May 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 17

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will direct my question to the Government House Leader and

it is in accordance with proceedings which have taken place on the steps of

Confederation Building just a short while ago. My question to the Government

House Leader is about the very hasty decisions of this government, first, to

eliminate the public exam marking board and secondly, to cancel public exams

this year altogether.

In the infamous Red Book, Mr. Speaker, we hear of commitments

this government has made to our people, and in statements such as: `It is more

important that we do things the right way than that we do them in a quick way.'

Will the minister take this commitment to heart, Mr. Speaker, and will this

government reconsider the quick decision on public exams, and instead, listen to

the people and do things the right way, just as his government told people they

would?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that question, let me advise

the hon. member that this government has indeed been doing things the right way,

has been consulting with the people of this Province and he should know that the

result of the consultations of the Minister of Finance and this government was

that if we had to make cuts, we would make them in certain areas. One of the

prime areas where we were asked not to make cuts was in the Department of

Health, and the hon. member will note that we have not done that, that we have

rather made some decisions that were indeed very, very difficult to make. I can

assure him, that after some fifteen years in the House, I had a lesson this

spring that was not pleasant, but I might say to him, it was very educational

for me, and one day, it will be some time in the future, the hon. gentleman may

indeed have the privilege of going through that same lesson.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The way things are going, that day may come very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, as referred to a few

minutes ago, we observed what I would submit to this House to be a very orderly

and responsible demonstration by approximately 2,000 young high school students

from this region of the Province. The hon. House Leader, in fact, represented

government and spoke to the students, and I understand there is a meeting

planned, perhaps as early as this afternoon, with the student group.

In view of comments that the hon. House Leader has made on

the steps of Confederation Building, only within the last hour or

hour-and-a-half, will the Government House Leader act as a spokesman and

advocate for these students in recommending to his colleagues that, in fact,

their interests be heard and their representations be made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

gentleman that I agree that the students this morning were very orderly, and you

will note that one of the first things I complimented them on was their

orderliness and the fact that they were doing what is their right to do,

demonstrating, in view of a government decision. I will make the same commitment

to him that I made to the students this morning, and no other - I will make no

other to him than I did to them - that is that I will meet with them today. If

he wants to know the exact time, it is at 3:00 p.m., as soon as Question Period

is over. I have committed myself to meeting with a group, four people, from the

Student Alliance, the Education Alliance. We will meet at 4:00 p.m., and I made

the commitment to them that I would take their concerns to the Minister of

Education upon his return to the Province.

The Minister of Education, the hon. gentleman will know, is

about very important business on behalf of this Province, as is his leader and

my leader and so on, and as soon as he gets back we will pass those concerns of

the students on to him.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Government House Leader if he is familiar with a

consultation paper on the senior high school program entitled Directions for

Change , a consultation paper requisitioned by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and released by the Department of Education and Training in July of

1995? A

chapter in this particular consultation paper deals directly and solely

with the issue of public examinations. It is clear in its recommendations and

findings that there are benefits in using public examinations, it addresses the

importance and the integrity of standardization, and I would ask the hon. House

Leader if, number one, he is aware of its existence - I somehow doubt that, in

view of decisions that have been made by this government in the last few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a

supplementary now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is the hon. House Leader, number one,

aware of its existence? And, number two, what is the hon. the Government House

Leader going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member

that I have not read that particular piece of work that he is talking about. I

have to remind him as they are so fond of saying themselves when they have to

deal with certain issues in this Legislature that,in spite of what he might

believe this is also the work of a former administration. We won't duck it on

that basis, we will deal with the issue with the students and we will deal with

the issue of the parents in this Province, but I say to him that there comes a

time, and there may come a time in his lifetime, he is going to be a rather old

man and there may come a time in his lifetime when he is going to have to make

some decisions as to oppose and put forward what it is that he is going to do as

opposed to just sitting on the other side of the House and opposing whatever

somebody else does.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new government, in view of comments just made by the hon.

House Leader with respect to the previous administration, I would submit that

this issue cannot be closeted by using that as a rationale or as an excuse.

The new Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to

dialogue and discussions on all elements of implementing educational reform

before decisions are made. Again, from the infamous Red Book, detail, page 67,

and the word `all' includes, Mr. Speaker, the method of high school evaluation.

Why won't this government listen to the people who he failed to consult in the

first place and in fact, listen to its own recommendations and its own wording

from its own Red Book, again, page 67?

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is taking the Red Book, like

so many other people in this Province, and talking about a consultation process

that he knows that this government has carried out far better, I say to him. How

many days has the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board spent on the road this

way?

AN HON. MEMBER: The better part of three weeks.

MR. TULK: The better part of three weeks consulting with

the people of this Province as to what they would like to see in a Budget, and,

Mr. Speaker, that Budget, I say to the hon. gentleman, that Budget that was

brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, was so in line

with what he had heard from the people of this Province that the Opposition over

there cannot find one whimper to get on in the Budget Speech or in Question

Period, rather, they have to trust to some students on the front steps of

Confederation Building so that they can have a few questions for Question

Period.

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

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

My questions are for the acting Premier and it refers to the

Public Tender Act exceptions that were tabled a few days ago by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. In January alone there were twenty-four exceptions to

the Public Tender Act for the lease of office space in a variety of communities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to know, from the acting Premier,

what is the possible rationale for this large number of exceptions to the Public

Tender Act in one month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least I tried back in Christmas but I did not make it so I

will fit it in today. The answer is very simple. There has been a lot of

reorganization work going on within different departments in government, as in

the case of the Department of Social Services, they have been reorganizing the

structure of the department right across the Province, and for that reason there

have been many exceptions to the rental accommodations for different departments

in government given on a month to month basis. Government service centres are

another example as my colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

has pointed out. The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is another

example, so for different reasons for the reorganization of government

departments and agencies we have extended and made exceptions to the Public

Tender Act in rental accommodations on a month to month basis, and in some cases

on a yearly basis. Those are the basic reasons for the exceptions to the Public

Tender Act.

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

a supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: The twenty-four exceptions in January

amount to a total value of $944,815 in this category alone, in other words

leases. By comparison back in January 1991 there were three exceptions in the

same category for a total value of $47,203, and in 1998 there were nine

exceptions for January and February for a total value of $168,000. Now, one

knows that in January of this year there were certain things happening in this

Province, there were certain rumours about concerning the potential of an

election and that kind of thing, and that was on everybody's mind. I'm wondering

if that was on the member's mind when he was making all those exceptions to the

public tender, and if that indeed was not a motivation to get some of these

tenders awarded, or get them out there, get the leases made before of course the

election was called and there were knocks coming on the various doors of

businesses in this Province.

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

The Chair would just like to comment that members cannot ask

questions that impute motives to other members. I caution members on asking that

line of questioning.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've been in this House now

since 1985. I had the opportunity for four years, 1985 to 1989, to pretty well

stand in Question Period just about every single day. I may not have gotten

recognized every day, but pretty close to every day. The one thing I did before

I asked a question to any minister on the then-government side was I researched

and knew the answer. The hon. member, stooping as low as that, knows that - he

never researched his question. He knows differently from that. He is imputing

motives on this hon. minister that there was something illegal done, something

out of context of the minister's office. If he has anything to back up that,

give it to the hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The facts speak

for themselves. Twenty-four lease exceptions in one month, $944,850 committed by

the government days before the election was called. That is the fact. I want to

know if the minister has concerns about the integrity of the public tendering

process when we have each month page after page of exceptions. What is the

purpose of the public tendering act if the Ministry cannot be better planned so

we don't have this kind of thing appearing every month showing the pages and

pages of exceptions?

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

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The Government House Leader is making a

comment that I would like for this - or I certainly would, and I'm sure he would

too, and all members on this side, I would like to have the opportunity to

debate or make that out in a public forum.

Mr. Speaker, this member, and I can speak for all ministers

on this side of the House of Assembly, in a general election or whatever format

is going on, we operated with the complete integrity and respect for our office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I have had four elections in my career as a

politician and I do not need to go out and do anything underhanded or illegal or

without the integrity of this office in mind to get votes, I have proven that to

my constituents and I don't have to respond to questions like that in the House

of Assembly. Every exception to the Public Tender Act goes to Cabinet. There is

a reorganization of the Department of Social Services, it has been ongoing for

some two years now and it is getting near completion. In the case of extending

leases on a month to month basis, they must go to Cabinet and it is for that

reason that exceptions to the Public Tender Act is given. There is no point in

going out and signing a three, four or five year lease knowing that six months

down the road, when the reorganization of a department is completed, you are

throwing away taxpayers money. What this government is doing is making rational

decisions, logical decisions based on the best interest of the taxpayers, not

like the former governments of the past did for many, many years when the Public

Tender Act was not even adhered to in many, many instances.

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will remind the

member it was the past Progressive Conservative administration that brought in

the Public Tender Act in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I will also remind the minister that the

public of this Province need to be convinced of the integrity and the

willingness of the government to follow the Public Tender Act in view of Trans

City. So, Mr. Speaker, there have been decisions rendered on Trans City and the

Public Tender Act. I say to the minister, since he is assuring us that he a

person of integrity, and I don't doubt that for one moment but I wanted to ask

the question, is he today committing his government to be diligent, to be

persistent, to abide by the letter and the principle of the public tendering

process in this Province so that in the future we will see fewer and fewer

exceptions?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: For any hon. member to stand in this House

and ask the three or four questions that he asked prior to this question and

then to stand on his feet and say that he is not questioning the integrity of

this government or this minister, I don't believe that your question deserves an

answer.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was for

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology so I will direct it to the House

Leader.

The public has learned, through the media, that on May 17,

the day after the Budget was brought down, four people were hired to fill

vacancies left in key positions in the minister's department. What are these

four positions and when did each of these become vacant? Are we to understand

that the government chose neither to go to the Public Service Commission for

qualified applicants from an earlier competition for these four positions, nor

to ask the commission to begin a new competition to fill these four vacancies?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, the

Minister of Mines and Energy is at an energy conference. I am not familiar with

the details of his question but let me assure him that as soon as the Minister

of Mines and Energy is back in the Province and ITT - both of them are out, one

is speaking at a speaking engagement and the other one is at an oil conference.

As soon as they are back in the Legislature or in their offices we will attempt

to get the answers for him.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology stated in an interview that these four positions were important key

positions and were to be preserved at all costs. If these positions are indeed

key positions in the industry department and had to be filled, then why were

they left vacant for so long, especially at a time of economic decline when the

government should have been doing everything in its power to stimulate business,

attract investment opportunities and stimulate growth in the Province? Did the

Province suffer because the government had left these four positions vacant for

so long?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I say to the hon. member, I am

not familiar with the four positions that he is talking about and the Minister

of ITT is out pursuing Her Majesty's business out of the House. I would say to

him that I doubt that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology left four

positions vacant that would seriously damage the economic well being of this

Province and I don't believe that to be the case. I am sure that the Minister of

ITT must have been, in some way, compensated for any positions that were left

vacant in the department.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: The House Leader just stated that the

minister would not leave four positions vacant if it were to be detrimental to

the department or the government. If we are to believe that the Province did not

suffer because these four positions were left vacant, then why is the minister,

or why is the Government House Leader, so sure that they had to be filled at

all?

MR. TULK: That they what?

MR. OSBORNE: That these positions had to be filled? How

would the Government House Leader respond to those who say that the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology is making his department top-heavy with expensive

management personnel at the same time that the government is laying off very

capable and far less costly public servants through the system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that I said that

the minister, by leaving those positions vacant, was doing anything that would

be to the detriment of the department. I said, I am sure that he would

compensate for it in some other fashion.

Now, as to whether he feels that the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology is making his department top-heavy with management, that is

an issue, I say to him, that would be more appropriately left to ask the

minister when he returns, and I am sure he will be only too glad to answer him.

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister, yesterday in an interview on the Fishermen's

Broadcast you indicated that you had grave concerns that there was a cartel in

operation in the crab fishery in this Province today. I wonder if the minister

would inform the House what it is he feels is happening in this particular

fishery, since it concerns the livelihood of many, many Newfoundlanders.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind

that there is a cartel. The total format under which the cartel is operating, we

are doing some investigations to the best of our ability. Secondly, I am seeking

advice from the Department of Justice as to what, if anything, we can do about

the operations of a cartel. Also, there are a number of options which I can deal

with in my own department; I can try to do something about destroying - I guess

that is the right word I want to use.

What evidence do I have? Talking to fishermen, talking to

people in the harvesting of crab in particular. We have about nineteen

processors on this Island processing snow crab. There has been a lot of

information given to me that these nineteen processors, at least most of them -

I shouldn't say nineteen - the majority, I should say, of these processors have

gotten together and formed a cartel in which they are controlling the ability of

- stopping and preventing a fisherman from operating in a free and competitive

business manner. In other words, if Mr. Smith wants to go to Mr. Jones and sell

his or her crab, a load of crab in a particular season, the processor will say:

No, you have to go back to the processor, the plant that you sold it to in the

previous week or the previous year. That, to me, is a cartel. Also, I believe

they are getting together and saying: We will force the issue on price. We will

force the issue on what we are going to pay fishermen for crab.

Is there a cartel operating in this Province among the crab

processing industry? Yes, I believe there is.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, another question - because I

had a couple of calls on this today after people listened to the Fishermen's

Broadcast last night - are you implying that the cartel exists only between

processors, or are you also implying that the cartel might exist between large

fish harvesters and their union as well?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly - very

clearly - processors.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, this is a very important, a

very serious accusation and I, for one, believe that if such a cartel - which is

a very, very strong word - exists, then we should do whatever is in our power to

make sure that it is not happening, because we are talking about jobs here, we

are talking about people's livelihoods, we are talking about plant workers. I

ask the minister if he sincerely feels that this is probably the reason why the

price of our crab went from $2.50 per pound last year down to an offer of

seventy-five cents so far this year?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: What I am going to say is very clear. What I

said on the Fishermen's Broadcast, an interview yesterday afternoon - I didn't

hear the interview myself; I did about a fifteen minute interview, so I don't

know what they played on the Fisheries Broadcast.

Do I believe there is a cartel? Yes. Do I believe it is

impacting on the ability of individuals to operate in a free and competitive

manner in the free enterprise system? Yes, I do believe it is impeding the

people in that manner. I am not going to stand in this House of Assembly today

and say what I believe it does impact on the ability of a - on a competitive or

collective bargaining system, on the prices. I don't have enough evidence or

enough information to go beyond that. The cartel exists, I have no doubt in my

mind about that. It is stopping the ability of people to move around in a free

and competitive way. I presented that to the industry. I didn't back away. I

went to the industry first before I made a public statement, and I also said I

can bring the fishermen to the table if they argue and say it is not operating.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the

minister, if there is such a cartel and if he is convinced that there is, what

does the minister plan to do to make sure that this is not active, and it isn't

going to control prices and the livelihoods of our fishermen? I ask the minister

if he will commit to this House today that he will use every resource within his

government to make sure that this is not allowed to happen.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Either the hon. member is not listening or he

is hard of hearing or something. You certainly couldn't have listened to the

Fisheries Broadcast yesterday afternoon because I answered that. Somebody must

have told you about it. Because I answered each one of those questions as put

forth by the interviewer.

Do I believe it? Yes. Will I do whatever it is in my power to

do something about the cartel? Yes. I have already sought advice from Justice.

I'm waiting for that advice. A lot of people besides this Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture are concerned about what is happening in the industry in the

Province. If we are going to carve out an industry in this Province that is

going to be to the benefit of all, that everybody in this Province gets the

benefit of the industry as a whole in the fisheries of the future, we have to

deal with every issue. The cartel is one and I am committed to dealing with it.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs regarding the budget estimates

for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Mr. Minister, the budget

estimates for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation indicate a dramatic

decrease to grants and subsidies to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, from

$14,169,000 down to $8,200,000. Can the minister tell the House what is being

cut and how he expects Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to make up the $6

million difference?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The exact figure is

approximately - well, exact and approximate are contradictory, aren't they? The

figure that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has to recover this year amounts

to $5 million. Five million dollars was cut from the budget of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing based on the assumption that a number of assets, properties,

around the Province would be sold in 1996. The properties that will be going up

for sale will be the properties at Churchill Square, for example. Elizabeth

Towers will go on the market. Arnold's Loop will go on the market, and a number

of other rental units and assets that we have around the Province. We are

expecting to recover at least the $5 million that will be put back into

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing's budget, which will basically at the end of

the year even out the budget to what it was last year. Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing can operate this year quite adequately on that amount.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

have been informed that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing signs have been

removed from most, if not all, of their vehicles. Purchase orders for repair

work on social housing units are on hold, sitting on desks, rumours of major

changes over the next six months, and more job losses. Are there major changes

in store for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and if so, what are they?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be taking up

the House's valuable time if I had the list of what the changes were, but I will

answer the gentleman by saying yes, there will be some major changes made this

fiscal year in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is intending to sell off 200 units

as you mentioned this year, mostly in Arnold's Loop and Churchill Square area,

Elizabeth Towers. Last year Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation had

revenues of over $120 million which supports their social housing program. By

selling off these assets is the government concentrating on short-term versus

long-term benefits to support this year's provincial Budget? Can the minister

confirm government is contemplating getting out of the land development business

such as Southlands and Pearlgate?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the divestiture of assets

belonging to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing started in 1986 under the former

Peckford regime. They started the divestiture because the government of the day,

the Peckford Government, felt that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and

ultimately the government, should not be competing with the private sector when

it came to owning and operating properties around the Province. This divestiture

has continued up to today and we have been successful since 1986 in, I suppose,

getting rid of, or divesting ourselves of almost 75 per cent of the properties

that are owned, or were owned, by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We will

continue that divestiture but we will not be leaving, or getting out of the

social housing market we are in, the reason why the Housing Corporation was set

up to begin with, but when and if we find ourselves competing against the

private sector, this government, along with two previous governments, we agree

with by the way, will continue to divest ourselves of any method or any avenue

whereby we are seen as being competing against the private sector.

I cannot give the hon. gentleman an answer to his second

question as it relates to Southlands and future development, because I just

finished a consultation paper with a number of concerned business firms and

contractors in and around the City of St. John's, and others outside the city,

who have made representation to me over the past couple of weeks as it relates

to the housing business in general and what we are doing in the Housing

Corporation. I will have a report ready to present to Cabinet, and I guess, to

the public, hopefully in the next month, and at that particular point in time I

am sure the hon. gentleman will be grateful when I send him a copy.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government Services Committee have reviewed and approved

without amendment the Estimates of the expenditure of the Department of Finance,

the Public Service Commission, the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, the Department of Government Services and Lands, the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a

point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: I am about to speak to a private member's

motion today in the House of Assembly and I would like to draw attention to the

very first line of the motion which says:`WHEREAS INCO has acquired Diamond

Fields Resources', and so on. Mr. Speaker, as we know, that has been delayed. It

was due to be acquired today, the final acquisition, hence, my point of order.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was put together

three or four days ago when I think everybody believed that INCO would acquire

control of Diamond Fields by Wednesday of this week.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was due today.

MR. TULK: It was due today, was it? I asked the Clerk

yesterday to put in: `WHEREAS INCO is acquiring', or `is attempting to acquire',

or something of that nature. The point being, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I think

the resolve of the resolution will stand, as far as this House is concerned,

regardless of who acquires control of Diamond Fields. I think the intent of the

resolution will remain the same, I would hope, by all of us.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is

exactly why we drew attention to this, to correct that first sentence. Of

course, the intent of the motion is still there and we will speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe, if the hon. member would look at

the Orders of the Day, the Order Paper, he will see that there has been some

change in the wording. It says, `WHEREAS INCO is acquiring Diamond Fields

Resources'. Is that the

whereas?

MR. SHELLEY: The first line is not factual.

MR. SPEAKER: But in today's Order Paper, I believe the

wording has been changed.

MR. SHELLEY: There is a change, is there?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The Chair would like to table the report of the Commission of

the Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today.

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

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

District of Grand Falls - Buchans in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of the District of Grand Falls

- Buchans, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to protest the late opening

of the winter trout-fishing season for Zone 2 and request that the trout-fishing

season for 1997 be opened from February 15 to March 15.

Mr. Speaker, Zone 2, to which I am referring, covers the area

west of Gander River to Springdale; in fact, it covers the entire district that

I represent and the District of Exploits and also the entire District of Windsor

- Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first formal protest from Zone 2. In

other years it has been basically telephone complaints, but the residents of

Grand Falls - Buchans were upset this past winter that they could not ice-fish

mainly, I suppose, due to a mild winter but it was impossible because of the

late opening to safely use the ponds and rivers and, Mr. Speaker, as Zone 2

intersects with the Bay d'Espoir Highway, it was frustrating, to say the least,

to watch your neighbours ice-fishing when we could not.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the trout management plan was

devised by various user groups throughout - consultation with SPAWN and SAEN and

both levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I understand the reasons for developing

the plan with conservation being the underlying factor; I also believe that this

year's trout plan is a good one. In essence, it is a three-year multi-plan which

gives a lot of benefits to user groups. In fact, the tourism sector will be able

to publish their literature with three years in mind, and it also helps out the

outfitters and so on, but I believe that the timing of Zone 2 for the opening of

the season needs to be revisited.

In fact, within the next few days in Central Newfoundland,

there is going to be a new group formed, a new anglers association, and at that

time the general public will be able to have input into next year's season. So,

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to

pass this request along to the federal-provincial trout and salmon working

advisory group for future consideration for the 1997 trout-fishing season.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the

Member for Grand Falls - Buchans on the petition that she just presented on

behalf of her constituents.

This is not only a concern in the member's district - and I

congratulate her for bringing it forward to the House - it is also a concern in

my district as well. Many, many people have always enjoyed being able to go out

when the trouting season opens in the spring of the year; normally, it would

carry right through, I say to the member, into the summer season. And I think

the only explanation that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could bring

forward as to why there was an interruption there, is because they were in fear

of people's safety, which certainly should be taken into consideration, Mr.

Speaker. Most of the people you find going ice-fishing, I know, in my particular

district, the people who are concerned about it and the people who are inquiring

about it are people who are not fully responsible and fully cognizant of what

happens to streams and what happens to ponds in the spring of the year, and this

year, I suppose it was more evident than any other year, and for the most part,

the ponds were wide-open at this particular time and people could have went and

stood on the shore and fished as they do in June or July month, Mr. Speaker.

I fully support the member and I hope that the minister will

speak to his counterparts and see if we can get the season extended to go right

from the winter season into the summer season and not have an interruption

there. I think we are only talking about three weeks to a month at the most, of

it being closed at that particular time. So I fully support the member's

petition.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me to say to my colleague from

Grand Falls - Buchans. I got used to, for a number of years, calling it Windsor

- Buchans when it was represented by the Member now for Windsor - Springdale.

Let me say to her that the trout resource - I think the

provincial and federal governments recognize that the trout resource - if I can

put it as that - is a great resource in the Province and indeed will serve the

tourism industry and our own people, we hope, for many years to come in the way

that our own people have been used to being served by the trout industry. We

have some of the best trouting streams in the world in Newfoundland.

We also have some people who are now of course getting

engaged in fish-out ponds and so on. It is a great recreational sport in this

Province and we are studying, I say to the Member for Grand Falls -Windsor, we

are just (inaudible) into inland fisheries management in the department that I

happen to be the minister of at the present time. We are now starting to take a

look at the whole trout fishery as a matter of fact and recognizing that some of

our resources have been seriously (inaudible) there have been some cases where,

shall we say over-trouting, overfishing has taken place. There have been quite a

few people, although not the majority of Newfoundlanders I suspect, who have not

paid that much attention to the fishing limits. As a matter of fact, I say to

the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans, we have had a great deal of lobbying

carried on by some people in this Province to introduce a trout license. We are

taking a serious look at it and may indeed -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go bringing in any more licenses.

MR. TULK: I knew the hon. gentleman would rise to the

bait the same as a trout would rise to a worm, just the same as a salmon to a

fly. If you throw out to the hon. gentleman a bit of progress and a bit of

management in this Province, into something that he believes and there might be

a half-dozen people out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are more rules then regulations. We

never asked for more rules and regulations. Let's do away with the regulations.

MR. TULK: There he goes, just like an old salmon lying at

the bottom of the pool, you flick out something to him and bang, he hits you.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that he can

sit over there all he likes in his little cocoon and try to make believe that

the world is going to remain as it was when he was a boy - that's some time ago

- but this government will look at conserving our resources for our people to

make sure that his grandson

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support the petition?

MR. TULK: Of course I support the petition, I was about

to get to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that his

grandson may very well be able to catch some fish as a result of the acts of

this government.

Now I want to say to the old budworm from Baie Verte that

indeed - what I was about to say to my colleague from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your welcome.

MR. TULK: Thank you - from Grand Falls - Buchans is that

in this process that is now ongoing, her petition, I say to the hon. gentleman,

which is so positive and so constructive will be considered by every member in

the executive and every member in the Cabinet of this government. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

present a petition to the House of Assembly; to the hon. House of Assembly of

Newfoundland a petition of the undersigned students of Mount Pearl Senior High

School that:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

eliminated the public exam marking board and cancelled public exams; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

reinstate public exams and the public exam marking board.

This issue of course is an important issue. The fact that

approximately 2,000 students gathered, Mr. Speaker, at the noon hour to present

their views to speak to this important issue and in a general way to speak to

the long-term effect of cancellation of public exams and what impact this will

have on their futures and on their educational lives.

Not only are we facing the cancellation of public exams but

we are concerned with the fact, obviously, that there is cancellation of a

marking board, which is obviously a consequence of cancellation of exams. But

students are frustrated as a result of the fact that there was no consultation,

there was no prior planning. There was no comprehensive plan to deal with an

issue which is of great importance to them.

In speaking with a number of the student leaders - and I have

to commend the student leaders. They organized today a very effective and

professional protest of approximately 2,000 students in great orderly fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It was highly organized, professionally

done, and the parents of these 2,000 students ought to feel proud, Mr. Speaker,

as to the way their sons and daughters conducted themselves on the steps of

Confederation Hill over the lunch hour.

During Oral Questions I referred to the consultation paper on

the senior high-school program. It is clear in this report, which was

requisitioned by government and which was presented by the Department of

Education and Training less than a year ago, that public examinations are held

in high regard. It recognizes the importance of standardization. It in fact

states - and I will just read from it briefly: The benefits of using public

examinations as a means of establishing and maintaining desirable performance

standards were described in the public examinations review committee of 1989 and

are well understood and accepted in this Province.

The question that has to be asked is: Where is the acceptance

today? This government has fallen flat in recognizing what is in the best

interest of students. I stand proudly to present yet another petition on behalf

of the many high-school students in this Province who hold this issue dear to

their hearts and who are genuinely concerned about their educational well-being.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to rise

today to support again, for the third day in a row, the petitions that have been

offered by my colleague, the critic for education and training.

Today we saw 3,000 students who came to this parliament hill

to voice their opinions. What we have seen in the last few days is leadership

from the students. We haven't seen leadership from the government. When we talk

about slogans like Our Children, Our Future, and when we talk about issues that

involve youth, then we have to be aware of the fact that in this Province today

the young people, the high-school graduates, are saying to the government: We

want to be consulted. Every publication that I am aware of over the last

twenty-five or thirty years has promoted a standardized form of evaluation. We

believe that our children in this Province have to measure up to the children of

all other provinces.

When students write lines like this, and I quote from a

letter by Sarah Glover. She writes:

"This standardized evaluation has provided equal opportunity

for all students to receive scholarships and meet entrance requirements for

university.

"A marking board has always successful determined each

student's abilities and rewarded them fairly." She continues to write:

"The levels of teaching and learning in different schools

throughout various areas of our Province are at different levels. Some schools

cover more subjects in greater depth and detail than others. Teachers mark their

students at different levels of difficulty. If the marking board is done away

with, how will a provincial level of equal marking be determined?"

This is the voice of our youth. This is what young people are

talking about today. They are saying to the government: Show yourselves to be

leaders in consultation. Show yourselves to be following the directives that you

have been promoting for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, what the young people said outside today was:

It's our education, it's our future. We want to be party to the programs and to

the policies and directions that they are expected to follow. What they have

said is that they are nine months, almost ten months, into a school year, and

suddenly we have a government in a budgetary crunch, saying: We believe we can

cancel examinations because, well, it is only the young people. They thought the

young people were a voiceless bunch. Well, today the young people came to this

Parliament hill. This morning when I arrived as usual at 7:30, I could not get

to my parking spot because we were going to have this great big, rough, tough

bunch that was going to arrive, so we had to park at the back of the building.

That, in itself, is an insult to our youth. Then we found that the doors were

closed; you could not get in the front entrance.

What are we communicating to our young people? Well, they

came here today, all 3,000 of them, and they spoke. And they were the largest

demonstration I have seen since my time coming here, and they were orderly. They

gave this Parliament respect, and all they ask back from the government today

is: Give us back our respect. Show respect for the young people; listen to them.

They have something to say. Don't try to just tough it out. Look at what you

have done as a government, and be prepared to do the right thing, and be bold

about it, recognize that these people want their public examinations put back in

place. Don't do the easy thing; do the brave thing. Do what is right for the

right reasons. What we have right now is government doing what is wrong, for all

the wrong reasons. Switch it around.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment again the young people who

organized the demonstration today. I hope that the government has been

listening. After listening to the former Minister of Education for the last

three years talk about standards, I hope that his words have not been lost on

his colleagues in government, because what we are doing today with the public

examinations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - is we are destroying the basic

principles of evaluation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present one of a number of ongoing petitions

in accordance with the food fishery and, for the sake of the Minister of

Education, and technicalities and so on, I will read the entire petition first

of all:

To the Honourable House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the

Fightin' Nfld'ers, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,

do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our

petition to do one of the following: Open a food and recreational fishery to all

Newfoundland families; or,

b) Close the food and recreational fishery to all

other Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to present these

petitions, as I said before. Since I started to present these, I thought I might

run out of petitions - the Minister of Fisheries says nobody is listening.

Although the media is not carrying it to any great extent - and I am not worried

too much about that - lo and behold, I have received hundreds of petitions from

all over the Province. So the word got out somehow. And I will present every

single petition from Leading Tickles, Botwood, Point Leamington and so on, which

I received yesterday - which I had no connection with whatsoever; they were just

sent to my office because they heard I was presenting petitions on behalf of the

food fishery - from Botwood, Grand Falls, Springdale, all over. I was surprised

to get some of them. I have the petitions here with I don't know how many

thousands of names.

As I said in the beginning, and I say to the Minister of

Fisheries again, I don't know what the polls say or the surveys say. Maybe only

5 per cent of the Province wants a food fishery, maybe 10 per cent, maybe 2 per

cent. The principle of the petition is that if there is one man or woman on this

petition who believes that they should be able to go and jig a fish to eat, they

should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the lame excuse that the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture - and with all due respect to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, I don't fully believe that the now Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture really believes there shouldn't be a food fishery. I think what we

have here now is a Premier, a once-Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who made

that decision and of course, now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to stick with

his Leader. But I am willing to bet that if the minister were in the position of

the Opposition, or even out of the Cabinet, into a back-bench position, that he

would be standing in support of the food fishery, because, Mr. Speaker, his lame

excuse yesterday for not supporting a food fishery was comparing it to the

commercial food fishery.

I mean, how ridiculous a statement is that from the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to compare 1500 tons of fish - and that was only a

guesstimate, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make that quite clear. DFO officials

have told me they were only guessing that it was 1500 maximum - 1500 tons

supposedly, that was caught in the last experimental food fishery, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: I would be surprised if it were that much.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I agree with the minister, I would be

surprised if it were that much. The truth is, it was very little, and it is very

little that it would hurt the conservation of fish. If I thought for one second

that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Premier, who was in the

minister's portfolio of fisheries for so long federally, could show us real

scientific proof that the small amount caught, to which the minister just

agreed, would in any way damage the recovering fish stocks, I would not support

it, the minister would not support, nobody in this House would support it, and

you wouldn't get a person in this Province signing one petition, not one name on

it, if they thought they would hurt it. But there is no comparison between the

commercial fishery and the food fishery.

The minister knows that. And he also made a statement last

night in his department's estimates about how much the seals eat. I don't

remember offhand the number, but 2.4 billion over a year, is that right?

MR. EFFORD: If they only eat one pound of fish a day, it

will amount to 2.7 billion pounds a year.

MR. SHELLEY: 2.7?

MR. EFFORD: Billion.

MR. SHELLEY: 2.7 million a year?

MR. EFFORD: Billion.

MR. SHELLEY: 2.7 billion pounds a year by seals, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that is a great statistic. I am glad the minister has

clarified it here in the House today. Imagine, we are going to catch 1,000 tons

in three weeks, by way of a man going out to jig a fish to eat! How ridiculous

is it that we can't have a food fishery in this Province! And I keep saying to

the minister and the previous Minister of Fisheries, that the small amount

caught will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on recovering biomasses, the

reason why this moratorium is on. And we know that the fish is in the bay, on

which there is not a lot of scientific research, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is now Wednesday, Private Members' Day,

and I call on the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the people of

Labrador, and in particular, on the issue of the nickel smelter and refinery.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to be smelting?

MR. CANNING: Exactly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to read first the resolution

that I am putting forward:

WHEREAS INCO is acquiring Diamond Fields Resources and the

huge nickel, cobalt and copper discovery at Voisey's Bay; and

WHEREAS the Voisey's Bay nickel resource will be the lowest

cost nickel resource in the world; and

WHEREAS the investment and employment opportunities flowing

from this new mining opportunity is a major step in the economic future of this

Province and the region of Labrador in particular;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that given that INCO has committed

to the construction of the Mine, the Mine Mill, the Smelter and the Refinery,

that this hon. House strongly endorse a policy of directing INCO to fully assess

the economics of any and all smelter and refinery sites in Labrador first.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to go through what has happened

since and during the election.

The Red Book, that our hon. members across the way are so

thoughtful in referring to all the time, on page 9 says: The Voisey's Bay Mine

and other projects in Labrador should yield benefits to the greatest extent

possible for Labradorians including Aboriginal people. Further, the Speech from

the Throne: The Voisey's Bay mineral find, thirty-five kilometres south of Nain,

is one of the richest nickel, copper, cobalt reserves in the world. The Voisey's

Bay mine and other projects in Labrador should yield benefits to the greatest

possible extent for Labradorians, including aboriginal peoples'. Further to

that, on March 27, 1996, the Minister of Mines and Energy - and I want to quote

it again for the record - said this: `Mr. Speaker, I don't know if anybody has

been promised a smelter. In particular, I know I have received lots of calls.

Everybody wants the smelter, it seems; everybody has the best place in the

Province for the smelter and the refinery, it seems. My position is that there

has to be a thorough evaluation of the sites starting with sites in Labrador.

Because this mineral deposit is in Labrador. That has to be assessed first.

Secondary, look at sites around the Island and evaluate all the potential

sites.' That is what he said on March 27. In the Budget, further, again, on page

4: `The Voisey's Bay mineral discovery in Labrador has revitalized our mineral

exploration sector. A mine, smelter and refinery will be built in this Province.

Jobs will be created. Benefits will flow for all the people of our Province,

especially those in Labrador.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate in our

collective history. Labrador and Labradorians are not asking for all the jobs

and opportunity that will flow from this Voisey's Bay development. They are

asking for an equal access to those jobs and to some of that development. This

debate is not a measure of designing an exclusionary provision for Labrador. It

is about an inclusionary position for Labrador, that we should all recognize the

importance of having Labrador assessed in terms of its capacity to have the

smelter and refinery built there.

We believe, I believe, that the synergies and the potential

in Labrador, the efficiencies to be had in Labrador, for the whole of that

development, make economic sense, and I believe that INC0, in due course, will

come to recognize that. INCO, by the way, is a magnificent Canadian company that

today has a position in twenty-three different countries. Now, INCO is a wise

company, it is a proactive company, and it is sensitive to people. It is a

people company. We welcome this company to our Province, in particular, we

welcome it to our region. I believe that INCO can and will recognize the

importance of doing a fair and full economic analysis of the sites in Labrador

for the smelter and the refinery. As I said, there are terrific synergies and

efficiencies to be had.

We are asking today to have this hon. House accept the view

that an economic analysis be done on Labrador sites first. I ask all hon.

members to reflect on this very important issue. We are confident that given a

fair and full opportunity to show how the economics make sense for Labrador to

have this smelter and refinery, at the end of the day the debate will show that

it should go there.

I look forward today to comments from any and all members who

wish to participate in this particular debate. I think it is a reflection of the

capacity of the Province to understand that regions have to be dealt with. It is

no longer enough to say, because something exists in Northern Labrador, that it

simply can be de facto taken somewhere else to be managed. We see what happened

in Wabush. We see iron ore in Wabush being pelletized in Sept-Iles. It is a

different Province but the problem is they had lost the synergies that they

would have maintained and had, had they been able to have that pellet plant in

Wabush and Wabush has suffered many times because of that lack of efficiencies.

So this is a debate about a long-term magnificent project

that will unfold in Northern Labrador but it is a debate that is both timely and

necessary. I look forward to the comments of hon. members and I look forward to

their support on this particular resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

delighted to rise today and the first thing I want to do is commend the Member

for Labrador West for bringing forward this motion, for two reasons, first of

all as the critic for mining on the opposition side but also secondly, because I

was a resident of Labrador West for six years. Before returning back to

university I spent some six years in Labrador City and Wabush. I know the area

very well and I know, Mr. Speaker, in also talking to your other colleague here

from Cartwright, I know the feelings of people in Labrador. I heard it very

often while living there, of people talking about Labrador getting their full

share of the Province and they felt they were mistreated a lot of times by

different governments from over the years. The people of Labrador have built up

that feeling over a long time and for good reason. Especially, Mr. Speaker, I

can speak for Labrador West, from living there, is that people in that Province

have made good livings in Labrador from the IOC of course in Wabush. They have

made some good salaries over the years and paid in a lot of taxes to the coffers

of this Province and they expect and they deserve more than they get, Mr.

Speaker. So from that point of view I commend the Member for Labrador West in

bringing forward such a timely resolution to this House.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to note that the very first

sentence had to be changed today and it is a shame that it could not stay the

way it was but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that `whereas Inco is acquiring,' that

may not even be sufficient to the motion at this point, Mr. Speaker, because

they are attempting to acquire. Of course there are some problems with a Texas

based company which has some problems with the Diamond Field's Group also and of

course they are raising some concerns. So we were all hoping that today we could

really welcome Inco by saying that today was the final acquisition point and

that Inco would become that developer for the famous Voisey's Bay site. It is

too bad we cannot say that today and I hope, Mr. Speaker, and I have asked

questions of the Minister of Mines and Energy on that very question yesterday, I

asked him very constructively because I just want to know, like many people in

this Province want to know, exactly the steps that are being taken through this

mammoth development in Voisey's Bay. Of course we have to be very, very careful,

Mr. Speaker, and once we do decide and the decision is finally made that Inco

will be the developer of this project, then of course this motion even becomes

more to the point because Inco will finally be the developer.

So I just had to make that correction today because as of

right now, the final acquisition which was scheduled for today has been delayed.

That raises some concerns but I have asked the mines minister and I hope that he

and the other officials from Diamond Fields and Inco when they report, that it

is not too serious, there should not be a problem. I hope they are right. I hope

they are right so we can get on with the development but that has to be, first

of all, finalized before anything can happen.

Mr. Speaker, to the motion in particular as it describes

Labrador. In the final line where it says; `therefore

be it resolved, given that

Inco has committed to the construction of the mine, the mill, the smelter and

the refinery that this hon. House strongly endorse a policy of directing Inco to

fully assess the economics of any and all smelter and refining sites in the

region of Labrador.' Mr. Speaker, one of the most important words in that

resolve is the word `all,' and that is why we have not been paying a lot of

attention to it, Mr. Speaker. As the mines critic I have been studying and

watching every single day, from The Globe and Mail , to the Voisey's Bay

news, to the internet and I suggest to the Member for Labrador West that he

follow that. There is a lot of information on Voisey's Bay on the new internet,

the page they have there. There are developments right around the world and how

the whole world is watching this discovery, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes in this House

and around the Province people have not fully realized yet, I don't believe, the

mammoth, the size of this project and that if it is done right Newfoundland will

benefit greatly. Newfoundland and Labrador will benefit greatly, and especially

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as far as endorsing Labrador for the first

priority, there is no problem whatsoever from this member, or I don't believe

from any member in this House, that Labrador of course, if the mine, and that is

where the minerals are, that every possibility be given to Labrador. Of course,

as it says here, "...endorse a policy of directing Inco to fully assess the

economics of any and all smelter and refinery sites" in the region of Labrador.

Why I drew attention to the word "all" is simply because of

this. In studying what I have just said over the last weeks and months on the

Voisey's Bay find, you will find in Ontario for example - I've done some

investigating of that, because of course Sudbury - that there is legislation in

Ontario - and I suggest that the member should look this up - with Falconbridge

that says that the mining, smelting and refining take place in Ontario. But with

a loophole in the legislation in Ontario, we now know that the refining for

Falconbridge in Sudbury is now done in Norway. The refining jobs are now done in

Norway. So they have missed out, although they had legislation in place.

I caution the member and anybody else who speaks on this

resolution is the word "all." So that in two or three years from now they said:

Oh yes, we said we would do smelting and mining and refining in Newfoundland.

The catchword is "all." There is no good putting in the smelter, the mine, and

then refining by the way - which are the best jobs so I'm told, the highest paid

jobs, the cleanest jobs, the refining - it is no good for Inco to say: We will

put a small part of the refining up in Labrador, but by the way we are going to

do the rest in Asia or some other part of the world.

That is the key thing we have to watch for. This is a big

corporate giant, a very successful corporate business when it comes to -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) sales were larger than the

Newfoundland Budget last year.

MR. SHELLEY: As the Member for Kilbride just said, the

annual sales last year were bigger than the Newfoundland Budget, just about. It

cost $1.1 billion, if I'm not mistake, Mr. Speaker, to develop this. They paid

$4.3 billion for it. You can imagine how much profit they are going to make. We

are talking about an industry here that could very well be, not the answer, but

a big part of the answer to Newfoundland's recovery. But we have to be cautious

when we talk about such a mammoth development that we talk about all the

smelting, all the refining. We also have to talk about, when we do an

assessment, that Labrador, before they even look at the Island, that is what the

Member for Labrador West is saying, that we fully assess. I think that is

important in your resolution.

Of course, I should point out a few other things from the Red

Book. I will caution the member again. This is not a day of caution but it is a

day of being careful, I say to the member, in all due respect. It is a day of

being careful. Yes, it is great to support this resolution. It is great to hear

the Minister of Mines and Energy stand and guarantee the smelting. It is great

for the Premier to say it, and in the Red Book. But what they say and what is

written has to followed up or nobody wins. We lose. That is why every day

questions about what is happening with it, continuous updates on what is

happening with the development when Inco finally takes over the final

acquisition. What their development plan is. That is what the key is going to

be, when we can lay in this House of Assembly the development plan for Voisey's

Bay. What is going to be smelted, where it is going to be smelted, how much

refining, all the refining, where it is going to be done, and how it is going to

be done. How many jobs, how much it is going to cost us.

Because the funny part about this - and I think every hon.

member here will agree with this - for years - and I've told the Premier - it is

not enough, with all due respect to the Premier, for the Premier or any

politician for that matter to stand here or stand in the House of Commons and

say: Don't worry about it, people, we are going to handle it, you are going to

get your full and fair share. That is nice to hear, glad to hear the Premier

saying it, but what we have to see is the development plan in front of us to see

exactly how it will be developed, where it will be developed, and who is going

to get the benefits.

To say a full and fair share in the Red Book, what we have to

do is follow up with that. That is why every single member in this House,

Opposition and government, it is incumbent on every single one of us to watch

very closely how this whole thing develops. It is important for every single one

of us.

I've referred to it before and I will refer to it again, the

word "all." Be very cautious of that when Inco says - even if they do say it in

writing that there will be refining in Newfoundland, there will be smelting in

Newfoundland. They have to put down: all of the smelting, all of the refining,

will occur in Newfoundland - and, of course, the mining.

I plan to tour Sudbury, and also Thompson, and tour, of

course, Voisey's Bay, over the coming months, and really get in there and find

out from people who have already experienced this type of development in Sudbury

and in Thompson, Manitoba, what really happens, and learn from their mistakes.

From what I am hearing with Falconbridge, and the refining that goes on down in

Norway, a lot of jobs are in Norway that could otherwise be in Ontario. So let's

make sure we don't make that same mistake I say, especially to the members for

Labrador, to watch for that, and let's do our research, like so often the

government members say to us, or like the minister said today: Do your research.

Well, if we ever needed to do research and to investigate and

follow up on, if we have ever needed to do that in this Province, every single

member in this Legislature, and I say especially the Labrador members because

you should be very aware of it, study it, follow it very closely, don't take

verbatim what is said in the media and so on. That is not how this works. That

is not how a multi-billion dollar corporation works. The Incos of the world

don't worry about what is said on the front page of The Evening Telegram

in little St. John's. This is a multi-billion dollar industry. What we have to

see is what is black and white, what is written in the bill and what will come

before this House and what will go down as law.

Of course, we heard it during the election - and how can we

blame people - they say we messed up Churchill Falls, we ruined our fishery, the

forestry is in a state; we don't trust you on this one to stand up and say,

before a screaming crowd with banners flying, we will get our full and fair

share, and that is the end of it. That is not the end of it. We have to see in

black and white, and we have to see it in laws and regulations that are going to

hold them to the decision that the smelting - I will start again - all the

smelting and all the refining and all the mining takes place in this Province.

There were already hints about Asian countries being interested.

By the way, for statistics, I don't know if all the members

know, 60 per cent of nickel by Inco is sold to Asian companies - 60 per cent -

and, if I am not mistaken, I am not sure the numbers for Canada, I think it is 2

per cent, but 60 per cent of nickel supplied from Inco goes to Asia. That is why

they are interested. That is why, when we hear the words: You will get your

smelting and refining, they have clout - it is obvious - but we have the

resource. If we stick by what we have been saying, verbatim and so on, what the

Premier keeps saying, that is fine, but it has to be followed up with concrete

evidence signed and documented and made legal in this Province that they do not

take anything away from Newfoundland and Labrador and especially, with this

particular motion, from Labrador. That is why I put out the cautions today.

We support the Member for Labrador West, we support the

Member for Cartwright, we support the other MHAs from Labrador, and I can tell

you, from spending six years in Labrador West and from visiting the Cartwright

district, I know the sentiments of the people in Labrador, how they feel. The

people of Labrador are simply saying, and I think members will agree with me,

that never again, not this time. They are saying, not this time; this time we

are going to get every possible potential that arises from this project for

Labrador as a priority first, and how can you blame them when they see waters

rushing over the Churchill Falls, and every year $800 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: At least they are in my own pocket, I say to

the minister.

Mr. Speaker, how can you blame Labrador people for feeling

like that when they see the water rushing over Churchill Falls every day, and

all the profits going into Quebec? How can you blame them? How can you blame

them when the people on the Labrador Coast look out to the ocean and see the

disarray of the fishery these days, and how we have ruined that?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect - as the Premier says - to

the Premier, that when he stands and says, `full and fair share' and waves

around a red book during an election campaign, that works, and obviously it

worked for this campaign, but I caution the members for Labrador that is not

good enough. It is nice to hear, it makes you feel good, especially if you

support that party, but it is not engraved, and it is something that we should

be cautious about, and we should all, as members of this House of Assembly,

very, very carefully, every day, keep ourselves abreast of what is happening

with the development of Voisey's Bay so we can watch it develop step by step by

step so we all know exactly what is happening with the development of Voisey's

Bay so that really, when the day is done, and when development is going on, and

when the people up there in the mines, and people working in the smelters, and

people working in the refineries, that we can finally say - and I am sure I

speak for all members on this side of the House when I say - we hope that at the

end of the day, when the production is started, when people are working in this

Province, and we start to see the benefits of Voisey's Bay come into this

Province, we hope, that we can really say that we got our full and fair share,

but the caution is that we have to follow each step progression because this is

a mammoth project that has to be watched very, very carefully for the sake of

all of us, not so much us here today but the future of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in

favour of the motion put forward by my colleague for Labrador West, to speak on

his resolution. Voisey's Bay is located in the district of Torngat Mountains,

the poorest district in the Province. Certainly, for the people in my district I

hope that Voisey's Bay does not go the way that Labrador Linerboard went in

Labrador, where we still have hundreds of thousands of cords of wood rotting in

the woods.

I hope that Voisey's Bay does not go the route of Churchill

Falls where it lights up the Eastern Seaboard, but people in my district 150

miles from Churchill Falls are paying the highest electricity cost, not only in

the Province but in the country. I am glad to hear the member across the way

talk about 'all'. Up in our district we have been classified as failures for

many years, and yes,`all' has been taken out.

Mr. Speaker, we talk of Voisey's Bay, thirty-five miles from

Nain, and we talk of $4.3 billion. Thirty-five kilometres from Nain, my district

Nain is considered to be the wealthiest community of the six, but Nain does not

have one cent for water and sewer, and not one cent for land development. We

have four people living in a house twelve by sixteen with no water and no sewer,

and we have roads that are not fit to walk on.

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when there is a big

development, and if you look at any land claims that are set up by aboriginal

people there was a big major development that brought about these land claims.

We feel that Voisey's Bay is our answer, and finally we may get some of the good

things that, as I travel around the Province and listen to the budgetary

speeches that talk about school buses and paved roads, well that is a luxury we

could never ever expect to have.

We are hoping that with the help of government, and most

important of all with the group of people that are going to have just as big a

say as government, the aboriginal groups, the Innu and the Innuit who are

located in my district and who are hoping for a land claim settlement that will

be beneficial to all. We do not want all. We are willing to share. I do not

think there is any district that has gone through such neglect, and I mean that.

I think any member who comes into my district and will take the time to sit down

and look at it will know that we have been neglected. With all the neglect that

has gone on the people of Torngat Mountains, the poorest district in the

Province, and with the biggest find that is going to help bring this Province

back on track, we look forward to getting, very simply, a fair share so that

with some of these monies we can build a school, new roads, and employ a few

people.

We would never, ever consider to take all but we will pass

along the wealth of Voisey's Bay. We can build up Torngat Mountains, we can

build up Labrador, and we will help build the Island portion of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the members on both sides of the House to support the

resolution, because I think this will be a step in the right direction and give

the people of Labrador the ways and means to basic services they now lack and

that they justly deserve.

Again, I ask the members in this House to support the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to stand and support the resolution put forward

by my colleague on the other side of the House today. And listening to my

colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the description of what has not

taken place in his district, and what the potential wealth of Voisey's Bay

offers in particular to the people in Labrador, I don't think there is any

member in this House who could not support this private member's resolution

today.

The wealth from Voisey's Bay - I don't think any of us really

understand what it will mean to the Province, the huge and significant social

and economic impact that a mine of this nature will have. And if we only look at

and take some time to research the issue, as members individually, and to see

what it has done for other parts, what huge discoveries like this, and even half

the size, one-quarter of the size, have done for other provinces in Canada, have

done for other countries across the world, I think it is only then that we will

begin truly to understand the significance of Voisey's Bay.

The amount of revenue that this government and the people of

the Province, through its government, has the potential to realize each and

every year for the next twenty-five to thirty years, is outstanding. It is the

only way to describe it. The potential that it has for members in this House,

and the people, through their elected representatives in this House, to begin to

pay down the significant amount of debt that this Province has, so that services

that are not available in the Member for Torngat Mountains' district, five to

ten years from now, will be available. That is what needs to happen. But the

amount, the significant amount of revenue, is what we should be after and when

we talk about the buzz word put forward by the Premier, a full and fair share,

it is not a new term, it is a colloquial term.

Coaker had a term in the turn of this century, he said: `To

each his own', and that is an appropriate term for today when we talk about

Voisey's Bay, because it is ours, collectively ours. However, we must, at every

step of the way, as the Member for Baie Verte indicated, at each stage of the

development of this huge find, we all must be very, very careful and very

prudent in what we demand and what we should expect.

The revenues from such a find, what they could do in terms of

the provincial debt, the lowering of our debt, the ability to provide more

services, the ability to invest in new business, the ability to create more

wealth, gain more revenue both directly and indirectly, and the impact that that

can have on this Province is significant. It could change significantly, how we,

as a Province, not only manage ourselves but the type of lifestyle that each and

every Newfoundlander could have twenty-five to thirty years from now.

We must not give up, not one single penny, what we can get

from this find. We must learn from history, but I am fearful that if we are not

careful that may happen. We have to be able to look beyond the tips of our

noses, not only in political terms but in real terms and be able to say that

jobs are important, yes, they are, but we must not give up on the revenue side

to gain short term on the job opportunities on that side. We have to look at

this resource in terms of what we can get from it, how it can be managed

properly, and ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we all win; but before that resource can

be developed, and members have alluded to it, the Innu and Inuit people of

Labrador and the land claim settlements that are ongoing, these issues are

paramount. I listened last about two weeks ago to a Native Canadian in Quebec

who talked about a mining development that went on in that Province and who is

now advising, I believe, some of the Innu and Inuit people on the potential

development of Voisey's Bay and what it actually meant to land claim settlement

in Labrador and benefits to Native peoples in Quebec, and I think there are many

lessons that should be learned.

First and foremost, is that development must not proceed at

all costs. Development must proceed in a controlled way so that not only the

Province, not only the people of Labrador, but in particular, the people who

first settled here, we must ensure that we deal with them fairly, properly and

prudently, because history shows that we haven't. And I think that must be our

first concern and a priority of this Legislature to ensure that happens.

I am not going to take up too much more time because I know

that there are other members who wish to speak on this private member's

resolution, but I stand today to support his resolution, to be associated with

the comments he made, to make some of my own, and stand in hope that at some

point in the very near future, we can start talking about the riches that will

flow from a significant find like Voisey's Bay and what it will mean in a

positive way for each and every one of us.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services

and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House to

support the resolution by the Member for Labrador West. This being actually my

first opportunity to stand and speak to anything other than answering a

question, I want to briefly stand and talk about what Labrador means to the

Province under this particular type of resolution.

It certainly is the wish of the people of my district that I

stand in support of a resolution of this nature. I think I can also speak for

many of the people on Coastal Labrador. I have spent twenty-five years

travelling between L'Anse au Clair and Nain. Over those twenty-five years we

have seen many changes, we have seen many downturns. Right now, we are probably

at the lowest we have been on that part of the Coast in terms of jobs. We know

that a development like this certainly provides an air of optimism for the

people up there, and also of my District of Lake Melville.

Much can be gained from a project of this scale, both

directly and indirectly. It will create a large number of jobs, especially in

the development stage. It will create a fair number of jobs indirectly through

support services and support business. We would certainly expect that the Lake

Melville area will be sort of the drop-off point for the people travelling into

Voisey's Bay.

The whole Province stands to benefit from such a project.

What Voisey's Bay has done, just over the last year since it has been found, is

create a large industry in the exploration business. Many companies are up all

over Labrador. They have people hired. They are using the equipment that the

companies of this Province own. This project eventually will provide a lot of

jobs and it will also create a positive climate. We need something of this

magnitude now to spark the attitudes of people in the Province to get into the

whole mode of creating new businesses and new jobs. Inco is a Canadian company,

certainly a very reputable company. They have been in the mining industry for

many years. We see no reason why they can't do the same when they come to

Labrador to develop Voisey's Bay.

There are certainly a number of issues that have to be dealt

with before we can see any development of the mine at Voisey's Bay. In

particular, many members have referenced the aboriginal situation. There are

certainly issues that have to be dealt with as far as the aboriginal peoples are

concerned. The settlement of land claims - even though these aboriginal groups

right now are negotiating with Diamond Fields for funding arrangements up front,

that is not the land claims agreements. These are only funding agreements where

they will get some of the take from the mine profits themselves. These groups

are still in the process of resolving the land claims issues. Voisey's Bay is a

part of that. Voisey's Bay will probably be one of the levers that is used to

see the settlement of these claims. For many years they have been negotiating.

They feel a lot of times they aren't making any headway. Maybe this is the kind

of project that will certainly kick-start that and get the whole thing settled

prior to development taking place.

Prior to the development starting as well, there is a whole

environmental process that has to be dealt with. Prior to anything happening in

Voisey's Bay, there has to be environmental resolution to the area so that there

can even be an air strip there. Right now, everything is coming out of Nain.

Nain has been very much pressured because there is no airstrip in Voisey's Bay,

there are no docking facilities there. So we have to ensure that the environment

is protected before any development like this can go anywhere to a development

stage. Certainly, the other side is that government has to ensure that a fair

share is gotten for the Province from the profits that Inco or any other company

that may buy out Inco or whatever, will gain from this particular project.

Anyone travelling the north coast, as the hon. the Member for

Torgnat Mountains mentioned, don't have to look very far to understand that

there is an awful lot of money that needs to be pumped into his particular

riding. The ministers who were up there in the last months certainly have seen

that for themselves. There is a great need in Torngat Mountains, and one has to

remember that Voisey's Bay may be the richest nickel find in North America at

least. It is found in the middle of the poorest district in the Province. So we

have to ensure, I think, as government, that much of the profits that come off

the beginning of it should remain in that district and go into infrastructure

programs, roads, schools, all kinds of health facilities and the like, because

they are drastically needed in that particular riding.

I think the other thing we need to certainly consider is

because Labrador - the Voisey's Bay mine will be developed in the heart of

Labrador, that the adjacency rule should be somewhat considered and certainly,

Labradorians should get a reasonable chance to prosper from this particular

development.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more time because there

are other speakers, but I certainly support the resolution by the Member for

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au-Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also rise in support of the resolution put forward by my

colleague, the hon. the Member for Labrador West, and I appreciate the comments

and concerns that have been brought forward, not only by my colleagues from

Labrador but by the other members in the House.

I also say that it is unfortunate that we have to come to a

point in the House where we, as Labrador members, feel that we have to have a

resolution on the floor to ensure that we are given ample and every

consideration for development within this Province.

When the hon. the Member for Baie Verte was speaking, he

cautioned us, as Labrador representatives. Well, I would have to say that we all

have to be cautioned in this Province with regard to that development. We have

to be careful of the tax regimes in which we implement so that we get the full

and fair share that we keep consistently talking about; but I will not get into

that at this present time. I will say that what the hon. the Member for Torngat

has brought out with regard to the poverty and the conditions that exist in his

district at the present time - he talked about neglect; and no doubt I have

spent time in his district and I have seen neglect in great abundance, but I

have also seen it in my own district, and I have seen it growing tremendously

over the past few months.

It is unfortunate that while a deal is being made of this

magnitude in the Province that concerns resources directly related to Labrador,

a deal of $4.3 billion, that our district is faced with so many cuts and

downfall on services as it is. In the past two to three weeks we have been hit

with devastating cuts from every angle, from the RCMP, from transportation, from

Hydro, from air services to freight subsidies and so on. Still, as the deal goes

on and the money squabbling continues over a resource that is adjacent to us, we

still fight the issues of unemployment and poverty to be able to move ahead in

our communities and rejuvenate the economy and move on to other industries.

Of course, I support the resolution, I support it

wholeheartedly, and I hope that ample consideration will be given to Labrador

and Labrador communities. We do have the ice-free ports that they keep talking

about, if they would only look into it and see what the situation is and what

the conditions are that exist here. We do have linkages to the Island through

the Labrador Straits and we have linkages to mainland Canada as well. We do have

power that exists in Labrador that can be used for a development of this

magnitude, either from the Churchill Falls development, or there is also the

Lower Churchill, which hasn't even been explored to this date.

We have the people who are unemployed and trained in the

workforce to be able to carry out the jobs that are necessary to work in a

project of this calibre. We are not asking that this development be solely for

the purposes of people in Labrador, but we are asking that we have a fair share

of all the economic benefits that are being derived from this particular

location.

I can only ask that the House support this resolution and

that the government put emphasis on Inco to look at all possible sites for

Labrador, and wherever possible, locate the industry development related to this

particular site in Labrador for the benefit of its communities and people. We

have had enough exploitation of our resources and that is what has caused people

in my district to protest to the degree that they have. This is what has brought

about the talk of separation and the other upheavals of protest that we have

seen throughout the districts.

Now is an opportunity to give something back to the Labrador

people, to actually prove to them that we do understand where it is they are

coming from and what it is they were asking for. I hope that we don't turn

around and make the same decisions twice, as the hon. the Member for Kilbride

has spoken of today. Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself with this

development in Voisey's Bay. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I take this opportunity to rise, despite

the - to support my colleague -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, could you speak to some

members on this side, especially the Member for Torngat Mountains down there in

the last seat?

- to support the member who put forward this resolution, a

very timely resolution, one, I suppose, of some sad ironies over the past number

of years with regard to all our natural resources in the Province. I can name

all kinds, and so can other members in this House. We can go back over the

years.

I just had last night an example of some things happening

with regard to the forestry industry in the Province, out in Hampden, out in

White Bay, about the harvesters, big companies and so on, taking everything, pay

a few royalties, pay a few taxes, everything else just goes on across the Gulf.

They sit down to the banking machines and just press a few numbers and transfer

it down to the Canary Islands somewhere, transfer it to some other part of the

world, and we see the pitiful, minuscule few royalties from it.

In this case, what I am talking about last night with Kruger,

not even a royalty. We don't even have control over our own natural resources

with regard to forestry in the Province. They don't even pay stumpage. But the

ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian does have to pay stumpage. That is one

example. We could go on and on. That is a speech for another day. Because you

can speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the MOGs? (Inaudible) explain

that.

MR. WOODFORD: If I start to explain the municipal

operating grants to the member opposite - I only have fifteen minutes, so it is

very limited time - unless by leave after my time is up, I could probably do

that.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very exciting time, you know, in the

Province. As other members have spoken, the Member for Kilbride and other

members who have spoken today, have said, these are very, very exciting times,

but what have we done every time something like that would happen? We can go

back over the years. I remember going back to my own hometown. My colleague

representing Grand Falls - Buchans, every time that is mentioned - Buchans is my

hometown. I was born here on the East Coast of the Province, and when I was four

years old, moved to Buchans. I know all about a mining company, worked

underground myself for six years with ASARCO. Nobody has to tell me about a

shaft mine, an open pit mine, whether it is a drift or a cross-cut.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to tell Graham Flight about it,

though.

MR. WOODFORD: The hon. the Member for Windsor -

Springdale did work there for awhile with ASARCO. But what happened there? When

the members for Labrador talk about that resource down there, what happened in

Buchans? They put a company town there. Everybody from Conception Bay worked

there, and there was reason for that, and excuses for it, and good reason,

because it was a completely new town, so people had to come from everywhere else

to mine that particular operation. Some were miners, some came from outside the

Province and so on, and they got into it by trial and error. It was very costly,

too, I might add, in terms of lives, in that particular operation in Buchans.

There were a good many lives lost over the years in the Little Bay mines and so

on.

Now, with Voisey's Bay, most of this on the first of it, I

would say, will be taken with open pit. Eventually, they will have to sink a

shaft and go down and take it out by another means. But the Member for Kilbride,

in his speech just now, mentioned the possibilities of royalties, and what they

could mean to this Province. Rightly so, we have to be very, very careful, I say

to members here. We are the custodians, we are the money managers of the people

of this Province, and this is one time in our history that we should not let

this opportunity slip through our fingers. This time we should make sure that an

operation such as this, whether it's Voisey's Bay - not only Voisey's Bay; we

have Terra Nova out there now, and I am hearing that this particular royalty

regime will be on a negotiated basis and not a generic basis. I think it is time

for us to get away from the generic stuff with regard to royalties in this

Province. I think it is time for each and every operation to be looked at on its

own merits, and pay accordingly.

Voisey's Bay is a very rich mineral find. I remember the

Buchans operation; ASARCO took enough money, enough gold, out of the Buchans

operation to pay their overhead every year. I remember in 1966 they took $13.5

million worth of gold out of the Buchans operation - ASARCO; they paid their

overhead for that year.

Everything was high-graded, another important factor for

government to remember with Voisey's Bay. It is very important for government to

have inspectors in there watching what is being done, whether it is an open pit

or a shaft mine, because a company can high-grade an operation very quickly,

especially where there is a large tonnage involved. When you are talking today

something like 150 to 200 million tons in Voisey's Bay alone, the temptation is

going to be there for a company to go in, extract the top and highest grade

minerals, and then say goodbye. That is why we have to make sure that there is a

good royalty scheme put in place so that the people of Labrador and the rest of

this Province can benefit from such a project.

It is right, in the minister's resolution, to look at that

particular area first, and if it doesn't go there, if there is just a mine

there, we have to remember, what comes out of that particular operation in

royalties, that money should be funnelled back into the districts of Labrador to

make sure that the services that the Member for Torngat Mountains, and other

members in the House today have spoken about, can be brought up to par with

other areas in the Province. Nobody should be second-class citizens, especially

when they got a project like that right on their doorstep. People have already

brought up in the House the Mineral Act. There is no rush for the Mineral Act. I

sat in this Chamber when we discussed the Mineral Act some years ago, and what

happened? What happened a few years ago when we sat here, fifty-two members, and

debated the Mineral Act? Isn't it interesting what irony is in that, Mr.

Speaker, when we sat here last fall and threw everything out, it was a bad move.

Did any members read Hansard and see what happened to that? At the time it was

done it was relevant because at that time there was very little mining in the

Province, very little exploration, but what happened after that? Another bit of

irony, because out of that particular Mineral Act at the time, that we all

thought was so great, and found so bad last fall, out of the ashes of that

particular Mineral Act came the likes of Voisey's Bay, because that is what

helped the small entrepreneur, the small prospector to go out and look for the

Voisey's Bays of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is why Baie Verte is alive and well

today, because of that particular act. Companies were given a break to go out

and look. They did not have to be tied down to what the bigger companies were

told to do years ago, so that is why I think each project should be taken on its

merits. The Voisey's Bays of the world should be looked at separately and make

sure we get the proper royalties from them. The Terra Novas of the world should

be looked at. The West Bonne Bays and Amocos should be taken - well, Amoco is

going to drill two wells just fifty kilometres from Hibernia. I think the wells

are called West Bonne Bay and East Flying Foam. Those are the two wells that are

going to be built next year by Amoco here in the Province. They were going to

drill one this year but they figured it was just as well to go with the two next

year.

We have so much opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and now is the time

to take hold of it. Now is the time to put something in place, and everybody,

not only people on this side, the members opposite, the Member for Labrador, the

independent Member for Labrador, everybody, should put their minds and hearts

together and make sure that we get the best deal possible for this Province. We

should not be shy. We are not going to be shy in standing up to INCO or anybody

else, nor should we, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said we are the custodians of the Province and the

people put us here to make sure that we do the best job possible on their

behalf. We will have to answer some day if we trip and fall again as it pertains

to Voisey's Bay. We will be the people who will have to answer. We are the

people that our grandchildren and - we do not have to go to grandchildren in

this case, our children. This is not something down the road. This is not

something hypothetical, this is something that will be up and going and started

in a couple of years time.

We will see benefits very, very shortly because even in the

infrastructure part of it with regards to jobs, that alone will bring benefits

to the Province, income tax and so on, the trickle effect to small businesses

and elsewhere, not only in this Province but the same as Hibernia is doing for

other areas of Canada, and not only Canada but as far away as Asia. We have one

great opportunity here to do something for this Province.

We have 560,000 people in this Province. Just imagine, we

could put them down on the sidewalk in New York and not even see them. We would

know they are Newfoundlanders but we probably would not see them in the great

populous of New York or some of the great cities of the United States like

California somewhere, 560,000 with the resources we have. Like I said from the

outset, Mr. Speaker, we get the few royalties and the rest, all the value added,

everything else is gone outside of this Province. The profits are gone outside

of this Province.

I have said time and time again over the years in a very

constructive way that we have to stop it. This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker,

for us to stop it now. Deal with the Voisey's Bays of the world, deal with the

Terra Novas of the world, deal with the Hibernias of the world although that one

now I guess is engraved in stone, Mr. Speaker, the Hibernia part of it, can't do

much about that, but at least that will be pumping next year bringing royalties

into the Province, so I say to all members of the Chamber that we should be very

cognizant of what is happening when legislation comes to the House of Assembly,

every member should read it; every member should do his research and every

member should know what is in that particular piece of legislation, if not he or

she should ask and make sure that they understand what they are doing before

they stand and vote in this Chamber on anything as it pertains to royalties for

any particular mining company in this Province or elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I have to add just one little thing with regards

to the Voisey's Bay and I talk about Buchans, rather interesting and over the

years, Mort Verbiski whose son, Chris, found the Voisey's Bay find lived in

Buchans, he played hockey in Buchans, I played with him, Mr. Speaker, back in

the 60s when he first came from the mainland to play hockey with the Buchans

Miners in Buchans, I played with Mort Verbiski the first day he came there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mort married a girl from Buchans and they

moved out here and are now living, and his son, in Pasadena, another community

on the West Coast of the Province and Mort always worked with ASARCO doing

something in the (inaudible) office there before the Buchans mining company

closed down and then he went into other businesses as well as an independent, so

I know the Verbiskis very well; his son Chris took up from his father and his

mother with regards to the entrepreneurial spirit and the hard work ethic that

they had, and it is nice to see someone like that succeed, especially when

people like that are associated with something such as Voisey's Bay because it

is world known and I hope, at the end of the day, that the people of Labrador,

the Member for Labrador who put this particular motion today and the other three

members representing that area and everybody who stands in the Chamber, are

sincere when they say: yes, look at the potentials, look at the possibilities,

look at whether they should do this or do that down there in a realistic and

proper way and at the end of the day, we will all benefit, not only the people

from Labrador but the people from the other parts of our Province, on the Island

part of our Province as well.

It is not only the Voisey's Bay in Labrador. We have to look

at the forest resources in Labrador. We have Abitibi-Price here in this Island

with two to two-and-a-half years of wood left, crying out for timber and what

did they do? They had to go to PEI, they had to go to New Brunswick and here we

are, with some of the best timber in the Province, some of the best fibre timber

in the Province, a timber that holds some of the best fibre for pulp wood

production in this Province, paper production; this is another example of

opportunities for that particular region and what happens in Labrador benefits

the people in the Island, what happens here should benefit the people in

Labrador, no question, and if there are changes to be made to royalties or some

other policies in government to dictate those particular things, Mr. Speaker,

then I think that they should be done.

I have not had notice on time, some members are saying that

my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but in order to give other members a chance to

speak, I would just say, again I congratulate the member for bringing forward

such a resolution, a timely resolution, a resolution that is not lost on the

people of the Province, a resolution that is not lost on the people of Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. We hear all this separatist talk, we look at Quebec, we look just

across the border into Labrador and we talk about separation.

Mr. Speaker, we have to get our minds together and make sure

that those concerns are addressed. Those concerns, sometimes it is not

necessarily money that is involved. It is not necessarily infrastructure or

anything like that. Most of the time it is communication. When there is a

communication breakdown and someone is left without anybody paying any attention

to them, you know what happens. They feel left out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker. Once again I would like to

congratulate the member for putting forward the resolution, and I congratulate

all other members who spoke on this resolution, and the members who are about to

speak on the resolution in a constructive and realistic way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) members in absentia.

MR. WOODFORD: And the members in absentia, and the other

few who lost their seats. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank

everybody for leave. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say I'm

pleased today to stand in my place and support this resolution. I consider this

resolution to be a very serious resolution and I believe all members of the

House consider that to be the case. I would like to commend the Member for

Labrador West for bringing this resolution forward at this point in time. I have

to say that all members of this House of Assembly have to be very astute and

keen with respect to any legislation that may be coming forward in the future

with respect to Voisey's Bay and an implementation and the construction of

whatever may happen with respect to Voisey's Bay.

We are dealing with big companies here when we talk about

Voisey's Bay, big companies that have revenues larger than the Province of

Newfoundland and their expenditures yearly. The Minister of Government Services

and Lands addressed a couple of the concerns that I had, and I will touch on

them briefly. I have to say to the Member for Humber Valley that he made sense

when he was on this side of the House, and I have to say that I agree with most

of what he said standing this time in his place with respect to Voisey's Bay and

this resolution.

One of the points I wanted to address was the land claims

themselves. I think that is one of the things that has to be handled first

before we can really get anything going in Voisey's Bay. As a matter of fact,

there is an

article in the paper today saying: Labrador Inuit trust Inco will

respect Voisey's claims. I hope any trust we would have in Inco would be well

founded. There were a couple of points made in this

article by a Mr. Barbour,

the Labrador Inuit Association president. Basically the whole

article deals with

the land claims and any agreement with the native people in Labrador. From my

perspective that has to be dealt with right away and have an agreement with

those people. If not, the start-up of Voisey's Bay could be delayed.

With respect to an environmental impact study that has to be

done I would imagine - and the Minister of Government Services and Lands

addressed this. I would have to make the comment that Newfoundland has a poor

history when it comes to the environment. We saw the Baie Verte mines a couple

of years ago where there were companies planning or wanting to bring in garbage

to fill the mines in Baie Verte. There was a lot of opposition to it at that

point in time and it didn't go through. I would say that any agreements that are

done with Inco should be looked at twenty or twenty-five years down the road

when it is completed. That is the life span I believe, or proposed life span, of

the site itself. Any destruction that they do to the environment - I can't see

how they could actually restore it, but they should have to enhance it before

they leave. We see that happen in areas in the Province. Baie Verte, as I said

earlier. A big hole left in the ground and it needs to be addressed.

With respect to a smelter and refinery and that type of

thing, and that is the whole intent actually of the resolution, I just wanted to

read one part of the resolution. "Therefore

be it resolved... this hon. House

strongly endorse a policy of directing Inco to fully assess the economics of any

and all smelter and refinery sites in Labrador first." I don't think anybody

here in the House would really disagree with that, although -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, ask the right question and you will get the right answer.

Diamond Fields actually made a statement I believe that with

respect, one of their criteria to have the smelter located would be to have an

ice-free port. The question has to come up, would that rule out Labrador? Would

Inco agree that to have a smelter in Labrador they would have to have an

ice-free port? I think that is something that has to be answered when you

consider the intent of this resolution to have any smelters and refineries in

Labrador. I agree that a cost analysis or breakdown or cost benefit analysis to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a smelter and refinery in

Labrador should be the first thing off the mark. One of the first things to be

done but with respect to the location again, I believe that a number of members

on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, probably got elected on the fact that

they were pretty well promised a smelter in their district during the election.

So I think it has probably been promised all over the Province, all the

districts where people were running - not all, I should not say all I suppose

but many districts with respect to location.

As I said earlier with respect to any legislation that would

be coming forward with respect to Voisey's Bay, there is legislation from what I

am told and I understand that there is legislation in Ontario requiring Inco to

have a smelter in Ontario but there is no smelter in Ontario. The mineral is

shipped out of Ontario to be refined. So that is something, I will say again,

that every member of this House has to be very careful on any legislation that

would be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting now for awhile to have

amendments to the Mineral Tax Act coming to this House to be addressed. It was

promised for the winter setting, we got into an election, Mr. Speaker, and we

are still waiting for amendments to the Mineral Tax Act and we have yet to see

that. I have to ask the question, why we have not seen the legislation or the

amendments coming forward?

I remember during the election that the now Premier made a

statement that there was an agreement worked out with Falconbridge to have the

smelter and refinery put in Newfoundland and Labrador. I asked the question

before, I hope that we don't run another Churchill Falls situation for the sake

of a few jobs to get the refinery here and then give away any benefits that we

would have with respect to Voisey's Bay in the form of royalties. There has been

some suggestion that what should be done basically is look at specific

agreements or site agreements as was done for the Hibernia project with respect

to royalties from Voisey's Bay and I think that is something that should be

seriously considered.

Maybe we should be looking at the royalties with respect to

the mineral coming out of the ground rather than after it is refined and looking

at the profits of a company because we know when we talk about big companies

they can do lots of things with their books to make it look like their profits

are not as much as they really are. So basically we could be losing a lot of

money if we don't look at the royalties of minerals coming out of the ground.

That's just my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker.

Also there have been some comments made recently, in the past

week to two weeks, that there is some concern that the ore may be shipped to

Asia to be refined or some portion of the ore would be shipped to Asia. Again,

that is something that the Premier has categorically stated will not happen but

I really don't know if the Premier of the Province really has the clout to deal

with these big companies and say that it is not happening. My personal view is

that if the full benefits don't come to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

then it is not going ahead. That's the bottom line I would say to the members

opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Also more recently, Mr. Speaker, there is a concern with

respect to the lawsuit against Diamond Fields from a company in Texas. Again, I

am wondering is that some sort of a - I hope not, I suppose I might be becoming

a bit too cynical - is that some sort of delaying tactic? Inco was supposed to

complete the deal today, Wednesday, and now they are looking at next week and

when next week comes we will see a delay further and further. As I say, we are

dealing with big businesses and there are many people in this House who don't

have the experience to deal with the big businesses of the world and we have to

be very careful. That certainly can be confirmed by just looking back a year two

years ago when the government was trying to unload Newfoundland Hydro to some of

the bigger businesses in the Province, and only when the wisdom of the people

spoke, and they got up in arms against the selling or privatizing of

Newfoundland Hydro, did the government actually understand what was going on.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Fisheries now, the

Reverend Mr. Black over there today, that if he has something to say on Voisey's

Bay and the resolution, I am sure he has lots of time to get up on his feet and

have a few words. I am sure he is not shy in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, as I started out saying earlier, this is a very,

very serious resolution. The people of this Province, and this government, have

put a lot, and have hinged a lot, on the production of the ore coming out of

Voisey's Bay, and if the Minister of Fisheries cannot take this situation or

this resolution a bit more seriously than what he actually is, and what he is

doing over there now in his seat, I suggest that he probably leave the House and

come back later on.

Mr. Speaker, again to the resolution, I commend the Member

for Labrador West for bringing it in. It is very timely, and I fully support the

resolution itself.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

la Hune. The Chair is still not familiar with the names of the districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I almost forgot what

district I represented, and who I was for a moment.

First of all, I would like to commend the Member for Labrador

West for bringing this particular resolution into the House. It is timely, and

there is no doubt in my mind that he has the full support of the whole House in

the resolution that he has brought, because if you look at the resolve, it says,

"...the Honourable House strongly endorse a policy of directing Inco to fully

assess the economics of any and all smelter and refinery sites in Labrador

first". I think that augers well if this happens, and I am sure that it will.

My first contact, I guess, with Inco, or the name Inco, was

probably in a geography book when we learned it in our social studies; however,

some ten or fifteen years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Inco operation

in Port Colborne, Ontario, when I took a number of our students from the Point

Leamington - Leading Tickles area into the smelter and refinery in that

particular city and saw what it did in terms of economics for that particular

region, and also to look at and see what Inco has meant to the City of Sudbury,

Ontario, and I believe what it can do for this particular region and this

particular Province as well. It is a fine company. It is a big company, as the

Member for Labrador West has already said. It is Canadian, and it is operating

in twenty plus countries around the world, and we are proud, in a sense, to have

a company like Inco that will hopefully have controlling interest in the

Voisey's Bay particular project and bring benefits to the Province.

It was also the Member for the