December 8, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 48

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the hon. Members of the

House of Assembly with an update on the status of the Gulf ferry service.

However, we have not received a response from either Minister Collenette or

Marine Atlantic on the results of our consultations. It is time the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador heard what kind of Gulf ferry service we will have

next year. It is time the tourism and motor coach industries had a full

schedule

for year 2000 so they can make necessary business decisions. It is time the

trucking industry knew the level of capacity and sailing hours so they, too, can

make business decisions. It is time

potential tourists from across Canada, New England and elsewhere knew what

vessels were operating so they can make reservations to visit our Province and

enjoy the Vikings!1000 celebrations. It is time that the Ministry of Transport,

the Board of Directors of Marine Atlantic, and the senior management of the

Corporation provided a response to the twenty-four recommendations outlined in

our September On Deck and Below' report. It is time that Newfoundland and

Labrador had a fully adequate and appropr iate ferry

service across the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what to know the status of the

review of the On Deck and Below' recommendations. Newfoundlanders and

Labadorians want to know about the types of new vessels being considered for the

Gulf service and we want to know how far along a new vessel is in the approval

process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: It has been over eight weeks since the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador presented a series of twenty-four recommendations for

improvements to Gulf ferry service to the Minister of Transport and to Member of

Parliament, George Baker.

It has been over a month since independent traffic studies conducted by both

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Marine Atlantic confirmed a

serious capacity deficiency on the Gulf ferry service. Travellers, truckers and

tourists continue to be subjected to the existing inadequacies of the Gulf ferry

service.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working in consultation with Mr. George Baker, our

federal Cabinet representative, and other members of Parliament, and have their

cooperation and support on this matter. They are as anxious as we are to see

Newfoundland and Labrador provided a ferry service that will adequately meet our

needs. They have assured me they will continue to work on behalf of the Province

until a satisfactory conclusion has been reached.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador requests that the federal

Minister of Transport immediately announce the details of the new ferry vessel

for the Gulf and that he immediately respond to the recommendations put forth by

the Province in On Deck and Below'. We urge Minister Collenette to take all

necessary actions to provide a ferry service which meets year 2000 standards in

the provision of service to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the statement before the

House opened. It is funny, I guess, responding to this particular statement

because it jumps right out at you. At the beginning we have our Minister of

Tourism - and now all the cooperation that is going on with our MPs. The fact is

that the Minister of Tourism and the mutiny on the bounty' he had with the

member from Humber, St. Barbe, Baie Verte that brought attention to this issue.

Then we had Minister Collenette, who comes down to take the red carpet ride

across our ferry service here in this Province to find out the real truth, as if

he did not know. Then, we had Mr. Baker, the other one who is doing all the

cooperation and was on Here and Now. I don't remember the exact date , but

about a month ago. Debbie Cooper - and this was his information, because we have

not gotten any here yet; we do not have any here yet, but Mr. Baker's

information - I cannot quote it exactly but it is pretty close. Mr. Baker said

it is s omewhere between ten and twelve decks, cannot

remember exactly; somewhere between 300 and 400 rooms on the boat. Then she

said: Can you assure us that we are going to get this boat, Mr. Baker? He said:

Yes, I can assure you. She said: How can you do that? Because I am on Treasury

Board, so I can guarantee you are going to get your ferry.

Let's cap it all off. Then, Minister Baker, our representative in Ottawa -

the one who is doing all the cooperation on this issue, when she said: How long

will it take? Oh, it shouldn't take too long. I am not sure how long it takes

to get through Treasury Board. I have only been up here twenty-five years. I don't

know how the process works yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is so blatantly ridiculous. I am only new to

Cabinet. I am just learning the process now.

The truth is, this is long overdue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: This is profusely indicative of what Minister Collenette has

done to this issue over time. It is long overdue. Yes, get on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, let me take you back to last spring when the

Minister of Municipal Affairs was speaking on behalf of this issue and said in

this House of Assembly that everything was all under control, that he had a

meeting with the federal minister and everything was under control. Well, a week

later he was talking about how we were being treated as second-class citizens by

Ottawa.

This government has not been able to do anything about that issue ever since

then, and they are reduced to making statements in this House of Assembly

instead of getting their counterparts in Ottawa to take action and to take

action now.

That is what is needed, Mr. Speaker. Let's see what kind of influence they

really have in Ottawa with their Liberal cousins. Instead of just singing each

other's praises, let's see if they can get some action out of them.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Acting Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked

questions with respect to Marble Mountain dealing with the rental of a

condominium project, or the condominiums at the base of Marble Mountain. I asked

him directly: Could he confirm that a decision had been made to rent the

condominiums at the base of Marble Mountains, which would in effect be in direct

competition of hoteliers? The minister said in the House that he could not. He

left the door wide open to the possibility.

Last night I spoke to people involved in the industry in Corner Brook, and

they told me that the decision to rent on a daily basis was made two days ago.

In fact, management officials at Marble Mountain were talking about it on Friday

publicly. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance: Could he confirm

today, in view of the information that we have put forward, that in fact

government made a decision to get into the hotel business and into the daily

rental business of those condominiums?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the pieces, or part of one of the pieces, that the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition is missing is that in the construction of the

condominium units in Marble Mountain we have not simply taken money and thrown

it down a black hole. What we have done is we have built some infrastructure

that has value today to the extent that we invested in it, and will continue to

have value for many years to come.

The value that resides in that particular development- while it may not be

moving in terms of sales as quickly as we would all like to see - the fact of

the matter is that the intention is to put a facility there that -

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) dollar for (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the

hon. Member for St. John's South that if he is prepared to put a dollar on it,

let him put his dollar on the table and we will work from there. I'm not

suggesting that will be the final price we will negotiate on, but we would be

happy to have the hon. Member for St. John's South as the first purchaser of a

very fine condominium, in a very fine complex, in a very fine area of the

Province: Marble Mountain.

To the extent that the hon. member is trying to suggest that we are going

into the rental business with hotels, let me reiterate for him again the answer

that the Minister of Finance and the Premier gave yesterday. We are not going

into competition with the private sector on a regular and routine basis, but if

at some point there is a need for excess capacity, and if every last room in the

area is maxed out, then I think the hon. member would suggest that we would be

derelict not to use these units in that particular circumstance.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are not going into the hotel

business. We are in the sale of units business and we intend to pursue that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Acting Minister of Finance, hang in for the

next ten minutes and I will inform you of all the pieces that obviously you do

not have, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The next question is for the President of Treasury Board.

The President of Treasury Board is responsible for the spending of government

money and the accounting for government money. In May 1998 the Minister of

Finance stood in the House and said that the Marble Mountain Development

Corporation had secured a loan from a chartered bank at that time without

government guarantee to do this development. I would like to ask the minister

today: Can she inform us when the loan was made, with what bank it was made, and

the details surrounding that? Was it a mortgage, was it a loan, et cetera?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure whatever took place regarding the financing of condominium units

at Marble Mountain was quite in order, and I would be prepared to bring that

forward to the Minister of Finance.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, the President of Treasury

Board did not know what loans were secured.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. I would like to ask the minister this. The

Minister of Finance said in this House in May 1998 that Marble Mountain had

secured a loan at the time. Now, just one month ago a demand debenture for $3

million was issued between the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Marble

Mountain Development Corporation. Was this for the condominiums or was this

another loan, minister?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in the course of running this government there

are loans, debentures, financing and funding done for many ventures in this

Province. It would impossible for any minister or member to stand in this House

and have an account of each and every one. However, I will take the question

under advisement and I will be prepared to answer that tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is something. The President of Treasury

Board does not know about $3 million. I could understand her answer if it dealt

with $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000, but $3 million? Really, minister?

Let me ask you this question. According to this document, the demand

debenture that was registered a month ago between Marble Mountain Development

Corporation and CIBC was for an interest rate of prime plus 3 per cent. It is

not a mortgage, it is a line of credit. I would like to ask the minister this.

Is she aware that in order for Marble Mountain Development Corporation to get

this $3 million loan, all of the assets, including the lodge, ski lifts, all the

equipment, everything, had to be put up? The

question is: Is she aware of that? If that is the case, why couldn't Marble

Mountain Development Corporation negotiate a much more favorable interest as a

mortgage which anybody can get today for about 6.1 per cent or 6.2 per cent?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the

Budget for this Province is approximately $3.4 billion. The Leader of the

Opposition raised a question dealing with $3 million. It is difficult, I would

have to say to the member opposite, to be aware of every piece of funding

requirement for this government's Budget. What I will say to the member

opposite is that I am prepared to take that matter under advisement and I will

furnish you with that answer in the next day or so.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that had Marble Mountain

Development Corporation negotiated a mortgage, for example, they would get a

much better interest rate, paying both on the interest and principle alone. The

demand debenture, which operates like a line of credit, requires that they only

pay interest.

I would like to ask the minister this. Bill 22 is

An Act To Amend The Loan

And Guarantee Act, 1957. If you take the interest, prime plus 3 per cent, take

that amount on what the monthly payment would be on $3 million, it would come up

to somewhere between - depending on the fluctuations and variables of the prime

plus 3 per cent - $225,000 and $300,000.

An act before the House,

An Act To

Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, says that Marble Mountain was advanced a

loan guarantee of $300,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My question is

this. There is no expiry date on the loan that was given to Marble Mountain. Isn't

it a fact that the $300,000 in the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 is gone to pay

interest on the demand line of credit?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, this government acted in proper faith, proper

requirements as set out by the bank that we are conducting the affairs of the

Province with. I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is

the first time in the past fifty years that this government or any other

previous government has been able to balance the books of this Province. That

says a lot for this government. This government carried out all the requirements

of borrowing as set out by our banker. Regarding the details of that borrowing

arrangement, I will be pleased to provide you with them, and I will take that

under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

We have a minister at the Cabinet table who says: Because we balanced the

books, who cares about $3 million when they get about an extra $40 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Next week when the Minister of Finance comes back - because

we are going to get an extra $25 million to $40 million in equalization because

the economies in Ontario and Alberta are doing better; New Brunswick got $69

million - maybe she will say: So what about that, because we balanced the books!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister this question. Minister, you used

to be in the banking business. Even you would recognize that a mortgage rate on

$3 million could save the Province hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even you

would recognize that.

The question I have is this: Isn't it a fact that one of the reasons that

condos have not been sold: one, because you have not tabled a market study to

even see it; but, two, that the Province has not even registered the condominium

complex for condos and they cannot sell one until they register it. So, why

haven't you registered it?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member knows a little bit about financing, and he would know

that a floating debenture is, in a sense, a form put in place to secure interim

financing. The fact of the matter is that we are attempting to sell these units

at Marble Mountain. So, in the circumstance that we are in, with the intention

of selling those units, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to put in

long-term mortgages on these units while they are on the market. That is simply

not what happens. Once a purchaser makes a purchase, he determines how he is

going to finance and then, of course, he mortgages it or otherwise pays for it

in some other fashion.

While I have not seen the document that the hon. member has, I am assuming

that it is a fixed and floating charge over an operating line of credit, and

that traditionally is at a higher rate of interest than long-term financing,

say, over a period of twenty-five years.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is amazing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

My questions are again to the President of Treasury Board. In 1996, the

day-to-day operation for Marble Mountain was transferred to a Crown corporation

called Marble Mountain Management Corporation. Accountability, Madam Minister,

is an important aspect of the use of public tax dollars. Yet, there has not been

a single financial statement filed in the House of Assembly or with the Auditor

General for the management corporation. Why has the management corporation

failed in its responsibility to file a financial statement for each of the past

three years?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raised that point in terms of the filing of financial

statements on behalf of the Marble Mountain Corporation last week in Question

Period, and I responded then that I would get the information. I answered it the

next day - although not at the appropriate time on the order paper - that, up to

the end of the fiscal year 1998, the Marble Mountain Corporation financial

statement had been tabled in the House, in fact, as a part of the consolidated

statements for the Department of Finance on behalf of government. The 1999

statement, of course, obviously would not be available yet; but in due course,

when it become available, it will be tabled in the normal fashion.

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

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

I remind the minister that the Marble Mountain Development Corporation has

indeed filed a financial statement with the Auditor General, but in 1996 the

day-to-day management was transferred to Marble Mountain Management Corporation,

a different corporation altogether. I say to the minister, that particular

corporation has not filed a single statement.

I also want to say to the minister: When will that be filed? Why has the

management corporation failed to file a single statement in the past three

years?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If, in fact, it is the case that these statement have not been filed, and on

the assumption that they were not a part of the consolidated statements that

were filed and included in the tabling in the House, then I will undertake to

get him the answer.

It could be - I cannot be unequivocal - that the information in the financial

statements that the hon. member alludes to may have been incorporated in and

been part of the statements that were filed on behalf of the Marble Mountain

Corporation. If that is not the case, I will clarify it for him tomorrow; but,

in the event that might be the case, that might be the answer you are looking

for.

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

Valley.

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

There are two completely different corporations, I say to the minister. I

have the development corporation's information here in front of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the volunteer.

MR. H. HODDER: This is the

volunteer's.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, there is a lot of public debate

around this whole issue of the development of Marble Mountain. There is a lot of

need for transparency, a lot of need for accountability. Will the minister today

agree to have the Marble Mountain facility, including the market analysis to

establish the need, the financial arrangement, the current management

arrangement, thoroughly and immediately investigated by an independent officer

of this House, namely the Auditor General?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker,

with respect to the proposition that the hon. member puts forward in terms of

having the Auditor General in effect, as a servant of this House, investigate

anything with respect to Marble Mountain or any other area of government

business, let me say to the hon. member that the Auditor General of this

Province knows full well the scope and the extent of her responsibility. She

knows full well the extent to which she should or should not be involved in

investigative matters. I don't think it is appropriate -

as a matter of fact, if I were the Auditor General, I would be rather insulted

to hear a suggestion from the critic for the Minister of Finance that we should

be giving her day-to-day directions as to where she should be operating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: The Auditor General of this Province is well able to

determine and decide where it is she should be doing her work and to bring

forward an analysis o f the results that are appropriate in the circumstance.

The Auditor General of this Province, I have every confidence, will, in due

time, do what she thinks is appropriate not only on behalf of the issues

regarding Marble Mountain but on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province and

with respect to any issue that involves even the most finite amount of money.

Every dollar in this Province that is spent is subject to the scrutiny of the

Auditor General, and I have confidence in her. I hope you do. too, hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, yesterday in the House I raised concerns about a critical shortage of

nurses in Labrador, and this shortage is severe right across the Province and

especially on the Burin Peninsula. Minister, just over -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I

can't even hear myself speak.

Just over two weeks ago, I say to the minister, numerous beds were closed in

the Burin hospital and the surgery ward was closed due to a shortage of nurses.

I ask the minister: What are you doing to ensure that the people on the Burin

Peninsula can get the health care that they need?

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

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

I think the board has taken the appropriate action to ensure that the people

of the Burin Peninsula receive the care that they require. The press release

that was put out, and the information that was given to our department, was

based on the fact that the nurses in that particular area are of a short supply,

particularly as it relates to casuals, as is the issue right across this

Province; because, when we were asked by the nurses' union and by the health

forum to address the issue of casuals, when yo u convert

over 645 casuals in this Province, they have to come from the pool of nurses who

are already out there to become permanent nurses.

That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker, and I would say there is not a nurse

in this Province who wants to work permanent hours who is not doing so; unless,

of course, they are outside the bargaining unit and then they would have to wait

until those 26,000 internal applications are processed before they might have a

chance to apply for a new job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The nurses who have gone out of this Province, that is the problem, Minister,

because you are not paying them enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: One year ago, there were thirty-nine casual nurses in the

area. Today, there are only twelve casual nurses there and most of them are

working scheduled shifts. Nurses are working overtime, Minister, and they are

stressed.

A woman who was in the Burin hospital, on an obstetrics unit, went into

labour and, because of a shortage of nurses, had to be taken from the obstetrics

unit in a hospital and sent to Clarenville by ambulance under very unfavorable

weather conditions to be able to deliver a baby. Do you consider that acceptable

health care for the people on the Burin Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Again, I would say to the member opposite that the reason the number of

casuals in this Province is of a short supply is because - and he hates to admit

it - this Province has spent over $14 million in conversions of casuals to

permanent.

As much as he would like to think, Newfoundland does not have the monopoly on

the issue around nurses. In fact, last Friday in Ottawa I met with nurses from

across the country, representing all facets of nurses, and the issues are

similar, although the member opposite would hate to admit it, right across this

country. The casuals who are working in this Province are doing so for the most

part by choice. Any nurse who wants to work in a permanent position, again, I

would have to say, there are permanent positions available. When you have a

process in one organization, 26,200 internal applications to go outside -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to encourage the member opposite to call on the Nurses'

Union. That is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

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

As I was saying, I would ask the member opposite to work with this government

to encourage the Nurses' Union to allow us to hire every graduating nurse in

the class of 2000. We are waiting for a response from them that was written the

middle of November. We want to put more nurses into the system but we need their

support to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You will not even meet with the people in Labrador representing everybody in

the area there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Grand Bank once had a hospital. Today it has a twenty-four

hour clinic with only one nurse, one LPN, and one doctor per shift on duty.

There are no casual nurses in the area, I say to the minister. If a patient is

sent to Burin now, a doctor has to accompany them because there is no nurse to

accompany that particular patient to Burin. The Blue Crest Home often calls

Burin hospital to get help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: When is she going to do something to

address this area here in Grand Bank before they loss their clinic altogether?

What do you plan to do about it?

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

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

I know the member opposite only likes to talk about all the negative stuff. I

have not heard him welcome back the nurses who have come back to the Province

from Texas and Florida.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have not heard that, Mr. Speaker, but then, we would

not want to put out anything that was positive because that would put off the

whole train of thought.

I think it is also important to note that the Nurses' Union have been

invited to come back and sit down and talk with government. They have also been

invited to come back and speak to this government in Treasury Board about the

issues in Labrador. If they want to negotiate, we are willing to negotiate with

them. If they want to abrogate their rights, let them give them to somebody

else. We are ready to deal with the problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism. I would not want him to

get too comfortable in his seat over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: The Minister of Tourism is also responsible for sports and

recreation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, an area which has been

devastated by government cuts. They have seen their budget go from $7 million in

1990 to $1.8 million in 1999. Provincial sports governing bodies have been

making massive cuts.

I ask the minister today if he will tell the people of this Province and this

House exactly what his government's policy is with respect to sport and

recreation in this Province.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question.

Sports bodies, particularly volunteers around the Province, have suffered

because of cutbacks in a period of retrenchment right across the country. If you

look at all governments, of all stripes, unfortunately one of the first areas to

get hit is sports, but we have to recognize that these are volunteers who give

willingly of their time and energy to the community. It is something that I'm

quite cognizant of and it is something that I will be bringing to the Cabinet

table and my colleagues to seek a i ncrease during this

round of budget (inaudible).

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that Sport Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland

and Labrador High School Athletic Federation and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Parks Association have watched their provincial grants get cut by somewhere

between 50 per cent and 80 per cent. I would now like to ask the minister: How

do you expect these organizations to provide adequate services to the young

athletes of our Province?

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

MR. FUREY: I agree, Mr.

Speaker, that these are unfortunate cuts. During a period of retrenchment from

the early 1990s to the current time you saw not only sports governing bodies and

the sports community get cut, but you saw the arts community get cut, and you

saw other communities get cut, because they were soft and easy cuts for

successive governments of every political stripe across the country. That is

unfortunate, but we continue to supply funding, not just to the sport bodies -

don't just isolate the spo rts bodies - but also look at

the Canada Winter Games, where we put $300,000 this past year. Look at the

triathlon in Corner Brook which was a world-class event, where we put $150,000

this past year. Look at Stephenville -

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at the waterfront, (inaudible)!

MR. FUREY: Yes, let's look

at the waterfront. No, it will be more than $1 million, but it will reap over

$100 million of publicity for Newfoundland. Are you embarrassed by that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: You are

embarrassed to show off your Province to the tune of $100 million? Mr. Speaker,

with respect to sports look at the international judo competition in

Stephenville, $150,000 in Stephenville, which provided world-class championships

out there. Don't just isolate a governing body. Look at the total sports

organizations and if you total it up, it is near $1 million.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I would like to say to you that because we brought all these things

into the Province, you, as Minister of Tourism, should recognize more than

probably any other minister over there that sport and recreation is a very large

contributor to sport and recreation in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: They bring one awful amount of money into this Province.

Minister, I say to you today that you don't have to be a rocket scientist

to figure out that sport and recreation not only contributes to building one's

self-esteem and character but it helps keep many children off the street, and I

can provide many examples where sports organizations have helped mold

individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: I now ask the minister: Will you consider putting more money,

and will you ask your Cabinet colleagues to put more money, into the sport and

recreation budget in the next provincial budget in this Province?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let's

look at the funding that the government has put in. For the provincial sports

organizations we put in $190,000 for the operation of their programs; $300,000

for the Canada Winter Games; $100,000 for hiring of technical directors;

$145,000 for the three specific organizations across the Province; $250,000 for

the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games programs; over $400,000, I think, for

the Labrador Winter Games which are coming up; $150,000 for the world cup

triathlon; $150,000 fo r the judo championships; and

$200,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: - for the maintenance of sports facilities throughout the

Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but in a jest

of time I will direct a couple of quick questions to the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal.

Minister, some time ago we heard Minister Mifflin announce $81.25 million,

then we heard your new minister, Mr. Baker, announce that same funding again.

Some of it has been allocated. I ask the minister, when can Zone 15 - the area

that takes in the district of Bonavista South, Trinity North, Terra Nova; an

area that has been hit hard by the fisheries moratorium, probably harder than

other areas in this Province - of the economic zonal board expect to get funding

to put much needed work in that particular area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that, indeed,

shortly after George Baker was appointed the minister in Ottawa responsible for

ACOA and responsible for Newfoundland - the minister for Newfoundland - we

immediately signed, I think it was practically within a week of his becoming -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it? (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will restrain himself over

there I will get to it.

We signed off the $81 million agreement which had been delayed for some time.

Since that time there has been, I think, some $26 million or $27 million that

has been allocated out of that agreement. I would remind him that it is a three

year agreement that you have to spread over three years. I would also remind him

that many of the zonal board priorities have been done. Specific to Zone 15, I

do not have the details in front of me of exactly where does -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: He is over there

shining today. I don't have exactly where the figures are on Zone 15, but

certainly, Mr. Speaker, we will consider the priorities of the Regional Economic

Development Board of Zone 15. As soon as it is through the process of ACOA and

the Province, Mr. Speaker, we will see -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. TULK: - that their priorities play a very important role in getting

this done.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being

Wednesday, we go to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe his private

member's resolution has been called.

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

Today is private member's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The last time I looked, I say to the Member for Bellevue, I

am a Member in the House, and I am a private member besides being Leader of the

Opposition!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

s22 MR. E. BYRNE: I have the same

rights and privileges to introduce a private member's resolution in this House

as you do, as he does, as she does and as he does. If you do not understand that

then you are in bigger trouble than I thought you were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, Mr. Speaker. My colleague for Bonavista

South is right, that the only difference is that this member is in the loop.

Today is Private Members' Day, and yesterday I read into the record a

private member's resolution. There has been many debates, certainly in the

last three years, surrounding the development of Voisey's Bay. I recall in the

fall of 1996, when the development was announced, there was tremendous hype

about what the potential economic benefits could be in a number of areas, jobs

being the big one, the number of jobs that this would provide; and the result of

the number of jobs, what it would mean to the provincial

treasury in terms of generating revenues and our ability then, because of this,

to fund social programs and services in municipal and provincial affairs, works,

services and transportation, a better system of schools, more teachers, more

nurses, et cetera.

The second aspect that people looked forward to and there was much debate

around certainly dealt with the notion that it would bring royalties into the

Province, generating again much needed revenue, creating more of a culture of

independence than dependence on fiscal transfers or transfers from Ottawa, a

move that each and every year, as a province, as elected members, as a

government, we must move towards.

There was tremendous hype at the announcement. We have asked today through

our private member's resolution basically to affirm what, as I understand it

to be, is the existing policy positions of all parties in this House.

In the summer of 1998, for example, the former Minister of Mines and Energy -

now the Minister of Tourism - talked about the possibility that in the

negotiations between Inco and the Province there may be, there might be, and

there could be a possibility that some of the ore may be shipped out of the

Province, and that it had to be shipped out of the Province if the development

was going to go ahead. He speculated at that time and it was on CBC's Here

and Now . A week later, in terms of the chronology of

events, the Premier of the Province said simply this: if there is no smelter and

no refinery there will be no development. I can quote what you said: Not one

speck, not one pound of ore, will leave this Province. We are going to have the

smelter-refinery, the jobs, the royalties and the taxes that come with it. That

is what you said at Combined Councils of Labrador meeting.

At that time it was very clear that we had drawn a position, we had taken a

public policy decision, that in order for this development to go ahead, in order

for a mining lease to be given to the company, there were conditions which Inco

must understand if they were going to get the lease. During the election itself

it became an issue. In fact, the Premier of the Province called the election on

two issues. He wanted a mandate to finish the negotiations with respect to Lower

Churchill and with respect to

Voisey's Bay. He respectfully asked, because he wanted to be the one to finish

negotiations. During the election when asked directly - and I am paraphrasing -

we have got it all, we can show it all - that: Not one ounce of ore would leave

this Province. He said: In other words, it would be like McDonald's. We are

requiring a full-meal deal.

There has been speculation this fall about the tentative agreement or

possible agreement that the Minister of Mines and Energy has been negotiating.

The Premier speculated in Wall Street that they were nearing a deal. A week

later, he speculated again in Toronto that there was an interesting proposal and

that an agreement possibly could be reached.

What we have asked for today is very straightforward, it is very clear, it is

not ambiguous. It is the position that has been stated publicly by every party

in this Legislature. It is the position that every member, to my knowledge, has

taken when dealing with this issue. It is clear. It says:where all parties in

the House of Assembly have agreed to this position that full and fair benefits

must come to this Province. It also says:

Therefore

be it resolved that this hon. House affirm that a Voisey's Bay

development agreement shall be acceptable only if it meets the following four

conditions in addition to general revenues from a competitive regime of

royalties and taxes; namely: (

a) that it shall involve a long-term mining

operation of 25 years or more years in duration.

We have talked about twenty to thirty years, but we picked twenty-five years

as a mean, as the middle ground, that has been talked about publicly.

The second condition reads: (

b) that it shall involve the concurrent,

blended extraction of ore from both the ovoid and underground. This is an

important condition, because in meeting this condition the company itself, in

saying yes to that condition, guarantees the life of the mine. It guarantees

that its interests are beyond the ovoid. It guarantees that its interest are

longer term, that they go into the eastern deeps and other aspects of

underground mining.

Conditions number three and four read:

(

c) that it shall involve complete processing in this Province of all the

nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a finished nickel metal product; and

(

d) that the technology Inco uses in mining and processing the ore must

meet appropriate environmental standards and must be applied in way that fully

comply with the first three of these four conditions.

Finally, it says in the last therefore

be it resolved: that any agreement

that is reached between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco be

fully debated in the House of Assembly before it is final and binding on the

people of the Province.

This, in my view, represents an opportunity today. It represents for members

of this House to have the opportunity to strengthen government's hand. For

this House to affirm, yet again, what those conditions are that we attach to the

significant find in Voisey's Bay, but what we want from it in terms of

royalties, taxes, jobs, and duration. Full and fair benefits is what this House

should want, it is what this House has demanded, and this is our opportunity

again today to affirm the stand and position s we have

already taken.

It is not too much to expect. The people of this Province do not find it too

much to expect that if an agreement is reached that it be precipitated on the

fact that, or will go ahead only if, an opportunity to debate it in this House

is provided. We are not talking about an opportunity that would last weeks or

months. We are talking about a very legitimate realistic timetable to debate the

agreement so that the focus of the debate could be done in a very public,

transparent way.

I am not saying it will not be debated through the normal channels.

Government may buy advertising if they reach an agreement. They may go on the

road, they may, through open line programs and interest groups, become involved.

That is their right, but the House of Assembly is the place where important

public decisions are made. It is where important public decisions are taken. It

is where the direction of government, the Opposition and other parties in the

House are seen for what they are in a very open, very transparent and very

accountable way. If government reaches an agreement that is supported by all

members of government, surely the debate in this House should not frighten them.

They have the numbers in the House. They put a resolution forward to be debated

and it is a good deal, then why not?

The private member's resolution, as I say in the conclusion of my opening

remarks, is very clear, very straightforward. It affirms the positions of all

members, to my understanding, in this House of what our position has been. This

is an opportunity today to yet again re-announce or affirm what the position of

this Legislature is in a unified manner to ensure that, on the agreement and on

the negotiations, on behalf of the Minister of Mines and Energy, once again the

will of this House is expressed an d expressed clearly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the private member's resolution put

forth by the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Official Opposition,

concerning the very important project of Voisey's Bay in Labrador. I want to

speak in support of the resolution and in support of the issues that are raised

there, principally because it is time that we had a more open discussion about

more of these issues. I mean, the general principles that are here, most of

which have been discussed, have been part of the political debate in the

Province for the last year. There is nothing new about that. There was nothing

new in the election when the Premier wanted to be the boy to do the negotiations

with Bouchard and he wanted to be the boy to do the negotiations and sit across

the table with Voisey's Bay Nickel.

That was the proposition that he put to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That was the way he tried to craft the election last February. I know

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the Minister of Fisheries was jealous because he wanted to

be leader.

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to do with

respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: He would rather be the person doing it.

That was the proposition put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but

there was nothing new in that, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing new in the issues.

It was all about the issues, many of which are spelled out right here, along

with the report of the Environmental Assessment Panel, that there would have to

be a long-term project, that they were not going to be allowed to high-grade the

development and high-grade the mineral.

There was a concern expressed in this Province for the last year that we want

to make sure they do not just go after the ovoid, and that they develop a

long-term underground mine and make the investment up front. That was what was

expected.

There was the whole issue of an investment up front by Inco into the

development to ensure there was going to be an investment up front that would

commit Inco financially to a project that involved an underground mine from the

beginning, not to start with the ovoid and spend six, seven or eight years

high-grading the mineral and then decide four, five or six years down the road

that the price of nickel made an underground mine uneconomic. We wanted to see

the investment in the underground mine up front so that we have, in fact, a

commitment on the ground, underground, by the principals to develop a long-term

mine.

The issue perhaps most important of all was the issue of processing. Up until

the other day, we heard the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy talk

about full processing. Full processing was the word. Up until the other day,

statements were made such as 100 per cent of the ore was going to be produced,

refined, turned into a nickel product, here in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Now, on Monday and Tuesday in this House, when the Premier responded

to statements and questions, all of

a sudden he was talking about processing; not full processing, just processing

by itself. We need to go back to the statements to ensure that we have complete

processing in this Province of all the nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay to

a finished nickel-metal product.

The fourth listed here is an obvious one, one that we would expect for any

project. That is that the mine processing and any other technology used by Inco

meet appropriate environmental standards and be applied in ways to comply with

the conditions of this agreement.

These conditions that are here have been pretty well fully debated in the

Province, pretty well fully known in the Province, pretty well generally agreed.

I think is important that we affirm them here today.

There are two other issues that have not received very full debate: issues of

royalties and issues of equalization payments. In the questioning and the

debates in this House, since this House has opened this fall, we have hardly

heard the words mentioned. I hope, for the first time, we will hear the Minister

of Mines and Energy when he responds to this resolution, that he will tell us

what the nature of the royalty regime that will be in place for the Voisey's

Bay Nickel development will be. What reg ime will be in

place? Because something has to replace the legislated tax holiday that is

contained in the 1994 legislation in this House. Something has to replace that,

but there has been no discussion, no mention by government, as to what that

might be.

I recall back in the spring of 1996, when the Premier made some comment in

the paper about the possibility of trading royalties for jobs; we might have to

give up royalties to get more jobs. I remember that reported in The Telegram.

When it was raised in this House by me to the Premier, he tried to back off that

statement; but he was quoted in The Telegram as saying that.

If we are not going to give a tax holiday, a ten-year tax holiday that the

legislation provides, to Voisey's Bay Nickel - and we should not - what

royalty regime will be imposed? Or is that the subject of negotiations as well?

Is that something that they are negotiating? If they are negotiating royalties,

what are they getting to give up royalties? Is that the price that the people of

Newfoundland will be expected to pay to see processing take place? Are royalties

the price that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be

expected to pay, to ensure that we have further processing in this Province?

In other words, are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through royalty

concessions, in fact going to be making up for the losses that Inco might

sustain for having overpaid for this resource when they bought it for $4.5

billion? These are all questions that have yet to be debated. They have yet to

be debated because this government has not put on the table the nature of the

royalty regime to be used in mineral development in this Province since the 1994

legislation. That question has to be asked and answered.

The second question is equally important, and that is: What is happening in

the whole area of equalization payments? I refer hon. members and the minister

to a document that was filed by Voisey's Bay Nickel before the Environmental

Assessment Panel which detailed the revenues to the Government of Newfoundland

provided by Voisey's Bay Nickel themselves - taking into account income tax,

provincial income tax, federal income ta x, spinoff

expenses, any tax regimes currently in place, and all of that, showing what the

net benefits to the Newfoundland Treasury would be versus the federal Treasury,

and also taking into account the equalization payment formulas that are

currently in place.

The result of all of this presentation to the Environmental Assessment Panel

was that the net benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through

their government, the benefits to the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury were

$417 million. That is all, $417 million for the twenty-year project and

development of Voisey's Bay Nickel.

On the other hand, the benefits to the people of Canada, to the federal

Treasury, were going to be $4.9 billion; more than ten times as much. That

figure has been out there ever since Voisey's Bay Nickel laid it on the table

for the Environmental Assessment Panel. That question has to be answered

because, if this project is to go ahead, it must go ahead for the primary

benefit of the people of this Province who own the resource. The primary benefit

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through their

government, who own the resource, must be the ones who are receiving the maximum

benefit.

That question has to be answered, and I hope the minister will address that,

because that is something that is going to be the most difficult of all,

perhaps, to resolve. We don't have a chance if we are losing dollar-for-dollar

who is in receipt of EI benefits or on social assistance who can lose dollar for

dollar income. There is no incentive to develop a strong and powerful royalty

regime, economic benefits regime, a gua ranteed return to

the people of this Province, unless we have that kind of protection. There have

to be changes in that. I would the minister to tell the people of this Province

what has happened on that score and where his government is on it.

I want to make one final comment on this resolution, and that has to do with

the last part of it. The last part of the resolution refers to whether or not

any agreement reached between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador be

fully debated in the House of Assembly before it is final and binding on the

people of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you agree with that?

MR. HARRIS: I think it is very important, and I will go further. There

ought to be a resolution in this House of Assembly to be debated and voted on.

Let the debate take the form of a resolution of improving in principle the

project based on whatever agreement is reached. That would provide a full

opportunity for a debate to take place and for this House to vote on it one way

or the other.

A resolution is not unusual. We have had resolutions in this House before for

major development projects. We have had them on the Come By Chance oil refinery.

In fact, I recall seeing and reading about John Shaheen on the floor of the

House of Assembly answering questions, with his spats and all - John Shaheen

with his spats and all.

MR. J. BYRNE: Spats?

MR. HARRIS: He wore spats. Do you know what spats are?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Were you there?

MR. HARRIS: I wasn't

there, no. I was only a young fellow then.

John Shaheen, on behalf of the Come By Chance oil refinery, was answering

questions before the Bar of the House of Assembly, and there was a vote taken.

There was a vote in this House on the Churchill Falls deal, and there is no

reason why there ought not be a vote in this House on a resolution about an

issue that has been debated in this Province so publicly and regarded as so

important to our future.

I support that; I support a full debate in this House of Assembly. We do not

have enough debate in this House of Assembly where we have the information,

where the information is put before the people. We are presented with done

deals, and then a public relations campaign to try and sell it as the best deal

we could probably get. That is what we have, a done deal and then a public

relations campaign.

That is not what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect or deserve.

The government is responsible for governing, but government should not be a

public relations exercise. On an issue as important as this, it ought to be laid

before the elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly for a

full public debate with all the facts before them. If they want to justify it,

let them justify it here and let all the facts be before the people before it is

final and binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The government has talked about the fact that we do not need to change any

laws, so therefore we might not have to come back to the House of Assembly. If

we are going to have a royalty regime that exceeds the requirement of the

Mineral Tax Act, is that going to be a contract?. Are we going to have royalties

by contract, or are we going to have royalties by law?

The fact of the matter is that when we want to collect royalties or economic

rent for our minerals and our resources, they ought to be a matter of law and of

regulations, not something that is not being able to be debated in this House of

Assembly.

I support the resolution, and indeed would go further and ask that the debate

in this House be in the form of a votable resolution for all hon. members in

this House to either vote for or against. That would then give the people an

opportunity to hear a full debate, not through the media -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a moment to finish this sentence?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Not a debate through the media, through the paid media,

through advertising in a public relations campaign, but a debate in this House

of Assembly where all Parties and all representatives have a chance to make

their say and be reported in Hansard, on the record, for part of a public

debate. That is the way this matter should be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution and I would like to see the government

members support this and also support the notion of a votable resolution before

any deal is made binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to spend just a few minutes to participate in the debate of the

private member's motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member

for Kilbride, and just to put a few points on the record before we move to a

vote on the particular motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to listen, as I always do very intently, to

the debate as it goes on, because the Leader of the NDP, in just addressing the

same resolution, indicated that the four principles that are laid out in the

private member's motion - and I think I am using his words fairly accurately,

because words are somewhat important -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Notice, there is a qualifier on it today; they are somewhat

important.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

indicated that the four principles - and I believe I have the two key phrases

noted - the four principles outlined in this private member's motion have been

fully debated in the Province and are known throughout the Province. I believe I

am quoting him accurately in suggesting that.

The principles being referenced, of course: the notion that we all want full

and fair benefits and that it should involve long-term mining operation, there

should be a blending of ore from both ovoid and underground operations, there

should be finished nickel leaving the Province, and that the technologies that

are used should meet the appropriate environmental standards.

Mr. Speaker, I think the spirit and intent of the resolution is reflected in

the voice of the two speakers to date, and I concur that there is agreement in

this Legislature. I do not believe there is a voice of disagreement at all with

respect to those four issues; however, if we were to leave the motion as it

were, worded as it were, then we would have to deal with some specific words and

phrases, because words are very important.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the very first of the

BE IT RESOLVED, it talks

about: ...BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House affirm that a Voisey's

Bay development agreement shall be acceptable only if it meets the following

four conditions... - which I just talked about - ...in addition to

generating revenues from a competitive regime of royalties and taxes....

Even when you get to just that one word, right off the bat, because the

second

BE IT RESOLVED is that there would be no permission, no approval given,

unless and until there was a full debate in this House. Now, right off the bat,

the first debate is: Who determines competitive? What is competitive? Would they

agree, and would the NDP agree? Would the Official Opposition and the NDP agree

with the government that a particular regime was competitive, or would there be

some difference of opinion over some

parts of it? Because, there are differences of opinion from time to time, which

doesn't mean that the regime is not right and proper. It just means that if

the other group was the government, they might have done it slightly

differently. They might have emphasized, because they always point out that it

is a matter of making choices sometimes, it is a matter of your priorities, and

they might have decided to make one aspect of the royalty or tax regime a little

more competitive or a little more d ifferent than the other

group that just happens, by luck, to be the government of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not luck.

MR. GRIMES: No, it is by luck. I have always acknowledged that it is by

luck, because you have to be lucky sometimes. There are a lot of people who have

gone to the polls thinking they were going to win and, when they finished, they

were no longer a member of a Legislature. A lot of people have done that, so

there has to be an element of luck. By luck; I always acknowledge that it is by

luck.

We try to make sure that we do some things that improve and enhance our

chances to be lucky, but always acknowledge that at the end there is a bit of

luck involved in it. We are lucky enough to have convinced the people of the

Province four times in a rows that we are making pretty good decisions, and that

we can actually probably do some pretty good things that usually reflect the

general tenor and tone of what is going on in the Province, but there would have

to be a debate. So, if you automatically then agree that we are going to do

this, then we would say: Well, we would have to have a bit of debate over what

competitive means. Who determines, at the end, what competitive means? Because

that comes down to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said we need to

have a full debate, which is the second part of the resolution, that it should

be fully debated before it is final and binding upon the people of the Province.

Now, in suggesting that there be a full debate, and in knowing that the

principles that we have talked about - and I guess he agrees with the Leader of

the NDP - that the principles upon which this agreement will be built are

already fully debated and known in the Province, and that if the government does

not achieve either one of those principles we know that we will be condemned,

and rightfully so, not only by politicians in this Legislature but by people in

the Province, because we agree that those are the fundamental underpinnings of

any agreement with Inco about this particular development, but in even saying

that there should be a full debate in the Legislature - and it is the only thing

that I, personally, ever objected to, is to say before it is final and binding,

that there has to be a pre-condition.

There has already been lots of debate about this issue, inside and outside

the Legislature. There will be lots of debate about this issue for years,

because we might be talking - right now, Mr. Speaker, we might be speaking for

years about why we do not have a deal. How come we don't have a development,

because we certainly don't have one today. So there is really not much to talk

about, other than wondering why it is that we do not have one.

I can tell you the reason we don't have one. It is because the basic

principles on this paper have not been achieved. They have not been achieved.

The government is not bringing anything forward for debate because we have not

achieved the fundamental principles that are there.

In looking at why we should have a full debate, the Leader of the Opposition

acknowledged the following things, and I tried to make notes. He said: We are

asking for a full debate before it is final and binding, knowing full well, and

acknowledging and accepting that the debate is pretty meaningless anyway because

the government has the numbers - his own words; I think I wrote them down

correctly - the government has the numbers in the Legislature.

He is not suggesting in the resolution that before it becomes final and

binding there would be a vote in the House and that the vote has to be

unanimous. He is not suggesting that the Opposition has to agree. That is not in

his resolution. He has never said that publicly. That is not what he has asked

for outside the Legislature or in his private member's resolution. He is just

saying we would like to talk about it. In saying we would like to talk about it

before it is final and binding, his own c ommentary today

which is in Hansard and which I can read back to him again tomorrow, is to say:

We know that whatever the government decides will pass the Legislature anyway

because they have the majority. We would just like to come to the Legislature to

say in here whether we think it is good, bad or indifferent. We acknowledge that

the government will go out with ad campaigns, and the government will go out and

have public meetings, and we will be able to say our things out there, but we

would just like to say them in here as well before it becomes final and binding.

Even in asking for the debate, which could be characterized - and I would not

do it, to use the tactic that the Opposition says now about the water debate. I

have no proof of this, Bill, but I believe there is a deal. I wouldn't do

this, Mr. Speaker. I would not suggest that a debate in here would be

meaningless even though we know the outcome of any vote before it is over. I

would not suggest that. A debate in here is always meaningful and always adds

something to the public knowledge base in the Province.

To suggest now, in total contravention of a view put forward by the

Opposition last year when the act was amended - the act under which this deal

will be consummated, if it ever is - the act was amended last year to give the

Cabinet, the government, the right to put a requirement in demanding full

processing with no economic means test, no qualifiers, just that if the

government demands it, the government has the right to do it.

The representative, the critic for the Official Opposition at that time, the

Member for Baie Verte, spoke up in Hansard - and I will just make a couple of

quotes - a year ago, saying: Mr. Speaker, that opens it up to the whims of the

government of the day. He said: Are we going to leave it up to the whims of the

government, because it is going to make the investment community very nervous.

It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. That is the scary part of

the bill, that you might actually put a requirement upon someone who wants to

invest money in Newfoundland and Labrador, to get the permission of the Cabinet.

Now you have the Leader of the Opposition saying: not only do they want us to

go to anybody who might be going to develop Voisey's Bay, whether it is Inco

or somebody else in ten years' time, and say: Guess what? We cannot shake your

hand and have a deal. He was saying, last year, that the concern of the

investment community is that it is at the whim of the government, the whim of

the Cabinet. Now we are saying - the Leader of the Opposition is - not only do

you have to go to the investment community and say, come

on and invest your money. You do not only need the approval of the Cabinet; you

cannot get approval until it goes to the House for a full debate. Now he wants

to concur with his leader to add another layer which complicates it for the

investment community and which scares off more investors, which was his whole

theme.

He spoke for almost a full hour last year on the issue that it is scary. The

words of the Opposition, it is scary that you would ask somebody to get the

permission of the Cabinet. Now we are saying: Before you get any deal with us,

we have to commit to a full debate in the Legislature. Think how that is going

to be seen. Last year it was described as draconian, Third World, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of problems and we want to give an opportunity

to vote in the affirmative. So, to make sure that we can vote in the

affirmative, we would recommend and I would move a couple of minor amendments.

MR. TULK: Seconded by the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. GRIMES: Seconded by the

Member for Bonavista North, that in fact we would reword this particular private

member's motion so that we all recommit to the principles that are involved,

and that in fact we give the government a mandate and another vote of confidence

to say: Bring back a deal on these principles.

The amendment that I would propose is that, first and foremost, the motion

would read with the first recital:

WHEREAS all of the Parties represented in the House of Assembly have affirmed

their commitment to the general principle that a Voisey's Bay development

agreement will be acceptable -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he can have a copy, and if others would

like to have them right now for scrutiny.

The first recital would remain unchanged. I will ready it again, for the

record:

WHEREAS all of the Parties represented in the House of Assembly have affirmed

their commitment to the general principle that a Voisey's Bay development

agreement will be acceptable only if it brings full and fair benefits to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador...

And that we should add a second recital which would give us the current

circumstance. The second recital would say, AND

WHEREAS. So the amendment would

add this one:

AND

WHEREAS Inco has not given a firm commitment to full processing in the

Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED...

In the resolution, the suggestion is that we would take out the current

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED - the first one - replace it with these words that I

will read for the record, that do incorporate the four principles:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House affirm its full support

for the government to negotiate a development agreement that accomplishes

several important objectives, namely:

(1) a long-term mining operation in line with the recommendation of the

Environmental Assessment Report - that we not put a particular time limit on it,

but the report itself said twenty to twenty-five years or more; that it be in

line with that report;

(2) that there be both an open pit and underground mining operation - because

there is a recommendation number two in the Environmental Assessment Report that

says exactly that, but it does not put any particular time lines on it; it

leaves it to a normal mining operation if you get it started;

(3) that there be full processing in this Province to a finished nickel metal

product;

(4) that the technology Inco uses in mining and processing the ore must meet

appropriate environmental standards.

Then, that the second THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED clause be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, the point being made that we would, with this amendment,

incorporate all of the components of the private member's motion in terms of

the principles. We would acknowledge that we are going to be in compliance with

the Environmental Assessment Review Panel and its recommendations on these

issues. We acknowledge the words of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and

the Opposition Leader himself, in bringing it forward to suggest that a vote in

this Legislature, they both acknowledge is no t required in

any event. So unless it is going to be amended to say that we bring it here for

full debate before there is an arrangement and that it would have to be a

unanimous vote, then in fact it has already been acknowledged that the issues

have been fully debated and known in the Province. We are reaffirming that we

agree and commit to attain these four principles in any agreement.

If there is ever a government, at any point in time, whether it be now or in

the foreseeable future, or years into the future, the record would show that if

anybody outside the Legislature or elsewhere agrees to an arrangement that does

not incorporate these four principles, that they would actually be violating the

spirit and intent of all parties of this particular Legislature at this point in

our history.

So I would like to move that amendment, and maybe I would pause, Mr. Speaker,

just to have a ruling as to whether or not the amendment is in order. Then I

would have a couple of comments, and I will certainly finish my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

Certainly the Chair, as is the practice here in the House, will adjourn for a

few minutes to determine whether or not this amendment is in order. Prior to

that, if someone would like to intervene prior to our leaving to consider the

amendment that we have before us -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I think we have agreement among us that today the Leader of the

Opposition, who is the proponent of this resolution, would introduce it and the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would speak, and then the Minister of Mines

and Energy would speak. I do not believe we had agreement for the hon. member to

sum up, but that is not a problem. In terms of our intervention, I think we are

prepared to leave it to the Speaker to adjourn without any comment from us and

to decide whether in fact the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: We will adjourn for a couple of minutes until we can take

this matter under advisement.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has examined the amendment and determined that it is in fact in

order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the record would show that it may be the first time that anything I

have done in the House has been ruled to be in order. In any event, it means

someone else probably wrote the amendment for me.

In any event, the amended motion which I would commend to the House for its

passage today provides an opportunity again to use some of the words of the

Leader of the Opposition. He did make a good plea at the beginning that we

should use the Legislature to strengthen the hand of the government, and I would

expect that a vote in the affirmative for this amended motion would do exactly

that. It would strengthen the hand of the government to attain and obtain a

development agreement that does accomplish these very important objectives. It

would show again that this Legislature at times, on important issues, can rise

above just normal party politics and agree that all of us together want to make

sure that we get the best possible deal on this natural resource encompassing

these four principles, and that we do not necessarily want to have a debate.

If there was a real issue - and this is the only negative comment I would

offer, in the spirit of Christmas- if they were really serious about a

meaningful debate in this Legislature as a precondition of having a deal with

Inco with respect to Voisey's Bay, they would be suggesting - they would be

because I would be, if I were over there; and I will remind them again that I am

never going over there. I may end up not being over here, but I will not be over

there. You can rest assured of that.

The issue is this. If I was over there, I would be saying we need a full

debate. I would be saying that it is so important, and that the government

should feel so strongly about it that they would want to have such a good deal,

that we would all vote for it, and that they would be so confident in the deal

that they would demand that the vote be unanimous, and they would drag it into

the Legislature and say: We will not sign a deal with Inco unless it is

unanimously voted upon in this House.

Their leader won't ask that question because that is not what he believes.

Because he really believes - like John Crosbie, the great Progressive

Conservative of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada - that governments are

elected to make major decisions. That is why they supported the amendments to

the bill last year that said the government should make the conditions, the

government should make the deal, and the government, now with an affirmative

motion today, will have the full support of the Legisl ature

to make sure that we obtain an agreement that reflects these four principles. I

would commend to the House serious consideration of full support for the amended

motion as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

I think the Opposition House Leader is out with the media or something. If we

could just have the bells rung for three or four minutes to alert people that we

are going to have a vote? We will wait.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before we move to a vote, I have just a couple of concluding remarks in terms

of the

summary of the private member's resolution. First of all, the minister

is right, words are important. He talked about who would agree on what would be

competitive. That there could be a disagreement on what way we would do it

compared to what way they would do it. That is why full disclosure of any

agreement is important so that we have the opportunity to debate in this House

what the competitive regime is, if it is the correct one,

so that people can see.

He talked about, from my point of view, that I have already admitted they

have the majority, that I have already admitted debate has taken place publicly

on what the principles are, and why even need to come to the House because we

have already admitted that. That is true, but he is splitting hairs, because

there is no agreement. What we have asked for is that when there is, this House

have an opportunity to debate the agreement, not the principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So that we have the opportunity to take the principles that

we agreed to in the House, that have been agreed to by all parties, and apply

that to the agreement to see if they match. That is what we have asked for. We

are not going to get it by this amendment.

The third thing he said was that last year, and the bill and the amendments

that we put forward and supported - and we did support them, because we

understood, as every member in this House understood, the importance of that

legislation. He has quoted my hon. colleague for Baie Verte out of context when

he talked about the impact on the investment community and mining industry. The

minister was told that himself. Recently he was told that himself, what impact

that had. He was also told, and his officials were told, that if it had not been

for their $2 million contribution on a 50-50 basis to junior mining companies

coming into the Province, that this year the mining industry would have

collapsed.

So my colleagues words were correct. They were correct in this sense -

because he talked about it in this sense - that when it came to the junior

mining industry that nobody in the junior mining industry, or where we raise

capital in the financial centers in the country, would understand the importance

and the context of those amendments because it was directly made towards Inco.

That is what was said.

Mr. Speaker, we will not support the amendments put forward today. They are

different in my view. They take away from the spirit and intent of what we put

forward on a couple of points. First of all, let's talk about the free and

open debate, and I talked about it in my opening remarks. (Inaudible) let's

put a resolution forward. It does not have to be held or to go on for an

extended period of time, but an appropriate amount of time. That is all we asked

for. Government has not agreed with that. In terms of the

other amendments, when they talk about I think it is number three, where it says

both an open pit and underground mining operation, there is an important

distinction between that amendment and that condition and the one that they have

made. The word is concurrently. Because to develop the ovoid -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not in the amendment.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which it does not speak to in the amendment. This amendment

will allow that to be developed first and only, and at some future point. It

could be interpreted as that. That is why we said in our resolution that it must

be developed concurrently. That would ensure the longevity of the mine.

He has talked about a long-term mining operation in line with the

recommendation of the environmental assessment report where it says twenty to

thirty years. I do not have a big problem with that. In my opening remarks on

the bill we said we took the mean, twenty-five years. It could be twenty to

thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, we will not support the amendments because they take away from

the spirit and intent of the resolution. Number three, the last -

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, words are indeed important. Now to the third

condition. The amendment the minister has made is: full processing in this

Province to a finished nickel metal product. A finished nickel metal product,

and that is very important. What we have said is that it shall involve complete

processing in this Province of all of the nickel concentrate. That is the

difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put forward

this today. Words indeed are important. Yours are, mine are, his are, and the

words of all of us are. All the words that we speak in this House are there for

the record, transparent, accountable. That is all we have asked for, full, open,

transparent, accountable debate. We will not get it with the amendments put

forward by the Minister of Mines and Energy, but we will get it if our

resolution was supported wholeheartedly today. Unfortunately, it appears that

government are not willing to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we ready for the question?

First of all, we are voting on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affair, the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr.

Oldford, the hon the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the

Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon.

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of

Government Services and Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Ms M. Hodder, Mr.

Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley,

Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms S. Osborne,

Mr. Hedderson, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, twenty-two ayes and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now voting on the resolution as amended.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those

against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

Division

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think we need the bells.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I admire the enthusiasm of some of the hon. members, but you should wait

until the question is called.

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Oldford, the hon. the

President of Treasury Board, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Education,

the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Ms M Hodder, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones,

Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley,

Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne,

Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr.

Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-two ayes and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The ayes have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we are going to continue the debate, I would ask the hon. the Government

House Leader if there is something he would wish to call at this time. Or are we

going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do we have the count on this?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we have. It has already been announced.

MR. TULK: If I could be so bold as to suggest to the Speaker, I think

today is the day when the motion to adjourn is automatically in front of the

House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:45 p.m.

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would just

take an opportunity to remind all Members of the House, certainly, that this is

the time of year that members of both sides of the House, from both the

Opposition and Government, host a Christmas get-together. Ours is this afternoon

beginning at 5:00 p.m. If you haven't already received one, we extend the

invitation to all members, all Ministers of the House of Assembly on that side

of the House, and certainly our friends on the end, that in the spirit of

Christmas, if you would like to come share a soft drink or

any type of drink, the opportunity begins at 5:00 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Before you adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we

will begin second reading tomorrow on

An Act To Amend The Wilderness And

Ecological Reserves Act, Bill 30, and continue down the list from there. We may

do some third readings as well, I am not sure.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at

2:00 p.m.