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


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to update members of the House of Assembly on the progress of a Committee of ministers and MHAs that was struck in June of this year to review a number of issues related to the use of outdoor resources in the Province. The goal of this process is to build a consensus on how we can properly preserve access to our outdoors for people of the Province, protect and conserve our resources, and where appropriate allow other legislated uses that support both recreational activities and economic development.

A pre-consultation document was released on September 11, 1998, and public consultations began on September 23. This document outlines government principles with respect to the use of outdoor resources and sought public response on a wide variety of outdoor use issues, such as those related to hunting, recreational fishing, community watershed management and access to shorelines, among others.

Public meetings have been held in eighteen locations. A variety of special interest groups and stakeholders, ranging from rod and gun clubs to salmon protection associations and environmental groups made presentations to the Committee on issues such as access to rivers and ponds, community watershed management, river specific licenses, big game hunting, habitat conservation, enforcement, and economic development through the use of outdoor resources. Also, the Committee received more than ninety written submissions.

The Committee is now reviewing the written submissions and records of the meetings. A "What We Heard" document based on the written submissions and records is being prepared and the Committee hopes to have a draft of the "What We Heard" document before Christmas. Once that document is delivered the Committee will consult with government on specific recommendations presented in the document. The Committee hopes to publicly provide a summary of the public consultation process and government's response by January.

As a result of the consultation process, government has already amended its policy regarding the moose and caribou hunting season. In response to repeated requests from stakeholders and presentations to the Committee, the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Kevin Aylward, announced on October 16 the cancellation of an extension of the hunting season for moose and caribou. Hunting season dates reverted immediately to season durations similar to the 1997 and 1998 season. Decisions on any recommendations to government will be made following a thorough review of all submissions and records of the meetings throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the consultation on the use of outdoor resources was held in response to the concerns of stakeholders and individuals across Newfoundland and Labrador. Government believes in the importance of listening to the people of this Province, and this consultation was an opportunity for all concerned groups and individuals to make their views known. Government believes the consultation was a valuable and worthwhile process that generated positive dialogue on issues of concern.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for a copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House.

Just for clarification, the minister was right, it was a committee of ministers and MHAs that travelled the Province. In essence, what it was was a committee of the Liberal government. It was not representative of the whole House.

I attended one of the meetings that was held in Clarenville. It was well attended, I say to the minister. I think the people there welcomed an opportunity to clear the air as it relates to watershed and river privatization issues in particular. Many people came out and they expressed their fears of what was happening with some of those interest groups that were springing up across the Province. Government was either perceived or did accept part of some of those studies and other parts were rejected. It was total confusion. I think it is time to bring this to a head.

The citizens against outdoor privatization brought forward a bill of rights and I think brought it to the minister. They make some very good points. A lot of people there that enjoy the privilege of being able to go out and catch salmon and go and enjoy their cabin lots expressed great concern that they may find themselves having not only to go the Province to buy a license and to buy a fee, but they may have to go to some of those interest groups and have it cost them double the money, money that they cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome, I guess, the final decision, by the minister's department. Hopefully that it will bring an end to all the confusion that is out there today, and people will still be able to enjoy the outdoors and enjoy their favourite leisure time, as most Newfoundlanders do.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible). We certainly welcome the consultation process, but it is a process that did not start until after the whole issue blew up in the face of the government, where hundreds of people were attending meetings, concerned about the privatization of our rivers and outdoors, and government was not prepared to commit to bring in legislation to ensure that this would not happen.

We would like to see the results of this consultation process as soon as we can. There are thousands of people in this Province concerned about what this government is really up to when they are giving licenses for resorts outside of provincial parks on salmon rivers, and apparently getting ready to have a wholesale privatization of our outdoors. We want a commitment from this government that this is not going to happen, and we want that commitment in legislation.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this morning are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

In early 1997, the government commissioned the Atkinson study to investigate serious administrative problems at the Western Health Care Corporation. You indicated that you expected the analysis to be completed by July of 1997, which was later extended to March of this year, then to May, and then to September or October this fall. The question is: Where is the Atkinson Report? Have you received it? If not, why not? And if so, can we see it?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Atkinson report was commissioned by my colleague in the Department of Health. I understand it has been received and is being reviewed by the department.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this report has been a long time coming. Government has delayed it each step of the way. The public has a right to know where its money is being spent, especially in a situation where there is so obviously a breakdown of normal accountability procedures.

The question is: Why is government preventing the public from seeing for themselves a full report of how this happened, what the consequences were, and what is being recommended to prevent this reoccurrence?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member. I think the public has a right to know, and I am sure members of the public, particularly in my constituency in Corner Brook, are equally as anxious to know as I am. The problems at Western Memorial in terms of its management were profound, and we were a long time finding a new administrator.

Mr. Atkinson went in there and obviously the things that he found took him a much longer period of time to come to some conclusions and to advise us on them. I tell the hon. member as well that our concern is such that we are having a general report prepared as to the whole operation, because we have sent in people ourselves from government.

We share his concern and the results, hopefully, will be assessed and made known in the not too distant future.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Can the minister tell us today, for example, what exactly was behind the repeated delays in getting this report to government, what was missing, and is the government confident it now has a satisfactory accounting of where the public's money was spent during the missing time frame?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the second part of the question, the Auditor General discovered what happened to the money. The government immediately took measures when it was found that loans were improperly made when certain people in the administration had misused public funds; and the individual, whom the hon. member would be more familiar with than I, was let go by the corporation.

Having said that, it is very clear that the financial operations of the western region is a very fundamental and great concern to us on this side of the House. I have to say that the Atkinson report was one measure that was undertaken to determine the extent of the problems. It is also not only a review of the finances but also of the general medical services, and what might be done and improved, and how we might better provide services to the people of the whole western region. We are awaiting that.

When you hire a consultant, which was done by the Department of Health - I understand Mr. Atkinson has also done other reports - what is important is to have it done well. Mr. Atkinson, as I understand, came back to the department and asked for a further extension to allow him to bring the report to its conclusion. That was, in the circumstance I think, the right and wise decision.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). The minister would also be aware, Mr. Speaker, that not only the Auditor General but the Public Accounts Committee, which held a public hearing with respect to the Western Health Care Corporation, determined and found out through the hearing process that officials in the Department of Health had no interaction with respect to the financial monitoring of that Corporation for two-and-a-half years, I say to the minister.

Can the minister give us a total sum of the money dispersed by the Western Health Care Corporation during the time frame and during the period when no reports were being filed to government?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member has phrased his question properly. The accounts of the Western Memorial Corporation are audited each year, and those are provided to government on a timely basis. How the money may be individually spent in each category is, of course, the thing that concerns us because there was an issue about travel there.

What auditors do is, they go and determine if the amount budgeted was spent on travel as opposed to some other activity. They do not do an evaluation of whether or not the money was spent or was in accordance with Treasury Board procedures. Where the Auditor General was of assistance to us in this, having gone in - and I have read some of the hon. member's report of this House - who went in and looked at Western Memorial Corporation's books, there were concerns raised about whether or not it was done in accordance with government policy. Obviously, the conclusion was that it was not.

We share the concerns of the Opposition; however, I do not think it is productive at this stage to get into a debate about a report that is not yet completed and assessed and made public.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister talks about a timely basis. The Corporation did not file financial statements from 1995 until now, until two months ago. I do not think the minister would consider that very timely in terms of accountability.

Let me ask the minister this: Is government taking steps to ensure that all health care entities, each and every board, file timely and thorough financial reports to government or else the government, if they do not, will immediately send in outside accountants and auditors to ensure a situation like this does not occur again?

Will the minister go the extra step of bringing in new legislation ordering thorough annual reports of each health care entity are compiled, including not only financial accounting but also cost-benefit analysis, and that these reports are made public so that taxpayers ultimately know where the tax dollars are being spent and how they are being spent?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest issues of concern to my colleagues on this side of the side is to ensure that the tremendous amount of money that is spend in the institutional sector each year is well spent. Something close to $700 million, 70 per cent of the total health care budget, close to $1 billion, is spent by institutions. It is unfortunately very difficult, because we are not there on a daily basis to ensure that every nickel that is spent in the (inaudible) or every dollar that goes into some other area is well spent; but I have to say, in defence to the Health Care Corporation, I believe that most people in that sector - in fact, by-far the vast majority of them - are conscientious and in many cases the taxpayers are getting the full worth of their money. There are examples and unfortunate circumstances with some individuals fail through malfeasance and a lack of integrity, and that was in part what happened at Western Memorial. What we are concerned about, as is the hon. member, and we share that concern, is to ensure that these Health Care Corporations are properly managed.

One of the difficulties we had at Western Memorial, which compounded the problems, which in searching for a new CEO to lead the organization, and that took us some time. We were looking for someone with the right combination of medical and administrative talents, and I believe we have found that person, Dr. Eric Parsons. I believe that the management there is under much better supervision and control than it has been in the past. Having said that, we are conducting a thorough analysis of all the hospital boards in this Province to achieve the very matters that the hon. member suggests.

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

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

Not only was government not there on a daily basis; they were not there on a weekly basis; they were not there on a monthly basis. In fact, they were not there for two-and-a-half to three years, Minister. The department has a role to play in ensuring that public dollars are spent wisely, and that requires checks and balances within the system. As a result, people are deeply concerned about the situation, and that this situation could have arisen in the first place at all. I would assert that is has exposed a fundamental weakness in government's approach of devolving power away from the minister to arm's length boards.

Minister, I would like to ask you this question: Are you in a position today to report some of the findings or recommendations of the board? Does the report go so far as to recommend ways of preventing a similar breakdown of accountability for this and other boards under the minister's jurisdiction?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there are checks and balances in the system of health and the system of education. What the government has, as a matter of policy, chosen to do - and not this board and not this government - this is matter of long-standing practice in the Province.

The hon. member may well be right; maybe, as he suggests, we should abolish all the boards and run them ourselves. Maybe that is an evaluation we need to have, but clearly the hon. member has to understand that the primary supervisory role for the proper running of the hospitals is in the hands of the board. The board is responsible for the supervision of the chief administrator. They determine who the accountants will be, who will review the books and so on, and frankly we have to consider that. If we find that the boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I hear what the hon. member is saying, but one of the issues that we do have to consider in this Province is whether, given the size of the Province, both in education and in health, we should continue with part-time boards that are there to supervise the institutions.

The hon. member seems to suggest that the controls and balances were not there, but it is the board and not the department that is responsible for the running of the institutions and to make decisions. The managers are not accountable back to government. They are hired by the boards. That is true in the health care system and it is true in the educational system.

I agree with the hon. member; in terms of administrative practice we do have to do a thorough review and consider. Maybe we need to do some changes, but that is part of the evaluation that has to take place.

Thank you.

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

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

I am not suggesting that the proper accounts and balances were not there, Minister. The process has determined that they were not there. The Auditor General has determined that the appropriate checks and balances were not there. That is what has actually come out of the process.

A final question. You have received the Atkinson report. Are you in a position today to tell the House, and through the House the people of the Province, when you will table that report. And, in tabling it, will it be a week from now, two months from now, January or February? Can you tell us or give us a definitive date when you will table that report so we can all have a look at what the recommendations emanating from that report are?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member did suggest that there were no checks and balances available in the system. I have to point out to him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That was the hon. member's previous question. Now he says he did not suggest that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The hon. member has to realize - what he said was that the department fell down on its job in running the institution of proper checks and balances. What I point out to the hon. member is that the department does not run the institutions. The board is responsible for the supervision of the institution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. DICKS: Not at all. We are very concerned and we have to question the extent to which the boards can or should exercise that type of jurisdiction over the administration on a day-to-day basis.

Clearly it is too easy to try to throw it at some nameless group or some group that is not here to defend itself, but it is clear that in the matter of the administrative practice the group that is responsible for the supervision of the hospital and its accounts and its proper running and the policy decisions as to how services should be provided, are the boards, the local boards made up of local people who understand local concerns probably far better than a group here that is far removed from it, so we do have to look at that.

Secondly, with respect to the report itself, I understand it is in the hands of the Department of Health. It will come forward to Treasury Board and Cabinet with an evaluation of the review and recommendations. We will consider it and then, at the appropriate time, we will make it known to the public.

I am not prepared and I am unable, frankly, to give you a time table as to whether that will be next week or the week after, but it will take some time to work through the system. I doubt very much if it will be before Christmas.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Health and Community Services, I would like to ask the Premier these questions regarding the ongoing crisis at Davis Inlet.

Now, the fact that the children of Davis Inlet have a problem is not in dispute; we have known this for a long time. We know there is a crisis in the community, and we know that these children are destroying themselves through substance abuse. We know that this government had the ultimate constitutional responsibility and the ultimate legal responsibility for the welfare of these children - not Ottawa, but you. What have you done about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the approach which has been outlined by the minister a few days ago in this House and outside this House is the responsible position for government to take at this time. I think it is irresponsible, and quite frankly I think it is a position which has been taken in haste - that of the Opposition - to suggest that the solution to the problems in Davis Inlet is to have a whole scale movement - which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition - of the children of Davis Inlet out of the community and away from their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member opposite, I think everybody in this House recognizes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question but members opposite do not want to hear an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House recognizes that what is happening in Davis Inlet, what has happened in Davis Inlet, is, for all of the citizens there, a social tragedy. Much of what is going on is directly related to the abuse of alcohol and other substances. Mr. Speaker, that is well known.

There has recently been a vote in the community of Davis Inlet, one which was approved by a significant majority but not an overwhelming majority, to ban alcohol. That has not yet happened. We have recently had an electoral process in that community, and elsewhere in Labrador, amongst Innu people, that has probably had some impact on exacerbating already difficult circumstances in Davis Inlet. We have recently had a new executive team put into place with respect to the Innu nation.

I would say to the member opposite that the approach that is outlined in the new legislation, the child services legislation brought forward by the minister, which is to work within the community to seek to build up a leadership capability within the community, that that approach is far better than a suggestion which was tried in Canada thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years ago. Residential schools removed children from their families, put them in a third location, arbitrarily taking them away from their community. That approach has been tried and it has been found wanting. The other approach, which is to work with the community, within the community, is more difficult, it is more complex, but it probably has at the end of the day more chance of success.

I would say this to the member, that having spent some years working with Aboriginal communities in another role across this country, there is no question that some communities have made more progress than others in stabilizing their economies, putting in place solid and stable social structures. At the end of the day, there is no question that where Aboriginal people have succeeded in improving the quality of their lives it is where governments have worked with local leaders within those communities to improve their own circumstance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

You talk about going in because of the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and that when that is implemented that will be effective in Davis Inlet. There was a program proven, and this government put $500,000 into it, a study done at Memorial University, the Family Group Decision Making Program. It was tested in the Province and planned to be effective. Why has this government avoided this approach, even though it helped fund the project which lasted three years and cost over $500,000? This program was effective in Nain and the LIA, in fact, has taken over the project in their community. Why has this government walked away from this approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government has not walked away in any approach that may help to stabilize matters, specifically in the community of Davis Inlet. I would say to the member that I know the Minister of Health and Community Services, were she here, could detail the very substantial - she is unavoidably absent, as is the Leader of the Opposition, I note.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where she is not. May I borrow today's paper? She is not asking questions without doing her homework. I notice that the Chief Medical Examiner of the Province has said, with respect to the member who is now speaking: "`No one from the Opposition has come to this office and asked for the facts or asked for a reckoning or asked for an explanation, of which we would only be too willing to give them. One has to question what their motive is."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The difference between the Minister of Health and Community Services and the member who is now speaking is motive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The motive of the Minister of Health and Community Services is the welfare of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is not being relevant to the question, and I would gladly answer it at the end of question period if the Premier would like to hear. I would be delighted to.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the Chair cannot rule that it is not a point of order because it has been ruled on many occasions in this House of Assembly, since this member has sat here for ten years, that questions should be relevant to the things that are being discussed within the Province at the day, and the answers should be relevant to the questions.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: When Bill 37 is passed, what does this government plan to do with the few social workers that are up there? Do you plan to increase the number of social workers? Have you considered a treatment centre right in the community? Do you plan to convene meetings with the appropriate groups and authorities? I ask the Premier: When do you plan to discharge your responsibilities to protect these children who are destroying themselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to where the Minister of Health and Community Services is. The Minister of Health and Community Services at this moment is at the opening of the Women's Health Forum, which I think is an important occasion for the Minister of Health and Community Services to attend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that today in Davis Inlet literally millions of dollars, in a variety of social related programs, are being provided by both levels of government. If money and money alone were to bring a solution to the problems of Davis Inlet, I suggest the solution would already be at hand, but that alone is not going to solve the problem there.

There is a need to work with the community and, I suggest, we have to understand to work through the community, to help this community and to help the leadership of the community bring about circumstances that would restore a sense of dignity, a sense of pride, a sense of purpose in the lives of many of the members of that community. That cannot be accomplished by government - because it has been tried in decades past - moving in, flying in with some piece of aircraft, taking physically and forcibly the children out of their homes and away from their families and relocating the children in a residential school, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. That has been tried before in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that has not worked.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there have been two occasions this morning where the Premier has indicated that the Leader of the Opposition, myself, has indicated that the complete removal of children from Davis Inlet is what I have suggested. There is nothing further from the truth. That is not true.

If the public or if the Premier had the opportunity to listen in the last couple of days with this debate that is around it, what I indicated, clearly, through the Open Line program, was that when a problem like this occurs it requires a community solution. It requires -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, one second. If the Premier would let me finish. This is a point of order, because the suggestions are not correct and the record must be corrected, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not, it is a point of order. I would like the clarification, because what has been said is not correct, I say to the Premier.

In questions that were asked to the Minister of Health and Community Services the other day and outside in the area, I was asked directly: What should the Minister of Health and Community Services be doing? I said the Minister of Health has the power, under the child welfare act, to protect the best interest of children. I was asked: Does that mean removing them? I said that if a determination is made that it is in the best interest of the children to do so, yes, but at the same time the department and the Minister of Health and Community Services have before them the opportunity to work with the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: So there has been no suggestion, by the Leader of the Opposition to ask for the complete removal of children in Davis Inlet. It was not made Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, not today, and it will not be made next week, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains speaking to that point of order.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise from my seat today to inform the House of the serious situation in Davis Inlet. I honestly and firmly believe that the questioning in the House of Assembly from the Opposition does nothing to help the situation in Davis Inlet.

On the way back from the North Coast yesterday I received a call from the Chief of Davis Inlet where I had correspondence with him on behalf of the Minister of Health and Community Services. He called yesterday asking us for a meeting. I, along with the Minister of Health and Community Services and other officials in government, will sit down with the Band Council of Davis Inlet. Through the media, and questioning in the House, as the Member for Torngat Mountains, and being an Aboriginal person, I feel it does nothing. This kind of questioning in the House at this time does nothing because, Mr. Speaker, the government is working with the community in Davis Inlet and we are doing our best to help solve a very serious situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised. I heard comments from hon. members that this was an inappropriate time for this to have been raised because it was question period. I will remind hon. members from the Opposition side of the House that the point of order was originally raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It is certainly an inappropriate time to raise a point of order during question period.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, should an individual want to become a licensed big game outfitter in the Province, I would like to ask: What would be the normal process for him or her to follow before he becomes licensed by your department to operate such a business?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the process for becoming a licensed outfitter is to first submit a proposal to government. Of course, after that it is dependent on licenses available and many other factors I could outline if the hon. member wishes me to.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the Minister: How many big game outfitter licenses have been issued by your department in the last year? Who makes the decision whether licenses are issued to certain individuals or not?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact number here now. There was a process earlier on in the year that eleven new outfitters came into the business through a Cabinet committee process, with criteria outlined. Of course, the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods were very involved in this because there is a process in this Province of non-resident and resident licenses. Twenty-five per cent of the caribou licenses are available to outfitters for non-resident hunters. Ten per cent of the moose population is available.

That of course is determined throughout the provinces where big game are in excess and available. It also depends on how many residents have applied in the various zones for licenses, because we want to always ensure that our resident hunters have access to game close to their communities.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, if I was a big game outfitter and I decided to sell out my whole operation - and I am talking about selling out my camp and my licenses -, would that mean I am out of the business altogether, or could I start a similar operation and receive the appropriate license by the mere fact that I am registered as a big game outfitter?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, when you sell your whole operation, your camp and your licenses, you have sold that to the individual. Now, if you happen to have ten operations and you have only sold one of them, you have nine left you can operate from.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I am saying to the minister that I have one camp, I have one allocation of licenses, and I sell them. Does that mean I am out of business? Or does it mean by the mere fact that I am registered that I should be allowed to operate somewhere else? One camp, one set of licenses.

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

MS KELLY: If you have one camp and one set of licenses and you have sold it, you have no other recourse, you are out of the outfitting business.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If that is the case, then would she explain to this House what magical process was allowed for a former employee of this government to sell out his ACOA-funded big game outfitters camp at Northwest Gander, along with his license and allocations, and then be set up with a new allocation of big game licenses just two weeks later?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the time lines here are not accurate at all. What had happened in this instance is that this particular outfitter was in the outfitting business and was given permission to - as a matter of fact, we had two operators that were given permission this year - to test a trophy tent camp caribou hunt. After this outfitter was given permission to do this he sold his original business. There were two very separate operations here.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that there has been a difficulty with this, and I am meeting with this outfitter about it. This outfitter this year, after receiving this pilot license for the trophy hunt - I understand this outfitter is presently out of the Province and I am meeting with him this week -, did not meet all the conditions of the tent camp trophy hunt, but what he did in selling his regional operation was totally legal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister this. When applications for private cabin lots are referred to your department, Minister, is it not a standard procedure to deny applications that would be within an eight kilometre buffer zone of existing camps and operations?

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

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the policy. There are some instances where already there are cabin lots in the area where exceptions can be made. We have many outfitters in this Province who are in areas by joint agreement that there are not eight kilometre buffer zones.

If the member is referring to the tent camp operation by the ex-government employee, that is a part of what occurred in this area that was incorrect. My department, or no department of government, gave this person permission to operate an outfitters camp from a private cottage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item on the Order Paper, the Chair would like to recognize in the public galleries, on behalf of all hon. members, thirty-one students of Grade VI, VII, VIII, and IX from Lakecrest School in the District of Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Ron Pellerin and Ms Angela Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

I rise this morning to present another series of petitions to the hon. House of Assembly asking the government not to discriminate against students who have chosen to attend private schools in the Province.

The petitioners are asking that they be eligible immediately for the awards program, and they also ask the minister if they could be included in the Millennium Scholarship fund and asking him if he would intercede on their behalf with the federal authorities.

This morning's petitions are from the Professional Institution of Applied Technology, from the Keyin Technical College on LeMarchant Road, from the Lawrence College, from Nortech College, and a variety of other places.

These petitions are arriving on a daily basis and the prayer of the petitions is quite self-evident. They are asking the minister, as I said in the House yesterday, if he would intercede on their behalf with his own colleagues in Cabinet, and intercede on their behalf with federal authorities.

They believe there is a double standard of eligibility when it comes to both the awards program and the Millennium Scholarship fund. These programs are based on merit and need. The process as outlined by the minister in his press release is very simple. The school will identify the students who have need and will also assure the minister and the officials that the student has attained a reasonable level of scholastic achievement.

The students at private colleges are quite prepared today to enter into a dialogue with the minister to make sure that there are comparable rules of eligibility. What they are saying is that they want to be included in the program. There are 7,000 of these students.

The minister yesterday in his answer indicated that if the federal criteria should change for the Millennium Fund that he would then entertain it. Then the Minister of Health and Community Services yesterday was saying that this Province is leading the nation.

I say to the minister, if he wants to keep up with the words of his Cabinet colleague, we should be showing leadership here. The Awards Program of Newfoundland and Labrador is a good program, except that we have discriminated against 7,000 students. That is blatantly unfair.

We say, on behalf of the student who are going to private colleges, make the rules comparable. In other words, if we are going to talk about students who have need, make the rules of eligibility based on need comparable for all post-secondary students. If we are going to talk about post-secondary scholiastic achievement, and we are going to use that criteria, make that rule comparable for all institutions. We are saying, treat all students fairly. Those who are in public schools, namely Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, are included now. These students who are going to private colleges do not, and they are not asking for anything extra. They are not asking for special privileges. They are saying: Set the ground rules, include us, and then we will be governed by whether we meet the criteria or whether we do not meet the criteria.

We are not asking for the creation of separate rules here. We are saying that this should be a universal program, it should be universally applied, and that we should be committed to post-secondary education at whatever institution the person is attending.

As I have said yesterday, the money for this comes from the taxpayers indirectly or directly. The parents and the families of students who go to private schools pay into that particular fund. Therefore, why should their children or they themselves be excluded from the eligibility? It does not make any sense. When we preach universality of access, we preach fairness, we preach balance, we are saying that we should be applying it.

On behalf of the students who forwarded their petitions yesterday, I say again to the minister: Enter into a dialogue. Make it fair. Do not have this program operating with an exclusionary clause that excludes students who are going to private schools.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today simply to respond and support the petition as presented by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. Again, this petition speaks to an important issue dealing with the rights and privileges as well of the students who are enroled in private institutions here in our Province.

We have seen now for several days consecutively, petitions which speak to the fact that there are students in private training institutions who simply do not feel that they are being recognized in terms of the program that has be alluded to.

It seems to me, as has been discussed past, that it is important that a program which recognizes accomplishment and recognizes progress in a particular program be equally distributed throughout both educational systems, namely both public and private. The system, as I now understand it, is essentially exclusive to the public system in the Province; but it is important that students, some 7,000 of them, feel that they are a part of the process, that they are a part of the recognition which can be afforded to students who enrol in a program or in an institution regardless of whether it is funded by the state or funded by students primarily themselves, namely because of the fact we are talking about a private training institution.

It is clear from this particular petition that numbers of students in a particular college feel that they have been discriminated against simply because they are not eligible. They do not qualify for particular awards or scholarship under this federal program. It is incumbent, therefore, that the Province take whatever steps are necessary to speak with its federal counterparts in Ottawa to ensure that emphasis is placed on the importance of rewarding students in a private training institution, in addition to those who are enroled in our public universities and colleges.

Therefore, the prayer of this petition again asks our government, through the Minister of Education, to intervene, to speak to his federal counterparts to ensure that this particular program is an inclusive one and in no way excludes others or discriminates against others simply because of the choice of an institution that was made by a particular student.

I support this petition, and I would ask members opposite that they listen to the prayer and listen to the concerns as being raised by these particular students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in my place to present a petition that was sent in to us with a covering letter from the Mayor of Flatrock. There are 160 signatures on the petition, and the petition has to do with IOCC in Labrador City -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the point I was going to make. This is not a local issue to Labrador; it is a Province-wide issue.

I remember the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs standing in his place and stating that at the Federation of Municipalities meeting a few weeks ago there were petitions sent around to every municipality to take home to see if there would be any sent in. I was quite surprised, actually, when this came in from the Town of Flatrock. I was really surprised. It was November 19, 1998, when the letter came in from the Mayor of Flatrock. Of course, I am going to read the prayer of the petition. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS we, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this came to our office - well, the letter was signed on November 19, and sent in. It was only a couple of days ago that we received it; as a matter of fact, the day before yesterday. As I said, I think certain ministers on the other side of the House, on the government side of the House, were trying to make this a localized issue, that it was not Province-wide, but the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador realize that this is going to have an impact on the policies that are being put forward by this Administration. They realize that, as I said, it is going to be impacting upon them personally because we have traditionally, over the years since 1497, squandered our resources: the fishery, the forestry, the mining and what have you, our water resources.

Now, as a matter of fact, the Member for St. John's South has been on an issue with respect to the exporting of water from the Province. It looks like, if this government has their way, we are going to end up squandering that, too, and losing the opportunities.

In the future, if you talk about the water resource, each year, with pollution and what have you, the demand for the water resources, which we have an abundance of in this Province - probably that is why the Administration, the government of the day, are inclined, from what I can understand, to send it out in bulk.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) your solution.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education wants to know our solution. The government, this Administration, is always confused. He wants to know what we are going to do, but they are the government of the day. They have the majority in the House of Assembly. They are the ones that are setting policies. We can speak to them, and we can point out the flaws in the legislation, but the Minister of Education can get up and speak to this petition if he wants to. He can tell us his position if he wants to. I am telling you now, we would set our priorities straight. We would have secondary processing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wherever and whenever possible, I say to the Minister of Education. This Administration, to my mind, did not fight hard enough for the people of Labrador and the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in this instance.

They know full well that in this situation when Sept-Iles is upgraded, that will have an impact on Labrador as time goes by. This Administration knows. They stood in their place and said it will not impact on jobs - we will not lose jobs over it - but they have also admitted, after we dragged it out of them, that there will be jobs lost through attrition over the years; jobs will not be replaced. That, to my mind, is going to the core of the problem that Labrador City will lose people as time goes by unless there is a new find in that area and IOC agrees to upgrade that plant in Labrador.

This Administration knows that full well, and they are not doing anything about it. The question is: Why? Why won't they do something about it? That is what the people of Flatrock are asking. That is what people all over Newfoundland and Labrador are asking.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, maybe I will ask the Minister of Education to get up and tell us what he would do. That is the problem. We are not in power here today. That crowd over there are in power. That is the problem, and that is what the people of the Province are starting to realize.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to support my colleague here who presented a petition by many concerned people in Flatrock.

They people in Flatrock are concerned, and the people in all parts of the Province are concerned, because there is a certain fundamental issue at stake here today in our Province. That is: We have to stop the bleeding of our natural resources to companies outside of this Province for the benefit of people other than Newfoundlanders or Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If that is being selfish, I am selfish about it. I want to see jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is the difference in saying something is not economically feasible, of a part of an operation, and then take a segment of Inco's operation, smelter and refinery - that they are saying $1.1 billion to put it there - and in Sudbury we are underutilized (inaudible) in our capacity to smelt the nickel that is coming out of the ground in the nickel mines under Inco's control. Why spend $1.1 billion, they said, when we can process it in Sudbury and elsewhere, in the capacity we have?

Isn't that the opposite argument the government is taking and saying: We cannot have North Limited, or IOCC - controllers of IOCC - saying that this segment here is not economically feasible because what is going to happen in the future is that the pellet plant, the different grade pellet in Labrador City, is not going to be as marketable as the pellet that is coming from Sept-Iles. There are going to be less jobs in the pellet plant. The Member for Labrador West, I think, even worked there in that segment of the operation. It could affect the future jobs of people who worked in the same place that he worked, at this detriment here.

That is just not a capsule decision. Maintain the jobs for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the solution! That is a pretty easy solution, isn't it? Maintain the jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because the long-term effect - you do not look at -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister wants to stand up and speak, he will have his opportunity. I just want to put something on a financial perspective for it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Will you give me time to use some legal, rationing argument? Will you just sit back and relax there?

Consultants will tell you what you want to hear. That can happen. Some consultants, anyway, will tell you what you want to hear. What is, I say to the minister, $200-some million over a 120 year lifespan - $200 million a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished. Do not be butting in or you might get sandbagged by the Premier again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a petition here signed by your colleagues. We, the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of Topsail District... Three of your seatmates - and a letter by one of your seatmates, saying: This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter dated March 6. Please be assured that I will present this petition to the House of Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Member for Topsail stood up with the Member for Humber Valley and Torngat Mountain: We the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of Topsail District, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Human Resources and Employment to review the recent decision to reduce funding to recipients in the amount of Child Tax Credit.

Here is the original which was sent in. There was no mention of it at all. It never got presented. It got twisted. Tell me about petitions in the House of Assembly. What do you call that? Are they still members, I would like to know? Will you tell me? Are the three of these still members of the Catholic Women's League? I know that females have just been accepted into the Boy Scouts. Have the Catholic Women's League accepted men? Can someone tell me that?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want a copy, it was already tabled in the House, signed here and dated on May 21, 1998. That is all on the public record. That is all there.

We talk about jobs. There are costs of financing and all of that to be calculated, but an average cost over the life of the (inaudible) in Labrador City, down in Labrador, of $2 million a year, would be the average cost per year, not including amortization of that over a period. Of course, there are extra costs, but what is that to the jobs? It is not just the jobs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to be forced to speak on this bill fairly often if I do not get to finish up now.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with respect to the petition.

I am trying to make sure the record is clear, because the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis indicated that it is the role of the Opposition to point out flaws in what the government decides to do. I would contend that what the people of the Province need to hear from the Opposition, if they are ever going to think of them as a viable alternative, and think of them as the government someday, is that they should play a game of `let's pretend that we are the government', so that would honestly tell the people what they would do differently if they were in a position to actually effect the decision today instead of just complaining about it.

We have heard two statements so far from the Opposition, both of which have unbelievable consequences. If this is the official position of the Opposition, they should say it clearly and stop playing games with words.

Number one, they have said -

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

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education just made a statement that we would not give our position with respect to this. I think we have been heard many times in the House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, the Member for Ferryland was about to give it and they would not allow him leave to give our position.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. Does he wish to grant him the time now to make his presentation?

MR. GRIMES: No, I was just waiting for you to rule on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, so I can continue on.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: It is clear. I will give my version of what I have heard the Opposition say and they can stand up at some future point and say whether it is right or wrong, because they do not know what their position is, because they have five or six.

One of them is this. One position, supported by the hon. the Member for Ferryland, is that we should give IOC North the $250 million and buy the pellet plant for Labrador West. That is his position. He tries to explain it by saying that it is only $2 million a year for 100 years, and it is inconsequential.

The fact of the matter is that you would have to give them the money right away, borrow it -

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Education is misleading the House. I indicated, and make it clear, that the average cost to whoever it is, whoever it may be - and I would prefer the cost, I tell you, to be the North and not to this Province, number one - would, over the life of what is left there, average to about $2 million a year. Can a company average and put an investment in this Province of $2 million a year to protect jobs, and future jobs, of people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So he confirmed again that the position of the Official Opposition is: Give them the money, because that is the only way it can happen. The only way they can get the project to occur is they have to spend the money in the next two or three years. If you are going to build the next smelter in Labrador City, somebody has to give the company $250 million in the next three years, because they have done an analysis that suggests it is better to do it elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Then he talks about inconsequential amortization costs. They would be significant if the government were to give IOC North $250 million. If we paid it off over 100 years, like he suggests is very easy because it is only $2 million a year, it would probably cost well over $1 billion with carrying charges on $250 million for 100 years. He wants to say it is 100 years, it is only $2 million a year, it is very easy; the company or the government should give them the money.

Barring that, other members, like the Member from Cape St. Francis, say: Don't let it happen. Leave it in the ground.

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

MR. GRIMES: Then they are going to have a situation where you are not allowed to ship concentrate out of Labrador City, which they have been doing for forty years. Therefore, if they were the government, they would say: You can't ship concentrate out of Labrador City but you can ship it out of Wabush -

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

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

MR. GRIMES: They cannot have it both ways because they do not know what their position is. They have no idea what they would do about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to -

MR. J. BYRNE: I have never said in this House, and you can check Hansard, that they should leave it in the ground. I have not said it, and the minister knows it.

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

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, this just cannot be allowed to go on. As the Minister of Education has just said, if they want to stand up and clarify their position again, then rip another page off the petition and present the petition all over again.

What they are doing here is using points of order to state a position that they presented in the petition over and over. I would suggest that they be brought to order. If you have to, name the hon. gentlemen and we will deal with them appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order. Citation '481(e) indicates that, "...impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member."

The Member for Cape St. Francis -

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

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

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

With reference the Government House Leader, a petition was presented from constituents in the Town of Flatrock, signed and circulated in the town of Flatrock. It is a petition that has never - or a page from any petition that has ever - come in this House before. That is an inaccurate statement too, I might add, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman can read that book all he likes. He should, when he stands up - and he knows this and he is very good - he should stand up and use it correctly. He knows that as well.

I did not hear the Minister of Education impute any motives to anybody. I think all he did was stand up and say exactly what he heard the minister for Cape - not the minister, I am sorry; God forgive me - the Member for Cape St. Francis, say, and he did it very well.

Like I said to the hon. gentleman, if he wants to present another petition then write down a few names on a piece of paper or whatever - take another sheet, or whatever way he wants to do it - and stand up and present another petition.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when he does that, the Minister of Education doesn't have another go at him.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader just made a statement again that I took this petition, took off a couple of sheets from another petition. I have a letter here dated November 19, from the Mayor of Flatrock, in which he sent in this petition which went around the community. There were 159 signatures on the petition, and I made it 160 because I had to sign the petition.

The Government House Leader is making falsehoods in this House of Assembly. It is not true what he is saying.

With respect to the Minister of Education hearing me saying, `Leave it in the ground', he did not hear me say it; and Hansard will show it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to continue my representation on the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader is standing. Is he standing to speak to this point of order or is he standing for another reason? Because the Chair has not ruled on the point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I was just indicating that the minister could have leave to continue, seeing as he was cut short with a point of order, if he needs extra time.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well, but before the hon. minister is recognized to continue on the petition, the Chair would like to rule that the rules that govern -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The rules that pertain to petitions are clearly defined in this House. The hon. member presenting a petition has five minutes. A member from the opposite side of the House has five minutes to participate, and another member from the same side as the side from which it was originally presented has five minutes.

What has been happening here this morning is that as the Minister of Education has been making his presentation to the petition, the two ministers who presented and spoke to the petition have been taking advantage of the minister's time to further engage in the debate - and that is what it has become. It has become a debate on the petition, and that was never the intent of presenting petitions in this hon. House.

The hon. the Minister for Education.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act", Bill No. 38. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (OLDFORD): Order, please!

Bill No. 38, An Act to Amend the Mineral Act.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and participate in the debate and to endorse some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues on this side.

There has been a great deal of dialogue. I have listened to the presentations made by the hon. minister. Our files here will show that some comments made by the minister back last December 3, in fact, nearly a year ago, commenting in the House at that time, in response to questions from the Member for Baie Verte, the minister was saying, among other things: We want to point out that it is the Province's best interest to pelletize any future requirements at Labrador City in Labrador. I think we even went a step further and talked about providing very inexpensive power which would be generated to produce this new pelletization plant. So the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has told them quite clearly" - talking to the company - "it would be in the best interests of this Province to pelletize in Labrador City."

He also says: "We want the jobs to stay in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have made provisions on the power side to ensure that that happens."

Now, Mr. Chairman, a year ago the minister responsible in the House, the Minister of Mines and Energy said: "...we have made provisions on the power side to ensure that that happens." What that meant, by the words, "that happens," was that the iron ore from Labrador would be pelletized in Labrador City.

We certainly, on this side of the House took the minister's word. We said this is a minister that is standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. He is saying the resources in Newfoundland and Labrador will be processed, will be made - as much as we can - into the finished product right here in this Province.

We were quite surprised a few weeks ago to see the minister on television with his charts in which he was talking about millions of dollars. We were quite surprised to hear the minister saying: No, we have changed our mind. Last year on December 3 he was saying: "...we have made provisions on the power side to ensure that that happens." In other words, the jobs would stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has obviously failed. The minister gave a commitment to this House on December 3 last year. I just read that commitment. The minister failed in his negotiations with North Company to ensure that the jobs stay here. So the words that were given in question period last year on December 3, just about a year ago, were simply nothing more than words.

I saw a sign a few days ago in one of the places I was visiting and it talked about words and actions. What it said was: When actions are necessary, words mean nothing. I can say to the minister that his words of last December 3 mean nothing because he did not deliver on them. The minister stood in his place a year ago and gave a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then just about a year later says: I did not mean that, that is not what I meant. The jobs will not stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. I haven't seen or heard of the minister talking in this House telling us what he did about the power supply. What happened? Last year we were going to have these negotiations based on the generation of power, the supply of electricity, that would have meant the processing could have stayed in Labrador City. It did not happen.

Last year as well we had various resolutions in the House. It is actually in this year. We had a resolution in the House on May 6, 1998, by the hon. the Member for Labrador West. I have to say that I believe the Member for Labrador West was sincere. He believed that the processing of the pellets could have taken place in Labrador City and he believed in the sincerity of his resolution. Unfortunately that member has been let down by his own government. He believed the minister last December 3. If I were a backbencher in government and I listened to the words of the front bench, and I listened to the words of the Premier, and I reviewed history, and I had come from a party where once a leader of the Liberal Party had drawn a line in the sand in Labrador and said: Absolutely no! We will not let the ore in Labrador City be processed elsewhere - well, with that great tradition the Member for Labrador West was right when he took the words of the current minister in good faith. He took the words of the historical contexts of the party in power in good faith. If I had been the member I would have believed, but of course, as we know, words are very cheap, and when action is required words mean nothing.

The time came for action. The time came to put these words of last December 3 by the Minister of Mines and Energy into an action plan. It did not happen. One of the great sad things in Newfoundland history was to realise that the Premier of Quebec, days before we were to have an announcement of a Quebec election which is going to take place next Monday, to see the Premier of Quebec flying into Sept-Iles announcing and launching his election campaign, talking about all the jobs that would be created in Sept-Iles, and how wonderful this was going to be. We have to ask the basic questions. Sept-Iles will grow. Premier Lucien Bouchard launches his campaign based on the development of whose resources? Newfoundland and Labrador's.

When we see Premier Lucien Bouchard launching his campaign, how wonderful this is going to be for the Province of Quebec, well it cannot be wonderful for the Province of Quebec and wonderful for Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year we took the word of the Minister of Mines and Energy. Eleven months later we see the Premier of Quebec launching his re-election campaign based again on the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador, and calling a big press conference.

We have to ask ourselves a very fundamental question. Was there something else we could have done? I do not believe we have exhausted all of the alternatives. Because we on this side believe there are other alternatives. We have not had an adequate explanation of what could have been done on the power side. The Member for Ferryland this morning brought up the question as to whether or not we could have had some kind of agreement with North to amortize the different cost over a longer period of time.

We are asking fundamental questions. What we see on the Liberal side is a bunch of people who have given up. They have given up the fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. They have abandoned the principle that - when you see the picture in the books of Newfoundland and Labrador of Joey Smallwood standing on the border and looking across to Quebec and saying: Absolutely not. As a matter-of-a-fact, the story is told that the then-premier stood on the border and said: No way. There were cartoons at the time of Joey Smallwood saying: Absolutely no. We will say no to this development if it is not done on Newfoundland terms.

That is their tradition. Today, for whatever reason, we see a party that has abandoned that particular principle. We are saying in the House that we believe not enough of the alternatives have been explored. That is why we are saying to this House today that we on this side believe more could have been done. The Chamber of Commerce, the Town Council in Labrador City, the Town Council in Wabush, the people of Labrador City and Wabush, are saying that something needs to be done to wake up this government. Because in essence what they have done is they have abandoned the principles their party has been founded on. They have abandoned what we have believed in as right for Newfoundland and Labrador. They simply have thrown up their hands and said: We cannot do anything about this.

Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. When I turn on my television and I see Lucien Bouchard announcing his campaign for re-election based on the development of our iron ore resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have concerns. We have said in this Province that that would never happen again. We have made some steps, we have made some progress.

What we are saying is that last year this House listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy. We heard him say that he was not going to approve this particular development and that he would make sure that if it were approved it would be approved only with the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. In fact, he said he would be able to negotiate an agreement based on the options available to him in the supply of electricity.

After the big love-in in Churchill Falls in March, the big love-in between the Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, that faulted news conference. It was a big cuddly-cuddly between the two Premiers. We wonder what else they talked about. Because certainly we have to wonder what happened. Was there a plan afoot? If so, we have not seen anything but the negative side of it. We have not seen anything positive out of it, nothing at all. We had some media attention.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the people of Labrador sections of the Province, and more specifically Labrador City and Wabush, are saying that something needs to be done.

On this particular piece of legislation we say to the government that what they are intending to do in the amendments here are, we believe, steps in the right direction. We are talking on the title of the bill at the moment. We want to make sure that we on this side of the House remind the government that they have responsibilities. When they made statements in the House a year ago, made by the minister, we have a responsibility to make sure that these statements are brought from the word to the action plan.

Mr. Chairman, with these few comments I will yield to one of my colleagues. I am sure that before the morning is out many wonderful points would have been made. Hopefully, Newfoundland and Labrador will have been protected a little better.

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

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

I have some concerns about this bill, the Act To Amend The Mineral Act. I am wondering are we making the rules so ambivalent that the mining companies that come in will not know what the rules are.

As my colleague the Member for Baie Verte suggested, a couple of days could be set aside so that the people who are staking claims can have somebody go into their regions, rather than have the folks from various parts of the Province have to come in and line up in St. John's. It seems that the legislation is probably moving in that direction.

The main focus of any legislation should be to attract investors, and I am not sure that that is how this legislation is looking at the moment. I have heard in the news recently that many of the junior mining companies are concerned. The investors who will contribute to the economy of this Province, who do not mind spending the dollars, have to know the rules before they come in here. There is not much sense of them coming in here and pumping a lot of money in and then the rules would change mid-stream. If they do not know the rules then they will not come in at all, and that will be a loss of jobs for our people.

I would like to address what is happening in Labrador now. The Iron Ore Company of Canada has been in Labrador for forty years, they have been successful for forty years, and now they decide to move our resources outside the Province and into the Province of Quebec. You have to stop and look at that and wonder, did this company do that? Are they on the side of Lucien Bouchard or do they want a Liberal government in Quebec? They would probably rather have Lucien Bouchard and the division of Canada. Because certainly by allowing the pellet plant, or not doing anything to stop the pellet plant, from going into Quebec then they certainly gave Bouchard a great plank in his election platform.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) said bleed Canada before you leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right, bleed them before they leave. That is what they are doing, they are taking our resources. Also on the Lower Churchill we are certainly sidling up with Lucien Bouchard.

If you stop and look at it and analyze it you really have to wonder. At the very time of the launching of Lucien Bouchard's election platform he gets new industry in Quebec at the cost of Newfoundlanders, at the expense of Newfoundlanders who have been in Labrador West working for forty years. Historically, that company has been forty years successfully mining in Labrador City. Now they want to move out and they say it is more lucrative financially or more financially viable. Who did the report? We sent the fox in to guard the chicken house. The Hatch report is a report that was commissioned or done by the people who were hired by Labrador City.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. That report of course said that the company would not be viable. That report said it was more viable for the company to go to Sept-Iles. Why didn't this government get in there and do a feasibility study? Not the Hatch report, but this government itself, an independent study, and see if it would be viable. Then say to this company: You are not taking our resources out of this Province. That is what we have said to Voisey's Bay, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. What are the rules?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I do. What are the rules? Obviously the mining companies do not have a clue either because they are in the press lately saying: What are the rules? You can take the ore out of Labrador City but you cannot take the nickel out of Voisey's Bay. What are the rules?

AN HON. MEMBER: What rules?

MS S. OSBORNE: The rules. Are you allowed to take the resources out of the Province or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: Those rules. Voisey's Bay cannot go in and take the nickel unless they smelt it here in the Province but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill! (Inaudible)!

MS S. OSBORNE: Obviously the mining companies out there must not have read the bill either because I have heard them on the radio just as recently as this morning saying they don't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I did. They don't know the bill either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It was not the Open Line, sir. These people are making press releases. Obviously I am here speaking on behalf of Newfoundlanders, so if the mining companies are concerned about the bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: If the mining companies are obviously afraid of the bill then I speak on behalf of the mining companies who I hear say they are afraid of the bill. Now whatever the bill says, perception is 99 per cent reality. If the mining companies perceive that this bill is not user friendly then they will not be coming into this Province. That is the direction I am coming from. Whatever you feel the bill means is one thing, what the mining companies feel the bill is is the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Would you like to speak for a few minutes? I will give you leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Only raised a few concerns.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. I am raising the concerns that I hear the mining companies raise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The chain of events is: Mining companies bring money in, money goes into exploration, and in order to explore -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Who hires the workers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Excuse me?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want to get up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: We are talking about being worried about the workers. Who hires the workers, McDonalds or the mining companies?

AN HON. MEMBER: McDonalds hires some people.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes. Do they hire the miners? I do not think so. We are right back -

MR. J. BYRNE: They might end up having to.

MS S. OSBORNE: They might end up having to; that is exactly right.

I am interested in the mining companies because -

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. I understand there is a little bit of talk going on across the floor that has distracted the hon. member a bit from her comments at third reading on this bill, because I was following her comments very intently. I understand she is raising some concerns, but just for the record could I get the hon. member to say whether she is for or against the passage of this bill?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: That is a big surprise. You will have to wait. You call the vote and then you will see, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: So you are with your wishy-washy leader. (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Listen -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: At this point I would like to interject something on wishy-washy. The Minister of Education seems to take great joy in standing up and saying: Where does the leader stand on education? I would suggest that the Minister of Education check Hansard. Check Hansard for what I said, and I can probably go into what I said in that. I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Exactly. I voted the way my member wanted me to vote, and he voted the way I way I wanted him to vote, so we are really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: They are not bothering me much, I say to the hon. minister. They are not bothering me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The Leafs will be skating in Hades when they bother me - unless that is the new name they want to put on the civic centre.

As I way saying, one of the members over there alluded to the fact that I was worried about the mining companies. If we do not worry about the mining companies and they do not come in here, then we will not have anybody to work in the mining companies and they will all be down to McDonalds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is hard to get a word in here, isn't it? The last time I noticed, that light was on. Everybody else is speaking.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take advantage of the few minutes that are offered to me with respect to the provisions of the Mining Act and the various sections of the act.

Before we talk about the legislation directly, there is a very related issue and it has to do with, I guess, pointing out in detail and emphasizing the concerns that have been raised by the residents of Labrador West.

The act in many ways is clear, and I think the intent and the purpose of the legislation is quite clear. In previous debate, I raised some concerns with respect to the possibility of a legal challenge. That is an issue that we can raise, and quite possibly will be dealt with by way of an amendment.

It is interesting to note, and I think on behalf of the many residents of Labrador West it is important that we review the specific concerns that have been raised as a result of those individuals, particularly the group of municipal and union leaders who came to Confederation Building on November 16, held a press conference, and spoke very directly and seriously with respect to the concern as they see it, with respect to the future of their community. They posed a few questions. They raised some issues which I feel are worthy of review. I think it is important to place on the record the exact issues which have been raised.

They begin by simply saying that these are issues which were raised, and questions which were asked of government but continued to remain unanswered and unresolved.

The first they indicate is that Mr. John Le Boutillier, the President and CEO of IOCC, stated on October 27 that it was not possible to provide any assurance that Labrador City will remain the primary pellet producer in the event of a future downturn in the industry.

Despite these comments, it appears that this government is satisfied with verbal assurances from IOCC that the reactivation of the Sept-Iles plant will not translate into future downsizing in production levels in Labrador City.

The question that this group has quite appropriately raised is: Why hasn't the Premier insisted that this assurance be put in writing? Very often, particularly the Minister of Finance, on many occasions often, in response to questions that are raised, refers to the contractual obligation, refers to exactly to what is in writing. Therefore, what is in writing and the contractual obligation appear to be the order of the day.

For example, the issue that has been raised by the retired public servants of this Province, the public service pensioners. When they raise issues, and when they present petitions in this House - as they plan to do next week once again, to protest and voice their concerns - the Minister of Finance, in almost every opportunity, responds by saying: There is no legal obligation. There is no contractual obligation. They did not contribute to the plan. Therefore there is a reliance on what is put in writing, what forms the contract.

Therefore, the residents of Labrador West, the municipal leaders and the union leaders who have raised this issue, have every right to say: Why is it we cannot have written assurances? Why cannot we, the residents of Labrador West, have an assurance in writing, an agreement between government and the company, that there will not be future risk to the Labrador West area?

Therefore, what appears to be good in one occasion is not satisfactory in another. On the issue of pensions, if it is in writing it cannot be considered; however, with respect to the security and the long-term protection of the residents of Labrador West, it appears that verbal assurances are good enough. Of course, we have many people in the Labrador West area simply saying: That is not good enough.

Mr. Chairman, they raise another question as well. They ask simply: What about the future of the pellet plant in Labrador City? The Hatch report has stated: It is worth noting that the Sept-Iles facility was originally constructed with two (inaudible) lines, and they go on to explain what is exactly meant by that.

Of course, the issue is, if this can happen now in such an arbitrary way, what happens in terms of other issues that may arise? If issues of extreme importance are raised and this government has to respond, will they once again take the argument and accept the side and the argument of the company, again, to the detriment of the people of Labrador West?

There appears to be no certainty. There is no reliability, I would say, and that is why the people of Labrador West feel to have been let down to the extent that they are and were.

The IOC company pays royalties to the Province based upon corporate profits. There is an estimated $255 million capital investment required to reactivate the pellet plant in Sept-Iles and that this will reduce the IOCC profit margin, thus reducing royalties to this Province. The question asked by this group during the press conference: Is the Province of Newfoundland indirectly subsiding the pellet plant operation in Sept-Iles, Quebec? I guess it is a very fair question, because we realize that what this Province in fact benefits from that particular operation is directly related to the profit margin by way of a royalty regime as negotiated between the Province and the company. So there is a very direct correlation between expenditure on the part of this company. What makes it worse is expenditure in another province, but again to the detriment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The group, during the press conference as well, asked questions like: What profits has IOCC generated over the last number of years? Has the company put the books on the table to allow the people of the Province to understand exactly what the profit margin is? Again, largely due to the fact that our benefits, our royalty regime, is directly related to it. What profits has North Limited realized from IOCC since its investment in April of 1977? Why did the Province not pursue legislating an export royalty on unprocessed resources? Again, a very legitimate question, a question which the residents of Labrador West have asked not only recently but of course have asked for many years, to ensure that again the people of Labrador West and, in saying that, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally, gain maximum benefit from our resources through the royalty regime.

We have the 1938 Labrador Mining and Exploration Act. The question being raised is: Why is the Province hesitant to challenge legislation going back to 1938? We saw, in many ways, a very legitimate and appropriate legislation change. We saw the new child welfare legislation replacing an act of 1944, going back some fifty-four years. Well just six years before that we had the Labrador Mining and Exploration Act. So obviously government is prepared to renew old legislation, to repeal old legislation, to replace old legislation with an act and provisions that are obviously to the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This week we saw it in terms of the children of this Province. Well, why not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally in terms of repealing an act which is over sixty years old, to the benefit of the people of the Province to ensure that we get maximum benefit and that a royalty regime is created, and not simply adhering to legislation which is outdated and appears to really restrict the people of this Province, through its government, from negotiating the maximum benefits for our people?

Also, another question that was asked, was: Why has the Province not provided full disclosure on the report and the Hatch report? I am referring to the Bechtel MetChem report. Of course, the minister would be much more familiar with that and the details of it than I am. But this group has asked, why is there not full disclosure? So there is certainly a suggestion that there is information which has not been provided and which has not been forthcoming upon the request of the group.

Another point raised: If government was aware that there was a problem back in June of 1998, why were local stakeholders not informed then and made part of the process of strengthening the case for Labrador West? Well, it is only the group that can speak directly to that. Obviously I, or no member on this side of the House, was privy to any discussions or negotiations, but it is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. If there was some notion that in fact what did occur just a few weeks ago could occur back as early as the early part of the summer of this year, why weren't the local groups and why weren't the local stakeholders brought up to date in terms of these negotiations so that they too could make representations and could have their voices heard around the table to ensure that the interests of the residents of Labrador West were protected? Government has stated that the pellet plant expansion in Labrador West would result in only 50 new jobs. What about the 300 to 400 jobs created during the three-year construction period? What about the 200 jobs required for three years to construct the transmission line from Churchill? What about the 150 indirect jobs generated from the other permanent positions?

Again, fair questions that have been raised over and over again by various groups and interested parties with respect to Labrador West, but unfortunately questions that appear to remain unanswered.

Mr. Chairman, I will resume discussion on this during my next opportunity to speak.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have a few comments on this particular bill. The bill was brought in with retroactivity there. I think the government realized they would be in a bit of a legal bind if they did not bring in legislation that was retroactive and to keep them, I guess, from under certain legal action taken by Inco.

Overall when we looked at it, I am a strong advocator of taking tough action on multinationals that are not intending to utilize resources and maximize jobs here. That is why I agree with the statement that there should be a smelter/refinery here. If there is no smelter/refinery here, the nickel should stay in the ground in Labrador. There should be a maximization of jobs here, and not only in this instance.

We can also look at a similar situation where we get the maximization of jobs from the Iron Ore Company of Canada. It was indicated in the public that one of the conditions of North buying into IOCC was on the condition that there would be a re-activation of the Sept-Iles plant. If that is the case, what has happened at this point in time? Why didn't we hear this before? Maybe the minister is listening. Was it a condition in the purchase of IOCC by North that re-activation of the Sept-Iles Plant was a part of the condition of purchase?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am asking a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not said uneconomic. I am just asking was it a condition? The minister missed by initial comments. I said I am a big supporter of forcing multinationals to utilize the resources here. I said that if the if the smelter/refinery does not go in this Province then nickel should stay in the ground at Voisey's Bay. I agree with that, I support that, but we cannot apply two different standards. We cannot say, we can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, and the minister should know better. I know better and the minister should know better. I asked the minister a question and he did not answer it. He deflected the question. I will ask it again. If does not want to answer it, fine, he does not have to. Was it a condition of the purchase of IOCC by North that there would be a re-activation of the Sept-Iles plant? Was that a condition of purchase?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) all of the assets (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. It was not a condition of purchase. So there has been no particular agreement that sat there for some time that it had to be activated. It was strictly going to be based on the current decisions that the company viewed to be the economic decisions of today. There was no stipulation, there was no -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, just think for a second. I will just put a question to you. It depends what the restrictions are. I will use an example to ask it. If Fishery Products International got in deep trouble - which they did in the past and there had to be $300 million public money into Fishery Products International; they were on their knees back in the 1980s -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but Fishery Products International received an infusion of almost $300 million in federal money to enable them to survive back in the 1980s. They downsized before the moratorium. Trepassey closed in 1990, for example, before the moratorium. The National Sea chain and others had their own set of problems, too. Let's say someone came to and said: We are going to put $300 million of public money into Fishery Products International, but it is on the condition that you have to maintain a presence on the Burin Peninsula, or a presence in Burgeo, to use an example, and one on the East Coast. That is to make sure there is an equal distribution of your company so we won't have any area of the Province that might be in a difficult situation, that cannot be able to operate, and no one else would be enticing. You may have to take some bad with the good in areas that might not be very profitable or are marginal to get your hands on other areas by getting money in.

Well, the restrictions that are put there would determine what I would do. I might say: Take it, I do not want restrictions. If other areas are profitable enough - and we went through this with Fishery Products International. Then they purchased Clouston Foods, and that has been a good moneymaking arm. They have done fine since.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. I have placed it where I lost 4 per cent, I have placed it where I gained 30 per cent. Anybody who has done that has done it.

In order to get your hands on profitable parts of an operation you may have to take the bad with the good, but if the overall margins, I say to the minister, are healthy... There are two players here. I will ask the minister this question: If you were a shareholder of Inco -

AN HON. MEMBER: I want to ask you a question.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, wait now, he asked me and I answered, so I am going to ask you one. Everybody wants to ask me questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not come from a fish merchant family. I started a little, small, nickel-and-dime operation way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They are trying to deflect away from the important question I am going to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy. If you were a shareholder of Inco - which I firmly believe you are not, as minister; if not, it is in trust with all your money, which it should be

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: See, the Government House Leader just will not let me ask a sensible question. If you were a shareholder of Inco, and you spent $4.3 billion to buy from Diamond Field the Voisey's Bay resource, that is in today's market valued at only $750 million, grossly overvalued - the company is going to have to face writedowns, that is the only way about it. Financiers went out there. Let's face it, they have to do it this year and they have to do a writedown.

They are saying their investment shrink. Yes, you are seeing your investment shrink to one-sixth of your investment, basically. The company says: Now, for us to go to Argentia and spend $1.1 billion when we have under-capacity in Sudbury and Thompson, and we can process and smelt all the nickel in Sudbury and Thompson that is coming out of Labrador, why spend $1.1 billion as a shareholder of Inco? What would you say to Inco?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The last was very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask you again because you missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't catch the important part. I want to make sure everything is clear.

If you are a shareholder and your company has an option to spend $1.1 billion in a smelter/refinery at Argentia, and the company is saying we have under-capacity in Sudbury and Thompson that can handle all this nickel out of Labrador, it is cheaper, we can process it all there, would you as a shareholder say: I am going to spend $1.1 billion?

Already we have taken a hit of $3.5 billion by under-evaluation of that asset alone that has to be a writedown. Would you do it? Look at it from a shareholder prospective. Why would you? We only have half the story on IOCC. Go ahead, I will listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is not an identified reserve. I do not buy that argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know but here is why I do not buy that. You said for the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am familiar with that. In fact, I think they have probably understated it for their own benefit. Besides that, there is a recognized life estimate of 120 years in Labrador. That is what the estimate is, over a hundred years. That is what was stated there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I mean iron ore. Yes, I am doing a comparison now, sorry. It is an estimate of a 120 more years in IOC, and there is not an estimate for nickel nearly as long as that. You are going to say to Inco: We are going to force $1.1 billion for a smelter/refinery with smaller reserves there and allow IOC to go into Sept-Iles, Quebec, and not only create jobs that are out of this Province for Quebecers and others, not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but in the process also lessen the chance that the pelletizing plant in Labrador will become a primary pelletizing plant of IOCC.

The President of the company, Le Boutillier, would not commit that Sept-Iles will not become the primary pelletizing plant that would have a more marketable product. We will see a reduction in numbers. The Premier accepts a verbal commitment on a company that is loyal to shareholders only, Inco, another major company, has now gone back on its commitment to build a smelter/refinery in this Province. We are being too easy with multinational companies that are out to maximize profits, regardless of what country or what province they walk over in the process.

We have to be tough with multinationals. We have to be sympathetic to young companies starting out in our Province that need that little thrust to get going. We have to be tolerant. When doing legislation before we might have tarred them all with the one brush. Now we are back to legislation now that has to do something, correct something. Government has put itself in a very difficult position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I agree with all the generalities. There are some things in there I have been giving some thought to. I am just wondering -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Sure, I know.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Investors invest on known reserves and the high potential that there is going to be future reserves within a company. That is a speculative type of thing. When you invest in a company and buy shares in a company based on known reserves you have a degree of assurance you are going to get a fair return. You cannot surmise that we are going to have another fifty or sixty years there when it is not happening.

I will be first to admit that yes, this legislation is and can be interpreted to be tough for mining. I do not think anyone doubts that it can be tough for mining here. I know a lot of people have been, in the public, stating that it is going to poison the investment climate, it is going to drive the dollars somewhere else. That could do that. Perception is a hell of a lot too. I heard people representing banks and companies speak. I have heard from these people in the public forum out there indicating that we cannot go laying money on speculation on what particular group of people happens to sit around a Cabinet Table. There is a hell of a lot of emphasis put in Cabinet.

The independent committee you had before had a mining expert, a legal expert and an accounting expert. It is difficult when you are going out in the market today to get money - small companies. One very active company there, a person from my district, Altius Minerals, a young entrepreneur who is very active out there, and other companies like that out there today, when they are looking for investors to be able to invest those exploratory operations there, money has to come from other companies. Banks have to have confidence and so on in that. They cannot make decisions based on whims of Cabinet. They have to have something more concrete. Who knows what a Cabinet might do? Cabinets do queer things coming up on election time. They do peculiar things, I must say, on upcoming elections.

The political opinion can sway with the wind and so on, and the banks do not take kindly to that. Investors do not take kindly to that. They want stability out there in provinces and countries. Investors out there today want to make sure that they are going to get a return. Anybody who invests money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, (inaudible) they said. We certainly do not want to get branded that way. The last thing we want is to scare away jobs out of this Province here. Things are not near as rosy as we might think, but we need to protect it. We need governments fighting for jobs here in our Province because I have a grave concern that we are not applying consistently the provisions, the same basic philosophies, we are not applying consistently in two different operations. I put out the rational and reasons today. From an investors point of view, what would I say: It may be cheaper for Inco to do it elsewhere, from an investor point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say that again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said: From an investors point of view, it could be cheaper for Inco to process it elsewhere. It could be cheaper to process smelter nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all. I am saying, from an investor point of view, it could be cheaper for Inco if they have capacity in other operations, but we are responsible to protect the resources of this Province and we should not tolerate that because Inco can make more money by doing it elsewhere. Economically feasible does not mean the highest rate of return according to the Mineral Act, and I support that; it does not mean the highest possible rate of return. A company should be forced to process the minerals here if they can get a reasonable rate of return. A reasonable rate of return depends on the product. If it is a utility company there are accepted rates, mining industry there are accepted rates, and there are other operations.

There are compromises given to companies. Bouchard is giving compromises in Quebec. It depends on the total. The whole ball of wax has to be looked at, what goes into the total picture, but keep in mind that it is our resource here. If they want it, they should have to process it on our terms and benefits should accrue to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first, even if it means a company's profits drop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked you: If you were an Inco shareholder and the company had just spent $4.3 billion, and they find out that the $4.3 billion they spent now is only worth three-quarters of a billion - it is only one-sixth of what it was worth - and you had surplus capacity to be able to smelt all the nickel out of this Province in Sudbury, from an investor point of view with Inco, would it be cheaper to do that or to spend $1.1 billion on a facility in this Province, from an investor point of view?

From an investor point of view it is usually cheaper to process in an existing facility - usually cheaper - than to build an entirely new facility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. That is what IOC said. So the minister said, IOC can say it. Oh, yes.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will show you the dichotomy that is existing here. Here is the comparison, and I would like for you to listen carefully. We are telling Inco: Inco, you must build a smelter/refinery here even if you have spend $1.1 billion.

Inco says because it is more economically feasible, and you turn around and tell North that you can go out and put it elsewhere because it is more economically feasible, and Inco says it is more economically feasible to smelt it... You are taking two completely different positions. I tell you, this is an issue where government is speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the one time. The arguments they are using against Inco are not the ones they are applying for IOCC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You do? Have you ever been wrong, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me ask a question. Has he every been right?

MR. SULLIVAN: Once he was. When he looked at those numbers and saw all of those numbers, yes, he was right then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I think there is skill in picking the right ones. There is a perception and a skill. It is always better to be a winner than a loser. They say winning only shows half of your character; losing shows it all.

I am sure there are people who are ready to jump up and go here. Hopefully, I will have an opportunity to get back on this topic again because I am seeing two completely different applications by this government of situations.

One whereby they are telling a company, even though you can process it in a facility that is already there, they are saying: Go out and build another one. Then they are turning around to IOC and saying it is easier to reactivate it. They are not making them build one in Labrador City. The situations apply differently, and there is a difference. It is not washing, I can tell you, with the public out there. It is not washing with me because it is not being applied consistently. You cannot on one hand say one thing, and on the other hand - both have to be the one way. What way should it be? It should be a demand that they build it here in the Province.

I agree with saying Inco should build it here in the Province. I agree. Even if it is $700 million more expensive than processing it in Sudbury, there is still a profit.

For IOCC, with 120 years of reserves down there, they use $200-some million over 120 years, $2 million a year average. When Le Boutillier tells us that there is no guarantee that the Labrador City plant is going to be the primary pelletizer as opposed to Sept-Iles - he would not give that guarantee. He would not give the guarantee that there would be no jobs. He said something verbally, nothing in writing.

Before you would ever allow someone to move that, you would get an agreement signed, an agreement in writing, laying down the restrictions and the conditions by which anybody can operate if... You are not going to force somebody into bankruptcy if they cannot operate, let's face it, but there should be restrictions imposed to protect the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was not done in this case.

You are doing it in the Inco case and I applaud that. I applaud doing it in that case, but you have not done it in the other instance. You have made chalk of one and cheese of another. It is completely two different positions on this matter; that is without foundation. One has to be without foundation. Which one it is - I say the one without foundation is the IOCC one because I support maximizing mines and resources here in this Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words with respect to An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

MR. TULK: Make sure it is only a few.

MR. J. BYRNE: A few times a few times a few, I say to the Government House Leader.

I understand that the Premier wants to attract exploration in the Province, and mining in the Province - one leads to the other, of course - to attract investors into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier was on the news last night holding up a copy of a cheque and a statement that Inco had sent $3 million towards a hospital, out of $15 million. He made the statement that some people are saying that this new Mineral Act, or this bill, will probably deter investors from coming into the Province, and people to do exploration and what have you. He made the point that Inco gave us $3 million. A few days later, they sat down and explained what was going on with respect to this Mineral Act. Inco had made a commitment of $15 million. I think that was their first payment of $3 million to go towards the hospital in Labrador, and (inaudible) staying to their word.

One does not have something to do with the other, not at all, I say to the Government House Leader. Again, it is just a way of twisting and trying to give a false impression; but there are concerns out there, genuine concerns.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to look at somebody, and you are probably the best-looking one over there. You are the best of the lot. You are the easiest one to look at, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, can you control that attack dog over there?

They want me to speak to you, Mr. Chairman, for some reason or other, because they do not want to hear the reality of the situation with respect to this piece of legislation, although I support the intent of the legislation, no ifs, ands, or buts about that.

I will tell you why I support the intent of it. It is because we have squandered our resources year after year, decade after decade, century after century, since this Province was discovered apparently in 1497 - but if you listen to Farley Mowat, there were people here long, long, ago, according to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) against the seal hunt.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is another thing that upsets me about him. Yes, a man who lived in this Province, who knows the importance of the seal hunt with respect to the economy of this Province and the livelihood of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to come out and speak against it is unconscionable; as the previous Premier would say, unconscionable.

With respect to this piece of legislation or this bill, again, as I was saying, I support the intent of it. There are some concerns out there from the mining industry with respect to the authority of Cabinet. When we look at the authority of Cabinet we can go from one extreme to the other.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture over there interjecting and saying that there is not one person in this Province listening to me. Obviously there is one or that man would not be speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hear the lies.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, did you just hear that comment? You heard it. I will just try to ignore it now because I would expect that the Government House Leader is just trying to goad me into (inaudible) him. I will let it go in one ear and out the other ear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, with this piece of legislation again there are a lot of comments to be made on it.

I want to say this. With respect to the Throne Speech - if I could refer to the Throne Speech - the person who presented the Throne Speech in the House, here is what came from the Throne Speech: These resources are ours to develop and process for the maximum benefit of the people. My government is committed to an appropriate royalty regime that will allow for all citizens to share fully in the riches produced. Every opportunity will be explored, including the viability of a copper smelter in the Province, and my government will continue to work with the mining industry to promote new mines and quarries.

The words we have to look at there are `to work with'. The mining industry does not consider that this piece of legislation is working with the mining industry.

Now the Member for Ferryland was just up a few minutes ago and he was making a lot of good points. He usually does, there is not doubt about that. If you want to talk about facts and figures and the like, there is not one person in this House who would be able to stump the Member for Ferryland, I can tell you that. When he speaks he knows what he is talking about. Some of the points that he was making were quite legitimate.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, it would not take a lot to stump the Government House Leader.

When the minister stood in his place and introduced this bill, he talked about housekeeping -

MR. SULLIVAN: Tell them they are using short division on Inco and long division on IOCC.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Government House Leader that they are using short division on Inco and long division on IOCC. That is what is going on here, Mr. Chairman.

The public, when they look at that, they are asking the question: What is the difference? They really don't see a difference. Often times people have a tendency to oversimplify certain situations. There is no doubt about that. Sometimes they may not understand all the complications, but I have to ask the same question. How can they allow ore to go out of Labrador and then require another company to do it? The Member for St. John's East made the point when he was up with respect to the legalities of this. I said before in the House of Assembly that we hope that the opinions of the lawyers the government has requested will be or are very strong, and that they are accurate in what they are telling the government to do in this situation.

We have seen in the past that some of the advice they have received led to court cases which the government has lost. I hope we do not get in a situation where if this is challenged in the courts, if it is, that government will lose on this situation. Because if they do the people of the Province are going to lose, not necessarily the government itself.

When the Minister of Mines and Energy was up he introduced this bill. He made a few comments that there were some housekeeping clauses here. He talked about legal surveys. I know a little bit about the surveying business. Apparently previous to this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't be insulting, I say to the Member for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm not sure if I do or not, to be honest with you, the map staking. I am not quite sure if that is really a necessity, I do not know what the intent was there. Because once they have a site or a claim and it is given to them legally, they have to go out in the field, stake the claim, and what have you, and there are certain restrictions and conditions in place.

With respect to map staking, the maps today are all coordinated. We all know what they are. If it comes to a point in time when it is necessary and they get the claim, and it is awarded to them, whatever the case may be, they can go in the field and stake it. With respect to mapping, everything is coordinated and it can be done very accurately. I mean even today with GPS systems they can take that and go in the field and coordinate from satellites within tenths of metres. I really do not know the necessity for that.

When the minister gets up I would like for him to address that. Why do we require map staking to be staked on the ground? There must be a legitimate reason. I imagine he took the advice from people working in the department. Although it would be great for the surveying industry, there is no doubt about that, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East says I should get back in that field. I will tell you this, now. Sometimes I wonder if I should have left it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister says he believes it was to eliminate any conflicts of overlaps and whatever the case may be. Then again, with respect to the map staking in the field, it can done very accurately. If you pick off a set of coordinates, you can pick off coordinates on a map to decimals of metres. Then you can go in the field and lay out the exact same thing. If it is done properly in the office - I am not making a claim that it shouldn't be done. Obviously there have to be legitimate reasons why it would have been put forward by the people working at the department in that field. They would know more about it then I would, of course. There have to be legitimate reasons. They may have had problems in the past that I am not aware of.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, they probably did, but it is just a point.

We have, Mr. Chairman, to look at the maximum benefits for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is where this legislation is headed. As I said earlier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Headed where?

MR. J. BYRNE: To obtain maximum benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would think that is a fair statement to make. That is where this legislation is headed, that what it was put in place for.

AN HON. MEMBER: By George, I think he has it.

MR. J. BYRNE: By George, I think he has it, I say to the Government House Leader. That is why I support the intent, but there may be some points that come up in Committee that may have to be addressed. That is where I am heading, I can tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy it very well may. We are in Committee stage now. We could be here for days and days. We may be here for Christmas. Sometime next month when we are getting towards the end of the Committee stage, Mr. Chairman, we may put forward a few amendments or something. Who knows?

The minister made a point about: legal advice with respect to give clarity to the wording of the language from the previous legislation, and what have you. That is where we are leading on this. I think the wording of the legislation, the legal advice, is this. The Cabinet, according to this legislation, is getting a lot of authority. Too much authority, maybe. I think that is where the industry is looking, at the authority that Cabinet has with respect to one extreme or the other. That is something that the minister may want to look at, the authority that Cabinet is going to have in this situation.

I think where they are looking is here. If you look at the primary production, in the legislation primary production is defined. I am glad to see that is it defined.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is defined here, but again, you could have a piece of legislation where it is not defined and make it too general and too discretionary for Cabinet. That could be a problem. I think that is where some of the concerns of the industry are coming from, Mr. Chairman.

There were a couple of points I wanted to make here with respect to (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue is over there asking questions that should not be asked in this House of Assembly. The questions that are being asked are not based on any premise that is accurate or factual. That was proven in the courts to be - okay. It should not have gone to the courts in the first place. He is trying -

CHAIR: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will see if I can get this clued up by noon.

There is a problem. When the previous premier, Mr. Wells, brought in the legislation in the fall of 1994, I think, he gave a ten-year tax break to the mining industry. That was just on the verge of the announcement being made that Voisey's Bay had been discovered. We have been begging, asking in this House since 1994 for amendments to the Mineral Act. Finally the Administration, the government of today, is listening to us. I notice too that we are having quite, as an Opposition, an impact on the government. They are listening to us now. The Minister of Health and Community Services is listening to us, finally, on certain issues.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has listened to us over the past little while. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board took my advice this time last year when he was talking about bringing in the tax on used vehicles. They are listening, and as a matter of fact I think they are taking some of our policies right out of our manuals. The Member for Humber East is over there holding up our policy manual from the last election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you have to get rid of that web page (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, they are making a statement here about our web page. Let me tell you about our web page. When I go to our web page on the Internet I see all kinds of information about the Opposition, about policies, news releases, members of the House. The last time I checked the internet with respect to the government's side of the House and the Liberal page, what did I see? Under review. It was like it for months, nothing done. This is the crowd that is supposed to be leading the way in information technology in the Province. These are the ones that privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services which, by the way, the Public Accounts Committee just had hearings on. I must say, it was very interesting. Some good questions came forth. The government are the ones who are supposed to be leading the way in information technology and they can't even get their web page up and running. That will tell you now. They are the ones with all the big bucks too, they are the ones with the money that can put into it, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

I digress, because of the interjections from the members on the other side of the House.

With respect to this piece of legislation, I wanted to get into the ten-year tax break, the tax regime, industrial benefits, and the new royalty regime. I am going to have lots of time to speak to this in Committee. I am going to sit down now for a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I have to rest my throat, my lungs, so I can continue on in the near future. Because when I want to speak, Mr. Chairman, I have a tendency to be a bit loud. There is a good reason for that. Usually the members on the other side of the House are so vocal when I get on my feet, and they are on the attack all the time, I have to speak loudly to drown out the other side of the House so I won't hear their questions and their interjections and their smart remarks. I shouldn't say smart remarks, they are more attempts at smart remarks.

I am going to sit down for a few minutes. When I get up again I am going to get into the primary production, the ten-year tax break, the tax regime, the industrial benefits and the new royalty regime, just for the next few minutes when I get up. After that I am sure I will have much more to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand today to say a few words on Bill No. 38, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

Sometimes when you stand in the House you feel you are revved up for it and you feel like you can deliver a good speech. It is very hard following the Member from Cape St. Francis and following the Member from Ferryland when they get up and put forward such good points.

The Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, I think can stand and talk on this particular bill, or any bill dealing with business in this Province, from now until the election happens in 2001. He has the business background; he is a businessman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You are right there. He can talk about pretty well anything. He makes some good points. Some of the points he made - I have the Government House Leader's attention now - referred to the Government House Leader's portfolio. He talked about the retention of jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When the Government House Leader sat in the back benches of the other government he was not a very happy man. All of a sudden he moved up to the front benches. When he moved into the front benches he was very eager to make something happen, because he was a leader-in-waiting for such a long time. In his haste to make something good happen to this Province, because his intentions were good, all of a sudden on the front page of The Telegram - in the Government House Leader's haste, the leader of Bonavista North, the top-dog in this government when the Premier is absent, well, here is the beef. Buffalo beef, that is. This was the scheme of the Government House Leader to introduce prosperity to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He was so very eager to see something positive happen and have his name attached to it.

I am going to read you a few little lines from this because it was something he wanted to happen: Local buffalo beef and bison burgers may soon be a regular commodity on supermarket shelves, restaurant menus, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government is currently studying a proposal to operate buffalo ranches on the Avalon Peninsula and in other areas of this Province. The proponents are awaiting word from Agrifoods Minister, Beaton Tulk, for permission to import buffalo in order to raise on those farms.

The minister went on to say: Newfoundland is the only province which does not have buffalo ranches. There are buffalo ranches in Prince Edward Island, they are in New Brunswick, they are in Nova Scotia. There is not a buffalo ranch in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You couldn't help the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal wanting a buffalo ranch. He goes on. This is just the beginning. He said: The plans call for the establishment of three or four buffalo farms on the Avalon Peninsula, one in the Central region, another on the West Coast.

I would assume that those buffalo ranches were going to be probably in the District of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Maybe out in Port de Grave. It could have been right in Mount Pearl, I do not know. I do not know where they have happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, on the Avalon Peninsula. He went on to say, and he did some in-depth study, he wanted to let the people know the nutrients that were in this food. He said: Right now, bison meat tops the Canadian market both in terms of demand and price.

There were some regulations. He was very cognizant of the size of buffalo that had to be brought in. This was not something that just came off the top of his head. He said: The size of the buffalo ranches would depend on whether they are breeding stock or beef stock ranches, which would be much larger. The largest buffalo ranch in the Atlantic region is a two-hundred head operation in New Brunswick. They have been working out great everywhere else according to our study. That is what the minister said. He went on: It is a very viable investment in his opinion.

In the minister's opinion it is a very wise investment. I do not know why it hasn't happened. He said: The ranch buffalo will be obtained from breeders across the country. The only remaining area in Canada where buffalo still roam free is in Alberta. He knew that. He checked out Alberta and New Brunswick.

He said those buffalo ranches had to be very controlled. He said: The Newfoundland ranchers would have the buffalo in captive but under controlled conditions. They would be in captivity. It required supervision. He said: You would have to keep a close eye on them, and you would not be able to let them roam in pastures like we do with cattle. They were not going to be allowed to go out roaming the Barrens, and you would not see them on the side of the road. They would have to be in captivity. I do not know what kind of fence would be needed. Would that be a chain-link fence?

AN HON. MEMBER: Electric.

MR. FITZGERALD: An electric fence! He went on to say: Buffalo meat is in great demand because it is low in fat and low in cholesterol.

Then it goes right back. Here is the kicker, right here, here is where he got the idea. He said: The government tried this before in 1964 when they brought bison in from Alberta and placed them on Brunette Island in Fortune Bay. Three years later there were only eight left. By the late eighties there was just one, and there has not been one reported sighting in recent years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you are not going to take a look at it, they are your words, they aren't not mine. The minister had a wonderful idea, so he thought. I understand he was very eager, being a new minister. Here it is here, here is the beef, buffalo beef that is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that is Corey Rice.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not Corey Rice, it is Beaton Tulk, I say to the minister. It was his idea to import buffalo into this Province.

There is no date on that, but it was back a few years. One of the heading is: Ted Warren left, winning NDP candidate for the federal riding of St. John's. It was back when you were the minister of agrifoods and agriculture. It is not so long ago, I would say. The minister was very eager to bring something positive about in this Province to create employment. In his eagerness I am not so sure that he came up with a wonderful idea -

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was it?

MR. FITZGERALD: What year was it? I would say it was 1996.

MR. TULK: That one? No, 1997.

MR. FITZGERALD: Nineteen ninety-seven, just last year. It is very recent. Those are his words.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what I would say. I echo your comments sincerely. He said it. These are his words. This was a front page story in The Evening Telegram.

MR. TULK: That isn't front page.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was a front page story in The Evening Telegram. Look at the big letters. Here is the beef, buffalo beef that is. Bernie Bennett. Buffalo beef.

Mr. Chairman, when members opposite talk about the retention of jobs in this Province it is nothing new, and this is the kind of hare-brained schemes that has been tried. My sadness is that it never happened. Maybe raising buffalo beef is a good -

MR. TULK: Listen, get me a copy of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am not going to give you a copy of it. You should have your own scrapbook.

Mr. Chairman, raising buffalo, if it can create jobs and if it can create opportunities, then it is something we should pursue. You talk to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and you talk to the Member for Torngat Mountains, and I am sure those two members are very happy to see this Bill 38 being finally introduced here into the House of Assembly. It is a bill we do not have any great big problems with on this side of the House. We have some concerns, naturally. If we had to write it there would be probably some changes brought about there. Some concerns have been expressed by the mining industry in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I look forward to seeing it. I fully agree that you should not let them roam freely, that you should keep them in captivity, because we have had enough experience with moose accidents on the highway. If we are going to have buffalo roaming, I say to the Government House Leader, then we are probably going to have greater risk and higher insurance claims as we travel our highways in this Province. I have tasted buffalo meat, I say to Members of the House of Assembly. It is a much coarser texture than our wildlife meat, but I suppose if it has some nutritious value, and if it is low in cholesterol and low in fat... I can understand why the Government House Leader would want it low in fat, and I can understand why he would probably want it low in cholesterol, Mr. Chairman, because he is interested and he is concerned about his health.

MR. TULK: Do you know what the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is doing now?

MR. FITZGERALD: He is trying to get some information from you on how he can start this ranch, I would imagine.

MR. TULK: No, he is bringing in llamas.

MR. FITZGERALD: There are llamas brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, llamas and alpacas.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there are llamas brought in. I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman, if we can bring in something. This has been done by private individuals. I would think that government was going to support this big buffalo ranch because buffalo would be hard to maintain and keep, I would imagine. The cost of keeping them in a corral would be expensive. So while the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: What, twelve buffalo? Where are they? Where are the twelve buffalo? Where are the twelve buffalo in Conception Bay? Where are they? Give me their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There are some buffoons around. I am not going to say where they are, but I doubt very much if there are buffalo in Conception Bay. I doubt that very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sure it would have made the news. I ask the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods if he would listen and answer that question, if there are buffalo in Conception Bay. He nods his head that he is not aware of them. There are no buffalo in Conception Bay.

It is something that hasn't be tried. If it can provide some employment and provide some economic activity here, so much the better. I think it was said in haste when the minister was so eager to be able to leave a mark on Newfoundland politics and to show that he was a minister of foresight and a minister that could bring about some positive change. In his haste, he jumped for the buffalo farm and it did not happen. That is alright, he will have lots of opportunities now when we get the post-TAGS money directed towards his department to go out and show his real mark.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there are some goats, in fact eight farms in my area, and it looks positive, I say to the minister. The barns are built -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is only one problem.

MR. FITZGERALD: Marketing?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Some forage for them. Yes, that is causing some problems because a lot of times people in their haste again look for maybe a lot more land than they need. That creates a problem then with local people in the area because, here again, they see what they consider their rights being taken away. They see themselves not being allowed to go and pick berries and not being allowed to go and do things they would normally be able to do without those rules and regulations.

There has been a fair amount of study done on the goat farming industry. It is a trial thing in my district. There are eight farmers who have eight barns built. I do not know how many goats they have purchased. I visited at least five of the farms myself and I know they are very eager, and the people who are involved are probably the right people. They meet and they are working together, which is some encouragement to me, rather than people pulling apart. Because far too often what you have is that when somebody starts to do something you see somebody else starting up next door. Instead of working together they go in competition with each other, and that can only lead to disaster.

Mr. Chairman, the dairy industry in my particular area where I live - not in my district - I don't think I have a full-fledged dairy farm. No, I don't have a full-fledged dairy farm.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Not in my district, no. In my home town, but that is not in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there are several there, as the minister knows, and they are doing very well, Mr. Chairman. Today I think most of them are probably pretty well self-sufficient in forage. They go out and cut, they have taken in and brought bog land and shrub land up to a level where they can grow their own forage and keep it during the winter months without having to build the big barns to keep it in. They just roll it and they kind of seal it in plastic. It is not uncommon to see fields filled with those bundles of hay to feed the animals during the winter months. I think it is working out quite well. In fact, I have two brothers who are in the dairy business.

Getting back to this mineral bill, I for one welcome government putting teeth into rules and regulations whereby we try to keep our resources and process them to the final stages. I don't mean partially, like we are talking about in some of the things that we do and some of the things we are talking about here, but even to making the pots and pans. It is the only that we are going to get people employed. Right now we are talking about a smelter/refinery. Hopefully it will happen. We will employ hundreds of our own people.

I say to the minister, how about the pots and pans? How about the other things that are made from nickel? How about all the electrical contactors that are made to operate motors and other pieces of machinery, all nickel plated. Why can't some of those things be done here? It cannot be done here if we are going to allow the smelter and refinery to go somewhere else; but if we have the smelter and refinery right here in our Province, maybe we should be very vigilant about trying to go a little bit further and not settle for part of something when so many of our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are looking sincerely for a job, to be able to live right here in their hometowns and communities. Those are the kinds of things that we have to be looking at.

When the minister stood here the other day and talked about Whiffin Head - I have to refer to that again - it is wonderful stuff. Minister, what is it? Are there forty or forty-five people working out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy, including part-timers.

MR. FITZGERALD: Seventy, including part-timers. There are seventy jobs that will probably help people live right here in this Province. I say to the minister, that will make us happy, sure it will, but how about the refining of that particular oil that is leaving the Province? All we are doing here is storing it. We are storing it and we are taking the oil and sending it down the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and all around the world in order to be refined. Look at the number of jobs in Whiffin Head, look at the number of jobs created by the refining in the petro-chemical plants of the oil that is being produced off our shore. I tell you, we are falling far short.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I realize that. I realize that the minister - we here on this side, while we say it is wrong, know it is not the minister's intention that: No, we do not want it here; no, it cannot happen here. I know the minister would like to see it happen here, and I know there are difficulties along the way, but we cannot sit back and accept half of a loaf when we need a full one in order to look after our people. We cannot allow that to happen.

CHAIR: Order, please!

he hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about the alpacas, the llamas (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know much about llamas, but it is a good suggestion. I understand that those birds cost $25,000 each.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are talking about the emu.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not the emu. It was a rare bird that was brought in on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Crias.

MR. FITZGERALD: Crias. They keep them for this special wool that they are going to be taking from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know but they are worth $25,000 each.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are $25,000 each. In fact, it is an RCMP officer, I think, and his wife who brought them into the Province.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) birds around here cheaper than that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you are right. The Member for Topsail makes a good point. The president of the Catholic Church Women's Association makes a good point, that there are a few rare birds around here that would demand a much lower price than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I cannot go into that Loyola, that is yours.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that tomorrow.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to clue up my remarks now. I am leaving here today, and I am going to go down to the Anglican Cathedral downtown on Church Hill. After that I am going to go to the Lieutenant-Governor's House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is going on at the Anglican Cathedral?

MR. FITZGERALD: At the Anglican Cathedral today I have a - well I should not say that today. Maybe I could stand up and pay tribute to a constituent of mine maybe on Monday, and ask leave to do that, a young gentleman who has won the St. John Ambulance Citation Award for the saving of life, just a couple of years ago, is being recognized. So I will do that at the appropriate time.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) The Telegram?

MR. FITZGERALD: What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as bad publicity. I am of the opinion there is no such thing as bad publicity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is another situation, Mr. Chairman. We met with the chicken association the other day, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe that was arranged by members opposite, that we meet with them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the same old dirty tricks that you fellows are always up to.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: You fellows are quick learners, I tell you that. We could take lots of lessons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, the Minister of Education was making some remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, I will read it. When was it printed?

MR. TULK: It was printed November 26th.

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I have read that. That is probably the one that the minister wrote.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

Has leave been withdrawn?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it known that the Minister of Education withdrew leave after I was making some very serious remarks about the Mining Act and the concerns that I had respecting how it affects the mining industry in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise again to participate only because the Minister of Education withdrew leave to my -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) if the Minister of Education might rise and give the Member for Bonavista South leave back so we do not have to put up with what we are going to hear now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, I rise only because the Minister of Education, in a moment of spiteful anger, withdrew leave to my good colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, who was making some wonderful points. I noticed that the members on the other side were taking meticulous notes on the comments being made by my good colleague here.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader was trying to get hold of his notes.

MR. H. HODDER: The Government House Leader was so wrapped up in the comments being made by the Member for Bonavista South that he came over on this side of the House, sat in my chair and begged the member - he said: Give me a copy of that newspaper articles.

MR. FITZGERALD: He wanted a copy of my notes.

MR. H. HODDER: While the member was trying to speak, he was being interfered with. The Government House Leader was reaching up and trying to grab the notes from him. We know that the Member for Bonavista South was making a great speech -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Let me say this. When the Member for Bonavista South is speaking, I am always interested in what he is saying. The unfortunate thing is that the same amount of interest does not apply to the Member for Waterford Valley. I cannot wait for him to finish so they can get someone else up over there. He grates right on my nerves.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Having the Government House Leader rise and make those comments confirms that our mission for the morning has been accomplished. We have irritated the Government House Leader.

With those few comments, and it being near to the hour of 12:00, in consultation with the Opposition House Leader, we will adjourn debate for today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will be back on the Mineral Act. If the Opposition House Leader will tip me off, I will call it when the Member for Waterford Valley is not in the House.

Then I think we will move on to Committee on the other two or three bills that are there. After that we will go to the Minister of Health and Community Services, second reading of that bill. (Inaudible) first reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until Monday at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.

****************************************************************************8