 9, 26 and 27 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, Bills 31, 1, 9, 26 and 27 ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.