November 20, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 45

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to inform members

that this is National Child Day in this Province, and indeed throughout the country. It is

a day when we should all celebrate our children and recognize their value and rightful

place in our society.

This morning I have had the privilege of beginning my day by serving

breakfast to children at the Froude Avenue Community Centre in my District of St. John's

Centre. Later today I will speak at a luncheon sponsored by the Community Services

Council, at which the Lieutenant Governor will proclaim today as National Child Day in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I might add that there is today a guest speaker for the function. Her

name will be Aimie Shaw, a sixteen-year-old student from O'Donel High School in Mount

Pearl, who I understand will be in the gallery today. I would also like to recognize the

students from St. Teresa's School, again from my district, who too will be visiting the

House of Assembly today.

I would also like to inform members, the Association of Early Childhood

Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador have a display in the lobby of the Confederation

Building in recognition of National Child Day. I encourage all members to take the time to

visit the exhibit.

Mr. Speaker, today we should all focus on children. I would like to

present ribbons, provided by the Committee for the Rights of Children and Youth, for each

member of this House to wear today in recognition of National Child Day.

Today this government is listening to children and families and we will

continue to listen and act in their best interest. I am very pleased to announce a funding

allocation of $1.2 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - to enhance the Child Care Subsidy Program for

licensed child care services. This measure is part of the implementation of the National

Child Benefit Reinvestment Program.

The Child Care Subsidy Program has been a crucial factor in the ability

of low income families with young children to remain in the workforce or make the

transition to educational opportunities or to the workforce. The Child Care Subsidy is

also intended to assist financially with the enrolment of children with developmental or

social needs that can be met in child care situations and whose families are not able to

fund this service. I am very pleased to announce that this program will be expanded to

provide access to the Child Care Subsidy Program to approximately 200 additional families,

which will eliminate the current waiting list. This will increase the total number of

subsidized spaces to approximately 950.

Government is committed to enabling low income families to access

necessary child care and to supporting operators of licensed child care centres in their

efforts to provide a quality service to children and to their families. This measure will

also allow low income working families who require child care to qualify for assistance

with part, or all, of the child care fees that are necessary. It will promote entry into

the workforce by families who require this additional support.

The 1992 rate for child care subsidies has been changed to a more

uniform rate structure. The previous subsidy paid to child care centre operators averaged

$18 per day. Now, the vast majority of these centres will receive $20 per day.

These measure will provide the financial support that many low income

families need in order to access licensed child care services. They will meet the child

care needs of families moving into the workforce. They will assist child care providers in

promoting the best possible care for the children of this Province.

While today is a very busy one with a major focus on children, it is

only a reminder that every day is a special day for our children. We cannot be content

with a one day recognition of our children. The National Child Benefit is providing

funding to enhance services for children and families. We must continue to work together

with community groups and concerned individuals through the year to ensure our children

receive the best possible opportunities for growth and development. We have done much to

acknowledge and address our children's agenda through the Strategic Social Plan. I look

forward to even move positive announcements for our children and families in the coming

weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to this

statement today. Thank you for providing me with a copy of the statement.

I will be pleased to be attending that luncheon as well. I welcome

Aimie Shaw and the students from St. Teresa's School to the gallery. I am extremely

pleased with the announcement of child care subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Over the past six or seven months the list has been

mounting on my desk as well, of little people out there who are physically and

developmentally delayed; people who have Attention Deficit Disorder, who are old enough to

go to kindergarten but who cannot function socially in kindergarten and whose entry into

the normal school system has been delayed by a couple of years without this subsidy.

I compliment the minister on this statement. I say: When can they start

child care? If they can start tomorrow, that will be wonderful. Congratulations, Minister,

this is wonderful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, for many years women have been

under-represented in the full range of occupations. Statistics from 1997 indicate that 50

per cent of women employed in Newfoundland and Labrador were clustered in the clerical,

sales and service occupations while only 6 per cent were employed in the areas of primary,

processing, construction and transport equipment operating.

Our Province is expecting to have significant economic and employment

growth in the natural resource sector, particulary in the offshore petroleum industry.

Despite this growth however, women continue to be under-represented in this sector. Only 5

per cent of those employed at the Hibernia construction site and on the Hibernia oil rig

are women. Clearly, we need to increase the numbers of women who benefit by being employed

in this industry.

In order for women to take advantage of these opportunities they need

to develop the skills required to work in this field. In the 1995-1996 academic year, only

16.8 per cent of those enroled in engineering technology programs in the public college

system were women, while less than 10 per cent of those enroled in trades programs were

women.

As Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I am pleased to

announce today an initiative that addresses one of the barriers to women's economic

equality. Along with my colleagues the hon. Fred Mifflin, Minister of Veterans Affairs and

Secretary of State for the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, the hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister

of Natural Resources and the hon. Charles Furey, Minister of Mines and Energy, I am

pleased to announce a $250,000 Equity Fund under the Offshore Skills Training Fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This fund is financed through the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Development Fund.

The Equity Fund will be designed to encourage women to consider a

career in the offshore petroleum industry and to help reduce the barriers that women face

in trying to enter a wider range of occupations. The Equity Fund will help to accomplish

these goals through two components.

The first is a community-based program to increase women's

representation in the industry. This program will focus on activities to inform women

about petroleum related occupations, offer supports in career exploration, and work with

training institutions and the industry to directly address women's career issues.

The second component includes grants of up to $3,000 for women who have

been accepted to a petroleum related trade or technology training program. These grants

will provide an incentive for women to enter these fields. We hope this will improve the

retention rate of women who enter these training programs. As more and more women enter

and remain in the industry they will become role models for post-secondary students who

are considering their career options.

The Equity Fund also benefits the employer. With more trained workers,

employers will have a larger pool of potential employees and will benefit from the various

talents that people from diverse backgrounds can offer the workplace.

The Equity Fund will be administered by the Department of Education in

consultation with the Women's Policy Office and the Department of Human Resources and

Employment.

The under-representation of women in a broad range of occupations is

one of the key factors that contribute to women's economic inequality. Jobs in the

petroleum industry tend to be relatively high paying and women should have access to these

career opportunities. Since women have not traditionally worked in the oil and gas sector,

they need to be supported and encouraged to seek careers in this industry.

Along with establishing the Equity Fund, the Departments of Human

Resources and Employment and Mines and Energy earlier this year provided $20,000 each in

funding to the women in resource development committee. This committee will use this

funding to promote women's employment in the resource based sector.

We have also entered into discussions with the College of the North

Atlantic to look at ways of improving women's access to training in non-traditional areas.

The College will be forming a multi-party working group to address some of these issues

around women's low participation in the training programs in these areas of growth and

employment for our Province.

I am confident that the Equity Fund will benefit women individually,

and as well increase their opportunities to contribute to the economic development of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to its implementation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

I would like to complement the minister on this initiative. It is a

good incentive to get females to enter an industry previously dominated by males. It will

also increase women's representation in the community.

This program should also encourage economic equality. At this time I

take advantage of this opportunity to ask the government about the pay equity for women

that is presently in limbo, women who are employed in other fields in the Province. I do

not hesitate to call upon the Premier to lobby Ottawa to get something done about pay

equity for women.

I understand that several years ago when the Premier was in Ottawa he

got up and gave a lengthy speech on pay equity for women. I think that with the power that

the Premier is supposed to have with his friends in Ottawa, I don't understand why that

has not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardonnez-moi?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Je ne comprende pas. Mais, je ne comprende pas too

very much anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mon professor de franais is not paid by the people

of the Province.

In closing, I compliment the minister on this initiative. As I say, I

think this announcement could probably be used as a springboard to get all the women in

Newfoundland on pay equity. Once again, I encourage the Premier to lobby his friends in

Ottawa for pay equity federally for women. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond to the minister's statement this morning and say to

her I am pleased she recognizes there are few women employed in the oil and gas industry,

and in a lot of the non-traditional sectors of our society. I also want to thank her for

recognizing this and for effectively trying to bridge the gap between industry and women,

and also recognizing that putting scholarships in place and funding arrangements enabling

women to be able to partake in this is an important and necessary part of it.

As well, I want to mention what my colleague has already pointed out,

the outstanding issue of pay equity in our country. I think this is another gap we have to

continuously focus on and lobby for in order to make sure it is closed, and to the

satisfaction of all women in our society. Thank you.

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the

Corner Brook Triathlon Committee in securing the prestigious International Triathlon Union

World Cup for the next two years, for 1999 and 2000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In 1998 this local triathlon organization hosted a first

class international event that featured the world's best triathletes, called "Come

Tri Our World!" In recognition of successfully hosting this year's event, Corner

Brook will now have it for two more years.

Both competitors and spectators alike were overwhelmed by the level of

organization and hospitality of the Corner Brook event. The Newfoundland Triathlon

experience was best described by Danish competitor Marie Overby when she said: "Great

expectations, but the reality was even better."

The Corner Brook Triathlon Committee has come a long way in its

eighteen-year history, with the citizens of Corner Brook coming together annually to put

off their race. The event has built itself up from a small community sporting event to the

jewel of the ITU World Cup circuit.

Organizers have estimated that 15,000 spectators turned out on race day

to cheer all those who took up the challenge of the gruelling course. As a government, we

are proud to support this event along with other major sponsors including Seafreez,

The Corner Brook Triathlon is truly an example of a community,

government and private businesses all working together to realize a common goal.

On Saturday, November 28, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will

get the opportunity to view the 1998 World Cup event on television as it continues to

broadcast around the globe.

The NTV network has agreed to broadcast the 1998 Newfoundland and

Labrador World Cup at 4:00 p.m. local time on November 28. I would encourage everyone to

experience this world class event and to recognize the great things being done in tourism

and sports. These events continue to profile our Province in national and international

markets. This program has also been picked up on specialty channels in Canada, Japan,

Australia, Spain, the U.K. and France.

Plans are well on their way for the 1999 and 2000 events. We look

forward to August 15, 1999, when the International Triathlon Union will again make

Newfoundland and Labrador its centre stage.

I wish the Corner Brook Triathlon Committee, under the direction of

Denise May, the best of luck as they chart their course for these future events.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that we on this side of the House join with the

minister congratulating the local people in Corner Brook and on the West Coast on what a

great job they do with these types of events. Also, we would be remiss if we did not

mention the great organization that is going on right now as they prepare for the Canada

Games, which is coming our way this winter.

It goes to show again what this Province and the local people can do

when they put their minds to it, and it showcases to the world the organizational skills

and the beauty of this Province. Certainly with this triathlon, just for them to say they

would wish to return for two consecutive years, and hopefully years after that, bodes well

for this Province in organizing on a world level. When we showcased our Province with the

Cabot 500, that also helped with our tourism industry and so on.

I want to congratulate the local people of Corner Brook on the

triathlon, and also again to congratulate them as well for the organization to date on the

Canada Games which we will look forward to this winter, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

For the first time in the history of the Royal Winter Agricultural Fair

in Toronto, Canada's most prestigious exhibition for the agricultural industry held every

year, the Newfoundland Pony was present in the equine breeds of the world exhibit

sponsored by GM Trucks.

This exhibit was one of the feature attractions of the Royal Winter

Fair in the past two weeks. Sergeant Art Kelloway of the Trinity Conception RCMP

Detachment and Sergeant Lyn Chapman of the Metro Toronto Police Force exhibited Sergeant

Chapman's pony around the ring and explained the importance of the Newfoundland pony. As a

result, the Newfoundland Pony Society received an award for the most successful exhibit in

the Horse Palace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The hon. John Godfrey, M.P. for Don Valley, who is

part of the federal government heritage committee, and was also representing Minister

Sheila Copps, spoke on the interest they had in the heritage activities associated with

the Newfoundland pony.

Mr. Speaker, we were honoured to receive a painting by the well known

Newfoundland artist, Clifford George. This painting, one of a series that Mr. George is

doing on a Newfoundland pony, is called Whispering Snow. This particular painting

will be displayed prominently and with pride.

I would like to remind members that this House unanimously approved a

motion to recognize the Newfoundland Pony as a heritage animal. Following this motion, the

Heritage Animals Act was passed in December 1996. The Newfoundland Pony was declared as

the Province's first heritage animal. The Newfoundland Pony Society was also recognized as

the official group to represent the pony in this Province. I would like to welcome

Sergeant Art Kelloway here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in January of 1999 Heritage Canada

will be releasing their new symbols of Canada book, which will include the Newfoundland

Pony.

We will continue to participate in combined heritage activities

involving the Newfoundland Pony Society, the federal government and our own government.

The Newfoundland Pony Society, with the support of our department, is

now doing DNA sampling of all Newfoundland ponies to support the registry maintained by

the Society as a step towards having it declared as a breed under Canada's Animal Pedigree

Act. We will be working very closely with the Newfoundland Pony Society and the federal

government in helping them achieve this goal.

On behalf of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we want to

thank Sergeant Kelloway, and also Dr. Hugh Whitney who is here today, who is our director

of veterinary affairs in the Province. I want to thank Dr. Whitney for his continued help

within our department to help the Newfoundland Pony Society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Sergeant Kelloway has gone above and beyond duty

with this. He was in Toronto in the last week or so and the people that were there did a

great on behalf of the Province. We just want to say how proud we are this morning. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too on this side would like to congratulate Sergeant Kelloway and

the Newfoundland Pony Society. It was 1996, I think the minister said, when the member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi introduced a private member's resolution to recognize the

Newfoundland Pony as a heritage animal here in the Province. It was only a couple of weeks

ago that I was driving back from my district and I heard Sergeant Kelloway on the radio

talking about his trip to go to the Royal Winter Agricultural Fair in Toronto. He talked

about taking the Newfoundland Pony from some breeder or some owner in the Province of

Ontario, if I recall. It is obvious that Newfoundland ponies are not only owned or reside

here, but are in many other provinces as well.

I remember the Newfoundland pony being a very common site around our

communities in rural outport Newfoundland when the days were that we could allow animals

to roam freely in the summertime. In the town of Bonavista, not many years ago, the

Newfoundland Pony was a common site, hauling salt fish along the streets and pulling water

to individual homes even when the town water supply was put in place. People still would

like to go and access their favourite water supply and bring it home with the Newfoundland

Pony. I too would like to congratulate Mr. Kelloway. We have a lot of heritage in this

Province, and we should never be shy about standing and promoting it and putting it

forward. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to Oral Questions, the Chair would

also like to take the opportunity to welcome Sergeant Kelloway to the Speaker's Gallery

this morning, on behalf of all the members of the House.

As well, we have sitting in the gallery seventy grade VI students from

St. Teresa's School on Mundy Pond Road in the District of St. John's Centre. They are

accompanied by their teachers Mr. Robert Smart, Ms Roseanne Collett, Ms Margie Roach, as

well as chaperones, Mrs. Hart and Mr. Connors, along with bus driver Mr. Don Gough. I

would like to welcome them on behalf of all members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions this morning are for the

Minister of Justice.

In the last several months we have all heard the stories surrounding

the treatment the people have endured at the Whitbourne Boys' Home when they were younger.

The stories themselves are very eye-opening and in fact, I think he would agree, very

disturbing. What is more disturbing is that because of the passage of time many of these

alleged victims of abuse will probably not see their day in court, and not get to tell

their stories of what went wrong and where the system needs correcting.

The victims have asked, and we are asking you today, Minister, will you

use the most appropriate tool at your disposal to get to the bottom of the allegations of

a systematic abuse at the hands of the justice system, as was done with respect to Mount

Cashel, and commission a judicial inquiry into the allegations of abuse at the Whitbourne

Boys' Home?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Whitbourne Boys' Home, in philosophy,

in content and in physical structure, is gone. It is no more.

One of the first things this Administration did when we came to power

was to make provisions to change the philosophy that was out there and to build a brand

new complex, so that today I can stand proudly and say we have one of the best centres in

all of Canada, a centre which people from all over the world, but from all over Canada,

certainly come and look and certainly try to emulate.

There have been accusations of abuse in the 1980s. In 1983 or 1984

there was indeed a judicial inquiry conducted when the brother of the present critic, Mr.

Ottenheimer, was Minister of Justice. There was a judicial inquiry done. There have been

numerous investigations done. There were about thirty in the years between 1983, 1984 and

1985. Just recently there was one done by Dr. Inkpen, with fifty-seven recommendations.

Twenty-nine have been fully implemented, and all of the others are being acted upon. There

have been police investigations and there have been charges laid. Father Bromley has been

sentenced to 6.5 years. The police have done a thorough investigation. Every time there is

a complaint made the police go in and do an investigation.

The hon. member is asking me to do the appropriate thing. I tell him

proudly that the appropriate thing is indeed being done. Every time there is a complaint

laid it is thoroughly investigated by the police. There is no need at this time to do a

complete investigation. I could do a judicial inquiry, but there have been judicial

inquiries done, as I told the member, and all of these inquiries are available to the

public. They are there for the asking, Mr. Speaker, anybody can have them.

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

Opposition.

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

This is an important issue. There are times that questions are asked in

this House that are not of a political nature, and I would put forward to the minister

that this is one of these times. These stories are never told. There have been many

stories come forward. Privately, people have talked to me. If these stories are never told

or investigated in the manner that is appropriate, how will government ever know, I say to

the minister, what flaws in the system need correcting so the system will not continue to

fail our young people? Isn't the minister concerned that these questions may go

unanswered, that abuse may go unpunished? That is the issue. Serious problems with the

system may go uncorrected if he continues with his choice not to call a judicial inquiry.

Minister, don't you think that it is necessary for the people who have

been in situations where they either have been neglected or abused by the system that they

have an opportunity to tell their story and to come forward, and that the most appropriate

tool to do that is through a fully independent, open, transparent judicial inquiry?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know this is a very serious issue. That

is why it is being dealt with so seriously by the Department of Justice. That is why one

of the first actions that this Administration took was to do away totally with the old

philosophy that was being used out there, to do away with the content, and to build a

brand new structure. It is very serious.

That is why the police take every accusation seriously and do a

thorough investigation whenever it is felt necessary and complaints are made. That is why

we have just witnessed in the court system of this land a priest sentenced to 6.5 years in

prison for sexual abuse, which was proven in the court case. Every single complaint is

taken. There have been numerous reports done. I am not sure whether the hon. member is

asking for a judicial inquiry or a Royal Commission of Inquiry. He said a judicial

inquiry; I suspect he means a Royal Commission of Inquiry. We do not believe that at this

time there is any evidence that would warrant a complete Royal Commission of Inquiry.

There was a judicial inquiry done in the 1980s which the hon. member is certainly welcome

to. I am just trying to recall if there has been a recent inquiry. Some people ran away

out there a while ago.

It is a serious matter, yes. We have fixed the institution, we have

made it one of the most modern, one of the best institutions in all of Canada. However, I

would say to the hon. member, if he has some specific complaint which he would like to

bring to my attention I would certainly pass it along to the police to make sure it is

investigated, Mr. Speaker. Every single complaint is dealt with, it is very serious, and

at this time we do not see the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, more than thirty-one months ago Dr.

Linda Inkpen delivered to the government her final report on secure custody at the

Whitbourne and Pleasantville correctional centres. One of the report's key recommendations

was to establish an independent advisory council to help create, implement and monitor all

policies, I say to the minister, and procedures at secure custody facilities of youth

corrections.

In view of the serious consequences that have resulted from having such

a body not in place, in the thirty-one months that have passed since the minister and

government have received that report, what action has the minister taken to implement this

very crucial recommendation?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member, the Inkpen

report made fifty-seven recommendations. Twenty-nine of them have been fully implemented.

All the others are in various stages of implementation. One of the recommendations was an

independent board.

We have not accepted that recommendation at this time. The Home has a

very close affiliation with the school board out there, the hospital board out there, the

police out there, and with all the different agencies in the town whose input, advice and

recommendations are always dealt with, accepted, and welcomed.

At this time we have decided not to put another level of bureaucracy in

place to deal with the Home. It is one of the recommendations that to date we have not

accepted. That is not to say that we will never accept that recommendation. If there is

some overriding reason as to why that recommendation would somehow be the panacea of

making everything excellent, we will certainly do it.

I have to remind the hon. member that the present Home in Whitbourne is

not the old Whitbourne Boys' Home. I can proudly stand and say that this Administration

torn down the structure, built a brand new physical building, and changed the philosophy

of the way the residents of that Home were dealt with. We can stand today and say that we

have one of the best institutions in all of Canada; an institution which other people come

to look to.

What happened in the 1980s? There have been numerous investigations.

There have been some police investigations. Charges have been laid, and in some cases

people have been sentenced. I do not think there has been a stone left unturned. I do not

see what a Royal Commission would achieve at this time.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to hear that the minister

has rejected the notion of an independent advisory council because it was a key and

fundamental recommendation of that report.

In fact, I will review for him again the reason that recommendation

came forward: so that it could implement and monitor all policies and procedures so that

situations that have occurred in the past that we know about do not, in fact, occur again.

I would look to urge the minister, at his earliest possible time, if

not immediately, to review the stance and decision government has taken on that

recommendation, and to look again at that recommendation with a view of implementing it at

the earliest possible date.

If the Inkpen report tells us one thing we need to hear, it is that the

system has been failing our young people by neglecting to focus enough resources on

prevention and rehabilitation. She was clear that services for young offenders must not

end when they leave closed-custody facilities.

Whenever the government has talked about - and the minister's language

again confirms what I am about to say - acting on this recommendation, it always speaks in

the future tense about something that will happen, that you will be developing, or that

you hope to have in place.

The question is ask government is: When is government going to do what

is needed in terms of rehabilitation and follow-ups so that youth corrections stops

working as a revolving door, recycling our young people between the streets, prison, the

streets, and prison again?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already

said.

The Inkpen report made fifty-seven recommendations, twenty-nine of

which have been fully implemented. That does not seem to me as a department which is

talking about something that will happen in the future. Twenty-nine recommendations were

fully, totally, absolutely implemented. That is past tense; that has already happened.

The other recommendations are in various stages of implementation. We

are implementing them at various times. One recommendation - we believe there is another

process in place, namely our association with the police, school board, hospital board,

various volunteer groups out there, the non-government agencies and so on and so forth. We

believe we are doing an excellent job.

If I were sitting on that side of the House, I would be ashamed of the

fact that for seventeen years they were in power and they allowed that Home out there to

exist with the philosophy which belonged in the last century.

It took a thinking which we brought to this situation to destroy the

philosophy, to destroy the content, to put a brand new structure that today we can be

proud of. When young people spend their term in that Home, they are not sent out into the

district and forgotten, there are follow-up programs, some of which were implemented has

as a result of the Inkpen report.

If anyone should be ashamed, it is the members opposite who sat on this

for seventeen years and never had the fortitude to get out and do something about it. We

did something about it, and we are proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that there have been

recommendations implemented by government from the Inkpen report, but when you see

fundamental recommendations that could act as a grid, if you will, Minister, so that

situations that have occurred in the past will not happen by implementing an independent

advisory panel, then it leaves me to wonder in terms of how serious government's

commitment is. When we talk about the situations of neglect and abuse that children find

themselves in, we wonder why there is not a child advocate appointed.

The question I have for the minister is this: We learned from him last

year, on May 5, that the Victim Services Program, the branch of government mandated to

provide assistance, case counselling, education, pre-court orientation, and emotional

support for victims of crime, does not provide those services to the very group in our

society that are most vulnerable, children.

Children are left to another branch of government that is already

overburdened, that does not have victim services in its mandate, and that can do little

more than provide ad hoc services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, I would like to ask this question: Is it

still the case that victim services are not available on a consistent, organized basis to

the most vulnerable segment of our society - as in May, by your own statements - namely

our children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, victim services are available to all

people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of the nature of youth, we also involve the

Department of Social Services very heavily in providing victim services to youth.

To say that the victim services groups around the Province are not

caring for children is really not understanding, not grasping the full picture. The

services are available to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but, because of the special

nature of children under sixteen, they are dealt with with the assistance of social

services. However, there is no gap there, because where social services are unable to do

it, the victim services groups certainly do take care of it.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: What the minister has said is that the status quo

remains the same; that in victim services, adults still get priority and children do not.

Minister, discrimination on the basis of age should be intolerable in

any society. The question is: Have we learned anything from the Hughes inquiry, from the

Inkpen report, about the impact of crime on children and how the system has so often

failed them?

Minister, I ask you this: When will you start following the mandate of

your own department, the Justice Department, and start ensuring that victim services are

provided to all victims of crime, and stop failing the children of this Province who need

your help the most?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have to tell the hon.

member that we have started. This have been ongoing ever since I have been Justice

Minister, and certainly with my predecessors in this Administration, and I would assume in

his Administration. There is a mandate that government has to carry out, and we are doing

that.

If the hon. member has some specific case that he wants to bring to the

attention of me, or officials in the department, or the police, I would certainly

encourage him to do so.

He started off this by saying it is a very serious issue and he did not

want to politicize it. I am beginning to wonder if that is not the motive behind all of

this; if the hon. member is not trying to score some political points at the expense of

some group in our society which is least able to defend itself.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The day before yesterday there was a line of questions to the Minister

of Justice and Attorney General with respect to gag orders and non-disclosure statements

as a result of settlements on the courthouse steps. We are still waiting for information,

facts and figures, that people have a right to know.

We are talking about the people's money and, to put it simply, the

people have the right to know. It is their money. It is not the minister's money; it is

not the government's money; it is the people's money. We are waiting, Mr. Minister, for

details and for particulars with respect to that particular out-of-court settlement; that

particular gag order which has denied the people of the Province their right to know.

I ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General: Are there other

examples that he is aware of where in fact gag orders have been imposed, non-disclosure

agreements have been agreed to on behalf of government, on behalf of the people of the

Province? Are there other examples? Could he please now tell us if in fact they exist?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are other examples. When we

settled with the boys of the Mount Cashel Orphanage there was an non-disclosure clause,

for a very real reason.

In the most recent one that the hon. member raises, there is a

non-disclosure clause. That was put there at the request of the company. It was agreed to

by both parties. The hon. member has made a request under freedom of information. He

knows, and he has received a letter explaining to him that government has written to the

company, and when we get our reply from the company then we will deal with his request

under freedom of information.

The hon. member talks about the right of the taxpayer to know, and he

has a valid point. There is a right of people to know certain things, but you also have to

strike a balance between the rights of the people to know and the rights of a company to

protect itself.

There is a non-disclosure clause by a company which sued government and

won in the Trial Division, and won in the Court of Appeal. If we breach that

non-disclosure clause without having a good reason, without having an understanding with

the company, we can leave ourselves open to be sued again by the very company which

already won twice against us in the court.

I do not want to put the government at risk. We want to look at all

sides of this issue. At the end of the day if we do not harm a company, and do not set the

taxpayer up for another hit, then we will make it public.

The hon. member wants everything to happen all at one time. He wants to

get his letter in today and get an answer yesterday. That is not the way things work. We

have to have fairness and balance, we have to do things in a rational manner, and that is

exactly what they are doing.

The hon. member might not agree with agree with that. The hon. member

might not like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: It might not service political purpose, but that is the

way things are. The hon. member has to live with reality.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of yesterday, yes, it is true that the people of this Province

have a right to know how much of their money is being spent in settlements on the

courthouse steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The minister has mentioned the Mount Cashel

settlement, and we are talking about the Atlantic Leasing settlement, the Atlantic Leasing

gag order where again the people have been denied their right to know. I ask the minister:

Are there others?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there are none which come readily to mind

but I can certainly check on it and let the hon. member know. I do not know of any off the

top of my head. It is not the kind of knowledge that I normally carry around with me.

I can tell the hon. member that it is quite common, as he should well

know, that when settlements are made there is a non-disclosure clause for - sometimes it

is for a length of time to give a company an opportunity to get its affairs in order

before the amount is made public, or for whatever reason.

Mr. Speaker, are there any others at this present time? I do not know,

but I would be willing to guess that in all probability there are; there could indeed be

some. I will certainly attempt to get that information for the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: Get a grip on his department. Get a handle on

his department.

I have information that only several months ago, a company called Tors

Cove Excavating entered into, once again, a courthouse step settlement, whereby there was

a non-disclosure statement, a further gag order, involving significant provincial dollars,

public dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again I ask the minister - it seems to me there is

an obligation on our minister - whether there is one, whether there are two, whether there

are five, ten, twenty, thirty. That is the problem, we do not know. This government will

not tell us the details.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am simply asking the minister to come clean with

the people of this Province. Give us the details, give us the amounts, so that the people

who have a right to know will know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that when

settlements are made, quite often a non-disclosure clause is included.

I would ask the hon. member, who practised law for years, surely

goodness he must have been party to cases where there were non-disclosure clauses? It is

quite common.

Do I have full knowledge of every time that happens? I do know that

there was a settlement with Torbay Excavating. I am not sure if there was a non-disclosure

clause there or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tors Cove.

MR. DECKER: Tors Cove, that is correct, Mr. Speaker.

It is the nature of this job that the minister does not carry around

the details of every single transaction. I would think that yesterday there were probably

forty-five or fifty traffic tickets issued. I don't know who they were for.

The minister is responsible for policy and legislation, but the

day-to-day administration is not carried out by me. In order to do that I would be the

deputy minister or assistant deputy minister or director, and I have no desire of taking

any of these jobs at the present time.

Anywhere it is in the public interest to make information available, we

will do it quite readily. The specific cases that he has, I will certainly look into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not talking about Traffic Court, and I am not talking about Small

Claims Court. I am talking about significant amounts of public dollars; perhaps, in that

particular case, well in excess of $1 million.

Again I ask the minister: In cases where significant public dollars are

at stake, and in view of the principle that the people of this Province have the right to

know how their money is being spent, where it is being spent and so on, will the minister

review cases in his department which have been settled relatively recently on the

courthouse steps?

These are very public cases. This is litigation involving the public of

the Province. These are very public cases. Will the minister either tell the Members of

the House of Assembly and the people of the Province, or table in this Legislature,

details and particulars of cases where there have been courthouse step settlements, and

thereby telling the people of the Province where and how their money is being spent?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that in any

given day this Province is being sued by probably a dozen people or companies. It is an

ongoing thing. Most of the time government wins its case and government does not have to

settle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members laugh. The Member for St.

John's East should laugh because he knows the system. We only hear publicly about the

bigger ones. We only hear about the Frank Ryan cases, we only hear about the one which the

Tors Cove woman brought to our attention, the ones which government tends to lose.

Mr. Speaker, after a case has been lost, or if government believes or

the Department of Justice believes that there is a good chance, an excellent chance, that

we will lose, then attempts are made to settle. When these settlements are made - and, as

the hon. member points out, sometimes on the courthouse steps - both the company and the

government have an agreement. Sometimes the agreement will say: Neither will disclose this

for a period of two weeks, six months, twelve months. I am not aware of one where it was

ever said we will never make it public. As a matter of a fact, the Frank Ryan issue we

said we would not disclose unless we were legally required to do so. It seems like the

freedom of information act will require that we make it public.

Mr. Speaker, we have written Mr. Ryan. As soon as they give us the

authority, as soon as they say it is alright to answer that request and give the amount,

we will do it. We will do it today, no problem. Government has no problem making the

figure public. I will tell you why.

The company was asking for $11 million, and in addition to that there

was a personal suit being threatened against us for another $9 million or $10 million. We

had the potential of paying out $22 million. We lost that in the Trial Division, we lost

it in the Court of Appeal, and we did not think that we had a solid enough case to have

the Supreme Court even agree to accept it. We asked if they would accept it.

We did what we thought was right, and what we believe was right, and

that we know was right, in the public interest. When we will disclose that figure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. DECKER: It will depend on what the company has to say. If the

company says yes today, it will be released today, Mr. Speaker. If the company says: Give

us time to get our affairs in order -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. DECKER: We have a duty to the company to hold off until they

get their affairs in order. The hon. member knows that. He is just trying to make

political points, that is all.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the

Minister of Education.

On September 24, 1998, the minister re-announced a commitment made in

this year's provincial budget to provide bridge financing for an awards program available

to deserving and needy post-secondary students. As many as 2,000 students this year will

receive scholarships of $1,000 each. That was great news, I say to the minister.

However, why have the minister and his government denied access to this

scholarship fund to student who attend the private colleges? Of course, as he knows, the

announcement in the March Budget and his announcement in September limited access to those

students who were in public colleges, namely Memorial University and the College of the

North Atlantic. Why have you discriminated against private college students?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing there is not much

time left in Question Period, and realizing he has several other very important questions

he would like to ask, I will try to give a brief answer. In fact, with regards to the

awards program, 2,000 students in Newfoundland and Labrador actually received their

cheques in the last week. It is a very positive initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: It is, as recognized by the opposition critic for

education, a very positive initiative. I must say, in the almost three years now that I

have been in the office as Minister of Education, it is the first and foremost, the

uppermost issue on which we have actually had students call the Department of Education

and thank the government for putting this particular program in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to quickly conclude his answer as question

period is running out.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The awards were put in place through

a committee process that very intimately and heavily involved the students of Newfoundland

and Labrador, who put together with government officials the criteria for the program.

Everybody agreed that the current criteria are the appropriate ones for this fund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No. The Chair called it but nobody rose. Can we revert

to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: We will revert.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the report for the income

support division of the Department of Human Resources and Employment for the fiscal year

1997-1998.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a

petition to the House of Assembly. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS we feel the priorities being followed by HRDC for the hiring of

applicants on term job creation projects are morally wrong and unfair; and

WHEREAS we believe priority one should be given to former TAGS clients

who are unemployed and have little or no income; and

WHEREAS we further believe that whether or not an individual received

EI in the past three years should have absolutely no bearing on a person's placement on a

priority list;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

to direct their HRDC offices to give first priority in hiring for term job creation

projects to former TAGS clients who are unemployed, and to disregard whether the applicant

has received EI in the past three years.

Mr. Speaker, those petitions came from a group of concerned people that

are trying to access the post-TAGS program as put forward by the federal Government of

Canada, the Department of HRDC in Ottawa. Their concern is well justified. I have had at

least five meetings with HRDC, trying to have them change their priorities or the criteria

they put forward in determining who should get first crack at the jobs that are being put

forward by Human Resources Development Canada.

The situation is that not all HRDC offices are using the same criteria.

What they have done is put forward a priority list. The priority list is, according to the

HRDC office in Clarenville, that the people who would get first recognition for jobs would

be people who have not drawn EI in the past thirty-six months, people that were taken off

the TAGS program. The second priority would be people who have not received EI in the past

thirty-six months. The third priority would be all others.

What we have is the very people those programs were meant to help being

put in the lower priority list. What they are saying is: Because we had the initiative to

find a job and go to work, we are now being penalized. I always thought that the person

who had the initiative to go and look for a job should be rewarded, not penalized. I fail

to understand how HRDC can look at somebody and say: Because you worked in the past

thirty-six months, because you have had a job, because you have qualified for employment

insurance, we are now going to put you at the bottom of the priority list.

The very people this program was put in place to help are finding

themselves having to wait until everybody else goes to work. Some of those people have not

seen a paycheque for two years. Some of them were taken off the program early for one

reason or another. Some of those people have spent fifteen or twenty years in the fishery.

They find themselves unable to access the early retirement program, and now they find

themselves unable to access a job program put in place to help them.

I and everybody else realize that when you bring forward a program, and

if you do not have enough work to help everybody, there have to be rules and regulations.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I just want to say to the hon. gentleman that I did not

hear what he was presenting in his petition. If we require leave for him to go back over

it again - I wonder if we could have - I think this is an important issue that the hon.

gentleman has raised in regards to TAGS through a petition. If we require leave to get him

to review it, if his time runs out before he gets a chance to review it, then I would like

for him to review the facts of the petition again so that we know exactly what you are

saying.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The problem, I say to the minister, is with the

priorities HRDC has brought forward in allowing people to be hired on those programs that

are brought forward now with post-TAGS funding.

Everybody realized that if you do not have enough jobs or if you do not

have enough employment to go around and serve everybody who is unemployed, then you must

have rules and regulations and you must set priorities. I have no problem with that, and

the people who have called me and have signed this petition have no problem with that.

What they have a real problem with is one of the rules that HRDC has implemented in order

to set the priorities. It is the one whereby, if you have drawn EI - if you have had the

initiative to go and find a job, and have drawn EI - in the past thirty-six months, which

is three years, then you are put in the lower priority list. You are put in priority

number three.

Everybody else is in priority number two, so everybody would have a

right to apply for a job, even somebody who left school today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) TAGS.

MR. FITZGERALD: If they were not on TAGS.

Everybody would have a right to apply for a job and receive priority

over those people who had the initiative to go out and look for a job and receive EI up to

thirty-six months ago. If you came off EI last week, you are not eligible. If you came off

EI thirty-four months ago, you are not eligible to be considered for those projects until

everybody else go to work.

When I say everybody else, I am talking about everybody out there today

who is old enough to go to work. To me that is wrong. We are talking about TAGS

recipients. We are talking about people who have spent years and years in the fishery. The

very people that this program was put in place to help are being denied the opportunity to

apply for a job, or to be considered because of this foolish rule and regulation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely.

What those people are saying is that we feel this is discriminatory. We

feel that because we have the initiative to go and find a job, we should be encouraged and

helped, and not discriminated against. That is all this petition is saying.

I support the petition, and I think the minister will as well. I do not

know how many calls his office has received, but it is a big problem in certain areas of

this Province.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just quickly, if I can, put this

issue to rest by saying to the hon. gentleman that I would be pleased - I have to say to

him, in all fairness, that I am not aware of this problem. I have to say that in all

honesty.

What I like to propose to the hon. gentleman is that we would get

together after we get straightened away in the House today and he can present the problem

to me. I would like to present it to HRD and find out if it is the problem that he says. I

will point it out to them and ask if indeed they would reconsider the regulations and

rules for applications.

I cannot guarantee him a solution, because he knows it is not my money

and I have no say in spending it - the $34 million or $36 million. I think the federal MPs

primarily wanted to see that this was spent by the federal government, so this government

has no authority in getting those regulations changed; but we would certainly like to be

aware of the problem and to make representation on behalf of the people of the Province

who are experiencing the problem.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I want to rise to support my colleague in this

petition.

I am a bit surprised to hear that the minister is not aware of it, but

I am glad he is going to look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, tell the minister to relax. It was not

meant as a derogatory comment. Just to say he was not near the situation - like I am in my

thirty-three communities, and the member in the forty-four communities he has. We get this

over and over. I am just going to point out again one of the problems with it that I find

so ridiculous. I cannot believe a bureaucrat sat somewhere and actually did this up.

Basically what they are saying is that if you went to work in the last

three years and tried to do better for yourself, if you tried to help yourself out, we

won't let you get on this project. In other words, you tried to help yourself and it is

the wrong thing to do. What kind of a signal is that to send out?

The other problem I have with this is, for example - I will use one of

the examples of my colleague across the way. Mr. Baker - which overlapped partly into my

district, in one of the communities, in Little Bay Islands - at a public meeting, with

everybody there in the place, just a couple of months before this was all announced,

slammed his fist on the table and told everybody at the meeting that every single person

who qualifies would get on a project. That is what he told them at a public meeting. Of

course, he went away from that meeting with everybody there sitting around and saying:

Well, he is the MP. He is the guy who is putting this in place. He should know what he is

talking about.

The point is that they are putting across mixed signals. Then we have

the MP for Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte, slamming the HRDC. There may be problems at

HRDC; I do not deny that. There are all kinds of arguments we could put in place, but the

overall argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: On the EI thing?

This is part of it all, and this is what I am going to get to. He is

absolutely right. I had it down right here as my fourth point but I will bring it up now.

If you go from one HRDC office to another, the MP is having a big say in one but he is not

having a big say in the other. One office is doing something and the other office is not

doing something. Then you have one HRDC office saying: We will do the hiring. We will

decide who gets on. In another area they told the community council: No, you decide who

gets on.

The truth is, we are all right. Everybody is right. This is a mixed bag

of inconsistencies everywhere you go, from one part of the Province to another. So what I

was saying to the minister was not in any way derogatory. The point I was making was that

the signals are different all over the place and maybe in the minister's area he does not

have that problem.

Really what I am supporting here today, and the reason I am supporting

the petition, is because we have so many inconsistencies that it is a good idea that the

minister get together - I am serious. I am telling you. I know the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo, and I know we are bombarded with calls, of something that is happening

different here and there and all over the Island and in different communities and we are

trying to get a handle on it. I am getting hundreds of calls, not to be exaggerating, and

I am sure the rural members are getting the same thing, of different things that are

happening all over the Province.

The minister is right on, as far as inconsistencies. You go to one

community - he is right. He knows. There is no skating around this because we are in the

middle of it. I am going to go upstairs now at 12:00 o'clock and there are going to be

twenty to twenty-five calls about the TAGS and the projects, who is getting on, and the

member has his pink slips up there and I will show you mine. He is right on.

I am glad that the minister said he is going to have a meeting

afterwards and look into this and see if maybe the provincial arm of this whole mess can

bring some consistency back into this and put people on the projects who need it most,

that the money is spent where it should be, that the projects are in some (inaudible)

long-term and so on.

This is a very important petition here today. I am glad it was brought

to light by the Member for Bonavista South. Maybe we can try to get a handle on it,

through the minister, the government, and the other members on the other side who are

hearing the same things, and get some kind of consistency going through this Province so

that people are getting hired who should be getting hired and so on.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible) people

speak on the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: We have had three people speak on the petition but I

believe that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo would like to lend some clarification

to this issue. I wonder if he could get leave of the House to speak?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. The hon. the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo.

MR. G. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have the second or the

third largest district in the Province with TAGS recipients, and for the past two to three

months I have been receiving a minimum of fifty calls a day about the TAGS project or the

new program that HRD has in place; but, unlike the Member for Bonavista South, the

criteria in the Gander office, which is the central region, are different. If that is the

case, then what is happening in his area? Because the criteria in the Gander office of HRD

states: Priority one, or anyone who had received TAGS and had not received UI in the last

three years, that is the first pool; that is the first priority. They go to work first.

Priority two would be anyone who had received TAGS and did receive EI

in the last three years. Priority three would be everybody else.

At the beginning of this week I had a discussion with an HRD official

in Gander and he told me that by that the end of this week or very early next week

everyone in my District of Twillingate & Fogo who was ever on TAGS will have gone to

work on a project.

There is another problem involved there, and it goes back to what the

hon. Member for Bonavista South discussed first about the person who went to work. In my

district right now there is a number of individuals who managed to receive enough hours

this summer to receive low UI this winter. There are people out there right now who have

signed up for EI and are receiving $50 or $60 a week.

These people have not to date gone on a project. In that light, Mr.

Speaker, the person who made an effort to go this summer and to find a few hours work,

even though they be at low wages, right now are being penalized for having done so. Those

people who were on TAGS at one point but had been dropped or are either still on it and

had gone back this summer to try to find a few hours work, these people are being

disqualified.

Outside of that as well is that HRD is also telling me that if there is

any money left, and they think there will be some - in fact, in my district it is now

happening - that they are going to get into the third criteria, the third pool, and that

is everybody else. That means everyone outside of those who had received TAGS. In fact, I

know some constituents of mine who have gone to work this week who had never drawn TAGS,

because all those who have been on TAGS are at work or will be by the end of this week.

That is according to HRD.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from

Labrador City regarding the moving of the pellet plant or the upgrading to Sept-Iles,

Quebec.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City:

WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial

government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process the Labrador

City 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.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

We have a number of signatures and they continue to come in to us,

these petitions, Mr. Speaker. The people of Labrador - and province-wide - want us to

speak up in this House of Assembly, and to show the people of the Province the policies of

this Administration in not supporting the people of Labrador and the people working in

IOC.

If you look at what is going to happen in the future and the natural

progression of things, the natural progression is this. That if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: - Sept-Iles starts producing a better quality pellet,

Mr. Speaker, then - what is he saying?

MR. SHELLEY: He said you were lying.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Minister of Education

say across the House that I was lying, and I think that is unparliamentary. I ask you to

ask the member to apologize. That is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I did not hear what the hon. minister was saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I did not hear what the hon. minister was saying, but I am sure that if

the hon. minister had said anything that was unparliamentary I would expect he would

withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Did I understand the hon. gentleman that while he was -

yes, there is a point of order. Why should the hon. gentlemen, when he is speaking, raise

a point of order? He has the floor anyway. How silly can you get?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't call a point of order when (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) a point of privilege, how about that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I will say to you that you are going to have to keep that side of the

House, the members to your left, in check. They cannot be over there bawling out all kinds

of unparliamentary words when you are sitting in the Chair, or anyone is sitting in that

Chair. The Minister of Education should know better. I would not use such terminology in

this House.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: I heard the hon. gentleman say, just before the Speaker

left the Chair, that he was up on a point of privilege. I want to ask the hon. gentleman,

was he just speaking to a point of privilege then, or was he speaking on the petition he

has there? Because I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if he is on a point of

privilege. If he is then I want the privilege of course to speak back to it.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that a point of order? Let me ask you that first.

Because (inaudible) want to speak to that? Can you rule on that first, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is seeking guidance. This hon. member just

sat in the Chair as the hon. Government House Leader was standing on a point of order. I

am expecting that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis will give the Chair some

clarification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was not recognized on a point of

privilege. The Government House Leader again is confusing matters as he normally does, on

a point of order, and I am just waiting to find out if that is a point of order on his

behalf so I can speak to it.

MR. TULK: Just clarify it.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just clarified it. Are you listening? Are you

trying to confuse matters?

MR. TULK: Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am speaking to the petition.

MR. TULK: Okay.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am speaking to the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I

would expect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Therefore it is the ruling of the Chair that number one, there is no

point of privilege, and number two, there is no point of order, and the member has been

recognized to speak in the debate on the petition.

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

Again, the Government House Leader -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is speaking by leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: All I have is one minute. I gave you leave a couple

of minutes ago. Sit down.

Mr. Speaker, again the Government House Leader got up to abuse the time

of the House to take away my speaking time for the five minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) giving you leave (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? Yes, I am just trying to clarify what

happened here so the Speaker can understand the (inaudible) tactics in this House of

Assembly.

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

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

Leader.

MR. TULK: I have to tell the hon. gentleman, on a point of order,

that you are at the mercy of the House, and that means every person in this House must

agree that you are on leave. Now if you don't want leave withdrawn, I say to him, in the

interest of the people that you are presenting that petition for, stand and say what the

petition is about. You have not touched it yet.

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

leave to the petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am speaking by leave to the petition.

With respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, I support the petitioners in

Labrador City. I have a lot to say on this matter, but we just gave leave to the Member

for Twillingate & Fogo to speak when the Government House Leader the other day would

not allow us to do the same thing. The Government House Leader is abusing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - the time of the House as he normally does, Mr.

Speaker!

Thank you. I will speak to another petition down the road.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

I would like to stand and speak to the petition on IOC. The petitioners

in Labrador City and surrounding areas have some very legitimate concerns, and those

concerns I believe were raised by the Premier himself when the Premier took such a strong

stand on the smelter. Even though Inco are saying that it is not a viable project the

Premier has continued to take such a strong stand on the smelter as it relates to Voisey's

Bay.

I would submit that the pellet plant in Labrador City, while it may not

be viable on its own, is viable as a part of the overall project and therefore, as it is

the resource that belongs to the people of this Province, the people of this Province

should have a say in where the pellet plant goes. The same point that the Premier made on

Voisey's Bay - if there is no smelter, leave the ore in the ground -, well, in Labrador

West we should say: If there is no pellet plant we should leave the ore in the ground

until they put a pellet plant in Labrador West.

It is the resource belonging to the people of Labrador, the people of

Newfoundland, the people of the entire Province. For decades we have seen our resources

taken away from us and given to outside interests without the secondary processing done in

this Province. Without the secondary progressing done in this Province, when we export raw

resources with that we export jobs.

This Province has seen out-migration in numbers that we have never seen

before. The only way to cure that is to create employment here, and the only way to create

employment is to start using our natural resources to the maximum benefit of the people of

this Province. We are now looking at proposals to export water from Gisborne Lake. Again,

exporting our natural resources to allow somebody else, another interest elsewhere, to

process our resources.

If the Premier can take such a strong stand on Voisey's Bay, why is it

he is not prepared to do so with all of our other resources? In order to curb the

out-migration problem in this Province, in order to put people in this Province back to

work, in order to stimulate the economy here, we need more than just oil production. This

Province needs jobs. This Province needs jobs in all sectors.

Talking about oil production, it would certainly be nice, considering

the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador are going to become a major player in the world

oil industry, that we start perhaps looking at producing the oil here, refining it here.

The real issue on the table today is the iron ore in Labrador. The fact

is that the Iron Ore Company of Canada is looking - while they have had a fantastic

royalty regime for decades, while they have made hundreds of millions of dollars on our

resource - now at taking jobs away from this Province by putting a pellet plant in Quebec.

What is most ironic about this is that part of the reason Quebec could

subsidize this plant, part of the reason Quebec could offer such incentives to the Iron

Ore Company of Canada, was because of the profits they are making on the Churchill Falls

project. The same profits that they are making on the Churchill Falls project are going to

subsidize the pellet plant in Quebec. The same power they are taking from Newfoundlanders

in Labrador is going to power this pellet plant in Quebec. It is almost a three-way slap

in the face for Newfoundlanders.

Newfoundlanders have to stand up for their rights. I believe the people

in Labrador West have been doing that by petitioning government, by lobbying government,

by holding news conferences. We have to become more vigilant in this Province. We have to

start producing our resources here to benefit the people of this Province, as opposed to

sending out our resources to benefit people elsewhere.

The people of Labrador West have taken a stand and I think government

should listen. The people of this Province should listen, the members of this House of

Assembly should listen. If the overall project is viable, regardless of whether the pellet

plant on its own is or not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just a minute to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR T. OSBORNE: Thirty seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave. I ask him to take

his seat.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will have it put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that

the government are still not listening. Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments with respect to

the petition presented so ably and capably by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis and

supported by the Member for St. John's South.

There are a couple of things with respect to it. I am pleased to see

the petitions continuing to be presented on behalf of the residents of Labrador West.

Because the actual resolution within that petition, that we support secondary processing

of resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, is the position of this government. We have no

hesitation in supporting that general principal.

The difficulty - and I am pleased to hear particularly the Member for

St. John's South address the issue because it articulates clearly the position of the

Opposition. At least I assume when he speaks that the whole caucus agrees with the same

position.

Their position, and I have listened very closely, clearly is that if

there is not going to be an expansion to the pellet plant in Labrador West, we should

leave the ore in the ground. In other words, you cannot ship -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: That is what he just said. Hansard shows it clearly,

and he will stand up and acknowledge that is what he said: we should leave the ore in the

ground. That is the phrase that he used, and he used it two or three times in his address

MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

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

I know that the minister was attempting to listen, but hearing and

listening and understanding are probably altogether different. I was putting together a

comparison of what the Premier said regarding the ore from Voisey's Bay, and if there is

no smelter, there is no ore, leave it in the ground, and the fact that he has not taken

that stand on IOC.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. member took

advantage of the opportunity to provide further clarification on the issue raised.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He confirmed again exactly what he just said, that he said that the

Premier and the government should take exactly the same stand with respect to Labrador

West as the government is taking with respect to Inco and the smelter; that is, if you do

not build the smelter, you should leave the ore in the ground. Therefore, he is saying

that if you do not extend the pellet plant in Labrador West, you should leave the ore in

the ground. That is exactly what the hon. member said, and I understand that to be the

position of the Opposition, and we will send that transcript to Labrador West so they

know. Because, I believe, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: Can I interrupt you for a minute? The Member for

Ferryland clearly stated the other evening -

MR. GRIMES: And the Member for Ferryland, who is the Opposition

House Leader, said exactly the same thing in his presentation a couple of days ago, so we

assume that is the position of the Official Opposition. We will have that position send

with Hansard, and the proper clippings and quotes, to the people of Labrador West, because

I am sure they have not thought through the consequences at all.

Surely goodness they would not then suggest that the government should

take a position with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, North IOC, that in fact you must send

all pellets out of Labrador West or leave the ore in the ground, when across the lake in

Labrador West at Wabush Mines there is a full operation where nothing except concentrate

has been shipped for over thirty years.

If we are going to say, too - if they are suggesting that if they were

the government they would say to the Iron Ore Company of Canada, `You cannot ship

concentrate out of Labrador West; it must be a pellet', then how is any government going

to stand up with credibility and say to a company across the same lake in the same part of

our Province in Labrador, who ships nothing but concentrate, that you must now ship

pellets. They have never shipped a pellet. The consequence - Wabush was closed down,

because you cannot have two different positions from the government on the same issue.

MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is speaking nonsense

here. The operation that has been in place for thirty years is established. Are we going

to continue to make the same mistakes of the past? I am not saying to shut down an

operation that is already in place. What I am saying is: Do not start up an operation in

Quebec that should be started up in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the minister speaking to the point of

order?

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Is it the ruling of the

Chair that there is no point of order. Honourable members are taking advantage of the

rules of the House to engage further in debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That clarifies again why the hon. Member for St. John's South does not

understand why there is a difference between Voisey's Bay and Inco and IOC, just as he

compared Wabush and IOC. IOC has a forty-year operation existence in Newfoundland and

Labrador in which the finished products have been pellets and concentrate. That is going

to continue on with an expansion.

Inco does not even have a licence to operate in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and unless and until they agree with the government that there is going to be

full benefits and secondary processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, the law that has been

introduced here in this Legislature will indicate that they will not get a licence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: He does not seem to understand the difference. It is

kind of sad in a way, but I guess we cannot control how people think.

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

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

I just had another petition passed to me by one of the members who had

to leave, to present today with respect to IOC. It is basically the same petition that has

been presented in the House a number of times, but they are continually sent in to us so

we are going to continue to present them.

Mr. Speaker, I have to address some of the concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you hear what he said, Mr. Speaker? Are you deaf,

or did you hear him?

MR. TULK: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

Leader.

MR. TULK: I have heard this hon. gentleman make some comments, and

one of the things that protects us as members to carry out our duties in this House is the

integrity of the Speaker. You do not look at the Speaker and in any way insinuate that he

is not ruling in this House, or making proper rulings in this House.

I just heard the hon. gentleman say: Did you hear him, or are you deaf?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Are you deaf? Those were the words.

I would ask the hon. gentleman, before we get to the place where

everybody's privilege in this House is affected by that kind of statement, that he would

withdraw at least that part of the statement - are you deaf?

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

the point of privilege.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I not only withdraw it, I apologize for

using the words: Are you deaf?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair acknowledges the withdrawal and accepts the apology.

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

Twice this morning I have clearly heard - and other members of the

House have clearly heard - the Minister of Education say across the House that I am lying

in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, you are in that chair and very close to the man. I

think, at that time, you did hear the Minister of Education call me a liar. I want the

Minister of Education to apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis to the

petition. Would the hon. member stand and speak to the petition?

MR. SHELLEY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: The point of order is that this member, at five

different times today, which I have heard from this distance, the Minister of Education

called him a liar in this House - five times, twice while you were in the chair, three

times while the other Speaker was in the chair, and it has not been acknowledged. We have

reported it three times here and still there is nothing being done about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to that point of

order.

MR. TULK: It is one thing for the hon. gentleman from Cape St.

Francis to stand up and question, and ask the Speaker if he is deaf. The hon. gentleman

from Baie Verte is the assistant, the half House Leader over there, or quarter House

Leader, or whatever he is over there. He should know that you cannot do through the back

door what someone else has tried to do through the front door. He should know that he

cannot stand up in any way - stay in your seat because you may make a bigger fool of

yourself - he should surely know that he cannot stand up and say: Well, this has been

reported and there has been nothing done about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear the presentation being made by the

Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman opposite, if he wants to

stand up and say: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to pay attention to what the Member for

Exploits, the Minister of Education, is saying; would he please do so? He can do that, but

he cannot stand up in this House and tell the Speaker how to do his job. That is what he

is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are making a fool of yourself.

MR. TULK: That what you are doing. You have already made a fool of

yourself.

I would ask the Speaker, if he is going to continue in that vein, to

bring him to order and, if you have to, to name him and we will do the appropriate job on

him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, speaking further

to that point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking further to that point

of order.

First of all, the member rightly so apologized for what he had said to

the Speaker, and that is the past now. The problem is, the frustration has built on the

member because of this - five times. It didn't happen once, twice, or three times, but

five times. Every member on this side of the House and the people sitting next to him

knows - and the minister knows himself so he will not deny it - he has called the member a

liar on five occasions.

We have acknowledged it with the first Speaker, and now the Speaker who

is in the chair now. We are asking again, because he has never been brought to task on it.

He has called the member a liar on five different occasions and it has not been dealt

with. It is as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, speaking to the

point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a very important point of order that

I would hope you would rule on for clarification, for my own purposes, because I have been

here for almost ten years and I would like to make sure I know the rules.

When a member of this particular Legislature is brought to order, or

called to task, because of comments they have made, I am assuming that the only way the

Speaker could rule, and that the record of the House could show, was if I was the

recognized speaker when I was making the comments. Otherwise, how would anybody know and

how would history ever record what it was that was said if I had not been recognized as

the speaker.

I have done it in this Legislature before. If I was the recognized

Speaker and I am engaging in my then privilege to speak, suggested that a member - and

used unparliamentary language - suggested that a member was a liar while I was the

recognized speaker, I would fully expect to be called to task by the Chair, by the

Speaker, for unparliamentary language - and I have done that in the past - and I would

readily apologize.

I have been in this House for ten years, and there are all kinds of

conversations and barbs that go across the floor that are never recorded in Hansard and

are never part of the official debate of the House. I would like to know: What is the role

of the Chair in trying to control the unrecognized language that goes on in this House of

Assembly from time to time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, speaking to the point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: To clarify this we can go back and forth here all day.

The member has asked: Did you hear the member call this member a liar?

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members will take their seat, the Chair is

prepared to rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been ruled many times in this hon. House, and backed up by the

Standing Orders of practically all Legislatures in this Dominion of Canada, and by Beauchesne ,

that it is unparliamentary for any member to call any other member in the House of

Assembly a liar, whether he is on the record or whether he is not.

Unfortunately, when the Speaker is sitting in the Chair, the Speaker is

paying attention to the member who has been recognized to speak and cannot possibly be

paying attention to all forty-eight members in this Chamber at any one time.

If the hon. Minister of Education made some comments for which he

wishes to apologize, the Chair will acknowledge that. If that is not the case, I will go

back and recognize the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, that he is speaking to the

petition, but I will also remind the hon. member that his time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the clarification and because I did use that phrase, even

though I was not recognized as the speaker, I do apologize because I would not want to

engage in unparliamentary language. At a future point when another one of these petitions

is raised I will get up and explain why I was so insensitive and I used language that I

should not have used.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges the comments made by the

Minister for Education and accepts the apology.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the petition

on behalf of the residents from Labrador West. As the Minister of Education said: IOC has

been in Labrador West for forty years.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I would draw the attention of the Speaker - I am not

trying to tell the Speaker what to do, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that

the half, or quarter, of a House Leader on the other side is still saying across this

House what he is not allowed to say. I ask the Speaker to pay close attention to him. He

is still saying that the Speaker heard the Minister of Education call the Member for Cape

St. Francis a liar. I ask him to pay particular attention to him.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, to the point of

order.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is

talking about. Did you hear me say that? If you did not, and there is nothing on the

record, there is nothing to be talked about.

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

that he used words that he considers unparliamentary, has withdrawn, and has apologized.

That is satisfactory to the Chair, and it should be satisfactory to all other hon. members

in the House.

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

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

As I was saying, the Minister of Education said that the Iron Ore

Company of Canada has been pelletizing in Labrador West for forty years. It behooves me

why they cannot continue this operation. The present company has said that it is more

viable for them to re-locate to Sept-Iles. Viable according to whom? It looks to me like

we have the foxes guarding the chicken coop here when they go out and employ their own

people to do their own report showing viability.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, the crux of my reply, and what I would like

to talk to, is how a year ago, at the Winter Games in Labrador City, how the Premier said

to the people - and whether he was saying it for political purposes or whether he really

believed it at the time, who knows? It is only the Premier who knows that. But when he

said that if the pellet plant isn't in Labrador West, he will personally fly to Australia

and see to it that it happens....

He has not gone to Australia yet and the pellet plant is not going to

remain in Labrador West. So one of the things we have to look at here is: Why promise

somebody something? Was it said for political reasons? Was it said because it felt good to

say it at the time? He had a good audience there, there was a lot of rah-rah, people felt

good about the carnival being held in Labrador City, and it was a perfect opportunity for

the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy to get up there and make all sorts of

promises.

These people lived in hope, and they trusted the Premier. They took him

to his word, and now what has happened is that the Premier has not lived up to his word.

He is not fighting for what he said he would fight for back at the winter carnival last

year. So how can the people, how can the rest of the residents of the Province, trust

anything that the Premier said? Where is the accountability here when the Premier of a

Province can get up and say: If the pellet plant does not remain here, I will personally

fly to Australia.

This was a promise made in front of a lot of the residents of Labrador

City to his people, and he is not following through. So it goes to follow, if we are going

to draw analogies here on things that other speakers are saying, then we can draw an

analogy: I said it but I didn't really mean it. So in the future, anything that I say you

don't need to take for face value because a year down the road, two months down the road,

six months down the road, I can say: Yes, I kind of meant it at the time but no, I don't

think I will do that right now.

How many other things are being verbalized by the government that the

people can listen to and say: Well, does he really mean that or is he saying it because he

has a good audience at the moment; he can get up and there is a lot of cheering, a lot of

ranting, and it is very politically nice - and: Oh my, what a nice guy the Premier is. He

is going to stand up on behalf of the people of Labrador West -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day be now

read.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

The Chair did not see three hon. members standing, so the motion is

carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 13, Bill No. 38, "An Act To

Amend The Mineral Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral

Act". (Bill No. 38)

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to continue with some comments I started yesterday on a very

significant piece of legislation that is about to pass through this House of Assembly.

There are a lot of strange things happening in the mining industry these days with IOC,

Inco, and so on.

To get back to some of the housecleaning points, and to make a point to

the minister, like I said, there are lots of things to clean up in the Mineral Act, there

is no doubt about it. Things have happened with staking claims and so on. One of those

housecleaning acts was to do something about the archaic way of doing the claim staking,

where people have to line up in their cars and put campers - as a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, as we speak today I have constituents from my area camped out in the parking lot

of where the stake claims are going on, the mines building.

One of the suggestions I think in this one is basically a lottery where

people can put in their names. I am glad we are trying to fix that, because something has

to be done with it. The first I heard of it was yesterday. I tried to think about it and

talked to a few people about it. They are glad too that there is something going to be

done about it. The fear I have, and I wonder if the minister has thought about it, if

people can just call in and put in their names, is this. I will just take a very

simplified example. If I want to stake a claim I can get my wife, my son and my uncle and

another ten more to put in theirs. Right? What it might come down to is that whoever has

the biggest family, or whoever has the most people to call in to put in that claim, has a

better chance at the lottery.

It was something that was brought up to me, Mr. Speaker, and it is

simply something we should look at.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. minister like to have the microphone turned on for

answers?

MR. FUREY: Yes, sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. FUREY: You raise a good point and it is one that we thought

about, and it is one that industry brought to our attention. You get people who are going

to chase one piece of property and they all of sudden invade the lottery with phoney

names. Phoney names is incorrect. Stacked names, I guess, is the best way to put it.

What the legislation will do is allow us to move from that archaic

system that is currently in place and create the lottery circumstance. What we have to do

now is consult with industry to see how we put the rules in place for that. There are no

set rules yet. We just want the mechanism to create that ability to set the rules.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it could be a suggestion at this point, but somebody made a

suggestion that maybe when you are staking claims to a particular area of the Province -

as an example, if you are staking claims on the Baie Verte Peninsula -, and if the people

are interested in that, then a day or two days are set aside, depending on how many claims

are possible. People who want to stake claims in the Baie Verte Area go to a regional

office for that day and stake claims. Or if it is in Gander they can go to that area. At

least you will not be lining up for days in St. John's for the whole Province.

Secondly, there is a big disadvantage. For example, like you said, in

your district, Port au Choix, I have people who drove in here from Baie Verte who are

sleeping in their cars down there now to stake claims. Why couldn't they stay in Baie

Verte if they want to stake claims in Baie Verte? Open up a office there at the time.

We aren't talking about huge expenditures of money, I don't think. It

just another suggestion and I really don't know if that will work. My point is that we

have to look at something there that will give fairness to everybody and remove this

foolishness that we go through now. I am glad we are attempting to fix that.

I do not know down the road if we can have more discussions on it.

Maybe that is a good idea, to have an open discussion form on it for a day or so with some

people in the industry to come up with suggestions. Then the minister has something to

work with it to clear it up. So that may be right. As far as that housekeeping goes, it is

something that is moving in the right direction. Whether we have it nipped in the bud

properly yet I do not know.

One of the other things the minister talked about is about losing

mineral claims, to be able to give them up if you do not use them over a period of time.

There are some of those that make a lot of sense, and it certainly needs to be cleaned up,

there is no doubt about that.

Now to get into the heart of the amendments. There are people who do

not understand, but the minister does, and probably a lot of people in this House. I do,

to an extent, but I do not claim to be an expert on it. I know about mining. As a matter

of fact, I was even explaining to a young fellow yesterday here in St. John's - I will not

use his name; we talked about mining and so on -, I said: If somebody looked over at the

Southside Hills today and said there might be some mining potential there, there is where

you go with it. You start off by going to tap your rocks, you do your geology work. I had

a little bit of work to do with geology over the years. That is where you begin.

Because you see, like Voisey's Bay when it was discovered, the rust in

the rocks, and you go up and you tap the rocks. I am trying to simply for anybody that

would look at the mining industry part of it. Then of course you do the seismic work, and

the technology that we have today does some very good work. All those things do really to

the mining person is give you some clues. It gives you clues about where you should get

ready to spend your money.

The real money comes when we have got to go through thousands of meters

of rock to set up drills and so on. That is when we need the big bucks. That is when we

have to get an investor, either inside or outside the Province, to come in with the big

bucks and say: Let's do it.

The point I am getting at on that, and the minister agrees, is that the

mining industry is all about high risk. It is like a lottery. Buying a ticket for a

lottery, you get a chance to hit or miss. Again, the minister knows what I am talking

about with lotteries. That is the truth of it. The simple reality for the people who do

not understand is that when we are talking about mining we are talking about guys to come

in to get a lot of money spent and they start punching holes. In many instances they do

not find the ore. As a matter of fact, if you listen to the story of Voisey's Bay - and I

have heard it first-hand from the fellows who discovered it - I mean right up to the last

dying days they thought they had nothing but those last few drill holes. The word came

back: I think we got it, it is a big one.

Now of course the book is out on it. I have not read the book yet, I

say to the minister. Very interesting. As a matter of fact, what I have done is asked the

Verbiskis if they would read the book and let me know if it is real. Because a lot of

times you get these books written, and really it is a lot of fiction. They did not get a

lot of the facts and so on. I would like to hear, from the fellows who discovered it

really and what the book is all about, if these people believe it is the real story of

Voisey's Bay and how it was discovered. It is very interesting. I am certainly planning to

read it as soon as I get a chance, hopefully even next week to start to read it, I want to

hear from the Verbiskis themselves if the book is really relevant to exactly what

happened. It is going to be interesting to hear what their comments are going to be on it.

That was just an example, and something for the history books of

Newfoundland and Labrador of what really happened with Voisey's Bay and how significant

that find was. What it did was open the eyes of investors all around the world to look at

Newfoundland and Labrador. That was one of the most positive things, besides the actual

physical act of finding a major ore find and so on. What it did beside that, specifically,

was that it opened the eyes of a lot of investment people out there who said the geology

of Newfoundland is exciting. Because that is what they first have to see. When people with

all that money out there are looking around, when they found out about Voisey's Bay, they

said: Labrador, what a place to go, what a place to send up money and explore. That is

what they looked for. So, Mr. Speaker, the key -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) time do you have left?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know. I would like to know. Could you find

out? I didn't know exactly how much, actually.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For clarification, the hon. member's time is up at 11:36 a.m.

MR. SHELLEY: I get an hour, right? I get one hour? I have only

spoken for twelve minutes.

MR. J. BYRNE: You didn't start until 10:45 a.m.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, but I started yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the point - I don't want to lose the train

of thought on this -, the Voisey's Bay discovery, besides the actual mine itself and so

on, and the point I am trying to make here today, is that the most important part of our

mining industry is attracting investors, attracting the big dollars really to come in, to

get under the surface to see what is there.

We can go around and we can do prospecting work - which I have done -

we can do the seismic work and the technology that shoots into the ground to see if there

are anomalies there, but the real work comes when the drill goes down in the ground. If

there is dredging done, that is another way of doing some of the surface work, but the

real work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You are only going to listen to me for quarter of the

time though, aren't you? Because I am only a quarter of the House Speaker, or whatever.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the significance of Voisey's Bay

and the discovery is not just specifically for the people who are involved with Voisey's

Bay and Archaen Resources, and now Inco and Diamond Fields. The significance is for

Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. Because what it did was start a rush. They had the

gold rush in the Klondike, we had the nickel rush here. The claims were unbelievable, and

we had investors from all over the world going all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a result, for example, this year out around the Buchans River area,

on the Baie Verte Peninsula and King's Point, we see investors coming in from Ontario,

Texas, Nevada, all over the place, saying that the geology in this part of the Province,

because of the significance of the Voisey's Bay discoveries and other ones, that they are

interested in the area. Now what we have to get them interested in spending the millions

of dollars needed to find out if there is ore beneath our feet. Because all the rest of it

means nothing. When we tap the rocks, when we do the seismic work, when we do the

dredging, that is just to get them excited about it. Now we have to convince them that

there is a lot down there.

I have been around these people. The Minister of Mines and Energy has

met a lot with the junior mining companies, and trying to excite people and getting out

press releases. Then of course we have that other scenario which I do not like at all

which is what happened with the - what is the name of the firm, Roger? I forget for a

second. The big gold thing down in...

MR. J. BYRNE: The one that went bust? That is down in Indonesia

somewhere.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Indonesia, but what is the name of the company?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when there are falsehoods put up. I will get the

name in a second. Bre-X. When Bre-X went on there and so on. The problems with those is

when you have something like Bre-X and whatever it sends false hope. Again, related to all

this, is the investment again. Besides the fact they have to spend so much money, now they

also get these stories that blow up and a lot of people make a lot of money on, and then

all of a sudden people lose a lot of money on them. It scares people off, that is what it

does. We can ask the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I was just talking

about what a great fishery -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Bre-X was an example. My point about it all is that

when you are trying to encourage people, excite them into coming in the Province, these

junior mining companies - I have sat around and had many discussions with them - they are

trying to excite this big company like Inco, or other big companies, to come in: We need

$5 million to do an exploration project. Mr. Speaker, last year alone in the Voisey's Bay

area Inco spent $20 million. They are excited about what is up there. They are excited

about what they have found.

Now we have to be very careful in this Province what signal we send out

to these investors. They are not listening to what we are saying in the House of Assembly

today. If they are looking at coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to spend $5 million, $10

million or $15 million to look for an ore body that could mean a lot of jobs and a lot of

prosperity for the Province, they are going to say: What are the rules that are in place

that can take us there? Besides the fact that the ore is there, they are going to find out

now: What are we going to be operating on?

That is why the most important thing about any changes to any act -

because remember, the act is the law of the land, it is what governs us - what is really

important is that those investors that are going to take a high risk, and that is the

point we have to remember, they need to know what the rules of the game are before they

play. They are not going to come in and play unless they know what the rules of the game

are, and they know that after they spend $5 million, $6 million, $10 million or $15

million they are not going to have something coming in through the back door that is going

to change things. That is what we have to be careful of.

We have had the smaller mining companies all over this Province. In my

district right now, Nugget Pond, there is Nugget Pond Mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula,

which employees about eight to eight-five men. It is not a big mine, but it is very

environmentally friendly. Everybody who has gone there who has toured the site cannot

believe the impact. They have a long-term plan for cleaning up the site and so on

afterwards. They have done the right things. The Nugget Pond gold mine on the Baie Verte

Peninsula - I do not know if the statistics are exactly -

MS THISTLE: Not to mention all the stuff that is going on in Grand

Falls-Buchans.

MR. SHELLEY: I just mentioned that earlier. The Nugget Pond mine on

the Baie Verte Peninsula, is a small mine, Mr. Speaker. The point to this is that what

they have proven - and what I have been told from McWatters now who is looking at an area

in the King's Point area - is that a small compact mine can work. It does not have to be a

mega-project.

I will tell you have well it could work. The Nugget Pond mine as of

now, either with Canada or North America, is the lowest cost producer of gold in North

America, or if not, one of the lowest. I do not know if they are in the top five or

something or the lowest. The Nugget Pond mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula is one of the

lowest cost producers of gold in North America, and it is amazing what they have done

there.

Now, McWatters is looking at a site at the Hammerdown near King's

Point-Rattling Brook in the Green Bay area. We hope within the year we are going to see

the construction of a mine site, and hopefully into production of a mine within the next

year to eighteen months. Very exciting.

Because you have to remember what Nugget Pond is doing on the Baie

Verte Peninsula - like what hopefully McWatters will do - once they had this mine up and

running, and it is compact, solid and cost-effective, which it is - they are showing

profits on every quarter to date and their profits are increasing all the time -, they

know they have to do a good job. What is really important too to note is that when these

small mining companies come in and construct a mine and put it into production, like

Nugget Pond right now, they are circling the area, exploring more and more. I have a funny

feeling we are going to hear more about it.

In the Buchans River area, like the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans

announced, again the excitement is out there. We do not know yet. It is just like Voisey's

Bay starting, and they are not sure. What they are trying to be, and I applaud them for

it, is cautiously optimistic that the right things could happen in that area. Who knows?

That point again comes back to my beginning point which says that

people in the mining industry, yes, they get excited about the prospects for mining and

that things can happen, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time they know it is a big risk. They

know that there are millions and millions of dollars to be spent, and they can handle it.

The whole mining industry in all of these sectors is all down to; Yes,

there are small companies, yes there is big companies, but what we have to remember is

that these companies are going to come in with very high risks. They want to know what the

rules are before they enter the game. That is why we have to be very careful.

I have a funny feeling that within the next year to two years - by the

time we hit the year 2000 in Newfoundland - if we keep them interested, if they are still

excited about investing in this Province, you will see more and more discoveries in this

part of the country. Especially - and to put a plug in for my own district and the area

around Grand Falls, actually all that area, Green Bay, White Bay area, Central

Newfoundland - I have had geologists say to me that the geological structures of the land

masses in that area are very similar to the Klondike. The folding, the different amounts

of minerals found in assays and so on, proves to be that it could be very similar to the

Klondike.

Remember, just like Voisey's Bay - they walked over Voisey's Bay for

years and years. It is a fascinating story if you hear the story firsthand from the

fellows who were there. They actually were there and did a little chipping, and went on

somewhere else, and they walked over it over and over again. Apparently the last couple of

times they flew over the area they said: We should have one more look down there.

Basically that is what it was in Voisey's Bay. They went over it so many times, they said:

We should have one more look.

The other part of the story is that once they attracted the investor,

Diamond Fields to help them with the cost in drilling and so on, they got almost to the

end of that when they realized they were not getting the results they wanted. As a matter

of fact, they had some holes drilled and a lot of money spent and down to pretty well the

last cent on the exploration part or it, when they found out they finally hit the big one.

It was three or four holes, I think, left to be drilled when he could call home and

report. He said: I think we have hit the big one.

Mining just does not happen by going in and chipping out a few rocks.

What it takes is a lot of smart planning. By the way, a lot of people in this Province are

learning - the junior companies are learning, that you just do not go in and plug a drill

down in the ground, like a lot of them do. A lot of our own Newfoundland people, basically

they are starting to learn more and more - I guess you learn with anything - that they had

to have a well-planned exploration plan. They had to have a good exploration plan in

place. You just do not go and look at a rock and drop a drill down. What you have to do is

proper seismic work, some dredging work and so on, taking good samples, doing good assays.

As these mining companies prepare, every time they start preparing they

are looking at the exciting end result which hopefully will be a huge ore bottom. Right

now in the year to year-and-a-half in this Province there are a lot of junior companies. I

was out to CIMM just recently here in St. John's where I talked to many of these mining

companies and junior companies. As a matter of fact, the focus this year was on junior

mining companies and how excited they are about some prospects they have in this area.

If you were out around that conference - the minister was there and

some people here in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Grand Falls was there, and so she

should