Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 16 November 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 41)
1998-11-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 16, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 41
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our proceedings today, the Chair would like to welcome
to the galleries, on behalf of all members, the Mayor of Labrador City, Mayor Brenton, and
Mayor Farrell from Wabush, as well as a number of delegates from Western Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide this House with an
update on the status of the 1998-1999 Budget.
Mr. Speaker, we operate in a dynamic economic environment. Many of the
factors that affect our economy occur beyond our provincial boundaries. Over the last
number of months, there has been global instability in economic markets. Exchange rates
have fluctuated widely, and commodity prices have declined. This international instability
is having an impact on every jurisdiction, including Canada, which is seen to be very
reliant on trade and commodities.
The Asian situation has created a problem in world-wide financial
markets. The International Monetary Fund has revised its economic forecast downward,
predicting that the global economy will slow to 2 per cent growth from the predicted 3.1
per cent, the poorest showing in seven years. Since April 1, the Toronto Stock Exchange
has fallen by 16 per cent. This situation requires that all governments practice prudence
and caution in the face of ongoing economic uncertainty. What the total impact will be is
a question no one can answer today.
Mr. Speaker, despite this international uncertainty, the economic
performance of Newfoundland and Labrador will likely meet our Budget projections. The
Province's real GDP will realize close to 4 per cent growth, the highest in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: This will occur despite a five-month strike at Abitibi-
Consolidated which we understand has recently ended. Employment will
grow by at least 2 per cent. The consumer price index will be substantially lower than
forecast, and retail sales will grow by 2.6 per cent rather than the zero growth projected
at Budget. In all likelihood these indicators will remain on target for the remainder of
this fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, permit me to provide an update on the Province's financial
performance since that Budget.
When this government took office in February 1996, we faced a potential
deficit of $230 million. Difficult decisions were necessary to ensure the future economic
integrity of this Province. We have been prudent and responsible in managing these
finances. Our objective was to reach a balanced position within the term of our mandate
and through the introduction of the Province's first multi-year plan. We have made major
progress toward this goal. Last year we reduced the deficit to $20 million.
This year's Budget, in March of 1998, provided for a $10 million
deficit. Given international economic conditions and their effects on the Canadian
economy, our deficit target of $10 million may have to be revised upward. Our situation is
no different from that of other governments. Paul Martin, the federal Finance Minister, in
his update of October 14, remarked: It is likely to be a year of heavy weather ahead. The
winds of financial turmoil will continue to grow and blow, and Canada is going to feel the
effects - even if we are well prepared, and even if we are only at the edge of the storm.
Weakening national economic performance may result in revisions to
federal transfer estimates and our own source revenues. Further re-estimates of payments
under the Equalization and Canada Health and Social Transfer programs will be received in
February 1999, likely at the time of the Federal Budget, and we will then know what the
financial budgetary position will be.
Mr. Speaker, because we have managed the finances of the Province in a
prudent and responsible manner, because we have made the difficult decisions necessary to
achieve financial stability, we are able to make corrections to our Budget without
affecting our fiscal integrity.
Mr. Speaker, the revenue uncertainty underscores the need for the
Province to continue to exercise prudence and remain disciplined in its spending.
The current fiscal situation must be viewed in the context of a sound
financial plan. Our three-year Budget has provided stability to government operations and
services. This plan makes provision not only for essential services, but also for economic
development and for public sector wage increases.
The financial status of both the Public Service Pension Plan and the
Teachers' Pension Plan are now improving. Government has negotiated an agreement with
teachers to place their plan on a sound financial footing. This fiscal year, the Province
will commence a series of special payments to address past service liabilities. This
year's payment to those two plans will total $196 million. In addition, contributions by
both employers and employees will increase. Together with our employees we have addressed
the long-standing concerns about the financial health of our public sector pension plans.
The stability which we have achieved has allowed the Province to make
strategic investments in our future as circumstances arise. In 1996-1997, we paid down
school board debt of $24 million to ensure that boards would not be burdened with prior
debt as we proceeded with education reform. In 1997-1998, we created a $50 million fund to
be used for school construction. In 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, we allocated an additional
$5.5 million for the purchase of new equipment for our hospitals; and in 1997-1998 in
excess of $20 million was added to the budget of the Department of Health as a result of
the Health Forum. We were able to make these expenditures in the crucial areas of health
and education because we had achieved fiscal stability through a long-term approach to
financial planning.
Mr. Speaker, economic development expenditures contribute to economic
diversification and long-term job creation. The new aerospace fabrication facility at
Gander and the proposed fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence will generate in excess of 500 jobs
at full operation. The snowmobile trails and golf courses will enhance our tourism
industry. It is sound business logic to invest for future prosperity, particularly when
that commitment secures additional investment by other parties. In order to provide the
revenues necessary to maintain 75 per cent of the Province's program expenditures in the
priority areas of health, education and social, we must invest prudently and strike a
balance between social needs and economic initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that the Province is in a crisis. It
is not. Some have suggested that the Province's finances are out of control. They are not.
These statements, combined with demands for increased spending, are, in short,
irresponsible.
What is required and what we have and will continue to provide is
prudent management of the Province's finances and controlled and balanced spending. This
results in stability, stability which has been provided by this government. As always, Mr.
Speaker, we will continue to carefully monitor the Province's budgetary position and make
adjustments as necessary.
One must question the motives of those who would raise the spectre of
wage rollbacks or job cuts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be clear on this matter. There
will be no across the board pre-Christmas layoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: There will be no wage rollbacks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: There will be no broken collective agreements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: In fact, Mr. Speaker, over the past 18 months,
government has been successful in negotiating 20 collective agreements with its employees
and 20 additional agreements are in various stages of discussion. We will stand by our
commitments.
Mr. Speaker, despite worldwide economic setbacks, the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador will achieve its highest real GDP growth since 1989. Growth will
continue in the coming years. The efforts and diligence of the people of this Province
will be rewarded.
Mr. Speaker, many groups outside the Province confirm our confidence.
Just last week Standard and Poor's confirmed our provincial bond rating, and in July,
Dominion Bond Rating Service increased the Province's bond rating, which is the first time
it happened in the last twenty-five years.
There are many reason for us to be confident in our future. The oil and
gas industry is growing. Hibernia has been in production for one full year, the Terra Nova
construction phase is progressing, and other projects are on the horizon. CNOPB's 1998
Call for Bids resulted in $175 million in work expenditure commitments, the highest to
date.
Voisey's Bay continues to be one of the richest, lowest-cost nickel
deposits in the world, and once nickel prices begin to rise we are confident that a
mine/mill and smelter/refinery will proceed. The Labrador Hydro Project negotiations are
progressing well.
Our diversified fishery is flourishing, with an expected export value
of more than $600 million this year, the highest in our history - including the period
before the moratorium. As well, the total volume of fish shipments, year to date, is up by
40.3 per cent. The value of manufacturing shipments has increased to 10.5 per cent year to
date, and the recent settlement of the Abitibi-Consolidated strike will only strengthen
this number. Iron ore production is up by 4.9 per cent. The Information Technology sector
has grown by about 23 per cent in the last year, and non-resident tourist visits increased
by 22 per cent in 1997.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we will maintain and continue that momentum
in the coming year with our Soiree '99 celebrations. These are just a few examples of
growth sectors in this Province.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that we live in an
environment that often experiences economic uncertainty. Through multi-year planning we
have been able to create and maintain expenditure stability here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. As revised revenue numbers are received from the federal government, we may have
to revise our deficit targets; however, the magnitude of this change will be within an
acceptable range. With a positive attitude, commitment to our goals, hard work, and
confidence in ourselves, we will secure a better, more prosperous future for ourselves and
our children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what this is. Is this truly what the
Minister of Finance calls a financial statement, or is it simply an essay?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: There are no facts, there are no figures, and once
I read this particular statement, as I read along with the minister, it appears to me that
there are only two things going up in this Province: one, out-migration; and, secondly,
the deficit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just a few weeks ago we heard the Minister of
Finance use a quote like, `We are at the wall'. We were at the wall. We did not know where
an extra $10 million or $20 million could be found to deal with the very serious problems
facing health, and the delivery of the health system in our Province.
We look at statistics, Mr. Speaker, like our out-migration numbers. In
1991-1992, the population of this Province was in excess of 580,000 people. In 1998 it is
543,000, a loss of some 40,000 people.
We have information that has been presented to members opposite. The
minister is aware of it; yet, we have never had a response in terms of the significant
losses we will be facing next year in terms of HST transitional funding and the Term 29
award. In 1999, Mr. Speaker, this Province will be short some $104 million as a result of
both HST transitional funding and Term 29.
The minister talks about our credit rating, and in July, yes, the
Dominion Bond Rating Service upgraded Newfoundland's credit rating to a BBB in July, a
slight jump from BBB-. I would like to remind the minister - and we have done some
analysis on these figures - that in Newfoundland and Labrador the position was exactly
where it is today some twelve years ago. The minister boasts about an upgrade, but in fact
we are exactly where we were some twelve years ago in this Province.
Let's talk about tax rates. In this Province Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are paying 69 per cent of federal income tax payable. The next Province is
some 59 per cent, and in certain provinces, in particular the Province of Ontario, the tax
rate is now 40.5 per cent of federal income tax payable. Yet in this Province the personal
income tax remains at 69 per cent. What we have here is clearly an essay, it is a
demonstration in an attempt to tell the people of this Province where we are. We do not
have the bottom line. We do not know what the increase and proposed deficit is for this
Province. We are simply no better off.
I would like to conclude by simply asking a few questions. Let the
people of the Province also ask these questions. Does this government waste money? I would
suggest: let's read the Auditor General Reports; let's read the reports of the Public
Accounts Committee; let's read the exceptions to the Public Tender Act; let's simply read
the newspapers; and let's watch out, in terms of what this government is capable of doing,
let's watch out for gag orders on out of court settlements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am astounded that this minister will bring forth the good news that
there will be no across the board pre-Christmas layoffs and gets cheers from his
backbenchers, from government ministers. It kind of begs the question as to exactly what
kind of pre-Christmas layoffs he has in mind, but this is good news. There will be no wage
roll-backs, no broken collective agreements. That is interesting. They are going to keep
their obligations to their workers. This is good news from a government that has very
little good news for the people of this Province.
A province on track, a government on track, according to the minister.
I suppose you could be on track financially, like Paul Martin is in Ottawa, if you cause
pain and suffering to the population, if you do it by hurting injured workers, by putting
the squeeze on social assistant recipients, by forcing students into staggering debt loads
in order to achieve your financial objectives.
When the government brags about a 4 per cent growth in gross domestic
product they do not say they are only gaining back some of the losses that have occurred
in previous years. He does not say that we are only getting back some of the declines in
our economy over the last number of years. When we see a decline in the unemployment rate
of 4 per cent then we will begin to stand up and take notice.
There was no mention of out-migration, no mention of the 40,000 people
who left this Province, and I can understand why. Because the last time he talked about
out-migration he described it as inevitable, a part of global trends. Mr. Speaker, if that
is the attitude of this government to out-migration, then we need to look to another
government to challenge these assumptions of unemployment in this Province. There is no
crisis, says the Minister of Finance. It is pretty clear that this government does not
regard an 18 per cent unemployment rate as a crisis.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the Office of
the Fire Commissioner I would like to provide the House of Assembly with an update on the
March 25, 1998 fire explosion at the Come By Chance Oil Refinery.
As we know, this tragic incident resulted in two deaths and one injury.
First of all, I would like to inform hon. members that I have been
advised by my colleague the Minister of Justice that there will be a judicial inquiry into
the fire explosion at Come By Chance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry will see a provincial court
judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offenses Act. This inquiry
will examine the cause, manner and circumstances surrounding the fire explosion and the
loss of life and make recommendations to avoid similar events in the future. The judicial
inquiry will be opened to the public.
Government made a commitment to publicly release the Fire
Commissioner's report and related documents.
The judicial inquiry will take place and the report and related
documents will be released as soon as the Department of Justice advises that it is
appropriate to proceed with these actions. The department must make its decision having
regard to current police investigations and any court proceedings which may result.
It is imperative that the workers at the refinery and their families
have confidence in the safety of their workplace.
A comprehensive fire life safety audit was completed in June. The life
safety audit work was coordinated by the Fire Commissioner's Office and involved the
Departments of Government Services and Lands and Environment and Labour. Government also
engaged independent refinery experts, Brown and Root, to assist in this audit. Since
completion of the fire life safety audit, government continues to work with the company
and the union to ensure safety at the workplace.
The company is currently involved in a scheduled shutdown which began
on October 19 and which will conclude, we are advised, around November 20. These shutdowns
are a normal part of the refinery business and are designed to allow the company the
opportunity to complete regular maintenance, repairs and undertake capital improvements.
Government departments are on site during this period and Brown and
Root have also been engaged to follow up on their earlier work.
Government has a number of responsibilities with regard to this
incident. It has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It
also has a corresponding responsibility to ensure that the rights of those affected by the
fire are in no way compromised. It has the further obligation to provide a safe workplace.
I can assure you that we will do everything possible to see that all of these
responsibilities are achieved.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all I would like to say to the House that it is about time. I
listened to the minister awhile ago say that nobody had contacted him or his office. I can
assure the minister that some of the families that were involved certainly contacted me.
The last time I was contacted, Minister, was last Wednesday by one of the families which
unfortunately had a death.
I am glad that the report is finally going to be released. It should
have been released, as far as I am concerned, a long time ago. I trust it will be done
sooner rather than later so that these families can have the opportunity and the right to
review exactly what happened in Come By Chance, and exactly what led to the death of their
loved ones. I can only assure the minister that while they may not have called him they
certainly contacted me. As a matter of fact, it will save me a question to the minister
for later on in the week, because it is a question that certainly should have been asked
and it is a question that should have been answered a long time ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased that the report has now been tabled. We did change the
Public Inquiries Act some time ago last year with a two-stage process but I am concerned
that it has taken so long to get to the decision to have a public inquiry. The public
inquiry itself may not be held until the new year. There is obviously the need for a
public inquiry. It has been determined by the Department of Justice after a review. I know
the union was involved in the early stages, and I hope that the union will be directly
involved in implementing any recommendations and changes that would have to be made as a
result of the inquiry. Obviously there is more to this than the public is now aware of,
and the sooner that all the facts become public we will have an opportunity to judge for
ourselves how good government's policies in this area have been. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Abitibi
Consolidated and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada on reaching a
tentative agreement, subject to ratification, that will end the labour dispute and the
strike that has been on-going in the Province over the last few months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR LANGDON: It has been a difficult time for many people. The
strike has had obvious impacts on workers and their families and it has been a costly one
for the company with impacts on the overall provincial economy as well. Not only have
those directly employed in the industry been impacted, but whole communities have felt the
effects of this strike.
This has been a very complex issue, Mr. Speaker. The strike involved
ten of the employer's mills throughout eastern Canada, including two mills here in this
Province. The company and the union re-negotiated approximately twenty or more individual
collective agreements. At any given time, there were as many as eighty people at the
bargaining table. In addition, conciliators from the federal government, our Province,
Quebec and Ontario were on hand throughout the negotiations to assist where they could.
I want to acknowledge Mr. Wayne Fowler, Senior Conciliator with my
department, who has been working with the parties throughout the process. Mr. Fowler spent
approximately six weeks away from his family while helping to resolve this issue. His
efforts and the sacrifices made by his family are appreciated by me and by those in the
department who work with him.
It is my understanding that both the company and the union are
recommending acceptance of the tentative agreement. I would now encourage the parties to
put this dispute behind them and work cooperatively towards a progressive and prosperous
future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the minister today in what I consider to be
some happy news. Certainly some of these loggers have suffered some pretty difficult
times. I know from my colleague, who comes from a district where there is a fair bit of
logging going on, that some of them have suffered tremendously. I am glad to see,
Minister, that the strike is over. I again congratulate all parties involved, not only
from your department but the union and the company, that we brought this strike finally to
a settlement. Hopefully over the next several days the vote will be held, the men can get
back to work, and earn some money to certainly restore their family lives to the way they
were.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I join with the minister and the member in saying how delighted I am
that the strike is over. What is even more important here is that this has been a defeat
of this company's attempt to break up the workers and to have bargaining paper mill by
paper mill in the attempt to destroy individual collective agreements. The workers have
defeated that and are now able to continue to bargain with all the paper mills sitting at
this big table and not be divided and concurred as the company had planned.
We know that the deal is being recommended to the members, and that if
this strike is ended it has ended in a great victory for the workers. Hopefully everybody
can get back to work shortly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Recently, the decision by IOCC to move its pellet plant in Sept-Iles -
supported and cheerleaded on by this government - is unacceptable to the people of the
Province. April 2, 1997, when North purchased the majority shares in IOCC, their press
release at that time said that one of the conditions of sale was the reactivation of the
Sept-Iles pellet plant.
Based upon that press release the Member for Baie Verte, the mines
critic, asked in this House of the Minister of Mines and Energy, what would happen, would
this take place. The minister's response was: No, that would no happen, that we made
assurances "...on the power side to ensure..." that the jobs stay right here.
One year ago, in Labrador, the Minister of Mines and Energy indicated to the combined
counsels and people in Labrador, and through them the people of this Province, that this
arrangement would not take place. In fact, a line in the sand has been drawn.
I ask the Premier, what has taken place in a year and a half with
regards to commitments made by your minister on behalf of your government that such a
complete about-face has occurred, and as a result hundreds of jobs lost to the Province of
Quebec and thousands of dollars to the revenue base of this Province?
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all, some of the
member's comments are accurate, some are inaccurate, but I will deal with those in a
little bit.
I should say right off the bat that nobody takes any pleasure in the
decision that came from the study that was conducted for the government with respect to
the pellet plant being located in Sept-Iles. In fact, we share the disappointment and the
frustration of the people of Labrador City in particular. Nobody is more disappointed or
frustrated or has worked harder on this issue than the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the facts and the numbers do not lie. It
does not matter anyway you twist it, anyway that you shape it, however you try to bend it,
the reality is the reality. We have to deal in reality. We cannot deal in fantasy, we
cannot deal in fiction, we have to deal with the numbers as we see them.
The company came to us some time ago and said they had to get their
unit cost down to increase their productivity. They are working in an extremely difficult,
competitive international marketplace. They are completing against Brazil, the United
States, Australia, and other parts of Canada. They had two very clear-cut options to get
their unit cost down, to increase their productivity, to secure the future. Those two were
very simple. Either, number one, they increased production by increasing volume; or number
two, they looked for inefficiencies inside the current structure, which essentially would
mean layoffs. The company opted for number one. They looked -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: No, they did not do both. They have a no-layoff policy
in place, I should tell the hon. member. They opted for number one, they opted for
increased production. Mr. Speaker, they came to us and they said: We are about to
reactivate the Sept-Iles plant. It was the government, and in particular the Premier,
supported by the Member for Labrador City, that insisted that the company not just
helter-skelter go off and open Sept-Iles, but examine the feasibility to see whether it
was economically feasible to build or expand at Labrador City. The company agreed to do
this at considerable cost, $3 million worth of cost.
They had two choices now. They took some time to evaluate both options.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. FUREY: I'm giving you the answer, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell
you, and be frank and honest as I was with the unions, with the town councils and with the
people of Labrador City, I was personally shocked at the numbers that came back. Deeply
disappointed, and I truly was shocked, I was honestly shocked. The distance and difference
was 100 per cent. I was so shocked in fact that we got resources from the government to
hire independent experts to look at the numbers that the company gave us.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to try and draw his answer to a conclusion.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to state this. We
hired Hatch Associates. Who are Hatch Associates? The government has been a client for
Hatch for the last twenty-five years. Premier Moores used them, Premier Peckford used
them, Premier Wells has used them, and Premier Tobin and this government have now used
them. They are a worker-owned internationally reputable firm and they studied the results
of the Bechtel/Met-Chem study that was done on the pellet plant for Sept-Iles versus
Labrador City. They came back and verified that the distance was greater by 100 per cent.
There is some $250 million difference.
The hon. member is right. I did take a very tough position, a very
strong position. Some of the things I said in private were much stronger than what I said
in public. I did draw a line in the sand.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. FUREY: I said to the company: Even though you are operating
under your own act of 1938, we are going to apply the test of 1995, the new amendments to
the Mineral Act, which was one of economic feasibility. They did not like that but we drew
that line in the sand, Mr. Speaker, -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.
MR. FUREY: - to apply that test to the company. Mr. Speaker, having
applied that test, one of economic feasibility, to justify the expansion, it came in 100
per cent in the difference. No government could force any company - Fisheries Products
International, Newtel, Kruger - to make an uneconomic decision -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
MR. FUREY: - or Inco, where they would be losing money. I am glad
you raised Inco.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What is clear and what is real, and the reality that this Province
faces, is that you, Minister, and you, Premier made commitments to the people of Labrador
and through them to the people of the Province. Your negligence is what is paramount, your
negligence in this issue is what is clear.
The Minister talks about the Hatch study and viability. I am glad he
does. Because we will demonstrate today and over the coming weeks the flaws in Hatch
study, the flaws in terms of the terms of reference being so narrow that the Province only
looked at one small aspect of the operation of IOCC. For example, last year North's share
of the profits of IOCC were $110 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Your Deputy Minister knows this. The last three
months, its quarterly earnings - June, July and August - $47 million.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. E. BYRNE: To stand in your place, Minister, and to say that
this is not a viable project, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Let me ask you this question. I will ask you, Premier. Will you confirm
that the project costs in Sept-Iles, used in the Hatch report, did not include the cost of
upgrading the hydro line from Ste-Marguerite to Sept-Iles at a cost of $60 million?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this is a specious argument, it truly is.
Because in both cases the power required at both sites would be done by third parties.
There is no cost to the Iron Ore Company of Canada.
In the case of Newfoundland, Newfoundland and Labrador, through its
corporation Hydro, had determined we would build the power lines at considerably reduced
rates for power costs from Churchill Falls to Labrador City to deliver that power. In the
case of Quebec at Sept-Iles it is the Ste-Marguerite River, done by a third party which
will absorb the capital costs and sell the power to that plant.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm that combined
with that cost, the tax relief being sought to the tune of $40 million by the town of
Sept-Iles, nor does the Hatch Report include the $30 million interest free loan and $2
million in manpower training from the Government of Quebec? Can you confirm that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member truly is being
intellectually dishonest, and that is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FUREY: No, he is not serving the people of this Province very
well. Think about it, Mr. Speaker. The entire Conservative caucus, under the guise of the
mines critic, was fully briefed on the details of this study, on government's reaction,
with the Hatch experts. I am not an engineer, I am not an expert - nor is the Leader of
the Opposition - but the experts sat there and answered each question in detail.
The hon. member is being intellectually dishonest. He is seeing a
parade and he is jumping in front of it and clanging the symbols. Nobody in the Province
even knows to this day where he stands on education reform, and nobody in the Province
today knows where he stands on the Lower Churchill, but he hears a parade and he knows the
truth, he knows the numbers. He is being intellectually dishonest for political purposes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This is the minister who talks about intellectual
honesty, who is part of a Cabinet that imposes gag orders on settlements with public
dollars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: This is the minister who talks about intellectual
honesty, who can on one hand stand up to the people of the Province - in particular in
Labrador - and say this will not happen because we are the new kids on the block, and six
months later a complete flip-flop.
Let me ask him this question, Mr. Speaker: Will he confirm that not
included in the Hatch study - Hatch indicated that a camp house was necessary, or the
construction of a campsite was necessary. Can he confirm that cost was $24 million, but
the reality is that it was not even needed, that there is an abundance of units available
in Labrador West should that take place? And, if you add up the costs that were not
included in Hatch, that the cost differential between moving to Sept-Iles and moving to
Labrador, or Labrador West at Carol Lake, was not all that great in the first place.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have all of the detailed numbers
that he is asking for, but I will undertake to get the specific detailed numbers. The only
reason I am not saying it is because I do not want to speak off the top of my head and
give inaccurate numbers to the House.
Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition. I lay out a challenge
to him. There are two options, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, in this particular
case. Both are difficult. He says he has an answer to this problem. I do not have an
answer. I know it is a difficult circumstance. I know it is painful and it is frustrating
for the people of Labrador City, and I know the heartache that the Member for Labrador
West has gone through for the last two months.
I will say this to him: He has two options. The first option is, he can
stop all export of concentrate from Labrador. The second option is, he can reach into the
treasury and take $171 million, which is essentially $3.4 million per permanent job -
reach out and take it from the treasury.
I ask the hon. member: Which of these two options, or a combination of,
would he undertake to do if he were standing in my shoes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: One option, Minister: You tell North Limited if that
expansion at Carol Lake and the pellet plant does not occur in Labrador then it does not
occur at all. That is one option, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask him this. You talked about the
number of jobs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Voisey's Bay.
MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, this is very important. The minister
indicated -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Take your time, Premier; all will become evident to
you.
I say to the minister or the Premier, whichever one wants to answer,
they talked about how there was only a loss of fifty jobs - only a loss of fifty jobs in
Labrador West. I heard that from the minister himself. Can he confirm -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you did. You said, because the expansion is not
going to occur in Labrador West, there would be thirty to fifty jobs...
Now, let me ask you this: Did you take into consideration the job loss,
400 high-paying construction jobs that would be created in year one? Did you take into
consideration 400 high-paying construction jobs in year two? Did you take into
consideration 300 high-paying construction jobs in year three? Did you take those
considerations into effect, and the impact that would have on the treasury?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me just respond to the hon.
gentleman's reaction to my challenge that I laid before him.
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) answer the question.
MR. FUREY: I will answer the question.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition just said he would instruct IOC not
to proceed with any expansion. Now think about what he just said. If the expansion to
increase productivity and to increase volume does not occur - remember the premise of my
original statement - they had two options. They could increase volume or lay off people.
Now he just said to the House and to the Province and to the people of
Labrador City, that he would stop it, he would put a halt to it, he would not allow it to
occur - the expansion at Sept-Iles - which will cause the unit cost to come down and
protect jobs in the future. I say to him, if he is serious about that, that will cost
300-400 permanent jobs in Labrador City and will send the $650 million of investment out
the window. He cannot be serious!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. FUREY: The hon. member asked us: Did we factor in the temporary
jobs? Yes, we did, and it is still in the order of well over $2 million per job.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the record is going to clearly show, and
history will demonstrate clearly, that the expansion at Sept-Iles, and the future
expansion at Sept-Iles, is going to jeopardize employment opportunities in this Province.
It is going to jeopardize jobs and families in this Province, and we will get to that in a
second.
I would like to ask the minister this: At a briefing of the mines
critic, the Member for Baie Verte and my senior policy advisor, by his officials, the
question was asked, when it was briefed: Was there any discussion surrounding royalties or
renegotiation of the royalty regime with IOCC?
The Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy said: No, that is a good
question. No one has ever asked it.
We met with the officials from IOCC, Vice-President of Operations,
Brian Oliver, Vice-President of Human Resources, Mr. Porter, and we asked that question.
They said: No, there was no discussion. The Province did not even get into a discussion
with respect to royalties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister: Why didn't you get into a
discussion with IOCC with respect to the very clear royalty regime that they have? Why, on
the one hand, it had to go to Sept-Iles? You are saying there was no other choice. Why did
you not try to use your bargaining power and the powers of this Legislature to bring up
the revenue side, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the Leader of the
Opposition. He is going through a series of questions. He is avoiding the main question.
He has not given a response to the question put by the Minister of Mines and Energy about
what the Leader of the Opposition would propose -
AN HON. MEMBER: Premier, the questions are directed your way!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when we hear an end to the noise and
confusion, and if the members opposite want to hear an answer, I would suggest that the
Leader of the Opposition get a grip on a few of the members who are bellowing, making lots
of noise.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is this. The Leader of the Opposition, as he
sits in his chair, and every member of this House on both sides - everybody - knows that
the decision that has been taken, as disappointing as it is, in particular for the people
of Labrador West who are here, and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery, and I want
to acknowledge their presence in the gallery, and in particular to the thousands more who
are at home in Labrador West -and this has been addressed by the Member for Labrador West
- as disappointing as the decision is, the responsibility of those who are in public life
and who have responsibility to decide is not always to engage in what would appear to be
the best politics but to engage in what is our responsibility: good, public policy.
Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is doing - and he knows
he is doing it - is, he is standing and making a case that is not sustainable. I wish it
were sustainable. I wish it were. This government has never, ever hesitated to take
whatever action is required to protect the fair and full interest and benefit of the
people of the Province, and we will take every action required; but what we cannot do, and
what would not be responsible, would be to have an independent analysis of the situation
such as we have had, a cost difference of $170 million dollars, a reality that the company
would be somehow - I don't know how - forced to make an investment in which they would
lose money, and then to stand and to crater the company and crater the operation because
it is good politics, rather than honest public policy.
The Leader of the Opposition has consistently shown an inability, Mr.
Speaker, to take hard decisions. When this Province and every single citizen of this
Province was going through a question about the future of school reform, this member never
said to this day where he stood on that issue. He has never said where he stands on the
further development of Churchill Falls, but if sees a parade lining up, Mr. Speaker, he
runs to the front of the parade. This does not take courage, this takes cowardice, and
there is no place for that in the public policy of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what we see here is the Premier with the
backbone of a jelly fish.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what we see here, Mr. Speaker. I will take no
lecture from you, sir, about what is doing what is popular or being up front and honest
with issues, I can tell you that.
Let me ask you this. If you want to talk about intellectually honest or
upfront and forthright with people, then why did you one year ago say to the people from
Labrador and people in this gallery that: If that decision happens, I will be the first
person on the plane to North's headquarters in Australia?
The question Premier is: How was the meeting, or when are you are
leaving?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition I am sure
has done all of his research to see exactly what I have said about this matter, and he
will find out that what I have said is that the government would leave, in effect, no
stone unturned and would take every effort necessary to ensure maximum benefits for our
Province.
I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, if he had bothered to find
out, that I have already met with the president of North Corporation twice, once to tell
him of my concern, and also with the president of IOCC as well, in the company of the
Member for Labrador West, to say that the practices at IOCC over the decades when the
company was owned by US Bay Steel Companies, which in our mind were colonial in attitude,
had to stop, and that more procurement and other activities that were beneficial to
Labrador West had to occur.
We also met to tell them that there had to be a full analysis of
Labrador City. They had to be prove to us that such a thing could not occur. Beyond their
own studies we then insisted upon opening their books to have our own independent
consultant come forward.
Mr. Speaker, someone asked a moment ago: How is that different from
Inco? Let me tell you how it is not different from Inco. In the case of Inco -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I ask the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.
We have given this a full and thorough examination. There is no reason
for the government to do anything but achieve every benefit we can for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not prepared to tell people something we know to be a
lie even if that lie is something they want to hear. We have an obligation to tell them
the truth at all times and that is what we have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The president and CEO of IOC stated on October 27, 1998, Premier, that:
It was not possible to provide any assurance that Labrador City will remain the primary
pellet producer in the event of a future downturn in the steel industry. That is what he
said.
There has been no commitment or undertaking by IOC to ensure that come
the next economic downturn, if and when the plant is running in Sept-Iles, that they will
close the plant in Sept-Iles and keep the one in Labrador West operating. Will the Premier
confirm that the situation this has opened up could have a devastating effect on Labrador
West, bringing out-migration, collapse of housing prices, the loss of employment and
secondary processing? Could you confirm that you have no commitment about the future of
that area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I should say for the record that on October
20, after a number of meetings, myself and the Member for Labrador West had with the
company, I sent them a letter which outlined nine points. In those nine points, some of
which the member just touched upon, they need to meet as a board and address some of
those.
The ones that they could address I received back early this morning.
With respect to the layoff policy, the House should know that they converted 120 seasonal
workers to full-time jobs last year, and they have extended their no-layoff policy. In
fact, just last week they lost a 3 million ton contract out of the U.S. Normally that
would require them to lay off a great number of people, but they have removed contractors
and kept the unionized workforce in the plant going full-time.
With respect to the direct reduction pellets, they tell me it is their
intention to sell as many d.r. pellets as possible to the markets, whatever they will
absorb, and they will be produced at Labrador City. It is not their intention at all to
reactivate the idle flotation plant at Sept-Iles, and the pellet production coming off of
Sept-Iles will not occur.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: They can only give you what their intentions are. I take
them on face value. Every single thing that I have been told to date has been truthful and
verified.
Mr. Speaker, also pellet production will not occur until mid- or
late-2001, perhaps even 2002. Contracting out, they go into to say that is a legal issue
between the union and the company, and it is best left for the table to deal with. With
respect to procurement, the Member for Labrador City deserves very high marks because he
has been pushing this issue for two years and they have gone from something in the order
of 35 per cent to 60 per cent of local purchases in the area.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe I am missing something, but I
believe it was the minister's intention for this not to happen. You know what they say
about the road to you-know-where is paved with you-know-what, Minister.
Let me ask you this question. You have talked about a no-layoff policy.
There is a feeling out there that there are going to be no layoffs in Labrador West as a
result of this company's commitment. The Premier has talked about how happy he is that the
$650 million expansion is occurring. It is a good sign, because it guarantees the
longevity of the area. Let me ask the minister this: Will he confirm that as a result -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. One second. Will he confirm that in
terms of that pellet plant -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Not necessarily, there is no guarantee. Let me ask
him this.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to get to his question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday the Premier was on VOCM
talking about the commitment he had on no layoffs. Is he aware that as a result of the
expansion that in the next three to four years there will be an additional 400 or 500
people who will not be working in the company who are there working right now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I would say
to the Leader of the Opposition that the way in which he just phrased that question, what
he just said is not true. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to be careful.
Thirty seconds before he said: I want to acknowledge the $600 million
investment, and that is good because that secures the long-term future of the Labrador
West area. Now that happens to be true. One of the reasons government cannot say, because
it would be popular for the moment, politically attractive for the moment: We are going to
raise Cain even though we have a secret report which tells us we are wrong to raise Cain,
even though we have data, independent and otherwise from the company, which tells us we do
not have a good case, we are going to bury the data, hide it, and we are going to have a
political show, and everybody is going to cheer and say what great people we are.
We may put a $600 million investment at risk, we may put the long-term
future of Labrador City at risk, we may put jobs at risk, but we will be popular for a few
seconds. Now that may be the method of operation of the Leader of the Opposition. It is
not the method of operation of the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the expansion in Labrador West is a good
thing if this Province has guarantees that if an economic downturn happens - and it will -
Labrador West will not shut down, it will be Sept-Iles. The expansion in Labrador West
will have the effect, the company officials told me, that through attrition, through early
retirement, they will not be hiring any new people for the next four to five years. That
in fact there will be about 400 to 500 less people working there four years from now,
which is what I said.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is unbelievable, Premier. Your actions and the
doublespeak that have taken place in the last five months by you are unbelievable.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I completely agree with you, sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Final question, Mr. Speaker. On November 5 another
premier in another province said this: When you export primary resources outside of your
province, you are exporting jobs. Premier, do you not see what has taken place? Will you
not reverse your support for IOCC's decision with expansion of the pellet plant? Will you
not reverse it and reverse it now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the transparent - because it is
absolutely transparent - the political opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition becomes
more clear. Now he has gone from calling this a disaster to acknowledging that a $600
million investment sustains the long-term viability of Labrador City. That was two
questions ago. In the most recent question he has just said: And if a, b and c, then it is
a good thing.
There is a clear commitment from the company that there will be no
layoffs, there is a clear commitment from the company that there will be no reactivation
of the flotation plant in Sept-Iles, and there is a clear commitment from the company that
d.r. reduction pellets will only be done in Labrador West. Mr. Speaker, we take those as
strong and clear commitments.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to conclude -
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I table six copies of one
special warrant in the amount of $1,028,600. This relates to a special warrant that was
required to cover emergency fire suppression overruns in the summer past.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
In accordance with
Section 35 of the House of Assembly Act, I hereby
table the 1997-98 Annual Report of the Commission of Members' Interests.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines of Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow
ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family
Services."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and
Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Security Interests in Personal
Property."
Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, No. 2."
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement
Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act." That
is Bill No. 23.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Technology I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises
Act." That is Bill No. 18.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission
Act." That is Bill No. 36.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, "An Act To Amend The Work, Services and Transportation Act." That is
Bill No. 27.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to rise today to present this very significant petition. I
will read the petition first. It is quite clear and quite straightforward:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in
legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City;
WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial
government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador
resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing
within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly the number of names
on this petition to date but I can tell you -
MR. SULLIVAN: Thousands.
MR. SHELLEY: There are thousands, there is no doubt about that, and
there are more coming; and they are not just coming from Labrador West, because this is an
issue that has hit the heart of everybody in this Province. It is a complete flip-flop.
You can use all kinds of different languages, Mr. Speaker. The Premier and the minister
can use all kinds of rhetoric in this House, and try to throw red herrings into it all
with the Hatch report and so on.
Before we even look at numbers and the expansion and so on, I say to
the Premier, all the people of this Province remember over the last few months is the
Premier of this Province standing up and saying to Inco, `Let it stay in the ground'. That
is what the people of this Province are looking around at, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure every member here can speak to it. The people in my own
district, Baie Verte, a mining town, day after day I bump into somebody who will say the
same thing: How can it be so different, so tuff in one way and not the other?
Then they will say little things like this to you: Can you imagine
Premier Bouchard kicking off his election campaign in Quebec by announcing ore coming out
of Labrador?
That is what they say, how sickening it is to them that they thought
once and for all we were going to stand with the strong fist and say: Leave the ore in the
ground. That is what they thought, because they had a mindset.
Then, if you want to go deeper, go to the people of Labrador West. We
were up there for four days. I had the pleasure of living in Labrador West for six years,
and know a lot of people in the area, had family that worked at IOC. They are a proud
people who paid a lot into the economy of this Province, and every Newfoundlander and
Labradorian acknowledges that.
That ore body up there has been there for thirty-eight years to date,
and is going to go on for another 100 years, and we could not, before they even talked
about expansion...
I say to the Premier, as a solution, it should have been nipped in the
bud the day that it happened, the very day that I got up in this House of Assembly and
asked the Minister of Mines and Energy, what are we going to do here? I was comforted by
what the minister said. We have the quotes here, if the minister wants to read his
response. I was assured, and I was assured by the Member for Labrador West, and it was
pretty comforting to a lot of people when we heard that no way, that pellet plant is
coming here.
Of course, when we went to Labrador City and everybody told us about
the Premier being up there during the Winter Games with his fist in the air, saying: I
will be on the first flight to Australia, and the line was drawn in the sand.
We had so many commitments, we thought it was a sure bet. What the
Premier should have done on that day that North took over, is flown to Australia and said
to them: I am the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a resource of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and it is going to be processed in this Province.
Now you might be able to, under legal terms or some other way, say that
you are going to expand out of the Province, but what this Premier could have said: I will
use everything in my power and beyond that.
It was not normal what the Premier did when he fired shots across the Estai .
That was not something normal. That was above and beyond normal. When he stood up to Inco
and put on the big show for everybody, which we have all shouldered with him, on that
stand on Voisey's Bay, forget about it. Even before they started putting Hatch reports and
$250 million here and $70 million here, you should have said to them, Premier: Forget it.
PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Well, you should have fired shots across the bow of
the North, I say to the Premier, because at that very point, June 2, 1997 - I think it is
the right date - that is when the Premier and the minister and the member, and the whole
House of Assembly for that matter, would be on a flight to Australia, and say that is a
Newfoundland and Labrador resource. We just stood up to a bigger company than yours, Inco,
and we are going to stand up to you.
Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond those dollars and cents that he keeps
throwing out for a red herring. It means nothing to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The statistic that everybody talks about in this Province, and it is
the strongest one you can put forward, is that video lottery machines brought in $78
million to this Province last year but royalty rentals from all our resources, $29
million. We do not need much more said than that. We do not need another argument. It is
as simple and straightforward as that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: When we thought everything was going smooth, when we
thought the Premier was going to be tough - he is tough with the Spanish, he is tough with
this -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that we
have presented in this House of Assembly on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Can I have leave?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: These statements are here, but I will tell you this.
Many of the members in this House of Assembly on both sides should start to really dig
down and look at what happened here. Never mind all the Hatch reports and the numbers.
Look at a principle alone. If this Premier is going to stand on the principle that he
started some months ago, that people were proud of, he should continue on that vein.
Here is the final argument, Mr. Speaker. For thirty-eight years, the
Iron Ore Company of Canada has made billions of dollars. I can say that safely. I would
say to IOC, forget what it is going to cost in expansion. If you want to move ore out of
this Province, you are going to pay for it one way or another. That is the message that
the Premier of this Province should send to that company.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the
petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte.
I have a number of petitions here that I have been asked to present as
well by the delegation from Labrador West. I will be very proud to present them on an
ongoing basis as the session continues because I think this is an issue that goes beyond
dealing with one company over one project in Labrador West. It is obviously of vital
concern and of vital importance to the future and livelihood of the people of Labrador
West, but it is also of vital concern to the people of all of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have a number of very grave concerns about the government's response
to the problem that they face: How do you deal with the Iron Ore Company of Canada? Here
is a company which last year made $100 million and so far, the first quarter of this year
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: One hundred million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?
MR. HARRIS: In the first quarter of this year they made $48
million, or $47 million. We are not dealing with a company which is struggling to survive
and needs to maximize every dollar that it has. The standard that is being used against
Inco is whether or not something is economically feasible, whether it can be done at a
profit. The question that I have to ask the Premier, the ministers, and the government,
is: Can the pellet plant be expanded in Labrador West at a profit?
The answer to that is: Yes, the pellet plant in Labrador West can be
expanded at the profit of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Therefore, in my books and in
the books of the ordinary people in this Province, that is economically feasible. Nobody
wants a company to do something that is going to cost them money, but if it can be done
profitably then it is economically feasible.
Now I have another serious question, and this is one that perhaps the
Premier can answer, or maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy can answer. He said, in
answer to a question today, that even when they factored in and did an analysis on the
construction jobs, it was still too expensive.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, I seriously wonder, how much they are concerned
about construction jobs when this minister wrote a letter to the President of the Chamber
of Commerce and talked about an analysis done on the construction jobs. He says: Based on
the preliminary analysis of this aspect of the project, there appears to be little direct
gain to the Province related to the construction project.
Well, that is great news, Mr. Speaker, as to how concerned this
government is. It is signed by the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. Charles Furey,
MHA, the correspondence with the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Labrador West.
That is what the Minister of Mines and Energy said, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case, what
concern does this government have about 400 construction jobs in one year, 400 the next,
300 the next - 1,100. If they were announcing this project, they could say that they
created 1,100 jobs. Instead, what they are saying is: This aspect of the project appears
to provide little direct economic gain to the Province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of government we have. We had the
Minister of Finance today saying: Well, there is no crisis here. We only have 18 per cent
unemployment. That is not a crisis. We do not regard that as a crisis. Now we have the
Minister of Mines and Energy saying that there appears to be little direct gain from 400
construction jobs that are related to the development of our resources in our Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to say to the visitors in the gallery today that the members
here, of course, welcome visitors at all times, at their pleasure, but participation in
the debate in the House, or waving flags or placards of any description, is not permitted.
It has been a parliamentary tradition, as I have said before - a long-standing
parliamentary tradition - and I ask the people to take their placards down, please.
It seems that the visitors are not going to uphold the parliamentary
tradition of this House, and the Chair has absolutely no other choice but to ask that the
galleries be cleared. The House will recess until that happens.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The House is called to order. The hon. the Member for Quidi Vidi-Signal
Hill, I believe, was speaking on the petition but I think his time has now expired.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Honourable members, citizens of Labrador City and Wabush, I want to
first of all welcome the leadership of Western Labrador to the gallery of the people's
House. You have just witnessed the level of frustration that they feel today. I have
requested - indeed insisted - that I be given the opportunity to respond to this petition
from the people of Labrador West.
It is important for all of us to know, indeed throughout this whole
Province, to understand the deep frustration and heartfelt pain of those who took time to
sign this petition. The Iron Ore Company of Canada, like many mining companies in
one-industry towns, creates our greatest opportunity but yet sometimes is the root cause
to our greatest fears.
In the early 1970s, IOC of old had a very icy relationship with our
workforce. It was a time of great struggle, with strikes and standoffs commonplace. It was
a time of tremendous division within our community. I know, Mr. Speaker, because I lived
there at that time and I am a product of those years.
Then came the 1980s roaring through with Brian Mulroney at the helm of
the company. Within months of paid bonuses for their best year on record, we feel into
deep recession with hundreds of workers, many of them my personal friends, boarding up
their homes, throwing keys to the banker, and heading out across their nation looking for
work. Many never returned, although they always wanted to.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, and some people in the gallery recall too, when
we had nearly 1,000 people at the gate and we sat across from IOC. On that day, IOC's
Vice-President threw a cheque of $25,000 across the table to assist those laid off people.
That was the old IOC that we knew. It is the history that always reminds us to be ever
suspicious and vigilant with respect to the company's intentions.
Less than two years ago, a new company from Australia, North Limited,
appeared and bought controlling interest. Was this to be a new IOC, or were they to be the
old that we knew only too well? Well, after announcing their strong desire to buy
controlling interest in IOC, many of my constituents will recall my appearance that very
night on the local cable channel raising my fears and my concerns regarding the
reactivation at the Sept-Iles facility. At that time you will recall that North IOC had
one option in their minds, and that was opening Sept-Iles with expressions of intent to
buy those pellets already on their books.
One must remember that North IOC does not come under the 1995 Mineral
Act that applies to Voisey's Bay Nickel because it has been in operation for some
thirty-six years with their own legislation dating back to 1938, eleven years before we
joined Canada. That piece of legislation is intact to this day.
The Premier, Minister Dicks and I, met with Mr. Broomhead, Chair of
North IOC, a senior North director, Michael Beckett, and the President and CEO, Mr. John
Le Boutillier, to deal with their old colonial approach that the old IOC has taken with
our communities.
We listed the supplier's issue whereby Sept-Iles, for one reason or
another, always received the lion's share of benefits. This was unfair. Their response has
been to increase their procurement so that now North IOC does over two-thirds of its
purchasing at home in Western Labrador. This creates and protects spinoff jobs.
We told the company that they were long overdue from student hiring.
Their response: they hired over 150 students last summer. We wanted them to end the idea
of flying workers from Sept-Iles to change light bulbs along the railway and flying
workers up there to clear snow in the railway yards. This is and was, and continues to be,
an unacceptable part of the collective agreement for the Sept-Iles workers. North IOC must
protect railway workers in our Province. Even though these workers come under federal
laws, we must continue that fight on their behalf.
North IOC at that meeting was told very clearly and very forcefully
that their plans -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. CANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. CANNING: To reopen Sept-Iles without a full and complete
assessment of the Labrador City option was totally unacceptable. It is quite true that
this government, and particularly the Minister of Mines and Energy, took a very strong
stand against the company. The Province has forcefully applied the Voisey's Bay standard
to North IOC's expansion, despite the fact that this company has already mined over 1
billion tons of crude ore during the past forty years of operation.
North IOC paid some $3 million for economic assessments demanded by
this government. I, along with the Minister of Environment and Labour, and my friend the
Member for Torngat Mountains, along with people in this gallery, led a march of 1,500
citizens to the gates of the company. I believe that was an unprecedented show of support
by any government for the people who live in Labrador City.
Mr. Speaker, North IOC came back to the government this past summer
with very discouraging and disappointing news that we did not want to hear. Their numbers
showed they were unable to make a profit at the expansion at Labrador City. Very
competitive power rates -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. This is
not about me, this is about the people of Labrador West. I would hope that the members
across are fair-minded.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: Did you write that (inaudible)?
MR. CANNING: I wrote that.
A variety of tax incentives could not bridge the gap. That the Labrador
City option was not -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to continue.
MR. CANNING: North IOC said that the Labrador City option was not
economical. In fact, it would be a money loser, Mr. Speaker. This news was devastating to
all of us. Hatch Associates, an employee-owned company, was hired by the government to
review all, including going through the company's books. I informed the union president
and the mayor that when we had the Hatch report we would make that available for their
assessments. We have done so. Although the news in the report was not what I had hoped for
and certainly not what I supported throughout the process, I had the moral obligation and
responsibility to deliver that report to the people that elected me. I gave my word that I
would, and I did.
Let me be absolutely clear to all those listening: I did not, nor did
this government, give authority to North IOC to export iron ore concentrates to Sept-Iles
for pelletising. They do not need our permission. It was given long before I was born and
practised since I have been the age of two.
North IOC exports 4 million to 5 million tons of concentrate to market
each and every year and have done so for nearly four decades. In fact, IOC exports
one-third of its entire product as concentrate for all these years. The other two-thirds
of the annual production is shipped as pellets. They now wish to recover more iron
concentrates from the process instead of dumping these concentrates in Wabush Lake as
tailings.
There is nothing I have worked for with as much passion and diligence
in my life as I have to find some way, some instrument, to have our pellet plant expanded
at home. That was where I had worked and that is the place where I and my family choose to
live. There are those who believe that I or a member or members in this government somehow
or in some way contributed to the decision to reactivate the Sept-Iles pellet plant. I
find that frankly offensive and it is completely and totally false. I, like the
overwhelming majority of my constituents, never, ever wanted to see that old plant in
Sept-Iles reactivated. I have and will continue to support the hopes and ambitions of
those I serve, but I will never let my personal ambitions colour the truth to my
constituents.
Labrador City is the town we chose to raise our family in. It is where
my father chose to raise his and it is, in time, where I hope my children will raise
theirs. I believe those who signed this petition signed it out of frustration, anger and
fear at what they may face in the future. If North IOC wants to be as different as the old
IOC, they must put their cards squarely on the table. It is clearly not good enough for
them to leave a spectre of continual reductions in the workforce by pending retirements.
What hope does this leave for our youth?
North IOC's willingness to show their commitment to an announced no
layoff policy is a very positive step. However, they still have to explain this expansion
to their employees, to their employees' families and to the community at large. To be
truthful, if I did not know all the facts I would have likely blamed the government for
this decision too, but I know the facts and I cannot pretend otherwise.
Is North IOC's decision morally justifiable? Few corporate decisions
ever are. As Mayor Brenton of Labrador City, and Vice-president of the Steelworkers, Boyd
Bussey have said publicly it was a corporate decision. I agree. As much as I dislike it,
the company made this decision and I am prepared to organize a delegation to meet with the
board of directors, if that is what it takes to clear up the air surrounding this
decision. Then this leaves us asking: What then can the government do?
Stopping North IOC from moving forward their investment announcement
through some draconian legislation, like some law to prevent any concentrate shipments
after forty years of mining, I believe would have far-reaching and more dangerous and
ominous consequences for the community I serve.
Have those who proposed the idea of keep it in the ground thought it
through? In cases where a proposal has proven to be a money loser, would any company
accept a surrender of their Board of Directors decision making authority on behalf of
their shareholders?
Can we as a people, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, force other
citizens of the world to spend their money in what has been confirmed to be a substantial
money losing proposition? I am not aware of any government in Canada nor any in the free
world that could do that.
After hearing the Member of Parliament for Labrador on CBC television
alluding to his potential approach to the federal government given their cash surpluses, I
have personally written and spoken to the hon. Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, asking
for $171 million to bridge this gap. I have to tell you, in a conversation with Mr. Martin
in Labrador West recently he discounted that idea and told of his unwillingness for the
The deep resentment and sense of loss that the people in Labrador City
- indeed throughout Western Labrador - feel must be dealt with. They must be assured of
their long-term security. We must - although sometimes we may differ - work together as a
united front that includes the union, includes the chamber, it includes the mayor and the
counsellors, and the government, to work through many of the job security issues that
continue to fuel this frustration. This debate is, after all, about their lives and their
future. The Premier has offered to chair a committee of this community and deal with this
issues directly with the company. I support that initiative. Though our collective
disappointment and even anger may run deep, we all have a common responsibility to protect
to the extent possible, our people and their jobs.
There is still a great deal of work to be done. We must not allow
precious time to slip by. I do not believe Labrador City has witnessed their finest hour.
While it may be true we have formidable challenges and it is equally true that times are
uncertain, it is precisely in the time of challenge that we should and must rise to the
occasion and build upon what is achievable.
I would hope that the union will maintain their commitment to join the
Premier's committee. I invite the mayor and council to do likewise, along with delegates
from our business community, to join this committee to use their skills, their knowledge,
to help us find the means that will continue to protect our community and our people, and
grow our economy.
All members of this government are personally saddened by this turn of
events. We are all willing to work with the people of Labrador West to protect their
community and the jobs of those who proudly call it home. That continues to be my solemn
pledge, and that is the pledge that this government is reaffirming to the people of
Labrador City and Wabush here today. I will do whatever I properly can do to ensure that
the economy of Western Labrador remains among the top growth areas in the Province. That
has been my goal and my record for the two and one-half years. Indeed, it has been the
goal and record of this government for the past two and one-half years. I will continue
aggressively with any person or any group, despite the circumstance, to ensure that the
communities of Labrador City and Wabush are protected, our economy is strong, our people
are sound and they are comfortable in their long-term security.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a petition for the
undersigned residents of Labrador City.
WHEREAS we, the residents of Labrador City, condemn the provincial
government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador
resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing
within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West says that the people of
Labrador West signed this petition out of anger and frustration. I disagree, Mr. Speaker.
They signed this petition because they believe in the basic fundamental principle set out
in this petition, which is that a policy of secondary processing within the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be maintained, enforced, and insisted upon by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is not what has happened.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the member have condemned people for
trying to get out in front of a parade. Well, the parade that the people jumped in front
of on the government side was the member and the Minister of Labour up in Labrador
demonstrating in front of IOC.
It is alright for the Opposition to demonstrate in front of IOC, it is
alright for the people of Labrador to demonstrate in front of IOC and point out their
anger and frustration and point of view, but the government is the one with the power and
the duty and the obligation to protect the interests of the people of Labrador City.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Not standing on the gates in some grandstand, not
grandstanding at the gates of IOC, but here in this Legislature with the power of
government to insist that the right thing be done. That is why these people signed the
petition.
Yes, they are angry at the government. They are not angry and
frustrated at themselves. They are not angry and frustrated at the powerlessness of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are angry at this government for failing to
carry out the basic fundamental principles which, in other circumstances, this government
beats its breasts and sings its own praises on from one corner of the country to the
other.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier - he
mentioned another Premier. He did not say where it took place, he did not say who it was,
he was being very subtle. He said there was another Premier in another place on November
5, who said something about: Exporting your mineral resources is exporting jobs.
He did not say that it was Premier Bouchard speaking in Tetford Mines.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: He was asking his question in stages. That was coming
next. That was the clock. He was waiting for the one, two, punch. That was number one and
he did not get a chance to ask number two. Well, number two is this: If it is good enough
for Premier Bouchard in Quebec to say, in protection of his own people, that to export
minerals is to export jobs, why isn't it good enough for our government and our Premier
and our people in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to going to get on any
anti-Quebec tirade. The people of Quebec have the right to protect their own interests and
I will support them when they try to do that, but this government here is falling down on
protecting the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with our resources and
we should do no less for our people than Premier Bouchard is going to try and do and wants
to do for the people of Quebec.
So, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to condemn the people of Quebec for
wanting to get those jobs. What we do have to do is ensure that the people of this
Province get the jobs that they are entitled to with our resources and with our future.
Mr. Speaker, when are we going to stand up? That is what I want to
know, when are we going to stand up? When it really comes down to the crunch on Voisey's
Bay, where will the Premier and this government be? Where will they be? For the last
year-and-a-half we have been given all kinds of assurances. You know, the little debate in
the House of Assembly last June with a private member's resolution supported by the
government about protection of our resources. The impression that they were giving was
that the fix was in. The fix is in, people. You don't have to worry because this
government is going to ensure that the pellet plant is going to be built in Labrador West
because we have the boys, we have the buckoes who are going to do it. We are the new kids
on the block and we are going to beat the band and tell people how it is to be done. Don't
you worry, folks, because the future is in our hands and it is in good hands.
Well, that is the same thing they are saying about Voisey's Bay. It is
the same thing they are saying about Voisey's Bay, and I really wonder what kind of
analysis this government has done when its own analysis of 400 construction jobs for two
years and 300 for another have no net economic benefit to the Province. Who is doing the
analysis, Mr. Speaker? I suppose we lost money on Hibernia too, did we?
I cannot understand how this government can do an analysis and say
there is no benefit in 400 construction jobs. If they were announcing a project, they
would say: Oh, there are 400 jobs, there are 800 jobs, there are thousands of jobs, and
the benefits are outstanding.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I question this government's creditability on the whole
issue of job creation and concern about the jobs and the future of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the
petition presented by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
I think it is not unusual to expect the people of Labrador City and the
people of this Province to be upset and frustrated. The people there want to see their
children raised in Labrador City, too, and into the future, because it is a resource.
How often in the past have we said it? We have said it since 1949,
since Confederation and prior to that, that we are giving away the resources of this
Province.
This government, two years ago, brought in a Mineral Act that they
loudly boasted about, that is important to ensure that minerals are processed here in this
Province. They defined and they said, where economically feasible. They did not specify
that the company's operation - and quantify, or even qualify in any degree, what
economically feasible means.
What this government has done now is, they have said to the
multi-national giants out there, who are in this case making over $100 million profit a
year, they are telling them now that we are going to segregate every part of an operation
and define what is economically feasible in this sector or this sector, and allow you to
get away with it.
The company is taking iron ore out of the ground in Labrador, in this
Province, and will for probably 120 years, at a cost average of less than $2 million a
year, if the figures they use are accurate. We are saying to them now, let's cave in and
let it go to Sept-Iles.
It should not be, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should
not tolerate it. The people of Labrador West do not want to tolerate it, and none of us
should tolerate it because it is wrong.
Now we are going to turn around and say to Inco: You must build a
smelter refinery. You must build it here. When you have now set a precedent and you have
defined that economically feasible can be used to identify a small sector, a large sector,
or whatever sector it is, of your operation. You have opened the door to give them a legal
foundation, and if something is not done about it we are securing forever the resources of
our Province in the hands of people outside our Province.
I will not get on an anti-Quebec crusade. It is not anti-Quebec, it is
not anti-anybody. It is pro-Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what it is. That is all it
is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: We are seeing now a tolerance to produce a certain
pellet that has a high market ability. What is going to happen in the future? What is
going to happen when production levels have to change, or if production levels do change
and are going on the market? Where do you think the jobs are going to be affected? In the
more modern, reactivated, specialized pellet as a marketable product, or the one that is
down in Labrador that we would not allow to go through this phase to modernize and expand?
That is the problem we have here. We are making decisions today that
are affecting the lives of individuals in this Province for years to come. We are sick and
tired. I do not care what government did it in the past; it is immaterial to me. We have
to stop looking at the present and have to start preparing and ensuring that we are going
to have revenues to come in the future. If we do not do it now, it will never get done. It
is giving Inco a green light to do what they want to do.
I cannot see the Mineral Act - we stood here and said, Inco must
process it. The Premier said it. I have read it here. I have a whole book of quotations
here on what everybody said here in this House - the Member for Labrador West and
everybody else. What I am hearing today is not what we heard back some time ago. It is
completely different. The landscape changed. People have changed their minds. They have
caved in. What I am asking is: When did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador get
elected to fight for multi-national corporations?
It is easy to beat up on Inco. It is just as easy to beat up on North,
or on anyone, but we have to look at jobs. I say to the Member for Humber East, we have to
start looking at security and jobs for people in our Province.
No wonder there are frustrations. I am frustrated with this. I am
disappointed with this stand, to be honest with you. I am disappointed, and you should be
too. If you are not, there is something wrong, I say to the member. There is something
wrong if you are not disappointed with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I feel it. I do not see why, at an average of less
than $2 million a year over the life of this, that we are sacrificing 120 years of
employment for less than $2 million a year. That is what it equates to. That is the
long-term effect. Who cares? You can juggle figures. We had Hatch do a report, consultants
to tell you what you want to hear. They did a copper smelter one. They did them out in
Fogo Island, on the hospital out there.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: You will get whatever you want to get from the
consultants' report, I can tell you. I do not hold any faith in them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: We did give the member fifteen minutes extra leave.
Just a couple of minutes will do me, Mr. Speaker. I will not keep you any longer than I
have to.
I do get upset with this particular process here. We should be taking
on this company up there and saying: If you are not going to pelletize it here, leave the
darn thing in the ground. Do not take it out of there. Leave it there.
I would sooner starve, I tell you, than see it go out and starve our
children and our grandchildren in the future. That is what I would say.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I said that is what I would say.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: My position, I tell you, and the party's position,
is: It should go in Labrador West. It should go in this Province. That is the position of
the party, it should go in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: My position is, if it does not go in Labrador it
should not go anywhere. That is where it should go. That is pretty clear. What don't you
understand about that, I say to the minister? Is there anything you don't understand about
that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Right now we are making a fundamental decision on
further processing. You brought in a Mineral Act since that started, I say to you, and I
heard the Minister of Finance saying a few months ago - I said last spring, he is
preparing the stage for going to Sept-Iles. He said: We have to start looking at making
sure that these companies pay more in royalties. He was setting the stage to give it away
to Sept-Iles. It was a statement made by this government, and I took note and said: You
watch down the road. He is trying to set the stage that the company would agree to pay us
a few extra pennies in exchange for jobs for 120 years.
That is basically what has happened there. I do not agree with the
decision. In case it is not clear, I will say it again. I do not agree with taking
minerals out of this Province and further processing them in other provinces or any other
part of the world at the expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a couple of comments with respect to the petition,
for the record, to make sure we have in Hansard the position of the Opposition completely
and totally clear on this matter. Because unless the Leader of the Opposition is going to
rise and contradict his House Leader, then what I understood from the interjection just
made is that the position of the Official Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador is that
we should determine the dollar amount difference between what it would be to activate the
smelter in Sept-Iles, and what it would be to build an extension in Labrador City, and we
should give the cash to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and amortize it over -
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Education is trying to make a statement here that I did
not make, and trying to put the same spin on a statement I made that he has been spinning
on education for so long. He is in that mode, I say to the minister; he is in that spin
cycle.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) I have left because I will not ask for any
additional time.
The government clearly, absolutely, supports the part of the petition
that says that secondary processing of ores and so on should occur in Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is the position of this government. It always has been. What we have here,
as I have understood it, and I am just trying to get it - because I listened very intently
- he suggested that the effect basically is that for $2 million a year for one hundred
years or so - which is what they are going to continue to mine - that we could pay out the
difference, and it was worth it, $2 million a year. The only way, Mr. Speaker, for that to
happen in the expansion is today to give that cash in a lump sum - which is $171 million -
to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and say: Now you have the difference, so now you have no
reason to build it in Quebec, so build it in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that will be repeated by the Leader of
the Opposition. I have not heard him contradict it, so it must be true, that that is the
position of the Opposition.
Because with respect to secondary processing - let's just use this
example to get it straight - last year the critic for the Department of Mines and Energy -
old copper top himself, as he is affectionately known around here - wanted the government
to commit to building a copper smelter. He wanted us to make sure that we would demand
that Inco would build a copper smelter along with a nickel smelter. It did not make any
sense. It did not matter if it made economic sense. They said: Build the smelter.
What the government did was stood on the position, and continues to
stand on the position, that when it makes some kind of sense -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: The NDP would suggest that the government should take
over the whole operation, nationalize it, run the mine ourselves, and then we could make
all the rules because we would get the money ourselves. Because the reality is we need to
depend on somebody's money. Some investor has to come in to develop our resource. We make
sure we get the benefit from it, Mr. Speaker. Because we do not have the wherewithal to go
get the hundreds of millions of dollars as the Government of Newfoundland to run a mine in
Labrador West.
The Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade and other people want
the government to set the right economic tone and the right economic framework in the
Province so that investors from around the world will come here with their money and
develop our resources for our benefit. That is what has been happening in Labrador City
for over forty years.
They would have you believe that the shovels are putting raw ore in the
back of a truck, putting it on a train, and taking the raw ore to Quebec. They are talking
about taking raw ore out of Labrador. It has never happened in the history of the
operation. One of the refined products of the operation has always been concentrate along
with pellets. There is a whole mine in Wabush built on no pellets but shipping out
concentrate. Not lumps of raw ore, Mr. Speaker, but concentrate, which is a partially
finished product.
We are trying to make sure, when people like the Member for St. John's
South blurts out: Oh, this is different than Inco and Voisey's Bay, that we get the crowd
in Voisey's Bay and Inco to do the kinds of things in Newfoundland and Labrador that they
have been doing in Labrador West for forty years.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the level of the debate gets raised a bit over the
next few days. I do want to make clear for the record that the Opposition's position is:
Find out exactly how much the difference is in money, and give the cash to IOC today. That
is what he said in his presentation with respect to the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under Standing Order 23,
Section 2, I would like to move the following
emergency resolution:
WHEREAS the Tobin Administration began its mandate by drawing a line in
the sand against the exploitation of our resources for the primary benefit of others and
committed to maximize local processing of our natural resources to give our people a full
and fair share - a familiar term - of those resources generated; and
WHEREAS the Tobin Administration has now acquiesced in giving North
Corporation and the Iron Ore Company of Canada permission to pelletize Labrador West iron
ore, not in Labrador West to create long-term stable employment opportunities here in this
Province but rather in Sept-Iles, Quebec, using our resources to create long-term stable
employment opportunities outside our Province; and
WHEREAS in view of the crucial implications of allowing this decision
to stand for even one more day and in view of the implications for our Province of the
legislation currently on the books that allows such a decision to stand, it is imperative
and urgent that the Tobin Administration take the action needed to reverse the decision
and amend the appropriate legislation immediately;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador, (1) to act immediately to reverse the decision granting
North Corporation and the Iron Ore Company of Canada permission to export Labrador West
iron ore outside the Province for processing and, (2) to give assurances that it will
introduce legislation to ensure that the natural resources of Newfoundland and Labrador
are developed for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, according to
section 23, I asked leave
to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent
public importance. The urgent public matter is what I have just stated.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Before you adjourn, I know the Speaker will look at this
matter, and look at it in the right and proper manner. I'm not standing for that reason to
suggest otherwise.
I would suggest to the House that indeed there is ample opportunity
under a number of bills and a number of headings on this Order Paper to debate this issue.
It is not a matter that is urgent. It is not a matter that requires urgent debate. While
the matter in some peoples' minds may be urgent it does not require urgent debate, it does
not require a special debate of this Legislature, because there is ample opportunity, as
has been shown here this afternoon, to bring forward every point that needs to be brought
forward.
What we have here is the Leader of the Opposition trying to get at the
head of a parade again. What we have here is an Opposition that is as inconsistent in
their positions as they are in their leaders. We just heard the former leader, who is
really the real leader, stand over there and say: Leave all of that mineral in the ground,
do not allow a piece to come out. In other words, close down Labrador City and quite
possibly Wabush. Now that is the kind of responsible debate that we are getting from the
other side on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, there is and there has been ample opportunity to debate
this and it does not require a urgent debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on the motion to adjourn for the purpose
of having an emergency debate I want to just say a couple of things.
As I understand the rules there are two requirements for an emergency
debate of this kind. Number one, it has to be a matter of urgent importance to the
Province as a whole. What could be more urgent than a decision of this nature, which is
the first opportunity we have had to debate this issue? The House only opened today, the
decision was only made a couple of weeks ago. It is a matter of urgency, as obviously
indicated by the presence in the gallery of that huge delegation from Labrador West. It is
something that will dictate the future of this Province, not just Labrador West, but of
the entire province, because it is a matter of fundamental resource policy. It has to meet
the urgency and the importance test.
The other test that I think is equally important - and there may be
some other technical ones that the Government House Leader wants to concentrate on -, the
other one that is of grave importance is whether or not there is ample opportunity to have
this debate and to have this resolution passed before the House at another time. The
answer is no there is not. If that were the test - the fact that we can have question
period and we can have Petitions - there would never ever be an emergency debate, there
would never ever be an emergency resolution, before any House of Parliament or any House
of Commons.
We have, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity, the first opportunity, to have a
resolution before this House which if passed would require the government to reverse this
decision. There is no other opportunity to have this resolution debated. Right now is the
time to do it. It is the most important issue in the Province today and ought to be dealt
with by an emergency resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is a matter of great public importance. It is a matter that
could determine the livelihood of people over the next 120 years. In this House - whether
it is or not - members of this House have the right to give leave to have this debated if
the members agree. They have that right.
I introduced a resolution just this past spring on approving some drugs
for relapsing and remitting MS and so on that eventually was announced in August. The
Premier stood in his place and said: Let's do it now, let's get the leave of the House to
do it now. He did that, and we debated that and voted in the absence of the Minister of
Health and Community Services who came home and did not know what happened after. It took
a few months. She made the announcement eventually.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: In her absence, at the right time, we introduced it,
I might add. The Premier stood in his place and we all gave leave to debate that issue.
Whether you determine if it is not public importance or not, what is wrong with members
standing and debating this issue by giving leave here in the House today?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will recess briefly to consider the matter raised by the hon.
Leader of the Opposition and will be back shortly with a ruling.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has considered the matter that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition has made. I want to point out to all hon. members that in an emergency debate
the key is the urgency of the debate and not the matter itself.
I refer to Beauchesne, '390, which says:
"`Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself,
but means `urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of
the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest
demands that discussion take place immediately."
Having looked at the agenda there is, in the Chair's opinion, ample
opportunity for the matter to be raised during the regular business hours.
I want to refer members to business during the regular business of the
House. I also want to refer to a ruling made by Speaker Ottenheimer. When a similar
situation came to the House he said: In my opinion the matter is obviously urgent,
obviously of public importance, but I do not concur that there is urgency of debate at
this moment.
I also want to refer to a ruling made by Speaker Lamoureux given in the
House of Commons and available in the Hansard of July 1996. He stated: That a motion is
acceptable only if it concerns a matter that has unexpectedly become urgent.
While the matter itself is urgent, there is no urgency for debate at
this moment.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 4, Bill No. 7, "An Act To
Amend The Credit Union Act."
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Credit
Union Act". (Bill No. 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and
Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few notes on the
amendments to the Credit Union Act which was brought into force in 1995.
Let me say that the amendments as identified in the twenty-eight
clauses in the explanatory notes are fairly clear in the fact that we are now into
separation of co-ops and credit unions. This act clearly deals only with credit unions.
Some of the highlights I would bring to you are the changes in order for credit unions to
become much more applicable and work much more for the memberships, and also allow some
borrowing concepts that had not been in the new act when it was brought into force in
I do not know if there are any particular clauses in the twenty-eight
that are identified here that my hon. colleague on the other side might want to ask some
questions on. The bill clearly identifies that we are now in an age when credit unions are
becoming a much bigger player in this Province. What they are doing is ensuring that there
is another method of dealing with financing other than the institutions that we normally
have, through the banks. The credit union movement in the Province has certainly expanded
its role in the last number of years.
Let me just highlight a few of the changes that will be made through
these amendments. One is to do with trade associations. Under the new Credit Union Act
that was passed in 1995 - that was not proclaimed by the way - the Credit Union Act and
regulations in 1995 provided for mandatory membership in Central.
What these amendments do is this. Because there was a conflict very
shortly after that act was brought into place, a conflict within the credit union movement
with respect to the role and operation of Credit Union Central, in order to resolve the
conflict, regulations were changed to provide voluntary membership in Central rather than
mandatory membership. Subsequently, five credit unions withdrew from Central and formed
their own association, and the alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union is
limited.
What happened was that under some of the rules in the sections of the
act that was enacted in 1995, they did not work and the credit unions wanted some changes
made.
The new amendment provides for the continuation of both trade
associations, incorporation of other trade associations, and also endorses the concept of
voluntary membership, and also moves provision for the purposes of the powers of trade
associations and regulations. Also, these changes and amendments to the Credit Union Act
will make changes to the board appointments to the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee
Corporation. These changes too are certainly requested by the credit union movement.
Certainly, prior to 1994, regulations prohibited employees and board members of credit
unions in Central from being appointed to the board of the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee
Corporation due to the potential conflict. In 1994 this restriction was lifted with
respect to Central and the new act, 1995, was drafted on this basis.
Subsequently, conflict situations arose with respect to the Central CEO
being on the board of the Deposit Corporation, and the regulations were amended to
reinstate the restriction. In 1995 the act was amended again. Under these amendments the
employee and board members of credit unions are already restricted from serving on the
Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation.
The other highlighted area is the syndicated loans. These amendment
will see the new Credit Union Act applied to the syndicated loans. Under the 1995 act,
this act was silent with respect to syndicated loans. It has certainly since come to light
that the smaller credit unions cannot provide loans to certain groups, such as
municipalities, as the amounts required were too large. By making a provision for
syndicated loans two or more credit unions can get together to provide larger loans
through a formal syndicated loan process. This will be of benefit to credit unions as well
as their larger clients.
All of these amendments have been requested, and almost demanded, by
the credit union movement to enable them to function much better as a movement in this
Province. With these amendments we will have more modern legislation which will enable
government to effectively regulate credit unions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite glad to be back in this House of Assembly to discuss and
debate any legislation that will forthcoming in the next six to eight weeks, I would
imagine. I hope that we will not be sitting four or five nights all night long when this
government decides to bring in some legislation at the last moment, like they did last
year. We showed them last year what this side of the House is made of, that we can carry
this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries now should sit
in his place and say nothing. Because I watched a show the other day on television where
that man was down in Boston trying to sell the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
have to say that he did not do a very good job. I do not want to be too biased here, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to get up and malign
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. On a point of order yes, Mr. Speaker. I can not
allow him to get up and give incorrect information to this House. This year the fisheries
will be worth more to Newfoundland and Labrador than it has been for how long?
AN HON. MEMBER: In its history.
MR. TULK: In its history. Mr. Speaker, it is due to the efforts of
the Minister of Fisheries in places such as Boston. So I would ask the hon. gentlemen to
stand up and retract it. Take it away.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis speaking to the
point of order.
MR. J. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, no point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Will you take your seat?
There is no point of order.
The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Further to that, Mr. Speaker, no point of order.
Again, a record being made in the House of Assembly by the Government House Leader. He is
very seldom ever correct on a point of order. It is usually ruled against him, and again
today he is batting zero as usual.
Back to the Minister of Fisheries with respect to the speech he gave
down in Boston. I was watching it, and I am responding to a point that the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture made. Even the moderator or interviewer on that show referred to
that man as given a (inaudible) speech.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: While I know that debate is wide-ranging on second
reading of a bill, I would like for the hon. gentleman, if he could, to stand up and tell
us what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's actions on a television program in
Boston has to do with the Credit Union Act.
MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. Government House Leader has pointed out,
the debate is usually wide-ranging at this stage during second reading. I will draw to the
hon. member's attention that we would like for his comments to be relevant to the bill.
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will make it relevant. You want to know how
it is relevant. We were talking about credit unions, loaning of money to private
individuals, to co-operatives, possibly to fish plants, I would say, Mr. Speaker. The
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is down trying to sell this Province to the world.
Of course, these companies would have to approach different financing institutions for
funding - other than government -, and of course they may end up going to a credit union.
That is the relevancy. It is not to hard to figure out. It may be a bit difficult for
members at that side of the House to add up two and two to make four.
Mr. Speaker, seeing that it is 4:56 p.m., I will adjourn debate and
finish this off tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, you were going to put the question on the
adjournment motion.
I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., at which
time we will consider Bills 7 and 10.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday,
at 2:00 p.m.