November 27, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 50

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to update members of the House of

Assembly on the progress of a Committee of ministers and MHAs that was struck in June of

this year to review a number of issues related to the use of outdoor resources in the

Province. The goal of this process is to build a consensus on how we can properly preserve

access to our outdoors for people of the Province, protect and conserve our resources, and

where appropriate allow other legislated uses that support both recreational activities

and economic development.

A pre-consultation document was released on September 11, 1998, and

public consultations began on September 23. This document outlines government principles

with respect to the use of outdoor resources and sought public response on a wide variety

of outdoor use issues, such as those related to hunting, recreational fishing, community

watershed management and access to shorelines, among others.

Public meetings have been held in eighteen locations. A variety of

special interest groups and stakeholders, ranging from rod and gun clubs to salmon

protection associations and environmental groups made presentations to the Committee on

issues such as access to rivers and ponds, community watershed management, river specific

licenses, big game hunting, habitat conservation, enforcement, and economic development

through the use of outdoor resources. Also, the Committee received more than ninety

written submissions.

The Committee is now reviewing the written submissions and records of

the meetings. A "What We Heard" document based on the written submissions and

records is being prepared and the Committee hopes to have a draft of the "What We

Heard" document before Christmas. Once that document is delivered the Committee will

consult with government on specific recommendations presented in the document. The

Committee hopes to publicly provide a

summary of the public consultation process and

government's response by January.

As a result of the consultation process, government has already amended

its policy regarding the moose and caribou hunting season. In response to repeated

requests from stakeholders and presentations to the Committee, the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods, Kevin Aylward, announced on October 16 the cancellation of an

extension of the hunting season for moose and caribou. Hunting season dates reverted

immediately to season durations similar to the 1997 and 1998 season. Decisions on any

recommendations to government will be made following a thorough review of all submissions

and records of the meetings throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the consultation on the use of outdoor resources was held

in response to the concerns of stakeholders and individuals across Newfoundland and

Labrador. Government believes in the importance of listening to the people of this

Province, and this consultation was an opportunity for all concerned groups and

individuals to make their views known. Government believes the consultation was a valuable

and worthwhile process that generated positive dialogue on issues of concern.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for a

copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House.

Just for clarification, the minister was right, it was a committee of

ministers and MHAs that travelled the Province. In essence, what it was was a committee of

the Liberal government. It was not representative of the whole House.

I attended one of the meetings that was held in Clarenville. It was

well attended, I say to the minister. I think the people there welcomed an opportunity to

clear the air as it relates to watershed and river privatization issues in particular.

Many people came out and they expressed their fears of what was happening with some of

those interest groups that were springing up across the Province. Government was either

perceived or did accept part of some of those studies and other parts were rejected. It

was total confusion. I think it is time to bring this to a head.

The citizens against outdoor privatization brought forward a bill of

rights and I think brought it to the minister. They make some very good points. A lot of

people there that enjoy the privilege of being able to go out and catch salmon and go and

enjoy their cabin lots expressed great concern that they may find themselves having not

only to go the Province to buy a license and to buy a fee, but they may have to go to some

of those interest groups and have it cost them double the money, money that they cannot

afford.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome, I guess, the final decision, by the minister's

department. Hopefully that it will bring an end to all the confusion that is out there

today, and people will still be able to enjoy the outdoors and enjoy their favourite

leisure time, as most Newfoundlanders do.

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. (Inaudible). We certainly

welcome the consultation process, but it is a process that did not start until after the

whole issue blew up in the face of the government, where hundreds of people were attending

meetings, concerned about the privatization of our rivers and outdoors, and government was

not prepared to commit to bring in legislation to ensure that this would not happen.

We would like to see the results of this consultation process as soon

as we can. There are thousands of people in this Province concerned about what this

government is really up to when they are giving licenses for resorts outside of provincial

parks on salmon rivers, and apparently getting ready to have a wholesale privatization of

our outdoors. We want a commitment from this government that this is not going to happen,

and we want that commitment in legislation.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this morning are

for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

In early 1997, the government commissioned the Atkinson study to

investigate serious administrative problems at the Western Health Care Corporation. You

indicated that you expected the analysis to be completed by July of 1997, which was later

extended to March of this year, then to May, and then to September or October this fall.

The question is: Where is the Atkinson Report? Have you received it? If not, why not? And

if so, can we see it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Atkinson report was commissioned by my colleague in the Department

of Health. I understand it has been received and is being reviewed by the department.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this report has been a long time coming.

Government has delayed it each step of the way. The public has a right to know where its

money is being spent, especially in a situation where there is so obviously a breakdown of

normal accountability procedures.

The question is: Why is government preventing the public from seeing

for themselves a full report of how this happened, what the consequences were, and what is

being recommended to prevent this reoccurrence?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member. I

think the public has a right to know, and I am sure members of the public, particularly in

my constituency in Corner Brook, are equally as anxious to know as I am. The problems at

Western Memorial in terms of its management were profound, and we were a long time finding

a new administrator.

Mr. Atkinson went in there and obviously the things that he found took

him a much longer period of time to come to some conclusions and to advise us on them. I

tell the hon. member as well that our concern is such that we are having a general report

prepared as to the whole operation, because we have sent in people ourselves from

government.

We share his concern and the results, hopefully, will be assessed and

made known in the not too distant future.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Can the minister tell us today, for example, what

exactly was behind the repeated delays in getting this report to government, what was

missing, and is the government confident it now has a satisfactory accounting of where the

public's money was spent during the missing time frame?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the second part of the question, the Auditor General

discovered what happened to the money. The government immediately took measures when it

was found that loans were improperly made when certain people in the administration had

misused public funds; and the individual, whom the hon. member would be more familiar with

than I, was let go by the corporation.

Having said that, it is very clear that the financial operations of the

western region is a very fundamental and great concern to us on this side of the House. I

have to say that the Atkinson report was one measure that was undertaken to determine the

extent of the problems. It is also not only a review of the finances but also of the

general medical services, and what might be done and improved, and how we might better

provide services to the people of the whole western region. We are awaiting that.

When you hire a consultant, which was done by the Department of Health

- I understand Mr. Atkinson has also done other reports - what is important is to have it

done well. Mr. Atkinson, as I understand, came back to the department and asked for a

further extension to allow him to bring the report to its conclusion. That was, in the

circumstance I think, the right and wise decision.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). The minister would also be aware, Mr.

Speaker, that not only the Auditor General but the Public Accounts Committee, which held a

public hearing with respect to the Western Health Care Corporation, determined and found

out through the hearing process that officials in the Department of Health had no

interaction with respect to the financial monitoring of that Corporation for

two-and-a-half years, I say to the minister.

Can the minister give us a total sum of the money dispersed by the

Western Health Care Corporation during the time frame and during the period when no

reports were being filed to government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member has

phrased his question properly. The accounts of the Western Memorial Corporation are

audited each year, and those are provided to government on a timely basis. How the money

may be individually spent in each category is, of course, the thing that concerns us

because there was an issue about travel there.

What auditors do is, they go and determine if the amount budgeted was

spent on travel as opposed to some other activity. They do not do an evaluation of whether

or not the money was spent or was in accordance with Treasury Board procedures. Where the

Auditor General was of assistance to us in this, having gone in - and I have read some of

the hon. member's report of this House - who went in and looked at Western Memorial

Corporation's books, there were concerns raised about whether or not it was done in

accordance with government policy. Obviously, the conclusion was that it was not.

We share the concerns of the Opposition; however, I do not think it is

productive at this stage to get into a debate about a report that is not yet completed and

assessed and made public.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister talks about a timely basis. The

Corporation did not file financial statements from 1995 until now, until two months ago. I

do not think the minister would consider that very timely in terms of accountability.

Let me ask the minister this: Is government taking steps to ensure that

all health care entities, each and every board, file timely and thorough financial reports

to government or else the government, if they do not, will immediately send in outside

accountants and auditors to ensure a situation like this does not occur again?

Will the minister go the extra step of bringing in new legislation

ordering thorough annual reports of each health care entity are compiled, including not

only financial accounting but also cost-benefit analysis, and that these reports are made

public so that taxpayers ultimately know where the tax dollars are being spent and how

they are being spent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest issues of concern to my

colleagues on this side of the side is to ensure that the tremendous amount of money that

is spend in the institutional sector each year is well spent. Something close to $700

million, 70 per cent of the total health care budget, close to $1 billion, is spent by

institutions. It is unfortunately very difficult, because we are not there on a daily

basis to ensure that every nickel that is spent in the (inaudible) or every dollar that

goes into some other area is well spent; but I have to say, in defence to the Health Care

Corporation, I believe that most people in that sector - in fact, by-far the vast majority

of them - are conscientious and in many cases the taxpayers are getting the full worth of

their money. There are examples and unfortunate circumstances with some individuals fail

through malfeasance and a lack of integrity, and that was in part what happened at Western

Memorial. What we are concerned about, as is the hon. member, and we share that concern,

is to ensure that these Health Care Corporations are properly managed.

One of the difficulties we had at Western Memorial, which compounded

the problems, which in searching for a new CEO to lead the organization, and that took us

some time. We were looking for someone with the right combination of medical and

administrative talents, and I believe we have found that person, Dr. Eric Parsons. I

believe that the management there is under much better supervision and control than it has

been in the past. Having said that, we are conducting a thorough analysis of all the

hospital boards in this Province to achieve the very matters that the hon. member

suggests.

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

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

Not only was government not there on a daily basis; they were not there

on a weekly basis; they were not there on a monthly basis. In fact, they were not there

for two-and-a-half to three years, Minister. The department has a role to play in ensuring

that public dollars are spent wisely, and that requires checks and balances within the

system. As a result, people are deeply concerned about the situation, and that this

situation could have arisen in the first place at all. I would assert that is has exposed

a fundamental weakness in government's approach of devolving power away from the minister

to arm's length boards.

Minister, I would like to ask you this question: Are you in a position

today to report some of the findings or recommendations of the board? Does the report go

so far as to recommend ways of preventing a similar breakdown of accountability for this

and other boards under the minister's jurisdiction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there are checks and balances in the system

of health and the system of education. What the government has, as a matter of policy,

chosen to do - and not this board and not this government - this is matter of

long-standing practice in the Province.

The hon. member may well be right; maybe, as he suggests, we should

abolish all the boards and run them ourselves. Maybe that is an evaluation we need to

have, but clearly the hon. member has to understand that the primary supervisory role for

the proper running of the hospitals is in the hands of the board. The board is responsible

for the supervision of the chief administrator. They determine who the accountants will

be, who will review the books and so on, and frankly we have to consider that. If we find

that the boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I hear what the hon. member is saying, but one of the

issues that we do have to consider in this Province is whether, given the size of the

Province, both in education and in health, we should continue with part-time boards that

are there to supervise the institutions.

The hon. member seems to suggest that the controls and balances were

not there, but it is the board and not the department that is responsible for the running

of the institutions and to make decisions. The managers are not accountable back to

government. They are hired by the boards. That is true in the health care system and it is

true in the educational system.

I agree with the hon. member; in terms of administrative practice we do

have to do a thorough review and consider. Maybe we need to do some changes, but that is

part of the evaluation that has to take place.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; one final question.

I am not suggesting that the proper accounts and balances were not

there, Minister. The process has determined that they were not there. The Auditor General

has determined that the appropriate checks and balances were not there. That is what has

actually come out of the process.

A final question. You have received the Atkinson report. Are you in a

position today to tell the House, and through the House the people of the Province, when

you will table that report. And, in tabling it, will it be a week from now, two months

from now, January or February? Can you tell us or give us a definitive date when you will

table that report so we can all have a look at what the recommendations emanating from

that report are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member did suggest that there were no checks and balances

available in the system. I have to point out to him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That was the hon. member's previous question. Now he

says he did not suggest that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The hon. member has to realize - what he said was that

the department fell down on its job in running the institution of proper checks and

balances. What I point out to the hon. member is that the department does not run the

institutions. The board is responsible for the supervision of the institution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. DICKS: Not at all. We are very concerned and we have to

question the extent to which the boards can or should exercise that type of jurisdiction

over the administration on a day-to-day basis.

Clearly it is too easy to try to throw it at some nameless group or

some group that is not here to defend itself, but it is clear that in the matter of the

administrative practice the group that is responsible for the supervision of the hospital

and its accounts and its proper running and the policy decisions as to how services should

be provided, are the boards, the local boards made up of local people who understand local

concerns probably far better than a group here that is far removed from it, so we do have

to look at that.

Secondly, with respect to the report itself, I understand it is in the

hands of the Department of Health. It will come forward to Treasury Board and Cabinet with

an evaluation of the review and recommendations. We will consider it and then, at the

appropriate time, we will make it known to the public.

I am not prepared and I am unable, frankly, to give you a time table as

to whether that will be next week or the week after, but it will take some time to work

through the system. I doubt very much if it will be before Christmas.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the

Minister of Health and Community Services, I would like to ask the Premier these questions

regarding the ongoing crisis at Davis Inlet.

Now, the fact that the children of Davis Inlet have a problem is not in

dispute; we have known this for a long time. We know there is a crisis in the community,

and we know that these children are destroying themselves through substance abuse. We know

that this government had the ultimate constitutional responsibility and the ultimate legal

responsibility for the welfare of these children - not Ottawa, but you. What have you done

about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the approach which has been

outlined by the minister a few days ago in this House and outside this House is the

responsible position for government to take at this time. I think it is irresponsible, and

quite frankly I think it is a position which has been taken in haste - that of the

Opposition - to suggest that the solution to the problems in Davis Inlet is to have a

whole scale movement - which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition - of the

children of Davis Inlet out of the community and away from their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member opposite, I think everybody

in this House recognizes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question but

members opposite do not want to hear an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House recognizes that

what is happening in Davis Inlet, what has happened in Davis Inlet, is, for all of the

citizens there, a social tragedy. Much of what is going on is directly related to the

abuse of alcohol and other substances. Mr. Speaker, that is well known.

There has recently been a vote in the community of Davis Inlet, one

which was approved by a significant majority but not an overwhelming majority, to ban

alcohol. That has not yet happened. We have recently had an electoral process in that

community, and elsewhere in Labrador, amongst Innu people, that has probably had some

impact on exacerbating already difficult circumstances in Davis Inlet. We have recently

had a new executive team put into place with respect to the Innu nation.

I would say to the member opposite that the approach that is outlined

in the new legislation, the child services legislation brought forward by the minister,

which is to work within the community to seek to build up a leadership capability within

the community, that that approach is far better than a suggestion which was tried in

Canada thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years ago. Residential schools removed children from

their families, put them in a third location, arbitrarily taking them away from their

community. That approach has been tried and it has been found wanting. The other approach,

which is to work with the community, within the community, is more difficult, it is more

complex, but it probably has at the end of the day more chance of success.

I would say this to the member, that having spent some years working

with Aboriginal communities in another role across this country, there is no question that

some communities have made more progress than others in stabilizing their economies,

putting in place solid and stable social structures. At the end of the day, there is no

question that where Aboriginal people have succeeded in improving the quality of their

lives it is where governments have worked with local leaders within those communities to

improve their own circumstance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

You talk about going in because of the new Child, Youth and Family

Services Act, and that when that is implemented that will be effective in Davis Inlet.

There was a program proven, and this government put $500,000 into it, a study done at

Memorial University, the Family Group Decision Making Program. It was tested in the

Province and planned to be effective. Why has this government avoided this approach, even

though it helped fund the project which lasted three years and cost over $500,000? This

program was effective in Nain and the LIA, in fact, has taken over the project in their

community. Why has this government walked away from this approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government has not walked away in

any approach that may help to stabilize matters, specifically in the community of Davis

Inlet. I would say to the member that I know the Minister of Health and Community

Services, were she here, could detail the very substantial - she is unavoidably absent, as

is the Leader of the Opposition, I note.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where she is not. May I

borrow today's paper? She is not asking questions without doing her homework. I notice

that the Chief Medical Examiner of the Province has said, with respect to the member who

is now speaking: "`No one from the Opposition has come to this office and asked for

the facts or asked for a reckoning or asked for an explanation, of which we would only be

too willing to give them. One has to question what their motive is."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The difference between the Minister of Health and

Community Services and the member who is now speaking is motive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The motive of the Minister of Health and Community

Services is the welfare of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is not being relevant to the question,

and I would gladly answer it at the end of question period if the Premier would like to

hear. I would be delighted to.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the Chair cannot rule that it is not a

point of order because it has been ruled on many occasions in this House of Assembly,

since this member has sat here for ten years, that questions should be relevant to the

things that are being discussed within the Province at the day, and the answers should be

relevant to the questions.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: When Bill 37 is passed, what does this government

plan to do with the few social workers that are up there? Do you plan to increase the

number of social workers? Have you considered a treatment centre right in the community?

Do you plan to convene meetings with the appropriate groups and authorities? I ask the

Premier: When do you plan to discharge your responsibilities to protect these children who

are destroying themselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to where the

Minister of Health and Community Services is. The Minister of Health and Community

Services at this moment is at the opening of the Women's Health Forum, which I think is an

important occasion for the Minister of Health and Community Services to attend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite

that today in Davis Inlet literally millions of dollars, in a variety of social related

programs, are being provided by both levels of government. If money and money alone were

to bring a solution to the problems of Davis Inlet, I suggest the solution would already

be at hand, but that alone is not going to solve the problem there.

There is a need to work with the community and, I suggest, we have to

understand to work through the community, to help this community and to help the

leadership of the community bring about circumstances that would restore a sense of

dignity, a sense of pride, a sense of purpose in the lives of many of the members of that

community. That cannot be accomplished by government - because it has been tried in

decades past - moving in, flying in with some piece of aircraft, taking physically and

forcibly the children out of their homes and away from their families and relocating the

children in a residential school, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

That has been tried before in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that has not worked.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of

order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there have been two occasions this

morning where the Premier has indicated that the Leader of the Opposition, myself, has

indicated that the complete removal of children from Davis Inlet is what I have suggested.

There is nothing further from the truth. That is not true.

If the public or if the Premier had the opportunity to listen in the

last couple of days with this debate that is around it, what I indicated, clearly, through

the Open Line program, was that when a problem like this occurs it requires a community

solution. It requires -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, one second. If the Premier would let me

finish. This is a point of order, because the suggestions are not correct and the record

must be corrected, Mr. Speaker.

In asking questions to the Minister of Health and Community Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not, it is a point of order. I would like

the clarification, because what has been said is not correct, I say to the Premier.

In questions that were asked to the Minister of Health and Community

Services the other day and outside in the area, I was asked directly: What should the

Minister of Health and Community Services be doing? I said the Minister of Health has the

power, under the child welfare act, to protect the best interest of children. I was asked:

Does that mean removing them? I said that if a determination is made that it is in the

best interest of the children to do so, yes, but at the same time the department and the

Minister of Health and Community Services have before them the opportunity to work with

the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: So there has been no suggestion, by the Leader of the

Opposition to ask for the complete removal of children in Davis Inlet. It was not made

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, not today, and it will not be made next week, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier speaking to the point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains speaking to

that point of order.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise from my seat today to inform the

House of the serious situation in Davis Inlet. I honestly and firmly believe that the

questioning in the House of Assembly from the Opposition does nothing to help the

situation in Davis Inlet.

On the way back from the North Coast yesterday I received a call from

the Chief of Davis Inlet where I had correspondence with him on behalf of the Minister of

Health and Community Services. He called yesterday asking us for a meeting. I, along with

the Minister of Health and Community Services and other officials in government, will sit

down with the Band Council of Davis Inlet. Through the media, and questioning in the

House, as the Member for Torngat Mountains, and being an Aboriginal person, I feel it does

nothing. This kind of questioning in the House at this time does nothing because, Mr.

Speaker, the government is working with the community in Davis Inlet and we are doing our

best to help solve a very serious situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised. I heard comments from

hon. members that this was an inappropriate time for this to have been raised because it

was question period. I will remind hon. members from the Opposition side of the House that

the point of order was originally raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It is certainly

an inappropriate time to raise a point of order during question period.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, should an individual want to become a licensed big game

outfitter in the Province, I would like to ask: What would be the normal process for him

or her to follow before he becomes licensed by your department to operate such a business?

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the process for becoming a licensed

outfitter is to first submit a proposal to government. Of course, after that it is

dependent on licenses available and many other factors I could outline if the hon. member

wishes me to.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the Minister: How many big game

outfitter licenses have been issued by your department in the last year? Who makes the

decision whether licenses are issued to certain individuals or not?

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact number here now.

There was a process earlier on in the year that eleven new outfitters came into the

business through a Cabinet committee process, with criteria outlined. Of course, the

Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods were very involved in this because there is a

process in this Province of non-resident and resident licenses. Twenty-five per cent of

the caribou licenses are available to outfitters for non-resident hunters. Ten per cent of

the moose population is available.

That of course is determined throughout the provinces where big game

are in excess and available. It also depends on how many residents have applied in the

various zones for licenses, because we want to always ensure that our resident hunters

have access to game close to their communities.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, if I was a big game outfitter and I

decided to sell out my whole operation - and I am talking about selling out my camp and my

licenses -, would that mean I am out of the business altogether, or could I start a

similar operation and receive the appropriate license by the mere fact that I am

registered as a big game outfitter?

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, when you sell your whole operation, your

camp and your licenses, you have sold that to the individual. Now, if you happen to have

ten operations and you have only sold one of them, you have nine left you can operate

from.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am saying to the minister that I have one camp, I

have one allocation of licenses, and I sell them. Does that mean I am out of business? Or

does it mean by the mere fact that I am registered that I should be allowed to operate

somewhere else? One camp, one set of licenses.

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: If you have one camp and one set of licenses and you have

sold it, you have no other recourse, you are out of the outfitting business.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If that is the

case, then would she explain to this House what magical process was allowed for a former

employee of this government to sell out his ACOA-funded big game outfitters camp at

Northwest Gander, along with his license and allocations, and then be set up with a new

allocation of big game licenses just two weeks later?

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the time lines here are not accurate at all.

What had happened in this instance is that this particular outfitter was in the outfitting

business and was given permission to - as a matter of fact, we had two operators that were

given permission this year - to test a trophy tent camp caribou hunt. After this outfitter

was given permission to do this he sold his original business. There were two very

separate operations here.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that there has been a

difficulty with this, and I am meeting with this outfitter about it. This outfitter this

year, after receiving this pilot license for the trophy hunt - I understand this outfitter

is presently out of the Province and I am meeting with him this week -, did not meet all

the conditions of the tent camp trophy hunt, but what he did in selling his regional

operation was totally legal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister this. When applications for

private cabin lots are referred to your department, Minister, is it not a standard

procedure to deny applications that would be within an eight kilometre buffer zone of

existing camps and operations?

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the policy. There are some

instances where already there are cabin lots in the area where exceptions can be made. We

have many outfitters in this Province who are in areas by joint agreement that there are

not eight kilometre buffer zones.

If the member is referring to the tent camp operation by the

ex-government employee, that is a part of what occurred in this area that was incorrect.

My department, or no department of government, gave this person permission to operate an

outfitters camp from a private cottage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item on the Order Paper, the Chair would

like to recognize in the public galleries, on behalf of all hon. members, thirty-one

students of Grade VI, VII, VIII, and IX from Lakecrest School in the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi-Vidi, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Ron Pellerin and Ms Angela Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

I rise this morning to present another series of petitions to the hon.

House of Assembly asking the government not to discriminate against students who have

chosen to attend private schools in the Province.

The petitioners are asking that they be eligible immediately for the

awards program, and they also ask the minister if they could be included in the Millennium

Scholarship fund and asking him if he would intercede on their behalf with the federal

authorities.

This morning's petitions are from the Professional Institution of

Applied Technology, from the Keyin Technical College on LeMarchant Road, from the Lawrence

College, from Nortech College, and a variety of other places.

These petitions are arriving on a daily basis and the prayer of the

petitions is quite self-evident. They are asking the minister, as I said in the House

yesterday, if he would intercede on their behalf with his own colleagues in Cabinet, and

intercede on their behalf with federal authorities.

They believe there is a double standard of eligibility when it comes to

both the awards program and the Millennium Scholarship fund. These programs are based on

merit and need. The process as outlined by the minister in his press release is very

simple. The school will identify the students who have need and will also assure the

minister and the officials that the student has attained a reasonable level of scholastic

achievement.

The students at private colleges are quite prepared today to enter into

a dialogue with the minister to make sure that there are comparable rules of eligibility.

What they are saying is that they want to be included in the program. There are 7,000 of

these students.

The minister yesterday in his answer indicated that if the federal

criteria should change for the Millennium Fund that he would then entertain it. Then the

Minister of Health and Community Services yesterday was saying that this Province is

leading the nation.

I say to the minister, if he wants to keep up with the words of his

Cabinet colleague, we should be showing leadership here. The Awards Program of

Newfoundland and Labrador is a good program, except that we have discriminated against

7,000 students. That is blatantly unfair.

We say, on behalf of the student who are going to private colleges,

make the rules comparable. In other words, if we are going to talk about students who have

need, make the rules of eligibility based on need comparable for all post-secondary

students. If we are going to talk about post-secondary scholiastic achievement, and we are

going to use that criteria, make that rule comparable for all institutions. We are saying,

treat all students fairly. Those who are in public schools, namely Memorial University and

the College of the North Atlantic, are included now. These students who are going to

private colleges do not, and they are not asking for anything extra. They are not asking

for special privileges. They are saying: Set the ground rules, include us, and then we

will be governed by whether we meet the criteria or whether we do not meet the criteria.

We are not asking for the creation of separate rules here. We are

saying that this should be a universal program, it should be universally applied, and that

we should be committed to post-secondary education at whatever institution the person is

attending.

As I have said yesterday, the money for this comes from the taxpayers

indirectly or directly. The parents and the families of students who go to private schools

pay into that particular fund. Therefore, why should their children or they themselves be

excluded from the eligibility? It does not make any sense. When we preach universality of

access, we preach fairness, we preach balance, we are saying that we should be applying

it.

On behalf of the students who forwarded their petitions yesterday, I

say again to the minister: Enter into a dialogue. Make it fair. Do not have this program

operating with an exclusionary clause that excludes students who are going to private

schools.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today simply to respond and support the petition as presented

by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. Again, this petition speaks to an

important issue dealing with the rights and privileges as well of the students who are

enroled in private institutions here in our Province.

We have seen now for several days consecutively, petitions which speak

to the fact that there are students in private training institutions who simply do not

feel that they are being recognized in terms of the program that has be alluded to.

It seems to me, as has been discussed past, that it is important that a

program which recognizes accomplishment and recognizes progress in a particular program be

equally distributed throughout both educational systems, namely both public and private.

The system, as I now understand it, is essentially exclusive to the public system in the

Province; but it is important that students, some 7,000 of them, feel that they are a part

of the process, that they are a part of the recognition which can be afforded to students

who enrol in a program or in an institution regardless of whether it is funded by the

state or funded by students primarily themselves, namely because of the fact we are

talking about a private training institution.

It is clear from this particular petition that numbers of students in a

particular college feel that they have been discriminated against simply because they are

not eligible. They do not qualify for particular awards or scholarship under this federal

program. It is incumbent, therefore, that the Province take whatever steps are necessary

to speak with its federal counterparts in Ottawa to ensure that emphasis is placed on the

importance of rewarding students in a private training institution, in addition to those

who are enroled in our public universities and colleges.

Therefore, the prayer of this petition again asks our government,

through the Minister of Education, to intervene, to speak to his federal counterparts to

ensure that this particular program is an inclusive one and in no way excludes others or

discriminates against others simply because of the choice of an institution that was made

by a particular student.

I support this petition, and I would ask members opposite that they

listen to the prayer and listen to the concerns as being raised by these particular

students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a new

petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in my place to

present a petition that was sent in to us with a covering letter from the Mayor of

Flatrock. There are 160 signatures on the petition, and the petition has to do with IOCC

in Labrador City -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the point I was going to make. This is not a

local issue to Labrador; it is a Province-wide issue.

I remember the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs standing in

his place and stating that at the Federation of Municipalities meeting a few weeks ago

there were petitions sent around to every municipality to take home to see if there would

be any sent in. I was quite surprised, actually, when this came in from the Town of

Flatrock. I was really surprised. It was November 19, 1998, when the letter came in from

the Mayor of Flatrock. Of course, I am going to read the prayer of the petition. The

prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS we, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, 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;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this came to our office - well, the

letter was signed on November 19, and sent in. It was only a couple of days ago that we

received it; as a matter of fact, the day before yesterday. As I said, I think certain

ministers on the other side of the House, on the government side of the House, were trying

to make this a localized issue, that it was not Province-wide, but the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador realize that this is going to have an impact on the

policies that are being put forward by this Administration. They realize that, as I said,

it is going to be impacting upon them personally because we have traditionally, over the

years since 1497, squandered our resources: the fishery, the forestry, the mining and what

have you, our water resources.

Now, as a matter of fact, the Member for St. John's South has been on

an issue with respect to the exporting of water from the Province. It looks like, if this

government has their way, we are going to end up squandering that, too, and losing the

opportunities.

In the future, if you talk about the water resource, each year, with

pollution and what have you, the demand for the water resources, which we have an

abundance of in this Province - probably that is why the Administration, the government of

the day, are inclined, from what I can understand, to send it out in bulk.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) your solution.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education wants to know

our solution. The government, this Administration, is always confused. He wants to know

what we are going to do, but they are the government of the day. They have the majority in

the House of Assembly. They are the ones that are setting policies. We can speak to them,

and we can point out the flaws in the legislation, but the Minister of Education can get

up and speak to this petition if he wants to. He can tell us his position if he wants to.

I am telling you now, we would set our priorities straight. We would have secondary

processing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wherever and whenever possible, I

say to the Minister of Education. This Administration, to my mind, did not fight hard

enough for the people of Labrador and the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in this instance.

They know full well that in this situation when Sept-Iles is upgraded,

that will have an impact on Labrador as time goes by. This Administration knows. They

stood in their place and said it will not impact on jobs - we will not lose jobs over it -

but they have also admitted, after we dragged it out of them, that there will be jobs lost

through attrition over the years; jobs will not be replaced. That, to my mind, is going to

the core of the problem that Labrador City will lose people as time goes by unless there

is a new find in that area and IOC agrees to upgrade that plant in Labrador.

This Administration knows that full well, and they are not doing

anything about it. The question is: Why? Why won't they do something about it? That is

what the people of Flatrock are asking. That is what people all over Newfoundland and

Labrador are asking.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, maybe I will ask the Minister of Education

to get up and tell us what he would do. That is the problem. We are not in power here

today. That crowd over there are in power. That is the problem, and that is what the

people of the Province are starting to realize.

I support the people of Flatrock. With that, I am going to sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to support my

colleague here who presented a petition by many concerned people in Flatrock.

They people in Flatrock are concerned, and the people in all parts of

the Province are concerned, because there is a certain fundamental issue at stake here

today in our Province. That is: We have to stop the bleeding of our natural resources to

companies outside of this Province for the benefit of people other than Newfoundlanders or

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If that is being selfish, I am selfish about it. I

want to see jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is the difference in saying something is not economically

feasible, of a part of an operation, and then take a segment of Inco's operation, smelter

and refinery - that they are saying $1.1 billion to put it there - and in Sudbury we are

underutilized (inaudible) in our capacity to smelt the nickel that is coming out of the

ground in the nickel mines under Inco's control. Why spend $1.1 billion, they said, when

we can process it in Sudbury and elsewhere, in the capacity we have?

Isn't that the opposite argument the government is taking and saying:

We cannot have North Limited, or IOCC - controllers of IOCC - saying that this segment

here is not economically feasible because what is going to happen in the future is that

the pellet plant, the different grade pellet in Labrador City, is not going to be as

marketable as the pellet that is coming from Sept-Iles. There are going to be less jobs in

the pellet plant. The Member for Labrador West, I think, even worked there in that segment

of the operation. It could affect the future jobs of people who worked in the same place

that he worked, at this detriment here.

That is just not a capsule decision. Maintain the jobs for the benefit

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the solution! That is a pretty easy solution,

isn't it? Maintain the jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because the long-term

effect - you do not look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: By doing what? (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister wants to stand up and speak, he will

have his opportunity. I just want to put something on a financial perspective for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you do about it? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Will you give me time to use some legal, rationing

argument? Will you just sit back and relax there?

Consultants will tell you what you want to hear. That can happen. Some

consultants, anyway, will tell you what you want to hear. What is, I say to the minister,

$200-some million over a 120 year lifespan - $200 million a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished. Do not be butting in or you

might get sandbagged by the Premier again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a petition here signed by your colleagues. We,

the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of Topsail District...

Three of your seatmates - and a letter by one of your seatmates, saying: This will

acknowledge and thank you for your letter dated March 6. Please be assured that I will

present this petition to the House of Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Member for Topsail stood up with the Member for Humber Valley and

Torngat Mountain: We the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of

Topsail District, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Human Resources and Employment to review the recent decision to reduce funding to

recipients in the amount of Child Tax Credit.

Here is the original which was sent in. There was no mention of it at

all. It never got presented. It got twisted. Tell me about petitions in the House of

Assembly. What do you call that? Are they still members, I would like to know? Will you

tell me? Are the three of these still members of the Catholic Women's League? I know that

females have just been accepted into the Boy Scouts. Have the Catholic Women's League

accepted men? Can someone tell me that?

Three members here - that is what we say about petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want a copy, it was already tabled in the

House, signed here and dated on May 21, 1998. That is all on the public record. That is

all there.

We talk about jobs. There are costs of financing and all of that to be

calculated, but an average cost over the life of the (inaudible) in Labrador City, down in

Labrador, of $2 million a year, would be the average cost per year, not including

amortization of that over a period. Of course, there are extra costs, but what is that to

the jobs? It is not just the jobs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to be forced to speak on this bill fairly

often if I do not get to finish up now.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with

respect to the petition.

I am trying to make sure the record is clear, because the hon. the

Member for Cape St. Francis indicated that it is the role of the Opposition to point out

flaws in what the government decides to do. I would contend that what the people of the

Province need to hear from the Opposition, if they are ever going to think of them as a

viable alternative, and think of them as the government someday, is that they should play

a game of `let's pretend that we are the government', so that would honestly tell the

people what they would do differently if they were in a position to actually effect the

decision today instead of just complaining about it.

We have heard two statements so far from the Opposition, both of which

have unbelievable consequences. If this is the official position of the Opposition, they

should say it clearly and stop playing games with words.

Number one, they have said -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point

of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education just made a

statement that we would not give our position with respect to this. I think we have been

heard many times in the House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, the Member for Ferryland

was about to give it and they would not allow him leave to give our position.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. Does he wish to

grant him the time now to make his presentation?

MR. GRIMES: No, I was just waiting for you to rule on the point of

order, Mr. Speaker, so I can continue on.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: It is clear. I will give my version of what I have

heard the Opposition say and they can stand up at some future point and say whether it is

right or wrong, because they do not know what their position is, because they have five or

six.

One of them is this. One position, supported by the hon. the Member for

Ferryland, is that we should give IOC North the $250 million and buy the pellet plant for

Labrador West. That is his position. He tries to explain it by saying that it is only $2

million a year for 100 years, and it is inconsequential.

The fact of the matter is that you would have to give them the money

right away, borrow it -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Education is

misleading the House. I indicated, and make it clear, that the average cost to whoever it

is, whoever it may be - and I would prefer the cost, I tell you, to be the North and not

to this Province, number one - would, over the life of what is left there, average to

about $2 million a year. Can a company average and put an investment in this Province of

$2 million a year to protect jobs, and future jobs, of people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member already spoke to this petition. There was no point of

order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So he confirmed again that the position of the Official Opposition is:

Give them the money, because that is the only way it can happen. The only way they can get

the project to occur is they have to spend the money in the next two or three years. If

you are going to build the next smelter in Labrador City, somebody has to give the company

$250 million in the next three years, because they have done an analysis that suggests it

is better to do it elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Then he talks about inconsequential amortization costs.

They would be significant if the government were to give IOC North $250 million. If we

paid it off over 100 years, like he suggests is very easy because it is only $2 million a

year, it would probably cost well over $1 billion with carrying charges on $250 million

for 100 years. He wants to say it is 100 years, it is only $2 million a year, it is very

easy; the company or the government should give them the money.

Barring that, other members, like the Member from Cape St. Francis,

say: Don't let it happen. Leave it in the ground.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I never (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Then they are going to have a situation where you are

not allowed to ship concentrate out of Labrador City, which they have been doing for forty

years. Therefore, if they were the government, they would say: You can't ship concentrate

out of Labrador City but you can ship it out of Wabush -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member of Cape St.

Francis.

MR. GRIMES: They cannot have it both ways because they do not know

what their position is. They have no idea what they would do about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

The Minister of Education is imputing motives on this side of the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to -

MR. J. BYRNE: I have never said in this House, and you can check

Hansard, that they should leave it in the ground. I have not said it, and the minister

knows it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, this just cannot be

allowed to go on. As the Minister of Education has just said, if they want to stand up and

clarify their position again, then rip another page off the petition and present the

petition all over again.

What they are doing here is using points of order to state a position

that they presented in the petition over and over. I would suggest that they be brought to

order. If you have to, name the hon. gentlemen and we will deal with them appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, are you speaking

to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of

order. Citation '481(

e) indicates that, "...impute bad motives or motives different

from those acknowledged by a Member."

The Member for Cape St. Francis -

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member quote that reference again?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, '481, page 141.

The member did not make that statement, and the Minister of Education

indicated that he did.

With reference the Government House Leader, a petition was presented

from constituents in the Town of Flatrock, signed and circulated in the town of Flatrock.

It is a petition that has never - or a page from any petition that has ever - come in this

House before. That is an inaccurate statement too, I might add, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman can read that book all he likes. He

should, when he stands up - and he knows this and he is very good - he should stand up and

use it correctly. He knows that as well.

I did not hear the Minister of Education impute any motives to anybody.

I think all he did was stand up and say exactly what he heard the minister for Cape - not

the minister, I am sorry; God forgive me - the Member for Cape St. Francis, say, and he

did it very well.

Like I said to the hon. gentleman, if he wants to present another

petition then write down a few names on a piece of paper or whatever - take another sheet,

or whatever way he wants to do it - and stand up and present another petition.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when he does that, the Minister of

Education doesn't have another go at him.

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

the point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader just made a

statement again that I took this petition, took off a couple of sheets from another

petition. I have a letter here dated November 19, from the Mayor of Flatrock, in which he

sent in this petition which went around the community. There were 159 signatures on the

petition, and I made it 160 because I had to sign the petition.

The Government House Leader is making falsehoods in this House of

Assembly. It is not true what he is saying.

With respect to the Minister of Education hearing me saying, `Leave it

in the ground', he did not hear me say it; and Hansard will show it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Minister of Education wishing to speak to the point of

order?

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to continue my

representation on the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we don't have any problem (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to give him an opportunity to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader is standing. Is he standing to speak

to this point of order or is he standing for another reason? Because the Chair has not

ruled on the point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I was just indicating that the minister

could have leave to continue, seeing as he was cut short with a point of order, if he

needs extra time.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well, but before the hon. minister is recognized

to continue on the petition, the Chair would like to rule that the rules that govern -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The rules that pertain to petitions are clearly defined in this House.

The hon. member presenting a petition has five minutes. A member from the opposite side of

the House has five minutes to participate, and another member from the same side as the

side from which it was originally presented has five minutes.

What has been happening here this morning is that as the Minister of

Education has been making his presentation to the petition, the two ministers who

presented and spoke to the petition have been taking advantage of the minister's time to

further engage in the debate - and that is what it has become. It has become a debate on

the petition, and that was never the intent of presenting petitions in this hon. House.

The hon. the Minister for Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister is speaking on leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, I will withdraw leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act", Bill No. 38. I move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (OLDFORD): Order, please!

Bill No. 38,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and participate in the

debate and to endorse some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues on this

side.

There has been a great deal of dialogue. I have listened to the

presentations made by the hon. minister. Our files here will show that some comments made

by the minister back last December 3, in fact, nearly a year ago, commenting in the House

at that time, in response to questions from the Member for Baie Verte, the minister was

saying, among other things: We want to point out that it is the Province's best interest

to pelletize any future requirements at Labrador City in Labrador. I think we even went a

step further and talked about providing very inexpensive power which would be generated to

produce this new pelletization plant. So the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has

told them quite clearly" - talking to the company - "it would be in the best

interests of this Province to pelletize in Labrador City."

He also says: "We want the jobs to stay in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have made provisions on the power side to ensure that

that happens."

Now, Mr. Chairman, a year ago the minister responsible in the House,

the Minister of Mines and Energy said: "...we have made provisions on the power side

to ensure that that happens." What that meant, by the words, "that

happens," was that the iron ore from Labrador would be pelletized in Labrador City.

We certainly, on this side of the House took the minister's word. We

said this is a minister that is standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. He is saying

the resources in Newfoundland and Labrador will be processed, will be made - as much as we

can - into the finished product right here in this Province.

We were quite surprised a few weeks ago to see the minister on

television with his charts in which he was talking about millions of dollars. We were

quite surprised to hear the minister saying: No, we have changed our mind. Last year on

December 3 he was saying: "...we have made provisions on the power side to ensure

that that happens." In other words, the jobs would stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has obviously failed. The minister gave a commitment to

this House on December 3 last year. I just read that commitment. The minister failed in

his negotiations with North Company to ensure that the jobs stay here. So the words that

were given in question period last year on December 3, just about a year ago, were simply

nothing more than words.

I saw a sign a few days ago in one of the places I was visiting and it

talked about words and actions. What it said was: When actions are necessary, words mean

nothing. I can say to the minister that his words of last December 3 mean nothing because

he did not deliver on them. The minister stood in his place a year ago and gave a

commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then just about a year later

says: I did not mean that, that is not what I meant. The jobs will not stay in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I haven't seen or heard of the minister talking in this House

telling us what he did about the power supply. What happened? Last year we were going to

have these negotiations based on the generation of power, the supply of electricity, that

would have meant the processing could have stayed in Labrador City. It did not happen.

Last year as well we had various resolutions in the House. It is

actually in this year. We had a resolution in the House on May 6, 1998, by the hon. the

Member for Labrador West. I have to say that I believe the Member for Labrador West was

sincere. He believed that the processing of the pellets could have taken place in Labrador

City and he believed in the sincerity of his resolution. Unfortunately that member has

been let down by his own government. He believed the minister last December 3. If I were a

backbencher in government and I listened to the words of the front bench, and I listened

to the words of the Premier, and I reviewed history, and I had come from a party where

once a leader of the Liberal Party had drawn a line in the sand in Labrador and said:

Absolutely no! We will not let the ore in Labrador City be processed elsewhere - well,

with that great tradition the Member for Labrador West was right when he took the words of

the current minister in good faith. He took the words of the historical contexts of the

party in power in good faith. If I had been the member I would have believed, but of

course, as we know, words are very cheap, and when action is required words mean nothing.

The time came for action. The time came to put these words of last

December 3 by the Minister of Mines and Energy into an action plan. It did not happen. One

of the great sad things in Newfoundland history was to realise that the Premier of Quebec,

days before we were to have an announcement of a Quebec election which is going to take

place next Monday, to see the Premier of Quebec flying into Sept-Iles announcing and

launching his election campaign, talking about all the jobs that would be created in

Sept-Iles, and how wonderful this was going to be. We have to ask the basic questions.

Sept-Iles will grow. Premier Lucien Bouchard launches his campaign based on the

development of whose resources? Newfoundland and Labrador's.

When we see Premier Lucien Bouchard launching his campaign, how

wonderful this is going to be for the Province of Quebec, well it cannot be wonderful for

the Province of Quebec and wonderful for Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year we took the

word of the Minister of Mines and Energy. Eleven months later we see the Premier of Quebec

launching his re-election campaign based again on the resources of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and calling a big press conference.

We have to ask ourselves a very fundamental question. Was there

something else we could have done? I do not believe we have exhausted all of the

alternatives. Because we on this side believe there are other alternatives. We have not

had an adequate explanation of what could have been done on the power side. The Member for

Ferryland this morning brought up the question as to whether or not we could have had some

kind of agreement with North to amortize the different cost over a longer period of time.

We are asking fundamental questions. What we see on the Liberal side is

a bunch of people who have given up. They have given up the fight for Newfoundland and

Labrador. They have abandoned the principle that - when you see the picture in the books

of Newfoundland and Labrador of Joey Smallwood standing on the border and looking across

to Quebec and saying: Absolutely not. As a matter-of-a-fact, the story is told that the

then-premier stood on the border and said: No way. There were cartoons at the time of Joey

Smallwood saying: Absolutely no. We will say no to this development if it is not done on

Newfoundland terms.

That is their tradition. Today, for whatever reason, we see a party

that has abandoned that particular principle. We are saying in the House that we believe

not enough of the alternatives have been explored. That is why we are saying to this House

today that we on this side believe more could have been done. The Chamber of Commerce, the

Town Council in Labrador City, the Town Council in Wabush, the people of Labrador City and

Wabush, are saying that something needs to be done to wake up this government. Because in

essence what they have done is they have abandoned the principles their party has been

founded on. They have abandoned what we have believed in as right for Newfoundland and

Labrador. They simply have thrown up their hands and said: We cannot do anything about

this.

Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. When I turn on my television and

I see Lucien Bouchard announcing his campaign for re-election based on the development of

our iron ore resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have concerns. We have said in this

Province that that would never happen again. We have made some steps, we have made some

progress.

What we are saying is that last year this House listened to the

Minister of Mines and Energy. We heard him say that he was not going to approve this

particular development and that he would make sure that if it were approved it would be

approved only with the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. In fact, he

said he would be able to negotiate an agreement based on the options available to him in

the supply of electricity.

After the big love-in in Churchill Falls in March, the big love-in

between the Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, that faulted news

conference. It was a big cuddly-cuddly between the two Premiers. We wonder what else they

talked about. Because certainly we have to wonder what happened. Was there a plan afoot?

If so, we have not seen anything but the negative side of it. We have not seen anything

positive out of it, nothing at all. We had some media attention.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the people

of Labrador sections of the Province, and more specifically Labrador City and Wabush, are

saying that something needs to be done.

On this particular piece of legislation we say to the government that

what they are intending to do in the amendments here are, we believe, steps in the right

direction. We are talking on the title of the bill at the moment. We want to make sure

that we on this side of the House remind the government that they have responsibilities.

When they made statements in the House a year ago, made by the minister, we have a

responsibility to make sure that these statements are brought from the word to the action

plan.

Mr. Chairman, with these few comments I will yield to one of my

colleagues. I am sure that before the morning is out many wonderful points would have been

made. Hopefully, Newfoundland and Labrador will have been protected a little better.

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

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

I have some concerns about this bill, the Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

I am wondering are we making the rules so ambivalent that the mining companies that come

in will not know what the rules are.

As my colleague the Member for Baie Verte suggested, a couple of days

could be set aside so that the people who are staking claims can have somebody go into

their regions, rather than have the folks from various parts of the Province have to come

in and line up in St. John's. It seems that the legislation is probably moving in that

direction.

The main focus of any legislation should be to attract investors, and I

am not sure that that is how this legislation is looking at the moment. I have heard in

the news recently that many of the junior mining companies are concerned. The investors

who will contribute to the economy of this Province, who do not mind spending the dollars,

have to know the rules before they come in here. There is not much sense of them coming in

here and pumping a lot of money in and then the rules would change mid-stream. If they do

not know the rules then they will not come in at all, and that will be a loss of jobs for

our people.

I would like to address what is happening in Labrador now. The Iron Ore

Company of Canada has been in Labrador for forty years, they have been successful for

forty years, and now they decide to move our resources outside the Province and into the

Province of Quebec. You have to stop and look at that and wonder, did this company do

that? Are they on the side of Lucien Bouchard or do they want a Liberal government in

Quebec? They would probably rather have Lucien Bouchard and the division of Canada.

Because certainly by allowing the pellet plant, or not doing anything to stop the pellet

plant, from going into Quebec then they certainly gave Bouchard a great plank in his

election platform.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) said bleed Canada before you leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right, bleed them before they leave. That is

what they are doing, they are taking our resources. Also on the Lower Churchill we are

certainly sidling up with Lucien Bouchard.

If you stop and look at it and analyze it you really have to wonder. At

the very time of the launching of Lucien Bouchard's election platform he gets new industry

in Quebec at the cost of Newfoundlanders, at the expense of Newfoundlanders who have been

in Labrador West working for forty years. Historically, that company has been forty years

successfully mining in Labrador City. Now they want to move out and they say it is more

lucrative financially or more financially viable. Who did the report? We sent the fox in

to guard the chicken house. The Hatch report is a report that was commissioned or done by

the people who were hired by Labrador City.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. That report of course said that the

company would not be viable. That report said it was more viable for the company to go to

Sept-Iles. Why didn't this government get in there and do a feasibility study? Not the

Hatch report, but this government itself, an independent study, and see if it would be

viable. Then say to this company: You are not taking our resources out of this Province.

That is what we have said to Voisey's Bay, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. What are the rules?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I do. What are the rules? Obviously the mining

companies do not have a clue either because they are in the press lately saying: What are

the rules? You can take the ore out of Labrador City but you cannot take the nickel out of

Voisey's Bay. What are the rules?

AN HON. MEMBER: What rules?

MS S. OSBORNE: The rules. Are you allowed to take the resources out

of the Province or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: Those rules. Voisey's Bay cannot go in and take the

nickel unless they smelt it here in the Province but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill! (Inaudible)!

MS S. OSBORNE: Obviously the mining companies out there must not

have read the bill either because I have heard them on the radio just as recently as this

morning saying they don't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I did. They don't know the bill either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It was not the Open Line, sir. These people are

making press releases. Obviously I am here speaking on behalf of Newfoundlanders, so if

the mining companies are concerned about the bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: If the mining companies are obviously afraid of the

bill then I speak on behalf of the mining companies who I hear say they are afraid of the

bill. Now whatever the bill says, perception is 99 per cent reality. If the mining

companies perceive that this bill is not user friendly then they will not be coming into

this Province. That is the direction I am coming from. Whatever you feel the bill means is

one thing, what the mining companies feel the bill is is the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Would you like to speak for a few minutes? I will

give you leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Only raised a few concerns.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. I am raising the concerns that I hear

the mining companies raise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The chain of events is: Mining companies bring money

in, money goes into exploration, and in order to explore -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Who hires the workers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Excuse me?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want to get up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: We are talking about being worried about the

workers. Who hires the workers, McDonalds or the mining companies?

AN HON. MEMBER: McDonalds hires some people.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes. Do they hire the miners? I do not think so. We

are right back -

MR. J. BYRNE: They might end up having to.

MS S. OSBORNE: They might end up having to; that is exactly right.

I am interested in the mining companies because -

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. I understand

there is a little bit of talk going on across the floor that has distracted the hon.

member a bit from her comments at third reading on this bill, because I was following her

comments very intently. I understand she is raising some concerns, but just for the record

could I get the hon. member to say whether she is for or against the passage of this bill?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is a big surprise. You will have to wait. You

call the vote and then you will see, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: So you are with your wishy-washy leader. (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Listen -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: At this point I would like to interject something on

wishy-washy. The Minister of Education seems to take great joy in standing up and saying:

Where does the leader stand on education? I would suggest that the Minister of Education

check Hansard. Check Hansard for what I said, and I can probably go into what I said in

that. I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Exactly. I voted the way my member wanted me to

vote, and he voted the way I way I wanted him to vote, so we are really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: They are not bothering me much, I say to the hon.

minister. They are not bothering me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The Leafs will be skating in Hades when they bother

me - unless that is the new name they want to put on the civic centre.

As I way saying, one of the members over there alluded to the fact that

I was worried about the mining companies. If we do not worry about the mining companies

and they do not come in here, then we will not have anybody to work in the mining

companies and they will all be down to McDonalds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is hard to get a word in here, isn't it? The last

time I noticed, that light was on. Everybody else is speaking.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take advantage of

the few minutes that are offered to me with respect to the provisions of the Mining Act

and the various sections of the act.

Before we talk about the legislation directly, there is a very related

issue and it has to do with, I guess, pointing out in detail and emphasizing the concerns

that have been raised by the residents of Labrador West.

The act in many ways is clear, and I think the intent and the purpose

of the legislation is quite clear. In previous debate, I raised some concerns with respect

to the possibility of a legal challenge. That is an issue that we can raise, and quite

possibly will be dealt with by way of an amendment.

It is interesting to note, and I think on behalf of the many residents

of Labrador West it is important that we review the specific concerns that have been

raised as a result of those individuals, particularly the group of municipal and union

leaders who came to Confederation Building on November 16, held a press conference, and

spoke very directly and seriously with respect to the concern as they see it, with respect

to the future of their community. They posed a few questions. They raised some issues

which I feel are worthy of review. I think it is important to place on the record the

exact issues which have been raised.

They begin by simply saying that these are issues which were raised,

and questions which were asked of government but continued to remain unanswered and

unresolved.

The first they indicate is that Mr. John Le Boutillier, the President

and CEO of IOCC, stated on October 27 that it was not possible to provide any assurance

that Labrador City will remain the primary pellet producer in the event of a future

downturn in the industry.

Despite these comments, it appears that this government is satisfied

with verbal assurances from IOCC that the reactivation of the Sept-Iles plant will not

translate into future downsizing in production levels in Labrador City.

The question that this group has quite appropriately raised is: Why

hasn't the Premier insisted that this assurance be put in writing? Very often,

particularly the Minister of Finance, on many occasions often, in response to questions

that are raised, refers to the contractual obligation, refers to exactly to what is in

writing. Therefore, what is in writing and the contractual obligation appear to be the

order of the day.

For example, the issue that has been raised by the retired public

servants of this Province, the public service pensioners. When they raise issues, and when

they present petitions in this House - as they plan to do next week once again, to protest

and voice their concerns - the Minister of Finance, in almost every opportunity, responds

by saying: There is no legal obligation. There is no contractual obligation. They did not

contribute to the plan. Therefore there is a reliance on what is put in writing, what

forms the contract.

Therefore, the residents of Labrador West, the municipal leaders and

the union leaders who have raised this issue, have every right to say: Why is it we cannot

have written assurances? Why cannot we, the residents of Labrador West, have an assurance

in writing, an agreement between government and the company, that there will not be future

risk to the Labrador West area?

Therefore, what appears to be good in one occasion is not satisfactory

in another. On the issue of pensions, if it is in writing it cannot be considered;

however, with respect to the security and the long-term protection of the residents of

Labrador West, it appears that verbal assurances are good enough. Of course, we have many

people in the Labrador West area simply saying: That is not good enough.

Mr. Chairman, they raise another question as well. They ask simply:

What about the future of the pellet plant in Labrador City? The Hatch report has stated:

It is worth noting that the Sept-Iles facility was originally constructed with two

(inaudible) lines, and they go on to explain what is exactly meant by that.

Of course, the issue is, if this can happen now in such an arbitrary

way, what happens in terms of other issues that may arise? If issues of extreme importance

are raised and this government has to respond, will they once again take the argument and

accept the side and the argument of the company, again, to the detriment of the people of

Labrador West?

There appears to be no certainty. There is no reliability, I would say,

and that is why the people of Labrador West feel to have been let down to the extent that

they are and were.

The IOC company pays royalties to the Province based upon corporate

profits. There is an estimated $255 million capital investment required to reactivate the

pellet plant in Sept-Iles and that this will reduce the IOCC profit margin, thus reducing

royalties to this Province. The question asked by this group during the press conference:

Is the Province of Newfoundland indirectly subsiding the pellet plant operation in

Sept-Iles, Quebec? I guess it is a very fair question, because we realize that what this

Province in fact benefits from that particular operation is directly related to the profit

margin by way of a royalty regime as negotiated between the Province and the company. So

there is a very direct correlation between expenditure on the part of this company. What

makes it worse is expenditure in another province, but again to the detriment of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The group, during the press conference as well, asked questions like:

What profits has IOCC generated over the last number of years? Has the company put the

books on the table to allow the people of the Province to understand exactly what the

profit margin is? Again, largely due to the fact that our benefits, our royalty regime, is

directly related to it. What profits has North Limited realized from IOCC since its

investment in April of 1977? Why did the Province not pursue legislating an export royalty

on unprocessed resources? Again, a very legitimate question, a question which the

residents of Labrador West have asked not only recently but of course have asked for many

years, to ensure that again the people of Labrador West and, in saying that,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally, gain maximum benefit from our resources

through the royalty regime.

We have the 1938 Labrador Mining and Exploration Act. The question

being raised is: Why is the Province hesitant to challenge legislation going back to 1938?

We saw, in many ways, a very legitimate and appropriate legislation change. We saw the new

child welfare legislation replacing

an act of 1944, going back some fifty-four years. Well

just six years before that we had the Labrador Mining and Exploration Act. So obviously

government is prepared to renew old legislation, to repeal old legislation, to replace old

legislation with

an act and provisions that are obviously to the best interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This week we saw it in terms of the children of this Province. Well,

why not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally in terms of repealing

an act which is

over sixty years old, to the benefit of the people of the Province to ensure that we get

maximum benefit and that a royalty regime is created, and not simply adhering to

legislation which is outdated and appears to really restrict the people of this Province,

through its government, from negotiating the maximum benefits for our people?

Also, another question that was asked, was: Why has the Province not

provided full disclosure on the report and the Hatch report? I am referring to the Bechtel

MetChem report. Of course, the minister would be much more familiar with that and the

details of it than I am. But this group has asked, why is there not full disclosure? So

there is certainly a suggestion that there is information which has not been provided and

which has not been forthcoming upon the request of the group.

Another point raised: If government was aware that there was a problem

back in June of 1998, why were local stakeholders not informed then and made part of the

process of strengthening the case for Labrador West? Well, it is only the group that can

speak directly to that. Obviously I, or no member on this side of the House, was privy to

any discussions or negotiations, but it is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. If there was

some notion that in fact what did occur just a few weeks ago could occur back as early as

the early part of the summer of this year, why weren't the local groups and why weren't

the local stakeholders brought up to date in terms of these negotiations so that they too

could make representations and could have their voices heard around the table to ensure

that the interests of the residents of Labrador West were protected? Government has stated

that the pellet plant expansion in Labrador West would result in only 50 new jobs. What

about the 300 to 400 jobs created during the three-year construction period? What about

the 200 jobs required for three years to construct the transmission line from Churchill?

What about the 150 indirect jobs generated from the other permanent positions?

Again, fair questions that have been raised over and over again by

various groups and interested parties with respect to Labrador West, but unfortunately

questions that appear to remain unanswered.

Mr. Chairman, I will resume discussion on this during my next

opportunity to speak.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have a few comments on this particular bill. The bill was

brought in with retroactivity there. I think the government realized they would be in a

bit of a legal bind if they did not bring in legislation that was retroactive and to keep

them, I guess, from under certain legal action taken by Inco.

Overall when we looked at it, I am a strong advocator of taking tough

action on multinationals that are not intending to utilize resources and maximize jobs

here. That is why I agree with the statement that there should be a smelter/refinery here.

If there is no smelter/refinery here, the nickel should stay in the ground in Labrador.

There should be a maximization of jobs here, and not only in this instance.

We can also look at a similar situation where we get the maximization

of jobs from the Iron Ore Company of Canada. It was indicated in the public that one of

the conditions of North buying into IOCC was on the condition that there would be a

re-activation of the Sept-Iles plant. If that is the case, what has happened at this point

in time? Why didn't we hear this before? Maybe the minister is listening. Was it a

condition in the purchase of IOCC by North that re-activation of the Sept-Iles Plant was a

part of the condition of purchase?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am asking a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not said uneconomic. I am just asking was it a

condition? The minister missed by initial comments. I said I am a big supporter of forcing

multinationals to utilize the resources here. I said that if the if the smelter/refinery

does not go in this Province then nickel should stay in the ground at Voisey's Bay. I

agree with that, I support that, but we cannot apply two different standards. We cannot

say, we can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, and the minister should know better. I know

better and the minister should know better. I asked the minister a question and he did not

answer it. He deflected the question. I will ask it again. If does not want to answer it,

fine, he does not have to. Was it a condition of the purchase of IOCC by North that there

would be a re-activation of the Sept-Iles plant? Was that a condition of purchase?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) all of the assets (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. It was not a condition of purchase. So there

has been no particular agreement that sat there for some time that it had to be activated.

It was strictly going to be based on the current decisions that the company viewed to be

the economic decisions of today. There was no stipulation, there was no -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, just think for a second. I will just put a

question to you. It depends what the restrictions are. I will use an example to ask it. If

Fishery Products International got in deep trouble - which they did in the past and there

had to be $300 million public money into Fishery Products International; they were on

their knees back in the 1980s -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but Fishery Products International received an

infusion of almost $300 million in federal money to enable them to survive back in the

1980s. They downsized before the moratorium. Trepassey closed in 1990, for example, before

the moratorium. The National Sea chain and others had their own set of problems, too.

Let's say someone came to and said: We are going to put $300 million of public money into

Fishery Products International, but it is on the condition that you have to maintain a

presence on the Burin Peninsula, or a presence in Burgeo, to use an example, and one on

the East Coast. That is to make sure there is an equal distribution of your company so we

won't have any area of the Province that might be in a difficult situation, that cannot be

able to operate, and no one else would be enticing. You may have to take some bad with the

good in areas that might not be very profitable or are marginal to get your hands on other

areas by getting money in.

Well, the restrictions that are put there would determine what I would

do. I might say: Take it, I do not want restrictions. If other areas are profitable enough

- and we went through this with Fishery Products International. Then they purchased

Clouston Foods, and that has been a good moneymaking arm. They have done fine since.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. I have placed it where I lost 4 per cent,

I have placed it where I gained 30 per cent. Anybody who has done that has done it.

In order to get your hands on profitable parts of an operation you may

have to take the bad with the good, but if the overall margins, I say to the minister, are

healthy... There are two players here. I will ask the minister this question: If you were

a shareholder of Inco -

AN HON. MEMBER: I want to ask you a question.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, wait now, he asked me and I answered, so I am

going to ask you one. Everybody wants to ask me questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not come from a fish merchant family. I started

a little, small, nickel-and-dime operation way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They are trying to deflect away from the important

question I am going to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy. If you were a shareholder of

Inco - which I firmly believe you are not, as minister; if not, it is in trust with all

your money, which it should be

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: See, the Government House Leader just will not let me

ask a sensible question. If you were a shareholder of Inco, and you spent $4.3 billion to

buy from Diamond Field the Voisey's Bay resource, that is in today's market valued at only

$750 million, grossly overvalued - the company is going to have to face writedowns, that

is the only way about it. Financiers went out there. Let's face it, they have to do it

this year and they have to do a writedown.

They are saying their investment shrink. Yes, you are seeing your

investment shrink to one-sixth of your investment, basically. The company says: Now, for

us to go to Argentia and spend $1.1 billion when we have under-capacity in Sudbury and

Thompson, and we can process and smelt all the nickel in Sudbury and Thompson that is

coming out of Labrador, why spend $1.1 billion as a shareholder of Inco? What would you

say to Inco?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The last was very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask you again because you missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't catch the important part. I want to make

sure everything is clear.

If you are a shareholder and your company has an option to spend $1.1

billion in a smelter/refinery at Argentia, and the company is saying we have

under-capacity in Sudbury and Thompson that can handle all this nickel out of Labrador, it

is cheaper, we can process it all there, would you as a shareholder say: I am going to

spend $1.1 billion?

Already we have taken a hit of $3.5 billion by under-evaluation of that

asset alone that has to be a writedown. Would you do it? Look at it from a shareholder

prospective. Why would you? We only have half the story on IOCC. Go ahead, I will listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is not an identified reserve. I do not buy that

argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know but here is why I do not buy that. You

said for the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am familiar with that. In fact, I think they have

probably understated it for their own benefit. Besides that, there is a recognized life

estimate of 120 years in Labrador. That is what the estimate is, over a hundred years.

That is what was stated there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I mean iron ore. Yes, I am doing a comparison

now, sorry. It is an estimate of a 120 more years in IOC, and there is not an estimate for

nickel nearly as long as that. You are going to say to Inco: We are going to force $1.1

billion for a smelter/refinery with smaller reserves there and allow IOC to go into

Sept-Iles, Quebec, and not only create jobs that are out of this Province for Quebecers

and others, not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but in the process also lessen the

chance that the pelletizing plant in Labrador will become a primary pelletizing plant of

IOCC.

The President of the company, Le Boutillier, would not commit that

Sept-Iles will not become the primary pelletizing plant that would have a more marketable

product. We will see a reduction in numbers. The Premier accepts a verbal commitment on a

company that is loyal to shareholders only, Inco, another major company, has now gone back

on its commitment to build a smelter/refinery in this Province. We are being too easy with

multinational companies that are out to maximize profits, regardless of what country or

what province they walk over in the process.

We have to be tough with multinationals. We have to be sympathetic to

young companies starting out in our Province that need that little thrust to get going. We

have to be tolerant. When doing legislation before we might have tarred them all with the

one brush. Now we are back to legislation now that has to do something, correct something.

Government has put itself in a very difficult position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I agree with all the generalities. There are

some things in there I have been giving some thought to. I am just wondering -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Sure, I know.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Investors invest on known reserves and the

high potential that there is going to be future reserves within a company. That is a

speculative type of thing. When you invest in a company and buy shares in a company based

on known reserves you have a degree of assurance you are going to get a fair return. You

cannot surmise that we are going to have another fifty or sixty years there when it is not

happening.

I will be first to admit that yes, this legislation is and can be

interpreted to be tough for mining. I do not think anyone doubts that it can be tough for

mining here. I know a lot of people have been, in the public, stating that it is going to

poison the investment climate, it is going to drive the dollars somewhere else. That could

do that. Perception is a hell of a lot too. I heard people representing banks and

companies speak. I have heard from these people in the public forum out there indicating

that we cannot go laying money on speculation on what particular group of people happens

to sit around a Cabinet Table. There is a hell of a lot of emphasis put in Cabinet.

The independent committee you had before had a mining expert, a legal

expert and an accounting expert. It is difficult when you are going out in the market

today to get money - small companies. One very active company there, a person from my

district, Altius Minerals, a young entrepreneur who is very active out there, and other

companies like that out there today, when they are looking for investors to be able to

invest those exploratory operations there, money has to come from other companies. Banks

have to have confidence and so on in that. They cannot make decisions based on whims of

Cabinet. They have to have something more concrete. Who knows what a Cabinet might do?

Cabinets do queer things coming up on election time. They do peculiar things, I must say,

on upcoming elections.

The political opinion can sway with the wind and so on, and the banks

do not take kindly to that. Investors do not take kindly to that. They want stability out

there in provinces and countries. Investors out there today want to make sure that they

are going to get a return. Anybody who invests money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, (inaudible) they said. We certainly do not want

to get branded that way. The last thing we want is to scare away jobs out of this Province

here. Things are not near as rosy as we might think, but we need to protect it. We need

governments fighting for jobs here in our Province because I have a grave concern that we

are not applying consistently the provisions, the same basic philosophies, we are not

applying consistently in two different operations. I put out the rational and reasons

today. From an investors point of view, what would I say: It may be cheaper for Inco to do

it elsewhere, from an investor point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say that again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said: From an investors point of view, it could be

cheaper for Inco to process it elsewhere. It could be cheaper to process smelter nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all. I am saying, from an investor point of

view, it could be cheaper for Inco if they have capacity in other operations, but we are

responsible to protect the resources of this Province and we should not tolerate that

because Inco can make more money by doing it elsewhere. Economically feasible does not

mean the highest rate of return according to the Mineral Act, and I support that; it does

not mean the highest possible rate of return. A company should be forced to process the

minerals here if they can get a reasonable rate of return. A reasonable rate of return

depends on the product. If it is a utility company there are accepted rates, mining

industry there are accepted rates, and there are other operations.

There are compromises given to companies. Bouchard is giving

compromises in Quebec. It depends on the total. The whole ball of wax has to be looked at,

what goes into the total picture, but keep in mind that it is our resource here. If they

want it, they should have to process it on our terms and benefits should accrue to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first, even if it means a company's profits drop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked you: If you were an Inco shareholder and the

company had just spent $4.3 billion, and they find out that the $4.3 billion they spent

now is only worth three-quarters of a billion - it is only one-sixth of what it was worth

- and you had surplus capacity to be able to smelt all the nickel out of this Province in

Sudbury, from an investor point of view with Inco, would it be cheaper to do that or to

spend $1.1 billion on a facility in this Province, from an investor point of view?

From an investor point of view it is usually cheaper to process in an

existing facility - usually cheaper - than to build an entirely new facility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. That is what IOC said. So the minister

said, IOC can say it. Oh, yes.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will show you the dichotomy that is existing here.

Here is the comparison, and I would like for you to listen carefully. We are telling Inco:

Inco, you must build a smelter/refinery here even if you have spend $1.1 billion.

Inco says because it is more economically feasible, and you turn around

and tell North that you can go out and put it elsewhere because it is more economically

feasible, and Inco says it is more economically feasible to smelt it... You are taking two

completely different positions. I tell you, this is an issue where government is speaking

out of both sides of their mouth at the one time. The arguments they are using against

Inco are not the ones they are applying for IOCC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You do? Have you ever been wrong, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me ask a question. Has he every been right?

MR. SULLIVAN: Once he was. When he looked at those numbers and saw

all of those numbers, yes, he was right then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I think there is skill in picking the right ones.

There is a perception and a skill. It is always better to be a winner than a loser. They

say winning only shows half of your character; losing shows it all.

I am sure there are people who are ready to jump up and go here.

Hopefully, I will have an opportunity to get back on this topic again because I am seeing

two completely different applications by this government of situations.

One whereby they are telling a company, even though you can process it

in a facility that is already there, they are saying: Go out and build another one. Then

they are turning around to IOC and saying it is easier to reactivate it. They are not

making them build one in Labrador City. The situations apply differently, and there is a

difference. It is not washing, I can tell you, with the public out there. It is not

washing with me because it is not being applied consistently. You cannot on one hand say

one thing, and on the other hand - both have to be the one way. What way should it be? It

should be a demand that they build it here in the Province.

I agree with saying Inco should build it here in the Province. I agree.

Even if it is $700 million more expensive than processing it in Sudbury, there is still a

profit.

For IOCC, with 120 years of reserves down there, they use $200-some

million over 120 years, $2 million a year average. When Le Boutillier tells us that there

is no guarantee that the Labrador City plant is going to be the primary pelletizer as

opposed to Sept-Iles - he would not give that guarantee. He would not give the guarantee

that there would be no jobs. He said something verbally, nothing in writing.

Before you would ever allow someone to move that, you would get an

agreement signed, an agreement in writing, laying down the restrictions and the conditions

by which anybody can operate if... You are not going to force somebody into bankruptcy if

they cannot operate, let's face it, but there should be restrictions imposed to protect

the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was not done in this case.

You are doing it in the Inco case and I applaud that. I applaud doing

it in that case, but you have not done it in the other instance. You have made chalk of

one and cheese of another. It is completely two different positions on this matter; that

is without foundation. One has to be without foundation. Which one it is - I say the one

without foundation is the IOCC one because I support maximizing mines and resources here

in this Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say

a few words with respect to

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

MR. TULK: Make sure it is only a few.

MR. J. BYRNE: A few times a few times a few, I say to the

Government House Leader.

I understand that the Premier wants to attract exploration in the

Province, and mining in the Province - one leads to the other, of course - to attract

investors into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier was on the news last night holding up a copy of a cheque

and a statement that Inco had sent $3 million towards a hospital, out of $15 million. He

made the statement that some people are saying that this new Mineral Act, or this bill,

will probably deter investors from coming into the Province, and people to do exploration

and what have you. He made the point that Inco gave us $3 million. A few days later, they

sat down and explained what was going on with respect to this Mineral Act. Inco had made a

commitment of $15 million. I think that was their first payment of $3 million to go

towards the hospital in Labrador, and (inaudible) staying to their word.

One does not have something to do with the other, not at all, I say to

the Government House Leader. Again, it is just a way of twisting and trying to give a

false impression; but there are concerns out there, genuine concerns.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to look at somebody, and you are probably the

best-looking one over there. You are the best of the lot. You are the easiest one to look

at, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, can you control that attack dog over

there?

They want me to speak to you, Mr. Chairman, for some reason or other,

because they do not want to hear the reality of the situation with respect to this piece

of legislation, although I support the intent of the legislation, no ifs, ands, or buts

about that.

I will tell you why I support the intent of it. It is because we have

squandered our resources year after year, decade after decade, century after century,

since this Province was discovered apparently in 1497 - but if you listen to Farley Mowat,

there were people here long, long, ago, according to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) against the seal hunt.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is another thing that upsets me about him. Yes,

a man who lived in this Province, who knows the importance of the seal hunt with respect

to the economy of this Province and the livelihood of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to

come out and speak against it is unconscionable; as the previous Premier would say,

unconscionable.

With respect to this piece of legislation or this bill, again, as I was

saying, I support the intent of it. There are some concerns out there from the mining

industry with respect to the authority of Cabinet. When we look at the authority of

Cabinet we can go from one extreme to the other.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

over there interjecting and saying that there is not one person in this Province listening

to me. Obviously there is one or that man would not be speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hear the lies.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, did you just hear that comment? You

heard it. I will just try to ignore it now because I would expect that the Government

House Leader is just trying to goad me into (inaudible) him. I will let it go in one ear

and out the other ear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, with this piece of legislation

again there are a lot of comments to be made on it.

I want to say this. With respect to the Throne Speech - if I could

refer to the Throne Speech - the person who presented the Throne Speech in the House, here

is what came from the Throne Speech: These resources are ours to develop and process for

the maximum benefit of the people. My government is committed to an appropriate royalty

regime that will allow for all citizens to share fully in the riches produced. Every

opportunity will be explored, including the viability of a copper smelter in the Province,

and my government will continue to work with the mining industry to promote new mines and

quarries.

The words we have to look at there are `to work with'. The mining

industry does not consider that this piece of legislation is working with the mining

industry.

Now the Member for Ferryland was just up a few minutes ago and he was

making a lot of good points. He usually does, there is not doubt about that. If you want

to talk about facts and figures and the like, there is not one person in this House who

would be able to stump the Member for Ferryland, I can tell you that. When he speaks he

knows what he is talking about. Some of the points that he was making were quite

legitimate.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, it would not

take a lot to stump the Government House Leader.

When the minister stood in his place and introduced this bill, he

talked about housekeeping -

MR. SULLIVAN: Tell them they are using short division on Inco