December

18, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 56

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Perry Canning, the

MHA for Labrador West and I met with the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. John

LeBoutillier, and the President, Mr. Derek Rance of the Iron Ore Company of

Canada and were informed of a major capital investment program by the company. I

am very pleased to inform Members of the House of this new capital investment

program at IOCC's operations in the Labrador City area.

The Board of Directors of IOCC have approved a capital

expenditure program of $75 million for 1997 and 1998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: This represents a major re-investment by the

company in its mining, milling and pelletizing operations in Labrador West and

is positive for the future of our Province's largest mining operation.

One of the key components of this capital investment program

is the construction of a new flotation plant at Labrador City which will result

in increased recoveries of iron in the mill as well as decreased levels of

silica in iron concentrates and pellets.

Mr. Speaker, this means that IOCC will, in the future, have

the ability to produce iron products which have the specific chemical

composition to meet any individual customer demands. In particular, the ability

to produce low silica pellets will allow the company to produce pellets for the

Direct Reduction Iron market, which is presently the fastest growing market for

iron ore products in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the

company, in that it has displayed its long-term commitment to the Province and

to Labrador West by making this commitment to capital investment at this time.

Its continuing re-investment and its dedication to quality improvements in all

its products, means that Labrador will continue to be Canada's leading producer

of iron ore and iron ore products.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for his

statement some half-an-hour before I came down to the House today. I appreciate

that from the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about good news. Actually, I was hoping

that he was getting up today and announcing a copper refinery for Labrador, but

I will say that this is good news, and maybe, that will come later, as the

minister sees the light, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Labrador

West and being a former resident of Labrador West, Labrador City, I know the

long-standing contribution that the Iron Ore Company has made to that area of

the Province and also to the people of Labrador City, I say to the Member from

Labrador, whom I know quite well. I lived there for six or seven years and I

know that they had a long-standing -

MR. TULK: Bah, humbug!

MR. SHELLEY: No, it is not `bah, humbug' at all, I say to

the Government House Leader. But I do say that I am glad for the people of

Labrador West and glad for the people of the Province to see a long-term

commitment with mining, any type of mining. In my district, of course - mine is

very important, but for the people of Labrador West, today I am sure they are

glad to hear this good news story.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

I ask the Premier if he is familiar with the Mining and

Mineral Rights Tax Act, and is he familiar with the laws regarding mining tax in

this Province?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I am sure the Premier is, Mr. Speaker, and I

have a little bit of familiarity myself.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister thinks the Premier is familiar with it, that is

what he said, he thinks.

I ask the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know anything about it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, very much, in fact, I have read it

many times, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not so sure if the Premier has, I say

to the minister.

I would like to ask the Premier: Could you tell me what

percentage we currently receive in mining tax?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Current percentage of what, Mr. Speaker?

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and

Energy does not know what percentage we currently receive in mining tax, in the

Mining Tax Act? Could he tell us the percentage in the Mining Tax Act? It is

only 1 per cent there, I say to the minister; if he knows that, what percentage

are we receiving?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the mining tax is a

profits-based tax. It collects a percentage on the profits, and it also collects

a percentage on any mineral rights tax that is paid out to anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the -

DR. GIBBONS: Fifteen per cent.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the

minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: He certainly did not, I say to the Minister

of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to ask the minister - now that

he says it is 15 per cent, when actually it is 0 per cent, I say to the

minister: Would you inform me, Minister, or the Premier, what per cent this

allows us, our Province, to now receive from Inco under this Act?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Inco has been very clearly told

a number of times in the last year-and-a-half since it became first interested

in this property that there are going to modifications made to the present

Mining Tax Act before it starts producing anything from the mine at Voisey's

Bay. These amendments will be tabled in this Legislature in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Inco did not own it a year-and-a-half ago, I say to the

minister. What is the sense of talking to a company that did not own it then? We

are past the stage now whether there is going to be a mine. In fact, Inco has

moved forward, talking about a smelter and refinery in the Province. In other

words, they are now spending big dollars. Those costs that they are now spending

are pre-production expenditures, I say to the Premier, costs which are dealt

with under the Mining and Minerals Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since those costs determine income and the

costs that factor into what taxation we are going to receive, I ask the Premier

will he now explain to this House how this Act does not include Inco?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, after Inco does start producing

mineral products in this Province - clearly the expenditures that it has had in

pre-production, some of these expenditures that are legitimate, and there is a

list of the categories of expenditures that qualify as legitimate deductions

from our taxes, just as in any other tax regime - it will get credits at that

time. Right now they are not producing anything and they are not paying any

mining tax in this Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, what provinces and countries

receive in royalties and taxes on their resources is no secret, I say to the

Premier. They are spelled out in the appropriate legislation. Now, I ask the

Premier why he is silent and secret with regard to this tax and the royalty

benefits from Voisey's Bay? Our legislation is not secret, Premier. It says we

get nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and

Energy has pointed out many times to the Leader of the Opposition that this

matter is going to be dealt with at an appropriate time when the discussions and

negotiations are finished. We have given due consideration to the bill and we

will bring it back for public comment, study by committee, and legislative

action through the House.

Why the Leader of the Opposition insists at every turn of

seeing problems is beyond us. Yesterday he stood up and discovered that we had

given away, he said, $190 million to get the transshipment facility. Yesterday

that was a crisis but today mysteriously it has disappeared because he has

figured out that that statement was as false as many other false statements the

leader makes.

I say to him the scenario he is laying down today is equally

false, and no matter how much he says `bah humbug' it is going to be a Merry

Christmas in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I take offence to the Premier's inaccurate

statements when I was told by the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, and the ADMs in the meeting, and by other people, that we forfeited

$190 million in sales tax and revenues to get the transshipment facility and

other related costs. I say that to the Premier.

Now, I want to ask the Premier why this Province has to be so

secret when Argentia has a 30 per cent corporate rate and up to 27 per cent in

royalties, when Chile has 15 and up to 35 per cent, and every other country and

province has a regime they lay out in the public view? Why are you hiding? Why

are you keeping secret? What do you have to hide on this particular deal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: The Leader of the Opposition is showing a

measure of desperation which really should not occupy his mind at this time of

reflection, as we approach the season of reflection, of calm, and giving thanks

for the good things that are happening to ourselves and our families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have the Leader of the

Opposition's christmas card that he sent out, that of himself and his wonderful

family on my mantle at home by the fireplace. He should be preoccupied with the

good blessings the good Lord has given him at this time, and not dreaming up

problems that do not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the twenty page presentation

given to the Leader of the Opposition. It even says: presentation to the hon.

Lloyd Sullivan, Leader of the Opposition, September 17, 1996.

Twenty pages long, this is the famous presentation he refers

to, that has him shook up and worried. On the last page it says that there is a

multi-$100 million net income benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It says the fuel tax exemption for Hibernia is worth $9 million, for

Terra Nova worth $4 million, the RST exemption is nineteen and three. How does

the Leader of the Opposition add that up to $190 million?

I met the chief operating officer of Petro Canada in my

office two hours ago. He told me I owed him a bunch of money, according to the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Charlie Brown is here now for the Christmas season, I

can say to the Premier. It is easy to know when the Premier is on the defensive.

He talks about every topic except the one being discussed. I will also debate

the Premier on the transshipment facility. I will give him that challenge, too,

as I did on harmonization. He never takes up a challenge because he is not

prepared to, because he knows he is having too many of those secret little

meetings with CEOs and presidents and not enough for public view.

I ask the Premier: Does the Premier think it is appropriate

when Argentina can get 27 per cent in royalties, and 30 per cent in a corporate

tax structure, when all other countries - Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia -

when our Province has tried to sell out in secret deals, concessions and so on,

to big corporations at the expense of the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is going to have a bad day tomorrow. There is a press conference scheduled for

10:00 a.m. Petro Canada is in town. Norske Hydro is in town. There is more good

news coming for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a nightmare for the

Leader of the Opposition. It is just about going to destroy Christmas for him

and his family, but I have his Christmas card on my mantle at home right beside

Lucien Bouchard and his family and, yes, the Prime Minister. They are all lovely

families, and I say: Go home, my son, and enjoy the fruits and benefits of

living in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Premier as well.

The last couple of days I have been seeking information from

the Premier as well. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Banks. I know

the topic is very close to the Premier's heart and I am sure by now he has made

himself totally familiar with the amount of fishing effort in this particular

area. Will the Premier inform the House today as to the total number of foreign

boats fishing turbot on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Spanish war is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House

that we won.

Now on to the turbot war, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is

making an issue out of something just to try to get press attention, to try to

get his name in the news. We are well aware of the number of boats outside the

200-mile limit. We are concerned about the boats out there just as well as the

hon. member is concerned about it. We are concerned about the activity inside

the 200-mile limit. We are concerned about every bit of fishing activity that

goes on anywhere while the stocks are in the troubles they are. Conservation

measures are number one on the minds of everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the latest news that I got at my

office is there are approximately twenty-seven boats that are fishing outside

the 200-mile limit compared to fourteen last year at this particular time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: And that is the next point that I was going

to make, before the turbot war eighty-six vessels were fishing there. Now, Mr.

Speaker, those boats are fishing out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to bring his answer to a

conclusion.

MR. EFFORD: - have observers on those monitoring on a day

to day basis. They report incidence to their country and the country's take care

of the problems out there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister opposite, there were five boats fishing there one year ago. There are

twenty-seven there, as you confirmed, today. Premier, you and your Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture both stated that the fishing effort on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks has been reduced dramatically since the Estai

affair and all foreign vessels are now equipped, Mr. Speaker, and monitored by

observers. Would the Premier inform us as to the number of fishing violations

that have been reported to DFO by those very same observers for the past twelve

months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the hon. member.

Last year there were fourteen vessels on the Grand Banks in November and early

December. What was there at the end of December, I will get that report as we go

on into the new year. There were fourteen vessels, Spanish, Portuguese and from

other countries, out there. I can assure the member there were fourteen. How

many violations? There were four violations reported so far this year by the

observers aboard these boats.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that two Spanish ships were recently

sent back to Spain and charged with fishing violations? Will the minister

confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would hope so. That is the

purpose of having observers on the boats, to report the violations to their

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister also confirm, or is he aware, as we speak

here today, that a Spanish fishing vessel has been boarded by DFO officials and

charged with misreporting its total allowable catch?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: And this very same vessel is still

fishing on the Grand Banks today with its observer aboard!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us congratulate them; let us

praise them for what they are doing out there! They boarded a vessel, he says,

and he found out it is working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It is exactly what we want to hear. Now, the

process to be followed - because as far as I understand, the latest infraction

that was found out there was a very minor infraction on this particular vessel.

What the observer and what the country are going to do when that vessel gets

home to port will be determined in the very near future. That vessel is due to

go home very shortly. Unless the hon. member wants me to take my boat and go out

and check on it. Other than that, we will leave it up to the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to

congratulate them for overfishing when they have been already charged with a

violation. Will the minister also confirm, or is he aware, as we speak here

today, that another Spanish vessel has been boarded by DFO officials and has

been charged with fishing undersized nets, and is still fishing on the Grand

Banks today with an observer aboard?

MR. J. BYRNE: That's two!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is raising a

question that is of concern to every single member of this House and every

single citizen of the Province. But the member, if he is interested in

information, interested in conservation, should put correct information on the

table. The reality is, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has just

pointed out to the House - and the member knows this, and those who cover the

story know this, and they should report all of the story - knows that prior -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, members opposite don't want

to hear the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - that prior to the turbot dispute and the

subsequent Canada-EU agreement there were no observers, zero, on any of the

vessels fishing on the Nose and Tail. There is now 100 per cent observer

coverage. Prior to the turbot dispute there were not four violations a year,

there were sometimes four violations a week. Mr. Speaker, prior to the dispute

there were no charges laid against vessels that were undertaking this kind of

activity, and certainly no successful charges. That is now occurring.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the member is saying that there are

vessels out there, that charges have been laid and that we are not having a

follow-up court process as is described under the agreement, I would be

concerned. I want to assure the member, we will monitor very closely the

situation. We have confidence that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Fred

Mifflin, and the Prime Minister and the government will follow through on the

agreements that have been negotiated. But I will tell him here and now, and I

say to him and through him, to the House of Commons of Ottawa: If there is any

forward, to implement fully this Canada-EU Enforcement Agreement, we will be the

first to stand up and say, get on with the job and do not back off an inch.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Premier, we were told before that this

was all resolved, and obviously, it is not. The information I have comes a very

high official in Ottawa, I say to the Premier, and it is accurate information.

Premier, what we are talking about here today is very serious

- we are talking about the very survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Premier, you were the one who took up the gauntlet on this

case, you were the one who took the net and carried it to New York, you were the

one who brought the Estai into St. John's harbour. Will you admit today

that the turbot war was a fiasco, nothing more than a public relations exercise

that cost the taxpayers of this Province hundreds of thousands of dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon.

member that I really do not mind because we are here facing each other, the

member standing up and calling me whatever name he wants, calling me a fiasco,

saying he disagrees with me, saying he thinks that they should be sitting on

this side of the House, saying somebody else should be the Premier, saying that

I had a disastrous - I don't mind, honestly, because that is politics, but when

you say of the men and women, Mr. Speaker, who are out there in vessels at a

time when Spanish patrol boats had three-inch cannons on their boats,

threatening to uncover those cannons, when you say of those men and women of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who went onto the high seas and police the high seas

and put an end to the foreign overfishing, that what they did was a waste of

time, you insult the men and women of this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the

member, if he wants to try to make light of anything I have done, go ahead, that

is fair play in the House, but it is not fair play to make light of the

sacrifice, the contribution and the excellent work of the men of DFO who did a

job for Canada on the high seas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true, Premier, it is true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, on August 5, I

sent a letter to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing requesting information so

that we could conduct a review and a hearing based on the concerns in the

Auditor General's Report. On August 23, you sent a letter back to our Committee

that said it was your understanding that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing came

under your department and any review should be requested through you.

Subsequently, we, the Public Accounts Committee, sent a letter to you on

September 6, requesting the information; again, we sent you a letter on

September 20 requesting the same information, outlining looking for the

information so that the Public Accounts Committee, the Standing Committee of the

House, could conduct its review as it saw fit.

To this date, we still have not received the information. Why

are we waiting five months? Could the minister answer the question please.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, because I was Vice-Chair of the

Public Accounts Committee myself for a number of years when I sat from

1989-1992, I was hoping to get the opportunity to be called before the Public

Accounts Committee. When the letter came to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I

directed my officials at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to tell the Public

Accounts Committee that it would be better if they requested it through my

office.

Right now, the information is ready. I have it ready, I was

not in a position, quite honestly, in the last two months, to be able to appear

before the Public Accounts Committee. I am hoping to be called to appear before

the Public Accounts Committee some time in the new year. The information is

ready, the hon. member and the Committee should have it in the next few days, on

their desks, and at that time when you get it, please call me, because I want to

have a chance to explain to the Province exactly what Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing is doing as it relates to social housing and the other programs we are

providing in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to ask these

questions. I have spoken to the minister on it. The reason we have not been able

to call you, Minister, or anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, is

because you have not forwarded the information. We have waited five months. I

would like to remind you, all members, too, everybody, that

Section 84 - I

believe it is 84(

e) of the Standing Orders - gives the Public Accounts Committee

the right to call anybody before the Committee with respect to public

expenditure. The reason we have not called you is because we did not receive the

information. We have been waiting five months. I am glad to hear it is ready,

but will you ensure, today, if you are saying it is ready, that by Friday of

this week, the information we have requested will be delivered to the Clerk of

the Public Accounts Committee?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wonder can I work a deal with

the hon. member and say that if they would be willing to provide the information

as related to the Sprung Greenhouse fiasco, then I would provide him with the -

this side of the House has been waiting for nine years to get their hands on

that and we still do not have it. But I say to the hon. member, yes, I am going

to provide him with the information. It will be available to him in the next

couple of days and I hope then at that particular - there is nothing to hide

other than the fact that I think the Public Accounts Committee basically went

beyond their authority to go directly to the department rather than go to the

minister. I say to the hon. member, if there are any questions that the Public

Accounts Committee has on anything, under my jurisdiction, please feel free to

ask me and I will provide it as quickly as I possibly can.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: My colleague just said that he is slower

than Art May - there is no doubt about it. The reality is that the Public

Accounts Committee did not bypass anything or did not go beyond its mandate in

requesting from a Crown corporation information. It was completely within the

limit of its own regulations, and if we wish to call the minister before the

Committee, we will. If we wish to call somebody else from Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing before the Committee, we will. If we wish to call people,

private consultants or private entrepreneurs who have dealt with public

expenditures before the Committee, we will. The reality is, I will ask you one

more time: Will you give us the information by Friday, December 20, yes or no?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, he didn't.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. I will inform the hon.

member now, he has the right to call; and I will make this perfectly clear, he

can call whomever he likes at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing or any

department, but if he is going to call anyone under my jurisdiction, he is going

to call me and nobody else.

If the Committee think they can nitpick through departments

on this side of the House or in this government, they have got another think

coming. I am the one answerable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as it

relates to my department. I suggest to the hon. member that when and if you need

anybody or any information as it relates to any of the departments that I am in

charge of, please consult me. And, yes, maybe I am as slow as Art May. Some

people say I look like Art May, and I feel darn proud to say that I do look like

him. I will tell you a little story -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I

asked the minister if the program-by-program evaluation of the industry

department that he headed up had been concluded. I ask today: Will the results

of this review process be made public? Can the minister assure us that the

public and business groups will have every opportunity to scrutinize and suggest

changes to the review prior to the 1997 budget?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon.

gentleman has been out of the Province or out of the country for the last six

months, because this issue has been discussed so many times. The reality is, in

the July meeting of Cabinet in Corner Brook there was a committee put in place,

a Cabinet committee, to review everything that government does, everything that

a government agency does and apply three tests to it. First, is it in the public

interest? Is it being carried out in the most efficient manner and thirdly, can

we afford it? I am pleased to report to the hon. member and to the people of the

Province that that committee has been working diligently ever since July and we

are nearing the end now of having a report ready which we will present to

Cabinet. And unless the rules have changed, Mr. Speaker, we do not make public,

presentations to Cabinet. We will make the decisions public in due course. As

for consultation, and the spirit of consultation, which this government is quite

proud of, we will consult with the people in the budgetary process. Some of the

recommendations that we make, no doubt, will be enacted during the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: The St. John's Board of Trade expressed

concern that the evaluation looked only at current operations of the department.

They were not asked to advise on what new things should be added, in their

opinion. I ask the minister if he has addressed these concerns.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this was not a situation where

the Committee - our mandate was not to go out and discuss with various

non-government entities in the Province. We were put in place to look at

government departments and government agencies, where government spends money.

The next step, when the Minister of Finance goes out for his

annual consultations on the budgetary process, there is no doubt that every

single person in the Province who so wishes will have an opportunity to have

some input into that and, no doubt, the Board of Trade for Mount Pearl, and all

other Boards of Trade in the Province, will take advantage of that and make

presentations.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

There have been some reports in the last little while that

there has been a bug found in the Nova Scotian Christmas trees that were brought

into the Province. I would like to find out if the minister has any reports on

that. Are there any concerns?

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

MR. TULK: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any but I will

inquire and get back to the gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi on a point

of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to give notice

to the House, which I'm required to do at the earliest possible moment, that I

intend to raise a point of personal privilege related to a scurrilous, vicious,

venomous personal and unparliamentary attack made on me while I was absent from

this House last night by the Member for Bonavista South. I haven't yet seen the

Hansard of the debate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - but when I do see it and have an

opportunity to research that I intend to raise a point of personal privilege in

this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

Are you speaking to the point of order raised by the hon.

Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi?

MR. TULK: No, I'm sorry. A point of privilege, that was.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

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

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the questions

that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Today is Private Members' Day.

The Opposition House Leader a couple of days ago - yesterday. I believe, or the

day before - gave notice that today we would be debating the mineral tax act

under the name of the Leader of the Opposition. So we were told that was on

today's Order Paper. His Honour has already ruled three or four days ago, gave a

lesson to the Leader of the Opposition about some other questions that were

asked in this House in regards to anticipating debate; Questions anticipating

debate are out of order.

I didn't want to interrupt him because the Minister of Mines

and Energy was giving such good answers, the Premier was giving him such good

answers. But in actual fact I do want to remind the hon. gentleman, I would like

for His Honour to take a look, to see if indeed when he comes back in the new

year we can really have him read the rule book between now and then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that matter I

wish to note that we are very cognizant of the rules. In fact, prior to today's

question period I had consultation with the officers of the House and they were

well aware of the general tenor of the question. In fact, there were

consultations with the parliamentary colleagues in other jurisdictions. With

reference to the questions and what happened today, we were well aware there

have been various rulings. The questions were not specifically and totally about

the business of the day. There were consultations. We were comfortable that we

were within the boundaries of the rules as they are contained in Beauchesne.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could (inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: I would remind the hon. gentleman that

consultation has nothing to do with it. The truth of the matter is that a

question is not allowed to anticipate an Order of the Day for which notice has

already been given, for which the House is aware is going to be. That is a

ruling that was made not longer than two weeks ago. So the lesson continues, Mr.

Speaker. I would like for the hon. gentleman to get his questions in order.

If you wanted to you could go through the whole Question

Period practically and point out where each of the individual members were out

of order. For example, asking the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture about a

matter that isn't even in his jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: You could go through all of that, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - but that one, this one is enough for them

today.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader is speaking to the point

of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have consulted

today thoroughly on this matter. I know that the government is most anxious to

deflect away from these questions. So all we are doing now is trying to find the

rules that will give comfort to the government so it won't have to answer the

questions that have been asked. Today we saw an example again where -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - questions were not answered on a number

of occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again to the point of order raised by the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order. The Chair has on a number of

occasions reminded hon. members that questions asked during the Question Period

should not anticipate the Orders of the Day. Clearly that is a ruling. It is

substantiated by the parliamentary authority that we use which is Beauchesne. I

ask hon. members to keep this in mind for further questions.

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

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today

the hon. the Premier shouted across the House to the Member for Bonavista South

and called him a coward. I ask the Chair if he would deal with that matter? It

is clearly unparliamentary in Beauchesne

Section 490. I would say that using the

word coward in reference to the Member for Bonavista South is clearly

unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the word is clearly

unparliamentary and I withdraw it.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I rise with a petition today from 320

Newfoundlanders who are petitioning the House to accept their following

petition. As residents of Newfoundland and Labrador they petition the House to

direct the Department of Education to legislate a paid adult school bus monitor

program for all school buses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We

find that students are presently being unsupervised and are at risk in their

safety going to and from school on school buses. They say the safety of our

children is being compromised.

Now, these petitioners join with hundreds, and perhaps

thousands of others who have had their petitions presented in this House. I

believe one of the petitions presented was as many as ten thousand or more

individuals who supported this petition, and who believe that the Department of

Education has to act on school bus safety in a way that ensures that there will

be school bus monitors on each and every school bus. I suppose, not necessarily

for high school but for particularly primary and elementary students.

They have prepared, through a school bus safety committee at

the Holy Family which had the most recent tragedy, Mr. Speaker, a very detailed

and professional, I might say, brief to government outlining the issue of school

bus safety, listing the appalling record when you look at it, surprising,

certainly to me, to see it in black and white, of the number of fatalities that

have occurred as a result of school bus accidents during the last dozen or so

years, and in fact the most recent death a couple of months ago totalling six

deaths from school bus accidents and in excess of 150 accidents during that

period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the school bus

situation is not in hand, and that we have a situation where school bus drivers,

whose attention is obviously required to be focused on the duties of driving the

bus and looking after traffic, are also expected to supervise as many as

seventy-two children while driving a bus and while looking after his or her

duties in keeping the bus on the road.

That is a pretty tall order and not something you can

properly expect a school bus driver to do. The suggestion has been made that

this could be looked after by volunteers. The commitment here is rather

considerable, and as the brief that was presented to the minister by the School

Bus Safety Committee of Holy Family School pointed out it is something that

requires regular trained attention by an adult who has been paid to look after

these responsibilities because they take as much as three or four hours per day

of commitment. It is not something you can expect from a volunteer, and it is

not something you can really expect a whole bunch of volunteers to do

adequately.

Obviously, somebody could fill in in a pinch but to have a

system based on volunteers is not appropriate for something as important as

this. I ask the minister to accept the prayer of this petition, and ask the

House to support the petition of these petitioners, to use some of the

considerable savings that are being made in the allocation for school buses in

this Province to be used for the support of a program of adult school bus

monitoring.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks and ask

other hon. members to support this petition.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty

whatsoever in seconding the petition presented by the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi. It is an issue that has been raised many times in this House in the

past and we have, on numerous occasions, provided rationale for a paid adult bus

monitor service.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has indicated that

this issue would not be addressed, and that he did not see the need for a paid

adult monitor service in this Province; however, as can be seen by the numerous

petitions, supported by literally thousands of people in this Province who feel

it is an issue of genuine concern, I would ask the minister to give some

reconsideration to his decision.

The petition is well-meaning, and is certainly one that I

have no difficulty in supporting.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions. The hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand at this time to present a petition on behalf of

approximately 330 Newfoundlanders, most of whom are residents of the City of St.

John's. I would like to read the text of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept

the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, support the long overdue and needed

changes to the provincial Human Rights Code to include sexual orientation as a

prohibitive ground for discrimination. Gay and lesbian citizens of Newfoundland

and Labrador must be afforded the same and equal rights as all citizens.

We also insist that the amendments to the Code extend to

include not only the areas of employment, goods and services and accommodations,

but also must cover the area of employment benefits.

We insist that the government deal with this swiftly and

fairly during this sitting of the House, as has been promised.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed and

endorsed by some 330 residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of discrimination. It is now

time that this Province see fit to amend its Human Rights legislation, and in so

doing this Province would be acting in accordance with the vast majority of

jurisdictions in this country. All Canadian Provinces, with the exception of

Prince Edward Island and Alberta, have amended their Human Rights Code.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members here wish to converse, I ask that they do so

outside the Chamber.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All jurisdictions, with the exception of Prince Edward Island

and Alberta, have seen fit to amend the Human Rights legislation accordingly to

ensure that discrimination does not impact upon any individual.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from documentation which has been

provided to me by the petitioners that attempts have been made to have the

necessary legislative provision enacted. There have been commitments made by the

ministers and this government to have this matter dealt with expeditiously, but

to this point that has not been done. Clearly there are hundreds, perhaps

thousands, of individuals in this Province, who see this as a matter of

necessity to have their human rights protected to ensure that they are not

discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf

of those petitioners who have endorsed this document.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to second this petition presented by my hon.

colleague. It is clear, we are one of the few provinces left in Canada that has

not amended the Human Rights legislation. I am basically speaking today to ask

the government to amend the Human Rights legislation. It is clear that in Canada

now there is no discrimination, or there should be no discrimination according

to legislation, because of religion, creed, colour, and so on. We should also

enshrine in the legislation the fact that there be no discrimination because of

sexual orientation.

Newfoundland, as I have mentioned, is one of the last

provinces in Canada to take into consideration changes to legislation to amend

the Human Rights Code in this manner. Mr. Speaker, I think that in this time in

our history, that it is high time that we look at changing the Human Rights Code

and the legislation to enshrine into legislation, protection for all people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the presentation of the petition with respect to

the inclusion of sexual orientation as a grounds for a lack of discrimination in

the Human Rights Code for the Province.

I find that I just want to put these comments on the record

because this government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to do something about it. We

have indicated that we will, but it is clear now that it won't happen in this

sitting of the Legislature because everybody knows we will be closed some time

between now and Christmas or New Years or the middle of January or some time. It

won't happen before the Legislature closes, Mr. Speaker, but it seems very

convenient, typical, for the Opposition to try to get some political brownie

points for a constituency group in the public to suggest now, Mr. Speaker, that

they are all of a sudden, in favour of this.

We can go back as recently as a couple of years ago where we

know the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Ms Verge, was firmly,

personally, in favour of including these provisions in the Human Rights Code and

could not get the support of her caucus to support such a position on behalf of

the Party, could not do it, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask anybody over there to

stand up in this Legislature and suggest that, that is not the fact. That

caucus, Mr. Speaker, would not support the inclusion of sexual orientation in

the Human Rights Code for Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, that is in

the last couple of years.

Now, a couple days before the Legislature is to close, they

will jump up and suggest they are in favour of it -

MR. FRENCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - because they believe they can get some

political brownie points.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, on a point of

order.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, I was not part of the last caucus, Mr.

Speaker, and I guess any inference -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is trying to hear the hon. Member for Conception

Bay South, presenting his point of order, if members continue to interrupt, then

the Chair is going to have to take further action.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: My point of order is, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Education is making an accusation about this particular caucus. I

know absolutely nothing that went on in previous caucuses and have only become a

member of this House of Assembly in February, so I take exception to his

remarks. I know absolutely nothing about what he is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I mentioned nothing about this caucus because they have not

dealt with it other than try to play a bit of politics with it here today, Mr.

Speaker.

The former caucus I said, led by their former leader, Ms

Verge, who firmly told everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that she strongly

supported the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code like this

government is committed to do, and here we are now, with a group there now

trying to play some politics by suggesting that they are all for it by

presenting a petition and suggesting that it be done before the House closes,

when, a couple of years ago, they would have nothing to do with it as a caucus,

Mr. Speaker.

For seventeen years in a row, the party that this group over

here supports and here is their typical thing saying: Oh, I was not here, I

can't have - but they support a party that was the government for seventeen

years, had seventeen chances in a row to include sexual orientation in the Human

Rights Code, did nothing about it, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing about it

seventeen times in a row. We have a government here that is going to have it

done within a matter of days or weeks, and they are up now trying to jump on a

bandwagon and suggest to a constituency in the public that they believe in this

and they want to do something about it. It is a pure sham, Mr. Speaker, and

sometimes it would make you think some people should not be allowed to present

petitions in the House, except that the rules provide for it because they get up

and pretend they support it when in fact, every chance they had to show a

support, they turned around and did nothing except wash their hands of it and

say: I was not there, Mr. Speaker, they can't blame me.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of

order.

MR. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that in the last caucus, even with Ms Verge as Leader, the government

side of the House had enough members, that if they wanted to pass this

legislation, they could clearly have done it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Being a Private Members' Day, the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege

today to speak on a private members' resolution dealing with the Mining and

Mineral Rights Tax Act. It has been one that this Province has given a

commitment and has been dragging its feet now for well over a year, well over a

year I would say, about a year-and-a-half. I have the quotes here, I will make

reference to the quotes in the statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former government.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the current government. I have one by

the current government. Okay, well let's see now. I have some interesting news

here, March 20, 1996; November 19, 1996. Government House Leader, I have quotes

November 19, 1996; May 15, 1996 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not eighteen months ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: - '96, and I will certainly get to them in

due course, I say.

Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation on the books that

can have very serious repercussions on future revenues in our Province. I just

want to make reference to what we are proposing to amend that would ensure that

the people in this Province can get a true return on the revenues. We are asking

that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

act promptly to amend the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act by adding in

subsection 4.1(1) immediately following the words "a person" the words "other

than Inco and its subsidiaries and operations at Voisey's Bay."

Mr. Speaker, with reference to this bill I think it is

important to look briefly at the history. Back in 1994 this legislation, by the

previous government in 1994, was amended to add a new

section that states,

"4.1(1) A person may, in the current taxation year, deduct from the amount

payable under

section 4, the amount payable to the province under the Income Tax

Act in respect of mining income in the province for the year." It said, "this

shall apply only for each year of the 1st 10 years after the achievement of the

commercial production in the mine from which the mining income is derived." Now

that has significant financial repercussions in this Province and it refers to,

in the wording of

Section 4, it made reference to an operator and a contractor

is liable for and shall pay to the minister in the manner and at the time set

out in this act an annual tax of 15 per cent. It says of the taxable income

derived by the operator or the contractor for mining operations within every

mine within the Province during each financial year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to why this

legislation needs to be changed. I think it is important that it should be

changed very quickly because back in 1994 - and Premier Wells realized it then

and the current Minister of Mines and Energy said we have to change this mining

tax regime. We have to get back because under this regime we are giving a

company a ten year break on tax royalties in the Province and the Wells

Government in 1995 said this needs amending. They met with people in the mining

industry and they brought draft legislation to this House of Assembly. They sent

it to a committee and they announced last fall that this House would have to

reconvene in January to deal with this because we knew that Voisey's Bay was on

the market, Diamond Field, the sale, there were bidders, Falcon Bridge, Inco and

others were vying to buy it. The government wanted to get legislation on the

books before the sale of this particular resource in Labrador, this giant

resource. They wanted to get it on the books beforehand because it could have

legal repercussions

If Inco, which it eventually did, bought into Voisey's Bay

and spent $4.3 billion on a tax regime that is now law in this Province, that

says we are getting a ten-year tax holiday, and if it so desires, it could

challenge any type of government intervention and say to this government: We

spent $4.3 billion. The shareholders of Inco have a right to get a return on

their investment. We are going to demand that we get a ten-year tax exemption.

It is the condition under which we bought into this.

I venture to project that in a court it has a very strong

case. By buying in at $4.3 billion into a law that is on the books for a

ten-year - and changing the rules in midstream is like telling an EDGE company

that buys in, follows the rules, and when you get into the third or fourth year:

Sorry, you can't have the rest of these taxes for the next ten years, and the

last five, we aren't going to do that now, we are going to change it. You are

going to pay the full shot of taxes.

That is similar to breaking a legal and binding contract that

you have. Because legislation is legal and binding. They are the rules by which

we do business and allow people to operate in our Province. It is the regime by

which we get taxation to put into the coffers so we can fulfil other legal

obligations to people. In contract tendering we use this money to call tenders,

to make commitments with people who get those successful tenders and have an

obligation. When we try to break that and change it, we saw what happened with

Trans City. We saw what happened in that instance and it is something we don't

want to revisit.

Because we spent millions. We sacrificed over $30 million in

revenue by giving it to a higher bidder, on top of the millions of dollars we

spent in fighting the case. We don't want a long drawn out court case on

Voisey's Bay. We have seen enough of the Churchill Falls. Hundreds of millions

of dollars going out of this Province annually. It is unacceptable there, and we

don't want to see that revisited. I think it is incumbent - the former premier

saw it, and the Cabinet at the time said: We needed this legislation by last

December. We are going to reconvene the House in January.

What did the Premier do? The Premier comes in, he scuttles

it. Here are some of the things he said. I will go back to what they said at the

time. When this was brought in, and the government said repeatedly it needed to

bring it in, this amendment. On May 15 1996 this government, not the previous

one, the Minister of Mines and Energy said: "We have said that we plan to make

some amendments to that mining tax regime. The industry knows it, the Province

knows it, the world knows it, and after appropriate consultation on the

amendments that were in place last fall, we will be coming back to the

Legislature. There is lots of time." That is what the Minister of Mines and

Energy said on May 15 1996.

This year on November 19 he said: "We made some minor

amendments to that legislation back in 1994 in view of the discovery of Voisey's

Bay and the size of Voisey's Bay, the implications of it, obviously for a big,

rich deposit there are implications in the amendments that we made that we have

to correct, and we are going to make these corrections."

In fact, I will just add, since those statements, Inco spent

$4.3 billion to buy Voisey Bay nickel and Diamond Field Resources. Furthermore

the minister went on and said: "We are going to make amendments. I said that as

well today. They know they are not going to get a ten-year tax holiday but right

now we have in place a Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act which is of generic

application that applies to and has applied to everybody since 1975."

We don't want a generic one that is going to exempt Inco from

ten years on paying royalties to the people of this Province when - I made

reference to it this morning - we have countries all around the world, countries

like Chile, Argentina, Bolivia and all the South American countries and that,

that have a corporate tax regime they pay to those countries, and they have a

very high royalties regime that they pay to the people of the Province.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said again: "We have made it

clear to them that they will not get the tax holiday. There are going to be

amendments made. We have made that clear as well. We tabled the legislation a

year ago almost to the day last December, but before we come back with our final

amendments, before we bring back the bill again, we have said that we want to

fully and thoroughly analyze the implications of Voisey's Bay, so that what we

do we do right. Last Fall, the Minister of Mines and Energy introduced it. He

sat in his place and said he speaks on the taxation of Voisey's Bay. It is the

responsibility of the Minister of Finance, but he was not there and the Minister

of Mines and Energy did not even stand up. The Government House Leader at the

time stood and presented that particular bill back in the Fall of 1995.

AN HON. MEMBER: My member?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The one from whom you need to take

lessons in decorum, I say, to get this business in the House.

MR. TULK: I guarantee you one thing for sure and certain

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How many times do I have to say it? `We

have informed the company that it is not getting a ten-year tax break,' he said,

`and we are going to make appropriate amendments.' The Premier of the Province,

on November 20, said in this House, that there would be no ten-year tax holiday

for Inco. He said: `We expect them to pay their way and pay their freight as

soon as possible.'

Now, I want to ensure him that Inco - now, here is what he

said. Is this not a contradiction by the Premier? He said: `There will be no

ten-year tax holiday for Inco,' and then he went on to say, `I want to assure

him that Inco is subject to all the laws of the Province.' Well, if they are

subject to all the laws of the Province, there is a ten-year tax holiday. How

can he not have a ten-year tax holiday and be subject to the laws, because the

law says there is a ten-year tax holiday? The Premier showed a total lack of

knowledge of this particular bill and of the legislation that is on the books of

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, even if Inco could avoid such an amendment, we

need an amendment to ensure that any other developments are subjected to a tax

return in which we are going to get a greater share for our people for the

development of our non-renewable resources in the Province. And, Mr. Speaker,

there could be other Voisey's Bay projects out there. There could be other

future development projects out there, and if we do not enact the legislation to

protect the people of the Province, it is the people of the Province who are

paying the price, because we have given up revenues that are going to be badly

needed. And the law that is now on the books, the law that applies to Inco,

gives a ten-year tax holiday.

The former Premier realized over a year ago that we had to

move quickly to eliminate the tax break or we stand to lose millions upon

millions of dollars, and they introduced legislation in this House that said

that last year. The clock has ticked for one year and all we have had is behind

the scenes deals and contravention of the Act by giving large corporations out

there a break on the taxes in our Province, and that is not acceptable I say,

Mr. Speaker.

Here is what the Premier said in the House on November 20

that shows he has a total lack of knowledge of the legislation. He said there

would be no tax holiday for Inco, and then he said: `I want to assure him that

Inco is subject to all the laws of the Province.' Well, I can tell you that Inco

is subject to laws, Inco has a tax break, and the Premier is going to allow a

large company to come into the Province, a very large company, and take

resources away from our Province.

We have seen it before on Churchill Falls, we have seen it on

fishing off our coast, we have seen it on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks,

and we are seeing it out there now. Since the Estai incident there has

been no increase in mesh size. They are still fishing with observers on. They

are violating the laws. We gave back the catch. We paid the cost. We relieved

them and picked up all the costs in a great public relations exercise that the

Premier took

part in.

We are seeing him take

part in many public relations

exercises but we are not seeing the details, I can tell you, and it is not good

for our Province when we do not see the details of what is going on out there.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We should. We should hold them accountable,

and we should expect that. We should expect the best from our governments, where

they would try to lay in a public forum the information, so that people can have

public input. In all of the processes we have seen here, they have been trying

to keep things from public opinion, trying to hide things from the public. Do

not tell the public what is going to be happening to them, assuming the public

is not bright enough to know the difference.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the public is far brighter than

many of the decision-makers in government over the years, far, far brighter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: People out in industry today, and out in

business -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: In industry, in business, the normal

individuals out there today are very intelligent and follow closely what is

happening in the political system. And many people are not too happy with the

performance - the lack of accountability, and the lack of disclosure to the

public of what is happening so they can make a decision and have input into the

process.

I think it is time to come out. We are all here for the

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If we are not here for that, we

should not be here. I say to my colleagues, if we are not here in the interest

of the future of this Province, we are in the wrong job; we should take another

job.

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to have some

concluding comments later.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise today to speak against the resolution

presented by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to make a few points

regarding my position on the resolution.

It is probably true - no doubt it is - that the Leader of the

Opposition is a dedicated and loyal citizen of our Province, but we equally are

dedicated and loyal. I have to ask the member opposite a few questions.

A couple of weeks ago, I stood and brought a resolution with

respect to Churchill Falls. The Leader of the Opposition spoke against it. In

fact, the members of the Conservative Party all voted against the resolution.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to answer your question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am only too delighted to have an opportunity, and

appreciate the time, to respond to that. I will keep it very, very short,

understanding your time.

I spoke against giving the Premier a blank cheque when he did

not lay out a plan. If the Premier is prepared to lay out a plan to us in this

House, I am prepared to support endeavours that are going to get a change in

that contract. A blank cheque to do what he wants to do was not what we were

prepared to do, but I am supportive of actions that can bring about a settlement

in getting revenues back into our Province from Churchill Falls. I said that on

many, many occasions in the past, I say to the member. I am very much dismayed

with that contract, as you are. I want to see the benefits coming back, but we

will not give a blank cheque to somebody without telling us what the plan is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were not asking for a blank cheque. What we were asking

for was not to have the Premier of this Province confronted with a press release

from the Leader of the Opposition as he walked into the Montreal Forum where he

spoke on the Churchill Falls issue, to explain it to the people of Quebec. We

did not expect that the Leader of the Opposition should use his privilege to the

press, his access -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point of order.

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

Two weeks ago, we debated the resolution put forward by the

Member for Labrador West. Today, we are debating a resolution that deals with

the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

question the relevancy in terms of the member's comments and ask him to stick to

the private member's resolution before the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I ask the hon. member

to make his remarks relevant. The Chair was waiting to see if the member would

do that, waiting for his comments to see if he was actually bringing in a point.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be getting around to the resources of our Province,

and the way we should have taxes and royalties to satisfy that which the people

of this Province deserve, and that is a fair return for the things that we own,

the resources of our Province.

We have no lessons to learn from the Leader of the

Opposition. Indeed, we have no lessons to learn from the Tory Opposition. The

fact of the matter is that they are probably suffering from the greenhouse

effect. A couple of days ago, the same Leader of the Opposition stood up and

asked questions regarding a significant set of negotiations ongoing between the

the Trans-Labrador Highway. He full well knows -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to question relevance

again. I will read for the Member for Labrador West, the resolution. It deals

with the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, and calls for changes to that Mining

and Mineral Rights Tax Act. It does not deal with the Trans-Labrador Highway. It

does not deal with changes to the member's private resolution. I ask, Mr.

Speaker, that the member keep his comments relevant and stick to the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, again, the Chair was waiting for the

hon. member to make his point to see if he was tying the points that he was

raising to the resolution that is here today.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, there is no point of order. The truth is painful,

and many times there are those who wish not to hear the truth.

Let me say that we in Labrador are fighting for that which we

believe is right and proper, too, for the people of our region. Voisey's Bay is

in the Torngat region, the poorest part of our Province, the poorest region of

our land, the poorest part of Canada, perhaps the poorest in North America. We

always hear many members standing around, in the press, here, there and

everywhere, talking about how great Voisey's Bay is, how much it means to many

in the whole of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Labrador?

MR. CANNING: Exactly. What about Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, I say that there are many who believe that the

wealth of that region first should be dedicated to the most impoverished part of

our country, that on the North Coast of Labrador. I should say to you, Mr.

Speaker, and through you to the Leader of the Opposition, that this government

is bound and determined to ensure that we all in this Province receive a fair

and appropriate portion of the wealth of that region, but specifically -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) support the resolution.

MR. CANNING: No, I do not support the resolution because

this is a sham. In many ways it is a scam. It is to grab a bit of press right

now. Talking about such an important, responsible position, to deal with the

taxes and the royalties that will flow from Voisey's Bay in such a light,

half-hearted manner - this is terrible.

I was listening to your comments the other day when you spoke

on Churchill Falls. You were the best spokesman for Hydro Quebec and the

Government of Quebec -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: - in conveying the argument to the people of

this country why we should not receive a fair and appropriate deal. Now the

Leader of the Opposition looks up and says that in his view - in his view - Inco

would have a significant court case so they could get away from the taxes they

will have to pay.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: When Inco at first

purchased the first 25 per cent of ownership in the Diamond Fields, there were

letters conveyed. Inco full well knows they have no access to this ten-year tax

holiday.

Let me say also, the reason why there is so much development

and opportunity today is because the Minister of Mines and Energy had the

foresight to bring about changes in the Act to cause people to go out and

prospect and look for minerals; that is why we have a mine in Voisey's Bay

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding.

During the election, the Official Opposition said we would not have a mine mill,

we would not have a smelter and a refinery, we would not have a transshipment,

we would not have Whiterose, and look in The Globe and Mail today,

another mega-project on the horizon. What do they say in the widest-read paper

of the land? Who do they attribute this whole project to? Do they attribute it

to the Leader of the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CANNING: Do they attribute it to the critic for Mines

and Energy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, they attribute it to the

Premier of this Province and the Hon. Rex Gibbons for their work and their

foresight in generating that kind of investment and opportunity in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, let me say now, and let me say

clearly to all who will listen, that this government is determined to ensure

that we will receive a full, fair and responsible amount of revenue from

Voisey's Bay. This will go through this House in due course. The Minister of

Mines and Energy will bring this legislation for all to see, in the proper time

and in a way that is appropriate. We are not going to deal with one of the

biggest projects in history -

MR. TULK: In a way that is best for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. CANNING: Exactly, in a way that is best for

Newfoundland and Labrador, as the hon. the House Leader says. But I say to the

members of the Opposition that you are undermining the process when the Leader

of the Opposition stands up and says that he believes Inco could have weight in

a court case. He believes that Inco could go to court and argue for the ten-year

tax holiday.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we lost the Water Rights

Reversion Act was because of comments that were made by people in the House of

Assembly, inappropriate comments that were made. Mr. Speaker, let me just say

this, too, that Inco is a responsible corporate citizen. They are into our

Province. We should welcome them. They are a major investor. They fully

understand and appreciate -

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not going to support it.

MR. CANNING: I am not going to support this resolution.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you have constituents who agree with

that?

MR. CANNING: My constituents - the Leader of the

Opposition continues to try to argue, Mr. Speaker, that there is a ten-year tax

holiday that will be given to Inco. The only one who wants to see a ten-year tax

holiday go to Inco is, I suggest, the Leader of the Opposition, because we are

not going to do that. They are going to pay their full and fair share. I spent

my life working with -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) full and fair (inaudible).

MR. CANNING: Full and fair share.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that the

Official Opposition is overwhelmed with good news. They have no capacity to deal

with good news. We have a great deal of good news coming to this Province and I

suggest that there will be more good news tomorrow. I can say, Mr. Speaker, with

every confidence in my soul, that at the end of the day all the citizens of this

Province will appreciate and support the royalty and tax regime that we will

bring to bear on Inco, Voisey's Bay and Voisey's Bay nickel. Mr. Speaker, we

will make sure that the tax and royalty regime is as good -

MR. SULLIVAN: Not even going to support it?

MR. CANNING: I am not going to support your resolution. I

think your resolution is flippant in many ways. I believe that you have used

this resolution just to try to gain a note in the editorial or a note on the

front page even but, in the final analysis, we will use the power and authority

of this House to subject that company to a responsible level of tax and

royalties that will bring to bear -

MR. SULLIVAN: They lost this ten years (inaudible).

MR. CANNING: We will change it.

MR. SULLIVAN: When?

MR. CANNING: In due course, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, in due course.

MR. SULLIVAN: In due course, we heard that a year ago.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the

Opposition say that we are losing millions of dollars. I suggest to him that he

should put it on the table as to how we are losing these millions of dollars. We

have not lost anything yet. There is no mine there yet. There is no royalties to

be born from it before there is a mine. I say to the Leader of the Opposition

that we have time. Just as they have time to build the infrastructure, we have

time to build a tax and royalty regime in this Province for this magnificent

mineral discovery in the mighty Torngats, in the home of my friend and member

from Torngat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to stop using members' names and refer

to members by their districts.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to

reiterate, I cannot support this resolution. I do support the activities of the

Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy. I do support the efforts of the

Cabinet and this caucus that are bound and will deliver a tax regime on that

facility that everybody, and I suggest even the members opposite, will find it

easy to applaud and approve.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, after all night of being up, I

am delighted today, after listening to the Member for Labrador West, to stand to

talk on this motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition which, I would

say, could be the saviour of the Voisey's Bay situation in Labrador. I would say

to the Member for Labrador West, you will be considered after this debate, once

this debate gets back to the people in Labrador West, as the kamikaze pilot from

the Liberal side, of the MHAs for Labrador.

I am going to tell the member, with all due respect to him -

and I do have a lot of respect for the Member for Labrador West, I say, Mr.

Speaker, and a lot of respect for the people of Labrador West. Because, and I

say this to you in all seriousness, I have lived in Labrador West as the member

knows. I know a lot of people in the Labrador City - Wabush area very well. I

have been talking back and forth with them now continuously on this very issue.

They are emotionally upset right now over this whole fiasco with Voisey's Bay.

They really are, and the member knows that, and he is taking the heat on it. The

member has taken the heat on it.

I say, with all due respect to the Member for Labrador West,

that he should be very careful when he finally decides if he is going to vote

for or against this. Because I am going to tell you that what this does is it

gets rid of what Labrador West and the people in Labrador do not want anymore,

and that is rhetoric, innuendo and lip service. What this resolution does is put

it into concrete terms -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West on a

point of order.

MR. CANNING: I remind the member, when your Leader spoke,

he said: This is legal and binding. He suggests that Inco has a very strong

legal argument to make.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, is this a point of order, or

what?

MR. CANNING: I suggest that statements by your Leader

could potentially put this Province in a terrible legal situation.

MR. E. BYRNE: Don't be so foolish, boy! Sit down! There

is no point of order. Don't be so foolish!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, not only is (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: Laws are legally binding. Do you not know

that?

MR. SHELLEY: Not only do I respect the Chair's position

that there was no point of order, but there was not even a point, let alone a

point of order.

I will continue, Mr. Speaker. I do say to the member that I

am continuously talking back and forth with people in Labrador West whom I know

very well, and other people I did not know very well, who have been calling me

lately. I say to the Member for Labrador West, you should tread very lightly on

this issue. Because I tell you, this is at the heart and soul of the people of

Labrador.

Simply put, they do not want lip service anymore, they do not

want any politician, whether it is Liberal, PC, NDP, whatever they are, saying:

Don't worry Labrador, you are going to get your full share. We have a vision for

you. They do not want it anymore, Mr. Speaker. What they want is solid

black-and-white legislation, law, that is going to do exactly what this

resolution says it is doing, which is to put it in writing.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the Member for Eagle

River?

MR. SHELLEY: What happened to the Member for Eagle River,

I ask the Member for Labrador West? The people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are

historically known to scrutinize their members for how they stand on Labrador

issues. That is simply put.

The Member for Eagle River learned that very quickly. My

advice to the rookie MHA - and no disrespect to that, we have our own rookie

MHAs who have planned a long career in politics, and he has a lot of potential

so far, he has potential, I say that to the member - is, tread very carefully on

this issue. Because this goes beyond Liberals, Tories, NDP or anything else you

can come up. This comes with the heart and soul of Labradorians who say: We have

watched it for years.

When I lived in Labrador City, they talked about the taxes -

we talked about IOC today, for example - the taxes that these people pay out in

their cheques every week. And they say: We want more, we are not getting our

full share. As a matter of fact, many of the members who visited Labrador agreed

with that, that Labrador has not gotten its full share. That has been concurred

with by most members in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: All members of the House.

MR. SHELLEY: All members of the House, I say to the

Government House Leader. I say that in respect to the Member for Labrador West.

They want something in black-and-white, Mr. Speaker. What this resolution does

is, it lays it on the table and says: Inco, this is what the deal is, this is

what the law of the land is.

Just to talk to the resolution, in particular. What this does

is, it makes it the law of the land. Right now, there are lawyers and judges

around this country who are going to take on a challenge, Mr. Speaker, if Inco

asks for it.

Right now, Inco has sold the idea to their shareholders that

they are coming to a Province named Newfoundland and Labrador, that this is

their tax regime, that these are the shares that you bought, and that is what

they are basing their whole development on, Mr. Speaker, and I want to also say

to the member, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how far this deal has really gone? That is

the question that everybody in Labrador West has been asking me; how much of the

deal has been done? I say to the member and the Member for Lake Melville - that

was changed so often, I mean we have premiers changing boundaries and

everything, I know Labrador West but Lake Melville district, is that correct

now?

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that anybody who is

going to pump money into a hospital for Goose Bay, I applaud them, I am

delighted for the people. I know that there is an old wooden hospital there now

and it is time it was upgraded and so I am delighted. We thump our desks, we

take our hats off to them but, Mr. Speaker, you would have to ask the question,

if you are using any logic whatsoever, that Inco did not come up to Labrador and

go into Goose Bay with the Premier and say: Oh, out of the goodness of our

hearts because we are such nice people, that we are going to just throw in $16

million for a hospital.

Mr. Speaker, companies do not go around doing that and with

all due respect to the company of Inco, which is a reputable company, well-known

around the world for mining and so on, why did they just off the top, with no

suggestion as to why or where it came from, are they throwing $16 million into a

hospital in Goose Bay? Now what is next down the road, what is next? I hope it

is good but, Mr. Speaker, when I see a big company like that throwing around

money without direction to it - is that a concession? Is that something you are

going to take out of the law of the land, of the tax regime? What is the tax

regime?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me to answer that?

MR. SHELLEY: No, you cannot answer it I say to the

member, you cannot answer it, I say to the Member for Labrador West, you cannot

answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) going to be?

MR. SHELLEY: You do not know what Inco is going to do. I

told him how does he know what we are going to do next, Mr. Speaker. This

resolution nails it down.

Mr. Speaker, a company the size of Inco does not go around

throwing $16 million here and $20 million somewhere else unless they were

already talking to the government with some idea of what the whole regime is

going to be. You would have to be foolish to think that a company the size of

Inco that is going to spend billions of dollars, not millions now, we have to

get our heads around this, this is billions of dollars around this, that they

are going to throw money here and there. If they are doing that, Mr. Speaker,

what are they getting, what is the intent when it comes to a royalty regime?

Mr. Speaker, I am no lawyer but I wonder, when it comes to

pass, when it comes time for Inco to pick up the profits, to put back to their

shareholders - and keep that in mind, Inco is not here because they love

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they are here to make billions of dollars.

Anybody who thinks that is foolish, they are here, they are a reputable company

and that is what makes them successful and I applaud Inco. I am glad that a big

company such as this is taking over the Voisey's Bay project and I support that,

Mr. Speaker, but we have to be frank and sincere about this and say that Inco

could have a challenge, I don't know but they could have a challenge - that

question has not been answered yet - that if they come into this Province and

once they start getting their profits and give them to the shareholders which is

their mandate, which is their job, to make sure the shareholders get their

money, that is what they are worried about so, Mr. Speaker, once they start

dishing out the profits, are they going to look back and say: By the way, once

we are five years into it and we start looking at our profit, but we might

challenge this, Mr. Speaker -

The law of the land in Newfoundland, in the mineral tax, the

law of the land in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a mineral tax act

now which gives a ten-year tax break.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. SHELLEY: Man, I tell you, I hope for once, I hope and

pray for the sake of the member and for the sake of every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, that he is right -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we are going to fix it.

MR. SHELLEY: But when you say fix and when you put the

equal sign and say full and fair share, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean diddly

to people in Labrador, it does not mean anything so what we are saying with this

resolution: do not give us lip service, do not go around saying, Don't worry

Labrador, we are going to take care of it but you are saying to Labradorians,

Mr. Speaker, with the approach that you are taking with this bill and this

amendment, what they are saying to Labrador, the Premier and all the government

say: Trust me, I know Labrador has not been treated right before but trust me,

you are going to be treated right this time.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell me, and can the Member for Labrador

tell me that the people of Labrador are sitting back comfortable with that, and

that they are saying: okay, we will give the Member for Labrador and the Premier

time. We trust them to do the job. Mr. Speaker, they do not. If you think that

they trust this whole regime and that they believe it is solid that Labrador is

going to get their full share, you are mistaken. You are seriously mistaken, Mr.

Speaker.

The issue I raised about the copper refinery is still to be

answered I say to the member. My research is continuing and I am still not

convinced that a copper refinery is not feasible for this find in Voisey's Bay.

I say to the member that what I have said are facts on the copper refinery, and

until the government and the minister responsible can tell me they have had an

independent analysis, not by Inco, because, of course, Inco can say, we can send

it to a smelter in Montreal or we can send it to a smelter elsewhere.

Obviously, they can say that, but what we have to say as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, no, no, we are not asking if it is viable

because when you talk about viable you are talking about profit, but we are

asking if a smelter can go here so people can work and you will still make a

profit? It might not be as much as you would have made if you shipped it out,

but could we have it done here? Mr. Speaker, I will hold to it until I am proven

wrong, that a copper refinery is possible and feasible for this operation at

Voisey's Bay.

For one thing, they talk about how much copper we have, which

the numbers go around and around on, but they have not even decided how much

copper is up there. The numbers have gone from 136 million to 200 million, back

to 250. It has been all over the place. My point is, do not make a decision on

something as viable until you know what you have. It is logistics. It is just a

logistical question that must be answered. That is what it is, Mr. Speaker, and

that is tied very close to what is being brought forward today, that `full and

fair share' is not enough. It is lip service.

What you do is put it down in concrete terms so that if Inco

were to come back here with the best lawyers in the world five or ten years from

now, or whatever, like the Churchill Falls fiasco, if you want to link it with

Churchill Falls, which all of us hate and despise, we do not want Inco to come

back with the best lawyers in the world ten years from now saying, I am sorry

but your law of the land, your rules in Newfoundland say a ten year tax break

and we are going to take that.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that if this act stays in place

they can use that as their lever. They will use that as their bargaining chip.

The law of the land now says a ten year tax break and that is Inco's bargaining

chip on other concessions. Maybe Inco is saying, okay, you have your law in

place and we will hold you to that, but if you let us bring the copper out of

Newfoundland and Labrador then maybe we will go along with whatever regime you

put in place.

MR. TULK: I am not really impressed with (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister that it is a

logistical question. I say that with all due respect to the hon. Member for

Labrador, and I have said it since day one. All I am saying is that maybe it is

right, and that the copper refinery should be looked into deeper.

Ontario has 1050 people working in Sudbury in a copper

refinery. They import copper. We do not even know an exploration date yet, and

there could be more tons and tons of copper. What is going to happen? Inco is

saying, no, we are not building a copper refinery here. Exploration continues,

which they say they are going to do, and we discover more and more copper and

then Inco comes back and says, sorry, we have been shipping it out for years and

years and we are going to keep on shipping it.

My point is simple, I think we now have the basis for a

viable copper smelter and let us give it to this Province. More than that, I

will go further, on behalf of the Member for Labrador I will go further on that

statement, I say that a copper refinery is viable and that it should be placed

in Labrador. It would solve a lot of problems. People in Labrador would say,

okay, the government pushed Inco, they took on Inco as far as getting our full

and fair share.

Argentia can have their nickel smelter which is about the

same numbers. The member can regain his homeland because we do have respect for

the Member for Labrador. We realize, and we realize personally, the situation

that the Labrador members find themselves in. I say that because I told the

member. The first few days I got elected I had to face a very controversial

subject in my district as to waste disposal and so on. I know how tough it is

for personal friends of yours, and close family who want jobs, but on the same

hand they are not sure if they should stand up to their morals but you have to

stand by your morals and stand on your principle. Remember where you are from

and remember who brought you.

Remember who brung ya, they said. That is what I say, Mr.

Speaker. Remember who brung ya.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Government House Leader that it

certainly isn't a silly attitude. It is an attitude, Mr. Speaker, that I've

brought to the House and I will continue to have. I dance with who brung me as

(inaudible) constituents -

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian Mulroney (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If Mulroney said it I don't like it. Mr.

Speaker, I say to the member that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I hope we are down the road and

I hope we can calculate and down the road in five and ten years you can say that

we got our full and fair share. Because we aren't saying now we aren't getting

our full and fair share, as an Opposition. We are just trying to put things in

place to ensure that we don't stand up in this House, some other party in

government, or us in government in a few years, or you, or even the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, or whoever is in the House at the time, standing in

this House ten years from now saying: Uh oh, we made another big booboo, and

generations down the road we are going to have to pay for it.

I say to the member today in my conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: In my concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to say: Tread very lightly because this is a very serious issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak

opposing the resolution. Not so much because it is the wrong thing to do, but I

think it is premature to do this that the Leader of the Opposition has asked to

do right now. I do think we need to really consider this in a very detailed way

for a couple of reasons.

One of the reasons being that the tax regime or the royalties

regime is a two-pronged thing. The taxes that are going to come out of Voisey's

Bay and out of the smelter certainly will be some of it going to the Province

and the majority of it going to the federal government. We have to ensure that

what we do in terms of the royalties and the taxes from this resource brings the

maximum benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to understand also that once we get into the tax

regimes our equalization is going to be affected. These are some of the

considerations I believe we have to consider very seriously when we are talking

about establishing a tax regime that is going to be in place for not only

Voisey's Bay, but by next year this time we may have another Voisey's Bay, or

two more Voisey's Bays. We don't know that yet. There is a lot of exploration

going on up in that part of the Province which certainly can yield some benefits

to this Province.

I would just like to say for the Member for Baie Verte that

the people of Labrador certainly are concerned about what is happening in

Voisey's Bay, but I would say to the member, although he is gone - perhaps he

could read Hansard when he comes back - that the people of Labrador are more

concerned about what we will receive in terms of actual benefits, visible

benefits, infrastructure-type things, rather than the tax regimes that are going

to be put in place. The concern is much more visible from the people of Labrador

as to what will happen directly from the development once it gets up and running

in 1999.

Let me say that we have to be very careful in putting

together a tax regime. As I said, we have to be careful for those exact reasons,

that once the tax starts to come to the Province we start to lose equalization.

Are we any better off? We have to ensure that what we are doing with the two

levels of government will fit and ensure that the Province gets the maximum.

I would just like to quote some of the benefits other than

taxes that we should be perhaps more focused on. Some of the major elements that

are going to take place in the Voisey's Bay area, and let me just indicate to

you some of the elements that will certainly ensure major benefits to us in

terms of the employment that we will have, the money generated from the

employment, the money generated from the contracts, the material purchases and

those types of things, which is another very important benefit that we need to

consider.

Let me say that the Voisey's Bay operation will be open pit

plus underground mining facilities. There will certainly be areas where the mine

rock waste has to be stored, so all of those areas have to be worked on. There

is going to be a concentrator, there are going to be tailings facilities, and

all of these operations require people to work, which will be a tax generator,

which will be just as much of a benefit as the royalties regime that we have in

place.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking against this resolution I would also

like to inform this House that in the construction stage of the Voisey's Bay

operation there will be 700 people employed directly on the site, which will be

a major, major benefit for this Province in terms of the taxes that the workers

pay. Once the mill and the mine is up-and-running there will be 500 people

working.

We have to remember that these jobs are long-term jobs. This

operation is not a two-year operation; it is not a three-year operation. It is a

possible operation that will last fifty years.

We have very young kids in this Province today who will be

working on this site in years to come, and we have to ensure that what we do now

will provide the maximum benefit for those people as they become of age.

Mr. Speaker, more than workers benefitting from this major

resource, we can also see many, many benefits to the Province from the provision

of services, the provision of equipment, and the provision of goods and services

that are required to operate these kinds of facilities, and in looking at tax

regimes we certainly have to be cognizant of the fact that all of these types of

things that we see on the ground are as much a benefit when it comes to pumping

money back into our economy.

We have to remember that the tax regime that we put in place

is only part of the tax regime that Voisey's Bay will be paying into in terms of

paying to the federal government and also paying to the provincial government.

We have to ensure that the maximum benefits come to this Province, and I mean

everybody in the Province, both the people of Labrador and the people of the

Island. We cannot differentiate when we talk about tax regimes being a benefit

to the Province. That is where we have to ensure that what we put in place now,

and this is why I speak against the resolution, we need more time to ensure that

the parts of the tax regime that will be in place that will affect the operation

of the Voisey's Bay nickel are - we have to look down the road and say twenty

years from now, or fifty years from now: We did the right thing.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that just changing a few words in

this tax regime is not going to do that. We need to take more time to certainly

consider the fact that there may be more Voisey's Bays out there, and there may

be resource potential out there that this kind of tax regime will affect, and we

will not have to change it again a year down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the

employment at the Voisey's Bay site, both during construction and following

construction, when the mine actually starts to operate. Some of the major

contracts that are proposed are the earth works and the road construction, power

distribution, buildings, marine works, fuel storage, mechanical systems and

piping, electrical and instrumentation and, of course, the support facilities

that will be there because it will be a fly-in/fly-out operation.

Mr. Speaker, I say in conclusion that I feel we need to take

more time to deal with the tax regime than we have currently studied in this

particular resolution. Therefore, I will be voting in opposition to the

resolution.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I can get the

Government House Leader's attention for a moment, he said that some Opposition

members were even clapping for the minister. That is not true. I can tell you

that our Roger, we would never trade him in for your Roger even though he was

over here clapping, I can guarantee you that. Mr. Speaker, at least three more

to match this member right here.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to make a few comments on the Private

Members' resolution put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker,

let me say from the onset that the Member for Labrador West made some good

points. The first one he made was that the Mineral and Mining Tax Act, which was

introduced in 1994, was one of the significant reasons, if not the reason, that

a Voisey's Bay discovery was found. There is a lot of merit to that. The

Opposition of the day, sitting on this side of the House, I was here, we

supported that legislation and the proof is in the pudding, I suggest to all

hon. members. As a result of legislation like that there are now 100 people

working down in a mine in Bay Verte because of the incentives that were provided

to small and medium sized companies.

This act, this piece of legislation was never meant to be in

play and never meant for a significant find like Voisey's Bay. What we have

called for, since January 1, 1995, as an Opposition, were amendments to the

Mineral Mining Tax Act. Amendments that would see - as hon. members have put

forward and I would agree - our full and fair share. We have called for

amendments and a separate project agreement that would realize a number of

things: significant revenue to the Province; the greatest employment

possibilities possible to the Province; to ensure that to the greatest extent

possible, local business opportunities could be realized; that suppliers, who

would supply goods and services, would have the opportunity to do so and that

goods and services from suppliers would not be coming from outside the Province.

Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Mineral and Mining Tax Act

suggested here, come from a genuine concern. We are concerned that this is the

law of the Province. We are concerned that, as a result, the impact upon the

significant find of Voisey's Bay would be detrimental. If the law of the

Province, as it now exists - and we have no reason to believe otherwise because

that is the only law that we are dealing with when it comes to a significant

find like Voisey's Bay or any other mining company but our concern is genuine, I

put forward to all hon. members and if it is not, time will prove it out. If at

some time in the near future or not so near future, government stands up - the

Minister of Mines and Energy or the Premier - and presents a comprehensive

detailed package that will show clearly and will leave no doubt that the

revenues, according to the legislation as it now exists, are not in play for

Voisey's Bay; that there is a separate site agreement that will realize greater

revenues to the people of the Province; that there is a separate site agreement

that will ensure labour peace and harmony on the project; that there is a

separate site agreement that ensures that to the greatest extent possible

employment opportunities are realized for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

that if there is a separate site agreement which says that to the greatest

extent possible that businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador will get the first

chance at supplying goods and services as long as they are competitive, as long

as they can guarantee supply and as long as they can guarantee price that they

have the same chance and the only chance to get business from there then, Mr.

Speaker, I will be the first one to stand up and applaud the government because

that is what should be done.

The concern is genuine as put forward for debate. Now

certainly over the last number of months since the last election, questions have

been asked on this issue in the House on a number of occasions. The Minister of

Mines and Energy has said time and time again that there is lots of time to

negotiate, that we are negotiating a separate deal. The Premier has said time

and time again that Inco knows full well that they are not getting a ten year

tax holiday. Now any suggestion by the Premier in the past or the Member for

Labrador West that the Leader of the Opposition is the only person in

Newfoundland and Labrador today that wants to give Inco a ten year tax holiday

is a complete fallacy. They know it, we know it and everyone in the Province

knows it, I would suggest, but the Private Members' resolution is genuine. It

comes from a concern where we are not convinced that the benefits will be

realized under the present act, under the law that now determines us.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I got a call from a local business

person, was at a meeting relating to Voisey's Bay through the St. John's Board

of Trade and was advised at that meeting that local companies may not - it

looked like they may not have the opportunity to supply goods and services

because Inco already has its list of suppliers, most of which and most of whom

are out of Ontario. Now if that is allowed to happen, Mr. Speaker, if that is

allowed to proceed then we have trouble. If a local company, which can provide

legitimate goods and services to this project, at a cost effective price which

is competitive, can guarantee supply of product or service, and is competitive

but is not allowed by the mere fact that Inco has suppliers outside of the

Province then I suggest that there is something wrong with that, and what we are

seeing or lack of seeing, I have no knowledge of what negotiations are going on

behind the scenes and I don't pretend to have any knowledge of what negotiations

are going on behind the scenes, but I do have a responsibility I say, and I do

have an ability and responsibility to ask the question: Where is the site

agreement? Where is it in the agreement or so-called agreement that is

forthcoming that guarantees a certain portion of revenue to all the Province?

We have not seen it, we are asking for it and like I said,

Mr. Speaker, that if the Premier stands in his place or the Minister of Mines

and Energy stands in his place at some point in time, either in the near future

or not-so-near future and introduces an agreement, where those benefits are

realized, then this member in this House, will be the first one to congratulate

them. But we are waiting to see it and in the meantime, opposition members

should not be muzzled or bamboozled for asking questions that are legitimate I

say right now, that are legitimate questions.

I am in a great frame of mind today unlike most members in

the House. I was here until five after six too but, maybe I should stay up late

more often.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you crossing the floor?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not crossing the floor, sir. I will

live and die as a Tory, die on the vine. You will have no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That you are a Liberal?

AN HON. MEMBER: You may be a Tory but (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I disagree with that altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not a chance, not a chance, no. Not a

chance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member of the point of order that he raised

earlier in the debate about relevance.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for protection

from the Chair from the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentleman needs protection, he is

my member and the Speaker does not have to give it to him, I will. Not a

problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by

saying that the Private Members resolution today is a genuine one. It raises a

concern that I think most people have; it also raises a question that government

I think, ultimately will answer, will have to answer, will live or die by it and

that they have to produce an effective site agreement that governs this project

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but I will applaud you for it. If it is

good for the people of this Province, I will stand up and applaud you for it. It

is as simple as that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let us hear from the man from Labrador

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the resolution put forward by the

Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, prior to my being elected, with Voisey's Bay, I

was told by every person as to how the money should be spent and what we should

do.

Since I came into this House, I have heard members put

forward resolutions as to how the money should be spent and what taxes we should

enforce.

I have found it very difficult when these people do not come

with me and consult because, after all, Voisey's Bay is located in my riding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, we talk of Inco which has more

money than the provincial government, and I stand in my riding where we are

without schools and decent roads, the only riding in all the Province that does

not have any pavement. The only riding that does not have decent schools and to

see the Leader of the Opposition putting forward a resolution to give Inco tax

free, I say to him: buddy, whoop-de-doo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I want to assure this House, and every

member of this House, that Voisey's Bay is located in the District of Torngat

Mountains, and the riding of Torngat Mountains is represented by Wally Andersen,

who was elected and will speak for the people in my riding!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: When this government, my government, brings

in a tax a regime, I will monitor that and the hon. members across the way can

rest assured that if I am not comfortable then I will voice my opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, coming from the poorest riding

in the Province, let me say to the hon. members across the way - the Leader of

the Opposition, and to my good buddy, the Member for Bonavista South - that I am

not here to come out and put out a claw and say that all the revenues or taxes

have to go to Torngat Mountains. I am not here to say that all of the money has

to go to Labrador. No, I hope that every riding in this Province in some way

will benefit from some of the monies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: - will benefit from the royalties and taxes

that will come from Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, unlike other members, I am not going to stand up

here and rattle on because my point is brief, but let me say this: We will deal

with the tax regime through Cabinet and the ministers, and through caucus. The

people in the riding of Torngat Mountains will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad, coming from the land that God gave to

Cain, and if you consider my riding I guess the rump that nobody wanted, there

comes a time - and now we talk of David and Goliath. Mr. Speaker, I may not be a

small man like David, but I can guarantee you, buddy, I can sling a slingshot!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: And any member of this House who puts

forward a resolution that is dealing with my riding, if they do not consult with

me then they had better start ducking because I will sling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) left the House. He is gone.

MR. ANDERSEN: Maybe you should go back on that table that

we called an operating table, that you were sleeping on last night, Lloyd, and

have a little nap.

Mr. Speaker, I say to all members here that I find it

difficult to understand why members can put forward resolutions dealing with

another member's district without any consultation.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that this

government, the Liberal government, for the first time is going to give my

riding a fair chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I think for the first time people in

government are beginning to realize that since 1949, by both the Liberal

government and by the Progressive Conservative government, we have been

neglected. Mr. Speaker, I think we stand at a threshold, a new beginning, where

this Province is going to step forward. I'm glad that my riding is going to be

the riding that is going to lead the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: But when I see resolutions put forward that

could have such a big effect, then I cannot support this resolution put forward

by the Leader of the Opposition, and I will vote against it. I give notice to

any member, if you want to discuss my riding and anything that happens in my

riding, I will be willing to sit down with you any time, any place, any hour of

the day. But God forbid the man who goes into my riding and does stuff in my

riding without consulting me and the people I represent. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I

want to compliment the Member for Torngat Mountains. We on this side of the

House have great respect for the member's commentary, and we want to compliment

him on his presentation. The concern of the member who put forward the motion is

a concern for fairness and balance and a fair share for the people of Labrador,

and for the people of this Province in general.

What we are arguing for is an effective site agreement. We

recognize that the government is now aware the amendments it brought forward in

the days of Premier Wells have shown themselves to be in need of change. When we

made those changes to the mineral tax act back in I think it was 1993 or 1994 we

did not know about the great discovery that would come at Voisey's Bay. At that

time neither did the government, as far as we know, know about the Voisey's Bay

discovery. Therefore this House, including this party, we supported an amendment

that would give incentives to the industry to come and to develop in

Newfoundland and Labrador. However, after we had passed the amendment in 1994 to

give the mining companies a break to establish in Newfoundland and Labrador, we

found that there was a lot of activity.

Then there was the big surprise. The big surprise was the

Voisey's Bay discovery. We share in the excitement and the enthusiasm that we

call Voisey's Bay. As the Voisey's Bay discovery grew bigger it became obvious

that the public pressure was on to amend the legislation. We have said in the

last two years that this particular piece of legislation, the amendment that was

passed in 1994, needs to be further updated. It needs to be looked at.

Premier Wells knew all about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is finding it very difficult to hear the hon.

member's comments. I say to hon. members, the Chair would like to hear him.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased with

the protection that the Chair gives me. Well last night someone shouted across

the House `in conclusion.' Then I said well maybe I can go another ten or

fifteen minutes and then I left because I had been tipped off by a member on the

other side probably.

Mr. Speaker, back to the topic. The topic of the day is a

resolution in the name of the Member for Ferryland and it deals with the need

for us to revisit the mineral tax act of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, Premier

Wells acknowledged that this particular amendment, passed in 1994, was

defective. He said that in the House. He said: I want to bring back in a further

amendment that will assure that we don't put Voisey's Bay in the same category

of development as some of the other smaller developments throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So Premier Wells last autumn - in mid-December put forward a

bill which would amend the mineral tax act. What he had intended was that he

would have public hearings and he would bring it back to the House in January.

That is what he had said and we took Premier Wells at his word. We acknowledged

that Premier Wells had a good business sense and he was committed to the

development of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, when we found in late

December last year that Premier Wells had decided to retire we were concerned

because there had been a statement made by the then Premier that the House would

be called back in session in January to deal with this very matter and there

were a couple of other matters he wanted to deal with. This particular matter

was a priority for Premier Wells a year ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier left we know that we did

have a new leader selected for the Liberal Party and we had an election. Last

spring when the House was called together we expected some, shall we say,

recognition of the fact that this was such a priority for the previous Liberal

government to be continued over into the current Liberal government. W