November 30, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 51

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to provide the House of Assembly with the preliminary

results of the 1998 Newfoundland and Labrador tourism season.

After years of development and strong participation by Newfoundland and

Labrador entrepreneurs, our Province's tourism industry has become an essential part of

the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In Newfoundland and Labrador today, tourism is responsible for an

estimated 15,000 direct jobs. Expenditures in all parts of the tourism sector, by

residents and non-residents combined, are more than $500 million. Tourism is a major part

of our Province's economy.

I am pleased to say that having assessed preliminary data for the 1998

tourism season, visitation to the Province continues to grow even above the record numbers

achieved in the 1997 Cabot 500 year. This is a very significant achievement.

In 1997, the Province's Cabot 500 Anniversary Celebrations set an

unprecedented benchmark for tourism activity in our Province. There was a 22 per cent

increase in non-resident visitors who spent an estimated $204 million in the Province, an

additional $40.8 over the 1996 level.

Many people expected that visitation would have declined after a year

of special events, conventions and come home years. However, the strategy which underlies

our marketing program is to create awareness and excitement about Newfoundland and

Labrador which carries into future years.

It is apparent this strategy is working. Travel to Newfoundland and

Labrador, overall, is up in 1998 over 1997. Airport activity in 1998 is holding its own

compared to 1997. Charter air traffic in particular is up by 17 per cent this year over

last, and up by an astounding 52 per cent compared to 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Regarding ferry traffic to the end of September,

non-resident Marine Atlantic ferry traffic is 2 per cent higher than the record 1997

level, and a full 16 per cent higher than 1996.

The improvements in tourism visitation means that we are on course with

our markets, and we are providing the right products and attractions. Soiree `99 will be

our next major event, and we invite all Canadians to join us in celebrating a series of

events and festivals. In the coming weeks I will be announcing the key details of Soiree

`99.

Major investments continue to be made in the tourism sector to ensure

that our attractions and services deliver a quality tourism experience. The Civic Centres

in St. John's and Corner Brook will deliver many new, high-yield conventions to the

Province.

New

interpretation centres, such as the Grenfell centre in St. Anthony,

make our culture and history more accessible.

New snowmobile trails will add to our growing array of winter tourism

activities, which now include Nordic and Alpine skiing, heli-skiing and cat-skiing.

Besides Marble Mountain, one of the jewels of the crown for winter

tourism is Gros Morne National Park. In fact, two days ago, on November 28, The Globe

and Mail said that "Gros Morne has the most exotic and varied cross country ski

terrain in eastern North America." Now there's a reason to travel to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In closing, allow me to congratulate the many tourism

operators and regional associations who display the entrepreneurial zeal necessary to make

tourism grow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for her good news review. If only

now the minister could talk to her federal counterparts in Ottawa to see what we could do

with the ferry service coming across the gulf. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture never travelled that way, but I have. I travelled that way this past summer,

and to say that the conditions on The Joseph and Clara Smallwood were deplorable

would be putting it mildly, particularly when you see families of four, five and six

people with sleeping bags and blankets crawling under stairs on the Gulf ferry to try and

find a place to sleep for the night because all the cabins have been booked.

I certainly welcome this news. It is great to see our tourism is on the

rise. Of course, with tourism in this Province I think we have unlimited resources. I

would certainly ask the minister to address the problem of the Gulf.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. It is interesting to note that the government is now speaking favourably of Globe

and Mail reports. Although, I guess it depends what they are saying. Of course, it is

said that the Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose. So I don't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Not that I would suggest for a moment that the minister

is a devil.

We are delighted, of course, to hear of the success of the Province in

attracting and continuing to attract a growing number of tourists. Mr. Speaker, to add to

our tourism visits year over year is very positive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues know, 1998 has been

designated by the United Nations as the International Year of the Ocean, and a number of

major conferences have been held to discuss the challenges of marine resource management.

In fact, right now the Premier is in Halifax addressing the conference of the

International Oceans Institute. The experience of Newfoundland and Labrador makes us

uniquely suited to comment on the topic. Perhaps no where else in this country has the

ocean and its resources been so vitally linked to a way of life, our culture and our

history.

While we remember with sadness the fishery of days gone by, we must

also remember how we got to this point. Domestic mismanagement and foreign overfishing

caused the demise of our groundfish stocks, and these are issues which must be addressed

to ensure that the fishery of the future remains viable and productive.

It is therefore fitting that we once again call upon the Government of

Canada to do its duty and ratify the 1995 United Nations Agreement on High Seas Fisheries

- or UNFA, as it is called. This convention is necessary for sustainable management of

highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, and when enacted as international law will

prevent foreign nations from ever again fishing out of control off this Province's coast.

It was three years ago this week that UNFA was opened for ratification.

To date only eighteen of the thirty nations required have ratified the agreement, and I am

saddened to say that Canada cannot count itself as one of those eighteen nations. It is

essential that Canada return to its leadership role on international fisheries issues and

begin by ratifying UNFA quickly, and then to press other nations of the world to do the

same.

The fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador is beginning to

recover from the devastating blow it was struck. Today the fishery is diversified as never

before, with more than forty species of fish - from rock crab to herring to sea urchins -

being processed in communities and plants, which only a few years ago depended exclusively

on groundfish. This year fish exports will reach more than $600 million, a record since

before the moratorium began in 1992. Mr. Speaker, our industry is vibrant and strong, but

it also needs the commitment of the nations of the world to ensure that it has a bright

future. That commitment should be demonstrated by ratification on UNFA. Then we can

continue to rebuild our domestic fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner, under

the protection of international law.

If we could get our friend over there, his buddies, the IFAW, to do

something with the seals, then we would have it all done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

About the only thing that I would change in that particular report, if

I was writing it, would be the last sentence in the first paragraph: Perhaps no where else

in this country has the ocean and its resources been so vitally linked to a way of life,

our culture and our history.

I think we can say nowhere else in this world, I say to the minister

opposite. It is shameful that our own country, Canada, our own provincial Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, has to put out a plea for our country to sign an agreement that

will help protect straddling stocks. It is shameful and it tells you what kind of a

commitment our federal government and our federal minister think of this particular

industry.

Foreign fishing exists today not on the scale it probably did six years

ago, but anytime during the year you can go out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks,

and on the Flemish Cap, and see twenty-plus foreign boats fishing out there. The minister

is right; until we control foreign fishing, until we control the seal population, our

people, our Newfoundlanders, must sit at home waiting for this particular industry to

provide them with a way of life. It is shameful that those two issues have not been

addressed.

Mr. Baker talked about extending the 200-mile limit to 350 miles. He

talked about a

section in, I think it was the Law of the Sea Act -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - whereby this might be able to be done. I ask the

minister, and I ask members opposite, to lend them some support. Nobody thought we could

extend the 200-mile limit, but we did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe we can do the same thing, to 350 miles.

Thank you.

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

the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to report on the 46th session of the

St. John's Regional Youth Parliament. This semi-annual event brought youth from all over

the region together to debate issues in the parliamentary style. During the weekend, the

participants had the opportunity to hear the views of other concerned youth and to voice

their own views. They debated issues which are currently of interest to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and some which we have debated here in this Legislature.

This Youth Parliament has a long tradition and has been a springboard for a number of

politicians who have led this Province over the last five decades.

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament is one of five

regional youth parliaments in the Province which offers our youth a forum for thoughtful

debate in an atmosphere of respect, enthusiasm, and camaraderie. I wish to commend the

organizers of the event, the Youth Parliament Association, and all participants. In

particular, I would like to recognize the Youth Parliament Premier, Dave Tarrant; the

Leader of the Opposition, Rory MacParland; Ministers Adam Barnes, Andrea Goodman, and

Myron Hedderson; Opposition critics Marc Field and Shannon Hunt; and one of our own House

of Assembly Pages, Lynn Hammond, who served in that capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: This type of exercise allows our youth to learn and

understand our parliamentary rules and decorum. It was a great learning experience for

participants and may well start the political careers of some of our future leaders. The

level of debate was high and the youth participants were very impressive in their delivery

throughout the weekend.

I would also like at this time to congratulate our Memorial University

debating team which won a competition of thirty-two debating teams from the Atlantic

Canadian Universities, held recently in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The two areas

of competition included two-person debating teams, debating issues in an impromptu

fashion, and an individual public speaking competition. The MUN team of Ron Fitzpatrick

and Dave Tarrant won the debating part of the competition, and Shannon Hunt from MUN also

won the public speaking competition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row that MUN

has won this competition. Another MUN team placed third this year, and five of the six

teams from MUN placed in the top ten from the thirty-two teams.

It is very encouraging to see the talents of our youth showcased in

these types of events and competition, and it seems only fitting that we recognize them in

this Legislature for their achievements. It bodes well for our future, knowing that youth

of this calibre will lead us into the new millennium.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We on this side join with the minister in offering congratulations to

the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament. It has been my privilege to have served as

Lieutenant-Governor on one occasion, and I believe the Opposition House Leader has served

in the same capacity as well. We certainly commend the youth of this Province.

We on this side as well want to congratulate the Youth Parliament

Premier, Dave Tarrant; the Leader of the Opposition, Rory MacParland; and in particular,

we also want to offer our congratulations to the MUN debating team. As the minister has

noted, they performed quite well and they certainly brought great credit not just to

themselves but to their university and indeed to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the young people that this was commendable on

their part. It just goes to show that the youth of this Province can hold their own, not

just in Atlantic Canada but also in any other forum where they have an opportunity to

participate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing the efforts of the St. John's

Regional Youth Parliament. They are a terrific opportunity for young people to get public

speaking experience and parliamentary experience.

I had the pleasure of attending the Western Region Youth Parliament

last spring in Port aux Basques, and it is a wonderful opportunity for young people to be

involved.

I particularly want to join in congratulating the MUN debating team.

Clearly they have demonstrated their overall excellence by showing their place in the

Atlantic over thirty-two teams. It is a good example of the young people from this

Province being second to none when is comes to involvement in national and regional

competitions of this nature.

Oral Questions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

In the spring Budget of this year, 1998, the government announced $25

million in funding for ten health care facilities around the Province. The money, for the

most part, was coming from the Immigrant Investment Fund, the money wealthy foreigners

paid to gain privileged entry into Canada. Four of those ten projects involved planning

and design work on the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank, on the Carmelite House in

Grand Falls - Windsor, the Fogo Island Hospital redevelopment, and the Bonne Bay Health

Care Centre.

Can the minister tell us or update us on the status of the planning and

design work for those facilities? And, has government assigned any priority to these four

projects or made any decision on when construction will begin?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The facility in Harbour Breton is close to being constructed. The

others are in the process of planning at the current time.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister again: Has

government assigned any priority to these four projects - he has indicated one is under

construction - or made any decision on when construction will begin? In other words, will

they all begin together? When will they begin? Is it slated for April or May of next year?

Is it slated for June or July of next year? Could the minister elaborate a little bit

further, please, on the question that I asked him?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, they will begin construction when they are

ready. As the hon. member knows, there are two preliminary stages. The first is the

planning - these are replacement hospitals, for the most part, for ones that already

exist.

The hon. member mentioned Bonne Bay, the hon. member mentioned Fogo and

so on. They are currently facilities that were replaced and, as the hon. member knows,

there was a bit of a controversy in Fogo about the location. I have not heard his position

on it and I would be curious to do so.

The other thing is that you are planning to replace hospitals, in these

cases, that have been around since the 1930s or 1940s. What really has to be done is:

decide how many beds, what type of facilities there should be, what type of medical

service should be offered. Once that is determined, you then have to proceed with the

design. Once you have the design, you then go to tender. Once you have tender, you

evaluate the bids, you construct, you finance, and you finish.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) by half, I say to the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board.

Let me ask the minister this: In terms of the money to construct the

facilities - the four that I am talking about, the money was allotted just for planning

and design - where does government intend to get the money? Is it being allocated in next

year's Budget to pay for the construction of the four centres, which planning and design

work is now being done? Do you intend to borrow the money from other sources? Or, has a

decision been made yet with respect to the funding of these centres?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, approximately $30 million was set aside.

There was $25 million raised by the Immigrant Investment Fund. There has been some

interest on that, and we have to maintain a certain reserve for it. What we have to do

first is plan the size of the facilities. Then we have to plan the actual design. Then we

will know how much of the $25 million will be used up to complete the construction.

At this stage, all of the planning has not yet been done so the hon.

member's question is premature. We will know, and when we are in a position to do so we

will advise the House.

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

Opposition.

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

If my question was premature, it is pretty obvious that the

announcement in the Budget was much more premature, if I can say that to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Of the ten facilities

that were announced in last year's Budget, does government intend to, or has government

entered into any lease arrangements with any company or companies for the construction of

any of these facilities or all of these facilities?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, not as of yet. What the government is

determining is the appropriate way to finance these. Part of the requirements for the

Immigrant Investment Fund is, that has to be financed in a certain way and there is a

certain structure that has to be followed. Government has not yet determined what that

process will be, but we should do so shortly.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister said, `not as of yet', so is the

minister looking at leasing arrangements - either twenty, twenty-five, or thirty-year

leasing arrangements - for the building of any or all of these facilities?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a five-year, a four-year, or a

two-year.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is the minister indicating that government is looking

seriously at leasing, having an arm's length company build the facilities, and that the

Province will lease back from the so-called company these facilities for, say, a

thirty-year period?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the options, but

government has not yet determined how exactly the funds will flow. What the hon. member

should and may know is that the Immigrant Investment Fund has requirements on it.

Government cannot spend the money directly; it has to deal with the third party. We have

an option as to whether or not we use this fund for what are essentially public works or

some other purpose.

One of the manners in which we can do it is, we have to follow a

process to deal with the private developer to build and to lease them back. That is part

of the obligations. It could be thirty years; it could be as short as the time length of

the fund, which is approximately five years, or possibility even shorter for that matter.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board this: With respect to the option that he or government are looking at for

the lease of the facilities over, say, a thirty-year period, within that period is also

one of the options they are looking at a buyback at a certain point in time, that the

government may be able to buy back the facilities as opposed to leasing outright, overall?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the government is looking at all of the

options. The option is for government to determine what is the best price and whether or

not it wants, at the end of thirty years or five years, to own the facility. Obviously,

the shorter the time period the more likely it is that the facility will be of certain

value that we would want to have at hand.

We are looking at all of the options. I say to the hon. member, the

decision has not yet been made. When it is, we will advise the public and the hon. member

accordingly.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a rule of thumb, and the

minister should know it as well, that government can borrow money much cheaper on the

marketplace than any private company, for the most part.

I would like to ask the minister this question: What financial analysis

are you looking at right now on behalf of the government that would indicate to you that a

lease arrangement would be much cheaper over the long run, or would be in the best

financial interest of the people of the Province as opposed to the government actually

borrowing the money and doing the construction themselves on behalf of the people in those

areas?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason we are looking at doing it this way is that the Immigrant

Investment Fund has an interest rate of 5 per cent. If the government were to go to market

it would pay interest, right at the present time, at about 6 per cent. One of the

attractive options of doing it this way is that the interest rate charged would be 5 per

cent, which is why we want to use these funds rather than -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Exactly. So what we would have to do is flow the money

from the Immigrant Investment Fund to a corporation. We charge 5 per cent interest, so

that is how we limit the government's exposure on interest. So that is cheaper than us

going to market at a minimum of probably about 6.17 per cent today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question. It is

my understanding on the Immigrant Investment Fund - and the minister can correct me if I

am wrong - that money has to be paid back in a five-year period, with accumulated

interest, but if government is entering into contractual relationships or lease

relationships for thirty years, obviously the lease arrangements will have longer term

financial consequences for the Province.

I will ask the minister again the question with respect to, outside of

the immigrant fund, what will be the financial consequences of a thirty-year lease? Would

it not be better for the Province to borrow the money up front and do it itself, or does

the minister have information at his fingertips that he can share with the House that a

thirty-year lease would be in the best financial interest of the people of the Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a good point.

Treasury Board and Cabinet have not yet decided on what the arrangements will be. What I

can say to the hon. member is that the Immigrant Investment Fund has to repaid within five

years from the date that the cash first flows, which would probably be about five years

from December or January of this year - or January of next. So I say to the hon. member

that before we go beyond the initial five-year period, we would look long and hard at it.

What I can say to the hon. member is that the interest rate will be

fixed for five years and this is the manner in which we have to facilitate it, by creating

a private entity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, no. I say to the hon. member, we have not decided

to go beyond it. The officials have looked at all the options but I think it is highly

unlikely that government will go beyond the five-year period; but that decision has not

yet been made.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this

question: Have government solicited any proposals with respect to a leasing company to

finance the construction of these ten health care facilities, or has government received

any unsolicited proposals from a company to lease the facilities back to the Province? If

so, could you elaborate on what the situation is there, please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Only one has gone out to tender; that is the Harbour Breton Hospital.

That one called for lease arrangements and the government has not decided which, if any,

it will take. It will probably do so within the next week or two.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: You have indicated that, with respect to Harbour

Breton, it has called for lease arrangements. Could you elaborate further on the lease

arrangements that you have just referred to?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no arrangements entered

into. Government invited proposals for the construction and lease arrangement for a

hospital at Harbour Breton. That has not yet been decided on.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final question to

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Could he table any information whatsoever with

respect to the Province's assessment, whether it is today, tomorrow or next week - when

the Province makes a decision - could he table the information on the financial dealings

with the construction of these new facilities so that we can all have a look at it? And,

in tabling it, also table the analysis that the Department of Finance has made that would

support and indicate why government made a decision in a certain direction? Can he commit

to that today?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The government will make a

decision, as I expect, within the next week to ten days or thereabouts. My recollection is

that their decision may be made either by Friday, or may be required by Friday of this

week or early next. I will undertake to the House that when that decision is made, and a

successful tender is selected, we will make that information available to the public and I

will tender it here in the House.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has indicated that proposals have been called for the

construction of the Harbour Breton health care facility announced in the spring Budget. He

has indicated that they have received a proposal that would look at a lease option. When

does government plan to make a decision on the bids that are before them now with respect

to that facility?

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

MR. DICKS: As I said to the hon. member, tenders have been received

by the Works, Services and Transportation Department. My recollection is that the decision

has to be made by Friday, I believe, in order to let the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, I said by either Friday or Monday - and we will have

an opportunity over this week to assess it. Then we will decide what, if anything, we do;

which is not to say we will accept any tender, as the hon. member knows, under the Public

Tender Act.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

Many people who are totally deaf in this Province have been given their

life back because of the cochlear implants. It is devastating to a person to wake up in

the morning and find out it is not their hearing aid that is malfunctioning but it is a

total loss of hearing. That has happened recently this spring to a constituent of mine.

There are also twenty-five other people in this Province today who are waiting to get

cochlear implants.

I am sure the minister is quite familiar with the young eleven-year-old

boy who, for the first time in his life, experienced the miracle of sound - young Aaron

Drover. It was in The Telegram back in June.

I ask the minister: Why can't this surgery be done here in this

Province when there is a qualified specialist here in St. John's who can perform this

surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

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

Our department provided the Health Care Corporation with an amount of

money this year to start doing the pre-assessment hearing as well of the post-op care. We

are working with the auditory verbal therapist as well to try to find if we are able to do

it from both a financial perspective, because it is something we have to very much

consider....

While in this Province we would like to be able to offer all services

at length, we all know that we are not able to do that on any number of procedures and

surgeries that people have to avail of on the mainland.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Medical experts within the health care system, and specifically within

the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, consider it viable. They are only waiting for

you and your department, Minister, to say yes.

It is cheaper to perform the surgeries here in this Province because

the costs are billed back to this Province here and are paid basically out of the

Province's funds anyway. I ask the minister: Why would you subject these people and their

families to expensive air travel and other related costs when it can be done cheaper here

in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

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

The people involved right now are actually involved in some training

with respect to the mapping and the other necessary components that would be required.

As I have said previously, we are working with the Health Care

Corporation to try to find the best way to deal with this issue. If we can do it in the

Province, we will work with the Health Care Corporation to try to find a way to make that

possible. Clearly, if it is financial, that is something we do have to look into to make

sure that we are able to provide that service.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with medical professionals both inside and outside this

Province otolaryngologist, auditory verbal therapists, audiologists and others, to get an

appreciation of what is involved in this complex process.

Now the Province has agreed to buy the equipment to rehabilitate

these people, but they are not giving the green light for the cochlear

implant itself.

I said to the minister: The implant, per person, is cheaper in this

Province than elsewhere because the costs are billed back and the people do not have those

extra costs to travel - seven trips out of the Province for each cochlear implant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Is the reason because you fear

that if more surgeries get done here, even though the cost per surgery is cheaper, there

may be a potential increase to the overall financial commitment? I ask the minister, is

that the reason? Are you managing the system or rationing by wait-listing? If not,

Minister, what is your reason?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Health and Community

Services.

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

Whenever you consider expanding a range of surgeries, for example - and

I will use the example of paediatric open heart surgery - we know at one point in this

Province we used to provide that service, but we also now know, and have since seen, that

cardiac paediatrician move out of the Province because there was such a low volume that

the surgeon was not able to maintain his skills.

Before you are able to provide a full service, you have to make sure

you have the pre-assessment and the post-care follow-up. That is what we are putting in

place right now, and we will look at providing the whole process if we are able to do it,

if we are able to do it financially, and if, in fact, it is able to be done based on the

surgeon maintaining the skills required to do that surgery in a low-volume province.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Education.

Will the minister confirm that most school boards are running a

deficit? And since school boards cannot incur a deficit without the minister's

authorization, I want to ask him: What steps is he taking to help those boards address

their budgetary shortfalls?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot confirm that most school boards are running a deficit. I know

that some are. Whether or not any school board runs a deficit depends upon what plans they

put in place for the fiscal year they are operating in. Basically we have been asking

school boards to try to find ways, without curtailing programming options, for students to

live within their budget allocations as were notified and given notice to them for last

year.

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

Valley.

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

The minister will know that boards are experiencing particular

difficulties with their operating costs; that is the cost of fuel, electricity, telephone

costs, snow clearing, and municipal fees. Allocations to some boards for these expenses

are actually less than the actual cost they have to pay out.

How can the minister expect boards to pay for these costs and provide

these services if his allocations are actually less than the actual purchase price of the

service?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the urging of school boards some seven years ago now, the Department

of Education gave them full flexibility to use their budget in a global fashion once it is

assigned from the Department of Education, so we do not restrict them to use funds for any

particular reason that we allocated from government to the boards. They asked for and

received the full ability to manage the funds. Once the money leaves the government

through the Department of Education, it goes to the school boards. They have full

flexibility and full control to take the total budget, so we do on go through the exercise

that the hon. member just did of saying: Let's pick these two or three items out of

fifteen or twenty and say we may be short on these two or three so therefore we have to

get money for two or three.

We allocate money on the basis of fifteen or sixteen criteria, but at

the end of the day the school boards, because they asked for it, because it is better for

them for managing and planning, have full flexibility to use their budget in a global

fashion. So any requests that would come to the department would have to give us

information about their total budget, not about two or three items from a list of fifteen.

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

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that when school

boards are expected to pay increasing costs for fuel, electricity, and these matters,

there is a real danger that instructional budgets will be used to supplement the operating

budget.

I want to ask the minister: Is he not concerned that instructional

budgets, the moneys allocated to provide programs, will be redirected towards the

operating budget and therefore we will compromise the integrity of our learning

environments?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not at all the expectation of what should be happening in the

system. Maybe I should remind the hon. member that what the government committed to a

couple of years ago in its three-year planning cycle, of which we are nearing the end of

the second year now, was that we would leave the operating budgets for school boards

frozen at the level from two years ago. In fact, almost all of the boards are now running

significantly fewer schools than they were two years ago; some as many as ten or eleven

schools fewer than they were actually operating a few years ago. They have the money for

the operations for those schools even though the schools are closed.

In fact, the expectation from the department in putting that plan in

place was that not only would they have enough money by having the operating grants for

schools that are closed and no longer in operation available to them, as they do have, to

cover off any increases in costs for electricity, oil, snow clearing, or those kinds of

matters, but in fact they would have some extra money that they might even now be putting

into the instructional budgets rather then having to think about going to an instructional

budget to take those funds to pay for other costs such as heat and light.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, a final

supplementary.

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

The minister will also know that the budgetary allocation of that

program works well where there are numbers of schools that are closing - for example, in

the Avalon West system - however, if you are looking at another school board on the West

Coast of the Province you will find that where there are only one or two smaller schools

closing there is a deficit of $288,000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Will he address these

particular school boards where there have been only small numbers of schools closing and

they are finding themselves in real budgetary difficulties at this time?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might indicate to the hon. member that as a result of representation

made to the Department of Education by one of the school boards on the West Coast and by

three or four members of the Legislature on this side of the House who happen to represent

that area, three-and-a-half weeks ago, there is a full review of their budget being done

and we expect to be able to have some answers for them as to the status of their budget

and the final makeup of their budget very shortly.

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

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

The Discovery Regional Development Board was recently mandated at a

provincial meeting of all the regional economic development boards to start a broad

initiative aimed at taking a new and comprehensive look at the Gulf ferry system. The

board describes its mandate as going far beyond anything the provincial committee or

Marine Atlantic is doing. Will the provincial government be making any representation to

the board or supporting the board in its endeavours?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must confess to the hon. member that I missed the first part of your

question because of some comments that we going back and forth. The Clarenville Regional

Economic Board?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Discovery Regional Development Board.

MR. MATTHEWS: Discovery, okay, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have not, we are not, and I do not anticipate that we

will at this point, be dealing with the issue of Marine Atlantic services, beyond what we

have already said publicly, many times. Number one: That it is a constitutional obligation

that we will hold the federal government to. Number two: We believe that the rates cannot

continue to go year over year higher than they are because of a lot of factors, not the

least of which it has impacted in terms of tourism. Number three: We believe that the

level of service must be upgraded and brought to a higher level of satisfaction to the

travelling public. Number four: We are continuing to impress upon Marine Atlantic as an

organization, and upon the federal government directly, that whilst we have accepted to

some degree, particularly the Town of Port aux Basques, the decisions made with respect to

that organization's restructuring, we are not happy with where it is.

Our position holds. Our stated position to the federal minister, my

position, on behalf of government, and the Premier's position, has been this: Every job

with respect to that organization should be moved and staged out of Newfoundland short of

leaving enough people on the other side of the Gulf to tie the boats up safely and let

them go in a similar fashion.

The organization, Marine Atlantic, now exists only to run three ferries

from the Mainland of Canada to Newfoundland. We believe on that basis it is a service

singularly dedicated to our benefit and one over which we must have more control.

We have also said, by the way, that we believe all of the directors of

the new board, the seven-member board, should be Newfoundlanders. We believe the Chair

should be a Newfoundlander, and I believe that if we can accomplish that we will have

accomplished more than any organization out there (inaudible) thinks it is realistically

possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

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

Minister, for years we have been saying that the Gulf ferry system

should be an essential service within the Trans-Canada Highway system. Have you had any

success with respect to lobbying the federal government in creating an essential service,

keeping in mind that we have to take the rights of the workers and employees into

consideration with respect to any grievances or whatever the case may be? Have you had any

success with respect to creating an essential service, with the federal government?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue substantially is a labour issue because, as the hon. member

suggests, it involves the employees of Marine Atlantic. The implications for declaring it

an essential service have significant labour implications. I guess for that reason,

amongst others, the federal government have not seen fit to accede to the position of the

Newfoundland government which is, in fact, to have that service declared an essential

service.

That cause has also been supported at the federal level by federal MPs

on the government side of the House and maybe even on your side of the House, or the

Opposition side of the House up there if you can find them amongst the seventy or eighty

over there. I know they are few and far between. I believe if you could find a few PC MPs

in Ottawa, I would suggest that amongst the two or three that are up there, there might be

one or two who would support an essential service for the Gulf service.

It is the position of this government that it should be an essential

service, and we hope there will be satisfactory progress made in that direction before the

next labour negotiations have to take place with Marine Atlantic employees and before we

again get ourselves into another threat of a strike.

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, the Fisheries Loan Board, which was put in place to help

fishermen finance major purchases, was removed from your department and out of the

minister's control, and put with the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. I ask

the minister if he feels this was a positive change to reflect the concerns and the wishes

of Newfoundland fishermen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, this minister, or any other minister on

this side of the House, would never be part of implementing a loan board of the past.

The new financing that we are discussing, which we will be discussing

as early as today -

MR. TULK: Six o'clock.

MR. EFFORD: - six o'clock this evening - will be a financing system

that will benefit all of the fishermen and people in the industry who need to access

financing. Secondly, there is financing available today for fishermen, very readily

available, through the loan board that is under the minister, through the banks.

As early as last week I talked with a fishermen, where he went to the

bank and received his money without any consultation, or the need of any consultation,

with any government agency. The banks are opening up their doors because of the new

positive restructured fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new restructuring, I say to the minister, is to go to companies on

bent knee. That is what fishermen have to do today.

Minister, most will agree that changes were needed in the way that the

Fisheries Loan Board conducted business; however, some of the new rules and regulations of

this funding agency are certainly not helpful today to a lot of fishermen.

I ask the minister: If a fishermen is seeking funding to procure a new

boat under thirty-five feet, or to do maintenance on an existing boat, and the amount of

funding needed is less than $50,000, would that fisherman be considered a priority with

the new Fisheries Loan Board as it exists today?

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

MR. EFFORD: All fishermen, all fisherpeople in this Province today,

whether you are in an eighteen-, a thirty-five, a fifty-five, or a sixty-four foot

eleven-and-a-half inch, remain a high priority with this government. Let me tell the hon.

member that.

Fishermen with a need of $50,000 or less can access monies through the

loan board, depending on certain criteria; but they now can access money in many

instances, with the proper credit background, through the commercial banking institutions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, time for one

quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, the new Fisheries Loan Board program is

certainly not set up to help fishermen, especially inshore fishermen, fishing in the under

thirty-five foot sector. The minister knows that.

Minister, you are a man who likes to portray himself as the fishermen's

friend -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - a man who is going to be the saviour for the

fishing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister how he allowed to have this

board taken from his control and put in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal,

when it is so crucial to the fishery and the future of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Loan Board of the provincial

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could not be in any more -

AN HON. MEMBER: Capable hands.

MR. EFFORD: - capable hands, than my hon. colleague, the Minister

of Development and Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. member something else. We are

sending our staff, Minister Tulk's staff and my staff -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - around the Province, starting as early as next week,

giving fishermen information on how to access money through the loan board and through the

banks.

I suggest that the hon. member should sit in on one of those

information sessions and learn something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment

Corporation".

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation

Act."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Denturists

Act."

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador

West.

Residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial government in

supporting the Iron Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Seven

Islands, Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of election day it is good news for Quebec to

see our resources go to benefit people in Quebec again, but it is not good news for the

people in this Province. People in Labrador West and indeed throughout the Province are

still reeling about the decision by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to process iron ore

down in Sept-Iles, Quebec to provide jobs for Quebecers. It is something that has not gone

away.

Even as lately as the weekend the mayor of Labrador City was still

asking questions, still asking government for information on what exactly transpired in

this whole charade that has happened with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They are also

asking the question - as we talked to people in the mining industry over the last few days

- about the inconsistent message government is still sending investors throughout Canada

and North America when it comes to this Province. One day it is a tough stand on Inco to

take on the big giants. On other days it is okay that the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a

company that has been here for thirty-eight years and made billions of dollars on the

resources of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we let it just waltz out the door without a

protest, without anything from this government that tells them that they have to produce

and do secondary processing in this Province and bring jobs to this Province.

The people of Labrador West have not forgotten about it. They continue

to ask the questions. The mayor continued to ask questions this weekend. They are still

waiting for answers from the government on exactly what happened, specifically with the

Hatch report and some questions they have had there. Right off the top the one that I

think about is this one. In the Hatch report they talked about $24 million of the

viability that was considered for a bunkhouse they were going to build in Labrador City

for people to work in that area, which was totally inconsistent. They are still asking the

same questions of where this all started. Is Labrador City being used here as a pawn? Some

message that the government of the day and the Premier are trying to get out to other

investors when they see so many inconsistencies in our Province when it comes to the

mining industry and mining development.

They certainly have a lot of questions still to be answered. They have

not stopped asking those questions. I think that in the coming weeks and even months they

have some strategies of their own to try to get more answers to these questions. Not only

the people of Labrador West, but anybody in this Province who has been watching this

unfold in the media and so on are asking the questions: How can it be so tough one day and

not so tough the next day?

It is the same old story. It is the old cliche of here we go again,

when we see the resources go out. Today there is an election in Quebec, and if the polls

are right then we will see a separatist government take over again in the Province of

Quebec. The first announcement when the election kicked off was Mr. Bouchard announcing

the great news that the iron ore in Labrador City was coming to create jobs in his

province. Imagine, to see a separatist premier kick off his election campaign and gloating

about the resources that are coming out of Labrador.

It is a wonder that the Premier was not there with him. I tell you, the

Premier was not in Labrador City the day they announced the great news for them. We were

there. We were there when the people of Labrador City got the news but there was no sign

of the Premier on that day. There were no signs of the cameras around the Premier on that

day, but they were down in Sept-Iles, Quebec, where Premier Bouchard was gloating about

the resources coming out of Labrador City to create jobs in his province. He was certainly

there.

I can tell you that the people of Labrador City and Labrador West, and

the people of the Province in general, feel betrayed. They were misled and led down the

garden path, believing that the Iron Ore Company of Canada will indeed do expansion, but

they would do secondary processing in Labrador City or not at all, or the Premier would

have been on a flight to Australia. The minister was drawing lines in the sand. They had

it all told to them, but at the end of the day, the iron ore out of Labrador West will be

put on a train and sent to Sept-Iles, Quebec, to create jobs in that Province.

That company has a great, long history of a sweetheart royalty regime

with this Province, and that was not good enough. Nobody is against these companies making

profits but they are for using the resources in this Province to make sure that jobs are

created in this Province. You cannot be flip-flop from one day saying let's take on the

big giants, when the next day in the same breath you are saying: It is okay that you

produce jobs from our resources in another province.

I still support the people in Labrador West. I still have the same

questions, they still have the same questions, and they are still unanswered. Some people

may think it has gone away but I talk to them on a daily basis in that area, the Chamber

of Commerce and so on. They feel the same way, Mr. Speaker, about that today as they did

before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact it has gotten worse. They are

going to continue to ask those questions, Mr. Speaker, until they get some straight

answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to support this petition. The people of our Province

deserve better than this. They deserve good government and they deserve honesty. When the

Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy were in Labrador City last year for the

winter carnival, the Premier said: If the pellet plant is not in Labrador City I will be

on the plane to Australia. Probably he was being honest. I do not see him here today. Will

we get a fax from Perth that the pellet plant is going to remain in Labrador City? They

deserve honesty. They do not deserve the Premier of their Province and the Minister of

Mines and Energy to go to a good time, and when it sounds good, and it will be good

politically, for them to get up and say: I will fly to Australia personally if this pellet

plant does not remain in Labrador City. Is that less than honest? Do the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Premier is not honest?

MS S. OSBORNE: He said he would fly to Australia. Was the Premier

in Australia? Did he say he would go to Australia? Yes. Did he go to Australia? No. Is

that honest? You answer the question. He said he would go to Australia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is what he told the people of Labrador West,

that he would personally go and fight for them. The people of this Province deserve more.

They deserve good government. They deserve honesty. Just because it felt good and it was

good politically, he stood up in front of them, and the Minister of Energy was there with

him, and everybody was all happy and clapping and smiling. It felt good, it was a

festival, it was a carnival, there was a good feeling among the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a love-in (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, a love-in with the people. He said: If this

pellet plant will not remain in Labrador I will personally go to Australia. I have not

seen him go to Australia yet, so you answer the question. I will say it again. The people

of our Province deserve good government and they deserve honesty. The Premier said: I will

go to Australia. Did he go to Australia?

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you getting on with?

MS S. OSBORNE: I am getting on with: Did the Premier say he would

go to Australia? You answer that. Did he go to Australia? You answer that. Was he less

than honest? You answer that. You do not need to be a genius to figure that out. It will

not challenge you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador

City who are urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the decision to

process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

I support the people of Labrador City. We are trying to ensure that the

resources of our Province benefit the people of this Province. I guess there must be some

sense of satisfaction in Quebec these last few years. Even though back in 1927 the

judicial committee of Privy Council decided that Labrador belonged to Newfoundland - and

not to Canada and not to Quebec -, it seems in recent years, at least, the people of

Quebec have benefited greatly from Labrador resources. We have seen the Churchill Falls

agreement transfer to the Province of Quebec the major benefits of that development. We

now see, in the case of Labrador City, a pellet plant being activated in Sept-Iles. The

word reactivated is used, but it was never activated before, processing ore from Labrador.

It was processing or attempting to process ore from Schefferville.

This change to the state of the development in Labrador West is

difficult to accept. The government has given a rationale for it which the people of

Labrador West and I do not accept. There is no reason why government cannot and should not

insist that the Iron Ore Company of Canada continue the processing of ore in Labrador

West. What is astounding is that despite the fact that the President of the Iron Ore

Company of Canada refused to give assurances to the people of Labrador West that the

pellet plant in Labrador West would not be given a priority in the event there was a

requirement of shutting down one or the other plants - there was not any assurance from

the Iron Ore Company of Canada -, yet this government seems to accept, on the basis of

some kind of expectation, that the people of Labrador West would take matters into their

own hands. That is the only assurance that this government seems to be willing to talk

about to ensure that there is no shutdown of the pellet plant in Labrador West and the

continued operation of the one in Sept-Iles.

That seems to me to be a demonstration of the weakness of the resolve

of this government when it is saying that it is not prepared to stand up for the people,

but in the event that something bad happens the people will have to stand up for

themselves. Because this government has indicated its unwillingness to stand up on their

behalf.

There are a lot of questions that government has yet to answer

concerning this matter. These questions continue to be asked by the people of Labrador

West. The government seems to feel that this issue is going to go away, that people are

going to stop talking about it, that they will not remember it. I want to assure this

government the people of Labrador do remember and they will remember. I think the only

people threatened are going to be this government and representatives of this government

if they seek to be re-elected in Labrador West.

This is a very important issue, not only for Labrador West and Labrador

City in particular, but also for the people of the whole Province, because it sets the

standard by which this Province has the ability to protect the use of its resources for

its own people. This decision sets its standard. The test has come and the government has

failed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you with the

ruckus going on over on that side of the House. I am sorry. The Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture is the one as usual.

Yes, I am going to stand in my place and support the petition, no doubt

about it, that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi presented here today. As a matter of

a fact, I presented a petition here the other day from 159 people in the Town of Flatrock.

I think I presented it the other morning, and I signed it, so I made it 160. I remember

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs standing and saying that at the

Federation of Municipalities meetings a few weeks ago that a number of petitions went out

across the Province to all the municipalities and they did not get one back.

I was quite surprised when the Mayor of Flatrock wrote, in a covering

letter with the petition, saying that they supported the people of Labrador West in trying

to get the project upgraded in Labrador instead of going to Sept-Iles.

One of the most important points, I think, involved here is the fact

that the minister stood in his place, and the Premier publicly stated, that there would be

no job loss with respect to that expansion in Sept-Iles. They also said if there was any

job loss it would be through attrition. In actual fact as time goes on, because of this

expansion in Sept-Iles, and not in Labrador, the people of Labrador City will lose jobs.

If they are losing jobs, obviously as time goes on there will be fewer people working in

the plant, fewer taxes paid, and things of that nature. In actual fact, it will have a

negative impact upon Labrador City.

It is not really quite truthful, I suppose would be the right word, or

accurate to make the statement that there will be no impact with respect to jobs in

Labrador. That in itself is a factor. The other factor that I think is of major concern is

the quality of the pellets that will be produced. Apparently, the pellets that will be

produced in Sept-Iles will be of a higher quality than the ones that will be produced in

Labrador. Therefore, in my mind, again - and it is hard to predict this, because you do

not know what the markets will be demanding, you do not know what the industry will be

demanding in the future - if there is a higher quality of pellet produced in Sept-Iles,

the impact that will have is that the Labrador facility could possibly lose sales. If they

lose sales, what impact will that have upon the jobs in Labrador? Aside from the attrition

point of view, if they have a lesser quality pellet and the demand is for a higher

quality, then in fact we could actually lose jobs from that angle.

I have some notes here. I dug them out of the Hansard and the different

public statements by the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy. They made public

statements, and here is one in particular. The Minister of Mines and Energy stated they

would try and work a deal to ensure that the jobs would not leave Labrador, that they

would give them a deal on the hydro that would be supplied to keep the jobs in Labrador.

The Premier has stated here many times and in the public that if the jobs went out of

Labrador to Sept-Iles he would be on the first plane to Australia to fight for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We just can't say Labrador. Because in fact this impacts upon all

government policies with respect to the mining industry. With respect to that we have now

the Mineral Act before the House of Assembly. There has been some debate on it. I think we

may be in Committee on it now. This has been ongoing for some time. We have been asking

for changes to the Mineral Act since back in 1994-1995. We have asked, we demanded, we

forced, we presented petitions, everything that could be done. Finally this fall they

bring in, four years too late probably,

an act with respect to changes to the Mineral Act.

The amendments to the Mineral Act are giving Cabinet a far-ranging,

very wide authority, from one extreme to the other, to make regulations with respect to

the exploration, and to giving out the licenses, permits, fees and whatever, with respect

to the mining industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just to clue up, I will say that certainly I support

the petition presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 5. I would move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

We are back on Bill 38,

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I had to rise today to make some comments in affect to the Mineral Act

as we get into discussion on clause by clause. Of course, it is a very significant piece

of legislation. It is significant in a lot of ways.

First of all, there is the significance to this Province on the

potential for mining in this Province. Most of the discussions these days is about

Voisey's Bay and so on. The truth is that there is a lot of potential for this Province in

some of the smaller mining companies and small mines. For example, in my own district,

Nugget Pond right now has been in production just a couple of years. It is known across

the country, and indeed even in North America, for its cost effectiveness, and the tidy

job Nugget Pond is. Anybody that tours that facility will see Steve McAlpine and the crew

of mostly local people that work there, some eighty to ninety people. It fluctuates with

the number that work at that particular mine. We are not just talking about Voisey's Bay,

and a massive find, and an mass of ore, but we are also talking about how in Newfoundland

and Labrador the great potential is there for small mines such as Nugget Pond to be viable

and to be a big part of our Province's economy.

As we talk about the mining industry everybody gets stuck with Voisey's

Bay. The truth is what Nugget Pond has proven to the rest of the Province is that you can

be viable, you can be compact, and you can create long-term lasting jobs for people

throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, as we speak also there is

a lot of exploration in the Baie Verte Peninsula area, in the Green Bay area. Right now we

are hoping that a small mine near King's Point area, called the Hammerdown, operated by a

company called McWatters, will hopefully be into production within twelve to eighteen

months. That is their hope as of now. They have stated that publicly. Hopefully that will

see about a hundred to 110 men.

The advantage of these small mines I have always believed - it is an

analogy I used with the rest of the Province - is that if you have ten or twelve mines

that employ eighty, ninety or one hundred people, if one of those mines are finished, as

what happens with mines - because remember, the day you start mining of the ore is the day

that it moves toward closing. Because mining is not a renewable resource. These small

compact mines that start up - like Nugget Pond, like hopefully the one near King's Point,

and if we can eight or ten or more of those around the Province -, the good news about

that is that if one shuts down you still have eight or nine or more still operating.

That is also the analogy we use with small business in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are always looking for this big mega-project that is going to save our great

Province, always looking for the Hibernias, the Voisey's Bays, and so on. We are looking

for this great infusion of money into some major industry, t-shirt factories and so on,

when the truth is we should be looking at small business the same way we look at mining.

If we can start a small business with ten, twelve or fifteen people then the government

should be doing everything in its power to make sure those companies survive and that they

go into production and basically put people to work. That is what it is all about.

At the end of the day, if you have fifty, sixty or seventy small

businesses throughout the Province with five, ten, fifteen and twenty workers, then you

have a stable economy. Because even in the times if a company goes under - which is

normal, that is a normal process in business; any businessman will tell you that there are

businesses that fail, sometimes beyond their control - when those business fail, if it is

a huge business with 500 or 600 employees - like what happened in Baie Verte years ago at

Advocate Mines. There were 650 people working at that mine in Baie Verte at one time. The

next day an announcement was made that the mine was gone, and 650 jobs were gone in a

small community. They are surviving, they are surviving because they are tough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they have a great member, that is why.

(Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is another point, Mr. Chairman.

The whole point is that if we have these small compact mines like

Nugget Pond, which employ eighty or ninety people, they are solid, they are

environmentally safe, they are very compact. If you ever visit the site, which I have done

on several occasions, you will see how clean it is. They have a whole plan. You can see

their plans today: how long they plan to mine a certain area, what they plan to do after,

to reseed and replant trees and put things back, as best they can, to its natural state.

That is the type of company we need to encourage to come to the Province.

On this very particular piece of legislation, the Mineral Act, the

encouragement of getting investors to come into the Province is what this is all about. We

have stated here already and have been on record, and our Leader has been on record, that

generally we support the whole concept of the changes that are being brought forward here.

Basically, in a nutshell, for anybody who is reading it, it does what we all want to do.

That is to make sure the resources of our Province stay in our Province for the full

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That what it is all about, the full benefit,

and that is the key word, "full."

A lot of people around this Province for many years, from our fishery

resources, our forest resources, our mining resources and so on, it seems like everybody

has benefitted outside the Province. Many people have benefitted from our resources

outside the Province. We are saying the full benefits of those resources are for people in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why the people of this Province also get that mixed

feeling. They see one day where the government of the day takes on a big company like Inco

and say that resources have to be for the full benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. That

is something we have supported, and it's a principle that was so important to this

Province, the real principle that gets at the core of what this Province is all about.

That is, keeping resources within our Province. That is why we stand shoulder to shoulder

- hard to believe, but we did - with the Premier on his stand with Voisey's Bay, and how

everybody said it was the right thing to do. That is what we believe.

It is also a mixed signal when you get wishy-washy with the words and

talk about: We stand tough with Inco, but at the same time IOC is allowed to carry on with

their plans of expansion, and that means outside the Province.

When they talked about expansion and how much money they were spending

- $650 million - in the Labrador City area, that was good news, there is no doubt about

that, to expand and to make themselves more competitive. I understand with the Canadian

dollar, with the fluctuating markets with nickel, gold and so on, that the global market

certainly changes. The bigger companies have to take all of that into account. Because

every time the dollar drops a cent or the price of nickel drops a cent or two cents that

means hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to a particular company.

Those are factors beyond our control, and they are beyond the

government's control, but they are factors there, there is no doubt about that. Economic

viability is the word that needed to be tighten up. That is what we need. We do not need a

company like IOC - stay away from Voisey's Bay for a second -, but look at IOC. They made

billions - and that is not an exaggeration any more - of dollars over the years, and to be

able to say when they want to expand: You do it in this Province or you don't do it at

all.

Changes to the Mineral Act affect us all for a long term. It is

long-term history. What we do today is going to be passed on to the future generations of

this Province as hopefully we start to do the right thing. In ten, fifteen or twenty years

from now when new members are in this House of Assembly they can say that the legislation

in place, and that the laws that govern the resources of our Province are good tight laws

that are going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Simply put, people are sick and tired of seeing our resources going

outside the Province. So the decisions we make here today are going to affect our future

generations. Not just mining, but our forestry and fishery resources. Those three alone,

if we don't even talk about the oil - we have not even mentioned the oil resource -, if we

just talk about those three resources alone, I believe if we had our rules tight enough

and did the things right that those three resources alone, with 500,000 people, would

employ every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that, if we had the

full benefit from each one of those three resources.

Now, to speak particularly with the changes to the Mineral Act. As we

spoke about before as we get into clause to clause, and I want to make another mention

today - because I did mention it to the minister the last day in the House about some of

the house cleaning parts of this clause - of one particular clause. I mention it to the

Minister of Mines and Energy again, because after my discussion on it a couple of days ago

- somebody heard it from the House of Assembly, I guess some people do follow it. I will

mention the clause to the minister again as I mentioned it the other day. I cannot

remember the exact number, but it is on the licences, the lining up, and putting a draw

out.

There are some concerns that if we do the route you are going - and I

agree we have to go a different route to try and clear that up, that mess we have down

there when people camp outside the door and so on - that if you do the draw you have to be

very careful. I mean, it is a very practical means. As we all know, anybody who can use

the system and abuse the system is going to do it again. What you have to do is tighten up

those loopholes. One of the loopholes in that - and I do not know if the minister has

considered or talked about it - is piling it on.

Very simply put, and I should not put the idea there, but I am sure it

is there already, because it was mentioned to me, but a person can go in who wants to

stake a claim on land and get his brother, his cousin, his aunt, his uncle and everybody

else to put in the draw for the same ones. He has ten tickets going into the draw for that

particular piece of land.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, and I have not got the

solution to it, but some of the people want to have discussions on it. Maybe they have

some ideas where we can close that loophole, because it is a loophole. I do not know if

you have considered anything yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: There may be a regulation there that would close that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) under the law and then be able to close

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: One of the other suggestions was, and I do not know if

this is possible, is that in the particular area of the Province where those stake claims

come open, why not, for two or three days, have an office for example on the Baie Verte

Peninsula if there are going to be 100 claims staked there this year? On June 2 and June

3, anybody wanting to stake claims in that area can put in their request for the lottery.

I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know if it does, but I will say this. It

answers this question, which is a certain disadvantage and the minister as a matter of

fact mentioned it himself. People in Port au Choix or Baie Verte should not have to drive

to St. John's and park behind your building to stake their claim. They will not have to

with the draw, so maybe it might not be needed. I am not sure. Do you want to answer it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He understands. You would not understand.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to answer that point, the way that it happens, as the hon. member

probably knows, is that when they are ready to stake a claim they will... If there is more

than one, so you create a competition, if there is more than one you have to go out and

gazette that for a thirty-day period. What this amendment in this clause is saying is that

we will gazette all staking of all claims and make them public for a thirty-day period.

The disadvantage for the person living in Port au Choix, Port de Grave

or anywhere else is that they would have to drive physically in here or Corner Brook, or

Marystown, or anywhere else. They would physically have to drive in here, physically get

in the lineup, and stay in that lineup for thirty days. What we are saying now, as the

hon. member probably knows, is that the person from Port de Grave who wants to stake that

claim is in competition with the person from Corner Brook, is in competition with the

person from Marystown, and some people from St. John's. You can fax it right in. There is

no benefit or advantage for geographically living here where the mining office is.

Even if it is in Baie Verte and there are, say, 400 people from Baie

Verte who want to chase that one claim, they just fax it to the office and they are in the

pool for that lottery.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for that, but like I say, the last (inaudible)

closes how many times they can put a name into that draw. Like I say, that is one other

one I would like to see the minister address, as we do it. If you are going to close it

and correct it we might as well do it right, because it has not been done right for a long

time.

I had a constituent call me last year - as a matter of fact he is here

again this year - and I had to get permission from your building to get an extension cord

to run it out to his car to stay in the parking lot for a couple of days during the winter

so he could go in and stake his claim in the morning. That is how archaic it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We got the permission. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Is that right? My point is not that. It is how archaic

and how senseless this whole thing is, right? Hopefully that will be cleaned up.

Now, back to one of the other clauses, and the whole changing of the

Mineral Act altogether. I know there are many members in this House that do understand the

mining industry. The big key in mining is that you look at a map, you look down on the

ground, and you know there is something down there. These days with technology and so on

you have the seismic work you can do, with the helicopters that go by and do seismic tests

over the land surface, and then you have the ground work which is done by prospectors.

They tap on the rocks and find out if there is something there. That is the kind of ground

work you do. You do your seismic work, you do your geology and your prospecting, and so

on. Then if you are lucky you do some dredging. That is another example of doing your

preliminary work.

All of that work has to be done and needs to be done, but the real work

starts when you have to get millions of dollars to get down under the surface to find out

what is there. That is what mining is all about. The key factor to doing all of that is

having the dollars to be able to do it. Because you can have all your prospecting work

done, you can have all of your seismic work done, but if you cannot get the millions of

dollars that it takes... For example, this year I think in Voisey's Bay alone, if I am not

mistaken with the numbers, there is $20 million in further exploration in that area alone.

I know there are millions of dollars in the Baie Verte Peninsula area for exploration.

The key is when these junior mining companies tap the rocks and do

their seismic work, then the have to go and sit in some boardroom in Toronto somewhere

with a big company and say: We need $5 million, $6 million or $7 million to get under the

surface to see if we are right. Because that is what happened with Voisey's Bay.

They walked over Voisey's Bay hundreds of times. Then they had to go

out and get an investor. In this case it was Diamond Fields, which put a lot of money into

that. Yes, get those people out there and do the prospecting and so on, but the key is to

find the millions of dollars after and to convince a major company which has a lot of

money, or a brokerage firm, to do a deal of $4 million, $5 million, $6 million or $7

million to dig under the ground.

I know there are some members here that deal with the stock markets. A

broker will tell you a mining stock is one of the riskiest. I know all about it. The hon.

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is out checking his stocks, I would say. If you dabble

at all in the stock industry, you would find that the people in the mining industry say:

If you are going to touch that, that is high risk. They will tell you to do mutual funds

and so on. I guess a lot of members would dabble in mutual funds. Something that is safer.

As we have seen with Bre-X and we have seen with Cartaway, you can ask the Member for

Ferryland, and all these, you take risks. You can make a lot of money, but you can also

lose a lot of money. You can lose money very quickly.

That is what the mining industry is all about. It is taking a big risk.

Risk is very closely associated with the mining industry. Once we get the person to tap

the rocks and the seismic work is done, then we can have to go and ask these guys to put

in $4 million, $5 million or $6 million to encourage them and try to sell them. It is a

big job to do that. As a matter of fact, the story on Voisey's Bay is now being told. It

is called The Big Score , I think. Is the minister familiar with that one? The name

of the book that is out now on Voisey's Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I have not read it yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: I want to read that book, Mr. Chairman, and I am also

going to ask the people involved, the Verbiskies and Chisletts and so on, how close it is

to the real story. It always better to ask when the story is written, ask the people who

know it first-hand. I am going to ask these people somewhere down the road if it's worth

it. Is it really written with a lot of fiction, or is it written based on truth? I want to

find that out from the people who know it best. When they read the book I am sure they

will tell me if it is true or not.

The story on Voisey's Bay, I do not know all of the details of it now,

but they were down to the last few days of drilling. They were down to the last few days

and the last few dollars of putting into Voisey's Bay and drilling to find out if there

was really something there. It really got down to the last few days where they decided if

they were going to go any further or not. They were that close to doing that. As a matter

of a fact, there is a company in the Baie Verte area - I will not say much about it now,

because it could be on the stock market, we could get a mad rush going there - but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You are enjoying it. I know the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture is enjoying all of this mining talk. He loves to hear about the mining

talk because he is tired of hearing about the fishery so he likes to hear about mining

every now and then, and forestry.

There is a company in the Baie Verte area now which has done some

drilling over the last several months. They have some pretty good showings, Mr. Chairman,

but when they got to the end of their money for this drilling exploration program the last

drill hole was showing very good signs, but that dried up. So they are right now in the

midst of discussions with that company to extend some funding so that they can extend the

exploration drilling. They have got to convince those people that they have to come in and

do that. That is what is going to be important, that they can encourage these people to

invest so they can continue the exploration.

Any time we talk about changes to the Mineral Act, always the concern -

and we have to hear it from the sources that do this investing - is: How do you feel about

the laws and regulations where we are going to govern? Because it is going to come down to

that. The major companies, Inco and Falconbridge and all these companies, are going to ask

what the rules of the game are. These guys do not come in and spend $5 million, $6 million

and $7 million and find out what the rules are after. They want to see it.

Any time you change the laws of the land, and basically laws governing

what profits they are going to make - I just heard Inco the other day. They are quite

frank, and I don't have a problem with that, when they say: You know we are not there for

jobs, we are not there to satisfy the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are there

to make money. That is fine, everybody knows that is business, but at the same time it is

the government's job to make sure that the benefits accruing from the development of that

resource come first and foremost to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has to be a real balance there. You have to balance that off

between a company making a profit and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador getting the

benefits and getting the jobs. That is what we have got to be concerned about, that is

where our jobs come into being, that the people of the Province get the full and fair

share of benefits of a resource that belongs to this Province.

As it relates to this particular act, it is the law of the land. People

are going to invest to give us that money to make sure we do the right job. They are going

to be looking at the laws of the land. They are going to say: Can we do business here? Is

it something that is acceptable? We are not going to get this Province explored and we are

not going to find more mines if we do not have the investors to come in and do it. There

are some local people within the Province, but we are talking about millions of dollars,

we are talking about thousands of square kilometres of land that has potential. We have to

encourage those people to come in and invest and do exploration.

In the first clause of this bill we talk about, basically, clean up

legislation that straightens away some problems we have now in the mining industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, with that I will finish on the title

remarks and continue on some more clause by clause as we go through.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, we

are dealing with clause 1 in the bill.

As we get through the clause by clause debate, I say to the Minister of

Mines and Energy that some additional clarification on some of the clauses is required.

In clause 1 he has indicated that, "(4)...conduct a search for

minerals on areas either licensed or leased under this Act shall submit a description of

the planned exploration..." - that is legitimate under this act - "...work

before starting work..." - I think that is obvious - "...and when that work

involves an activity that the department considers capable of causing ground disturbance,

water quality impairments or disruption to wildlife or wildlife habitant, the work shall

begin only after the department has issued an exploration approval with terms and

conditions prescribed by the minister.".

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Clause No. 1.

I guess the intent of that particular clause is to ensure that any sort

of exploration continues or proceeds in an environmentally sensitive sort of approach. Can

the minister confirm that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Yes, that is exactly what it is; because what happens

is, as I mentioned in the introduction to this bill, there are normally a number of

environmental stepping stones that happen during development. Right now if there is

exploration -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stepping stones are there?

MR. FUREY: In exploration it is very limited. What we are simply

saying is that by law we would like to have an exploration plan that shows a minimal

amount of - you see, we are going to be into some sensitive areas. If you think of, for

example, Grand Lake, where we are trying to protect the pine marten, there are some areas

of Grand Lake with a very high mineral potential, but we want an exploration plan from

anybody who is going to go in there and disturb, in any way, the habitant. I think that is

only fair.

What is interesting is, since we started thinking about this bill, you

have seen that the courts, in an unprecedented decision here in Newfoundland, have set the

pace with respect to what they call accelerated exploration.

You recall the Voisey's Bay people wanted to build an airstrip -

temporary - and a temporary road. Under normal exploration rules and regulations and laws

of the country, that would just be a fait accompli; but as the Aboriginal people, in this

case the Innu nation, made a reference to the courts, remember the lower court said: No,

this is part of the exploration program and it fits easily under the laws of the Province.

Then they appealed it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and His

Honour, Justice William Marshall - which surprised me because while I know him to be a

good, sensitive and sensible individual, I just thought that the judgement would be - he,

having sat here and written laws - that it would just be the normal course of action to

allow them to do what is called accelerated exploration. In this case it was the temporary

road and the temporary airstrip. I was frankly flabbergasted that the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland compared it to the cod fishery, if you read his judgement, but that is the

way it is when the courts take control.

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I ask another question?

MR. FUREY: Yes, but I just want to make the point on that clause

that there is no system in place now for an exploratory plan, and this will force all

companies to do that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

"...after the department has issued an exploration approval with

minister' puts accountability directly at the minister and discretion of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council; is that correct in saying that, in law? You said there was

no process in place for that now?

MR. FUREY: What are you reading again, I am sorry? Are you saying

prescribed or be submitted?

MR. E. BYRNE: "...work shall begin only after the department

minister."

MR. FUREY: I am sorry, just let me -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, clause 1.

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess if there was ever a challenge as per what you

were to end up before, for example, the Supreme Court, then the Province would be on solid

ground because we have enshrined in legislation, in the law of the land, so to speak, that

Mines and Energy, is that correct? I just want to get clarification on the terms and

conditions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Yes, I think that is correct.

Is the leader finished?

MR. E. BYRNE: On clause 1 we are finished, yes.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will inform the Chair, no clause is going to carry

without discussion.

Clause 2 essentially says, "(1) "Subsection 21(1) of the Act

is amended by deleting the words "must be delivered" and substituting the words

"shall be submitted either in person or by mail".

"

(2) Section 21 of the Act is further amended by adding

immediately after subsection (4) the following: "

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2),

where an area is made available for map staking following rescinding of a regulation under

paragraph 4(1)(b), an order under subsection 9(2) or a notice under

section 27,

applications for map staked licences for portions or all of the area coming open for

staking may be submitted either in person or by mail during the period from the date of

publication of regulation, order or notice to the effective date, and where more than one

application is received, the priority of applications shall be determined by a draw to be

conducted by the recorder as prescribed by the regulations.".

Could you elaborate, Minister, on that somewhat for us, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was not here, if you would just -

MR. FUREY: Yes, essentially what happens now is -

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess the question I am asking is: Industry

certainly would be in favour of that, I would think?

MR. FUREY: Industry (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. FUREY: Industry welcomes this with open arms. You see, the way

it works now is, as I mentioned before, whenever there is a staking of a claim and there

is a competitive aspect to it - more than one person wants that particular claim -

essentially what happens is the government is required by law to gazette that for a

thirty-day period. Then, at the end of the thirty-day period, what happens is the clock is

turned on for another period of time. What is happening is that people are coming from all

over the Province and literally camping, in all kinds of weather, outside the Department

of Mines and Energy.

If you go down there now you will see three of those travel homes,

travel trailers, cars and tents and everything, down behind my offices, the reason being

that whoever gets in the lineup first has priority outside the official mineral recorder's

office. Now I changed that the other day for safety reasons because the back doors were

blocked. I told them we would give them a number each night, go home and get some rest.

What we are trying to do is build some fairness into this. So we are

going to put a lottery in place so that if somebody from Baie Verte, for example, somebody

from Nain, or somebody from Corner Brook wants that piece of land as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It is really captivating (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No doubt.

MR. FUREY: What happens is, if there is more than one we will

create a draw. So that eliminates the geographic disadvantage for somebody in Nain, Corner

Brook and elsewhere; and they can mail it in within that thirty-day period.

What this law will do, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, is enable

us now to set regulations and criteria down.

The Member for Baie Verte raised a very good point, and it is one that

I am a bit troubled about, and that is the whole business of piling on applications. In

other words, say if there are five of us and I decided to get my five brothers - if I had

five brothers - or five uncles, et cetera, to fill up the lottery so that they actually

dilute the -

MR. E. BYRNE: Which has generally happened.

MR. FUREY: Yes, it has happened in the past. It has happened in the

past on staking. When they go in to stake a certain claim, they put in a whole bunch for a

whole bunch of people. What we are trying to do is eliminate that and build fairness into

it. The industry is very happy with that. It is one of the parts of the bill, I guess,

they are happy with.

On motion, Clause 2 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 3, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Clause 3, "Subsection 22(4) of the Act is amended by deleting the

word "the" immediately before the word "licence" wherever it appears

and substituting the words "a ground staked".

It is pretty standard and straightforward. Do you want to go ahead?

On motion, clause 3 carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 5, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. FUREY: The one that you are most interested in is the business

of the tribunals, right?

MR. E. BYRNE: We will get to that.

MR. FUREY: Okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is not a problem. I am interested in all of

the bill. I am more interested in some sections than others.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I understand, but it is important I think, for

the record, to demonstrate that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Relax, I say to the Government House Leader. Settle

down. Not to worry.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Don't we all, Sir? You only have to drive about five

minutes further in the road further than I am.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Are we on clause 5?

MR. E. BYRNE: We are on clause 5.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Section 31 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

"31.

(1) A holder of a licence who wishes to obtain a mining lease of the unalienated

minerals in, on or under the land or part of the land covered by the licence must insure

that an application for the lease is received by the minister during the currency of the

licence."

Would you like to speak to that

section just for a moment? That is

pretty straightforward, I think.

MR. FUREY: It is, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for a second.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: If I could just draw your attention back to number 4, I

did not mean to bypass that so quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, we do not have any problem with

section 4.

MR. FUREY: Yes, you know what it does right?

Section 5 -

MR. E. BYRNE:

Section 4 is fine. If you could just talk about that

first

section 31.(1) in clause 5.

MR. FUREY: What I understand it to mean is that if any changes are

going to happen, they must happen while the licence is active. That is what it means to

me.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what it means, is it? That is the question, I

guess -

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: So in the case of a licence not being active -

MR. FUREY: Right.

MR. E. BYRNE: - what we are saying here is that no changes can

occur?

MR. FUREY: Right.

MR. E. BYRNE: So again that puts more discretion and more power in

the hands of who it should be in, for all intents and purposes, which is the government of

the day or the Legislature, whatever the case may be. Is that -

MR. FUREY: That is correct.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

Section (2), "A holder of a licence who delivers an application

under subsection (1) has a right to the issuing of a mining lease for the reasonable

period, not exceeding 25 years, that the minister may determine, but only if the following

provisions of this

section are complied with.

"

(3) A person shall not obtain a mining lease under this

section

unless (

a) all the terms, provisions and conditions of or pertaining to the licence held

by the applicant for the lease have been complied with during its currency;" - which

means during its - if it is active, if it is an active lease -

MR. FUREY: Yes, right.

MR. E. BYRNE: "(

b) the person has (

i) submitted a survey of

the perimeter of the area covered by the application which has been carried out by a

qualified land surveyor." Fair enough.

"(b)(ii) submitted a certified plan of survey with the surveyor's

notes and a proper description of the land described in the application for lease; and (

c) the land is marked in a manner prescribed by regulation."

5.(4), "Notwithstanding subsection (3), where the licence held by

the applicant for a lease has existed for a period of 3 years or less, a lease shall not

be issued under this Act until all the assessment work required for the first 3 years of

the licence has been completed and all reports required by this Act and the regulations

respecting that assessment work and accounts of expenditure are made for those

years."

Do you want to just comment on that section, Minister, for a few

moments?

MR. FUREY: This pretty well mirrors the original but it takes into

account the whole business of exploration.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. FUREY: It is just making sure that it is uniform with what the

export -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, the exploration plan.

MR. E. BYRNE: 5, "A lease under this Act (

a) must be signed by

the minister and the person holding it as lessee." Fair enough.

"(

b) is subject to the following conditions: (

i) that the lessee

pays in advance an annual rental of an amount calculated in accordance with the formulae

prescribed by regulation for the area of land to which it applies..." There is a

formula already in place, I understand, which is pretty straightforward.

"(ii) that the lessee shall start mineral production capable of

extracting a mineral or a mineral ore in saleable quantities within 5 years from the date

of the beginning of the lease and maintain that production without cessation except for a

period totally 5 years during the remainder of the period covered by the lease..."

MR. FUREY: That is the same as the previous act.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right there, correct.

"(iii) that the minister, and the other officers of the department

that are authorized by the minister, having a right at reasonable times to enter a mine

being operated by the lessee or land held by the lessee in connection with the working of

the minerals demised by the lease and to search, view, inspect and inquire into the

condition of that mine...". That basically mirrors what is there already, I

understand.

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: "...or land and to inspect the books of account

relating to the working of a mine and minerals or mineral ores being extracted from the

land described in the lease."

You have that authority under the act as it currently exists. As I

understand it, there is no change essentially, correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: (5)(iv), "...that the lessee fulfils and

observes the requirements of all statutes of the province and of Canada and regulations,

orders and directions made under those statutes in respect of or relating to the premises

demised by the lease, including environmental control, maintenance of health, building and

operational standards, the making of returns and reports and the doing or refraining from

doing a matter or thing required to be done or not be done under or by those

statutes..".

Again, that is fairly straightforward.

MR. FUREY: If you take five right through to the end of six, just

prior 31.1, it is all the same.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is all the same. That is what I am getting to.

MR. FUREY: It replicates exactly the previous act.

MR. E. BYRNE: The purpose and order, in

section 31.1, "

(1) For

the purpose of this Act, mineral and mineral ores in the province are considered to be an

exhaustible resource which need to be conserved and utilized in a manner which maximizes

the benefit for the province, its population and economy or for regional economic

development." I do not think we have any hesitation in supporting that aspect of

clause 5.

"

(2) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, where it is of the

opinion that as a matter of public convenience or general policy it is in the best

interest of the province, order a person holding a lease issued under

section 31 to

complete primary production, in whole or in part, in the province, of a mineral or mineral

ore extracted or removed under that lease, and may vary or rescind that order."

This

section 31(2) has caused considerable concern. That has been

articulated to you and has been articulated, it is my understanding, to the Premier as

well. It centres around the words "may vary or rescind that order". Some of the

criticism that has been given to us in terms of this particular thing is that it entwines

all power within the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; it doesn't allow for accountability.

I am not saying this is our criticism; I want to be clear on that. I am saying what has

been presented to us in terms of the bill. This is a very serious policy shift in terms of

the current legislation.

I guess the question or questions - and you can take as much time as

you feel necessary to elaborate on it, because it is very important to explain to the

House, for the record of the House and to ourselves - what led to this major policy shift

in terms of amendments to the act? Why do you believe now it is necessary, at this point

in time, in view in fact of the concerns that have been raised publicly and privately by

those who were involved in the mining industry, particularly the investment industry, in

terms of investment in the Province, junior mining companies and exploration companies, if

the minister would just take a few minutes. Like I said, take what time is necessary as he

sees fit.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: This is an important question, and I think it deserves a

proper answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the crux of the debate. This is one of the

sections that is the crux of the debate.

MR. FUREY: Yes, it is. What we did is - originally in the 1995

amendment, we thought we have gotten it right. We thought that by amending that piece of

legislation and forcing primary production as defined in the bill, we thought we had the

language correct. It turns out, after we took legal advice - and we took legal advice not

just within government from the Department of Justice, but we took legal advice from

outside, a very reputable lawyer, Jim Chalker and others. The advice that came back was

the language was ambiguous. It was open to

interpretation. Therefore, we had a choice;

that our public policy, which you obviously agree with, to maximize benefits from the

resources of the Province...

If that public policy, which was enshrined in law under the 1995

amendment, was open in any way, shape or form to

interpretation, then we would in a sense

de facto be possibly passing our public policy intent and thrust to the courts to

determine how it would be applied. That was the real bone of contention.

If you look closely at that particular

section in the 1995 amendment,

you will see that it goes on to say: and for any other reasons.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. FUREY: `And any other reasons', in the case of - let's use Inco

because I do not mind using Inco, Inco could then take this law before the courts and say:

Well, look we have other reasons, there are other reasons, and the minister should give us

a lease. Here are the other reasons. We have surplus capacity within our own system with

Sudbury operating at 60 per cent and Thompson, Manitoba, operating at 70 per cent. That

gives us excess capacity under the rules of the game. We are going to ask the court to

determine whether or not we have to comply with 1995, even though the policy and the

thrust of the policy was very clear.

I just want the Leader of the Opposition to understand that we took

very serious legal advice. The legal advice was to clear that up; the legal advice was to

make sure the language was absolutely bulletproof before a court if, in fact, it ever had

to go before a court; and the legal advice we took was that this gives certainty to you,

to be able to negotiate on behalf of the Province a publicly stated policy that you

require to be enshrined in law.

Let me go to his little section, on `may vary or rescind'. That is

where you see some worrisome, because if you get some wing-nut government like they have

in B.C., or somewhere like that, you could cripple the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for that example.

MR. FUREY: No, but you could cripple the economy by playing tin-pot

dictator and playing little games with real investors' lives.

I have to tell you, it cuts both ways. You see, currently under the

legislation if a company has a lease and the Legislature under the law, the 1995

amendment, had approved it, and they needed right away a variance - let's assume that the

Antinmony mine needed a variance right away on its (inaudible) plant in Bishop's Falls or

in the Bishop's Falls area, we would have to wait until the Legislature - or call the

Legislature back for every variance. It is not necessarily the government that wants to

vary. Don't think of it in those terms.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I understand that.

MR. FUREY: It could well be the company that comes to the

government and the government could say: Yes, you make a good point; let's save those 100

jobs. I know we were going after 150, but we have to protect that 100 and the

circumstances that you present to us make it reasonable for us to do that, to protect

those 100 jobs in the case that I just gave you.

So we would have authority to meet as a Cabinet - which we do every

Thursday - and vary that order in favour of the company. I explained that to the mineral

industry, but their worry, as I just explained to you, is that some future government,

some crackpot, tin-pot government, may exercise this authority willy-nilly. My answer to

that is, they will have to deal with the general public and the public won't put up with

that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member the Leader of the Opposition.

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

This is important because you raised a concern which has been raised by

the mineral industry, the exploration industry, and that `trust me' sort of approach. That

is what we are talking about; let's be clear on it.

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a `trust me' sort of approach in terms of the

raising of capital that leads to further exploration, or it provides for - the necessary

capital that provides for exploration, that could lead to discovery of significant ore

bodies of any kind, or mineral bodies of any kind, that could lead to the development and

further, I guess, broadening of our economy and adding to jobs et cetera. It is this very

sort of - the words `vary and rescind', and `trust me approach', that the industry has

indicated at least to me and to my colleagues that, that is the type of approach we are

not going to be able to raise capital with.

We can provide, as members of the Legislature today, the assurances

necessary in terms of how we would deal with it. You are right in terms of what future

governments may deal with or, I guess, the question mark that is left: What happens next

week if a significant discovery is found? What happens next week if we are into a

situation similar to that with the exploration of Voisey's Bay nickel.

It could be on a smaller scale, but a similar sort of set of

circumstances present themselves. Then the question remains. One individual described it

to me. He said: If I am exploring and I have a significant find, and as a result of this

legislation I go to those nationally, in terms of the brokerage houses et cetera, looking

to raise capital, and they look at this piece of legislation and say: Hold on now, you

have nothing. What assurances can you provide me that you are going to be operating in a

stable environment?

I think this is where the criticism is coming from. I will ask the

minister this. What assurances have you provided to the mining industry in terms of how

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, will deal with this? The other

thing I will ask is: What assurances can you provide to the Legislature that decisions

taken by the Cabinet - with respect to important public policy matters which are not

exclusively, and do not exclusively, belong with Cabinet alone, but belong to each and

every person in this House who is elected to represent their own constituents, who may be

either positively or negatively impacted by such a change - what assurances can you

provide: one, to this Legislature that decisions of Cabinet will be transparent with

respect to should this clause need to be invoked or used at any particular point in time?;

and two, what assurances have you provided to the mining industry that a level playing

field and an environment conducive for the raising of the necessary capital for

exploration and others will continue as it has for the last four years?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, to the last part first. The assurances

that I would show the Legislature what I did in any negotiated proposition with the

company I think -

MR. E. BYRNE: Not entirely though. There is no requirement by this

act for you to do that entirely.

MR. FUREY: What I am about to say is that each deal - for example,

let's take a hypothesis. Let's take the Baie Verte situation, the magnesium corporation

out there, where they are looking to take those tailings and create a huge possibility out

there.

Let's say that we struck a deal with them under this Act, and we both

agree with it, and we both sign off on it. The details would be made fully public, I say

to the Leader of the Opposition. You would have to judge for yourselves then whether in

fact we have come to a good arrangement or a bad arrangement. Every one of those deals

would be made public. They would have to be made public. I would have to tell the public

what power I have used under this act. Whether I have negotiated a good deal or not would

be then determined by the public and by the Opposition, I guess, in the Legislature.

Let me just speak to the point about the mining chamber of mineral

resources. The Premier and I met them the other day. I am a little concerned about that

too. I do not want to appear heavy-handed or to chase away investment. It is a delicate

balancing act. Neither do I want to turn and have the courts interpret what is our said

policy. It is a delicate balance that we are walking here.

I have given a personal commitment, I will tell the Leader of the

Opposition, for any company. Any time, anywhere that they need reassurance from the

Minister or the Premier, we are happy to go and speak to their investors, or speak to them

here if they want to come to the Province.

This is not about driving investment away. It is about getting our

resource management right, and it is about time we got it right. In fact, in this climate,

in just the last couple of days, if you have read, Altius Minerals have attracted one of

the largest corporations in the company ##tech to put $2 million in their company. I do

not think we are chasing investment away.

Am I concerne