December 3, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 45

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The 1999 forest fire season in Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the

busiest in recent memory. Exceptionally warm and dry weather conditions caused

an above average number of fire starts resulting in increased hectares being

burnt. Newfoundland Forest Service officials have recently compiled statistics

from the 1999 forest fire season which I would like to share with the House

today.

In 1999 the Province recorded 228 forest fires which burnt a total of

39,291.9 hectares of forested land. Of the 228 fires recorded, 176 were linked

to human cause and fifty-two were caused by lightning.

The department employs 118 staff who are committed to fire suppression. This

included ninety-three fire fighters and eighteen other seasonal workers. Seven

are permanent staff such as conversation officers. In addition to the full time

staff, fire suppression assistance was provided by Department of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods casual staff, a number of volunteer fire departments,

which did tremendous work this summer, and from firefighting services provided

by Abitibi Consolidated.

In an effort to help reduce the forest fire risk, government declared a

Forest Fire Ban on June 24 which remained in effect until July 24. Property loss

resulting from forest fires in 1999 totaled $415,700. This included a number of

cabins, as well as other personal property.

A number of problem fires' occurred during the 1999 fire season. The

most serious fire started in the Buchans area and quickly spread towards the

town of Badger. In a move to protect citizens of Badger, an evacuation, which

lasted six days, was declared. This forest fire was the most serious fire

experienced in our Province in a number of year and it cost in excess of $2

million to deal with. We want to thank the Town Council in Badger and also the

MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans for the excellent work that

they did in the evacuation process, Mr. Speaker. They did a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Everybody did a great job, as a matter of fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, you are very kind. It must be Friday morning.

Mr. Speaker, the total cost of fire suppression activity for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador was $12,583,800. Of this amount, approximately $4.5

million was used to lease and operate aircraft and approximately $8 million was

spent on other operational fire fighting activities.

The level of water bombing activity was also significant. Aircraft activity

consisted of six provincially owned CL-215 aircraft, one leased CL-215 aircraft,

and two CL-215 aircraft on loan from Quebec through the agreement we have with

them. We also had a number of helicopters involved.

Forest fire protection has and will continue to be a priority for this

government. Accordingly, in 1999 my department has initiated and implemented a

number of forest fire prevention initiatives including: equipment development

and testing; upgrading the department's forest fire decision support system; a

forest prevention awareness program targeting schools and youth organizations;

and fire prevention advertising campaigns through the media. As part of

government's ongoing effort to improve its fores t

firefighting capability, our officials are still busy analyzing the results of

this summer, and will be providing further information for the coming season and

an updated strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to note that almost 40,000 hectares of land was burned this

year and 176 fires were linked to humans. That is a very high per cent. Between

75 per cent and 80 per cent are linked to humans. I do not think we can

underestimate the importance of fire prevention, of stressing very proactive

programs to reduce that, and maybe some positive action taken with people where

there is negligence there causing this amount of damage, almost $13 million. We

could do a hell of a lot of promotion

for $500,000, and maybe it could keep that cost down. It is something I'm sure

the minister should look at, in getting proactive, not only in the prevention -

I know there is a certain amount done - but also in looking at the cause of

these, and where there is negligence, there are certain responsibilities that

people have to accept, with the appropriate action taken.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his ministerial

statement. I think we have to pay tribute also to the people who fight the

fires, the water bomber pilots, their crews, and the ground crews who go in and

fight fires, because anyone who has been close to one knows it is a very

frightening experience once a forest fire is raging out of control.

I think also it is important for the minister to understand that this year we

did have complaints. I don't know if they reached his level, but in Labrador

West it was a great difficulty to light a fire, because it rained almost every

day and night. Some of the small business people who owned parks were

complaining about the fact that they were not allowed to have camp fires outside

when they had visitors and tourists in from out of the Province, which is part

of the camping scene.

I think it is important that when we put bans on, rather than the total ban

across the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - to look at the regions where the ban should be in effect

and release it in places where they can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform my hon. colleagues of the status of our two-year fish

price settlement pilot project. This pilot project was proposed by a Task Force

established by government in 1997 to review the Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act, following a number of labour disputes that occurred in the

Province's fishing industry.

The collective bargaining project, which expires on December 31, 1999, has

been very successful, resulting in early fishery openings, orderly fisheries,

consistency of supply to the markets and improved quality products.

In light of the December 31 expiry date, government contracted a private

consultant, Mr. Howard Noseworthy, to evaluate the new fish price mechanism. His

report was submitted to government on November 3, 1999, and it has now been

forwarded to the stakeholders for review. Mr. Noseworthy's report outlines the

positive effect this pilot mechanism to negotiate fish prices has had on the

fishing industry. The improved labour relations from this pilot project has had

a stabilizing effect on our fishery, which in turn strengthens employment

opportunities in both the harvesting and processing sectors. Today I will table

copies of the consultant's report in the House of Assembly, and copies of the

consultant's report can be obtained by contacting the Labour branch of my

department.

I am pleased to report that all parties involved in this pilot project - the

provincial government, Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union - have agreed to a six-month extension,

which will give everyone sufficient time to fully review the consultant's

findings and prepare amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act.

It is important to emphasize that the success of this pilot project is the

result of government-industry cooperation, which I believe is the key to moving

forward in all aspects of our revitalized fishing industry.

The Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister and I would like to commend everyone

involved in the pilot project and acknowledge the support of all stakeholders

for this new model of collective bargaining. It will play a major role in our

ongoing efforts to create a more stable and viable fishing industry for the long

term.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what is happening to the crowd on the other side. Only a short

time ago we saw the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal snatch away the

Fisheries Loan Board authority from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Now we see the Minister of Environment and Labour standing up and reading

ministerial statements affecting the minister's department. What are you doing

to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture over there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: If you think you are going to stifle this man and give

somebody else a leadership edge, then I can assure you that may not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a positive piece of information. I

say to you that since we are confined to the questions that we ask here in the

House of Assembly, when there is a resolution or a piece of legislation brought

forward in the House. Maybe we should restrict Ministerial Statements as well,

because this Ministerial Statement is a direct reflection of what the piece of

legislation, Bill 44, is. It is a complete reflection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, having said all of that, it is a

good piece of legislation. Our fisheries now are operating in a very timely

fashion. The boats are out fishing, rather than being tied up at the wharf, and

I hope that will continue. We look forward of having another piece of

legislation that will not only do away with six months or put a six-month period

there, but have it enacted in legislation so it might happen every year.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember a time when the minister was an expert on mining.

We support the extension. I think it is important, and the early opening of

the fishing season is beneficial to everybody in the Province, particularly

those in the industry. I also think that the three-way communication that has

been involved and the consultations are important as well for anybody who works

in the industry.

I am pleased to note that Mr. Howard Noseworthy, a consultant who was hired

in this particular situation, is a person whom I have worked with for many years

in the iron ore industry. I am certain that he contributed greatly towards the

process being adopted.

I think this is a positive move, and I think the extension is a good thing to

get people (inaudible).

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in

1995, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to match the private

sector contributions to Memorial University's Opportunity Fund up to $25

million. The Opportunity Fund has met with tremendous success and private

contributions have already surpassed the 25-million-dollar-mark.

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute here to the University and in particular to the

Chancellor, John Crosbie, for the very hard work in surpassing this goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: It gives me great pleasure to announce that we have extended

the deadline for matching funds to the end of this year. We will go on matching

the contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations until the end of

In addition, in endorsing the Opportunity Fund, we have not designated our

matching contributions to any specific campaign objectives, providing the

University with the flexibility to allocate the funds so that all of the

campaign goals can be achieved.

The focus of the Opportunity Fund campaign is to lay a sound financial

foundation to enhance Memorial's capacity to attract top students and provide

for their needs as they study at MUN.

Fifteen million dollars is designated for scholarship and fellowship

endowment; $25 million for facilities for health, fitness and recreation; and

$10 million is earmarked to support innovation in teaching and research.

Mr. Speaker, as contributors donate funds, the University is able to

undertake some campaign objectives even before the campaign is completed. By

using the money as it is received, the University has been able to put

contributions to work immediately for students. For example, the construction of

new student centre at the St. John's campus and the Corner Brook campus are

under way and plans are being made for the construction of a new Field House

here in St. John's.

The Opportunity Fund Campaign will ensure enhancements to post-secondary

education that will help our students as they prepare to take on the challenges

of the twenty-first century.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess, good news, and we join with the minister certainly in

supporting the Opportunity Fund and the initiatives that have gone into it; be

it that we have heard it now perhaps four or five times and it has been

announced four or five times.

Again, to get back to the statement which talks about an Opportunity Fund,

certainly there is plenty of opportunity in our post-secondary for infusing of

funds. In this particular case, $15 million going for scholarships, the

facilities, these are all positive things; plus, the flexibility on the part of

the university to use these funds as they see fit. I guess, again, we look at

this as a very positive thing and encourage more of it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Memorial University is the largest university in the Atlantic Provinces but

it is behind many others in developing endowment funds to be able to support the

activities of the University. Many people in Newfoundland and Labrador,

including myself, owe a great deal to the existence of Memorial University and

the Opportunity Fund, and encouraging alumni and others to contribute to the

University through matching funds is a very positive thing and I support the

extension to the end of 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to quote a former colleague of the Government

House Leader this morning, Mr. Steve Neary, when on many occasions he stood in

this House and said: Where are all the important ministers this morning? But I

will not, Mr. Speaker. They are all going to stand up and say: We are here.

My questions today are for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Minister, three years ago -

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

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

MR. TULK: Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition - and I would ask

that this not be taken out of this time, actually, in Question Period - that

normally we try to keep the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. The minister is out of here on a...

I understand what it is to be in Opposition and I understand what my former

colleague, Mr. Neary, was referring to. I can tell him that it was a far

different situation than it is here today; because today the truth of the matter

is that the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy were supposed to be

here. They are on business, as far as I know, at meetings, traveling to and fro,

but let me say to the hon. gentleman that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am trying to be nice to the hon. gentleman. Let me just say

to him that I could have stood and said that the former member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could?

The former member who was in this House, my colleague, was out of order when

he made that statement and I suggest to him that perhaps it is out of order to

refer to people in this House (inaudible).

The truth of the matter is that the Minister of Mines and Energy and the

Premier were supposed to be in their places this morning but, because of an

event which all of us know about at this point in time in the media, those two

ministers were called away. I explained that to the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday afternoon when the House closed so that he could prepare himself

adequately for Question Period this morning.

I understand what it is to be in Opposition and to have ministers out of the

House. Let me say to the hon. gentleman, the point is that all of the questions

that have been asked in this House this week have been answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Oh, yes.

Notice was given of questions and they were answered the next day. If that is

the wish - and that is a perfect parliamentary procedure. If they were asked,

taken notice and answered, that is the way it should be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member want to speak to the point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Just quickly, please.

MR. E. BYRNE: We understand clearly that there are times when ministers

must, when the House is open, leave and go on business of the Crown; but it is

mindful of the fact - and it reminds us today - that, when the House is open,

our primary business and our primary reason for being is to be in the House to

the extent that we can.

I am not trying to politicize the issue, and I hope members understand that,

but it is important, from all of our points of view, I think, that primarily our

reason for existence as members is to serve our constituents and serve the

public, and when the House is open to be here so that we can hold each other

accountable; not just a one-way street but each other.

I did not mean to get the Government House Leader all upset by quoting a

former leader, a former colleague of his, but I guess we can proceed with

Question Period whenever you are ready, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would just like to remind all hon. members that the absence of any

member from this House, particularly ministers, is not the subject of debate and

ought not to arise for discussion. I ask hon. members to keep that in mind.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: To that point, would Question Period start at 9:19 a.m?

Would that be the intent of the Government House Leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods. Three

years ago, when we privatized Farm Products, it was said that Farm Products

would be privatized; it would be put into the private sector. My question for

the minister today is: Why is Farm Products still an operating entity for the

provincial government?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

The Farm Products entity is still operating because we have continued to

monitor the investment of the government in the facility. We have had the board

in operation for monitoring purposes mostly, and also for the once-in-awhile

purchase of a grain boat which we recover 100 per cent of. Other than that, that

is the reason - along with our officials who work within our department to

ensure the monitoring of our investment over the last two years.

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

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

What the minister is actually saying is that Farm Products is now operating -

which is supposed to be privatized - is still operating as a private feed

company. It purchased grain, which was supposed to be privatized - while it is

100 per cent recoverable - is that the role that a privatized entity is supposed

to be on behalf of the government? You privatized Farm Products; it is still in

existence. It is operating as a private sector company, if it is in the business

of purchasing grain for the industry. That was not supposed to happen. Am I

correct, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this must be the only private company, I

suppose, that does not have an employee working; because we have it as an entity

within the government to help monitor and we have used it as a financial vehicle

to assist the other company in its effort to become stable, which I am starting

to believe the Opposition does not care too much about because of the questions

that they keep asking and the refusal to even bother to meet with the owners of

the company to even talk about how they are doing.

At the end of the day, the entity that we have is still there. It does not

employ anybody. It is an entity on our books. We have used it on occasion as a

financial vehicle. It is not a Farm Products company. The impression he is

trying to leave is that we have left it there; we are creating another business.

We are not. We are out of the business but we are also, though - let's make it

clear - we are trying to see this company become a viable entity after

thirty-five years of losses as a Crown co rporation. We are

going to continue to do the best that we can to make that happen without going

back into the business.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me correct the minister, first of all. To my knowledge

nobody has refused to meet on this side of the House with any company that

wishes to meet with us. That has never happened.

Minister, you talk about Newfoundland Farm Products in terms of, it was not

privatized, it is still a entity; there is still taxpayers' money going in.

That is fair enough. You are the one who has to be held accountable for that on

behalf of the taxpayer.

I would like to ask you this question. Over the last couple of weeks there

have been a number of negotiations that you have personally been involved with,

with respect to protecting the taxpayers' interests with respect to the money

that we have put into the industry. I wonder if the minister could update us on

the status of those negotiations and how they are going?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the IPL shareholders and company management

have been attempting to lure investment to help this firm stabilize and to go

forward. They have asked us to facilitate that. We are continuing to do so. We

have indicated to them that we are open to a whole range of options that are

possible to do. We are working with them very closely, as we have for the last

two-and-a-half years, but I think it is better for the shareholders of the

company to comment on the people they are talking to, because they are talking

to them, and we are helping facilitate.

Again, we are hopeful that they will be able to find some further investment

to help stabilize and to move forward, as they are continuing to do. Their

performance has been decent in the last few months but again they have

challenges, and they are working with that and we are working with them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to comment on the

private company, IPL, on behalf of their shareholders. What I am asking the

minister to do is to comment on behalf of his shareholders, the people of the

Province. That is what I am asking the minister to do, to comment on behalf of

his shareholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, you

have been involved with negotiations - I understand that - with at least two

different companies. I understand that there may be more investment required.

Can the minister update us on what is on the table from the Province's point

of view with extra or required investment that may be needed to ensure that the

industry survives?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again he is asking us to talk about

negotiations that are going on between a private company trying to become stable

after thirty-five years of Crown corporation losses. They are trying to lure

investment. They are trying to attract business people to invest in this, and he

wants to have a public discussion in the House of Assembly about what we are

prepared to do and what we are not prepared to do.

What I can say to him is this: On behalf of the shareholders of the company

themselves - on behalf of our shareholders, all the taxpayers of Newfoundland

and Labrador, we will do our best to protect the investment that we have made.

Also, though, we will also do our best and are open to discussions - and we have

told the company this - on our security, what we might do. We have already

indicated that publicly over a year ago. We continue to do so, and we will

continue to work with this company and its shareholders and its employees, to

see whether or not - we want to make this a successful company. We want to see

it become successful in this Province, despite the attempts to have a public

discussion about a private negotiation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt to have a public

discussion about a private company. What we are attempting to do is to have a

public discussion about public money. That is all we are attempting to do, to

find out for sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to find out

that over the last two weeks - the minister knows what I am talking about; I

know he does - that there have been high level negotiations occurring with

respect to government's involvement and government's investment as part of

the chicken industry. What I am trying to get from the minister is: What is on

the table from the provincial government's point of view in not only

facilitating but in assisting the industry to move ahead and thrive? For

example, does it require that government wi ll have to give

up some of its guarantees, for example? Will it require either the federal

government or the provincial government, or both, to put in extra financial

assistance to ensure in their facilitation process - to use his words - is this

the type of thing that this minister is involved with on behalf of the taxpayers

in trying to secure the investment on the one hand and then trying to move the

industry ahead on the other? That is what we are attempting to find out, nothing

more, nothing less.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he wants to know what we are willing to give

up on behalf of the taxpayers. He wants us to publically discuss today. He wants

to know what we are going to give up for a private negotiation that is going on

and we are in here with public investment - we are a creditor, we are a major

creditor - we are in discussions.

Let me see, maybe today we will give up - let me see; I don't know what

figure we have this morning. I will toss out one. I don't know. Mr. Speaker,

totally irresponsible, absolutely irresponsible. I will say this: This effort is

jeopardizing the effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: You don't

have to believe me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, ask anybody, ask the shareholders of that

company what they think about this type of question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. On November 19, I asked the minister responsible for housing

why government put so little money into the regular Home Repair Program, that he

ran up six months into the year and he admitted there was a problem.

Having admitted that you put too little money into the program in the first

place, what plans do you have to top up the program in the interim, with interim

funding so repairs can proceed between now and the end of April?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't recall ever admitting that we put too little money into the

program. What I did say was that we have had, year over year over the past

number of years, a budget of between $7 million and $8 million in the Provincial

Home Repair Program, the successor to the former RRAP program. The $7.3 million,

I believe it is, that went in this year is roughly divided at about $2 million

for urgent repairs primarily for clients of the department of my colleague, the

hon. Minister of Human Resources and Emplo yment. The

balance is put into repairs for individuals in their private homes essentially.

It is a combination of grant and loan program with a grant of up to $5,000

available and loans beyond that.

I would be the first to acknowledge that because of an accumulated list of

almost 13,000 people over the last seven years on the waiting list for some

level of service, not all of whom admitted they are urgent but many of whom

would like to have some repairs done and indeed need some repairs done.

The fact of the matter is that we only have a certain amount of resources

year over year to put into all of our programs. That program, we have funded it

very well over the last number of years. The fact that the money is allocated by

the end of September does not mean that the work is necessarily done. Some of

the work is exterior work and naturally we have to allocate it and get the work

done during the better construction season. For that reason, we get the money

out as early as we can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - against the most urgent needs that are there, keeping in

mind also that we always have the ability to address the most critical needs of

social services recipients as they emerge and as they come forward.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

For the record, the allotment for the Provincial Home Repair Program ran out

in September. I say to the minister, there is still a little money in the Urgent

Repair Program but the Opposition has discovered the department is using a

definition of urgent so restrictive that the home has to be unfit for human

habitation before the department will fix it. What is the minister going to do

for families who do not meet this restrictive urgent criteria, who need repairs

between now and April? Will he not commit more funds now for that purpose?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The program that the member refers to is a program that is delivered for us

through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. I have not had

representation to the effect that we are in a circumstance where we cannot

address the most urgent and emergent needs. So on that basis, I would agree with

the hon. member that we still have the ability to meet the most urgent and

emergent needs, but that is in no way suggesting we have the ability to address,

unfortunately, all of the names of all of the individuals that have accumulated

on the waiting list. We will do the best we can. I can assure the hon. member

that no member of our society will find themselves without a roof over their

head as a result of funding not available to do what has to be done.

We have in the Province also, I would point out to the hon. member, a very

good inventory of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing stock inventory, in some

places. As a matter of fact, we have units in excess of what we currently are in

need of. So in the context of the program, plus with the flexibility we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to now conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - with the number of units we have in our inventory, we are

at the moment meeting the need adequately.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

I say to the minister that we have stories and examples of seniors with

buckets catching water and windows blown out.

In honor of the International Year of the Older Person, the Housing Minister

ran an advertisement about how the regular Home Repair Program is there to help

seniors, but he chose to run the ad at a time when the regular funding had run

out, or had been exhausted. Will the minister either apologize for this false

advertising, or else commit the funds to the program so seniors, who actually

believed the ad to be true, can get some home repair work done as the government

advertized? One eighty-one year old lady was told there was a eight year waiting

list.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any advertising we did to recognize or congratulate or to promote the

International Year of the Older Person was done appropriately, it was done for

the right reasons. We as a government take pride, and I am sure my colleague the

Minister of Health and Community Services takes pride, in the level of effort

that this government has put into seniors' recognition this year. We make no

apologies for that.

The fact of the matter is that in our ad that he refers to in the paper we

did mention the Home Repair Program, and we will continue to make people aware

that there is a Provincial Home Repair Program. It does not suggest that we will

be able to meet every need that comes forward every day. It is done on the basis

of assessed need, and we put those who are urgent and emergent to the top of the

list. That is why people in those circumstances do get looked after and will

continue to be so cared for.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

After three weeks of the so-called public hearings, probably the best-kept

secret in the Province, last night the people of Bell Island expressed their

grave concern over the state of their ferry service. They, like many people of

the Province, cannot believe the arrogance and hypocrisy of this government when

it comes to operating its own provincial ferry service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: People want to know why the Province deemed it so important

to hold high-profile provincial hearings on the Gulf ferry, but has kept their

own so quiet and low-key. Is the Province truly ashamed of their own provincial

ferry service, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some time now in the last week or so the member has been asking several

questions pertaining to the hearings in the Province. Everywhere this committee

went, notification was put in the local papers. It was put on the cable

channels, it was put on the website. Everybody was notified: the users'

committees, stakeholders and community leaders were notified. Not one place in

the Province did I have a call from that said they never had notification. I had

a call from one mayor in one community who said he was not notified. When I

checked it out, I came to find out that he was. There is no difference with the

committee on Bell Island last night. The Users' Committee went to the extent

of even putting out a two-page notification last night about the meetings on

Bell Island. I think the member should check his facts, go back and check with

the people in the communities, and see how many communities have complained

about this. At the end of the day, we will have a good ferry rate review.

The other thing you have to remember, as I said earlier, is the five

communities on this Island when we went around on the forum with regards to the

Gulf service. We will be going into the full sixteen centers that we run ferry

services from in this Province.

The hon. member shouts about Labrador. In 1997, when we took that over from

the federal government, we hired SGE to do a consultant's report on the whole

coast of Labrador. We did it again in 1998, again in 1999, and we will do it

again in the spring of 2000!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker,

isn't it so funny that the committee in Bell Island last night told me that

they did not get any notification from this government? They read in on a

website, put out their own public relations campaign, and they made sure that

there was a packed hall on Bell Island last night! Many people, again last

night, compared the many complaints of our own provincial ferry service to the

Gulf ferry service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, many people last night compared the high

profile forum around the Province with the Gulf ferry service with the

provincial ferry consultations. Three ministers were on that high profile forum

that went around this Province, and much public relations. There was no name

attached to this one like there was with On Deck and Below -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: The question that the people simply put forward last night,

minister, was: Does this government agree that the provincial ferry service is

as vital as the Gulf ferry service?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, any ferry service, no matter where it is,

whether it is in this Province or anywhere else in the world, as far as I am

concerned is a vital service, especially when it is a community service to

people.

We make no apologies whatsoever for what we are doing on Bell Island or

anywhere else in the Province. Granted, everywhere you go there is always room

for improvement, but I will tell you, on the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker,

it is costing the Province approximately $13.5 million a year to run the ferry

service on the Island itself, another $15 million on the Coast of Labrador,

north and south. On Bell Island alone, we take in approximately $630,000 in

revenues. The Bell Island service costs us around $4 million to operate. It

costs $2 for a commuter and a vehicle to come across on the Bell Island run, the

lowest in the Province. To get on a bus anywhere in St. John's it is $1.50,

regardless of how far you go, and $1.50 to return. Three

dollars, regardless of where you go in this city.

Having said that, I will say that we always consult with the Users'

Committee on Bell Island for the last five or six years. There is nothing done

without consulting with them. It is done in concert with their wishes. Mr.

Speaker, the same thing will apply from now on.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, they need to apologize, I say to the minister.

Last night, some people on Bell Island suggested maybe we will title this

particular consultation as: Hush and Below Deck. In 1991, there was a promise by

this government, as reported last night by the presenters, on the ferry rates,

that it would be the equivalent cost of road travel. You also, in your own

recommendations, in On Deck And Below, suggested the same thing. I would like to

ask the minister: Is he going to follow his own recommendations and fulfill that

1991 promise?

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

MR. WOODFORD: I do not know anything about 1991, but I do know a few

things about today. The recommendations in On Deck and Below recommended a

five-year freeze on the fares on the Gulf. We put a freeze last February on all

rates in the Province. This is what this committee is doing. It is going around

the Province to hear from all the stakeholders in the areas to see what we are

going to do. That is not necessarily saying we are going to have an increase.

Last night, there were publications put out proposing that we are going to

put a $15 rate on the ferry service, on the Bell Island fare. That is totally

misleading. Fifteen dollars, they are saying, that government is going to put on

it. We had nothing to do with that. When the hearings are held, at the end of

the day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. A

few weeks ago, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans came and

met with our provincial minister here. I heard the minister on the radio,

beaming with excitement about the new-found understanding he had with the new

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the good relationship that he had with him.

I would like to ask the minister, as the minister responsible for the fishermen

in this Province, if he had brought forward the concerns to the deputy minister,

or to the new minister, of 2,448 fishermen who now have to fish crab on a

year-to-year basis by a permit rather than a license? The fishermen are asking

to have a license so they might be able to plan their future in an orderly way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I am going to tell you, you just got a body blow.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I brought every concern that I am aware of to the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, to his executive staff, and to the new ADM in science. The

one thing that I find a bit hilarious is that, if I were out there calling the

minister down and criticizing him, you would be jumping all over me for that.

The fact that I feel good about consultation, and that we have an open-door

policy between here and Ottawa, I think is good news for the Province.

Have I brought to the attention about the 2,400 people who are operating on

permits? The one thing I brought to the attention of the new minister, and all

previous ministers, is conservation; a concern about how much crab, how much

shrimp, how much fish we are harvesting on a year-over-year basis.

Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think, except three boats today -

of the 5,000 boats, there are about three who do not have the opportunity to

harvest crab. Yes, those small boats are operating on a permit. They can operate

it year over year until the stocks become such that they would have to leave the

fishery for a period of time.

Conservation is the key measure. The permits are for the small-boat

fishermen, those who are grandfathered in with the larger boats and larger

license there; but conservation is a key measure, and I am not going to be part

of putting too much demand on the resource to go the way we did in 1992.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, when he stands to respond, if he agrees that those

small-boat fishermen should have a license?

The other part of it: I heard the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the

Fisheries Broadcast, I think it was, and one of the questions that was posed to

him at that time was by one of those small-boat fishermen from the under 35-foot

sector. The minister's reply was that he was afraid to issue licenses rather

than permits because he was scared that those fishermen would come back looking

for compensation in case we had to reduce the quota for crab catch around the

Province. I ask the minister if he shares that concern, or

is that a justifiable concern to not allow those people to fish with a license

on a regular basis?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador

will agree today that the fishing industry is doing very, very well. There are

some disciplined management plans being put in place, unlike what was put in

place when your former cousins were in Ottawa. Remember, everybody in this

Province, including members opposite, blamed Ottawa for mis-managing the fishing

industry.

Do you think, if anything happened to the fishing industry today, when

everybody plays a role in making decisions - industry as a whole, fishermen,

harvesters, processors, workers, unions, scientists, politicians, government

executives, everybody sits at the table and makes a decision on what is best for

the fishing industry - do you think there would ever be another TAGS program or

NCARP program? I think not. So, we had better manage the fishing industry for

the overall best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the

long term, not the short term.

Like the shrimp permits that were given out, what did the minister say? We

will not give shrimp licenses to fishermen but we will give shrimp permits;

because, if you are going to go in there and something happens to the resource,

you would have to move one side for it.

Management is the key factor, long-term sustainability is the key factor, and

making sure that every decision we make -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon minister to conclude his answer.

MR. EFFORD: - is made for the best interest of the fishermen, the people

of this Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, since you allowed the Fisheries Loan Board to be taken

from your department over to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal,

those small-boat fishermen now, who would normally go through that process with

the new rules and regulations, find themselves now having to go to the bank,

having to go to the merchants and become slave to the merchants in order to

arrange financing for boats and supplies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, since those fishermen now are only

allowed to have permits, they find themselves unable to access loans through

chartered banks; they find themselves having to go to the merchants and become

slaves to the merchants again. I say to the minister: Would you, Minister,

commit today to take their plight forward to Mr. Dhaliwal in Ottawa in order for

those people to be issued licenses rather than permits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the statement that the member just made about

fishermen having to go and sell their souls to the industry, that is untrue.

The second thing I will say is that, while I am Minister of Fisheries, there

will never be another Fisheries Loan Board like it was in the past; not while I

am in this chair. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. What did we do last year? We brought

in a policy change last year that a fisherman can go to any bank of his or her

choice and get a guaranteed loan from government from one dollar up to whatever

it cost to refurbish their boats or buy gear or buy engines or buy equipment

whatsoever. There is absolutel y no

need to go back to the past. We made enough mistakes in the past. We are going

forward to the future; that makes good business sense. Today we are not putting

one nickel into the fishing industry in any form whatsoever, no taxpayers'

dollars into harvesting or processing, and we are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: - $900 million

with no taxpayers' dollars, and I am not going to change that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not answered the

question. I refer back to his statement saying that the Fisheries Loan Board

will never be like it was, while he is minister. Minister, you are not the

minister over the Fisheries Loan Board any more. You allowed that to be taken

from you and put in another department -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - controlled by another department separate from the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture altogether.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, will you commit today to go to your cousin up

in Ottawa, plead for them to give the 2,448 fishermen a licence so they might

become independent, proud people in this Province again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: What remains of the Fisheries Loan Board is under the

responsibility of my good friend and colleague, the hon. Beaton Tulk. We are

like two people joined at the hip. We work together on every issue, on every

single issue in this Province!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

Notices of Motion

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: If I may, Mr. Speaker, just for the benefit of the hon. the

Member for Waterford Valley, to advise him that the financial statements for the

year 1998 for Marble Mountain were included in the public accounts statements

for last year and have already been presented in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had called Answers to Questions for Which Notice had been Given,

but the hon. minister, I think, was tabling a report there.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

Petitions

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there are no questions outstanding so we cannot

stand and give answers to nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 10, Bill 28,

An Act Respecting The Operation Of

Mines And Mills In The Province. The alternate minister, of course, will be

ready to answer any and all questions, I am sure, when she clues up debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This bill has been called for second reading. Has the hon. the Opposition

House Leader adjourned debate on this one?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he did.

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

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

Bill 28 is an important piece of legislation from a couple of points of view.

We met recently - myself, the critic for Mines and Energy, the Member for St.

John's East and the Member for Baie Verte - and had the opportunity to sit

down with the mining industry earlier this to talk about the concerns within the

mining industry, to talk about where they see and where they hope to see the

mining industry going, and specifically then discuss to some detail the bill

that is now before the Legislature.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, when he introduced the bill, took some time

at length to talk about the positive initiatives that are taking place. Let me

say first of all that the mining industry and the future and opportunities

within the mining industry in this Province are very bright, but are dependent

upon a number of factors. In any province in any part of the world, the

opportunity to not only explore and the opportunity to create and build a

sustainable long-term mining industry that are important for discoveries depends

upon fundamental factors.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to capital and capital investment, the mining

industry is always - where investment is made, particularly in the junior mining

industry, there is an opportunity by government, and government, from a

regulatory point of view, opens up the opportunities for the junior mining

industry. In the last year, for example - this time last year - we passed

amendments to the Mining Act involving particularly two points - two serious

amendments. At the time, everybody knows, this was aimed at - it was called the

Inco piece of legislation or the Inco amendments, but it had detrimental impacts

and it had detrimental effects on the industry from a couple of points of view.

Number one, this Legislature passed last year, giving the Cabinet the right,

at any point in a mining operation, whether it is at the exploration phase or

exploration discovery phase, whether it is at the production phase, that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, meaning the Cabinet, could make changes to the

in a very serious way on the ability of junior mining companies to get

exploration money, to continue to get exploration money, to move on, because the

environment was not stable. It was not perceived from the financial markets

where capital is raised, where capital from junior mining companies is raised so

they can continue exploration and move ahead in discoveries. That was a serious,

serious drawback to them, and it was reflected in this year in the amount of

exploration activity that took place in the Province.

The second amendment that we passed last year dealt with the independent

right of appeal; that we eliminated, as a Legislature, the notion that a company

could appeal independently to a third party or an independent group that would

allow, if there was a difference of opinion that was significant - because it

would have to be to even get to that stage - that the mining interests or

exploration companies, whether they are just in exploration or in production of

a mine, that fundamental right would be taken away from them.

Now the Legislature went a long way to ensure - and I know government did as

well - to provide assurances to the mining community that this was not aimed at

junior mining companies, that this was aimed directly at a situation and an

impasse that was created with Inco. Even though those assurances were provided,

it was enshrined in law and it was a negative impact. I guess the converse or

the flip side of the coin, the government moved in another direction last year

that was positive. They increased the amount of money provided to mining

industries so that for every dollar a junior mining company could raise,

government would match it. This was a very positive initiative. It was certainly

reflected in the comments by both myself, and the critic and the Member for Baie

Verte, in terms of what the industry needed.

Their suggestion is a valid one. They have requested of government that they

increase that program in terms of dollars, because it is an investment. In

increasing it, government has demanded that before they access that incentive

program, junior mining companies must up front immediately indicate and show the

provincial government and the Department of Mines that their money is already in

place. What that has done is that it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is correct. The fund last year was $2 million. My view

is that it should be based upon the experience of the fund itself. It has

provided not only incentive for capital to come but for junior mining companies,

because they have been able to use it in terms of the financial marketplace

where they raised capital. They have said: What we are talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon? What it has done for them in raising capital is

that they have been able to say: For every dollar you provide to us, we can turn

around - the provincial government, through this fund, has put its money where

its mouth is, in saying that we are talking about fifty cent dollars up to a

maximum of $2 million because we have been able to access a program designed to

stimulate the industry, a program designed to increase the level of exploration

activity.

Newfoundland and Labrador is seen, I say to my colleague for Baie Verte, in

many ways a virgin territory for exploration. There are significant finds yet

unfound. That is what the belief of the industry is, and I agree with them.

Having the right set of circumstances, the right conditions and the right

environment for this industry to move into and direct is going to be very

important.

Mr. Speaker, I would only hope that if we do reach an agreement with Inco,

that if we see it next week - I anticipate seeing something next week; a

tentative agreement, or framework, or an agreement in principle outlining where

it is - that part and parcel of that agreement will see the amendments that we

made last year brought back before the Legislature, to be revoked. It would be

very important for that to be done.

I am not going to delay the bill, or we are not going to unduly hold up the

bill. I will close my comments by saying this. This is a growth area. The

industry has huge potential in terms of the opportunity not only to discover,

but the opportunity to create jobs, the opportunity to create wealth, on a year

over year basis. As one mine shuts down, if exploration is still continuing,

that we may find others. It can be done, and must be done, in an environmentally

sensitive way. The laws of the Province will certainly provide for that. Where

they do not, obviously the public, who are interested in not only the

exploration side and the production, will ensure that it is done in an

environmentally sensitive way, that it proceeds along those lines.

I want to say for the public record as well that the individuals who we met

with, the people who are the leaders within the mining industry in this

Province, certainly provided to us a good insight of what this industry needs:

the positive attitude that they demonstrated, the research that they provided to

us, certainly showed, from our point of view, that this piece of legislation

they support wholeheartedly. Based upon what they have indicated, based upon our

own analysis of what this legislation wil l

do, certainly we have no hesitation in supporting it. I know two other members

for sure would like to make some comments, the Member for Baie Verte, and the

critic for Mines and Energy the Member for St. John's East. They want to

express their own thoughts on it. This certainly is a piece of legislation that

is timely, that we can support as an Opposition. The debate on it has occurred

in many other shapes and forms, because industry has been consulted. These are

the important words here, that in dustry has been

consulted. In my view, as a result of those consultations, their views are

reflected in Bill 28 and thus reflected on the floor of the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the Opposition House Leader

that I am not going to be making statements day after day in this House of what

comes out of the consultation process that the government is now involved in

when it comes to Jobs and Growth.

I can say to him that yesterday evening we heard from the mining chamber of

mineral resources. I forget their exact name. The point that they made to us is

that indeed the exploration by junior mining companies in the Province - and we

all know how difficult it is for junior mining companies these days to raise

cash on the stock market because of Bre-X and so on. Because of that shemozzle

that went on, it stained the reputation of every junior mining company and, to

some extent, the major mining companies in the country. Mr. Froude then went on

to say that without the investment fund, the matching dollars that we put in

last year, the $2 million, he did not know what kind of state, really, the

mining industry would be in the Province but that it had basically saved their

bacon. That as a result of that $2 million they were able to raise another $2

million of private investment; that drove up the amount of exploration in the

Province to $4 million of exploration funds this year for junior mining

companies, because they matched it dollar for dollar with private investment.

I think it is fair to say that the praise that was given to the government

yesterday evening is something they deserve. I think it is also fair to say that

the mining company is appreciative of that and they did, at that time, encourage

us to carry on that program, and indeed carry on and add to that fund if it was

at all possible within the fiscal capability of the Province. They did point out

to us that there is great potential, as we all know, in Newfoundland and

Labrador, particularly in the area of Labrador which is largely unexplored,

largely unknown in terms of its mineral wealth for exploration for junior mining

companies.

One other thing that I would like to say, and I think all members of the

House should be aware of this, is that the mining or mineral chamber of

Newfoundland and Labrador recently entered into a very good consultative process

on the West Coast with Little Grand Lake. We were able to sit down with

concerned environmentalists in the Province and foresters. Every concerned

citizen in the Province was able to sit around the table and agree that both of

them would live together, and still put together an habitant that would protect

one of our endangered species, the pine marten.

I think it was also clear yesterday evening, in this gentleman's

presentation, that the mining industry - and the place that this gentleman used

to back up his point was Nugget Pond - has become very environmentally

conscious. They believe that at this point in time they can go in and do mining

without scarring the landscape, without destroying the natural vegetation, and

without destroying the living creatures that are so dear to us all. He quoted

Nugget Pond as an example. I sincerely believe that the

gentleman is correct and stated a case that is real, that in the Nugget Pond

area the mining that is being done there is being done with minimal, if any,

damage to the environment. So there are some good things happening.

This act itself is

an act that requires mining companies not just go in and

haul out the mineral and leave our environment in a state that none of us wants

to see, but that they put in place a plan of action that will see that the land

is reclaimed. Reclamation is required, and for that reason we are proud as a

government. We are proud to have the Minister of Mines and Energy bringing

forward this very progressive legislation, as he did last spring when he put in

the amendments to the minerals act or whatever act it was, to see that indeed we

provide the incentive to the junior mining companies so that they can go out and

raise private money on the various stock exchanges in the country.

I guess what I am saying is that I am reinforcing somewhat what the Leader of

the Opposition said and what the consultations with the mining industry have

been able to be produced by this government and by the mining industry generally

in this Province. I think it is fair to say that the mining industry in this

Province probably has a brighter future than any other Province in the country.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to participate for a short while in this debate on the new

mining legislation. Comments made by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition,

and by the Government House Leader, I think, are indicative of the fact that,

generally speaking, there is widespread support and approval for this new mining

legislation.

I guess perhaps one of the biggest reasons why the industry is supportive of

this new act is because the mining industry and those individuals and those

companies that are directly and daily involved in mining activities in our

Province were part of the process. They gave input, they were active

participants in the review of the draft legislation, and they felt a part of

these changes that were going to be made which would affect their activities on

a daily basis.

Therefore, when any government takes the time to invite those participants in

a particular industry or activity to be a part of the growing process and if, in

fact, those participants agree, it can only be legislation that is considered

positive and a step in the right direction.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Baie Verte - of course, which

has a very rich history in mining in this Province - and myself, we had the

opportunity to meet with representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Chamber of Mineral Resources Inc. on Wednesday past. It was clear, in the

meeting with them, that they were fully supportive of the legislation which was

now before the House in Bill 28.

What I would like to do is just refer for a few minutes to some of the

features of this legislation, which I think are important for the public to

understand and for members of this House to have some understanding of as well.

The bill obviously repeals the former Mines Act. When we look at both pieces

of legislation, we see some relatively new and significant changes. We have new

definitions that are added. We have safety regulations which were previously

referred to in the old Mines Act now being transferred to the occupational

health and safety legislation in the Province. The nature and type of

development plans have been changed significantly. The penalties for

contravention of the act have been increased, and the Cabinet may now exempt

companies from the act. Also, there is a need under this new legislation for

financial assurances to be given to government.

I guess really what the mining companies now have to provide is a form of

security to this government, so that their activities may proceed without

government left holding the bag, as it were, when companies no longer, due to

their own financial circumstances, can continue to develop the work that was

ongoing.

One concern that was raised during the meeting is with respect to

section 15,

which talks about the aspect of confidentiality. I will refer to that in more

detail in a moment.

The new

definitions that are being added in this legislation: one is a mill,

which is now defined as ... a facility in which a substance containing

minerals may be concentrated by a physical or chemical process or otherwise

treated, except by simple washing or crushing. This is a change from the

previous legislation.

An operational plan is defined as ...an annual plan filed with the

minister in anticipation of the development of a project for the year following,

containing the information that the minister may require.

Then there is the whole

section of the legislation that deals with

rehabilitation and closure plans. This whole concept of rehabilitation or

reclamation, as the act refers, is perhaps the major change and the major

improvement found in this legislation in the fact that a mining company simply

cannot leave the jurisdiction, leave the Province, and, once they have left,

leave the residue of work that is done as a result of the mining activity. It is

now clear that there must be strictly adhered to rehab ilitation

plans, and the whole concept of reclamation is addressed in detail. In fact,

rehabilitation and closure plans means, a plan as prescribed by the

regulations acceptable to the minister which describes the process of

rehabilitation of a project at any stage of that project up to and including

closure, and includes information required by the minister.

There are now relatively strict guidelines and we will not see examples as we

have seen in the past in this Province where companies have left severe waste

and have left an actual mess on the site, only for people in the community and

people who live in the various residences to have to live amongst this debris

indefinitely.

With respect to the safety regulations, Bill 28 not only removes the

references to the safety of employees but

section 24 of the bill transfers these

regulations previously made under the Mines Act to the Occupational Health and

Safety Act. It is therefore a position of the mining council, when we met with

them the other day, that this ought to give move clout to the safety regulations

and is now under the blanket legislation of occupational health and safety in

the Province.

The bill requires, in addition, not only that development and plans be

provided to the minister but it introduces, as we have just referred to, the

rehabilitation and closure plans.

Section 6 stipulates that, Before

commencing a project, a lessee shall submit a development plan to the minister

for his or her approval..., and there are some specific requirements. I will

just mention some of them: Information with respect to the mode of development

includes the measures the lessee will undertake to in sure

the product confirms to resource management and contains other information

required by the minister.

It is clear that there is an effort in this legislation to point out and

address obvious environmental concerns.

Section 6.(4) indicates, ...a lessee shall file with the minister annually

an operational plan for the project containing information respecting the

operation of the project in the coming year.... Again, an attempt to keep the

department informed and, in so doing, keeping the public informed.

Section 7 requires the lessee to produce an annual report with respect to the

operations in the preceding year. So, it is not only record keeping of the past

and the future, but also the present activities must be addressed and the

minister and the department being kept up-to-date.

The contravention

section is important because of the increase in fines.

Under the act, the penalty for contravening certain sections of the act was a

summary conviction - this is in the previous act - it was treated as a very

minor offence to a fine not exceeding $200. This new legislation gives a penalty

for contravention of not more than $10,000 and not more than $10,000 per day for

a continuing offense. It is fair to say that this legislation has teeth and that

this legislation is an attempt to show any person wanting to do business with

the Province that it means business, and that a contravention of this

legislation will be treated seriously.

Section 17 of the bill gives Cabinet the authority to define, by a

regulation, a project as small scale, and

section 3 then allows the minister to

exempt these small scale projects from the application fo the bill.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his few words on this legislation, referred

to the financial assurances and the fact that junior mining companies must now

give the Province, and give the department, financial assurances and different

forms of security before it can undertake mining activity in the Province.

Section 10.(1) indicates that the lessee shall - so it is mandatory - provide

financial assurance as part of the rehabilitation and closure plan, while

subsection 10.(3) stipulates the amount of the financial assurance be equivalent

to the amount stipulated in the rehabilitation and closure plan itself.

Again, there is an attempt in this legislation for financial certainty and to

ensure that again the Province is not left simply having to deal with situations

when defunct companies abandon their obligation and leave the jurisdiction

completely.

One issue of concern that was addressed was with respect to subsection 15,

and I just want to refer to the wording in the draft legislation.

Section 15

reads, Any information provided to the minister or an inspector acting under

the authority of

section 7, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be kept confidential unless an

agreement for disclosure is made between the minister and the lessee.

There are some concerns with respect to that particular provision, I would

suggest, simply because again it may be an attempt by government not to release

information that the public is entitled to. It is a shame, perhaps, that this

legislation just does not go one step more and perhaps release some of the

strength of this confidentiality provision; because, when one reads

section 15

of the legislation, one may get the impression that there is a provision in this

legislation - despite all the good work that has been done here, and despite the

fact that it has support from the industry at large - that government may again,

even in this act, be attempting to fail to disclose information that the public

may be entitled to.

Subsection 15 indicates that the annual report of operations, the

rehabilitation and closure plans, compliance with the plans, information

regarding the financial assurance, information obtained by inspectors,

geological logs, site boundary plans, underground level plans, surface plans,

pit development plans, ultimate pit development plans, and site boundary plans

may be kept confidential unless an agreement for disclosure is made between the

minister and the lessee.

What could potentially happen with this simple

section 15, referring to

confidentiality, is that everything that is being attempted, and all the good

work and revisions and the repealing of the former act, an attempt to bring this

legislation into today's thinking, could potentially be revoked and reversed

by the

section on confidentiality.

It seems to me that is a shame, because the act suggests disclosure. The act

suggests openness. The act suggests an equal playing field for junior mining

companies and for government alike, and for the public to be a part of this

process, but

section 15 could have the potential of limiting what is being

attempted to be done - a positive attempt, I may add - with respect to all the

other sections and subsections and provisions of the new mining legislation.

It is a caution that certainly I would alert hon. members to, and it is

perhaps a shame as well that the wording is to this point.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Pardon me?

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The Minister of Government Services and Lands is

wondering what could replace it. Perhaps wording in the

section that makes it

clear that in circumstances where it is absolutely essential, that

confidentiality exist; wording of that nature which may define and limit

examples of where confidentiality is essential and keeps the integrity of the

project in the agreement between the company and government. At least it is not

as wide open, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. This

wording is so broad and so vague that perhaps anything, if the parties agree,

could be kept confidential.

Under the act, which this bill replaces, the only information to be kept

confidential, as outlined in

section 8, are copies of plans of the underground

works existing on December 31 of the preceding year, and in the event of a

suspension of work in a mine, a copy of the underground works existing at the

date of cessation of the work. So again, we have perhaps in that

section only -

section 15, referring to confidentiality - perhaps a step backwards, a step

in the opposite direction, which really contravenes, I would suggest, the spirit

of this new legislation.

Having said that, I am swayed by the fact that the industry at large is

supportive of this legislation. In a very productive meeting that I referred to

earlier, that was attended by my good friend the Member for Baie Verte and our

leader, it was clear that the industry was supportive. In fact, a press release

that was issued just a couple of days ago by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Chamber of Mineral Resources Inc. states:

The representatives of the mining industry as well as other interested

parties have had an opportunity for input during the development of the Mining

Act. The manner in which the Provincial Government and the Mining Industry

cooperated during the development of this Act sends a strong signal that both

parties will work together to build a strong, modern industry.

A strong, modern mining industry will help in job creation and investment

growth to help the people of the Province build a more secure future.

The public can only be encouraged, I would suggest, when you have the

individuals who are most directly affected reading and hearing these sorts of

statements by this umbrella group. This is a group, this is not just one or two

individuals. This is a group that has its own executive director. It has its own

board of directors. It is made up of representation of the service industry and

made up of representation of junior mining companies and consultants in the

mining industry. It is an umbrella group for many individuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Pardon? Yes, he was there. He is the executive director,

I believe. It is an umbrella group that represents a variety of agencies and

individuals involved in the mining industry, and one can only be swayed by their

support.

In conclusion, I would just simply wish to repeat that the provision that is

found pursuant to

section 15 of the legislation is a concern. One would hope

that information, when requested by the public at large, and when inquiries are

made by private citizens, by Opposition members, even by competitors in the

mining industry, if information is requested of government and if it is felt to

be in the public interest that this information be released, that it would be

offered freely and without any hesitation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise and say a few words on Bill 28 and talk about the Mining

Act of the Province. Of course mining, as everybody in this House is aware,

contributes greatly to the economic well-being of the Province and certainly

employs a lot of people in a lot of different places around the Province.

Some sections of this bill that I want to comment on are positive. Certainly

section 10, talking about rehabilitative plans in the event of a mine closure,

is something that is a very positive step. Because it will ensure that in the

future we will not have the eyesores in different areas where mining activity

took place and the owners eventually walked away, such as in Hope Brook, for

example, and other places in the Province, where you see the scars of the land,

where people who reaped the economy benefit walked away once they no longer had

any purpose for the mining they were conducting.

In addition,

section 2(

m) talks about progressive rehabilitation, which means

rehabilitation done continually and sequentially within a reasonable time

during the entire period that a project continues. I would say that this is a

very important aspect of this bill. Because a lot of times when mines,

particularly, are developed in close proximity to the communities there are a

lot of hazards that are created in terms of waste being dumped, tailings, other

areas that threaten the community, the well-b eing and the

health of people who live there.

It is important that as the mine continues, rehabilitation work is taking

place simultaneously so that at the end, when the mine life expires, it is not a

rush to do things, but it also will offer protection for the communities on an

ongoing basis, so that the seeding, or whatever is required, will protect people

from dust or other chemicals coming into their community and exposing both them

and their children. That is an important aspect of that bill.

However, I would like to say that I think there is an additive that should be

made when it comes to mining, because there is an old saying that is quite true,

that the day a mine opens is the day it begins to close. It is an non-renewable

resource, and as such it should be given special consideration.

One of the things we would like to see in this bill is what we refer to in

the mining industry as a depletion fund. That means that for every ton, pound,

or ounce, depending on the mineral that is being mined, money would go into a

fund that would eventually deal with the people. We talked about things in the

bill that deal with the land and the environment, but we also have people in the

mining industry who, when a mine closes, are left without any alternatives but

to try and figure out what they are going to do with the rest of their lives.

In 1982 and 1983, in Labrador West for example, there was a severe downturn

in the mining industry, thousands of people were displaced, and there was

nothing in place whatsoever to help them deal with what was happening to them.

At that time we approached both levels of government, provincial and federal,

and the amount of financial assistance that came forwarded equated to about

$2,000 for each person who left the area, far from what was required.

We believe and feel strongly that there should be a depletion fund where a

certain amount of money goes into a fund depending on the amount mined that will

eventually do a couple of things when the day comes when the mine cuts back, or

when the day comes when it eventually closes. That money can be used for

training, and it would be able to be used for relocation, it would be able to be

used to create secondary industries or other industries in the region that would

allow people to remain in their communities. I think a depletion fund from the

royalties on the quantities of ore that is being removed would go a long way to

helping people be able to deal with the problems that are created when a mine

eventually closes down.

The other

section that I would like to touch on is

section

Section 12

talks about the record keeping that a holder of a lease must obtain and keep

current. That is also an important aspect of this bill, because, again, in the

mining industry we refer to high grading. where companies can come in, open a

mine and just take the very cream of the crop. This does a couple of things. It

enables them to make higher profits in a shorter period of time, but while doing

that, they certainly cut short the life of the mine itself. That is not in the

best interest of this Province, it is not in the best interest of the people who

are employed in the mines, and it is not in the best interest of the communities

in which they live.

I am glad to see that, while they have to report, I think it is important

that the Department of Mines continually keep a vigil on the mining plans of

companies and duly-required inspections to make sure that their activities are

indeed keeping in line with the plans that have been submitted.

Section 24 talks about the regulations under the authority of the Mines Act

shall be considered to have been made under the authority of the Occupational

Health and Safety Act and may be amended, revised or repealed under the

authority of that act.

We have a bill coming before this House on the occupational health and safety

legislation in the Province, and from reading through that bill, when that is

debated, we will certainly be expressing some serious concerns that we have with

that particular piece of legislation.

While I do not have any disagreement with the regulations from the Mining Act

coming under the occupational health and safety, it will be a factor in our

discussions when the Occupational Health and Safety Act comes before the House.

One of the, I guess, most disturbing parts of this bill is

section 16, Notwithstanding

another provision of this Act, where a lessee has been granted mining rights

under (

a) The Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Limited Act; and (

b) The

Nalco-Javelin (Mineral Lands) Act, 1957...

The Javelin Act has been a point of contention, particularly in Wabush where

this act applies, and far as I understand it is the only place in the Province

where this act applies. What we have by virtue of recognition of Javelin

Corporation, we have a company who is making in excess of $2 a ton in royalties,

which is most years for Wabush that works out to $12 million or $14 million,

that they do not do one thing to earn. They do not have any employees in this

country. They have a fax machine and a bank account in Vancouver, and the only

person who is in charge of that, of course, is the infamous John C. Doyle, who

is living in Panama.

We have made representations to government over the years to do away with

this piece of legislation. It is not necessary. In 1993 negotiations, Wabush

Mines came close to being closed down because of their margin in operating. At

that time, both the company, Wabush Mines, their shareholders Cleveland-Cliffs

Inc. and the union, met with government to try to get them to do away with this,

because that equated to $12 million or $14 million for nothing, absolutely

nothing. Javelin Corporation does not contribute one thing to an community in

this country, but they reap the benefits because of an agreement from years and

years gone by, 1957. Both the union and the company wanted government to

intervene and do away with this legislation because the money that was being

paid in royalties to Javelin could have made the difference in Wabush Mines

surviving or not.

I do not think it is fair, and I do not think it is right, not only to the

workers in Wabush Mines but also to the people of this Province whose resource

it is to have a company such as that with no employees, it does not contribute

one thing, reaping off profits in the order of $12 million or $14 million a year

and not giving anything in return. I think that is wrong and I would like to

have seen that changed in this particular piece of legislation.

I think it is also important to realize that with the development of a mine -

and this is a bit away from the legislation but I want to say, particularly in

bordering areas and other provinces, that when a mine is being developed in our

Province, that the suppliers and other developers who work in connection with

that mine do work in this Province, will create jobs in this Province, good

jobs, high-paying jobs, that will enable them and their communities to expand

and grow.

Over the years we have made improvements in that area, particularly in

Labrador West, with supplier development forums and other initiatives. I think

we have come a long way in that. I think that this legislation or this bill,

while we do not oppose anything of any magnitude in it, the couple of things

that I have pointed out in terms of the depletion fund, the Javelin Act, are

things we would like to have seen addressed in this piece of legislation and I

think, as a Province, we would all be better off for that.

I conclude my remarks on that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the

opportunity to speak.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and speak to Bill 28. I am not going to go over

all the same points that both my colleagues referred to in this piece of

legislation, but I do want to make a few comments, first of all some general

comments referring to some comments the Government House Leader made today. That

is that exploration - and a few people have already alluded to this - is the

key.

Coming from a part of the Province where mining has its ups and downs, it

happens like that. There are cycles, but when the exploration picks up the

activities pick up. To get to a practical point of this, anybody in the mining

industry knows very well it is a high risk. When you have the surface of the

Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a large, large area. Usually a mine

comes from a very small speck on that land surface, so the key is to find it. It

is as simple as that; we have to find it. The only way to find it is to look

more often. The more often you look, the more chances you have of finding it.

That sounds simple. You can get down to the mining industry.

I remember it because I have experienced it. In 1986-1987, when we had the

flow through shares and exploration activity was up, it was booming. In my own

district, in the Green Bay and the White Bay area, there was activity all over

these small towns. We talk today about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and how

it needs a boost, and trying to find the right answers. This is definitely one

of the answers. It provides the catalyst for other things to happen, the

spinoffs from the mining industry, the people involved with the exploration

program and so on.

I wanted to keep my focus today on just one point alone: exploration. That is

how important I feel it is. I also want to make a comment to the Newfoundland

and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources this year, and compliment them on the

group of people they have involved with that Chamber this year. It is a

well-rounded group of people who develop mines. There are people who represent

exploration and right on through. Somebody from all over the industry is

involved in this particular Chamber this year. It is headed up by Mr. Steve

McAlpine who, as we know, runs the Nugget Pond on the Baie Verte Peninsula. I

will get to that in a second. We feel that it is a well- rounded group of good

representation from all over, for probably the first time in a long time.

I am looking forward to this year in exploration in mining in this Province.

Every year we look forward to that. What we have to do, what the government

needs to do, and I think they have already discussed this at length and we

certainly did with the Chamber just a few days ago - that exploration will be

the key this year. It is time that we can pick it up.

As we know, from 1983-1987, the mineral exploration depletion allowance and

the flow through shares saw substantial increase in the activity, and therefore

many discoveries. As a matter of fact, in my own district again, in Green Bay

near King's Point, just a kilometer from King's Point, there was a

significant discovery at that time. Nothing has been done with the discovery

since, for many reasons I guess, but we are very hopeful that this year, this

spring and into the new year 2000, that we will have another gold mine up and

running in this Province - or the construction of another gold mine, I should

say, in this Province - near King's Point on the Hammerdown property; a

property that was discovered while there was increased exploration activity in

this Province.

What is key, especially for rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, is that

these are new jobs and new money. It is something that is so desperately needed

in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially these days. Exploration

is the key. Last year there was some $2 million in the exploration grants for

this Province and I think, I understand, that the request is for that to be

doubled this year. We know that it was not just $2 million in exploration. That

involves - they believe, in the industry - some $10 million in exploration

because of the $2 million incentive by government for exploration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I have said it many times in this House also, and publicly,

and I say it again to the minister: We agree with that. We also would like to

see that activity take place again because we know - I hear it so often from

geologists, world-known geologists, I would say to the minister - that the

geological structure in Newfoundland and Labrador has some great, great

potential. What is going to be the key, and I say it again, is that we can

explore, that we increase that activity, so we will find new mines and new

deposits and have more activity in this Province when it comes to our economic

base. That is what is key for this industry. I believe it is what is going to

push the industry forward.

It is incredible some of the statistics that come from mining in this

country, not just this Province. There are some $45.2 billion worth of export

mineral resources in this country. Can you imagine, $45.2 billion? Mine

exploration is another example, again. In 1996 it was some $895 million; in 1998

it dropped to $601 million. We do not want to see it go down, we want to see it

pick up. If those potential finds and ore bodies are there, we have to go

looking for them. It has to be intense. The activity has to pick up if we are

ever going to find them.

I believe that the mining industry in this Province has a great potential. I

believe, also, that in the new millennium, in not too short a time either, we

are going to see some significant discoveries in this Province, and some

discoveries that are already there now hopefully go into mine development. That

is what is going to mean jobs at the end of the day and it is what is so

important to people in this Province.

We look forward to some positive things in the mining industry this year,

especially with the new chamber that is now in place that reflects a broad

variety of people involved in the industry. We look forward to the discoveries

that have been discovered over the last eight or nine years coming into

production. I guess, more importantly, probably even to find new major

discoveries yet in this Province.

We look forward to this year with optimism. We hope that the new chamber will

find that we have a more positive year than last year. It was not a good year in

mining last year when it comes to exploration and discoveries, but we look

forward to more of it this year, and we wish them every success for the coming

year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would like to acknowledge and

recognize the presence in the public gallery of the Mayor of the Town of

Stephenville, Mr. Cecil Stein, and the Town Manager, Mr. Barry Coates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the bill before the House,

An Act

Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province. I'm not going to

reiterate the comments of my colleague for Labrador West, who brings to this

House his vast knowledge of the mining industry in the Province, in particular

Labrador West, but mining in general. I say it is indeed a positive note to have

someone with his experience, knowledge and range of ability to be able to bring

his comments and views to the deb ate.

I think one of the important notions to recognize in this legislation is that

what we are doing here is legislating and making things a matter of law that

were formerly a matter of contract. Yes, it was required that people who would

start a mine have a plan for reclamation, but a plan in a contract results in

your ability to sue the company if they fail to comply with what they have

agreed to do. A legislative requirement has other means of enforcement.

That is the same point that is being made by the New Democratic Party in this

Province and in Nova Scotia with respect to the enforcement of regulations for

offshore safety. We see a very different model when you have legislative

requirements and the ability to enforce through prosecution as an alternative to

a compliance model which involves negotiation, consultation, dealing and a whole

host of issues to be bargained away at once in terms of operational matters.

I'm pleased to see that provisions with respect to a plan for reclamation

of a mine site are included in the legislation, but I would be remiss if I did

not point out the deficiency in terms of what ability a company might have to,

in fact, carry out a plan of reclamation where there is no fund available or a

bond or some financial means of enforcing the requirement of a company to in

fact reclaim the land they have used to exercise the exploitation of mineral

resources. If there is no bond, there is n o financial

ability, there is no reclamation fund, we have a much more difficult situation.

The ability to enforce it may be a paper requirement.

Because if a corporation goes bankrupt, goes into receivership or is unable

to meet its obligations to its debtors, to its employees, to its creditors in

general, they are not going to be able to meet their obligations under this

legislation to this government, to the people of this Province, for reclaiming

the land that they have used to exploit the resource. We have seen that in the

Hope Brook gold situation, where not only did they damage the land in a sense of

disturbing the land that they could not put back in place as it was before - the

reclamation aspect - they even went worse. Through the process of leaching the

gold out of the minerals through a cyanide process, not only did they in fact do

harm to the landscape by their mining activity, they left it in fact poisoned

and damaged with toxic wastes and with mining effluent that has yet to be

cleaned up. It is going to be left to the people of this Province, the taxpayers

of this Province, to look after the damage done by the Hope Brook gold mine in

the southwest coast of this Province.

While we support the effort of getting some of this into legislation, we want

to be assured that the financial ability exists in order to ensure that a

company is in fact in a position to carry out the reclamation plan. I do see

some provision here in clause 10(3), showing the cost of completing the work set

out in the plan, and also financial assurance in terms of cash or a letter of

credit, a bond or, as it says in 10(3)(d), an annual contribution to a

financial assurance fund established for the project; or (

e) another form of

security acceptable to the minister.

We have yet to see how well this particular aspect of it will work. There

seems to be a fair degree of flexibility on the part of the minister as to how

the financial assurance required would be obtained. It remains to be seen, as I

say, how well this is going to work in ensuring that we don't have a Hope

Brook gold type situation on our hands. I suppose we can ask fairly soon what

provisions are being made for the Voisey's Bay situation, even though of

course we know we are dealing with a company li ke Inco

which is one of the wealthiest corporations in the mining industry in all of the

world. We would expect that they would be able to meet financial obligations.

Obviously a bond or a contribution to a reclamation allowance or an actual

fund in existence would be a better method of dealing with these problems.

I would like to say something generally about the mining industry because we

have seen a real change in the last five years. Five years ago, the government

brought in the amendments to the Mineral Tax Act. The then minister of the day,

the then minister of mines and resources, a geologist himself, advised the House

that it seemed like we had very little left in the way of mineral potential in

this Province and that was why we were bringing in the Mineral Tax Act

amendments. We were brining in the Mineral Tax Act amendments because there was

a need for a tax holiday to encourage people to develop what little was left in

this Province in terms of mineral developments, and we needed to give them a tax

holiday in order for this to take place.

That obviously is not the case. It was not the case then. In fact, at that

time, in December of 1994, the Voisey's Bay discovery had already been made

and, in fact, it was known to many people what a wealthy discovery indeed it

was.

It is time we reviewed that legislation and had it changed. It is not good

enough for the Minister of Mines and Energy to say, as he said in the House

yesterday, that there is no tax holiday for Inco. The legislation says there is

one.

What about other developments? There is no cap, for example, on the amount of

money the taxpayers of this Province would give away by way of a tax holiday.

The intention of that legislation, as it was described at the time, was to allow

for a set of uneconomic deposits to be mined which otherwise would not, in fact,

be developed by mining companies because they would have to pay taxes and

royalties that would make the project prohibitive.

This is an unlimited ten-year tax holiday built into that. I think it is time

that we ended the rhetoric about whether or not there is a tax holiday for

Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco and talked about whether or not our legislation

still provides for an unlimited tax holiday for any new mineral development in

the Province. That is the law of the land today. It is still there, and I think

mining companies expect it to stay there if they make a discovery under that

legislation.

We had legislation brought in, as Your Honor will well remember, in December

of 1995, just prior to the resignation of the Premier. The then Premier brought

in this legislation some time in mid-December of 1995. In fact, it received

second reading in this House. It provided for a special royalty regime and a new

amendment to the Mineral Tax Act. It was never passed. It was put to a special

committee. A select committee of this House was appointed in December, 1995. I

believe Your Honor was on it, was a member of that committee, that was to look

into the legislation after second reading, to hold hearings, to discuss the

matter and report back to the House before it received full approval and Royal

Assent. That committee never met. The Premier resigned. A new leader of the

Liberal Party was selected - or coronated, perhaps, is a more appropriate word.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very good choice.

MR. HARRIS: A very good choice, the Member for Humber East says. I

suppose he is reflecting the kind of comment that was made last night on CBC

television that what we do in this Province, we do not have much respect for

democracy; we elect someone who then becomes a dictator for four or five years.

I guess that is what the Member for Humber East is reflecting when he says that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has not been recognized.

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I think the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just

referred to the Premier as a dictator, and I think that is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I think Your

Honor would be well-advised to ask the member to read Hansard and understand

what I said. What I said was that I thought the Member for Humber East was

reflecting what was said last night on CBC, that what we do in this Province is

we elect someone who is a dictator for four or five years. I don't think that

is me calling anybody anything, so I suggest there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair distinctly heard the hon. member reference something that had been

supposedly reported in the news last evening and was just commenting on that, so

there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My point was that the legislation that was then before the House died on the

Order Paper because an election was called and that General Assembly - the

Forty-third General Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland - ended, and the

legislation ended with it and has yet to be replaced. We have yet to bring forth

legislation that puts an end or a cap on the ten-year tax holiday that was

passed in December of 1994.

If we are going to be optimistic about the future of our mining industry,

which I certainly am and I know that members opposite are - and we have every

reason to be optimist about the future of our mining industry in the Province.

The technology of exploration is ever changing; the knowledge that people have

to bring to geological exploration is expanding; interest in Newfoundland and

Labrador mining potential is expanding, and we have every reason to believe that

we should have additional discoveries of great mineral potential in this

Province. Before we do, we ought to make sure that our legislation in the area

of royalties reflects the expectations and the legitimate expectations of the

people of this Province, and do not maintain in place things like the Mineral

Tax Act which gives that ten-year tax holiday to any development that might come

forward.

It is a good indication of how things can change in such a very few years.

When we are saying, in 1994 in this House of Assembly, by the Minister of Mines

and Energy, that we really do not have much left in this Province in the way of

mineral potential, to now everybody looking at the rosy future as a result of

the discovery of the nickel deposit in Labrador and other potential deposits as

well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It is nice to see that the members opposite are so easily

amused by people on their own side of the House. They seem to have little

appetite for the truth, however, when they heard about the fact that they have

left in place the Mineral Tax Act which provides for a ten-year tax holiday of

an unlimited nature for any new mineral development in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is wrong. I think, whenever it is

raised, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Premier always accuse the

people on this side of the House of wanting to give Inco a ten-year tax holiday.

The reality is that the legislation, as is written, gives everybody, every new

mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador, a tax holiday, and it ought to

be changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think that is a serious point, I say to the Member for

Topsail, and it ought to be responded to by the Member for Topsail, or somebody

else over there in the ministry responsible for this important piece of

legislation and this important industry in Newfoundland and Labrador which we,

in this Party, want to see developed for the benefit of the people of this

Province and not merely for those who seek to exploit our resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and make a few

comments on Bill 28,

An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The

Province; indeed, an important piece of legislation.

The mining industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is something that, over the

past decade for sure, has certainly taken on a new role. The mines are something

that have been part of the Province for many years but indeed over the past

decade have certainly taken on a new role in the Province. It is something that

creates an immense amount of employment opportunities in many parts of the

Province, and indeed it is something that needs some more rules and regulations.

I guess, by bringing forward Bill 28, we will see some rules and regulations

brought forward in regard to the mining industry in the Province, and hopefully

through the discussion we are having, in putting new rules and regulations in

place, something that is needed more and more in this Province, exploration.

Hopefully with a good, solid piece of legislation in place, companies

throughout the Province - and not only throughout the Province but throughout

the country and throughout the world - will look at Newfoundland having a mining

industry that needs to be explored, therefore investing dollars in exploration

and investing dollars in our economy that eventually will provide jobs and

employment opportunities here.

Mr. Speaker, there is a major need for exploration. Newfoundland and Labrador

is known far and wide for many, many different types of mines and minerals. When

we look around, whether it is the Baie Verte Peninsula, whether it is down on

the South Coast, or whether it is in Labrador itself, there are many mines and

mills and opportunities here. They say that we are the home of almost every

mineral that is known in the world. At the same time we have a job sometimes to

get it right when it comes to putting the proper guidelines in place, that this

Province receives full and fair benefit from any mining operation. When we look

back at mines that have been developed in the past, and indeed even over the

past few years, there are many times that we do not get full and fair benefits.

I listened with interest this morning to CBC Radio and other media where they

mentioned that the Minister of Mines and Energy for the Province was en route to

Toronto, and that the Premier was returning from his vacation and is going to

join the Minister of Mines and Energy in Toronto for some high-level discussions

this weekend. Hopefully at the end of these discussions we will get a firm

handle on exactly what is being discussed and have something that will be known

to the public in the Province over

the next few days, and indeed known to the people who are asking the questions

and raising the concerns about exactly what is going on in regard to the

development of Voisey's Bay and in regard to a deal that may be forthcoming -

hopefully will be forthcoming, I say, Mr. Speaker - over the next few days; and

that we will get a chance then as a public and as a people here in the Province

to sit back and have a look at exactly what the deal entails, and see if the

benefits that the government tells us ar e going to be

there for the people of the Province are indeed there.

It is very important that we have regulations, whether it is Bill 28,

especially with a mine and mill operation that hopefully will be starting in

Labrador with Voisey's Bay. Even though this bill is for all mines and mills

in the Province, it is indeed, at the present time in Newfoundland's history

now, when we are looking at the development of Voisey's Bay, that we have a

piece of legislation that can be certainly looked upon as a progressive piece of

legislation.

At the same time, I do have some concerns. When I look at the legislation I

am very pleased to see one thing that is addressed here that is of vital

importance. When we look around the Province once again and we see quarry sites

and open pit mining that the companies have up and left - whether they had mined

all the product that is there, whether through economic reasons or whatever the

case may be that the mine had to close down - for whatever reason that the

proponent has left the site and moved on, we see a lot of damage being done

environmentally. We see a lot of long-term damage that we will have to put up

with for years.

In this piece of legislation we see rehabilitation regulations and

rehabilitation concerns raised, especially when it comes to the closure of a

mine in the Province. There is legislation in place that will address the

concerns many people have raised over the past number of years, that the site be

brought back to its original purpose, as much as possible. We all know that

through any type of mining there is always environmental damage that will occur,

but at the same time it is important that we, as a people, do everything we can

to make sure that the mines are rehabilitated and that the environment is

certainly protected, not for only ourselves but indeed for years to come. I am

glad to see that this is part of this legislation.

The only part that really concerns me is the part where it mentions in clause

3: The minister may exempt from the application of this Act a small scale

project fulfilling the criteria for exemption prescribed by the regulations made

under

section 17. My only concern is when the minister would have the power

to exempt from the act. That certainly concerns me, for the simple reason that

we all know how some of these things work. A small scale project? I would like

to know - certainly the Minister of Mines and Energy is

not here today but I am sure in Committee we can ask some questions. Are you the

acting minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, the acting

minister is up here. Nobody knows who. Oh, my gosh, she's in good hands, I

say. Finally someone can fill the role. I thought it was the other Mr. Grimes

but I'm very pleased to see that the Minister of Education is acting Minister

of Mines and Energy. I know it is very tough to fill the shoes of the Minister

of Mines and Energy but I am sure that the capable Minister of Education will do

a fine job, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to bother with questions. I just wanted to raise some of the

concerns as it relates to the rehabilitation and closure plans as put forward in

the bill. Indeed, the amount of leeway that the minister of the day - whoever he

or she may be in any future government - in relation to a small scale project

and exactly what will be entailed and what measures will be put in place to

determine what a small scale project is versus a large scale project such as

Voisey's Bay is certainly one of the concerns I have.

An annual report is something that certainly gives an opportunity, not only

for the government, but indeed the public to have a look at the company's

actions to see if the development plan that they put forward to government in

order to start the mine is being lived up to. Definitely, an annual report is

something that we all need so we can keep track of these companies and indeed

the operations that they have. It is another positive part of the legislation as

well and I am pleased to see it in place. I am sure we

will get some more discussion on that when we get into Committee.

Another part of the legislation that concerns me once again is 11.1), where

it says: The minister may designate inspectors for the purpose of this Act.

I would not want to put an onus on the Minister of Education today, but the fact

that the minister may designate inspectors, I am just wondering if this will

become an opportunity to give some of the minister's friends some positions

within the inspection department. I would not want to put forward that the

Minister of Mines and Energy would do such a thing, I say

to the Minister of Education. The only thing is he learns very fast, and with

the actions of the Minister of Tourism over the past year he may catch on to

some of the ways things are done. Knowing the Minister of Mines and Energy, he

may not fall into that trap at the present time, but if the opportunity was

given to him through this act he may think that there may be a fair amount of

inspectors out around Central Newfoundland who could come in handy. I am sure

that the Minister of Mines and Energy would not sit back and make sure that

these inspectors were denied an opportunity to go to work. That is certainly

another concern, the fact that the minister - whoever he or she may be - has a

fair amount of say in what will go on in relation to inspections and, indeed, I

guess, fulfilling the act as we see it here today. It gives a fair amount of

power to the minister of the day. I am sure once again that we will get in to

some of these concerns during Committee stage.

As I went through the act, a fair amount of the act certainly covers a lot of

the concerns that have been raised with people that are involved in the mining

industry, and indeed, with people who have been involved with the environmental

concerns of the mining industry in the Province over the past number of years.

Indeed, as we move forward we will get to discuss this in more detail, but the

piece of legislation certainly is looking to at least control to some extent the

concerns these people have raised. Hopefully, through Bill 28 we will see better

operation of the mines and mills in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I just spoke to the Opposition House Leader. There are a couple

of bills that is ready for distribution. I would like to get them in the hands

of the Opposition as fast as I can so that they can study them and stand and

praise the government like they did this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

can't (inaudible).

MR. TULK: I know.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave to revert to Notices of Motion and to ask

that we do first reading on Motions 4 and 5 so that I can distribute the bills,

so that the hon. gentleman can have a fine weekend of reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Notices of Motion.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland, carried. (Bill 41)

On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, carried. (Bill 40)

On motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: We now move back into Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

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

I want to just take a few minutes on this legislation that has been brought

forward by the Minister of Mines and Energy, the best Minister of Mines and

Energy in Canada today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As the minister has often stated, the words are

important. I agree with him, as a matter of fact. Some of the praise that we are

hearing from the Opposition about this bill is welcome, and deserved, but about

the minister also. Because the expansion -

MR. TULK: You should have heard the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of

Mineral Resources Inc. praising him up last night. I blushed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I can imagine.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are bringing this legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the acting minister.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The acting minister is superb. I tell you, she can handle

education with no problem. She is doing a great job on education. Anything else

that was put forward, I am sure, is no problem at all.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are bringing this legislation in is because we

anticipate positive economic development in the mining sector and we are going

to have that in the next while. I want to highlight, just for a few minutes, Bay

St. George and Port au Port this morning, because we have a lot of the

development going on out there. I want to welcome the Mayor and the Town Manager

of Stephenville here this morning, a very progressive mayor and t