November 19, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the rapid

growth in private training institutions and the financial difficulties that were

experienced by some of them, government committed last April to a complete review of the

current act and regulations which have been in effect since 1988 and 1999, respectively.

Subsequently, in July of this year Dr. Phil Warren was appointed to conduct an independent

study of the industry and to provide a series of recommendations to government on how to

improve the legislation for the benefit and further protection of the students and to

provide stability for the private training institutions.

Government's objectives, as I have

indicated, are to provide greater protection for the students, establish more rigorous

operating control measures and to create a fair and healthy environment for the private

training industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Dr. Warren has concluded a thorough and

detailed review of private training in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has received numerous

submissions from private citizens, interest groups, the industry itself, and the other

political parties represented in this Legislature. Dr. Warren presented an interim report

to my office on November 12, with several recommendations for legislative changes,

including the following:

First, increase the bond to a minimum of

$50,000 and a maximum of $150,000 from the current levels of $10,000 minimum and $75,000

maximum.

Second, provide authority to establish a

train-out fund with revenues to support it derived from a percentage of student tuition to

be paid by all training institutions in the private training sector.

Third, to reduce the two-year period after

forfeiture of a bond, in which the minister can pay monies recovered under the bond to a

judgement creditor, to a thirty-day period. The bond proceeds would then be paid directly

into the train-out fund for the benefit of the students.

Fourth, establish a board to oversee the

operations of the private training industry, including the administration of the train-out

fund that would be established.

Fifth, to provide authority to require

audited financial statements annually from the operators of private post-secondary

training institutions.

Sixth, to require that schools be in

continuous operation as a registered private training institution for one year and have at

least one graduating class before receiving designation for student aid purposes.

Seventh, a requirement that in order to

obtain approval for program registration, information must be provided with respect to a

needs assessment for the program, curriculum content, program durations and graduate

certification. In addition, information on tuition levels and admission standards must be

provided.

Finally, a recommendation suggesting that

we reduce the ninety consecutive days that must pass following the closure of a school

before the licence can be revoked to a period of ten working days instead.

Over the next few weeks we intend to

introduce a bill in the Legislature which will propose major changes along the lines

recommended in Dr. Warren's interim report. With an industry that has grown significantly

with fifty-seven resident institutions, delivering approximately 370 programs, it is

absolutely essential that we create an environment to provide greater protection for

students and a fair and equitable playing field for the industry itself.

This will be the first major adjustment to

legislation regarding private training in Newfoundland and Labrador in a decade and we

will deal with matters in a manner that reflects this government's policy, rather than

continue on with legislation drafted by the previous provincial government of the late

1980s.

Government's objective is to affect

changes in the current legislation for the next period of registration in January 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

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

What a change in a minister nine short

months can make. This is the same minister who nine months ago stood in this House under

repeated questioning from the Opposition and said: Private training colleges and private

training education is not our responsibility. It is like any other consumer good. Consumer

protection is not what we are up to. It is the same as if you bought a loaf of bread or a

can of milk at a convenience store. That is what this minister said with the points that

he made.

Number one, where did we here it first?

Right here, that is where we heard it first. Number two, about the train-out fund, where

did we hear it first? Right here on this side of the House. Number four, where did we hear

that recommendation first? Again, right here on this side of the House. Number seven,

where did we hear that recommendation? Right here.

This is the same minister who stood in his

place last year and blamed the Member for Baie Verte because of his disparaging comments

about a private training college. This minister today in his statement, Mr. Speaker, is

admitting that it is the minister's own lack of action with respect to private training

colleges and post-secondary education generally that has caused the necessity of Dr. Phil

Warren's report. We will hear more about it in Question period, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very obvious from Dr. Warren's

interim report that the regulations governing private training institutions are grossly

inadequate. It is pretty obvious, from what has happened in the last year or so, that they

indeed were.

These recommendations might make things a

little bit better for students who go to private training institutions, but the

fundamental problem in post-secondary education in this Province is the lack of funding by

this government for the public college system.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the lack of

commitment.

MR. HARRIS: And the lack of commitment

by this government to public post-secondary education.

I have a little concern about the

minister's - even in the minister's response, even in his Ministerial Statement today, he

misreads one of the recommendations which says that you should be open for two consecutive

years before you qualify for student aid. That is what Dr. Warren recommends. The minister

has already turned that into one year. We know that the government dropped the regulation

a year or so ago to suit some individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I have a concern about

this government's commitment to post-secondary education for students of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to rise before the House today to mark the official opening of the Transshipment Terminal

at Whiffen Head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: This facility represents a

significant -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this facility

represents a significant component of the Province's petroleum industry and is yet another

example of the world-class infrastructure available here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Transshipment Terminal will benefit

both industry and the Province. Oil companies now have a facility which will allow for

more efficient transportation of our oil resources to market and will provide greater

flexibility in the marketing of that oil. That flexibility will maximize the profitability

and competitiveness of our industry.

Newfoundland and Labrador has seen

considerable direct benefits from this facility, with more than 60 per cent of the $200

million site construction costs spent right here in the Province, and 30 per cent spent in

the rest of Canada. Many local companies were contracted to work on this facility, proving

yet again that we are building a knowledgeable and qualified oil and gas service industry

right here in the Province.

During the construction phase, over 1.5

million person hours of employment occurred, with 93 per cent of that occurring right here

in the Province. At peak construction, approximately 720 people were employed.

The benefits of the Transshipment Terminal

should not be underestimated. It will strengthen the local economy, provide employment

opportunities, and create spinoff benefits.

Newfoundland Transshipment Limited has

created some forty-seven direct full-time jobs, and fifteen to twenty part-time jobs at

the facility, on the tugboats and in their St. John's office, exceeding their original

estimate.

Our oil and gas industry is growing. Just

two days ago we marked the one-year anniversary of first oil at Hibernia, but there is

much more to come with Terra Nova progressing and other projects such as White Rose and

Hebron on the horizon. The Transshipment Terminal is a stepping stone in the development

of Newfoundland and Labrador as a major player in the world of oil and gas. The wealth of

our resources, combined with our trained workforce, competitive fiscal and regulatory

regimes and state of art infrastructure, are all combining to make that a reality. On

behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of this Province, I

offer congratulations to everyone involved on a job well done at the Newfoundland

Transshipment Terminal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This is an important announcement. This

facility is obviously an important facility, and the official opening is obviously an

important day. When we see statistics, for example, showing 60 per cent of the $200

million site construction costs being spend here in this Province, this too is positive.

However, we have to keep in mind that there was great hype in the 1970s, great hype in the

1980s, and to some extend great hype and great hope continues in the 1990s.

The oil industry, the offshore industry,

is an industry that many people in this Province are looking forward to, to be a

significant - a huge economic force, a huge economic engine, and I think we are still

waiting to see that economic force becoming a reality.

I would ask government to be constantly

vigilant in ensuring that this particular industry in our Province reaches its potential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My, how we have scaled down our vision.

My, how we have scaled down our expectations. I remember when the Come By Chance oil

refinery was built just next door to this Transshipment facility, and the Premier of the

day was talking about a great petrochemical industry that was going to be developed around

Come By Chance. If he were here today to see the oil on our doorstep being brought ashore,

put in a sophisticated tank farm and then shipped off again without any further

processing, he would be mightily upset, I say. He would be mightily upset at the lack of

vision that we have, and the lack of ability we seem to have to ensure that these

resources are further processed on our doorstep.

It is nice to see this facility here, but

that should be the beginning and not the extent of our vision and our expectations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

inform members of this House of the substantial progress that has been made by government

and the Regional Economic Development Boards in moving the economic agenda forward in the

twenty economic zones of the Province.

Members will be aware that the centrepiece

of this government's approach to regional economic development is to engage key community

stakeholders in the twenty economic zones under the leadership and coordination of the

Regional Economic Development Boards, otherwise know as REDBs. Communities themselves have

been empowered, in partnership with government, to identify the most effective ways of

developing their economies on a business oriented basis. Previous efforts tended to be

centrally driven, were largely uncoordinated at the regional level, and were ad hoc in

nature. These approaches did not work.

This government is interested in

approaches that will result in permanent long-term solutions to our economic challenges -

solutions that also actively involve its citizens - not solutions that are band-aid and

short-term in nature.

I am pleased to inform the House that

eighteen of the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards have completed strategic

economic plans for their zones, based on consultation with key stakeholders in their

areas. The boards are now focused on implementing those plans to diversify and strengthen

their economies and create new sustainable job opportunities and growth in their regions.

Many members of this House have been directly engaged with the REDBs in this process. This

is important work for all members and I encourage them to continue to support and be

active with the REDBs in advancing the economic growth agendas in each and every one of

those zones.

The Regional Economic Development Boards

have been aggressive in identifying initiatives that offer the greatest opportunity to

improve the economy of their zones. Government has committed to work with each board to

ensure that the available resources of both orders of government are harnessed to advance

these initiatives in the most expedient manner feasible. The Cabinet Committee on Rural

Revitalization met with the boards in their own zones last year to review their strategic

economic plans, and just last week the Cabinet Committee commenced another Province-wide

set of meetings with each board to take stock of progress made to date and to advance

priority economic initiatives as fast as we can. The overall progress made by the REDBs

has been impressive.

We have made substantial gains in the past

two years and there are encouraging signs that our efforts are starting to yield real

dividends. While the unemployment rate remains at an unacceptably high level, and

out-migration regrettably continues, there are 10,700 more people working today than there

were a year ago. Employment levels have increased every month since August of 1997, except

for a brief dip in August of this year that was caused by the distorting effect of an

earlier crab season than normal. As a result of the efforts put forward by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, it got off to a wonderful start this year. The growth in

employment in the first ten months of this year alone has translated into a 1.3 point

decline in the unemployment rate, the fourth best improvement among all provinces. These

improvements are not restricted to the St. John's area as some would like us to believe.

The economy is clearly moving in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 some 40,000 people

and over 300 communities in this Province lost their whole economic structural base. For a

less resilient people that would have meant the end of our communities and culture.

Today I believe we are on the road to

recovery. Notwithstanding this positive trend, I say to the Member for Bonavista South,

much hard work lies ahead in rebuilding and restructuring the economy of our Province,

especially in rural areas. It would be unfair and unrealistic to expect that the Regional

Economic Development Boards or anybody else can solve all the economic and employment

challenges confronting the Province in the short term. Substantial progress has,

nonetheless, been achieved over a relatively short period. There is a growing sense of

optimism and confidence throughout the Province. The building blocks are now solidly in

place and the Regional Economic Development Boards are playing a critically important role

in this process.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge

the dedication and energy that the hundreds of volunteers who serve on the twenty Regional

Economic Development Boards have brought to the process thus far. I encourage them to

maintain the momentum generated to date and never lose faith in their ability to make a

difference. It is all too easy to be critical of new approaches and to call for a return

to old ways and quick fixes when confronted with difficult circumstances. This is not the

answer in today's world. We need to forge ahead in a positive and progressive manner - one

step at a time - and do so by working together at the community level to rebuild the

economy in all parts of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

want to respond to the minister's statement. I just got it a couple of minutes before the

House opened.

There is no doubt that, first of all, we

can commend the many volunteers who take part at a local level in these boards. Of course,

concerning the whole concept and idea of REDB boards at a local level and putting things

in place and getting those people involved so there is work from the grassroots, there is

no problem with that. That is a concept I think anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador would

agree to. Like it is said over and over, that no matter if you have the best plan in the

world, unless you can execute that plan it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Yes, there are positive things, there is

no doubt about it. I deal as a member, and so do many people in this House of Assembly,

day after day, with people with small businesses, two to five people in a business, who

are starting up and moving in the right direction, I say to the minister. I have no

problem with that. Those things are happening. They are for real and they are happening.

The real question is: Are they happening

fast enough? The bottom line, the real tell-tale sign of this whole process, is jobs. You

can cut it any way you want to, but what people in Newfoundland and Labrador are looking

for is jobs. The people who are leaving this Province, the amount of unemployment in this

Province, are the real things that are happening today and they have to be addressed.

People cannot wait.

As I know, the Speaker himself with the

many rural communities in his district, some thirty-three in my own district, Bonavista

South with some forty-four communities - and I go to all these communities, and I am sure

as do the rest of the rural members - as you go into these small communities they are not

asking me: How is the strategic plan going? Is the strategic plan going to get me a job

today? People in rural Newfoundland and Labrador over the next days and weeks are looking

for answers.

I agree with the minister when he talks

about band-aid solutions. Right now in all these communities, what are we hearing every

day? My phone calls are about projects that are starting up, the farm projects. Now they

are looking for other projects. No, they are not solutions, but the reality is - and the

minister and the Premier know this - that they have to eat. They have to be able to turn

on their electricity. That is where it is at these days. I get calls, and I know every

member here and over there does too, from people saying they cannot pay their phone bill

or their light bill because they are out of unemployment, they are out of work. They do

not want to go to social services, a lot of these people. They are proud Newfoundlanders

out of work.

What I am saying to the minister is that

we have to catch up with reality. We can say that these strategic plans are fine, and we

can gloss them up as much as we can, but the bottom line is this: at the end of the day

they have to be laid on the table now. If a job comes from that, well, it is working. Mr.

Speaker, the time is critical in this Province. Over the next year to eighteen months

people in this Province, when the FRAM and when the make-work projects are over, we are

going to have to come back to reality again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: That is when we are going

to have to see if jobs will be the bottom line to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

I believe the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is asking for leave to respond to

the statement by the hon. Government House Leader.

MS JONES: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to comment on the statement made

by the hon. Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. I am pleased to see that progress

is being made by the Economic Development Boards in their strategic planning level. I also

want to add that we have had two years now of planning and I think those plans have been

laid, the ground work for that has been laid, and it is time to move on.

People in their communities are

identifying opportunities and initiatives for long-term development. They are looking at

ways in which their communities can survive and build. I think now government has a

responsibility to start investing in what they are proposing. To start putting money back

in to help them revive these ideas and these initiatives.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they

also have a responsibility to direct where federal government funds are going. We all know

right now, or I know as a member who represents communities in rural areas of the

Province, that the mandate of the federal government's funding initiatives is not being

invested where it ought to be, to build in rural areas of Canada. That means we have to

make changes in ACOA's programs, in HRD's programs. We have to change the focus -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: - to where these dollars are

going.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The statement that I made earlier was so

enthusiastically supported by the Opposition parties that I would like to give it again.

In fact, I would like to table a copy of Dr. Warren's interim report so it can be

distributed for members of the Legislature.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

With the tabling of Dr. Warren's report

today, having a copy of it for about an hour before the House opened and reviewing it, it

can only be described as a complete condemnation of government's lack of action to protect

either students, the consumer, or the industry, those private training colleges that have

a sterling reputation and are delivering sound programs. On page 19 the report says:

"If implemented, these changes result in, essentially, a new Act and new regulations,

with a different philosophy and orientation."

My question for the minister is: Along

with his new-found hair cut, will he adopt this new-found orientation and philosophy

governing private training colleges in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate the references and comparisons to Preston Manning and so on. It is greatly

appreciated. Actually, it shows the Leader of the Opposition not paying much attention. It

is not a new hair cut I have, it is brand new hair. I can give you a few references later

on (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In effect, Mr. Speaker, I

am glad that the Leader of the Opposition raised that particular point, because it does

talk about essentially a brand new act and a whole new philosophy and approach. Because if

he would read the last paragraph of my statement, I indicated quite clearly that the

legislation we are currently operating under was enacted in Newfoundland and Labrador in

1988, when there was a Progressive Conservative Administration led by Premier Brian

Peckford.

I believe a current MP in Ottawa by the

name of Mr. Bill Matthews was the minister of education and training, or post-secondary

education, at the time. What is in the act now, because it has not reviewed in this

Legislature in that ten-year period, reflects the philosophy, approach and the planning

that was put into it by a previous administration. We welcome this review, we welcome the

opportunity to make some changes, Mr. Speaker, so that we can put a stamp of this

government's policy and approach on the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister is right.

The difference in his hair and my hair is that mine is real, his is not. At least the

appearance, I say to the Minister of Education.

This is a serious report that requires a

level of debate that should have taken place some time ago, but I am pleased today to have

the minister stand and acknowledge that there are serious problems, and there have been

with the industry. I am pleased to have him stand in his place today and put forward a

report with some concrete recommendations that will enhance the industry for both

students, the consumer, and also for those institutions that will remain to carry on and

deliver high quality training for all the people of the Province.

I would like to ask the minister this. In

talking with Dr. Warren just after the press conference, I asked him this question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ready.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is coming.

I asked him, in terms of the report, for

it to work - for the vision of what you see to work in terms of the recommendations that

you have laid before government - will it not require that all of the recommendations that

he has put forward, from A to Z, will be implemented?

The question I have for the minister -

obviously, you have had it for a week now - have you made a commitment, or have you looked

at implementing all of the report? Because in your statement you say you will propose

major changes along the lines of what Dr. Warren recommends, which indicates you will not

adopt the entire framework approach that he has suggested. The question is: Are you going

to adopt the recommendations as put forward in its total form by Dr. Warren?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the press conference about an hour ago,

when we were releasing the report publicly and having some public discussion of it, it was

indicated quite clearly that we will provide a very brief opportunity now for the directly

impacted stakeholders - those who run private training institutions in the Province today

under the current legislation, as well as student representatives and others - now that

they have an opportunity to present to Dr. Warren, now that they have had an opportunity

to see what he has recommended, for at least the government to be prudent and to spend a

week or ten days - because that is all the time we would have - to ask them if they agree

that these recommendations are headed in the right direction.

Government has not concluded, because we

have looked at Dr. Warren's report in a week and have not asked anybody else what they

think about it; that because he made these recommendations, having heard what he did over

a couple of months period of study, that we would holus-bolus commit to doing everything

that is recommended without checking with the people who are most directly impacted...

After another week or so of review, and an

opportunity to do that checking, government will finalize its position. I guess generally

what we are trying to indicate today is that, unless there are good public policy reasons

why we should differ with any of the recommendations suggested by Dr. Warren that are

brought to our attention in that period of time, we intend to concur with the trust of his

report and his recommendations. If we don't, we will spell out the reasons here in this

Legislature as to why there is a difference of opinion on one or more, if that happens.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

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

You have indicated that you are going to

look for some briefings and take a different approach in terms of looking for advice. I

would like to ask the minister if he could enlighten us just on two of the recommendations

which I think are outside of everything else; two recommendations specifically that have

been talked about in this House.

In your statement and in the report there

is a distinction with respect to a private training school which will get designation for

student aid purposes. In your statement you referred to one year; on page 19 of the report

it refers to Dr. Warren's recommendation of two years. Obviously, there has been a

mistake. I wonder if you could clarify that and indicate: should your report say two

years, or Dr. Warren's report say one year? What is the recommendation with respect to

student aid designation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is one of the issues, actually, that

we would like to discuss with the industry further. There is no mistake in either of the

documents. Dr. Warren's report did recommend that there be a two-year period of successful

operation before designation for student aid be conferred to a private training

institution. The release that I provided today in the Ministerial Statement indicates that

we would look at one year. We will discuss that with the private training sector and the

industry.

The other thing that is occurring, that

Dr. Warren was not fully aware off when he was doing his review because it was not his

mandate, is that we have entered into harmonization discussions with the federal

government with respect to the rules that surround student aid.

He was not mandated to review student aid

in any way, shape or form. He made the recommendation because that suggestion came forward

many times in his discussions. We will have to check with the industry and our federal

counterparts as to whether or not a one-year period or two-year period is most

appropriate.

In the discussions with the federal

government in terms of harmonizing the Canada Student Loan with the Newfoundland Student

Loan, all of those talks are going into the direction of a one-year waiting period, and we

are leaning towards harmonization, unless there is some good reason why we should have an

exceptional second year here in Newfoundland and Labrador when it would not apply anywhere

else in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously

the minister has looked at the report and has made some initial changes - this being one

of them - and he has enlightened the House, and through the House the people of the

Province.

On pages 14 and 15 of the report it talks

about monitoring, and indicated that while the department has in recent months, due to, I

guess, the situation and the crisis to some extent, or controversy that has occurred - I

would like to ask him the question: Does he support what Dr. Phil Warren has indicated

here with respect to monitoring, that there is a need for more monitoring, that there is a

need for private institution personnel to have more support and a strategic plan for

quality improvement?

After all, it is in prevention and

monitoring, if there are problems that are going to occur, that we can nip them in the

bud, so to speak, so that the situation does not get out of hand as it did get out of hand

in the last nine months. I ask the minister: Does he concur with the request for

monitoring? Has he made any decisions in terms of beefing up monitoring of the system as

recommended by Dr. Warren?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, even prior to announcing in

April of this year, last spring, that we would conduct this review and so on, we did

announce that we would increase the monitoring capability of the Department of Education.

In the middle of the summer, even before Dr. Warren commenced his study, we actually hired

an additional couple of monitors; one to be centred in Central Newfoundland and one to be

centred on the West Coast. They have been doing and performing their duties for their

first time during this academic semester. I expect that is an indication that the

government is already committed to some increased level of monitoring with respect to the

system.

The important point not to be missed in

all of this is that we have a study done, we have an interim report submitted, and the

intent of the government clearly is, after another very short period of checking back with

the direct stakeholders on a very quick basis in the next week or so, our intention -

hopefully again with the support of the opposition parties - is to bring legislation

forward in this House to make these changes before Christmas and before we leave before

the Christmas break.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's West.

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

My questions today are for Minister of Health and Community Services.

Two years ago, the Select Committee of the

House of Assembly, the Select Committee on Children's Interests, recommended that this

government establish a child advocate whose sole responsible would be to look out for the

best interests of children who find themselves at the mercy of the system.

I would like to ask the minister today if

tomorrow, on National Child Day, will she please announce the government's intention to

establish a child advocate so children in trouble can count on their very own officer in

that House of Assembly that our own Select Committee said they so badly need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

Speaker.

Since the Select Committee on Children's

Interests released this report, this government has undertaken a number of initiatives. As

the member across the way has read the Order Paper, I am sure she sees that there is an

act respecting a new piece of child welfare legislation which will address children,

youths, and families, and that will be discussed in full detail at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: This member is aware

that there will be a child welfare act, and I am asking the minister again: In this act,

will we provide for a child advocate?

Back in June, in some correspondence to my

colleague, the minister mentioned that she is working with other government departments,

agencies and community groups, to continuously improve our response to child abuse and

child neglect. Are you saying that without a child advocate - are you satisfied with the

status quo? Is the minister satisfied with the child abuse rates, the casualty rate at the

hands of our system? Are you saying that is acceptable, that the Select Committee in your

caucus and in our caucus is wrong, and that the governments of six other provinces are

wrong because they have a child advocate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

Speaker.

What I am hearing from the member opposite

is probably something that she had released earlier this morning in their platform on

children's interests which is, from what I can gather, right out of page 135 of the Select

Committee on Children's Interests book - word for word, the three main suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this government

has done quite a bit since then. I mean, you can look it up. There it is, the three topics

in their platform right out of page 135, in full content. The other very interesting thing

was that there is also a statement that they would implement a child day care policy for

children under two. I ask: Where have you been? We have announced that last fall in

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, since

this report has been released this government has undertaken so many initiatives for

children, and the list goes on. We have integrated services, we have coordinated services,

we have increased social assistance rates for families, we have introduced a Provincial

Housing Repair Program, we have introduced our Strategic Social Plan. We will be adding

$10 million to our National Child Benefit, not to mention the provincial nutrition fund.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about

children. We have taken on a very strong, clear children's agenda. I would happy to review

it with you at any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: This member is aware of

the initiatives that you have started. No where in those initiatives did I see a child

advocate. I am pleased to say that this party is implementing and will implement the

recommendations of this House. Because we won't leave reports on desks and on shelves

while they get dusty.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: We will be on the right

side of the House and we will implement those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: We won't let this

report and other reports go the way of the Inkpen report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I

ask her to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Are

you saying you are satisfied without a child advocate? Are you satisfied with the stasis

quo? A child advocate as has been recommended in this report will address the needs of the

children without them having to go through all the other government departments and

government agencies. Just answer the question. Are you satisfied and will you be satisfied

without a child advocate to advocate on behalf of the children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

Speaker.

I would encourage the member opposite to

go through this report and to actually identify the number of recommendations that have

been met, not only since the report but over the last eight months since we have

introduced our last Budget.

Secondly, I want to say: Were we pleased

with the status quo? We certainly were not. What did we do two and a half years ago, when

I has as the then-Minister of Social Services went up and got my orientation from the then

deputy minister of Social Services, who came to me and said: If there is one area in which

I've failed it is in the area of child welfare.

So no, we were not pleased with it and we

immediately started a review. We have been following reports, we have not stopped

implementing initiatives for children in this Province. We are proud of our record. For

the first time in fifty years, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing new legislation on

child youth and family services which we are quite proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier regarding

the Canadian Blood Bank. Can the Premier tell the people of the Province, the taxpayers of

this Province, the total dollar value of investment, either financially or otherwise, by

this Province in the Canadian Blood Bank or any of its affiliated companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

thank the hon. gentleman for his question because I want to clarify some of the reports

that have been actually appearing in the news media in regards to the Province's security.

The truth of the matter is that this

Province invested $500,000, or gave the company $500,000 in an investment. The truth of

the matter is that the Province is fully secure as far as we can understand at this point.

Let me say to you that contrary to the reports that are appearing, that investment is not

in the form of Blood Bank equipment. It is in the form of real estate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister has just stated, as the

Premier has stated publicly, that the Province's investment in the Canadian Blood Bank is

secure through liens on equipment and buildings. Will the Premier tell the people of this

Province and the House of Assembly the total dollar value of all securities or liens by

government against the Canadian Blood Bank or its affiliated companies? Will the Premier

give a full disclosure to the taxpayers of this Province, a listing of all equipment or

buildings that the government currently holds securities or liens against on the Canadian

Blood Bank or its affiliated companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me repeat for the hon.

gentleman, just in case he did not hear my first answer. Our security is not in the form

of equipment, Blood Bank equipment or any other kind of equipment. Our security is in the

form of real estate and we are told by our officials that that is secure. Let me say to

the hon. gentleman that it is my understanding that the building - and it is a building,

it is the building that the Blood Bank is in - and I regret having to get into this, and

the hon. gentleman should understand why.

The truth of the matter is that the

appraised value of that piece of real estate is worth $1.2 million. We have first call on

a first mortgage of $300,000, the Bank of Nova Scotia has second call on another mortgage

of I think it is $300,000 - I will get the figures exactly for him -, and we have a third

mortgage of another $200,000. So that is our security. No equipment, it is a building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The Province's Registry shows that the

Province has a $200,000 debenture against Futurac, the former name of the Canadian Blood

Bank. The Province's Registry also shows that the Province has absolutely no liens against

the Canadian Blood Bank. Other than the $200,000 security that the Province holds against

Futurac, will the Premier table in this House any and all other liens so that we can see

them, so that we give full disclosure and accountability to the taxpayers of this

Province, table any securities or liens that the Province holds over and above this

$200,000 that the Registry is showing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: I don't know what else I can

tell the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman opposite that the

best form of tabling in this House is for a minister to stand and be recorded in Hansard.

I've just told the hon. gentleman that we are told by our officials that we are fully

secure. The building is valued at $1.2 million. We have first mortgage for $300,000 and

the Bank of Nova Scotia has second mortgage for I think it is $300,000. I will get the

exact figure on that one. I know that we have a third mortgage for $200,000. Mr. Speaker,

that adds up to $800,000. The building is appraised at $1.2 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) going to

make some money.

MR. TULK: You never know, but if you

get into this kind of argument, and if you get the arguments that you see in The

Express today that we are into equipment - and The Express went so far as to

say: You are not going to recover it. Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, as I say to

the hon. gentleman again, there is no equipment. Let me be very clear to him. By the way,

if he is talking about $250,000 we gave them in 1994 when they made their first public

offering, we recovered that full amount of $250,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods. Earlier I asked the minister questions regarding government

funding and government accountability for $23 million of taxpayers' money directed to

Integrated Poultry Limited. While we support each and every job at this facility and hope

the private company is a success, $23 million of taxpayers' money must be spent wisely and

every dollar accounted for.

Minister, to secure this deal your

government agreed to pay IPL $4.5 million to help defray operating losses for one year. I

ask the minister if this $4.5 million has been paid and, if so, what additional operating

loses have been incurred by Integrated Poultry Limited for the first year of business?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Opposition is

saying that they support a company, that they support the jobs, yet they are trying to

really create an undercurrent of lack of confidence in the company. They continue to do

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Not in my words, but

in the words of two of the owners, two of the farmers who are in the company, one has said

publicly on the airwaves that he is very concerned about the response from the Opposition

and the tact they have taken on this issue. Those are not my words, they are their words.

They have put in first and foremost -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Opposition was the

party that created Sprung, not us. They were the party. We are trying to get this company

to go forward. We have required them to spend $4 million up front of their own money. They

have a large stake in this operation. They are now a private company. We have secured,

against $11 million in loan guarantees, $22 million worth of assets; over 200 per cent

versus 100 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to the minister that he will never

shame me out of standing in this House and asking questions about taxpayers' dollars.

Twenty-three million dollars of taxpayers' money is into this particular industry and we

have every right to ask questions.

Minister, your government also agreed to

provide $4 million of taxpayers' money to IPL for capital infrastructure. I ask the

minister if the total of this money has been provided. If so, has this company approached

the government for additional funding for capital expenses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, this private

company has expended some of the capital outlay that we have provided to them. We have $22

million in assets held in security to the government guarantee debt of $11 million. That

is a good deal in anybody's book, I would say, $22 million in assets compared to the $11

million liability that we have for the government guaranteed loan.

We provided a grant for operations for the

first year. This is a company that started in 1963 by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It has lost untold millions and millions of dollars. I am not sure what the

Opposition would have us do. If we had kept it and we had another liability this year of

$8 million of taxpayers' money every year for the next number of years, they would be

saying: When is the government going to sell the company? When are they going to privatize

it?

We have done that. We are working with the

company, and despite the attempts of the Opposition we are going to try to make it work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not

know where the minister comes up with the figure of $11 million. There is $23 million of

taxpayers' money into this particular industry; $23 million, I say to the minister.

Minister, your government also agreed to

provide Integrated Poultry Limited with a $10 million capital loss guarantee arranged

through the Bank of Nova Scotia. Has the company approached government again since that

loan guarantee was granted for a loan guarantee increase?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we

outlined this months ago when we released the information; we will do it again: $11

million of guaranteed debt is what is down there now. We provided a grant of $8.5 million.

When he adds it all up, it is $22 million dollars. We have security of up to $22 million

on all of the facilities and all the quotas, and they are a valuable commodity to have.

The farmers themselves have put in $4

million of their own money. They were required to put it in first, every cent. They are

the ones who are going to make it work, not the government. They are the stakeholders of

the chicken community in this Province. They are trying to make it work.

No matter what undermining you want to do

to compare this policy to the old Sprung policy or the old P.C. government, it is

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I

understand as well that government assumed the assets left at Integrated Poultry Limited

for collateral. I ask the minister if his department has been approached by Integrated

Poultry Limited for government to release those assets so they may use them as collateral

in order to obtain extra funding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am

going to get a copy of this Hansard and I am going to send it down to the employees of

IPL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Opposition critic

wants us to negotiate in public, a private company's finances. I cannot believe it. I just

cannot believe it. One day they are for business, they are supporting all the jobs - oh

yes, we want all the jobs down there to stay there but we want to undermine everything

that is going on. We want to make sure their creditors do not become too insecure now.

This is going to help create security, these types of questions - totally irresponsible.

As the chairman of the company said: The Opposition is irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South,

time for one quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a quick

question.

When the minister makes his trip to the

Queen's Printer, instead of ordering 400 copies, order 560,000 copies to send it to every

taxpayer in this Province.

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people

of the Province need to understand that we are talking about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Any minister may rise,

Mr. Speaker. The people of the Province need to understand that we are talking about an

operation that was in public hands since the 1960s and which has lost money consistently,

lost tens of millions, lost $29 million in the last four years of operation, and where

private citizens have put millions of their own money - and for some of them every cent

they had - into privatizing it and making it work. Where the member opposite is now

attempting deliberately to undermine that operation and to put the private investment at

risk and to put hundreds of jobs at risk, I say to him: Take a more responsible approach

to the House of Assembly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the

hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, to revert

to what the Premier was saying, the Premier was trying to mislead the people of this

Province whereby he accused the Opposition of trying to do away with jobs and do away with

a private industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: What we are doing here

is holding government accountable for $23 million of taxpayers' money that was spent here

in this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: As the Speaker has

said, there is no point of order. The member knows he is deliberately putting jobs at

risk, deliberately undermining Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working, and the member

ought to apologize! I call upon him to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise to present a petition. I am sorry I

failed to pass it to the Clerk before I stood to present it, but I think it is acceptable.

I will read the prayer and if it is not then I will sit down. The petition is to the House

of Assembly:

To the hon. House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the road on the Bonavista

Peninsula from Route 235 through the communities of Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove

is in such a deplorable condition that it damages vehicles and creates great discomfort

and safety concerns for children on school buses; and

WHEREAS this road has not been upgraded

since it was first paved more than twenty years ago despite serious deterioration;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade where necessary and repave the seven

kilometres of road leading from Route 235 through Open Hall, Red Cliff, and Tickle Cove;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is a petition signed by

in excess of 200 residents. In fact, there are not 200 residents in those three

communities, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but if you look

through the petition you will see it signed by many of the people who travel there in

order to support the couple of businesses there, and two fish buyers who are in this

particular location.

Mr. Speaker, the wholesale trucks that go

out there to support and provide the necessary supplies to the stores there have

threatened in the past not to make the route out in this particular area, because of the

condition of the road. It was only a year or so ago that the school bus driver himself

threatened to leave his bus parked because of the condition of the road.

Going around one particular area there,

where there is a pond - it is called Shallow Cliff Pond - there was a boulder in the road

for about two years. In the wintertime it would heave up. If you were driving a small car,

and if you did not know that particular boulder was there, you would certainly bottom out

your car, and it would certainly cause great damage to your car and maybe even the loss of

life if an accident occurred.

Since that time the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation has removed that boulder, but the road is in such a

dilapidated condition that the whole thing needs now to be recapped or repaved without

being patched. I think the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation has probably

gotten to the point now where they are patching patches.

Those people are not asking for the curves

to be cut down; they are not asking for the hills to be cut down. All they are asking for

is to do a little bit of ditching out through there and to recap the road.

I know we are in hard times, and I know

the government does not have a lot of money, but if we can only make a start on some of

those roads then maybe we would see an end to it.

I know that the minister, if he decided to

give the superintendent of his department in that particular area a call, Mr. Goodman,

that he would inform him as well that what I am putting forward here in the House today is

correct information. It is probably one of the worst pieces of road leading to a

community.

There are probably some roads in just as

bad a condition through some communities, but this particular

section of road, this seven

kilometres of road through the communities of Tickle Cove, Red Cliff, and Open Hall is

certainly, I would say, probably the worst road on the Bonavista Peninsula. It has been in

excess of twenty years since any amount of work has been done on this road, except for

patches and adding on the sides of the road when it deteriorated to such an extent that it

broke away.

School children travel over this road on a

daily basis. People have to us this road - seniors - in order to get to hospitals and

other government facilities. The residents in this area use the road on a daily basis.

They pay the same price for automobile insurance; they pay the same taxes on gasoline;

they pay the same price to buy their licences for their vehicles and for their own

driver's licence. I think they should expect nothing less than to have their road upgraded

and repaved.

It is something that I support. I support

their efforts in putting forward this petition. Somebody said here today, or a couple of

days ago, that a petition that was read here in the House was done through anger and

frustration. Well, I can tell you that this particular petition was done though concern

and frustration; concern about the road leading to their communities, and the frustration

of not being able to have any amount of upgrading or repaving done over the number of

years that they have been searching and asking that this be done.

I ask the minister if he would consider

this request, and if he could see fit to put some money there this year to have that

particular road upgraded and recapped. It would certainly be appreciated and would serve

the residents in that area quite well.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the

Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise in my place to support the petition

presented by the Member for Bonavista South on behalf of the people of Open Hall, Tickle

Cove and Red Cliff. They have a very simple request to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation: that they be treated just as well as any other person in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

These people pay taxes just as the

constituents of the Member for Port de Grave or the Member for St. John's North, the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and they deserve to have decent roads to

travel over.

The Member for Bonavista South mentioned

that the bus driver was talking about parking his bus because the road was in such poor

condition. That is not suitable for any man - or I would say for any animal - to travel

over roads in that bad a condition.

In my own district, we have had some work

done after constant work on my behalf to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of

Fisheries is making some comments and trying to turn this into a joke, but it is no joke.

The Minister of Fisheries, who is the Member for Port de Grave, when he was the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, paved every road, I think, in the District of Port

de Grave, paved every driveway I wouldn't doubt, and he is over there saying yes to what I

am saying. He is openly admitting that he paved every driveway in the District of Port de

Grave. He is over there shaking his head and saying: Yes, every driveway and cow path.

This petition presented by the Member for

Bonavista South has 200 signatures. They have roads out there that require people to

travel over them to get to businesses, to go to schools, to go to their homes.

This will tell you what the members on the

other side of the House believe about petitions in this House of Assembly. The Government

House Leader just stated that if a partridge walked on a path down in those little trails

through the woods where the partridge and the rabbits go through, and what have you, they

would pave that. That is the joke they are making out of this.

This is a very serious situation. There

are a lot of roads in this Province that need to be upgraded and redone. It has been

something like twenty years since there was any work done on this seven kilometres of

road. I venture to guess that in the district of the Minister of Fisheries, in the

District of Port de Grave, and a few other districts around here, they did not have to

wait twenty years for upgrading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, we have a

commitment, I say to the Member of Bonavista South, by the Government House Leader, that

they will have a look at this seven kilometres of work.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good look.

MR. J. BYRNE: A good look. You will do

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House

Leader said you should never prejudge what you can do in the Budget.

Three years ago, the Minister of Finance

could prejudge what he was going to do in November when he presented an update in the

House of Assembly, but this year he could not give us an update with respect to the

numbers in the financial non-statement he made here a few days ago in the House of

Assembly.

In concluding, I would request that the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in the upcoming budget, take a serious

look at this road and make the funds available to recap and to ditch the road referred to

in this petition, seven kilometres leading through Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove.

I think you know, I say to the Government

House Leader, that I support any work that needs to be done in the Province by the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. What I would say is that every district

should be looked at equally - not that certain government members' districts be looked at

any differently than the district of a member in opposition. There is only one exception

that we all know about, and that is the District of Port de Grave, the district of the

Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, Bonavista North.

That is pretty close to your district, I would say, Bonavista South.

In conclusion, I would request the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to stand and speak to this petition and

support seven kilometres of recapping done in the district next year, of the road that has

been requested.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to add a few words in response to the petition that has been presented by the hon.

Member for Bonavista South.

I do not, for one minute, dispute the fact

that in his district, along with many other districts in the Province, there is still a

considerable amount of work to be done in term of bringing roads up to a standard that

would be satisfactory to the residents, and a standard that frankly would be satisfactory

to us in terms of government policy.

We are endeavouring to meet the need in

terms of road construction, in terms of road paving, and in terms of road repaving on a

prioritized basis, and we will continue to do that in as fair and equitable a manner as is

possible to do.

The hon. member asks for some recapping in

his area. There are a bunch of other areas in the Province where we need to recap roads

that have been paved many years ago and that frankly, are just as bad now as gravel roads

in terms of going over.

On the other hand, we have still about a

1,000 kilometres of road in the Province that has never seen a shovelful of asphalt, that

has never been paved, and that has never had any attention in terms of paying. The hon.

member, I am sure, recognizes and understands that.

I think last year the record of my budget

will show, and our program will show, that in one of his colleague's district, the Member

for Baie Verte, we spent about $1.2 million in that district not in repaving roads but in

attempting to pave roads that needed to be paved because they had never been paved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. MATTHEWS: In a Tory district,

quite frankly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. MATTHEWS: Where? In the district

of, I think it is Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: What is that?

MR. MATTHEWS: Your district.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Pavement, right. I am

sure the people down there appreciate it, and they have still greater needs. We have spent

some money in the district of my colleague here for Bonavista North. We have spent a

little bit of money in that district. Not near as much as we spent in the Tory district.

The point I make is that we are attempting

to allocate our resources on a fair and equatable basis. We are attempting to get the

needs met where they exist -

MR. TULK: Do you mean to tell me that

Baie Verte got more than Bonavista North?

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

We are a fair-minded government. We are an

honourable government. We are a government that takes into consideration the needs of all

the people in all of the Province regardless of how, on a weak moment they might have had

on polling day, decided to cast their vote. We understand and we know that people do

things like that at certain points in their time. We do not hold that against them,

because we know that while the light holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return. That

is, of course, in a political context. We do not hold that against them. We continue to do

the fair, the right, and the honourable thing.

I think my colleague from Cape St. Francis

who just spoke in support of the petition would also be one to acknowledge that if there

has been any district treated fairly in terms of black top, it has been his district. It

is black over black down there. It is black over black. I am surprised that we have not

frankly paved the member over himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Obviously he was not

down on the road the day that we were down there.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was there (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He is ready for class

MR. MATTHEWS: Let's say he can stand

some re-topping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the best and the

worst I can say about him.

Mr. Speaker, the $118 million we spent on

roads last year was a noble effort on behalf of the federal government and ourselves in

road construction. We anticipate there will be a provincial roads program this year. We

will again attempt to allocate the resources out on a fair and equatable basis. I have

every confidence that when the members come to see me over the next two or three months

they will be prioritizing what is as far as they are concerned the priority places in the

district to spend whatever money we can allocate to them.

I want to remind my colleagues on this

side of the House, for fear of them misunderstanding me, that there will be total equity

and equitableness exercised in my judgement. I want them to be assured that they will also

get their fair share. There may be one exception, my hon. colleague for Port de Grave. I

am not sure that we can find much left to do in his district.

He is a member who has looked after his

district in an exemplary fashion. He has provided for the needs for his district, he has

seen that the work has been done in his district, and today he sits there almost as a king

in waiting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member for Bonavista South -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member can ensure his constituents that his petition has been received,

that the burden of the prayer has been heard, and that his area along with all other areas

of the Province will receive fair consideration when budget time comes in term of our

capital roads project.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on

behalf of the undersigned residents of Labrador City, who condemn the provincial

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

resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

Your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse its decision immediately and support a policy of

secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture over there whining and moaning about the fact that he has been

reminded once again of the lack of ability of his government to have the kind of strength,

power, and vision some of his predecessors over there had.

We were shown a book the other day where

quoting a meeting that took place between Premier Smallwood back in the 1950s with the

leadership of the Iron Ore Company of Canada who said they wanted to have a smelter in

Sept-Iles. Mr. Smallwood is quoted as saying: Yes, of course, Mr. President, you can put

the smelter anywhere you want, but let me tell you this, that if you put it in Sept-Iles I

will be doing everything in my considerable power to make sure that you know that it was

the wrong decision.

The smelter went in Carol Lake.

That is the same premier who was there at

the time of the building of the Come By Chance oil refinery, which went bankrupt the first

time around but is now making money. It is a very profitable operation employing several

hundred Newfoundlanders. Several hundred Newfoundlanders per shift, six hundred all

together, and more than that when they are doing the turnaround. They have a regular

workforce of several hundred people per shift, some 600 altogether. On other occasions

during the turnaround they employ a tremendous number of people in construction, refitting

and maintenance work that is done on a regular rotating basis. It is a very viable

enterprise.

Part of the vision of a former premier, I

have to acknowledge, and a very controversial decision it was. The oil refinery is not

perfect. We understand that it still has problems. There were design problems in the

beginning. There were serious, and still are serious, environmental concerns. There have

been for many years serious safety concerns about the refinery, but I have to acknowledge

that the current owners have done more about that than any of its predecessors.

The previous owners were skimping and

scrimping and being parsimonious when it came to putting money into the refinery. They

were very busy taking cash out but not putting very much back in. The current owners are

doing a great deal to ensure that the refinery produces a better product and in a safer

manner. The jury is still out on what happened to the two unfortunate individuals who were

tragically killed last spring. We will hear the full details of that when the various

investigations are complete and the public enquiry is heard.

The vision of Mr. Smallwood was that we

could have a big petrochemical industry in that part of the isthmus of the Avalon,

Placentia Bay, Trinity Bay, that whole area of people working in that area. Now we are

settling for a transshipment port of oil on our doorstep coming in to be stored in a tank

farm. Sophisticated though it may be, called a transshipment port, which it is, but

essentially it is bringing the oil in and sending it back out again.

The question is this: How much money and

how profitable does an industry have to be before we can expect to get the jobs to go with

it? How much money are people allowed to cart away from Newfoundland and Labrador before

we are entitled to insist that they ensure that the jobs come here? Where is the vision?

Where is the determination? Where is the expectation that people who make hundreds of

millions of dollars by taking natural resources out of this Province are required to spend

as much as possibly can be spent in this Province as part of that resource development?

Mr. Speaker, we had a resolution yesterday

which the Liberal Party, Liberal members and the Liberal government did not want me to

speak on. They used the rules and the ruling of the Chair to ensure that I was going to be

unable to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Now my time is up, so I

will have to continue again on another petition at another time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to stand and support the

member's petition which he presented here today. The truth is, the thought is certainly

still fresh in the minds of the people of Labrador West who have called me as recently as

this morning wondering how things were going here, and to tell me the things they have

done in their own town to try to raise the recognition of this, and how they feel about

this whole situation.

They are going to continue to do that, it

is not something they have forgotten, it is not something that has gone away, because it

means too much to them. It means too much to the people of Labrador West to let this just

go away quietly. They have talked to their friends all around this Province on a daily

basis. They do have support around the Province on this issue. It goes back to the heart

of the issue, which is another resource in Newfoundland and Labrador going out for the

benefit of somebody else.

It is the same old story. Here we go

again, cliche after cliche. It is the same cliche. Newfoundland and Labrador again taking

a resource out. Whether it is minerals, oil, our fishery, or forestry, it is the same old

story again. Here we go again. The resource is going out of the Province. It is the same

thing with our resources day after day. That is what people say about this. It has hit a

nerve in this Province, and people seem to say it day after day.

The truth is that since 40,000 people left

this Province in the last six or seven years, these are the people who left with a notion

in their mind that again Newfoundland and Labrador have given up on resources, on resource

development, on getting a full and fair share. We looked at a report on CBC just a few

nights ago on Hibernia. There are all kinds of blame to be spread around. Who started

talking about it first? All different governments, all different politicians, but the

bottom line -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

I don't care who they are talk about. They can talk about certain political errors and so

on. The bottom line is we are the ones living in this Province today, and at the end of

the day you look to see what is possible. In the oil industry there is no doubt about it,

it has a great potential, if we get on the right track to do so as of now. As I spoke

today with the REDBs or whatever great plans you have in place, whatever great propaganda

could be put forward, the bottom line is people look around and say: How many jobs

actually came from this? How many people are working here? How much royalties are we

getting from it? That is what they ask about.

The thing that sticks out in the minds of

the people of Labrador West - and the Minister of Education throws this forward every now

and then - is about the fact that IOC are going to threaten to shut down operations. Can

you imagine now? Labrador City, up there for thirty-eight years, and they made anywhere -

I will throw some numbers at you, and I will be conservative on them - from $40 million to

$50 million a year to $150 million a year in profit sometimes, and maybe even more at

times.

In the old days of IOC they have had some

banner years. They have had some bad ones, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker, but

you do not have to be a mathematician to figure that out after forty years of mining of at

least $50 million a year in profits, when you start multiplying that out, the Iron Ore

Company of Canada has made billions of dollars out of the resources of Labrador West. That

is the bottom line.

They do not need a statistics thrown at

them. They need to know that. After forty years of mining a resource in Labrador West this

company has made billions of dollars. They simply say, before we even start to talk about

the expansion and the viability and all these numbers that are coming at them, they do not

want to talk about all those numbers. They just say: Don't even talk to me about it. You

have been here for forty years, you have made billions of dollars. If you want to expand

and get bigger, you do it in this Province, not outside. That is simply what the people of

Labrador West are saying, and a lot of people around this Province also. They do not want

to get into all the numbers and get tied up in statistics.

The truth is the people of Labrador City

are speaking for a large portion of this Province that says - a company wants to expand

and get bigger and be more profitable, that is what it is all about. It is not about being

economically viable, or economically feasible. These caption words are stuck there so that

a company can use it for their own convenience.

Yes, we are not going to expect a company

to come in here on good will and run a business and not make any money. I do not think

there is anybody in the Province who is that far left to think that. They are not coming

out of the goodness of their hearts. They are coming here to make profits. At the same

time, as we know with any big corporation, or anybody that is in business, there is a

word: greed. It is human nature. As you make more you want more, and so on.

What we need is a government that would

stand up to any company, whether they are a big business or a small business, and say:

Yes, we can understand something, a reasonable return on your money, on your investments,

so you can satisfy your shareholders. At the same time the government has to be able to

say: We have to satisfy our shareholders, the taxpayers of the Province who gave us the

job to run this Province. We have to be able to look at those people every day and say to

them we have done the right thing here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: The people of Labrador

West, Mr. Speaker, are not finished with this issue by a long shot.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member standing on a new

petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Orders of

the House require that other than the person introducing the petition, there would be one

person speaking from each side of the House. If there is somebody else to speak to the

petition it would have to be from the other side of the House.

Is the hon. member standing on a new

petition?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I stand

today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It states:

The petition of the undersigned residents

of Labrador City.

WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City

condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision

to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a

policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a situation which has obviously

raised concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. We have heard in the

past several weeks, certainly in the media and directly from individuals who are directly

affected by this decision, of the real problem and the real disgust, I guess, which is

being experienced by individuals who live in that region. Of course, the message is much

broader.

I think this particular message has been

given to us by the representatives from Labrador City and Labrador West - not only the

union leaders, but municipal leaders as well - that even though it is happening to them at

this time, it does send a message which perhaps ought to be heard by all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, that here we have a situation where government has allowed resources of

our Province to simply go from within the Province to outside.

When we just hear that, and when we hear

that concern being expressed, this has to sound alarm bells. This has to raise concern for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because the questions that may be very well asked

is: What is next, what particular resource is next, what industry will next be affected?

Therefore, even though it has specific implications and ramifications for individuals and

residents who live in the area of Labrador West, it indeed sends a message for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we ought to be on our guard.

We ought to be continually concerned about

what a government may say one day and then say the next. Is it saying one day and on the

one hand that we will protect our resources, and we will do what in fact is attempted to

be done with the changes to the Mineral Act, and on the other hand, make changes or allow

decisions to be made which are in direct conflict with what government has said the

previous day?

There are interesting questions that have

been asked by representatives of IOCC. These questions include, for example: What are the

profits that IOCC has generated over the last five, ten, twenty or thirty years? Let the

people of the Province know exactly what the benefits to this company have been, while at

the same time allowing them to make the change that they want to make with, incidentally,

the approval of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. What profits has North

Limited realized from IOCC since its $230 million U.S. investment in 1977? They are

pertinent questions, and they are questions that ought to be asked and remain unanswered.

Certainly government has turned a blind eye when we look at exactly what impact this

decision is going to have on the residents of Labrador West.

Another question that these same municipal

leaders and union leaders have asked is this. Why didn't government pursue legislation

with respect to a royalty regime on unprocessed resources? I think it is a very

appropriate question because it directly has to do with the long-term benefits, and in

terms of what the lifestyle will be, the very existence of the people of Labrador West.

Relevant questions that remain unanswered. Why isn't the Province doing something about an

outdated piece of legislation, namely the Labrador Mining and Exploration Act of 1938? We

see now changes being introduced today and debated today with respect to the mineral act.

What about the 1938 act? Why haven't proposed changes been considered by this government

with a view to alleviating the very serious concerns as expressed by residents of Labrador

West?

There are many questions that remain

unanswered. The people of Labrador West in particular have a right to be concerned, but

secondly it has implications for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who now sit idly by

simply looking at a decision which government refuses to do anything about, and at the

same time are genuinely concerned about the future implications that they may in fact

experience as a result of a resource based industry in their particular town or community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise in my place today to support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's East regarding IOCC. Believe it or not, we

have been discussing this all week in this House of Assembly, and it was a major issue

before the House opened, and this is the first time I have stood to speak on this issue

with respect to the moving of the IOCC plant to Sept-Iles.

There are three or four points I want to

address here. I only have five minutes so I will run through them very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I found out this morning

that the Member for Bellevue does a lot of skating on Wednesday nights, and not only in

the arenas. He was at a meeting last night in his district and he did a bit of skating

last night too. Yes, you certainly did.

Anyway, with respect to the pellet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I stickhandle or can

he stickhandle or can you stickhandle. I say to the Premier, I do not play hockey, never

played hockey, and I cannot even skate. That's the sign of a very honest man, I say to the

Premier. The members on that side can all skate very well, I can tell you that, Mr.

Speaker, and I do not mean the skates that are strapped on their feet either.

My understanding of this, in listening to

the people speaking from Labrador City, is that the quality of the pellets that will be

produced in Sept-Iles will be higher, compared to the quality of pellets that will be

produced in Labrador City in the future. If that is the case, then that only leads me to

believe that somewhere down the road - it could be five, ten, fifteen years - the industry

is going to want the higher quality pellets. What impact will that have on Labrador City

in the future, I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy.

That can lead to job loss. That is the

problem that the people who work in the plant up there have. They are concerned about the

job loss. The Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy have already confirmed that any

job losses will be through attrition. In actual fact, over a period of time there will be

less people working at the IOCC plant in Labrador City. Is that correct? Therefore, that

would lead one to believe again, the natural progression of it would be, that the growth

in the area of Labrador, the numbers will be down in the future and will have a major

impact on the out-migration. This is going to require that people leave Labrador to get

jobs elsewhere. It is going to decrease the people working in Labrador City. That is an

actual fact.

Another point that was made in this House

concerns the profits. It is not viable or feasible to put that plant in Labrador City, to

upgrade it. That is what they are saying. That is what the government is trying to have

you believe. The minister stood and talked about the single project. If you take it in

isolation it may not be as profitable as putting that one project in Sept-Iles. We still

have not seen the numbers from the government on this issue. We have to look at the

overall scheme of IOCC, all the years they have been there. How long will they be there in

the future? Again, it could be opening the door.

The Minister of Mines and Energy always

refers to voodoo economics. Sometimes he does remind me of a voodoo doctor when he gets up

to speak. I would not mind if he would define what voodoo economics is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

I would not mind if he would define some

time what he means by voodoo.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not you, the man next to

you, not the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Voodoo? Yes, I know what

voodoo is. As I said earlier, I see him sometimes over there sitting in a chair with a

bunch of needles in your hand. I do not know what you are doing with them, but you are all

the time talking about voodoo economics, so it might have something to do with that. I do

not know, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was making was with respect to

the overall IOCC in Labrador and the profits that have been taken out of Labrador over the

years. If you look at the whole project -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

believe what you are hearing on that side of the House? Here we are talking about a very

serious issue and we have Statler and Waldorf there trying to interject. Anybody who does

not know who Statler and Waldorf is, I will tell you, Premier. Did you ever watch the

Muppets? You should. They are the two guys up in the peanut gallery, Statler and Waldorf,

right there (inaudible), the two of them right there.

I will tell you one thing, I would say to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, there is more intelligence comes out of the

Muppets than comes from that side of the House of Assembly.

On this issue my time is up. I wanted to

have a few words because I am going to have lots of time to speak with respect to the

Mineral Tax Act. I say to the minister that when he gets up to present the bill I expect

to hear a lot of words, there is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will put that on

record. The Premier stayed in the House of Assembly to listen to me today. I can

understand why he did. Because when he meets with that group over there, in that big

caucus room, there is not too much intelligence comes forward, I can say that. I can

understand why he would want to listen to me, no doubt about that.

I will say this while I am on my feet,

seeing that the Premier wants me to address him. He was in my district the other night,

down in Cape St. Francis, in the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cover, in the Justina

Centre - the building that I built when I was Mayor of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove.

When I left, there was no money owing on the building down there, no money from the

provincial government, no money from municipal affairs. There was a $400,000 building, all

paid for by the people of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was the mayor, not the

mare. Where are you from? You are not from the district of the Minister of Fisheries, are

you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Premier looks

anxious. He wants to get on his feet. I never finished my story.

Down in the District of Cape St. Francis,

the Premier was down for a fundraiser -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: He wants to hear the

story.

The Premier was down for an evening with

the Premier. It started at 8:00 p.m. The Premier left at 9:32 p.m. There were forty-three

people in attendance: thirty-two Tories, out of forty-three, and there was the potential

candidate, my potential opponent in the last election -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Premier, put him in his

place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is the Chair's understanding that the

hon. member is speaking by leave, but I would remind all hon. members that what the Chair

has heard in the last two or three minutes has absolutely nothing to do with the petition

which has been presented.

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

I will remind some people to watch their

blood pressure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not talking about

you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking

about?

MR. J. BYRNE: Certain people are

getting pretty upset here.

In the meantime, I again refer to the

situation in Labrador. With this, I think the people in Labrador have been promised by the

Premier and by the Minister of Mines and Energy, and were given false hopes - as they were

in the last election - that were committed to but not lived up to. Certainly I will

support the petition.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is he speaking to the

petition?

PREMIER TOBIN: I certainly am. I will

be at least as relevant as the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an

opportunity to speak to the petition which was put before the House and to say, on behalf

of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically bearing in mind the work

of the Minister of Mines and Energy, and also the very hard work of the Member for

Labrador West, that I am pleased to be part of a team that made every responsible effort

that could be made to bring the greatest amount of benefits, jobs and investment to the

people of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am even hearing

applause from both sides of the House with respect to that particular comment.

The reality is this - and I have waited

for a few days to speak to this petition - there are times in the political life of the

Province when you are going to have decisions made and when you are going to have

developments occur which do not always meet with the expectations of people in any one

part of the Province. There is not a better example of that than indeed what occurred in

Labrador West, where the union, the Chamber of Commerce, and the local town council, a

year ago, sat down in Labrador West with me, with the Minister of Mines and Energy, and

with the Member for Labrador West, and said: We have a new operator, North Limited from

Australia, who have recently purchased, taken control of IOCC - and we have to remember

that North Limited took control just in the spring of 1997. We are not talking about an

owner that has been around for five, ten, fifteen, twenty-five or fifty-five years. When

we think of IOCC, we think of the company. The reality is that the IOCC of old, owned by a

variety of U.S. based steelmakers, is no more. A new owner has come into existence in the

spring of 1997. When the word beginning locally went out that the new owner was looking at

reactivating an existing pellet plant in Sept-Iles, the local community asked the Member

of the House of Assembly, asked the Minister of Mines and Energy, and asked me, to look

into the matter and to make sure that North Limited did not expand in Sept-Iles without

giving full and fair consideration to additional expansion in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reality. Based on

that conversation, I arranged - together with the minister and the Minister of Finance and

the Member for Labrador West - to see first of all the President of IOCC, John Le

Boutillier, who is a new gentlemen who has taken up that position; and secondly, to see

Mr. Malcolm Broomhead, who is the President of North Limited, from Australia.

Our first meeting took place in Toronto.

At that meeting we put forward a series of long-standing complaints, long-standing

grievances, by the people of Labrador West as to the manner in which IOCC was operating.

These related to questions of procurement, not enough procurement occurring in the

Province; the provision of manpower for carrying out duties, some from Quebec carrying out

duties in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; the location of procurement offices;

the location of Human Resource offices; in short, the economic benefit to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and our belief, and our strong belief, that far more of that

activity had to be directed towards this Province.

The other issue we raised was this: We

told them we had heard from the community itself - word on the street, word on the floor

itself - that they were looking at expanding pellet production by reactivating an existing

pellet plant in Sept-Iles. We said, if such a thing were being considered, we wanted full

consideration for Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, we were able to get, through

a series of meetings - it did not happen on the first day - a commitment to fully examine

in the Bechtel report not only the Sept-Iles location but the Labrador West location. Even

after that commitment was given, we said: That is fine - we do not want to be distrustful,

we do not want to say we are calling your word into question - but for greater certainty,

because we have an obligation not to the shareholders of the company but to the

shareholders of the Province, we want an independent assessment of the study that you are

going to do. We want the right to look at your books. We want to hire an independent agent

- a third party - to examine everything that has been said and done, to satisfy ourselves

that the numbers are real.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are the numbers out?

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, the numbers are

out. A $250 million difference, that is what it is.

Not only did we hire an independent agent

but, to make sure that agent stayed independent, we asked for, from Hatch Associates, and

we received from Hatch Associates, a commitment that as a consequence of doing the work

they were going to for us, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that they would stand back and not bid on any of the work

associated with the $1.1 billion capital expansion that IOCC had announced.

Mr. Speaker, I want us to reflect upon

that. Hatch is in the business, and one of a handful of employee-owned, creditably

companies whose integrity is unquestioned. I do not think any member of the House has

questioned their integrity or suggested - the Member for Baie Verte is not suggesting, I

know he is not - that they can be bought, or that their opinion can be bought, or that

their integrity can be bought.

This is a company whose capacity to work

is directly related to their creditably and their integrity. Just as a company that is in

the business of doing accountancy work must be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: Just as a company which

is in the business of doing the books for any corporation or institution at the end of the

year must be able to sign on the bottom line, and must sign for what is there in true and

solid fashion, just as their capacity for future work is directly tied to their integrity,

so too is the capacity for Hatch to work again tied to their integrity when they do an

analysis of a business plan.

The business plan showed that the cost of

doing the same work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador versus reactivating an

existing facility in Quebec was another $250 million.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that

we sat down as a government; we had a committee of the Cabinet. The Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board, the Minister of Mines and Energy, myself, and Mr. Canning, the Member

for Labrador West, had full access to that committee's work and participated in it. We

looked at the ways. We thought theoretically, how can we close the gap? If the gap is not

a large one, what could we do to close the gap to entice the company to expand within the

Province rather than reactive an existing plant outside the Province? We thought about

power lines. We thought about lower power costs, using access to the 130 megawatt recall

that we had last March 9, with Hydro Quebec. We thought about other incentives in the area

of taxation. We thought about literally every kind of way possible to close the gap if the

gap were such that it could be closed and we could capture the additional opportunity

within the Province. But all of that, quite frankly, was for naught when we saw that the

gap was a quarter-of-a-billion dollars, nearly $5 million per job. That is what the cost

to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been to try and close the gap.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, we are talking,

those are the numbers. Yes, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis who is asking

questions, those were the numbers.

Mr. Speaker, it is fine and it is easy to

stand and say, if you are sitting on the other side of the House and you do not have the

responsibility and you are not prepared to carefully analyze the numbers: Well, we would

have spent $200-plus million to close the gap. We would have spent $5 million a job to

close the gap. That is easy to say but that is not responsible to do.

I say to members opposite, you cannot be

on your feet one day questioning the fiscal position of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, suggesting that the deficit has ballooned, suggesting that there is not enough

money to run existing programs like health care -

MR. J. BYRNE: Withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Premier that leave

has been withdrawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure leave has

been withdrawn?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just heard

the Opposition House Leader say no. Are you withdrawing leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like clarification. Does

the hon. Premier have leave?

PREMIER TOBIN: Jack, you were

inaccurate about that Liberal (inaudible) and I never withdrew your leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Premier have leave to

speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, by

leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member

for Cape St. Francis is saying that the Premier can participate in the debate if the

Premier says what he wants the Premier to say, but if the Premier says things he does not

want to hear, the Premier cannot participate in the debate.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier

just made a statement that was not accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Let me have my say and

then you can go out and debate the point.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to say

is: the Premier just stated that he could have leave if he said what I wanted him to say.

I would like for the Premier to say what I want to hear, but the point I am making is that

if the Premier is on his feet by leave, and he is making statements, trying to put words

on this side of the House, we are not going to stand for it and I will withdraw leave. Now

if he wants to get up and be accurate in his statements, so be it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of

order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a look at

the Hansard of what the member just said, and when I figure it out I will respond to it.

Now, as I was saying before I was

interrupted -

MR. J. BYRNE: You were setting

yourself up, I say to the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, I was down in your

riding the other night and I was setting you up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to

confirm, if I can digress, that I did indeed visit the house that Jack built. It was a

lovely house. It was well built, and I was there at a Liberal function and it was well

attended by strong supporters of the Liberal Party, including many who voted for the hon.

gentleman opposite last time around.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: This is not a good

thing, Mr. Speaker, when you recognize that the gentleman opposite only won by fifty-one

votes last time around.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member

for Cape St. Francis, notwithstanding the manner in which I am now digressing, for being

gentle, understanding and compassionate, in allowing me to finish my comment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude, because I

know I should conclude, by pointing out that there is not a single member of this House, I

would venture to say - I feel very confident in saying this - who did not want in their

heart of hearts to see expanded pellet plant capacity in Labrador West. We all wanted

that. There is not a single member of this House who would not have done everything in

their power, within reason, to make that happen. There is not a single member of the House

who would have done different than government has done in recognizing that we cannot pay

$250 million, $5 million a job, to make it happen.

That is the reality. Every member on this

side knows it, every member on the Opposition side knows it; and nobody has borne the

burden of telling the truth, even when the truth is unpleasant and difficult, with greater

grace, greater dignity and greater integrity, than the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador would never stand for the government taking a decision in

this matter that was not well founded. That is the reason this decision has largely been

accepted. It is difficult, but it has been accepted because everybody recognizes we have

done everything reasonable, within our power, to accomplish the result that we sought to

achieve.

I would simply conclude my comments by

saying that I remain committed, the Minister of Mines and Energy remains committed, and I

know the Member for Labrador West remains committed, to working with the community, to

working with the councils, to working with the chamber, to working with the unions, to

working with the citizens of Labrador West, of Wabush, toward building and stabilizing and

securing the future of those communities.

Mr. Speaker, we are ready, we are willing,

and we are able to participate in a constructive and productive way at the first

opportunity, and we look forward to that opportunity coming soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's West.

MR. T. OSBORNE: South.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

St. John's South - the Chair's apologies.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition today that was presented to me by the Town of Come By Chance. I have spoken with

the member for that particular area about this petition, prior to presenting it. It is a

petition regarding the emissions at the Come By Chance oil refinery and it is signed by

some 1,545 people. The letter that accompanies the petition:

As per our previous consultations with the

Town of Come By Chance regarding the emissions at the North Atlantic Refinery Limited,

enclosed please find a signed petition of 1,545 names indicating support to force the oil

refinery to operate in a more environmentally sound manner.

On behalf of the Town of Come By Chance

and the residents in the surrounding area, we are asking that you please submit the

petition at the next opening of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, while the body of the

petition is not directed at the House of Assembly, the letter that accompanied the

petition clearly indicates that it be presented in the House of Assembly.

The prayer of the petition reads: Council

is very concerned about the emissions from the oil refinery and the possible health risks

to residents of Come By Chance and surrounding areas. This situation has been discussed

numerous times at refinery liaison committee meetings and with the Department of

Environment.

At a meeting on February 26, 1998, the

Minister of Environment, Oliver Langdon, assured council that his officials would be

closely monitoring the situation, and several options were discussed for bringing the

emissions down to acceptable levels.

In spite of our discussions, the pollution

from the refinery is getting worse and there seems to be a reluctance on the part of

government to force the refinery to operate in an environmentally sound manner.

These levels of pollution would not be

tolerated in any other part of this country, and they should no longer be tolerated here.

We cannot help but wonder and worry about what effects the long-term exposure to these

emissions will be, especially to our children.

In order to be successful in getting the

refinery to stop polluting our air, we need everyone in the area to back us up. Please

show your support by signing below.

Again, as I have said, there are some

1,545 names.

I understand that the Minister of

Environment has had meetings with the Town of Come By Chance and the liaison committee out

there. It is also my understanding that the Minister of Environment has been working with

the refinery to put forth some recommendations, hopefully in an effort to clear up the

problem of emissions coming from the oil refinery at Come By Chance; but it is continuing

to be a problem in that community.

This summer was particularly bad, and we

suspect it is probably because of the fact that the refinery was operating at full

capacity. There was blue haze in the air. I have pictures here that were taken just

recently. There was a blue haze in the air out in that area all summer. Medical doctors in

the area have said that they are very deeply concerned about the health effects as a

result of the emissions at the oil refinery. The residents of the area are concerned, and

one of the doctors in the area actually has stated publicly that he feels there is a very

high level of cancer in that particular area. In fact, there is a cancer that is very rare

indeed. It is my understanding that there are two or perhaps three people in that

particular area who have been diagnosed with that particular type of cancer.

They have some very legitimate and very

real concerns, and hopefully the minister - who I know is listening intently to what I am

saying here on this petition, and is seated in his seat here today - will stand in his

place today and clearly indicate government's position on what they anticipate doing, or

what they are hoping to do, in consultation with the oil refinery, the liaison committee

and the town councils in the area to rectify the problem of emissions at the Come By

Chance oil refinery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the

petition expressing the concerns that exist about the emissions from the oil refinery at

Come By Chance and the possible risks to health that arise from that.

Mr. Speaker, we do know that the oil

refinery at Come By Chance is a very important industrial contributor to this Province in

the form of jobs and export. They have some ads out recently talking about how they have

three-quarters-of-a-billion dollar contribution to our export economy by exporting fuels

to other parts of the world - whether it is airline fuel, home heating fuel, et cetera -

but we have a concern here about the health of our people, and one that ought to be taken

seriously.

I do not want to be an alarmist, and I do

not want to jump to any conclusions about this. The Member for St. John's South spoke of

some doctors talking about cancer rates and things like that. I think that is a bit

alarmist at this stage of the game because this type of study, or epidemiology I think it

is called, is something that takes a long, level, detailed study and look at all of the

factors that might be involved in something like this, and it would be very remiss to jump

to conclusions about what might be causing any of these things; even where there is

considerable evidence, such as in the tar ponds in Cape Breton where for a much longer

period of time there has been pollution. Recent studies have shown almost conclusively - I

don't know if they are even conclusive there - of the consequences of pollution on the

local environment.

We are talking about more than odour here.

We are not talking about a bad smell. I remember what people used to say around

Newfoundland when the fish plant gave off an odour, and their response was: Well, money

don't stink. We have jobs here. There may be a bit of an odour from the fish plant, but

you should tolerate it. That was a common reaction when some people complained about the

foul odour that might come from a fish plant or a fish meal plant.

We are talking here not about odour; we

are talking about pollutants that have the potential to cause serious medical problems. We

do know that things are getting better, but we are concerned that they are not getting

better enough. This refinery has been called the dirtiest refinery in North America. I do

not know if that is exactly true. I do not have the statistics to show it. I do not have

the comparative data, but it has been called the dirtiest refinery in North America,

spewing out more pollutants, SO 2 emissions and other things that go into the

heavy metals, that go into the air, than any other refinery in North America.

If that is the case, then we have a

serious job ahead of us in ensuring that the standards that we have here are equal to the

standards that exist in other parts of North America. This should not be an industrial

wasteland any more than it should be a low-wage economy to allow big transnational

corporations to come and exploit our people or take away our resources without proper

compensation for our people in proper jobs and proper benefits.

We have a viable oil refinery out there,

we have a profitable oil refinery, and we have a company that to date has been responsive

in making substantial capital investments to improve the quality of the refinery, to

improve the quality of their product, to improve the value-added for the refined products,

but we now have to insist that this company also meet the highest environmental standards

that are appropriate for the refining industry.

I would support this petition. I would ask

that these concerns be taken very seriously by government, and I am hoping that the

minister responsible will respond to this petition and give the House a complete update of

what expectations government has placed on this refinery, what the timetable is, what are

the emission standards that have been adopted and imposed on this company, and when we

expect to meet them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to

inform the House at this point in time of the questions for our Late Show today.

The first question is from the hon. the

Member for St. John's West, and it is to the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services, regarding a question on child advocate.

The second question is from the hon. the

Member for Bonavista South to the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods,

regarding the Integrated Poultry Limited funding.

The third question is from the hon. the

Member for Baie Verte to the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, regarding my question

on IOCC.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 13,

Bill No. 38, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the bill

before the House today is,

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. There are a number of

housekeeping items in this bill. If you look at the Explanatory Notes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not have a copy of the

Orders of the Day. Are we doing second reading of this bill?

MR. FUREY: Second reading, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if you look at

the bill, the clauses that go from 1 to 14 in the Explanatory Notes give a synopsis of

what we are doing in this bill, but I thought I should touch on a number of them with

respect to how they will modernize the way mining permits, et cetera, are conducted in the

Province. Perhaps I will start and then I will get to the heart of the bill after.

Perhaps we could start will

section 21 of

the act. We intend to amend

section 21 of the act to provide a different procedure for

areas coming open for re-staking, and this will be a provision for a draw to determine the

priority of applications.

The way it works now is, when a piece of

land comes open for mineral staking and there is a competition - in other words there is

more than one person or persons who want that particular piece of land - it is gazetted

for a thirty-day period. At the end of that thirty-day period, which usually falls on a

Tuesday, what happens: it is first-come, first-served. I don't know if the hon. Member for

Baie Verte realizes that, but if you go down around the mining building, for example, even

today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: But even today if you go

down there, it is such an archaic and backward way to determine who will get the staking

provisions; because what they have to do is line up at the beginning of the work day,

literally put campers around the building, and tents in some cases, and whoever is closest

to the door actually gets to get in the lineup first the next day. Now this is bizarre and

archaic.

In fact, Monday night -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Staking,

section 21, Jack.

We are amending

section 21.

What happens now, I should tell the hon.

the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, it is first-come, first-served on anything that

is gazetted; and what that does is create a lineup.

For example, the other night I was working

late - I normally leave by the back door because the parking lot is in the back - I could

not get out the back door. There were two tents and a camper blocking the door. So the

next morning - this is serious stuff. Can you imagine if there was a fire and a janitor or

somebody was trapped inside that building? So I changed it arbitrarily the next morning. I

said: At the end of a work day, whoever is first in the lineup gets number one, second in

the lineup gets number two. Now, get away from the doors. Move your equipment, get rid of

those tents, and if you show up at the beginning of the work day and you are here, we will

honour number one, number two and number three.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, I am changing all of

that, and I will tell you how I am changing it in a second. The problem was that I wanted,

for safety and practical reasons, to change that arbitrarily, without legislatively doing

it the other day, for safety and practical reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Not this building; the

building that Mines and Energy is in now, the old Prince Philip Building. Yes, you have to

come to the building physically.

Here is what we are saying in this

amendment. This is very unfair to people who live outside St. John's. It is extremely

unfair to people who live long distances, because the person for example from Nain, or

from my own district, Port au Choix, or St. Anthony, or Burgeo, or somewhere like that,

they would literally have to transport themselve