Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 18 November 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 43)
1998-11-18
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 18, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 43
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine business, the Chair would like to take this
opportunity to recognize and welcome new and returning Commissionaires. Our new
Commissionaires are Gwen Sprett, Robert Triska, Calvin Vincent and Peggy McCleod. Our
returning Commissionaires are Ladd Bursey, Kathy Reardon, and Yves Choquett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the
House for a few brief minutes.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go ahead.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak very
briefly about a new industry that opened up a few months ago in my district, Catalina, an
industry that employed up to 175 Newfoundlanders, an industry that is owned by
Newfoundlanders, operated by Newfoundlanders, and producing a product second to none in
this world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I brought a sample of what is being
produced at that particular industry, and I have it with me here today. I am going to pass
it around the House and let the people in the people's House take a look at those seal
skins that are being produced in a plant in Catalina. I will pass it along and let each
individual member look at the product, and hopefully the media will pay some attention to
it as well.
This particular company produced over 1,500 tons of seal oil this year,
employed 175 Newfoundlanders with a payroll in excess of $1 million. I just want to make
the House aware of that, and to say that this is going to be an industry that is not new
to the Province because it was always carried out in a very small way, but today it is
being done commercially. It offers an opportunity for rural Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to be able to live and raise their families right here in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I accept the flattery from my
colleague opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: The one and only time I accept anything from a Tory.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should have also mentioned
is that because of the new policy that this government brought in a little over two years
ago, it was the first time in the history of the Province that we had a seal tannery. In
other words, we are not allowing any product to go out of this Province to be further
processed anywhere else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: To add to that, we now have the second tannery, one
which will be opened and operating this year in the member's district, Baie Verte.
To add to that, we have now the largest production of seal oil capsules
in the world. We just had a company come in from China, go down to Port Union, and in one
order buy 2 million capsules to take back to China.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we are moving rapidly in the right
direction - a new turn for the future of the fishing industry presented by this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is the second sample we have been presented with in the House.
Last fall I was given a package of seal oil capsules by the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture. I used them all winter and it helped my arthritis tremendously. Now we have
other material evidence of the ingenuity of Newfoundlanders and the ability to produce
first-class, world-class products from our own natural resources.
I am delighted with the success in the member's district and the
forthcoming news we are going to hear about in Baie Verte. We are developing these
products, notwithstanding the kind of stuff that goes on internationally about this
particular product. It is a worthy product, deserving of support and deserving of any kind
of market it can receive.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is more good news.
Now that the peak period of activity for our commercial fisheries has
passed, I am pleased to provide hon. members with an overview of the industry's
performance so far this year.
Preliminary figures indicate that to date there has been an increase in
employment, an increase in landings, an increase in landed value, and an increase in
export value.
For the January to October period this year, up to 25,000 people were
directly employed in the fishing industry. For that period, the average monthly employment
in the fish harvesting and processing sectors was 17,400.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many?
MR. EFFORD: Seventeen thousand. That is the average monthly
employment - 17,400 - with a total of 25,000 people employed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of 2,000 - or 13 per
cent - over the same period in 1997. Of that increase, 1,100 were employed in the
harvesting sector and 900 in the processing sector.
What I find most encouraging is not only that more people were directly
employed by the fishery but that many were working for longer periods than previously.
Furthermore, we estimate that this fishing activity is generating the
equivalent of an additional 5,900 jobs elsewhere in the provincial economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: In short, the fishing industry is responsible for close
to 31,000 direct and indirect jobs in this Province. Clearly, the fishery is contributing
in no small measure to the fact that this fall 208,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
were employed. That is an employment level not reached in this Province in many years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, figures for fish landings for the first
ten months are not yet available. However, I am pleased to report that for the January to
September period this year, approximately 206,600 tons of fish were landed, having a
landed value of close to $320 million. Add the landed value of seals to that and the total
landed value exceeded $331 million.
What is significant is that the landings for the first nine months this
year were up substantially by 48,000 tons over the same period in 1997.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: That is an increase of 30 per cent. The landed value
increased by $83 million - or 35 per cent - for the same period. The increases reflect a
10,000 ton increase in landings and $22 million in landed value of snow crab. Most
noteworthy is the fact that the 49,000 tons of Northern shrimp landed by the inshore and
offshore sectors were more than double the landings for the same period in 1997, and the
landed value of this species jumped from $63 million to $115 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Most of these increases resulted from an approximate
20,000 ton increase in new inshore Northern shrimp fishery.
In terms of the export value of our products, preliminary figures
indicate that an estimated export value - I suggest the hon. member should listen to these
numbers - of $585 million for the first nine months of 1998 has exceeded the export for
the entire twelve months of 1997.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, our commercial fisheries are making a
significant contribution to our economy, particularly in rural areas where close to 25,000
people are earning a livelihood from our renewable marine resources. Not every plant is
open, not every person who would like to be working in the fishery is doing so, but what
is significant is the direction the fishery is taking. Many plant workers are working
longer periods. Better prices to fish harvesters reflect, among other things, the
implementation of new quality assurance measures. The harvesting sector is evolving as
multi-species operations. Private sectors investment in such species as shrimp is strong,
indicating the confidence the industry has in the direction the fishery is taking.
All these factors are creating a more stable and viable fishing
industry that will be even stronger as work continues to diversify the industry and
develop new fisheries and underutilized species. These development initiatives, combined
with a sound quality assurance program and market development strategies, will ensure that
our fishery will continue as a strong indicator of solid economic and employment growth in
this Province.
Furthermore, I am working with my colleague the Minister of Development
and Rural Renewal to develop a policy to utilize what is now a waste product in crab and
shrimp shells as well as fish offal. This policy will mean total utilization of all our
fish products and will increase the landed and export values of our fisheries, and create
even more employment opportunities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, thank the Lord for divine
intervention.
There is no doubt there is good news in the fishery. There is no doubt
that we are seeing the export value of our fish products, I think, close to $600 million,
the minister has stated, this year. The reason for that is because with most of our
exports this year and in recent years we are shipping and exporting much higher value
products. As much good news as the minister reads, and he does admit it, the sad part
about it is that we are not seeing the numbers employed in the fishery as we did before.
Hopefully that will change.
I witnessed some good news in my district again just a couple of
Fridays ago when the minister and the Leader of the Opposition went down to my district,
and we witnessed the opening of a new shrimp plant. Fishery Products International spent
in excess of $11 million on a plant that just a few short months ago the CEO was trying to
sell for one dollar. I said: Mr. Young, is it still available for one dollar? He said: You
give me $16 million and one dollar and you can have it. That is the change of attitude and
that is what is happening.
The minister now has to start focusing his attention on some other
things. He has to start focusing his attention on what the fishery of the future will be
like. There are a lot of questions left unanswered out there. He has to focus his
attention and convince his federal cousins up in Ottawa to have a commercial cod fishery,
a commercial inshore fishery again, in areas like 3PS and on the northeast coast where the
index fishery and the 20,000 ton allocation in 3PS showed that it can sustain a commercial
fishery.
The minister has to do more than write letters to his federal
counterpart to allow fishermen to go out and buy bigger boats so that they might be able
to fish in some degree of comfort, and be able to go out with some degree of safety. The
minister lost control. He lost control of the Fisheries Loan Board when he put it in the
hands of the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. He lost control and made the
fishermen of this Province slaves to the merchants again. That is what he has allowed to
do. If the minister was strong and vigilant he would have demanded that the Fisheries Loan
Board, while it would be changed, would forever rest in his department -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. FITZGERALD: - so he could control what was happening in that
particular industry.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: While the minister stands and pats himself on the
back, and I share his joy, there are still lots of problems in this industry.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, having heard
the member just speak, that for myself a moment ago, having heard the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, I nearly jumped up, I was so moved by his stewardship, and
resign my position and turn it all over to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
because of the tremendous job he is doing for Newfoundland and Labrador!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear though, I was
only tempted.
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.
It is always good to hear that the figures on the fishery are going in
a positive direction, whether it be employment, value-added, export value. I want to
caution the minister and the government. My colleagues in Ottawa in the New Democratic
Party, the fisheries critic for example was telling me the other day, that it was very
difficult to get any sympathy in Ottawa for rural Newfoundland, for out-migration, for the
fisheries. Because every time we bring up the subject we are told that the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador is always talking about how
wonderful things are, and the Premier is always talking about how wonderful thing are. He
said: They do not see anything wrong, what is wrong with you? You are from Nova Scotia up
here telling us there is something wrong with rural Newfoundland because people are
leaving rural Newfoundland.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tells us everything is great,
the Premier tells us everything is great. I say be cautious, Minister. It is nice to see
things going in the right direction, but when we have 40,000 people leaving this Province,
and we need programs to ensure the survival of rural Newfoundland, it is no good telling
Ottawa everything is rosy and hunky-dory. Because we know here that it is not. With 18 per
cent unemployment, plus 40,000 people leaving this Province in several years, we cannot go
around patting ourselves on the back too much, because we are not likely to get any
sympathy anywhere else. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Forestry and silviculture have become a valuable employment alternative
for the rural economy in many areas of our Province. Forests that have been
silviculturally treated maximize the yield, survival and growth of the forest.
Twenty-one new or extended silviculture projects have recently been
approved creating 1,371 person weeks of work. An extra $600,000 of Transitional Jobs Fund
money has been negotiated with the federal government, a federally-funded program, and has
been allocated to continue the silviculture projects such as pre-commercial thinning, cone
collection and plantation maintenance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: We are extremely pleased with the Employment
Initiatives Program for forestry related activities. Over the past year 87 agreements were
entered into. We provided employment for 704 persons, creating an estimated 8,000 weeks of
employment, with an investment of over $3 million. Related to many other employment
sectors, the employment investment ratio for silviculture is very high, as 75 per cent of
every dollar is paid out in wages.
Most silviculture is conducted in rural areas, employing rural
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Forests that have been silviculturally treated continue
to build equity and support the future of our rural economy.
I would like to take the time to thank the federal minister, the hon.
Pierre Pettigrew, and the hon. Fred Mifflin, our federal minister, for their continued
support for forest related initiatives through the Transitional Jobs Fund Program.
Thirty-one projects were completed to augment the long-term wood supply
for thinning 968 hectares. Roadside improvement projects treated 95 hectares, and 64
hectares were planted in the Roddickton area.
Other forestry related projects completed were wood removal, trail
construction, road maintenance, and road improvement.
The resource benefits of this work effort include an increase in forest
growth, resource growth, value of salvaged wood, and reforestation. The human resource
benefits are meaningful work and support our rural economy.
We must continue to invest in our forests. We must continue to increase
the yield of our forest products and provide meaningful employment for our rural
communities.
Mr. Speaker, to take a minute, I want to show the House of Assembly:
these are from two trees that are the same age. One was treated silviculturally with the
work that we have done over the last few years. They are the same age, and the difference
in the growth is amazing. That is the kind of thing we have to keep doing, and we look
forward to working with the federal government on this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: I wonder what the minister is using for fertilizer,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I just got it as I
came into the House of Assembly. There is no doubt, when we talk about silviculture, what
it can do. That is evidenced as he has shown us today in his example here, and we
encourage it. The only thing we would add to that is to say more.
Of course, it is something that is for the long term. It is something,
especially as the minister pointed out, in rural Newfoundland; a lot of those jobs were
created in that area. It is well needed, believe me. As every day goes by in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, that is needed more and more.
Also, the minister knows that besides silviculture, the current
harvesting practice of today is something that also has to be looked at, when we look at
the harvesters and the way trees are harvested today in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have
some problems there that have to be addressed. It is fine to say we are going to work on
silviculture, but at the same time we have to look at our current harvesting practices to
ensure that we have a long-term industry in the forest industry, and also that we look at
value-added in the forestry the same as in the fishery.
The plant that is about to start out in my area, as the minister knows,
that is the type of thing we need in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: The only thing we can say to silviculture is to keep
increasing on silviculture, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I had the pleasure of
proclaiming this week as the first annual Crafts Week. I would invite all members of this
House to join me in acknowledging and celebrating the important contribution the craft
industry is making to the economy of our Province.
The Newfoundland and Labrador craft industry is very diverse,
consisting of self-employed enterprises to small-scale niche manufacturing companies, most
of which are based in rural areas of the Province. In the past ten years, the craft
industry has grown five fold to its present annual value of more than $25 million, of
which $4 million is in export value.
The Department of Development and Rural Renewal, in partnership with
the Newfoundland and Labrador Craft Development Association, supports the industry through
a variety of programs, all of which are aimed at strengthening and growing individual
craft producers. Particular attention is being given to enhancing the marketing
capabilities of producers and exposing them to new market opportunities nationally and
internationally. Increased sales at home and abroad lead directly to new jobs, and
producers in this Province have proven they can compete with the very best. This year
alone saw several producers win national trade show competitions for the quality,
distinctiveness and market acceptance of their products.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to inform the House today that the
Province will be the official host of the annual Atlantic Craft Trade Show in February of
next year. This will be a significant opportunity to showcase the many talents of our
producers. This is the only wholesale craft trade show in Canada and is managed as a
partnership among the four Atlantic Provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador will be well
represented at this event. Over thirty local producers are expected to present their
products to more than 2,000 buyers from all around the world. Trade shows such as these
have assisted Newfoundland and Labrador craft producers secure markets as far away as
Germany and Japan.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw members' attention to the annual
Christmas Craft Fair sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Craft Development
Association, which will open tomorrow, Thursday, at Memorial Stadium in St. John's. You
will see there many of the fine crafts, apparel and giftware that are earning the
Newfoundland and Labrador craft industry a national and international reputation for
excellence. Better still, I urge all members to purchase locally made crafts as gifts for
the holiday season. You will be supporting the local industry and demonstrating your
impeccable taste at the same time.
I would ask all members to join with me in celebrating the success of
this vibrant and growing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that everybody in this House of Assembly supports the
craft industry. People in all parts of rural Newfoundland - as a matter of fact, in my own
district there is a person who works with crafts who is using the Internet now to sell
those particular crafts, and is getting orders from all over the world. It certainly is a
growing industry. People in this part of the Province have a chance to express their
culture through these crafts and so on.
Another thing that has been mentioned to me by people in the crafts
industry is how Sunday shopping has affected the craft industry. Maybe that point should
be raised again to assess how that effects the craft industry. It has a negative impact,
no doubt about it.
We all support the craft industry, and we hope that it flourishes and
grows. Hopefully it will give some much needed employment to some rural parts of
Newfoundland which take this industry very seriously.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 government has declared a proclamation of Crafts
Week for the first time. Crafts are important in a number of respects. They provide
opportunities for rural Newfoundlanders, but they also provide opportunities for artistic
expression. Many of our crafts are now not merely crafts or home crafts; they are in fact
works of art that are displayed at the Devon House Craft Gallery in my district here in
St. John's. They are recognized as a significant artistic contribution to our culture and
to the enjoyment of material goods by people.
We also have in my district the Anna Templeton Centre. Unfortunately we
did not see strong enough government support to continue it full-fledged as a craft
centre.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: There was insufficient support from government on that
level.
We do believe that crafts have a lot to offer people, and I would like
to encourage all members to visit the Devon House Craft Gallery, to visit the craft fairs,
and to make full use of these as Christmas gifts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since bringing down its Budget this spring, the government has made
several major decisions with significant impact on the Province's fiscal position. The
Minister of Finance's statement on Monday could be called many things: a short story, an
essay, maybe a tall tale. One thing it was not was a financial statement; that is for
sure. Financial statements, I think everybody would agree, normally and generally contain
numbers. This did not.
In view of the fact that the minister would not ask the questions, I
would like to ask the Premier today: With respect to the Contingency Fund, you made a
commitment in the House that the Contingency Fund was put in place in the Budget to act as
a cushion in case of emergencies that arose, and some have. Obviously it has been spent.
Can you tell the House today what the Contingency Fund of $30 million was spent on? When
was it spent, and what was it spent on?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to await the return of the
Minister of Finance to give you detailed accounting. If the Leader of the Opposition wants
to have a detailed accounting of every expenditure of the government in a budget of 3.5
billion, he ought to give us a little notice and we would be glad to give him that
accounting.
The fact of the matter is that we are not fully through the year and I
am not sure - in fact, I am fairly sure at this stage of the game that the government is
not running in a deficit position. We are still, Mr. Speaker, well within budget. The
question is whether or not by the end of the fiscal year we are able to hit a $10 million
deficit target, or whether we are going to have a larger deficit than that which has been
forecast.
The minister has already said that he assumes that with the decline of
world economic growth being forecast to go from 3.1 per cent - he said this in his
statement - down to 2 per cent, with the economies of Canada, the United States, Europe,
and every province of Canada adjusting their expectations, that it is reasonable to assume
that Newfoundland and Labrador will not exist in a bubble and be totally insulated from
what is going on in the rest of the world. Therefore there will have to be some adjustment
in our Budget Estimates as well.
Mr. Speaker, to stand today, when we are partway through the fiscal
year, and ask for an accounting of all expenditures before all expenditures have occurred
including, by the way, using up all of the contingency fund, demonstrates quite frankly
that the Leader of the Opposition simply does not understand the way in which the finances
of the Province work.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: We will see, Premier, whose definition works or does
not work in a few moments. I asked the Premier these questions because the Minister of
Finance and Treasury Board obviously chose not to answer them. He chose not to be
accountable to the people of the Province. We will get to that in a second.
I would like to ask the Premier this. Since the spring Budget and the
close of the House of Assembly, the government reached an agreement with respect to the
troubles and the unfunded liability portion of the teachers' pension plan. Could the
Premier tell us today what, if any, impact that decision had on current account? In other
words, what will be the cost of that agreement on this year's finances?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is really
taking us through an amusing series of questions, the answers to which - most of which -
he already knows.
On the question of the unfunded pension liability, that does not have a
significant impact on this year's current Budget Estimates. He knows that. I do not know
why he is asking the question.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has indicated that it would not have a significant impact.
Again, that is not the question I asked. I asked: What was the impact financially?
Let me ask him another question. Since the spring Budget, the
government reached a collective agreement with respect to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association. What, if any, impact did that agreement have, in financial terms, on
this year's finances that was not budgeted in the statement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we can spend all of question period
with the Leader of the Opposition in a desperate attempt to portray something even
resembling intelligence in the area of financial statements, asking questions one at a
time.
The answer to the question of the impact on the settlement with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is $32 million, I believe, out of the budget
of the Department of Health and Community Services. That is money that was provided for in
the Budget Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services. I do not know
what the Leader of the Opposition is getting at.
I can say this. I believe what the Leader of the Opposition is doing,
quite frankly, is irresponsible. The Leader of the Opposition spent Monday in the House
criticizing the decision of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not to spend $170
million to close the gap on IOCC, and he wants to spend Wednesday saying that although
Monday he thought we had $170 million to throw away, that Wednesday there is a crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell him something. The retail trade of this
Province who are counting on the Christmas season, and the employees of this Province,
including the 30,000-plus public servants, do not want somebody falsely raising a claim of
crisis when there is no crisis, no matter how many little questions you ask.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is obvious that the government is on spin cycle as
opposed to the work cycle, is all I can say, Mr. Speaker. No one is creating the crisis.
Maybe the Premier is not aware that his own Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said
five weeks ago, that it could be $85 million. A couple of days before that he said it
could be $55 million.
All we are asking for is accountability, Premier. I want to ask you
this. Surely, Cabinet has been briefed on the mid-year financial statements as they
normally are each and every year. What has been the impact of the out-migration this year
on this year's Budget Estimates?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let every single public servant in the
Province, 30,000-plus, many of whom have negotiated three-year collective agreements with
the government in good faith, let all of the retail trade of this Province who at this
time of the year are getting ready for what is their most important season, let them all
take note of a line of questions which has been answered over and over, designed to create
a feeling of unease, a feeling of insecurity, an expectation of layoffs or cutbacks, an
expectation of an economy in free-fall, of a financial position out of control, all
designed to create crisis; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who says he wants some
day to be premier of this Province, is prepared to play that kind of game because he wants
a headline, even if in the process he puts at risk the small business community of this
Province and causes fear and concern in the 30,000 public servants of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks ago was telling
the world that Newfoundland and Labrador might run a $150 million deficit this year. That
is absolutely false. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to be
leader of a government, grow up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Premier of the Province wants to
continue to be Premier, it is time for you and your government to start to be accountable,
Premier. That is the purpose of these exercises.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say this to the Premier. It is obvious to me
that this Premier's definition of accountability is different from the former premier's
definition of accountability. Because the same Minister of Finance and Treasury Board
three years ago rose in his place, November 3, 1995, and updated the Province on the
financial situation. He said:
"During the first half of the fiscal year several developments
have occurred which have caused our fiscal position to deteriorate by approximately $60
million. Our net expenditures have increased by approximately $15 million while our
estimated current account revenues declined by about $45 million."
The reality is that the same minister three years ago could stand in
his place and be accountable to the people of the Province. The question remains, Premier:
Why could he not do it this year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that if you want to
compare leaders and former leaders, I knew the former leader and believe me, you are no
`Loyola.' He knew where he stood on all the major issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on education reform he would tell you
where he stood, even when it was not easy to tell you where he stood.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: The referendum has been over for nearly two years
and we still do not know where the current leader stood. He is still hiding.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, it is true, Leader of the Opposition, yes
indeed. We do not know where you stand on Churchill Falls, and we are not going to find
out. We only know where you stand when there is a parade and you can sniff your way to the
front of the parade.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Hustle, Mr. Speaker, like an anxious crab crawling
across the beach trying to get in front of the parade.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, if he
were serious, and if he expected me to respond seriously to these questions, would know
that the Province's finances are very much impacted by the adjustments and readjustments
and re-estimates of federal payments under the transfer program. I know that the Leader of
the Opposition has raised publicly the impact of population on transfers, and that is
true, that is a factor.
Tax rates. The performance of our economy verses the national average
is a very big factor. He would also know that the last re-estimates for the year come in
February. Shortly after that we get a federal budget. It is impossible and would be
misleading for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to stand and tell you this year
what his numbers are going to be in advance of knowing what the last federal re-estimates
are in that regard. I think what is important is this.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: We have go a Minister of Finance and Treasury Board
who has credibility in the business community, in the international financial community
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - who has done a tremendous job, and tells us not to
worry -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER TOBIN: - we are in solid control of the finances of the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have some question
today for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
Of course there have been many questions already raised about the
situation at IOC in Labrador City, and there is going to continue to be more questions as
long as some of the answers from the minister and from the Premier -
AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the question, (inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the question when I am ready, I say to the
minister. This is going to be a straight question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister
said that somewhere between, on average, over the years, it depends on $20 million to $25
million in royalties from IOC. On an average per year. I want to know if the minister
stands by those numbers when in fact this year's estimate was $29 million for the entire
royalty regime in revenues to this Province. Are you telling me that between $20 million
and $25 million of that $29 million comes from IOC? Is that right?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is accurate. What I said was that the
Leader of the Opposition asked me the average revenues coming from IOC, which is measured
5 per cent against net profits. So it is fluid; it changes each year depending upon the
profitability of the company.
With respect to the royalty fund, it is 20 per cent of the Iron Ore
royalty fund. On average it is somewhere in the order of $30 million a year, including
corporate income tax, including fuel tax, including payroll tax. On average it is $30
million a year.
What was the other half of the member's question, Sir?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: The corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker... I would like for
the minister to just explain straight up, and we will ask today that it be tabled in this
House, the royalties alone from IOC from last year. Would he table those royalties in this
House for last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: For last year? Yes, I will be happy to get the
royalties, specifically for the last ten years if he would like.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Just one more question for today. Once I get the
tabling of the royalties for tomorrow, hopefully, or soon -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have one question left for today. In
the eighteen months -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: One last question for the day, because I will wait to
see the tabling of the royalties in the House.
I want to ask the minister: In the eighteen months leading up to this
final decision, and all the talks and negotiations and discussions, was the royalty regime
ever discussed in these negotiations?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not here yesterday,
obviously, but the Leader of the Opposition asked that very question and I answered it,
and from the very Hansard that he is reading from. Look at the next paragraph and he will
see the answer. If he can't read it, the member from Torbay or St. John's East probably
will read it for him.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Minister, there has been a movement to centralize services on Fogo
Island for some time, and I might add it has been supported by the government of the day.
In fact, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just spoke, I think, at a
municipalities' federation and indicated the importance of centralization.
On Fogo Island now, the centre of the Island contains the schools, the
co-op, the police, and the regional council office. It has the stadium, the library, and
the Works, Services and Transportation offices. They have all been moved in a
centralization process.
Clearly, the central location on Fogo Island is rapidly becoming the
service growth centre of the Island; and it is happening, Minister, because it is fair. It
is the sensible choice, and it is accessible to all the residents of the Island. It is
closer to the airstrip and to the ferry terminal.
I want to ask the minister: Why now, Minister, are you throwing the
centralized planning to the wind and allowing a new hospital to be built in an area that
is further removed from 75 per cent of its population?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the member across the way had done his research, he would have known
that there have been two reports done about site location for a new facility in Fogo
Island. The most recent report, which was done by an outside consultant - which all
parties agreed they would accept the recommendation - that outside consultant group made a
recommendation that this particular facility would go to the centre - not to the centre of
the Island, but rather to the Town of Fogo.
The board received that recommendation, they accepted that
recommendation, and they wrote and asked me to concur with that recommendation, which I
did, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the people representing the concerned citizens of Fogo Island
have written you, and sent a copy to the Premier, and they are becoming disillusioned with
your lack of response to it, I say to the minister.
Yesterday, I received a copy and it is very disturbing. It was signed
by over 100 fishermen on Fogo Island, saying that they are going to refuse to sell their
product to be processed in Fogo. So what is happening on Fogo Island, Minister?
That is very serious. We are pitting resident against resident,
community against community, I say to the minister, because we have a consultant's report
that is flawed and biased.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she do what is right? Will
she take the necessary action and listen to the people in their legitimate fight to have
the hospital at the central Island location?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because the member who has
just spoken, the Member for Ferryland, has just introduced as an example of the level of
frustration that people are feeling, this notion that some fishermen - this is the reason
I rise - and other businesses are going to begin to boycott each other on Fogo Island.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for everybody in the House to
be aware that there is a difficult and sensitive - I would ask the member just to give me
a moment - conflict between communities on Fogo Island. There is no question about that. I
think there is no question equally that we need to find a process to facilitate a
dialogue. I should say to you that the Member for Fogo Island has been in to see me to
discuss this, together with the Minister of Health, to raise the serious differences that
exist on the Island itself, and the fact that those differences have spilled over into
other areas of economic activity.
I would hope, knowing the member opposite, that no member of this
House, including the member who just spoke, certainly nobody on this side, would ever
suggest that the way to bring about resolution of a conflict between communities - and it
sometimes occurs in rural Newfoundland - is, in any way, shape, or form, to validate or
give credence or credibility to actions where one community would boycott another. Because
that would give rise on a whole range of issues to a series of actions which quite frankly
would be counterproductive to life in rural Newfoundland. I would ask the member to be at
least clear with regard to that issue.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, in fact I am very concerned about that. The minister appointed a
board in this Province with responsibility for health care, to serve the people. I find
problems in a report that does not address the concerns and put proper weight in this
report to issues of importance.
I will ask the minister one question on this flawed report that I call
it: Do you think it is fair, or is there something wrong, when a consultant puts more
points to the views of a few medical people - three or four - as opposed to 3,500? There
is a spread of forty-two points by the opinion of a few medical people, and the whole
population of the Island only has, say, a credit towards forty points. We are asking three
or four people, and they are given more weight in this report. That direction had to come
from somebody. They had to sit down; they did not consult.
It is flawed, Minister, and you know it. I have gone through it and
discussed it. It has nothing to do with the politics of the situation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister now: Will she admit that there are
flaws in this report, it is not based on fact, that there is a false premise here, and go
get somebody locally to look at it, who understands the area and the issues here, not some
New Brunswick company to come in and tell everybody in a particular area what they should
do and what is best for them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to your warm-up before the question, I would like to make a
few comments.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: First of all, in response to the
preamble, I would
like to make some points to clarify some of the information that has been put forward.
If the member opposite had any knowledge of the type of issues around
the decision-making here, he would clearly understand why an outside group was chosen to
make this decision, because of the ongoing issues around those kinds of things; for
example, the site of the facility.
Second of all, I find it appalling that he would think that the
medical, the physicians', views would not be important when every other day in the House
he is standing up talking about the whole issue around physician and physician
recruitment.
Yes, that was certainly a very valid point that was raised in this
report, along with a whole lot of other issues in that particular report. Cost was also a
factor, location, firefighting services, and a whole range of other issues were also
rated.
Second of all, I think it is important to state that this is the second
time an independent report has been done and the same decision has been reached: that a
location for a new facility should be in the Town of Fogo.
I think most importantly I want to say again that the Member for
Twillingate has been actively working with us on this issue. He has expressed concern over
the level of anger and hostility that has been shown - and frustration - by all residents
on the Island.
As a matter of fact, we have appointed a mediator to go to the Island
to work with the people, to try to help them resolve their differences and outstanding
issues on this very important matter. We take this very seriously. We see the whole income
and impact of the Island being affected, and that is why we have moved in this direction
to appoint a mediator to go to and help the various towns resolve their outstanding
issues.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province.
Could the Minister of Justice please tell the people of the Province
how much of their money was paid out recently in the Atlantic Leasing case?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that he has written
the Department of Finance and asked for this figure. He has also been told that when the
money was paid out there was a non-disclosure clause which was put in at the request of
the company.
We have an obligation to the company to advise them -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) taxpayers.
MR. DECKER: Yes, we have an obligation to the taxpayers and
eventually the number will become public, no doubt. However, the hon. member knows that
when he wrote under the Freedom of Information there is a process which must be taken.
The Department of Finance has written to the company's council and
advised them that we have received this request, and we are awaiting a reply from the
company. We do not want to do anything which would in any way jeopardize the ongoing
business of that company. We want to make sure that we strike a balance between the rights
of the company and the rights of the taxpayer. There is no desire by government to cover
up the amount. I would be quite pleased to make it public as soon as we hear from the
company and we hear what they have to say. We have to be reasonable in this whole affair.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Tell the Minister of Justice how it is done, Mr.
Speaker. He has one of his lawyers from the Department of Justice prepare an application
for court. He and the lawyer for the other side attend upon the judge's chambers. That can
be done tomorrow. A proceeding can be put down in Applications Court, in the Trial
Division, the very next morning. Both lawyers can appear and we can have this matter
resolved.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is absolutely no justification for what this
minister has done on behalf of the government of the Province (inaudible) with the
people's money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: This government is entrusted with trust. The
people of this Province require that this government uphold the trust at all times.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is not being done. What possible justification,
I say to the minister, could there be? What possible rationale could exist, that this
government could enter into a gag order or any sort of non-disclosure agreement which
hides from the people of this Province the very money that this government is responsible
for?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this government does not have to take
direction from the hon. member as to how to govern and take into consideration the rights
of the taxpayers to have knowledge. We acknowledge that. We also have to take into
consideration the rights of a company to have this number made public at the appropriate
time. We do not want to do anything which would jeopardize a private company in this
Province.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting up and complaining
because we do not make the number public. I suspect if we did make that number public at
the wrong time, and we did hold ourselves up for another lawsuit, the hon. gentleman would
be the first one over there accusing us of opening up the Province for another lawsuit and
probably pay out some more money.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister fails to realize that in both the Trial Division
decision and the Court of Appeal decision, the government, the Administrators of the day,
were found to be negligent. In fact, the last line in the decision of the Court of Appeal
states: Such administrative intransigents can - and in this case does - constitute
negligence.
Let me ask the Premier: Is he comfortable today in knowing that around
him are the very ministers who sat several years ago at the time when the basis for these
decisions was in fact founded? Is he comfortable in knowing, and will he now hold his
ministers accountable for negligence as has been established and found by the senior court
of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when I look at where I am sitting, and
compare myself to where the member is sitting, I am extremely comfortable - and the people
who are around me.
When you get these kinds of questions that want to go back in time, I
can only borrow a phrase from the hon. John Crosbie, who would say that the member
opposite looks like he was weaned on a pickle, and the pickle was grown by Sprung
cucumbers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question for the Minister of
Mines and Energy concerns a question that I raised on a petition yesterday.
The government, in responding to the Chamber of Commerce in Labrador
West on a question as to what benefit the construction jobs would have in Labrador, the
Minister wrote, and I quote: Based on a preliminary analysis of this aspect of the project
there appears to be little direct gain to the Province related to the construction
project.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about 1,150 person years of
employment, and the government's attitude appears to be there is no direct gain in the
Province as a result of this project. What kind of an analysis is that, and what kind of
attitude does this government have to the necessity of this kind of job with the
employment opportunity in the Province of Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in typical lawyer fashion, the hon. member
has taken one sentence from a very long letter and twisted it completely out of shape. Let
me read the full sentence. Based on a preliminary analysis of this aspect - what aspect?
The aspect of applying the net gains to the treasury back against the capital cost to the
company. Would there be any net gain?
When you look at the capital cost, and recognize that there are capital
allowances which even it out, there really is no net gain. Of course the construction jobs
are important to the Province, but the question he is asking is the analysis of this
aspect - what aspect? - the aspect of the net gains to the treasury against the capital
cost for the company.
Do not twist it out of shape or put up a specious argument; be honest
with the letter and the facts that are in the letter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if that is the minister's explanation,
that we are only taking about the capital cost of the project verses the income tax that
the construction workers would pay, let me ask him this: What does he have to say about
the income tax that is going to be paid by the workers who are building that project in
Quebec and not in Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that capital cost going to be deducted
from the income tax that this company pays in Newfoundland, or deducted from their profit
next year and result in fewer royalties? Or is it going to have an extremely negative
impact on this Province's position because we are now, in fact, subsidising jobs down in
Sept-Iles?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. If the capital project
had proceeded on the Labrador side, roughly on personal income taxes it would be about $5
million. That $5 million can go nowhere to closing the gap of $250 million. The hon.
member knows that.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to table for the House
the reports of exemptions under the Public Tender Exemptions Act for the months of May,
June, July, August and September, and October will be along shortly.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to
present another petition from the Labrador West area.
WHEREAS 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, this debate started some time back. A lot of people from
Labrador West were here over the last few days to listen to the debate in the House, and
they were not very impressed because this very argument - before we get into details of
expenditures and viability and the expansion of IOC - goes to the very root of the problem
that we have seen in this Province year after year, and that is the resources of
Newfoundland and Labrador going out to benefit other Provinces, and we still see it
continue as we head into the new millennium. The people of Labrador West are finally at a
threshold where they are saying that enough is enough, it has to be stopped, and it has to
be stopped right now.
What they cannot understand is how inconsistent the government can be,
looking on one hand at the extreme of Voisey's Bay, and how tough they were there, and
then looking at IOC in Labrador City and the history they have had.
They believe that after thirty-eight years of mining in Labrador West,
of a resource that they say still has maybe 100 years' reserve left, that IOC is going to
continue to mine in Labrador West. It is not new. It is not like Voisey's Bay, and Inco
coming in and taking over. They believe their argument is sounder; that because this
company has had such a long history and made billions - we do not have the exact numbers
but it is safe enough to say that the Iron Ore Company of Canada had made billions of
dollars over the thirty-eight years that it has mined there... The good news is that they
want to expand, and everybody is glad. They looked at the markets and the demand is there
so they want to expand. The bad news is that they want to expand and the resource go
outside of Labrador West.
The way they talked about it, in the three days I spent in Labrador
West, is that they believe that this company should not even have the face, the gall, to
even consider - after the years they have been there and the money they have made over the
years - expanding outside of Labrador West.
They did not want to get into numbers and specifics on viability and
how big the expansion was. They wanted to say that this company and the new takeover by
North, after years there, the history of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador West,
if they are going to expand, it is a insult to them and an insult to every Newfoundlander
and Labradorian to believe that they want to expand outside this Province.
They did not like it very much, either - I will add to that - that the
Premier of Quebec - some people watched the debate last night and you could still see him
gloat to the fact that resources coming from Labrador West are going to put 200 to 300
people to work down in Seven Islands, Quebec. That is what they do not like.
It is driven so far now, and it is in people's minds right across this
Province, that again we are going to see our resource go out. They say this is the same
Premier - we said it here yesterday - who would take on Estai , the same Premier who
stood up to the Inco, the giant nickel producer of the world. He could all of those, and
there was nothing normal about how he took on those big factors.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is now 3:00 p.m. and it is Private Members' Day. Unless the Chair is
directed otherwise, we will now go to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The Goulds' bypass road worked.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. The hydro petition worked. The Goulds'
bypass road worked. Now that we (inaudible) that early, who knows? Jack's petition
yesterday on the school, and your very flattering comments - going to let him announce it
- that obviously worked. You never know, I say to the Minister of Education.
Mr. Speaker, I rise - I think the private member's resolution speaks
for itself - to talk about a significant development in the Province in the last little
while, and that is the decision by IOCC to relocate or to expand its pellet operation in
Sept-Iles, Quebec and not in Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular Labrador West.
This is a difficult issue for everybody. I understand that. It is not
something that we come to terms with easily. It must have been a bitter pill for
government to swallow. I guess the hub of my argument has been the question of economic
viability, or economically feasible. They are the same thing really. It is our contention
that such an expansion is very viable. It is our contention that such an expansion by
North Limited could have occurred. I will get to that in a few moments as we talk about
the Hatch report and other reports.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say this general remark. I was in
Labrador West for four days, myself and the critic for mines, the Member for Baie Verte.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Not necessarily. It depends on your point of view.
The sense of betrayal that we felt by people in the region was very
real and legitimate for the following reasons, as I see it. April 2, 1997, when North took
over IOCC's total as majority shareholder in IOCC's operation, it was clear in their own
release at the time that they indicated that part of the condition of sale was the
reactivation of the Sept-Iles plant. That was a year-and-a-half ago.
If that was the case, Mr. Speaker, obviously government was aware of
it, as we were, and obviously government took certain actions that would see that that
would not happen. I am not going to question anybody's motives here today. I don't think
that it will serve the debate whatsoever. I am not going to question the reasons why
people have taken stands because I do not think it will serve the debate, but I have to
question the decision.
Based upon questions that were asked in this Assembly last fall it was
clear that the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time indicated clearly, when asked
under direct questioning about this very decision would this happen, the answer was
clearly no. We passed a private member's resolution in the House unanimously, I believe,
generally speaking about resource developments in Newfoundland and Labrador, secondary
processing, value-added. A unanimous resolution passed in this House on a Private Members'
Day.
The people in the region - and I can only say it from this point of
view - have expressed to me, based upon the comments and the commitments made by ministers
in the Crown, that they felt that this would not happen. One individual said to me he
would have bet his life's savings, based upon what he felt were commitments by government,
that the expansion at Sept-Iles would not happen.
The Premier himself, I am told by people who were at the meeting, some
thirty or forty people who were there last year, when the concerns were raised by the
Chamber of Commerce, a meeting organized by the Chamber of Commerce, indicated to the
people and the leadership in the region that he would be the first person on the plane to
Australia where North's headquarters are located if this took place.
Nobody in this Province, and I am convinced nobody in this Legislature,
would want to see this decision happen again on any other resource. In fact, I believe it
should not have happened here. Government's contention has been this. They indicated
earlier that North had chosen a company to study the economic viability, the economic
feasibility, of expansion either in Labrador West at Carol Lake or expansion of the pellet
plant and its existing operation in Sept-Iles. It was indicated in the debates here,
certainly last fall, and it was indicated in the debates last spring.
I am led to understand from briefings by the Minister of Mines and
Energy's staff and the conversation and meeting we had with the company themselves that
last spring, when the company gave the Province its decision, showed the Province on what
basis they were basing that decision in the MetChem Bechtel report, that they said then
that they would be moving towards expanding the Sept-Iles plant.
The Province, I am led to believe, responded that they were so
flabbergasted by the numbers that they could not believe the numbers. They wanted their
own independent study done. Fair enough. The company told us - the Member for Baie Verte
was with me - that when we met with Mr. Porter and Mr. Oliver at IOCC's operation in
Labrador West, when we got into this discussion, they said that they would agree to such
an independent study only if they had some say in who was going to do it.
In other words, they did not want any company, we were told, to come in
to look at their numbers. They wanted to have, I guess, a notion that it was a credible,
reputable company. Some people have argued that the notion of independence has gone out
the window. You can argue that on both sides of the coin, but it is a moot point, as I see
it. It is a point that we can get into discussion on a little later.
The point is this. For government to get access to the company's own
records the company had to have input into who was going to do it. I am lead to believe -
again by government's own officials, by statements publicly by elected officials, minister
and otherwise, by the company - that when the Province said that Hatch was going to do the
study, the company had no problem. Nor should they have. Hatch has done a lot of work for
IOCC.
IOCC has been operating in this Province since 1938. Here is where the
roads, in terms of government's opinion and ours, start to diverge. Government entered
into a confidentially agreement with the company, on the one hand. Government then asked
Hatch to have a look at the MetChem Bechtel report. I believe what government should have
done then - and we have been asking them - was to expand the terms of reference for Hatch
to look at the total and complete operations of IOCC, factor in the expansion costs in
Carol Lake, and then determine if the expansion was viable or not. That is what I believe
government should have done. I believe that had they done it I think that what would have
been concluded is that IOCC, a subsidiary of North, is a very profitable company.
The Minister of Mines and Energy has indicated that government looked
at the study, without looking at the broader operations of IOCC, and said there is no way
we could make up the difference in the numbers. Obviously, that is true if you want to
look at it from that point of view. If you want to look at it with those narrow terms of
reference that government, in terms of Hatch, asked Hatch to do. They asked Hatch to
confirm or deny , essentially, what was in the MetChem Bechtel report. Hatch was not asked
to look at all of the operations of IOCC.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I guess that is the point. Mr. Speaker, government
may be able to stand from their point of view, in their own minds, and argue successfully
in favour of this private member's resolution because of the terms that I have used: terms
of jobs, secondary processing, where it is economically feasible. Because that is where, I
guess, the two roads diverge.
There have been many questions that have arisen since the decision has
been raised. For example, the concerns that the people in the region have, legitimate ones
have come to my attention, and to all of our attention I guess over time. The Minister of
Mines and Energy, I think on behalf of government, and the Premier on behalf of
government, will take the time to answer some of those. Legitimately, they are concerned
about the expansion in Sept-Iles. Who wouldn't be?
There are two lines in terms of the pelletizing operation there. People
in the region are concerned that if there is an economic downturn in the region, then who
is to say that the operation in Labrador West will not be the operation that the company
decides to shut down. That is what people in the region are afraid of. It is a legitimate
concern. I am sure that government is concerned about it. When asked directly what
commitments the company had given that this would not happen, we have not seen it. I hope
that they are there, but we have not seen it. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns.
The other thing I think we need to clearly understand from the public
debate is that there is no question that at the same time while North is a profitable
company in terms of a corporation - a worldwide, global company - that IOCC as one of its
subsidiaries is very profitable. Actually it represents about 33 per cent of its net
profits. North's operation on the Rhobe River represents about another 22 per cent or 23
per cent of its net profits. It is a very profitable company for North. It is a publicly
traded company now, where it has not been since its existence. We get to see, I guess, the
numbers that we have not seen before.
There is no question that North is expanding, there is no question they
are investing in the area. A $650 million investment, we have been told, will occur in
Labrador West. While there is no mistaking that, there is no mistaking also the impact
that investment will have. Obviously the impact will be in terms of increasing
productivity. There is new technology, bigger shovels, larger locomotives, larger trucks,
and the impact of that in terms of increasing productivity will have over the next four or
five years will be a diminished workforce. A diminishment in the workforce I am told -
again, by the company and by people involved in Labrador West, with the union, with the
town council, the chamber of commerce and otherwise - that could be between, I am told,
300 and 500 individuals.
While the company and some members in the House have heralded that it
has a no layoff policy, that is true. At the same time it has a no hiring policy, which is
also true, in that through early retirements, through attrition, that the workforce will
steadily decrease over the next four to five years. These are facts that have been
presented and given to me by the company itself.
Now the company when we met with them assured - I guess everybody at
the time - of their continued investment. Their ore reserves are -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: The company's higher cost to operate? We will get to
that in a second, if we could.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the investment itself, $650 million,
unlike the operation and expansion in Sept-Iles, Quebec, the $350 million or $400 million
that will be the money that the company will spend in Sept-Iles, Quebec, based upon our
resource, our ore, Sept-Iles will feel the direct impact of that in terms of jobs, in
terms of construction, in terms of new jobs created.
The $650 million, the equipment it is being used to purchase in
Labrador West, we are not making the locomotives, we are not making the trucks, we are not
making the parts associated with it, we are not making the shovels. The other thing to be
understood is that probably a decade from now, if the company wants to continue to
prosecute the ore in the ground, they will probably have to make another similar
investment.
MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: They will probably have to make another similar
investment to continue to create profits, to continue, Mr. Speaker, to be able to take ore
from the ground.
There is been an impression I think, either rightly or wrongly, but
there has been an impression left that this company has made a $650 million investment and
that it is great news for the area. We should understand, and ground ourselves in reality,
that these are the types of investments this company has made over time since 1938, when
the leases were originally granted in the 1960s, that these are the types of investments
that it will have to continue to make to prosecute and develop that resource and add value
to it, if it wants to keep making the profits and being the profitable operation that it
is.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: He told me yesterday he was considering it. Did you
know that your brother, at a business luncheon, actually stood and gave me a standing
ovation for my comments?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Did you? So you have my brother and I have yours.
I have been accused this week of some things in the House. Of not being
serious, of jumping on a parade, and all those sorts of nonsense and innuendo. We do have
a legitimate point of view, and it centres around the notion of economic feasibility.
Government believes that, and I believe that in taking one aspect of the company that you
can demonstrate it was not feasible. I cannot argue with the numbers in Hatch because they
are clear, but I can argue this, that the terms of reference for Hatch were so narrow that
it could not have proved anything else.
I believe, and I hope I am wrong, that we may have opened up a can of
worms as we define economic feasibility. What is next? A legitimate question in terms of
economic feasibility, economic viability. I am not going to make the passing references to
Inco and the double standard that people have talked about because I cannot make it,
because government has not released any information. Government has not provided to me the
information as they have in Hatch. They have not given me the information that
demonstrates clearly and soundly on what they are saying that the nickel operation at
Voisey's Bay is economically viable. They have maintained that it is.
So I cannot make the assertion that it is a flip-flop, but I do
understand people who make it, because on the surface you wonder why people are sceptical.
They have a right to be. The minister must and has to admit what appears to be so is that
there is one standard for one company and one for another. Now, he holds all the cards. He
has all the information. I am not even sure the back bench in government are aware of what
the information is that they have with respect to Inco and the numbers that Rowat has
crunched. I am sure of it.
However, it is a legitimate concern people have raised. I will say to
the minister though -
AN HON. MEMBER: What time (inaudible)?
MR. E. BYRNE: Just about five minutes.
AN HON. MEMBER: Five minutes more?
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that's about it. Alright?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifteen minutes at the end.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not going to hold up at the end. I want to
make my points now and that's it. Alright? It is a serious topic.
I want to say to the minister, in terms of the numbers on Inco, the
minister has asked me a question, and for the public record it is important. The Minister
of Mines and Energy just said: Surely you do not want us to publicly release at this time
the confidential information we have that could influence the negotiations or the possible
negotiations when they occur? No, I do not. Do not let it be said that I do. At the same
time, Minister, I think that if you can -
AN HON. MEMBER: Just give it to us.
MR. E. BYRNE: No. I think as soon as possible - there is nobody who
disagrees with that. This is for another debate, but when time is appropriate I would like
to see them. Because if not, if at some point in those numbers the economic feasibility
question tips in terms of Inco's balance or tips to the scale of Inco, then we have
ourselves one big problem. The problem is this. That by letting IOCC or North go ahead and
define economic feasibility by one aspect of their operation, then we have given them the
definition of what is acceptable by this Province. That is how I see it.
I said by not having the numbers. For example, the numbers that the
Province has on Inco. If at some point, based upon the price in the markets, the balance
in terms of what is feasible or economically feasible tips in favour of Inco and the
Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, then by what we have done with North and the allowing of what
North has done in terms of just separating out one aspect of its business, we have defined
what is acceptable to us as a legislature, and what is acceptable to the government in
terms of economic feasibility.
It is a legitimate concern. I cannot comment further on it because I do
not have the information. Government has the information. While they will not share it at
this point, and the minister has made a commitment he will share it at the appropriate
time, as soon as possible, I want to make a commitment too that if he does so I will hold
the confidence. I am not going to release it publicly, if that is the requirement. When
other public issues have come up, he is aware my commitment will be exactly what I say it
is.
With respect to the decision that government has made, I want to focus
on one last concern or issue and that is this. Some have suggested that the government had
no other legal choice, that the company could have put the expansion in Sept-Iles if it
wanted to without even consulting with government.
Let's assume for a moment that is true. Maybe it is. If that is true
then why did we go through the exercise? If that was a fait accompli upfront, if that was
the condition of sale, then why did we go ahead and create the false expectations over the
last eighteen months? Why did we go ahead and make commitments that were shallow, upon
reflection, that could not hold up to what we publicly said? Why did we bother to make
those commitments in the first place if we did not have the numbers we had now?
I think if there is anything that has angered people, it is that. If
there is anything that has angered people in Labrador West and in the Province, it is that
we have made seeming commitments but yet, at the end of the day, we could not live up to
them. The question is: Why did we create them in the first place?
If we had to wait for the numbers to come in, if we had to wait and say
we will do an independent study if it does not turn out our way, wouldn't we have been
better off in going to the leadership in the region and saying exactly that? Wouldn't we
have been better off in going to the region and saying: We have a situation on our hands
that is going to take all of us together to resolve. That did not happen, and that is why
people are angry. I understand their frustration and I understand their anger.
I will say this with respect to the royalties. We had opportunities to
change the royalties. The minister indicated yesterday that legal opinion said they could
not. We changed the Mineral Act yesterday that will come up for debate, and while we
generally support the thrust in that, generally there are issues of concern in some of
those clauses that need to be discussed, I say to the minister, because of the impact they
may have on the industry.
Generally, we can support any initiative that maximizes benefits for
the people of this Province, but I will finally say that if we could not have done it, why
did we create the expectations in the first place?
With that I am going to sit down and let members speak. I want to say
on the record as well to the Member for Labrador West that you will have noticed in all of
the debate since this decision was made that there has not been a reference to you
personally, by me or any other members on this side of the House. I want to say to you
that I understand the difficulty that you are in. It is not a situation any elected member
would want to find themselves in. While we disagree probably on the sides of the issue,
none of my comments, either here in the House or publicly, are aimed either at you
personally or question your intentions. I want to make that clear for the record as well.
I am sure in all of our political lives each and every one of us will at times face
difficult situations, whether it be if we at some point have the honour to serve in a
Cabinet, to serve in a government, as private members, or as critics, those things are
unavoidable.
I want to make clear for the public record that the focus that we
brought to this issue has been one that we believe technically could have been argued
otherwise, and had it not we believe that government could have extracted other benefits
from the company, had we had no other choice; but in no way, shape or form have they been,
are they now, or ever will be personally directed at the Member for Labrador West and I
want to make that clear.
With that I will sit down. Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make one quick point before you leave. I thank the hon.
member for his concluding comments, and I do believe they are sincere with respect to
dealing with the Member for Labrador West, because he is quite right that all of us
throughout our political careers, whether they are long or short, run into some very
interesting difficulties.
The first three months after I was elected in 1985, I remember having
to deal with a crisis at Daniel's Harbour when the zinc mine was closed. It is not much
fun going in to face 400 miners and trying to understand their problems and to deal with
the difficulties and the fallout, the closure of homes and the movement of families. It is
extremely difficult.
I do thank the hon. member for pointing out that it is not a personal
thing, that it is not aimed at the member, and that he does understand and emphasize with
his situation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: It is difficult, and all of us will have our problems.
The hon. member from St. John's was a very young looking member when he started a couple
of years ago and had to deal with the fallout from the dockyard, the transition it was
going to go through, and the layoff -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. FUREY: That is right, it receded. Like the synchro-lift, it
receded backward.
We are all going to have our difficulties. Can I just say, though, that
I was looking at the resolution and I do not believe it is designed to embarrass the
Member for Labrador West. Because if you look at the recitals that are here, the exact
recitals are the exact recitals he tabled a year or so ago.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Sure.
MR. E. BYRNE: The member is right in terms of the
WHEREAS
(inaudible). Again, it is not designed to embarrass the member, absolutely not.
MR. FUREY: Oh, yes. I am going to amend it.
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister would agree that the real meat of a
private member's resolution lies in BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED.
MR. FUREY: Yes, I was going to get to that.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) absolutely and completely different.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree. I was just pointing out that
the recitals that are reflected in that resolution as tabled a year ago are identical to
the recitals as reflected in today's resolution that the Leader of the Opposition has put
down. That is right; the actual resolution, the conclusion to the recitals, are somewhat
different. I believe him when he says they are not aimed to embarrass the member for
Labrador City.
In fact, if you look at the second recital, he clearly points out - and
I underline it for the House - it says: Where it is economically feasible to do so.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: That is right, where it is economically feasible to do
so.
In the spirit of not attempting to embarrass a member, I thought I
would move an amendment so that the resolution is amended by striking out the words `to
occur in Labrador West' and substituting the words `in Labrador West when it is
economically viable to do so'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FUREY: The new conclusion would be: THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED
that this hon. House affirm its support for its expansion of the pellet plant in Labrador
West when it is economically viable to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit to Your Honour that this in no way, shape
or form, changes the intent of the resolution.
AN HON. MEMBER: Well, why change it?
MR. FUREY: Well, if it does not change it - and you obviously, by
your acknowledgement, agree that it does not - then you will vote for our amendment. I am
asking you -
AN HON. MEMBER: It completely changes it.
MR. FUREY: Does it?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: He has not even read it. He has not even read his own
resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Oh, I am sorry, I thought I just read it out.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a brief recess to consider the
amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!
The Chair has considered the amendment to the resolution and would
refer hon. members to the Standing Orders of our Assembly, Standing Order 36: "A
motion may be amended: (
a) by leaving out certain words; (
b) by leaving out certain words
in order to insert other words; (
c) by inserting or adding other words."
I also refer hon. members to Beauchesne '567, "The object
of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its
acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the
original question."
I suggest that the amendment meets the requirements of our Standing
Orders and Beauchesne , and I rule that the amendment is in order. However, I would
ask the hon. member who moved the amendment if he could identify the seconder of the
amendment, please.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment is seconded by the Government House Leader, the Member
for Bonavista North.
MR. SPEAKER: Duly acknowledged.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling, and I am not
surprised. If you look at the recitals from the Leader of the Opposition's own proposition
which he has brought before the House today, and the second recital talks about where it
is economical feasible to do so, it is just really changing those words and putting them
in the resolve to re-state what the intention clearly was, which was not to embarrass the
member from Labrador City.
Mr. Speaker, the member raised a few points in his debate and I know he
will be listening outside, wherever he is, but I am astounded to see a Conservative Party,
a Conservative caucus, a party of business, a party that historically has been the
business party of Canada - and that is what they have been. They have been the business
party of Canada. They have been the spear holders for the establishment, for Bay Street,
and for Wall Street with the Republican Party. The Conservative Party of Canada -
I am astounded, because what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say
today is that he would move their party into an interventionist space. He would move them
from the right to the left. That must send shudders up the spine of the Member for Signal
Hill - Quidi Vidi, who is the real Socialist in this House, who is the real New Democratic
Party member. The truth be known, the Socialist should move his seat over to where the
Leader of the Opposition is because he really is a Conservative. He is a Socialist. He is
a Conservative in Socialist clothing. He is the wealthy lawyer, the independent lawyer.
The Socialist should really be the Conservative, and the Conservatives - all of you, with
the exception perhaps of the absolute right-wing fringe that would vote against
Confederation, like the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis... He is a real Conservative, a
dogged-true John Carter, blue-blooded Tory like there was never in the House before. He is
it.
I am astounded because what the Conservative Party has said here today
publicly is that they would intervene into the economy and force a business - the
Conservative Party being the party of business everywhere else on the planet - force them
to make an uneconomic decision.
Now I ask you: take that argument to its logical conclusion. They would
force FPI to make uneconomic decisions; NewTel to make uneconomic decisions; Kruger to
make uneconomic decisions; Abitibi to make uneconomic decisions. All of the other fish
plant operators and people who conduct business in this Province, who would present the
business case that is uneconomic - the Sullivan Brothers - to make uneconomic decisions.
Do you know what we would be left with? A welfare state, which is where their party really
is. It is way over on the left side of the spectrum.
Whereas the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi, even the Socialist understands that there is only so much you can intervene in
the economy; that proper business practices have to stand up; that an economic case must
be made; that it must be a solid economic case to generate profit, which will generate
jobs.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot permit the minister to go on with this charade and state
something that is not factual. Maybe he could answer one simple question and that would
clarify the intent of what he is stating. Is the minister saying that it is not
economically feasible to put it in Labrador West? Is that what he is saying? Or it is less
economically feasible? Could he define it?
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, old Rip Van Winkle just woke up.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
I am sorry; the Chair had not recognized the hon. minister as he was
ready to rule on the point of order. There is no point of order. The hon. Opposition House
Leader took advantage of the opportunity to ask the minister a question.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi on a
point of order.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments concerning the
relative positions of the party is very well known to New Democrats - that both Tories and
Liberals, in a period leading up to an election, act like New Democrats. It is only after
they get elected that they carry their free-market banner, whether they are Liberals or
Tories. Because we are in the lead-up to an election you will find the Tories act like New
Democrats, and I think we will even see the Liberals act like New Democrats during the
election period. It is only afterwards they change their mind.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of
order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is well known that people, when
they get into power, change the way they act when they are in Opposition. That is a
well-known fact; but I will tell you, there is another fact that we should consider and
that is that when certain leaders of certain parties - and I suspect the hon. gentleman
being the wealthy capitalist that he is - will take the same route as his former leader,
Mr. Fenwick, who came here and was left of left, and now Attila the Hun is left of Peter
Fenwick. Now we do not need to be reminded -
AN HON. MEMBER: Let the record show that he has agreed.
MR. TULK: You agree? And you agree that when you leave, the wealthy
capitalist, you will follow the same route? You have more money in more stocks than
anybody else that I know in this House, outside of Newfoundland. Refute it.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order from the other side.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. Hon. members have been taking advantage of
the opportunity to engage in debate when there is a clearly defined process where hon.
members can engage in the debate today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the question that Rip Van Winkle woke up
and asked was: Is the project economic?
I have been saying for three weeks, for two weeks, a week, Monday in
the House, in the media, last night, today, the project is not economic in Labrador City
versus the project in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FUREY: Let me finish. You are not letting me finish. Look, if
the hon. member is going to take his attack dog into the
House, he should at least feed him once a week.
Mr. Speaker, if the project had to go alone in Labrador - the $480
million; forget Sept-Iles - it is not economic, not economic, uneconomic. Let me deal with
the business of the total project, and the company, and all of its assets, that the Leader
of the Opposition talked about. It is the equivalent of saying that if Fishery Products
International had five fish plants and three were profitable and two were losers, we
should force them to blend together to take a reduced profit. That is what you are asking.
That is what they are saying, to make them less competitive, force the losers in with the
winners, to become less competitive internationally.
What a stupid nut case, voodoo economics that is, that this so-called
party of business, the Conservative Party, the party that has supported businesses and
businesses have supported throughout the century, are getting on here in public in
Newfoundland and Labrador with this kind of voodoo economics. How foolish can you get!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: No, they did not.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Let me put it to the hon. member. I don't like to
personalize things, but let's personalize it. You ran a fish plant, okay? Before you ever
entered politics, you ran a few fish plants. Would you, if you were out in the business
community today, under your holding company, keep losers that were losing money open to
subsidize winners that were making money for you? Would you blend them and take less
profit so that your shareholders couldn't generate a return to be competitive? Answer it,
yes or no? Yes or no from your seat - from your seat. Sit down.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Sit down and answer it, Rip. Sit down and answer yes or
no. It does not require a big answer, does it? Is the answer yes or is the answer no?
Would he keep the losers open and blend them with the winners to take less profit, to
become less competitive to lay off more people? Okay, make a note and you can answer it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FUREY: I told you what to do with your attack dog. Take him out
and feed him.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course they would not, because what they
are saying is really voodoo economics. That is the best way to talk about it. It is like a
bunch of zombies sitting around and sticking pins in dolls, saying: We will do it this
way, we will do it that way, depending upon the moon.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Good question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: We did not promise that. What we did say -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Let me finish.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that when she is
over here - and I believe she will be someday - as a minister, when she is a great, great
grandmother, when she is on this side of the House, she too will have to take
responsibility; not just to argue, not just to attack, not just to throw out innuendo, but
to take strong positions.
I ask the hon. member: Would she, as Minister of Mines and Energy, have
gone in as a weakling, as a wimp, taking a really flimsy position, or do you go in from a
position of strength so you can get certain things? And there were certain things that we
got.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Sit down; don't be so foolish.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that you go in from a position of strength.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, by leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just need about ten more minutes.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to conclude, before the hon.
lady rises in her place, to say that any reasonable person - any reasonable person -
Liberal, Conservative Party of big business, or Socialist - even the wealthy Socialist -
who knows business, who has run a business, who is a lawyer and who understands business,
any `reasonable' person, who looks at this case on its merits, who looks honestly at this
case on its merits, knows that the government did everything in its power to make this
happen.
The case rises and falls on the facts. The facts are very clear that
IOC presented, that Bechtel reviewed, that Hatch reviewed, that our own department
reviewed. We all came to the same conclusion. So did the Atlantic Provinces Economic
Council come to the same conclusion. So did the Newfoundland Chamber of Mineral Resources,
the industry people who operate in this Province, come to the same conclusion.
That leaves me with only one conclusion: They are not interested in
policy, they are not interested in truth, they are not interested in the business case;
they are simply interested in playing politics with an issue that is sensitive to one part
of our Province, and I predict that will come back to haunt them big time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker I can start off by saying very quickly to
the minister: It is not going to be us who it is going to come back to haunt. The truth is
that we have been quite honest with this and listened to people up front. We went to
Labrador City very quickly after it all happened. A few things that the minister
conveniently leaves out of his discussion -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely. The minister did give us a briefing which
started to raise more and more questions. The minister keeps talking about the Hatch
report. I had some problems with the Hatch report when we talked about a copper smelter in
this Province also. There were problems then.
Let us take, for example, one fact out of the Hatch report. We can go
through a full list in the Hatch report but I am not going to do that here today. We had a
briefing from Hatch. One of the numbers used in Hatch - I do not have the numbers in front
on me but - I think $24 million was part of the Hatch report that said they would need
accommodations in Labrador West.
Anybody in Labrador West can tell you very quickly they do not need
those accommodations, to build new accommodations in Labrador West. They have bunk houses
in Wabush, and they have all kinds of facilities throughout Labrador City that could be
used very easily. They do not have to build a camp for the construction in Labrador West.
That is $24 million right away we can take off the top.
Without going through a list of those in Hatch, how can we even start
to believe that they are all facts? If we want to talk about facts again, the first study
that IOC did, the Bechtel study, I am sure they had a lot more time and a lot more
information to use than Hatch. I want to go along with an example that was used by one of
the union members in Labrador City. Basically what Hatch did is, they went in and were
given the same numbers. If I gave you a set of numbers and somebody else in this Chamber a
set of numbers, you are going to add them up and get the same amount. All that Hatch did
was take the numbers that the previous study did and add them up and get the same numbers.
Really you have got to start asking yourself the question: What was the
Hatch report all about? That goes right to the root of this whole problem. A lot of people
in Labrador West and in this Province wonder what really went on here. What went on was:
On June 2, 1997, the government had the answer clear that this company had all the
intentions of expanding in Sept-Isle, Quebec.
Then the minister himself, who has left the Chamber right now, admitted
that they could not really have a challenge, that if they had to challenge the legislation
that is in place right now for the Iron Ore Company of Canada they would not win that
challenge.
Mr. Speaker, those two things don't jive. If the government was going
to mount the attack on IOC they knew they could not do it under the current legislation.
So why was there the whole process of the Hatch report? There was only one main lever that
could have been used by this government and it was not the process of going with Hatch.
There was one - and everybody in this House of Assembly should read Cain's
Legacy . It is all about IOC, its history and how it began. There is one particular
section when the premier of the day, Joseph R. Smallwood, had a ten-minute meeting with
the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The Member for Labrador West knows this book very well.
Let me back up for a second. Prior to that meeting the Iron Ore Company of Canada said
publicly that they were going to put the pellet plant for Labrador City in Sept-Iles,
Quebec. That was their intention. They publicly stated thirty-eight years ago now that
they wanted to put the pellet plant for Labrador City in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
There was a quick meeting. I cannot remember the other individuals
involved in the meeting but you can get it from the book. After a ten minute meeting, in
which the then-Premier, Joseph R. Smallwood, said to the company: Yes, you can go to
Sept-Iles, you can put your pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec. We do not have anything
that stops you in the legislation of the day. We do not have anything that stops you
legally. He just simply said: As the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador I will make your
lives miserable. Whatever I can do in my power and my authority as the Premier of this
Province I will do, and you will not like it.
That is basically what it said. You can paraphrase it all kinds of
different ways, but that is what it says in the book. After a ten-minute meeting the Iron
Ore Company of Canada came out and said: No, we have changed our mind, we have decided not
to put it in Sept-Iles, Quebec, and we will put a pellet plant in Labrador City where you
see it today.
That was the lever that was missed. The premier of the day, Joseph R.
Smallwood, was under the same legislation as the Premier of today faces. I have said it
many times already and I will say it again. On June 3, the Premier of this Province and
the committee, the Member for Labrador West, the minister, and whoever, should have been
in a boardroom with North saying: We are glad you are coming, we are glad you are
investing, we are glad that you are spending money on expansion, and we know that we
cannot stop you with the legislation that is in place. But the Premier of the day never
ever said to them what Joseph R. Smallwood said to them. That changed their minds. That is
in the history books. It is not something that is fabricated.
Like we have always said, the Member for Labrador West, on a personal
note, we have never mentioned him publicly. I haven't, and neither did the Leader of our
party, at any time talk about his attempts and his intentions. By the way, as a member,
when I first got elected, I faced some of those controversial situations in my own
district. We all do as members from time to time, and that is tough stuff. We are not
talking about the member personally. We are talking about the government in general and
the way they approach situations. I want to make that clear to the member, that it was
government's attempts, not the member's attempts. I am sure his intentions were there and
he did what he could do under the circumstances and so on. He will have to answer to his
electorate, like I would to mine, or any other member in this House of Assembly. What he
is going to be questioned on is what his government's attempts were. Was it enough?
To move away from the details and to get into the principle on what he
is going to have to go to his electorate with, the argument is that: Your Premier was
really tough with Inco, beyond normal. It is not normal what the Premier of this Province
did with Inco. Beyond the Legislature he had to make some changes now that is going on. He
was very tough. When you look at him when he dealt with the Estai , it was not
something normal that the Premier now - who was the Minister of Fisheries at the time -
did with the Estai .
What I am saying to the member, and other members in this House, when
you look at the public perception of it, the people in the Province were saying: Boy, a
tough premier. Add on to that that the Premier, the member, the minister and everybody
else, including myself, when I asked the first day, June 2, in this House, I believed that
you had a great battle going. I thought you had a great fight going. I felt secure and
assured, and so did the people of Labrador West, that we were going to win this battle.
No matter which way you cut it, that's the way the people felt. Whether
it was unjustified or it was not for real, that's how they felt. We cannot take that away
from them because everybody I have talked to up there said the same thing. As a matter of
fact, from time to time over the last year and a half or so I would run into somebody from
Labrador West, or I would speak to my family who still live up there. When they would ask
me about it, I would say to them: No, I think it is going to be okay, I think you are
going to get the pellet plant. I honestly believed that, I say to the minister, I really
did.
I will not go into the statements for the sake of pettiness to say what
the Premier said or the minister said at a chamber. We do not need to go into that. We
will not even use them. The point is that people in the area were solidly convinced that
would not happen. When it happened they had to start asking some questions, and then they
started asking themselves: Besides the commitment we had, we had this backing of a premier
who took tough stands, who went above and beyond the normal call of duty, so to speak.
This is a premier (inaudible) normal. This a Premier that took on the
tough battles and went outside of the legislation. Remember he was going to turn off the
power to Churchill Falls. Go across Canada. He went outside international law with the Estai .
That is what they were expecting. What happened was the reverse, and what I would say is
that the people of Labrador West still feel about it the same way today. The approach that
was taken on the Hatch report and so on, the people asked the question: Was it a complete
sham right from the beginning? Was this process that we were walked through a case of
futility? Where it really was not going anywhere, but the image had to be there, the
perception was there, that we were putting up this great fight.
There is another point I would like to make. When people in Labrador
West started to compare the fight that this government had with IOC, then they did two
comparisons, Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls. Let's stick to Voisey's Bay first. When
they did the fight on Voisey's Bay - the Minister of Mines and Energy was not the only one
involved, and the Premier himself -, and many discussions and negotiations that were going
on, they brought in the expert. They brought in the expert from Ottawa, Mr. Rowat. They
were going to bring down the best available personnel in Canada to take on the fight for
Voisey's Bay.
Let's take a step away from that, let's look at what they did with
Churchill Falls. Was the Member for Lake Melville involved in a committee? No. Was it the
minister himself that was going to deal with energy? No, it was Mr. Thistle. If I am not
mistaken, Mr. Thistle took on the Churchill Falls. I cannot lose this train of thought
because it was a good point made by some people in Labrador West. What we saw was that in
the comparisons, when they took on Voisey's Bay they sent for the outside experts. They
did not just let the minister handle it. No, it was a big issue. They couldn't let the
minister handle it. Mr. Rowat had to come down to handle it. We had to send for the
experts. Nobody in Cabinet could handle it.
Then we went to Churchill Falls and nobody in Cabinet could handle it
again: We will use Mr. Thistle. When it came to IOC, what was it? They let the local
member head up a committee. No sign of the Premier. How many times did you hear the
Premier speak up on this issue while it was ongoing? Except for when he was at the Winter
Games to say everything was fine: Do not worry about it, I will be on the first flight to
Australia. That is the only time I heard the Premier talk about it. Everybody talks about
the facts, but there is much more to this than the facts. The so-called facts, the facts
that the government wants everyone to believe.
The fact is there is another resource going out of this Province to
benefit another province. Was the best fight put up to stop that? No. That is what the
verdict will be on this. If you walk into Labrador City today and ask the people there,
that is what they will say. They are tired of seeing the resources go out of the Province,
and they let this one slip through their fingers too easily. No, they do not believe it
was a good fight put up on it.
Let's look at our fishery resources. The Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture always talks about how we should do more secondary processing in the Province,
bring in new stuff to do. We have to remember something here. The processing done in
Labrador City, and what is going to be expanded now into Sept-Iles, Quebec, is not new.
They have already been doing that in Labrador City. We are not talking about bringing in
new processes. They are already pelletizing in Labrador City. It is not a new process.
Basically they are going to expand on a process that has been there for thirty-eight
years. That is why people do not understand why it cannot be done in this Province.
Economically viable? To who? To the company, of course. Do we mean
economically viable, or do we mean profits and more profits? We are talking about more
profits, that is what it all comes down to. That is why the people are upset. That is why
the people in Labrador West do not accept this, and a lot of people in the Province do not
accept it. When we talk about facts, there is more to the facts than what the government
wants us to believe, or would like us to believe, I should say.
The people in Labrador West, with the economic benefits that have
accrued over the years from that particular part of the Province, have a right to be
frustrated, have the right to feel betrayed. Because they are not settling for it. No
matter how long this goes on, they never ever settle for what happened in Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?
MR. SHELLEY: Believe me, I know very well. They will not accept it.
It should never have happened. It should have been nipped in the bud the day that it
happened. The people in Labrador West are speaking up -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I just did it. The Minister of Education must have
been sound asleep over there because I just went through it, but I will do it again, I
will repeat it. Because the Minister of Education has had this ornery look about him all
day long. He gets on edge after awhile, and the Geritol slowly dilutes in his system so he
has to go out for another shot. He comes back and he is okay then. All he needs is a few
people to sing out `four' and he is okay.
AN HON. MEMBER: The golf season must be over.
MR. SHELLEY: Golf season is over. He gets so ornery, that is what
happens. I will repeat it again, Mr. Speaker. I still say that on the day of June 3 the
minister, the Premier, whoever was in that committee they are talking about, should have
sat down with North and said: If your intentions are to expand into Labrador City, yes,
according to the legislation that is in place now, you can do it. Go ahead, we know we
cannot stop you that route. But Joseph R. Smallwood thirty-eight years ago said to that
same company, with the same question: Yes, you can do it, but I as the Premier of this
Province today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - will use every power available to stop it. The
decision was changed ten minutes later. Read Cain's Legacy . That is what the
Premier of the day said. That is what changed it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. member speaking by leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. SPEAKER: No leave has been granted. I ask the member to take
his seat.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to talk again, as I did the other day in my speech to the House,
regarding the expansion plans of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. More particulary their
corporate decision to open an old pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
This decision has caused a very frustrating experience in Western
Labrador. There is a lot of anger. The reality is nobody anywhere in this Province wanted
to see the Iron Ore Company of Canada open that old pellet plant in Sept-Iles. There is
not a single living soul that I know, there is certainly nobody on this side of the House,
that wanted to see that occur.
The previous speaker talked about Joseph R. Smallwood and his defense
of the resources in this Province, and more particulary his view that they had to build a
pellet plant in Labrador City. That was his view. It is easy to read in Cain's Legacy .
There was no town there at that time. He could have waited, he had time on his side, as we
do now with Inco.
We are in a situation in this Province, whether we like it or not,
whether we want to accept it or not, where the Iron Ore Company of Canada has been for
some thirty-six years exporting two products, pellets and concentrates. This year they
will have exported about 12.5 million tonnes of pellets. If you stand by Wabush Bridge and
look at the train, two-thirds of that train has pellets, one-third of that train has
concentrates. There are 4 million to 5 million tonnes of concentrates going down over that
railway into Quebec. It has been doing that for thirty-six years.
Technically, the company does not have to expand their concentrating
capacity in Labrador City to feed enough concentrates to Sept-Iles. If they decided not to
expand the concentrator - they have decided to expand the concentrator in Carol Lake,
incidentally - but if they didn't, they still have access to 5 million tons of concentrate
that is flowing down over that railway this year, last year, the year before, and years
before that for thirty-six years.
What would the folks on the other side have us do? Would they say we
must pass some piece of draconian legislation that says you must keep that ore in the
ground unless you pelletize it in Labrador West? That would have an immediate and very
terrible effect on the workforce here in Labrador West. Would you have a law of general
application saying no concentrate shipments? That is what the Leader of the New Democratic
Party said. He said: Yes, there will be a law of general application that says no
concentrates shipped on the QNS & L Railway from either Labrador City or Wabush Mines.
What would he have Wabush Mines do? Shut down? Is that what he would
have them do? They do not pelletize Wabush ore in this Province. They pelletize it in
Pointe Noire, in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
If you are going to have a law of general application - as the lawyer,
the Leader of the New Democratic Party, would say - then that has to be applied to Wabush
and the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The problem is that we have faced a very challenging
circumstance but we took it on. We took it on with every bit of vim and vigour possible.
Mr. Speaker, there are some today who criticize us for being too
strong. I remember the meetings we have had with senior officials of the Iron Ore Company
of Canada. I served twelve years on the executive of the steelworkers. I can tell you,
those meetings we had were as tough or tougher than any meetings I have ever sat in
between the union and the company. We laid our cards on the table and we were very firm
with the resolve that your expansion will come under the 1995 legislation. That was the
view that we took.
We cannot back up the clocks and put the whole of the project under
that legislation. They do have
an act that was signed in 1938. Again, whether we want to
accept that or not, it is a reality. It was signed eleven years before we joined Canada.
They have been mining for thirty-six years, almost four decades. They have mined a million
tons - one-third of their product has been concentrate - and we are going to pretend that
none of that happened?
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when we engaged this issue on
behalf of the people in Labrador West - in fact, on behalf of the people in the whole of
the Province, it was a tough struggle. We had a tough fight on our hands, but I can tell
you that we fought that to win.
I was as disappointed or more, given the amount of work we have put
into this in the last eighteen months, I was more disappointed - or at least as
disappointed - as any person in this Province. I can tell you, so were the members of this
government.
If I had thought for some reason, somehow, members on this side
contributed to our loss of that opportunity, or did not do enough, I would be angry with
them, too. They know that I was watching to ensure that they would do everything that is
literally possible to do, and they did that. They did that because the people of Labrador
West expected them - indeed the people of the Province expected them - to protect the
resources of this Province. That is why we passed the resolution on May 7 outlining what
we expect out of our resources.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) May 6.
MR. CANNING: I have May 7, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you that all people in Labrador West are absolutely
frustrated and there is anger.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. CANNING: Yes, of course there is.
What can the government do now? Should we nationalize the company and
take control of their Board of Directors? Is that what we should do? Because, short of
controlling their Board of Directors, they have a decision-makin