May 8, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we call the members' statements, the Chair would like to welcome to

the gallery today six Level I, II and III students from St. Simon and St. Jude

Academy in Francois in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape Le Hune, accompanied by

teacher Gary Lewis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate the residents of the Burin Peninsula for their generosity as VOCM's

affiliate in Marystown, CHCM Radio, in the association with the Marystown

Kinsmen Club held a radiothon yesterday that raised $52,000 for the Burin

Peninsula Health Care Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: The fundraiser was for a very worthwhile cause. It is money

raised for needed mammography equipment for use at the Centre. It will mean that

in the near future, women on the Burin Peninsula can have this procedure done in

the local area, rather than traveling off the Peninsula to avail of this vital

service. It will provide an opportunity for earlier detection and treatment of

breast cancer, the number one killer of Canadian women.

The provincial government considers this equipment vital and therefore

allocated $100,000 for this equipment in this year's Budget. I was also very

pleased to announce in March $150,000 for renovations to the Centre, and

yesterday, thanks to the hon. Minister of Health, an extra $150,000 in

government funding towards renovations at the Centre, bringing the total

government contribution to $250,000.

This joint venture between the government, the Burin Peninsula Health Care

Foundation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: - and local service clubs is just another example of how

working together can benefit our health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to advise the House that the week of May 8 to May 14, 2000, is Mining

Week in Canada.

Earlier today it was my pleasure to join the Newfoundland and Labrador

Chamber of Mineral Resources in declaring this week as Mining Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The theme for this week's celebration is: Mining Makes It Happen.

Mining Week is designed primarily to recognize the important contribution

that this sector continues to make to the economy of our Province and to give

due recognition to all the people who work and earn their living in the mining

industry.

As hon. members are aware, this government approved an additional $250,000 in

this year's Budget for the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program. It was one

of the key recommendations to government during the Jobs and Growth Mining Forum

which was held in the later part of 1999.

In addition to the increased funding of $250,000, government made the

decision to extend the program from three years to five years. The Mineral

Exploration Program is now a five-year one with new government funding of $2.25

million for 2000-2001, this current fiscal year. This will be matched by

industry funding of at least $2.25 million or more, for a total expenditure in

excess of $4.5 million this year. In all, it is now a $22 million, five-year

government and industry program.

This incentive program has been warmly received and commended by the mining

and mineral exploration industry which fully appreciates the fundamental

importance of exploration.

It continues to have many successes. The Hammerdown gold project near

Springdale will commence in the not-to-distant future; Burin Minerals is

expected to complete a feasibility study of its St. Lawrence Flurospar property

this year; and Thundermin Resources Inc., and its joint venture partner

Queenston Mining Inc., will complete a feasibility study on its Duck Pond base

metal project near Millertown.

Government fully understands that exploration is an essential component in

the development of mineral resources. It has been proven that exploration leads

to the discovery of new resources and, in turn, results in the generation of new

wealth through new investment, employment and business opportunities.

The mining industry employs approximately 2,900 people and the value of

mineral shipments this year is expected to increase from $833 million to $1.09

billion.

It is essential to support the mining industry. We must ensure that

government policies are fair to the private sector. As well, we must never lose

sight of the fact that our mineral resources belong to the people and have to be

developed in their overall best interests.

In conclusion, I invite everyone to celebrate Mining Week and the

contribution of the mining industry to the people of our Province, Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise to say congratulations for what the minister has announced in terms of

this being Mining Week. The mining industry itself has gone through a difficult

time as government has negotiated with Voisey's Bay in a very tough way,

supported by most members in the Legislature, vis--vis the bill that we passed

during the fall Legislature; not this fall past but the fall before.

Some of the initiatives that the minister has announced has dealt with the, I

guess, the overtones that have hurt the industry. Some of the junior mining

companies have come forward since that time and have explained to government - I

know, I have met with them - and have indicated that venture capital is what

drives the junior mining industry. This is where we get discoveries. In order

for that to happen, in order for the industry to be able to attract those who

have the money to support the exploration activities that discover the types of

mines the minister has just talked about, it requires a legislative and

regulatory framework that is attractive to everybody, and yet, at the same time,

protects the interest of people in the Province.

I want to say to those in the mining industry who have worked diligently and

hard over the last eighteen months, in particular, to move this government,

under a former minister, to introduce the initiative which he announced today,

which was in the Budget, which essentially says to the mining industry: If you

put one dollar in we'll match it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just for a moment.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: In other words, government has really put their money where

their mouth is on this issue. We would all like it to be more, as I am sure the

mining industry would, but from my point of view, when this legislation and

issue first came to the House I stood and supported it. I stand to support it

again today.

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.

I could start lightheartedly by wondering whether it is Mining Week or

National Forestry Week. We get our weeks overlapping and on top of one another.

Certainly, the mining industry is very important to this Province, as the

minister has noted. Exploration activity and continued exploration activity is

the key to that. After all, Voisey's Bay itself was discovered about five

years ago, maybe five and one-half years ago, at a time when many people in the

Province thought that there were no big exploration finds to take place.

I would ask Mr. Speaker, whether the government - given the fact that people

are going out and exploring - they still have on the books a ten-year tax

holiday for all new developments, one which they obviously are embarrassed about

in the case of Inco. When are we going to change that legislation so people out

there exploring for minerals now are not left with the understanding that they

are going to have a ten-year tax holiday regardless of the size of the find that

they make?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before I start, I have to say that since 1996 this must be the first day in

the Legislature that I have only seen one Ministerial Statement. The normal

press, the Goebbels machine, is not pumping out material today. It is the first

day I have seen it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to the

ongoing negotiations on the Lower Churchill development. When the project was

originally announced in 1998, the projected cost of borrowing for the Province

was in the vicinity of almost $1 billion. There had been $960 million. The

former minister briefed me, with Hydro officials, on what the borrowing cost

would be for the Province or indirectly the new entity. Those are your numbers,

not mine.

I want to say to the minister that there have been significant modifications

made since March, 1998. Could you give us an update on what the projected or

estimated borrowing cost will be for the Lower Churchill development at this

point in time regarding the status of negotiations?

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

MR. DICKS: Just so I understand the hon. member's question, I believe

what he is referring to is the Province's equity borrowings, not the total

cost of the project?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, not (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That is right, Mr. Speaker.

Until the project is finally determined, it is impossible to say what the

Province itself will borrow to inject in equity in Newfoundland Hydro; but

whatever it is would be quarter of the total project that is finally approved

and financed.

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

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

Minister, if you were in a position on March 8, 1998, to project

approximately $960 million borrowing, surely after two years of negotiation you

must be in a position today - and if you are can you tell us: What is the

projected or estimated borrowing cost going to be two years later?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the deal is not finalized. The hon. member keeps raising the

in-feed to the Province. That would have to be financed in some fashion,

depending on the federal government's contribution. The total amount you would

have to finance, if any, of that, the Province's remainder, would be at least

a quarter of that or more. You have Muskrat Falls, whatever that cost would be.

You are talking about -

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not talking about that.

MR. DICKS: These were components of the project. When you ask me a

question, "What will it cost?" and I mention things that could be in

it, and you say, "I am not talking about that.", maybe you could tell

me what you are speaking about, dealing about the cost, and I will tell you what

the cost to the Province would be.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister knows exactly what I am speaking about but I

will be very specific for him: the borrowing or equity cost on Gull Island.

Muskrat Falls was not included in the equation originally; neither was the cost

of a transmission line. The equity cost on Gull Island, the Lower Churchill

itself, was $960 million. That is what the officials from the Department of

Mines and Energy and Hydro briefed me on two years ago. My question is - there

have been serious and significant modifications to the scope of that project

since that time, so you must be in a position, after two years of negotiations,

surely, to update the people of the Province on what the anticipated, expected

or estimated borrowing of that project will be.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we can ballpark it but the thing to be bear in

mind is the relationship. The transmission through Labrador to the border was to

be financed by Hydro Quebec by rolling the cost into its rate base. The hon.

member says: Well, don't include the $2 billion to the Island. Yet he says at

the same time, it must be built. Then he is saying: Don't include Muskrat

Falls. Well, we had to do a feasibility study to see if that would go ahead.

Now if you are talking about Gull Island, the engineering figures, whatever

the final cost will be of construction, it will be 25 per cent financed by

equity, one-third of which will be financed by Hydro Quebec, two-thirds by

Newfoundland and Labrador. The Upper Churchill, if and when that goes ahead, and

depending on the configuration, there will be an equity cost there again borne

two-thirds/one-third. On the Quebec side of the border, if there is a diversion,

Quebec Hydro will finance all of that.

That is probably not a likely scenario at this stage, but until we have a

final agreement to see which of all those components are there, if the

transmission can be rolled into the Quebec grid, if there are any other costs,

all I can tell the hon. member is that is how it will be done. If it is a $6

billion project and it is all on our side of the border and Quebec has one-third

of it, then we will finance two-thirds of 25 per cent of the total cost.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in a position to update us

after two-and-a-half years of negotiations on the actual cost. Hydro officials

briefed me two years ago on what the actual cost would be for borrowing from the

Province's point of view.

Let me ask him this question: How much progress have you made on a royalty

structure?

Are you in a position today to tell the people of the Province what will the

royalty structure be for the Province vis--vis the development of the Lower

Churchill?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, if and when negotiations are concluded with

whatever the party is, we will announce all those things.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, my sources tell me that the Province of Quebec

and Hydro Quebec have clearly told the Province that before any royalties are

paid out from the project that the costs of developing that project must be paid

first; and, on top of that, that while there will be no royalties paid out from

the project until construction costs are paid off, that Quebec will also take a

marketing fee even before royalties begin to flow to the Province. Is that the

position of the Province of Quebec, I would like to ask the minister?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to disclose the position of

either the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Province of Quebec. We

are negotiating. As the hon. member and others may imagine, we each put forward

positions. We try to put forward our strongest positions, and we negotiate

around them.

All this is about value. All that we have is, we have a project that will

generate X amount of electricity that will have value at market. When you do an

agreement with another party, what we are looking at is our return; whether we

get it through royalties, equity, or other forms of payments to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My sources tell me, Minister, that Hydro Quebec and the

Province of Quebec have told you directly, and your department, and the Premier's

Office, that before royalties begin to flow to this Province, construction on

the Lower Churchill - all the construction costs must be paid off. Yet, at the

same time, while power is going to transmitted across their borders, Quebec will

take a marketing fee for a period of time, maybe up to fifteen to twenty years,

before we will see any royalties in this Province from the project. I am asking

you today: Is that the Province of Quebec's position?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. member I am not telling the

hon. member what the Province of Quebec's position is. I can tell him that it

has changed over time. Our position has changed, because we are looking at the

economics of doing this deal. Now, with respect to royalties there are at least

two types. One is ad valorem, so that for everything that is produced you get a

value off the top. That occurs in our royalty regime offshore. There is another

type of royalty that comes on net profits. So we are looking at the whole

royalty scheme but we have not said, and there has been no final decision made

at this stage, what type or what combination of royalties we will have.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he cannot tell us what the financial

arrangements will be. He won't tell us what the royalty structure will be. It

is also my understanding from my own sources that the marketing fee established

is also up for negotiation. Can the minister confirm that the marketing fee for

selling our power that Quebec wanted to take, that Quebec is now looking for a

higher marketing fee than what was originally envisaged?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have told the hon. member what the Province's borrowing costs will be. I

have not told them what the Province of Quebec's position is. What I have told

him is that it changes over time. Obviously the parties are negotiating to get

the value of this transaction. They propose one thing. We disagree. They propose

something else. We propose something else. We are still negotiating. There is no

agreement, and when there is we will let the hon. member and everybody else in

the Province know.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: In 1998 the Premier of this Province stood before the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a Province-wide address and sold a bill

of goods because you cannot provide any answers to us right now.

I will ask you again. With regards to the marketing fee that was originally

established or that was originally communicated to the public for selling our

Lower Churchill power, my information tells me Quebec is looking for a higher

marketing fee. Is that true, minister? Yes or no?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be doing this negotiation. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I would do a hell of a lot better job than you would,

Roger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member's questions indicate why the Province does not disclose

every week the changes in position. Yes, there have been changes on both sides

of these negotiations. It has been back and forth. Quebec proposes something,

this Province proposes something, and it is back and forth. There is no

agreement. Now if the hon. member wants me to go back over the history of the

negotiations and tell him what was proposed when and what was rejected, or

counter-proposed, I am not going to do it. Secondly, I'm not going to tell him

the current state of negotiations.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no need for the minister to go back and revisit

the history of negotiations because if he was going to tell us he probably could

accomplish it in about thirty seconds. We have been promised on six different

occasions an update on what is happening on the Lower Churchill development, yet

to date there has been no update.

I would like to ask the minister this point of view. We have talked before -

and I will ask him to confirm this - that the Province of Quebec and

Hydro-Quebec are not in agreement whatsoever with the management of this project

taking place within Newfoundland and Labrador, that the engineering of this

project not take place within Newfoundland and Labrador and the management of

the procurement for this project not take place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Can the minister confirm that?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, it has always been an essential component of this

deal that the procurement, the engineering and everything else be done largely

and mostly in this Province. That is the same from the beginning and it is the

same now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, we understand what that is but I am asking you:

Has the Province of Quebec said to you emphatically - my information is that

they have - that the engineering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking for confirmation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of procurement, management and engineering

management of the project, have they said absolutely not to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to our Province, in terms of developing that project

in the best interest of all of us in the Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province has always maintained, and

Hydro-Quebec has known from the beginning, that the engineering, the procurement

and the rest of that has to be done here.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 1998, the Premier of the Province

in his Province-wide address said that there would be a floor price and a

ceiling price. I would like to ask the minister today: Can he give us any

indication whatsoever on what the negotiated floor price is and what the

negotiated ceiling price is, or will it be tied directly to the markets? What is

the floor price and what has been negotiated or agreed upon? I understand there

is an agreement on this point. What is the agreement that has been reached

between the Province and the Province of Quebec on this point?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the agreement was from the beginning, and still

is, that if and when this deal is concluded Hydro-Quebec will provide a floor

price that will guarantee the payment of the debt to the debenture holders on

the project. It will not guarantee the payment on the equity, it will guarantee

the general debt of the project so that there will be non-recourse back to the

Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: A final question, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the ongoing negotiations with the Aboriginal people in the

Province, can the minister update us on if that is going smoothly? My

understanding is that there are some points that the Province is having great

difficulty in achieving, not only on this side of the border, but also with the

Quebec Innu nation. Could the minister update us and brief us on what is

happening on that point please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can. Our negotiations with the Innu people are moving much better than

they are on the Quebec side of the border. We are not dealing with Innu claims

in Quebec. That is being done by Hydro-Quebec. We are dealing with those in

Newfoundland and we are making progress.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

Minister, over the past while there has been much discussion and commentary

about the requirement of fish harvesters to sign consent forms for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Professional Fish Harvesters' Certification Board in

order for them to have their files processed and licenses issued. These

declarations of consent grant permission for Revenue Canada, HRDC and DFO to

release personal, confidential, information to the Certification Board. Those

consent forms also grant the broad permission to share that information with the

Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans. I ask the minister if this is not a violation, under sections 7 and 8

,of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Department of Health and Community Services

(inaudible), alright? You are not the omni-minister (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time this matter has

been brought to my attention. I would certainly undertake to take the member's

concerns, if he could provide me with the information that he has in fact, and

would certainly check it out. This is the first information I have had from

anyone in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General that this has been a big issue. It has been on the Fisheries

Broadcast, and it has been brought forward to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. It has been an issue that is at the forefront.

Minister, there are more issues at stake here than just the passing of

information. We are allowing a ministerial appointed board to have unlimited

access to all personal and financial information of its membership. Since this

is a professional board dealing with professional fishermen, I would like to ask

the minister if he would inform us of other professional organizations that

demand such broad powers in order to support a membership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, and for the purpose of the hon. Member

for Bonavista South, I have not been apprised of the situation before. I

undertake to find out what your enquiries concern. I don't get to listen to

the Fisheries Broadcast every day. There are lots of issues and I agree they are

certainly important. I certainly undertake, once we have the information at

hand, to review and provide you with my commentary.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answers from the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General I have to ask the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture how come he has not apprised the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General of this great issue as it pertains to the Professional Fish Harvesters'

Certification Board to maintain the membership?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have heard of it.

I have a legal advisor in my department, David Jones actually, who is a

full-time advisor to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I have had

discussions with the Professional Fish Harvesters' Certification Board on this

issue. In fact, I went over and had a meeting with the Professional Fish

Harvesters' Certification Board, then I sought advice from my legal counsel,

and I suggested to the legal council that he should sit down with the

Professional Fish Harvesters' Certification Board and discuss the issue and

the concerns that the fishermen had expressed.

If you ask for consent - I am not going to get into the legal explanation

this afternoon - from the fishermen to give out certain information, if the

fishermen sign that consent form then it is quite alright for the information

that is being asked for. The other point about it is that it is a professional

board and that board has to keep the confidentiality of individuals in-house.

The final part about it is that it is being advised by legal counsel and the

board will do what is right and proper in the best interests of the fishermen of

the board that is trying to implement a professional fish harvesters association

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder, I say to the minister, we are in such turmoil. One hand doesn't

know what the other hand is doing.

Minister, my final supplementary: Tell me, how can a provincially regulated

board restrict an individual fish harvester's access to a federally granted

license?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when the professional fish harvesters board drew

up the regulations to take over the licensing or the permit of fishermen across

the Province, they sat down with the federal government and they made an

agreement between both parties that they would be responsible for issuing

permits under the professionalization of fishermen. That agreement was reached

by both parties, including the industry, including the harvesters across

Newfoundland and Labrador. That was all discussed for about a two-year period

prior to setting up the certification board.

Now in every instance when there is a new board or a new professional

association set up like this, there are always questions of pros and cons that

have to be dealt with. The issue that the hon. member raises is an issue that is

being dealt with between the industry, the FFAW who represents the fishermen,

the certification board and their legal counsel. Nothing will be done to

jeopardize the confidentiality of any individual or any group of individuals in

this Province.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, fees at the publicly run Butter Pot Provincial Park have increased by

$163 annually, raising the total annual fee at the park to $1,100; but fees at

the privately run Gushue's Pond Park, provincially, are only $750 annually.

Minister, I would like to ask you: Why have the fees been increased at Butter

Pot? Why the significant difference between fees at a publicly run park and a

privately operated park?

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

MR. FUREY: Because, Mr. Speaker, we have to put hundreds of thousands of

dollars into parks every year to maintain them. This year we are putting money

into La Manche and a great many other parks to build fire exits, new roads and

exits, new dumping stations. It costs a lot of money to maintain these parks, so

that is why the fees went up.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister, and to tell the minister,

provincial sources tell me there is a movement afoot and ongoing discussions to

the privatization of Butter Pot Park. Can the minister today confirm or deny

these suggestions?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we have no intentions of privatizing Butter Pot

Park.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I would like to ask you as well today: Over the last year or so we

have privatized a number of parks in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 1999, some of the parks in our Province which have recently been privatized

did not open. Can you tell me if your department will be checking on these parks

in the year 2000? Can you also tell us, and through this House the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, if these parks will be opening this summer?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of these parks - I think

offhand I remember at least three - where the proposals, the business plans,

were not executed in the proper manner so we took the lease arrangements back

from those particular private operators and went out for a Request for Proposals

again.

Right in my own district, for example, the River of Ponds Provincial Park, we

went out for proposals again and a local group of operators will be taking it

over and opening it this year. Stag Lake is another example on the West Coast,

just west of Corner Brook, where the plan was not executed in the proper manner

so we are looking at that one.

The parks that were not executed, and the business plans that were not

executed in the proper manner, we have gone out for expressions of interest

again where it is appropriate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. At a provincial workshop over

the weekend to discuss school food programs, questions about the sustainability

of existing programs under the volunteer model, with much support from charity,

were deemed to be inadequate. With only 25 per cent of the schools in the

Province covered by a school meal program, will the minister and her government

reconsider the support for a universal program so that school meal programs can

be available in every school in the Province?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as a government we have acknowledged there are

some concerns throughout the Province. In fact, I guess if you look at the

latest infusion of $1 million into this program, it clearly points to our

commitment to try and address those issues of concern that we have out in the

Province with respect to hungry children.

We really believe that this is an effort by all stakeholders here, not just

the government but by the private sector, by volunteers, and by the association

itself. We are working hand in hand with the association in particular to try

and reach as many of the hungry children as we possibly can through the program

that presently exists.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister announced this recent support, she said: Children with

empty stomachs cannot concentrate on their schoolwork and have difficulty

participating in class. Their grades and attendance can suffer.

If that is the case, which I fully agree with, why is that we are only able

to have school meal programs in 25 per cent of the schools? What about the other

75 per cent of the schools where, equally, children who have difficulty, for

social and economic reasons, or who are traveling long distances on school

buses, can't adequately learn? Why can't we look at a universal school lunch

program so it is available everywhere in the Province?

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

Let me say again that it is a concern for us, just as it is for the member

opposite. We are doing what we can with the resources available to us. The fact

that we put an additional $1 million into this program again clearly speaks to

our commitment.

We recognize, as I said when we announced the $1 million, that children who

go to school hungry have difficulty learning, which is why we are working very

closely with the foundation to try and reach as many children as we can, bearing

in mind that teachers are identifying those children who have problems. It is

not just children who can't afford to have their breakfast. That is part of

the problem we have, of course. We want to make this so that no one is

stigmatized by it, so we opened up the program to any student who the teacher

identifies so that you don't just have children availing of this program who

may or may not have a problem at home.

This way you end up with a lot of children availing of the program who could

probably, if the time was there, actually get a breakfast at home, but we don't

want children to be stigmatized. The more children who avail of it, of course,

the higher the cost. We are going to try and make sure that we can work with the

resources that we have available to us, and we are doing that.

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

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

Last week I asked questions of the President of Treasury Board regarding

temporary and contract employees with government. The minister made light of a

very serious matter. This is not a laughing matter, I say to the minister. Again

I ask the President of Treasury Board: How many temporary and contract employees

are working with government, now that you have had time to review the situation?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, and if I recall that question, that was at the last minute of Question

Period. At that time, it was almost a filler. I had little time to respond and

you had little time to ask. What I can tell this House today is that this

government is working hard to ensure that our public sector are well looked

after. In fact, if the member opposite would care to reflect on the past four

years, you would be the first one to admit and to agree that in the past three

years there have not been any pink slips handed out at Christmastime. You might

also look at the measures that we have taken to make sure that our public sector

are treated fairly.

Thank you.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the first question unanswered. I will ask

another one. Why is it that these employees are not treated fairly, I ask the

minister? Why is that some have worked well over ten years and are still

considered temporary? Don't you agree that if a person is in a position for

three, five, seven, ten years or more, that position or the employee should be

classified as permanent? Wouldn't you agree with that?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite would recall that in 1996, when this government came to

power, we did what we called a program review at that time and many of the

public sector employees who were working on a permanent contractual basis were

then designated as full time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent.

MS THISTLE: Permanent.

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

Francis.

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

Obviously the minister is not addressing the questions I am asking.

Government's only reason for this unfairness is clearly to save employment

benefits for the long term with temporary positions - one year or more - and

this is grossly unfair. Why are you penalizing these public servants and their

families by denying benefits they have earned and deserve?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what I will say to this House and the member

opposite is the fact that this government, when it came to power, faced a

deficit of $350 million, and a lot it, of course, was from the previous fifteen

years. What I will say to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what we have been able to do as a government is

balance the books for the first time in fifty years. What we have been able to

pay to our public sector workers has been fair and reasonable and within our

ability to pay. As a result, there is much more stability in the public sector

workforce than there ever was before.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education. At budget time in March,

Minister, you said your department would lay off about 108 teachers at the end

of this school year. A few days later you accepted a report and said that it

would be reduced to sixty-eight and everyone appeared pleased with the minister's

decision; but now we find out, Minister, that you have plans to remove another

180 teachers out of the classrooms to fill new positions in guidance and

learning resources. Isn't it a fact that schools will lose over 200 teachers

in September, instead of the sixty-eight that you announced to glowing reviews

at the end of March? Terrible.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that a little bit of a history

course is in order for the member opposite. If you want to look at the number of

teachers in our system, one can hardly question what is happening in light of

the Ministerial Panel report.

At one point in time, we had 172,000 students in our system. Today, we have

96,000. When we had 172,000 students in our system, we had 6,648 teachers.

Today, we have 76,000 fewer students and we only have less 300 teachers.

Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison in terms of what we are doing as a

Province. We are ensuring that we have the number of teachers in the system to

deliver essential programming, which is what the Ministerial Panel reported.

They wanted to ensure that every school in this Province, no matter if you lived

in rural Newfoundland or in urban centres of this Province, had the opportunity

to deliver essential programming. We will be able to do that with the number of

teachers that are in the system today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. The petition

reads:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in Legislative Session

convened:

the petition of the undersigned request that all citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador be always granted free and unimpeded access to and through the T'Railway

Provincial Park including access by motor vehicle.

That the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take action to withdraw the

lands under the control of the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation

Inc. as contained in the three year contract signed on April 1, 1999, and that

no further contracts be signed that allow corporations or any other persons to

charge the public fees for access to public lands.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to

request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as

quickly as possible. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is petition brought forward, with1,530 names on this

particular petition. The plea is for government to look at what is happening in

how the T'Railway is being able to be accessed by all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. The fear is there that somewhere down the road there will be a fee

charged in order for people to access the 900 kilometers of this particular T'Railway.

People I guess remember a year or so ago when people raised the fear that

they were going to be limited to the use of watershed areas, to lakes and

streams around the Province, by giving control to certain interest groups. At

that particular time people raised concerns, raised the issue, and it was raised

here in the House of Assembly. People wanted no part of that. They wanted free

access. They wanted to be able to buy one license and fish in their favorite

steam or their favorite lake. Now they find out that there has been special

consideration by the Minister of Tourism given to the Snowmobile Federation in

the Province that would limit their access to the T'Railway.

A lot of people today have to use that T'Railway in order to have access to

their cabin, to their cottage if you would, in remote areas. They fear that

somewhere down the road they will be limited to using this particular T'Railway

and they feel that it should exist for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

without having to go out, buy a special license, or to pay a special permit.

Already they are limited as to where they can go and use their snowmobiles, use

their all-terrain vehicles in the wetlands and in other woodland areas. They see

the T'Railway as an ideal place to be able to have some recreation and

enjoyment. The plea goes out to the minister and to government to not allow a

fee to be incorporated; to not make this another opportunity for a money grab,

but to allow access to the people who want to use the T'Railway for enjoyment,

for recreation, and also as a means of access to their places that they normally

go to fish or to access their cabins.

That in essence is the spirit behind this particular petition. It is another

reminder of saying to government: We are not going to come forward and pay fees

for everything that we do here in this Province. We would like to be able to be

granted unlimited access to this particular T'Railway and make it available

for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 9, Bill 6, "An Act To Amend The Child,

Youth And Family Services Act."

One of the ministers here is responsible for introducing that.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And

Family Services Act." (Bill 6).

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to make a few introductory remarks

with respect to second reading of Bill 6. I believe that all members of the

Legislature would recall - because it is very recent - that last year we had the

first major re-working of the child, youth and family services legislation in

the Province for a long period of time, some significant number of years.

This is the piece of legislation that reflected the reorganization of the

department, brought the child, youth and family services, the whole initiative

and all the program areas, into the Department of Health and Community Services,

because some of it prior to that had been in the old Department of Social

Services, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and some of it had

been in the Department of Health. It was a consolidation in terms of departments

but also a consolidation in terms of legislation.

As well, this is the piece of legislation that put in place access and rights

to services for the group that had been missing, the group that was lost in the

cracks, the sixteen to eighteen year olds, that allowed for them to be provided

services through child and family services provisions: access to social workers,

access to counseling and so on. What we have seen, because it was such a huge

comprehensive piece of work, is that the social workers primarily and the people

in the youth courts who have been dealing with this legislation in its first

year of proclamation - because we were talking about a bill that was proclaimed

January 1, 1999 - while this looks like a major piece of legislation from

substantive change, it does not contain any. What it really is is a piece of

work that describes a few inefficiencies and a few little anomalies that have

become known to the social workers and to the people dealing with family and

youth issues in family court and in youth court, whereby issues such as the

proper issuance of written notices was not spelled out totally adequately in the

act as it was put together. A recommendation back through the courts and through

the officers attending the courts indicated that there should be a guarantee in

the legislation that written documentation should be provided, written notices

should be provided in certain examples, and so on.

So I just use that as an example the kind of more housekeeping changes that

are here. It has gone through a review of the committee that works with the

department, a committee representing social workers, a committee representing

youth care workers, a committee representing youth court officials. They have

indicated that there are a series of some ten or twelve here - I think there are

seventeen or eighteen clauses - issues that I believe would be appropriately

described as housekeeping and efficiency. It will improve the operation on a day

to day basis and the efficiency of the functioning of this bill, because it

deals with very serious issues whereby a child has to be taken from the family

for some reason, put into temporary custody, become a ward of the state for a

period of time while we are looking for alternate placement in foster homes or

other care arrangements and those kinds of issues.

So while the issues are extremely important and extremely critical, the whole

intent of the bill is to make it more streamlined and more functional for the

day to day use of the officials who deal with our young people and their

families on these issues, and also so that the information flow and so on given

to the families and also to the children involved, particularly the sixteen to

eighteen year olds who are being covered for the first time in our history, is

more appropriately spelled out in the legislation. This will be a much better

working piece of legislation as a result of these changes.

That is all I will say by way of introduction. My intent is to listen

carefully to the presentations during second reading. As (inaudible), it is my

understanding that if anyone in reviewing the bill has found any clauses that

they think can be further improved - because what we are looking for here are

improvements in the function of a bill rather than any change in policy or

direction as to how we are going to try to provide services to young people and

families in Newfoundland and Labrador. So if there are further suggestions that

anyone has I will certainly listen in second reading and certainly deal with any

proposed further amendments at Committee stage and third reading.

With that I commend the bill to the attention of all members and would listen

attentively to any comments they would like to make with a bill that is largely

housekeeping to try to improve the efficiency of the new Child, Youth and Family

Services Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on this side of the House to respond with regard to Bill 6,

An Act To

Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act. In looking down through the

clauses, I agree with the minister is seeing them as housekeeping, but again,

looking at the clauses as housekeeping does not take away from the seriousness

of the bill itself, which is intended to protect the youth of the Province.

Through my involvement in youth, I must say that in times of crisis with

regard to removal of children from homes, schools or foster homes it can be a

very traumatic time, especially for the child. Anything that makes it easier to

protect the rights of the children would have the support of this side of the

House.

The changes are intended to allow the professionals more leeway and to be

able to action requests faster. I noticed that there is a change, for example,

in being able to do it through telecommunication. Again, this sort of initiative

obviously would allow for quicker response. This again, if it is in the interest

of the children, is a step in the right direction.

When you look at the youth in this Province it is good to see that

legislation such as something of this nature is to be introduced with the intent

- and I say to the minister, I haven't gone down through all the individual

clauses in great detail, but to look down through them it appears that they are

certainly achieving what they have set out to achieve. This particular area,

with regard to youth protection, I say to you, is a very important one. In my

experience, we see in our society today that there are all sorts of family

situations that have developed. I suppose with the turn of this particular

century we are moving into a move away from the extended families, especially in

rural Newfoundland, that we were well accustomed to. This more nuclear family is

under a tremendous amount of pressure, especially with regard to the protection

of the youth.

We heard in this House today mention about a universal program in the schools

regarding food or nutrition. I say to you that this is where a lot of our

attention should be given, to the children of the Province, to make sure we are

picking up the slack sometimes for what is happening perhaps in the homes or in

society in general. We have to be very ready to move in and to address

particular needs. When you talk about the nutrition of our young people it is

very obvious to me and others that you can't learn on an empty stomach, and

that is for sure. To look at ways in which we can get into the schools and

provide that type of service for those who need it would indeed be a step in the

right direction.

Also I say to you that today I brought up guidance counsellors to the

Minister of Education. When it comes to the protection of youth the guidance

counsellors in the schools play a very key role. It was very interesting to see

a move towards establishing a better ratio of guidance counsellors to students

in the schools so that they can be available in times - which this act is

intended to cover - where these guidance counsellors can be involved in

protecting the youth in situations in which they need to be protected.

I have had the occasion to be in a school where the RCMP, the social workers

and other government agencies came in and took a child from the school into

their protection. I tell you, it is an horrendous situation in any type of

circumstance, especially for the child. That is why it is so important that in

our schools the proper professionals be in place to deal with this type of a

situation. So, in looking at the bill and the amendment to bill, hopefully these

amendments will allow for the professionals, like the guidance counselors, in

the schools, and the social workers.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, when you look at, I suppose, the job that social

workers are given with regard to taking care of the needs of their clients, and

in particular the young clients that they have, they are under a tremendous

amount of pressure. They have tremendous caseloads. Every case, I say to you,

takes a great deal of time. Not only does it take a great deal of time, but it

usually takes a great deal of paper work and interagency cooperation. If this

bill can, even in a small way, cut down on the amount of time that these social

workers would spend dealing with regulations and phone calls and permission and

so on - now, not to circumvent the rights of the child or certainly the rights

of the family. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if there

is a way to protect the rights and get the paperwork pushed through in a manner

which will get the job done, again this is a move positively in the right

direction.

In my dealings with social workers, like I have said, a lot of their

involvement certainly involves coming into the schools, I suppose sometimes

under very extreme circumstances. In all my dealings with social workers, I feel

that again they are certainly doing the best job they can. If these amendments

to the act can alleviate - because the youth of our Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador certainly need that type of protection. The minister mentioned from

sixteen to eighteen. I agree with the minister. That was a gray area, I suppose

you might call it, that again educators, social workers and guidance counselors

found themselves in an iffy situation. So, if again that gray area can be

eliminated by these clauses, or any one of these clauses, I certainly would

compliment the minister on bringing it forward.

The sad part about it all is that, like I said, as young people are coming up

they find themselves in different situations often well beyond their control. I

say well beyond their control because the family situation may be such that they

are in crisis more often than not. I tell you, I know, in dealing again with

social workers and these intergovernmental agencies, the last thing they want to

do is to have to go into a home and remove a child from that home, from their

guardian or their parent.

In looking at that situation, we also realize that in many cases it has to be

done. If it has to be done, we must protect not only the child but the workers,

the professionals involved with this child. That is another side of it that we

have be aware of, because I know that with regard to professionals there are a

lot of things that come across their desk in the run of a day. With regard to

youth, they have to act without thought sometimes to make sure that they are

moving in the right direction. It is not easy in trying to discern what is a

real crisis, what is an imagined crisis, what is in between. If, for example,

there are any thoughts from a teacher's point of view that a child has been

abused physically or sexually or mentally, that teacher, by law, has to report

that. The social worker who comes across that has to act immediately upon it.

When we look at the law, the law should be there again to make sure that any

child in crisis in our particular Province will get the full protection of the

law.

The housekeeping that this does will certainly bring about some most welcomed

changes because, as I pointed out earlier in what I have been saying, it is

important.

There is a section, for example, that talks about medical care. If a child is

removed and put in the custody, what about the medical care if something were to

come up? There have been any number of court cases throughout North America

involving getting proper medical care for children, and getting into the courts

is perhaps the way to solve it, as many of these people have seen; but hopefully

a bill of this nature will protect the professional in making these professional

decisions, in making the choice of removing a child from the home, that they

themselves don't end up in court. We have to protect not only the youth, but

we have to protect the people who the government has indicated should be there

to protect the youth.

This bill goes across many professional lines: the professional lines, like I

said, of guidance counselors, teachers, social workers and police. These are the

type of workers who certainly need this type of support in order to be able to

carry out their job. Again, it is a job that I don't envy; because, as I have

pointed out, the job is an absolutely difficult one for these professionals.

They act in the interests of the child and the rights of the child, and provide

the child with the services and protection that this child needs, so it is very

important.

I think one of my colleagues would want to get up and say a few words so I

will just finish off by saying that it is welcomed legislation. The amendments,

when we get to Committee, I am sure we will go down through clause-by-clause.

Just looking at them overall, again it is a good housekeeping exercise. It is an

exercise that I believe will allow for the carrying out of the policy that is

required, and that it does deal with certain segments that were lacking,

especially the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds. I would hope that during the

Committee stage I may be given another opportunity to get up and talk more

specifically about the causes.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will pass it along to one of my colleagues.

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

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

I want to join with my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne to make a few

comments on this particular piece of legislation. I agree with the minister that

the bill itself, the original bill, was long overdue. Last year, I think this

House took some pride in the passage of

an Act To Amend The Child, Youth And

Family Services Act. We agree that it was long overdue. In fact, it had been

talked about for many years. I do remember when Wells' government was elected

in 1989, and I think it was the next spring they made a commitment to revise

this particular piece of

legislation. Ever since that time the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and particularly the social workers and others, have been anticipating the

tabling of this particular piece of legislation.

Last year when this bill was tabled in the House, one of the comments I made

was that we should have sent the bill to the government committee on

legislation, called the Social Services Committee. That did not happen. I do

remember making the suggestion to the then minister, the Member for St. John's

Centre, and saying to her that because of the tremendous changes that this would

mean, both in terms of how the courts would respond to these issues, and how the

social workers and others in the business of delivering services to children and

youth will respond to particular matters, that it might be advisable if we were

to send this piece of legislation to the social services committee so that we

could have hearings so that members of the general public could come in and make

some comment as to what they felt was right with this particular bill, or what

might need to be changed.

At the time, I remember the minister standing in her place and saying: There

is absolutely no need to do that. There is no need to have hearings on this

particular bill because, she said, we have done all that. We have been out and

talked to the social workers. We have talked to the legal advisors within the

department and the legal advisors outside the department and we don't see any

need to do this. She said: We have been eight or ten years - I think the last

bill was in 1944 or something like that. It is a long time ago. I can't

remember the exact dates of the original bill way back either before

Confederation or shortly thereafter, but certainly there was a lengthy period of

time. She was in a rush to get it done. She said there was no need to do that.

Then I find the next time that the Legislature opens we have a great number

of amendments. In fact, I think this kind of hits a record for a piece of

legislation that had only been passed a few months before. Now we are back with

something like fifteen amendments to this particular piece of legislation. It

says clause 18, but that is not necessarily the number of amendments. There are

twelve or fifteen amendments that are put to this piece of legislation. That

brings to a point the need for the House to perhaps have more public hearings,

to have more work done in committee to refer it, because if that had happened

then this piece of legislation would have gotten the support of the House. We on

this side of the House think this is a positive initiative and we have said so

many times.

In fact, I do remember I was quoted in one of the media as endorsing this

particular initiative. We believe we could have done a better job and we would

have had it ready (inaudible) for absolute implementation if we had the

consultations at that time. It is very rare, I say to the current minister, to

have these many amendments. It just goes to show that even after ten years the

thing was being rushed. If we had to have had the consultations we might have

been able to change a few things.

That does not take away from the essential thrust of this particular piece of

legislation. There are many things that we would like to have seen there that

are not represented. I make note of the comments of my colleague for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne on the sixteen to eighteen year olds. From the time when I was

part of the Select Committee on Children's Interests, we had many persons who

appeared before that Committee who made recommendations that the sixteen to

eighteen year olds be recognized when we were talking about bringing in some new

legislation. For example, recommendation number twenty of that Committee's

report said that the sixteen to eighteen year olds needed to be included in the

child welfare act. That happened in this particular piece of legislation, not

quite to the extent that some people wanted. When we were having the hearings -

as Mr. Speaker I am sure remembers - many people thought we should put sixteen

and eighteen year olds in like we treat infancy to age sixteen, but we made a

decision in that Committee that sixteen to eighteen year olds are not quite in

the same category. While they should have services provided to them when they

request it and when it is agreeable to them, we didn't want to impose them on

them by law.

We strongly recommended that children ages sixteen to eighteen be included

under provisions of the child welfare legislation and that the provision written

into the act should include the (inaudible) based upon their voluntary consent.

In other words, if a sixteen to eighteen year old wished to access services

through the department voluntarily, then they would be made available to those

young people, but if they did not want to access those services, for whatever

reason, then the department would not have the right to impose them. That was an

agreement we had there when we wrote the report and certainly there was a lot of

agreement around that, and we were pleased that this particular piece of

legislation makes provision for that.

Some of the things I would have liked to have seen more appropriately

recognized in this particular piece of legislation, in the original bill, was a

recommendation that parents in Newfoundland and Labrador have a 1-800 crisis or

help line for parents. We have a help line for teenagers and it gets used an

awful lot, but there isn't a help line for parents. I note that just a few

weeks ago I was having a conversation with some parents who were frustrated with

how they should handle their sixteen to eighteen year olds, and particularly

those who have run away. As members will recall, there was one parent who had

been on the public airwaves wishing that there was more power in legislation to

parents in circumstances when their teenagers or sixteen to eighteen year olds

choose to leave the family home and go and live elsewhere. At that time, one of

the parents suggested: We wish there was somebody we could talk to when our

families are going through these kinds of situations.

One of the things we found when we did a study across the Province - in over

200 meetings and, I think, it was nearly 300 written reports - that they wanted

to talk about was that parents in Newfoundland and Labrador have a 1-800 help

line. We know, as I said a few minutes ago, that teenagers access the child help

line in record numbers. As a matter of fact, at the time we were doing the study

we knew from all parts of the Province where the calls were coming from. As a

matter of fact, a lot of the calls to the children's help line were coming

from rural Newfoundland where these children were wanting to talk to somebody

about their circumstances. However, in spite of our recommendation, the Province

has not yet seen the wisdom of putting in place a 1-800 crisis line for parents.

We want to bring that particular matter to the attention of government. I do

remember one parent saying, and it is written in the transcript that I am

quoting from here in the report of the Select Committee: I can't control my

child and I don't know how much longer I can control myself. I do remember

that comment being made. Parents get into a situation where they would like to

have somebody they could talk to. We today, at this stage, still want to

recommend that the minister look at some way in which parents can get the help

they need when they need it. Just because you happen to be out in some part of

rural Newfoundland, a small community, does not mean you should not be able to

have someone to talk to.

When we did the analysis, and the data is readily available, of where the

calls come from when they come in on the children's help line, that data is

available. You will find out that there are some communities in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador where there can be as many as thirty, forty and fifty

calls per month. Also, we did a little analysis that showed that where there was

not an access to high school or elementary school guidance counsellors, the

calls were more frequent from those places. When you have many communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador where their schools are very small and you have one

guidance counsellor for every 1,000 students - and we know that it is going to

change; our commitment from the minister is that it will change, to be one for

every 500 - when you have a situation where children have to share a guidance

counselor with two and three schools, and sometimes two and three different

communities, the only way to get access to a guidance counsellor is if the

guidance counsellor comes in by boat, flies in by air, or something like that.

We know that these services are greatly needed.

In conclusion on this point, I just want to say that the parents want more

help, they are crying out for it. The petitions I presented here about a month

ago say the parents want to have more involvement, they want to have more say,

they want to have an opportunity to talk to a professional in a non-threatening

setting, a non-threatening environment, before their children get to the point

where their children - the sixteen year olds - are walking out the door.

When the sixteen year old walks out the door and leaves home, we know that

unless there is evidence that there is a legal matter where the child has been

taken against his or her will, or some other matter that might be involved, the

police are not able to move in and apprehend that child because they do not have

the authority to do so. For example, if a seventeen year old wishes to leave

home, unless the parent can show there is some threat to that child, there is

some matter in which that child has been taken against his or her will, or some

safety issue involved, something that offends the Criminal Code, then the social

workers cannot talk to the police and to the court system and say: We believe

this child should be picked up. The ability of parents to interact with the

child has become terribly compromised because then you have parent and child, in

many cases, who do not wish to talk; particularly the child may not wish to talk

to the parent, and sometimes it is the other way around as well.

We wish to say to the minister: Please revisit recommendation twenty-one of

the Select Committee because it talks about having a help line or a crisis line

somewhere where parents can get help from professionals and get it in a manner

that (

a) is timely, (

b) is professional and (

c) that if you have a 1-800 line it

won't mean that these parents would only get help if they could afford the

long distance call.

This recommendation was supported by the Department of Health at the time,

supported by the Department of Justice, and supported by the Department of

Education at that time. The names of departments have changed since that time

but this is an issue, I say to the minister, a real issue. If you want to make a

good news story it would be that this minister has set up a 1-800 line where

parents can get professional help on a timely basis, so when they are going

through a crisis with their children they can get that kind of help very quickly

and get it in a professional manner. I would be the first to stand in this House

and to say to the minister: That is the kind of initiative that I would like to

see happening. Particularly as it happens right now in rural Newfoundland with

regard to the child help line.

I would advise the minister, if he would, to get the stats for the child help

line over the last ten years. There is a tremendous amount on insight into that,

I say to the minister, because it lets you know that although the line is used,

perhaps the total number of calls in the St. John's region might be higher,

but when you look at the population base, break it down by population base, the

calls from parts of rural Newfoundland would be, in proportion to the

population, tremendously high. We do recommend that to the minister.

One of the things I wanted to note as well here is that - I made note of it

at the time of the original bill - there was no recognition here of some

dialogue talking about a child advocate. I note that just a few days ago there

was a group in St. John's which are continuing to battle towards getting a

child advocate put in place for Newfoundland and Labrador. We say to the

minister again that it is time this Province look at a child advocate, some way

in which we can make a person responsible to the House of Assembly, not to the

Minister of Health and Community Services, not to any other minister. Make the

person responsible and answerable to the House of Assembly so that person can be

the advocate for children; because, in this Province, we need somebody who is

going to speak up for young people. While all of us here in our various roles

would like to think that we speak for the youth of the Province, in many cases

we don't. So the issues of youth often do not make it to the floor of this

House in a way that they should.

We say to the government, asking the minister, to revisit the whole issue

around having a child advocate in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that there

has been some movement made on more in-service for foster homes, and that is

recognized in the original piece of legislation. There are some new initiatives

in that area, and we commend them. It is always very difficult to get foster

homes for children, particularly when the children get to be beyond the age of

ten. For younger children it is not so difficult, but often getting foster homes

for children who are already in dysfunctional relationships in their birth

family settings becomes very difficult when the child gets beyond a certain age.

We acknowledge that some initiatives have been made and we go back to the

minister, in my final summing up comments, to say that this is a positive piece

of legislation. The amendments, in my case, do not surprise me. Fifteen

amendments show that we have forgotten about the commitment made by Clyde Wells,

when he said he was going to send every piece of legislation to a review

committee of the House. If that had happened, I am sure some of these changes

here would not have been necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Lewisporte is anxious to get on his feet,

I know the Member for Cape St. Francis will want to have a few comments on this

particular piece of legislation, and perhaps even the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi might be persuaded to get up because I know he believes that everything

should go to a committee of the House and be thoroughly studied. This is a prime

example where that system failed and, because it failed, it failed the children

of Newfoundland and Labrador in a big way. We would not be here today doing what

we are doing if we had followed the procedures that the House should follow in

the conduct and passage of the legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I persuaded the Member for Cape St. Francis to defer to me, and I want to

thank him for that privilege.

I did want to say first off, in response to the Member for Waterford Valley,

that yes, indeed, the first thing that occurred to me is that we are looking at

a bill here before this House with eighteen clauses to amend a piece of

legislation - a comprehensive piece of legislation, I might add - that was

passed here just in the last session of the House, and that it certainly is a

good argument for the discussion that we have had on many occasions as to why

this government is refusing or failing to use the procedures set out in Standing

Orders 79 or 80, which provide an opportunity where legislation can be reviewed

either prior to second reading or after second reading through our legislative

committee process.

These were established only a few short years ago. Probably six or seven

years ago these procedures were established for a legislative review and study

of bills in this House and I found them very useful. There were used for about

two years. Prior to that, the only detailed study bills ever got were at third

reading here in the House. It seemed to me that was almost, at that point in the

process, government was very reluctant to accept amendments to legislation

because they had already been through Cabinet, the minister had already spoken

on it, the minister was behind the legislation, and they were very reluctant to

consider amendments, even technical amendments that were obvious (inaudible)

because they were afraid it might lead to further problems or, in some cases,

they were unwilling to see the Opposition demonstrate publicly that certain

legislation was in fact inadequate. They didn't like to accept amendments,

even if they were good amendments.

I remember moving a number of good amendments myself, and I am sure other

hon. members have, but the government was very rare to accept amendments

because, I suppose, for whatever political reasons. There has been some debate

over time, but I haven't heard it recently, that the better use of legislative

committees would in fact increase the role that hon. members play in this House,

in particular members who are members of Cabinet or don't have significant

roles in Opposition as Leader of the Opposition or otherwise, that there is an

opportunity for members to play a significant role in developing and improving

legislation.

This legislation here before us now is one that a lot of members had a great

deal of interest in. There had been a Select Committee on Children's

Interests. A number of members had heard lots of briefs and had participated in

hearings and worked to develop a report, and had a significant amount of input

that they could have made to the legislative review process. If this bill had

gone through that process, we would have perhaps not seen the need for major

amendments - well, I wouldn't call them major amendments but numerous

amendments at least - at this time.

I would urge ministers opposite and the Government House Leader to review

sections 79 and 80 of the Standing Orders, and try to find ways to see how they

can be used to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what?

MR. HARRIS: Standing Orders 79 and 80 - it used to be 56 - to do with

legislation being referred to committees.

Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 80; you can refer bills to legislative

committees either before they receive second reading or after second reading.

When this system was operating for a couple of years, bills being referred to

standing committees in August or September, being studied prior to the House

opening. In fact, we have seen significant improvements made to legislation

before they even reached the floor of the House; so that when they are here,

some amendments have already been made and questions that people had to ask

could be asked to the law officers of the Crown, the people who had drafted the

legislation, if it was a drafting issue, to the officials in the department who

had considered the policy implications of various clauses of legislation and

were made available to answer questions.

That is a system that I would like to encourage. It is one that works well

and provides an opportunity for input by members who may have extra knowledge or

expertise in a certain area, whether it be involvement with children, whether it

be in education as a teacher, whether it be as a lawyer, like some of us have

expertise in the legal profession. There are always things to bring to the table

when debating legislation, or certainly when considering legislation in the less

adversarial forum of a committee where people are there, hopefully - unless

there are major policy implications- to improve legislation, to seek to get the

best legislation that is going to work to achieve the purposes; because it is

not a lot of legislation where there is a basis disagreement over the purpose.

Everybody in this House believes we should have a regime for the protection

of children that is effective and is able to permit the social workers to

undertake their activities and provide legal protection for them to do that;

that legislation be there to allow government and through its social workers and

its experts in family relations to provide services to people. It is a question

as to whether or not the legislation does the job or actually can deliver the

job when given the legislative regime and given the resources available.

Just if I might, broadly speaking, talk about the resources being available,

refer back to the discussion we had during Question Period - the Minister of

Education, referred to by the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne in his remarks

- we are dealing here in many cases with children who, for one reason or

another, have behavioural problems, and that could be the older groups that we

are talking about, the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds. For some reason they find

it very difficult to stay in a family situation where they find themselves.

Sometimes they are, in fact, kicked out of home. In some cases they don't get

along with their parents. In some cases there are very good reasons for that.

They may be abused at home. They may be not understood in a sense that they have

perhaps special needs or difficult personalities and aren't able to live at

home.

We talk about homelessness from time to time. We don't have a lot of people

living on the streets of this Province but we do have a lot of people who are in

fact homeless; young people who are gypsies, in a sense, travelling around from

bed to bed, sleeping on someone's couch or sleeping on the floor of someone's

apartment, not having a home of their own, not having a place where they can

live, and that is a significant problem. It is an underground problem. It is an

unseen problem. These young people are not terribly visible unless they get into

trouble with the law, in which case they are down before the youth court and may

end up in an institution. In some cases that becomes their home because at least

there is a place where they - there are rules. They know the rules. They can

tend to their education. They can feel safe, for the most part, unless there are

some problems with the institution at the time, and they have some security;

whereas if they are on the street they are literally on the street unless they

are staying overnight with a friend on someone's couch or someone's floor or

whatever. These are young people, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen years old,

who have yet to find an opportunity to make a life of their own. In fact, they

are too young.

I know of hon. members who have children. If your children were required, at

the age of sixteen, seventeen or eighteen, to fend for themselves, you would not

feel very good about that because you know that they have a need for support

from family, from society, or from some adult person or persons to be able to

find their way in the world and to deal with the choices that have to be made,

to deal with the alternatives available to them to find their way. They need the

support of parents to do that. Unfortunately, in lots of cases parents are

either incapable of doing that or they don't exist, or they have, themselves,

so many problems of their own that they can't cope with the responsibilities

of parenthood and society, in order to protect these young people, has to step

in and play a role.

There are some services. I think, now that we are talking about the legal

ability there, the sixteen- to eighteen-year-olds now being able to be included

in this legislation, we now have to talk about services and making services

available so that they can benefit from this legislation.

To get back to the issue of the school/families food foundation and the need

for nutritious meals for students in order to be able to learn and participate

in school and obtain a proper education, study after study has shown how vital

this is. I quoted the minister's words back to her today. I won't say she

borrowed them from me but obviously I have been saying that time and time again,

as have other members over the last several years in talking about the need for

a universal comprehensive school lunch program because hungry children cannot

learn and find it very difficult to obtain the benefits of an education.

We have problems that are not necessarily related to social economic problems

with school nutrition. We have children now on a long bus ride in many cases,

and these are increasing as opposed to decreasing. Young children are spending

more time on school buses now then they did before, and that has been said to

interfere with a child's meal pattern and whether they have a breakfast or

arrive at school hungry. There is an increasing recognition of the need for

school meal programs to provide a solid basis for learning in the schools.

I heard a figure the other day - it is the first time anyone has attempted to

put a figure on the cost of a universal school mean program - of $16 million

used as the cost for providing a meal to every school child in the Province

every day of the year. That is the actual cost. It doesn't take into account

what contributions might be made from parents or by parents, what contributions

might be made by others to the school food program, whether it be through

fundraising efforts, or through donations of companies, businesses, or community

members who are interested in supporting a school meal program. That is the

actual overall cost. It sounds like a lot of money. When the minster says: We

haven't got the money for this, we haven't got the money for that, we are

doing the best we can, let's look at it as compared to some other programs.

I heard the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods say in the House the

other day that the Province spends $15 million or $16 million a year on a

silviculture program. That is to plant trees or to provide thinning programs so

that trees can be harvested fifty or sixty years from now. If we can spend $16

million a year on providing a program that ensures that trees are able to be

harvested fifty or sixty years from now, then surely we can have a program that

is designed to ensure that our children are able to learn properly in school and

thereby get a better start on life, have a higher level of learning and have

fewer behavioral problems, because often with children one thing leads to

another. A person who doesn't do well in school all of a sudden develops an

attitude about school, about teachers, or about the system and they react to

that and respond. Sometimes the basis of all of that is a faulty ability to

learn because of issues such as the home life, such as nutrition, such as, in

fact, simple, pure hunger.

While we are on the topic of nutrition, in the schools today we don't have

a Province-wide policy on school nutrition, we don't have a Province-wide

policy that ensures that children learn proper things about nutrition in our

schools. That is something that is lacking. We have a policy that seems to allow

all sorts of things to be sold in the school, whether they be junk food, french

fries, or whatever the canteen or merchants who are in the schools sell.

Whatever the advertising and marketing schemes of various advertisers, food

product providers or sellers have, that is what determines - marketing, in many

respects, determines the nutrition program in the school or the lack of a

nutrition program in the school.

It is all very well to say that it is up to the parents to make these

decisions. If that is true then the parents have an important role in that, but

when you go to school, if the only thing available in your school is the junk

food or food that the family wouldn't necessary choose, then there really isn't

much choice. We see advertisements aimed at children to get them to buy the

expensive and highly profitable, for the owners, foodstuffs which don't

necessarily provide the best nutrition for our children.

In the schools we don't have a culture or a set of standards that ensures

that in the school, at least, only nutritious food will be available and that

the school efforts will be aimed at ensuring that children know about nutrition,

that they can bring information home to their parents, if necessary, about

nutrition. Coupled with a school meal program we can go a long way to improving

the health and well being of our school population as well as providing a

opportunity for hungry children to learn better.

There are a couple of items in this legislation. I have a few minutes left

and I want to refer to clauses 13 and 14 and mention briefly two legal issues

that may arise. Perhaps the minister can ask his officials to consider these

points I am about to make. Clause 13 provides that: "evidence taken and a

declaration made at a prior hearing under this Act and under a similar

statute" can be used as evidence in a hearing before the court. That may be

useful to a judge to be able to rely on evidence that was from a previous

hearing. There is a problem with it, though. What if, for example, at the

previous hearing evidence from a social worker was heard who is not at this

particular hearing? At this particular hearing there are contentious matters

which arise and they may have a lawyer - such as the Member for Lewisporte - who

appears, and says: I want to challenge what this person said, I want to

cross-examine that person, and I want to be able to do that but that person is

not here, and the judge is entitled to rely on it.

I think they might have to go a bit further and insure that if they are going

to rely on previous evidence that the person giving that evidence ought to be

available, that they could only rely on that evidence if that person is

available, if necessary, to be accountable for evidence that was given. I can

understand it being a convenience for a hearing to not have to go through a full

hearing, but if there are matters that are contentious then the need for the

person to be available, I think, should be important. I do not think you

necessarily need to go through the whole history of a particular case again

every time a hearing takes place, but I think there ought to be some protection

there so that if there are contentious issues that they can be, in fact, dealt

with.

The other clause is Clause 14, a very commendable provision allowing a child

to be able to participate in a hearing, to let his or her views be known to the

judge, either privately or in the court, as is pointed out here, and some ways

they are done to do that. The question I have is: How does a child know about

this? How is a child to know that they have the right to participate in a

hearing, to be able to talk to the judge directly themselves, or to be able to

testify or to provide written material or to express their views to the court?

It is very laudable to have that there and I think many children might want to

have something to say to a court or at least have an opportunity themselves to

tell the judge what he or she thinks in private, or maybe something going on

that she or he has not told anybody else but might well tell a judge figuring

they were at the right source now, that this judge could do something about it.

The question here is: How would the child know if they have that right and

that that is available to them? There may be an answer in other parts of the

legislation. I had a quick look at some of the provisions that are before and

after

section 53 of the act and did not find any but that is a question I put to

the minister. Perhaps when we debate this at third reading we can have an answer

or see if there is a change that we could make to make a provision so that a

child is notified that he or she has the right to testify or to make their views

known at a hearing or talk to the judge. I think that is something I would

commend to the minister.

Certainly, I think my time is now up at second reading. I see a nod from the

Speaker, so I will take my seat and participate in this further at third

reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): If the minister does now speak, he closes the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the interventions with respect to this most important

bill at second reading. I will undertake with officials to provide further

information and answers to the issues that are raised, particularly the last

couple with respect to

section 13 and

section 14, so that we will provide

information in Committee. Because it is important to examine whether or not it

is the intent to have the person available for cross-examination or verification

of evidence, if necessary, since the statements made from prior hearings are

going to admissible. Also, I will find out the mechanism by which the child is

expected to know that they have the right to present their views and provide

clarification.

As I indicated in my introductory comments, certainly if even between now and

the Committee stage, because this is so important, if there are further

suggestions for improvement of this bill, we would certainly give them full

consideration at the Committee stage.

With those comments, I say thank you to the participants in the debate at

second reading and move the bill for second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 6)

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Order 8, Bill 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental

Assessment." (Bill 12)

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 12, of course, deals with

An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment. I

can say, at the beginning, the environmental assessment process is essential to

protect the environment. It ensures environmentally acceptable development and

provides valuable public input. The process is fundamentally sound but it

requires improvements to make it still more effective and efficient.

The piece of legislation that we have here, the environment assessment

legislation, is about twenty years old. Over the twenty years, with the

environmental assessment practice behind us, we now recognize that there are

positive changes that should be made to the process. Basically that is what this

is about, enhancing environmentally sound decisions, and that fosters a more

open and accessible process for public input and a more disciplined and focused

environmental assessment process and improved enforcement.

There are a number of points here that I would like to make. Under the

proposed amendments, government will be able to reject the project at the outset

if it is contrary to law, policy, or deemed by government to not be in the

public interest. This will eliminate, obviously, the problem of having to

continue with an environmental assessment if it has been determined by

government that the project is not in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Now, for example, if someone were to come today and ask to extend the golf

course on the Burin Peninsula, in Frenchman's Cove, we recognize that

extension falls within the boundaries of the Frenchman's Cove provincial park.

There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent a proponent from putting

forward that particular proposal, even though it doesn't adhere to government

legislation. I don't have the right to say no to that proponent - as the

legislation - even though I would know that you could not put the golf course

within the provincial park boundaries. It is against regulation to do so.

If the Member for Cape St. Francis were to put forward a proposal to extend

that golf course, I would have no right but to accept your proposal, go through

all the necessary expenses and so on, and at the end of the day not be able to

accept your proposal. We want to change that.

The other thing that this piece of legislation would hope to do is to make it

mandatory, public involvement in all the main stages of the process. The

conditions of environmental assessment releases will be published, and the

department will maintain a pubic registry of environmental assessment

information.

Mr. Speaker, it is out intention to focus environmental assessment on

projects where there are potentially significant environmental effects, as I

said earlier. Also, now in the legislation the environmental impact statement of

references and guidelines will be combined into one step. Up to now, the draft

Terms of Reference by proponents would be given to us. That is going to be

changed. Under the Terms of Reference in the new legislation we will, as the

government department, prepare the environmental assessment regulations, give

them to the committee to be reviewed by the public and the proponent and

released by the minister, which is different from what it is now. I think that

will enhance the process considerably.

Also, what we are doing in this piece of legislation as well is asking, or

demanding, that government departments identify and address environmental

considerations in all Cabinet papers that come forward. That is an improvement

over what is there now. Now it is not mandatory. It can be, in a sense, at the

discretion of the department but we are making it mandatory.

To improve the enforcement also of the act, we are going to raise

significantly the penalties under the system. The maximum fine now is $1 million

for organizations and $50,000 for individuals. The current maximum fine is

$10,000 for both groups. We are also putting into this particular piece of

legislation minimum fines, and that has never been there before, minimum fines

of $5,000 for corporations and $1,000 for individuals. This increases, as I

said, by three times the subsequent offenses. New authority to issue stop-work

orders and remediation orders are also there. Right now, under the proposed

legislation we have, that does not give us the authority to do it. With this new

piece of legislation we will.

I think I can say that the environmental assessment legislation is sound. It

has done us well over the number of years and, with the benefits of the

long-term experience that we had, we recognize improvements have to be made to

make the process more effective and more efficient. That is what it is about.

Also, I can say that under the proposed legislation or changes to the

legislation we are also giving a greater number of days for the public

consultation as well, five extra days that have been given to the public. There

are also definite guidelines that are there as well, in not allowing the

proponent to be strung out indefinitely but to bring it to a process, the number

of days, and then be able to deal with it.

I guess what I am saying, I can sum it up in four different headings, four

different goals: We are enhancing environmentally sound decision-making; we

foster a more and open accessible process for public input; we are creating a

more disciplined and focused environmental assessment process; and we are

improving enforcement. At the end, the minister also cannot now, until after all

the process is done, stop the project; but under the new authority the minister,

in early stages of the assessment, can release the project after forty-five days

registration or an environmental review and attach conditions at any stage going

through. Up to this particular time that has not been able to be done. I guess,

in the best interest of the public, what we are saying is that it is good

legislation. We want to improve it. We want to make sure that it is there to

protect the residents and the environment of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

With that, Mr .Speaker, I will conclude at this part of it. I am sure that as

we go through Committee stage and so on there are things that will need to be

addressed. We can do that then and hopefully, as I said, be able to provide the

people of this Province with a better environmental assessment of projects in

this Province.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the minister, first of all, in bringing in

this comprehensive piece of legislation,

An Act Respecting Environmental

Assessment. In general this is, I think, good legislation, but I would have to

add that I am rather concerned that bringing in a good piece of legislation is

not all there is to it. I wouldn't want to be back - I don't think it is

necessary, not that I wouldn't want to be. We are legislators and that is what

we are here for - for us to face the possibility of being back in the House next

year, or the year after, doing major pieces of renovations to a bill as

important as this. We saw it here today with the youth act that we just did

previously. I don't think it is necessary.

The party opposite when they first became the government back in 1989 brought

in a legislative review process. I know it was used quite extensively the first

couple of years that it was brought in, and I think good work was done by using

it, but I understand from my colleagues - I was out of here for a seven- or

eight-year period - that it has not been used at all in recent times. This, I

believe, I say to the minister in a complimentary way, is a prime piece of

legislation for the appropriate legislative review committee. I would like to

see a legislative review committee take this bill and go out around the

Province, take submissions from and hear opportunities from various

environmental groups, for example. There is a significant interest in this issue

of environmental assessment. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the

day, if the minister were to take that suggestion, when this Legislature comes

back for the fall session, I would think the minister would have a better

legislation still than he has even now. This is not bad legislation. I am not

saying that. I think it is legislation that with proper input from the public

could become better legislation.

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

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible) circulated a White Paper on this. This has been

for public comments and submissions were widely received. In fact, there were

thirty-nine organizations and individuals that did have input on these

particular piece of legislation. It has been a time coming. It has been there

for two or three years, and now we are really to this particular point where we

want to bring it to the House today. A White Paper was done and the

environmentalists and groups and public have had several consultations with

that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept what the minister says on that. Generally in the legislative

process, the White Paper is usually the first step in the process, and there is

a number of other steps along the way. The question that the minister has to

answer is: Have all those interest groups, those thirty-nine groups and

individuals that were interested enough to tell the government their views on

environmental assessment legislation, seen the final product? Have they had an

opportunity, or is it only the members of the Legislature who have had an

opportunity, to see the final product? Are they in agreement? Would the

government and the minister benefit from their viewing of the final product?

That is what the whole process is all about. That, of course, I think goes a

long way to then, come this fall or next spring, having to come in with a whole

raft of amendments like we saw the previous minister having to do today.

Generally speaking, as I said, our party, our caucus, doesn't have any

difficulty with the principle of the bill. This act goes a long way to cleaning

up and moving forward from the predecessor legislation that existed.

There are a couple of areas that I would like to direct the minister's

attention to, and he could probably refer to when he speaks to close the debate.

I am kind of puzzled by clause 8. Clause 8(1) says: "The minister shall

examine the information provided by the proponent under

section 7 to determine

if the undertaking is contrary to law or to a policy that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council has declared to be the policy of the government

of the province."

Clause 8 (2) says: "The minister shall notify the Lieutenant-Government

in Council of his or her determination under subsection (1) that the undertaking

is contrary to law" - I understand the law part of it - "or a policy

that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has declared to be the policy of the

government of the province and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct

that the undertaking not proceed."

Now it is the policy proponent part of this particular clause that I find

perplexing. Take, for example, if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

said: We have taken a policy position that we are not going to interfere, from

an environmental assessment point of view, in logging in the Main River area.

Let's say, for example, the government made that policy position. As I read

this legislation, the proponent - in this case Corner Brook Pulp and Paper -

once they make the request could have their request turned down. The government

can cut it off right at the beginning. The minister would report to the Cabinet

and say: This particular proponent is proposing an environmental assessment in

an area that is contrary to public policy, because we have already said we are

not going to interfere with the cutting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I am using the Main River as an example. We are not going to

interfere there. We are going to let Corner Brook Pulp and Paper go ahead. That

is our public policy position. Therefore, if that is the case - the minister is

shaking his head and I hope he will tell us - my question to the minister would

be: Would there not be any provision, or any arrangement then, for the

environment assessment of that particular proponent? That is the way it comes

across to me, that the minister can stop dead in its tracks any environmental

assessment that flies in the face of a public policy position. Of course, public

policy positions are taken by the Cabinet, by the government of the day. I will

be interested to hear from the minister why the act is written that way.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) you still don't know what he you are talking

about, (inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is the expert on everything now. What do

you know about the Environmental Assessment Act? Get up and have a few words, I

say to the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Get up and share your broad understanding of the law. Get up

and share your broad understanding of this piece of legislation with your

colleagues so that we can all benefit by it, so we can all be brighter, so we

can all be more articulate, so we can all be as smart as the minister, Mr.

Speaker.

If he had any interest in shooting - other than from his own seat - he would

be over, ready to get up now when I sit down, and carry on an intense

intellectual discussion of Bill 12,

An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment.

Maybe seal oil capsules give you some direction when it comes to environmental

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: More gray matter.

MR. RIDEOUT: More gray matter, maybe that is what it does.

Anyway, I got sidetracked. I am saying to the minister that I have a

particular concern, or I think there is a concern in this particular legislation

that ought to be addressed by the minister when he speaks next on the bill.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning - and the Minister of

Fisheries is (inaudible) hard to take praise when praise is given. I said this

is a good legislative initiative. We on this side of the House support it, but

because it is a good legislative initiative doesn't mean that it is a perfect

legislative initiative. There are certain areas where we think this legislation

perhaps could be improved. Perhaps it could be improved, and we are suggesting

those areas to the minister. I know the minister is concerned, and I know he

will take those matters under advisement and advise the House accordingly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: The minister, I suppose, will be able to speak to conclude

debate and can respond to concerns raised.

We too, Mr. Speaker, are pleased that the review of the Environmental

Assessment Act has made it to the House of Assembly. Obviously, the attempt to

modernize it and bring it into keeping with other modern standards is laudable.

I would submit as well that although there may have been lots of input to the

government in respect to its White Paper, because of the large interest about

environmental matters in this Province today - the most recent issue being the

one involving the Main River, but we had similar concerns raised last year in

the case of the Gisborne Lake; we have had the minister being required to make

some very public decisions on matters of a very controversial nature - I think

it is appropriate, now that we have the government's version of what the act

should be, that there be an opportunity to study it.

It is a twenty-five page piece of legislation which has been tabled here just

a number of days ago. There are a lot of people in this Province interested in

this issue, interested in how this process works, and whether or not it is a

going through the motions, as I think Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited

refers, for example, to the process over the main river. We are going to get our

permission, they say, and they say this publicly. It is astounding. I do not

know if the minister wants to comment on that. We are going to get permission

but we do have to go through this process. We are going to win this. We are

going to get permission from the minister to log the main river but we have to

go through this process; so we will go through the process and we will listen to

what you have to say, but at the end we are going to win and we are going to get

our permission.

I wonder if the minister can comment on that? Is this just a process that

people have to go through and then go ahead and do whatever it was they wanted

to do at the beginning, as Mr. Churchill from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

Limited says? Or is there a real need here to satisfy basic considerations when

we are talking about taking actions that are matters of controversy and involve

areas of this Province and major concerns of this Province that are up for

consideration?

I am just going to quote from a story on CBC on April 18, for example, the

company's comments made at Powers Point at a public meeting: I can see all

this misinformation, says Matt Churchill of the paper company, that we are going

to cut down the last tree, that we are going to cut the last of the boreal

forest, that we are going to ruin the river, and in the end the company says it

will get its way. Quote: We are going to get permission to cut the main river,

says Churchill, and we have to go through this process. We have to get the

information out. After all the information is out there, in sound mind sit

around the table and look at the information, we are going to get a positive

response.

That attitude -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So, we are just going through the motions. Is that what is

contained in the legislation? I am sure the minister will say no, it is not just

going through the motions and then you get your permission; because there are

points there, as the minister pointed out, as the Member for Lewisporte has

pointed out, where the government has the right to say no, you cannot do it; but

that is not what we here in this House. For example, when I ask the minister

questions about whether or not decisions are going to be made, he talks about

the process. There is a process at work here and we will wait until the process

is over.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is, is this legislation adequate to meet the

needs of the people of this Province? The minister says yes. I presume, as a

minister of the Crown, he sat around the Cabinet table and they all read this

legislation and said: Yes, this is the legislation we will bring to the House.

Well, I would be surprised if every member of the Cabinet read this

legislation from cover to cover. I would be surprised if all members of this

House read this legislation from cover to cover. What has been suggested by the

Member for Lewisporte, I think, is greatly desirable. This is a great piece of

legislation about which there is great public interest. If thirty-nine groups

and individuals made representations to government about the White Paper and

about the environmental review process, well surely those people should be given

an opportunity, through a committee process, to respond to the end result of all

of this consultation. It may not change anything. They may be satisfied. They

may have points to make that are not accepted. On the other hand, they may have

significant points to make that would be accepted because we have seen an

increased awareness of the environment, or of environmental issues generally,

and we have seen the increased attention to the public of all matters related to

our natural habitat, whether it be biodiversity, whether it be concerns of -

fifteen years ago people talked about the decimation of the tropical rain

forest. Well, it is great to talk about something as long as it is half a world

away, down in the equator. Now people are talking about the forests of our

Province, and are they going to be destroyed without taking account of the

biodiversity that exists there, without taking account of the role that they

play in maintaining our river systems and the role they play in maintaining

other habitat values?

Not only that, it is not just about environment. It is about the values that

we have as a people. It is about whether or not there are other considerations

that come into play, whether they be legal in the case of Gisborne Lake, whether

they be purely environmental, or whether they be just choices that we make as a

people; because sometimes - and this cuts both ways - people who are opposed to

a project not because of environmental reasons, they are opposed to a project

for political reasons, they are opposed to a project for ideological reasons,

they are opposed to a project for some other reasons, they will say: Oh, no, we

have to hide behind an environmental assessment to make it difficult for someone

to go through the hoops, the expense, to see their way to the other end of it.

We do sometimes see, and I think as politicians we have to recognize it, that

sometime people use environmental questions to disguise political questions. On

the other hand, people sometimes go the other way, on the other side, and say

that if there are no environmental problems then we should proceed because those

are the only considerations worth making.

I think, in some of the issues that are facing the public in this Province -

Gisbourne Lake was one - a political decision had to be made whether or not the

Province was prepared to take the political and legal risks associated with

water export, and whether or not the people of the Province, as a matter of

policy, wanted to support a project whether or not the environmental

consequences would be significant or not.

So we do have an interplay between political considerations or policy

considerations and environmental ones. Maybe it is hard to find the pure

environmental ones, but I think when we have a process that appears to be

semi-public in the sense that people make representations to the minister - I

know the minister has a pile on his desk now about Main River, for example. We

have an environmental impact statement that is about two inches thick, that was

done in 1986. We have a preview report that is about a quarter of an inch thick,

or more, that was done recently. We have letters - and I have seen them because

I have been copied them - from fifteen or sixteen scientists pointing out

deficiencies in the reports. We have a process that is complicated and one that,

if we are changing it....

I want to point our something I just noticed in reviewing the bill. Clause

45, "An undertaking registered under the Environmental Assessment Act in

force immediately before the coming into force of this Act shall be considered

to have been registered under this Act..." So the new law applies

immediately to anything that is already registered. That is very interesting, as

a transitional provision. "... and that registration shall continue to come

into force until the date on which that registration would have expired under

the Environmental Assessment Act or 3 years after the coming into force of this

Act, whichever occurs first..."

That means that something that is registered now that is not yet approved, if

this bill is proclaimed by the Cabinet in the next twenty days, any existing

registration, such as the Main River, would be subject to this act and not the

previous act, unless it has already been dealt with. So there are implications

here that - I have to acknowledge that I don't understand the full

implications of that particular clause on existing registrations.

So we do see, I believe, some significant questions being raised as to how

this bill would actually work. Obviously, I think we all support the principle

of environmental assessment. A proper environmental assessment of undertakings

is something that has come to be regarded as essential to a society where