November 18, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLIII       No. 43


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine business, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to recognize and welcome new and returning Commissionaires. Our new Commissionaires are Gwen Sprett, Robert Triska, Calvin Vincent and Peggy McCleod. Our returning Commissionaires are Ladd Bursey, Kathy Reardon, and Yves Choquett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the House for a few brief minutes.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go ahead.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak very briefly about a new industry that opened up a few months ago in my district, Catalina, an industry that employed up to 175 Newfoundlanders, an industry that is owned by Newfoundlanders, operated by Newfoundlanders, and producing a product second to none in this world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I brought a sample of what is being produced at that particular industry, and I have it with me here today. I am going to pass it around the House and let the people in the people's House take a look at those seal skins that are being produced in a plant in Catalina. I will pass it along and let each individual member look at the product, and hopefully the media will pay some attention to it as well.

This particular company produced over 1,500 tons of seal oil this year, employed 175 Newfoundlanders with a payroll in excess of $1 million. I just want to make the House aware of that, and to say that this is going to be an industry that is not new to the Province because it was always carried out in a very small way, but today it is being done commercially. It offers an opportunity for rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be able to live and raise their families right here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I accept the flattery from my colleague opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The one and only time I accept anything from a Tory.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should have also mentioned is that because of the new policy that this government brought in a little over two years ago, it was the first time in the history of the Province that we had a seal tannery. In other words, we are not allowing any product to go out of this Province to be further processed anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: To add to that, we now have the second tannery, one which will be opened and operating this year in the member's district, Baie Verte.

To add to that, we have now the largest production of seal oil capsules in the world. We just had a company come in from China, go down to Port Union, and in one order buy 2 million capsules to take back to China.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we are moving rapidly in the right direction - a new turn for the future of the fishing industry presented by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the second sample we have been presented with in the House. Last fall I was given a package of seal oil capsules by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I used them all winter and it helped my arthritis tremendously. Now we have other material evidence of the ingenuity of Newfoundlanders and the ability to produce first-class, world-class products from our own natural resources.

I am delighted with the success in the member's district and the forthcoming news we are going to hear about in Baie Verte. We are developing these products, notwithstanding the kind of stuff that goes on internationally about this particular product. It is a worthy product, deserving of support and deserving of any kind of market it can receive.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is more good news.

Now that the peak period of activity for our commercial fisheries has passed, I am pleased to provide hon. members with an overview of the industry's performance so far this year.

Preliminary figures indicate that to date there has been an increase in employment, an increase in landings, an increase in landed value, and an increase in export value.

For the January to October period this year, up to 25,000 people were directly employed in the fishing industry. For that period, the average monthly employment in the fish harvesting and processing sectors was 17,400.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen thousand. That is the average monthly employment - 17,400 - with a total of 25,000 people employed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of 2,000 - or 13 per cent - over the same period in 1997. Of that increase, 1,100 were employed in the harvesting sector and 900 in the processing sector.

What I find most encouraging is not only that more people were directly employed by the fishery but that many were working for longer periods than previously.

Furthermore, we estimate that this fishing activity is generating the equivalent of an additional 5,900 jobs elsewhere in the provincial economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: In short, the fishing industry is responsible for close to 31,000 direct and indirect jobs in this Province. Clearly, the fishery is contributing in no small measure to the fact that this fall 208,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were employed. That is an employment level not reached in this Province in many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, figures for fish landings for the first ten months are not yet available. However, I am pleased to report that for the January to September period this year, approximately 206,600 tons of fish were landed, having a landed value of close to $320 million. Add the landed value of seals to that and the total landed value exceeded $331 million.

What is significant is that the landings for the first nine months this year were up substantially by 48,000 tons over the same period in 1997.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is an increase of 30 per cent. The landed value increased by $83 million - or 35 per cent - for the same period. The increases reflect a 10,000 ton increase in landings and $22 million in landed value of snow crab. Most noteworthy is the fact that the 49,000 tons of Northern shrimp landed by the inshore and offshore sectors were more than double the landings for the same period in 1997, and the landed value of this species jumped from $63 million to $115 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Most of these increases resulted from an approximate 20,000 ton increase in new inshore Northern shrimp fishery.

In terms of the export value of our products, preliminary figures indicate that an estimated export value - I suggest the hon. member should listen to these numbers - of $585 million for the first nine months of 1998 has exceeded the export for the entire twelve months of 1997.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, our commercial fisheries are making a significant contribution to our economy, particularly in rural areas where close to 25,000 people are earning a livelihood from our renewable marine resources. Not every plant is open, not every person who would like to be working in the fishery is doing so, but what is significant is the direction the fishery is taking. Many plant workers are working longer periods. Better prices to fish harvesters reflect, among other things, the implementation of new quality assurance measures. The harvesting sector is evolving as multi-species operations. Private sectors investment in such species as shrimp is strong, indicating the confidence the industry has in the direction the fishery is taking.

All these factors are creating a more stable and viable fishing industry that will be even stronger as work continues to diversify the industry and develop new fisheries and underutilized species. These development initiatives, combined with a sound quality assurance program and market development strategies, will ensure that our fishery will continue as a strong indicator of solid economic and employment growth in this Province.

Furthermore, I am working with my colleague the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal to develop a policy to utilize what is now a waste product in crab and shrimp shells as well as fish offal. This policy will mean total utilization of all our fish products and will increase the landed and export values of our fisheries, and create even more employment opportunities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, thank the Lord for divine intervention.

There is no doubt there is good news in the fishery. There is no doubt that we are seeing the export value of our fish products, I think, close to $600 million, the minister has stated, this year. The reason for that is because with most of our exports this year and in recent years we are shipping and exporting much higher value products. As much good news as the minister reads, and he does admit it, the sad part about it is that we are not seeing the numbers employed in the fishery as we did before. Hopefully that will change.

I witnessed some good news in my district again just a couple of Fridays ago when the minister and the Leader of the Opposition went down to my district, and we witnessed the opening of a new shrimp plant. Fishery Products International spent in excess of $11 million on a plant that just a few short months ago the CEO was trying to sell for one dollar. I said: Mr. Young, is it still available for one dollar? He said: You give me $16 million and one dollar and you can have it. That is the change of attitude and that is what is happening.

The minister now has to start focusing his attention on some other things. He has to start focusing his attention on what the fishery of the future will be like. There are a lot of questions left unanswered out there. He has to focus his attention and convince his federal cousins up in Ottawa to have a commercial cod fishery, a commercial inshore fishery again, in areas like 3PS and on the northeast coast where the index fishery and the 20,000 ton allocation in 3PS showed that it can sustain a commercial fishery.

The minister has to do more than write letters to his federal counterpart to allow fishermen to go out and buy bigger boats so that they might be able to fish in some degree of comfort, and be able to go out with some degree of safety. The minister lost control. He lost control of the Fisheries Loan Board when he put it in the hands of the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. He lost control and made the fishermen of this Province slaves to the merchants again. That is what he has allowed to do. If the minister was strong and vigilant he would have demanded that the Fisheries Loan Board, while it would be changed, would forever rest in his department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: - so he could control what was happening in that particular industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: While the minister stands and pats himself on the back, and I share his joy, there are still lots of problems in this industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, having heard the member just speak, that for myself a moment ago, having heard the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I nearly jumped up, I was so moved by his stewardship, and resign my position and turn it all over to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because of the tremendous job he is doing for Newfoundland and Labrador!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear though, I was only tempted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always good to hear that the figures on the fishery are going in a positive direction, whether it be employment, value-added, export value. I want to caution the minister and the government. My colleagues in Ottawa in the New Democratic Party, the fisheries critic for example was telling me the other day, that it was very difficult to get any sympathy in Ottawa for rural Newfoundland, for out-migration, for the fisheries. Because every time we bring up the subject we are told that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador is always talking about how wonderful things are, and the Premier is always talking about how wonderful thing are. He said: They do not see anything wrong, what is wrong with you? You are from Nova Scotia up here telling us there is something wrong with rural Newfoundland because people are leaving rural Newfoundland.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tells us everything is great, the Premier tells us everything is great. I say be cautious, Minister. It is nice to see things going in the right direction, but when we have 40,000 people leaving this Province, and we need programs to ensure the survival of rural Newfoundland, it is no good telling Ottawa everything is rosy and hunky-dory. Because we know here that it is not. With 18 per cent unemployment, plus 40,000 people leaving this Province in several years, we cannot go around patting ourselves on the back too much, because we are not likely to get any sympathy anywhere else. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Forestry and silviculture have become a valuable employment alternative for the rural economy in many areas of our Province. Forests that have been silviculturally treated maximize the yield, survival and growth of the forest.

Twenty-one new or extended silviculture projects have recently been approved creating 1,371 person weeks of work. An extra $600,000 of Transitional Jobs Fund money has been negotiated with the federal government, a federally-funded program, and has been allocated to continue the silviculture projects such as pre-commercial thinning, cone collection and plantation maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are extremely pleased with the Employment Initiatives Program for forestry related activities. Over the past year 87 agreements were entered into. We provided employment for 704 persons, creating an estimated 8,000 weeks of employment, with an investment of over $3 million. Related to many other employment sectors, the employment investment ratio for silviculture is very high, as 75 per cent of every dollar is paid out in wages.

Most silviculture is conducted in rural areas, employing rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Forests that have been silviculturally treated continue to build equity and support the future of our rural economy.

I would like to take the time to thank the federal minister, the hon. Pierre Pettigrew, and the hon. Fred Mifflin, our federal minister, for their continued support for forest related initiatives through the Transitional Jobs Fund Program.

Thirty-one projects were completed to augment the long-term wood supply for thinning 968 hectares. Roadside improvement projects treated 95 hectares, and 64 hectares were planted in the Roddickton area.

Other forestry related projects completed were wood removal, trail construction, road maintenance, and road improvement.

The resource benefits of this work effort include an increase in forest growth, resource growth, value of salvaged wood, and reforestation. The human resource benefits are meaningful work and support our rural economy.

We must continue to invest in our forests. We must continue to increase the yield of our forest products and provide meaningful employment for our rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, to take a minute, I want to show the House of Assembly: these are from two trees that are the same age. One was treated silviculturally with the work that we have done over the last few years. They are the same age, and the difference in the growth is amazing. That is the kind of thing we have to keep doing, and we look forward to working with the federal government on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I wonder what the minister is using for fertilizer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I just got it as I came into the House of Assembly. There is no doubt, when we talk about silviculture, what it can do. That is evidenced as he has shown us today in his example here, and we encourage it. The only thing we would add to that is to say more.

Of course, it is something that is for the long term. It is something, especially as the minister pointed out, in rural Newfoundland; a lot of those jobs were created in that area. It is well needed, believe me. As every day goes by in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is needed more and more.

Also, the minister knows that besides silviculture, the current harvesting practice of today is something that also has to be looked at, when we look at the harvesters and the way trees are harvested today in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have some problems there that have to be addressed. It is fine to say we are going to work on silviculture, but at the same time we have to look at our current harvesting practices to ensure that we have a long-term industry in the forest industry, and also that we look at value-added in the forestry the same as in the fishery.

The plant that is about to start out in my area, as the minister knows, that is the type of thing we need in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: The only thing we can say to silviculture is to keep increasing on silviculture, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I had the pleasure of proclaiming this week as the first annual Crafts Week. I would invite all members of this House to join me in acknowledging and celebrating the important contribution the craft industry is making to the economy of our Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador craft industry is very diverse, consisting of self-employed enterprises to small-scale niche manufacturing companies, most of which are based in rural areas of the Province. In the past ten years, the craft industry has grown five fold to its present annual value of more than $25 million, of which $4 million is in export value.

The Department of Development and Rural Renewal, in partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Craft Development Association, supports the industry through a variety of programs, all of which are aimed at strengthening and growing individual craft producers. Particular attention is being given to enhancing the marketing capabilities of producers and exposing them to new market opportunities nationally and internationally. Increased sales at home and abroad lead directly to new jobs, and producers in this Province have proven they can compete with the very best. This year alone saw several producers win national trade show competitions for the quality, distinctiveness and market acceptance of their products.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to inform the House today that the Province will be the official host of the annual Atlantic Craft Trade Show in February of next year. This will be a significant opportunity to showcase the many talents of our producers. This is the only wholesale craft trade show in Canada and is managed as a partnership among the four Atlantic Provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador will be well represented at this event. Over thirty local producers are expected to present their products to more than 2,000 buyers from all around the world. Trade shows such as these have assisted Newfoundland and Labrador craft producers secure markets as far away as Germany and Japan.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw members' attention to the annual Christmas Craft Fair sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Craft Development Association, which will open tomorrow, Thursday, at Memorial Stadium in St. John's. You will see there many of the fine crafts, apparel and giftware that are earning the Newfoundland and Labrador craft industry a national and international reputation for excellence. Better still, I urge all members to purchase locally made crafts as gifts for the holiday season. You will be supporting the local industry and demonstrating your impeccable taste at the same time.

I would ask all members to join with me in celebrating the success of this vibrant and growing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

There is no doubt that everybody in this House of Assembly supports the craft industry. People in all parts of rural Newfoundland - as a matter of fact, in my own district there is a person who works with crafts who is using the Internet now to sell those particular crafts, and is getting orders from all over the world. It certainly is a growing industry. People in this part of the Province have a chance to express their culture through these crafts and so on.

Another thing that has been mentioned to me by people in the crafts industry is how Sunday shopping has affected the craft industry. Maybe that point should be raised again to assess how that effects the craft industry. It has a negative impact, no doubt about it.

We all support the craft industry, and we hope that it flourishes and grows. Hopefully it will give some much needed employment to some rural parts of Newfoundland which take this industry very seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that the government has declared a proclamation of Crafts Week for the first time. Crafts are important in a number of respects. They provide opportunities for rural Newfoundlanders, but they also provide opportunities for artistic expression. Many of our crafts are now not merely crafts or home crafts; they are in fact works of art that are displayed at the Devon House Craft Gallery in my district here in St. John's. They are recognized as a significant artistic contribution to our culture and to the enjoyment of material goods by people.

We also have in my district the Anna Templeton Centre. Unfortunately we did not see strong enough government support to continue it full-fledged as a craft centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: There was insufficient support from government on that level.

We do believe that crafts have a lot to offer people, and I would like to encourage all members to visit the Devon House Craft Gallery, to visit the craft fairs, and to make full use of these as Christmas gifts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Since bringing down its Budget this spring, the government has made several major decisions with significant impact on the Province's fiscal position. The Minister of Finance's statement on Monday could be called many things: a short story, an essay, maybe a tall tale. One thing it was not was a financial statement; that is for sure. Financial statements, I think everybody would agree, normally and generally contain numbers. This did not.

In view of the fact that the minister would not ask the questions, I would like to ask the Premier today: With respect to the Contingency Fund, you made a commitment in the House that the Contingency Fund was put in place in the Budget to act as a cushion in case of emergencies that arose, and some have. Obviously it has been spent. Can you tell the House today what the Contingency Fund of $30 million was spent on? When was it spent, and what was it spent on?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to await the return of the Minister of Finance to give you detailed accounting. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a detailed accounting of every expenditure of the government in a budget of 3.5 billion, he ought to give us a little notice and we would be glad to give him that accounting.

The fact of the matter is that we are not fully through the year and I am not sure - in fact, I am fairly sure at this stage of the game that the government is not running in a deficit position. We are still, Mr. Speaker, well within budget. The question is whether or not by the end of the fiscal year we are able to hit a $10 million deficit target, or whether we are going to have a larger deficit than that which has been forecast.

The minister has already said that he assumes that with the decline of world economic growth being forecast to go from 3.1 per cent - he said this in his statement - down to 2 per cent, with the economies of Canada, the United States, Europe, and every province of Canada adjusting their expectations, that it is reasonable to assume that Newfoundland and Labrador will not exist in a bubble and be totally insulated from what is going on in the rest of the world. Therefore there will have to be some adjustment in our Budget Estimates as well.

Mr. Speaker, to stand today, when we are partway through the fiscal year, and ask for an accounting of all expenditures before all expenditures have occurred including, by the way, using up all of the contingency fund, demonstrates quite frankly that the Leader of the Opposition simply does not understand the way in which the finances of the Province work.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: We will see, Premier, whose definition works or does not work in a few moments. I asked the Premier these questions because the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board obviously chose not to answer them. He chose not to be accountable to the people of the Province. We will get to that in a second.

I would like to ask the Premier this. Since the spring Budget and the close of the House of Assembly, the government reached an agreement with respect to the troubles and the unfunded liability portion of the teachers' pension plan. Could the Premier tell us today what, if any, impact that decision had on current account? In other words, what will be the cost of that agreement on this year's finances?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is really taking us through an amusing series of questions, the answers to which - most of which - he already knows.

On the question of the unfunded pension liability, that does not have a significant impact on this year's current Budget Estimates. He knows that. I do not know why he is asking the question.

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

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

The Premier has indicated that it would not have a significant impact. Again, that is not the question I asked. I asked: What was the impact financially?

Let me ask him another question. Since the spring Budget, the government reached a collective agreement with respect to the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. What, if any, impact did that agreement have, in financial terms, on this year's finances that was not budgeted in the statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we can spend all of question period with the Leader of the Opposition in a desperate attempt to portray something even resembling intelligence in the area of financial statements, asking questions one at a time.

The answer to the question of the impact on the settlement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is $32 million, I believe, out of the budget of the Department of Health and Community Services. That is money that was provided for in the Budget Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition is getting at.

I can say this. I believe what the Leader of the Opposition is doing, quite frankly, is irresponsible. The Leader of the Opposition spent Monday in the House criticizing the decision of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not to spend $170 million to close the gap on IOCC, and he wants to spend Wednesday saying that although Monday he thought we had $170 million to throw away, that Wednesday there is a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell him something. The retail trade of this Province who are counting on the Christmas season, and the employees of this Province, including the 30,000-plus public servants, do not want somebody falsely raising a claim of crisis when there is no crisis, no matter how many little questions you ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is obvious that the government is on spin cycle as opposed to the work cycle, is all I can say, Mr. Speaker. No one is creating the crisis. Maybe the Premier is not aware that his own Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said five weeks ago, that it could be $85 million. A couple of days before that he said it could be $55 million.

All we are asking for is accountability, Premier. I want to ask you this. Surely, Cabinet has been briefed on the mid-year financial statements as they normally are each and every year. What has been the impact of the out-migration this year on this year's Budget Estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let every single public servant in the Province, 30,000-plus, many of whom have negotiated three-year collective agreements with the government in good faith, let all of the retail trade of this Province who at this time of the year are getting ready for what is their most important season, let them all take note of a line of questions which has been answered over and over, designed to create a feeling of unease, a feeling of insecurity, an expectation of layoffs or cutbacks, an expectation of an economy in free-fall, of a financial position out of control, all designed to create crisis; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who says he wants some day to be premier of this Province, is prepared to play that kind of game because he wants a headline, even if in the process he puts at risk the small business community of this Province and causes fear and concern in the 30,000 public servants of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks ago was telling the world that Newfoundland and Labrador might run a $150 million deficit this year. That is absolutely false. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to be leader of a government, grow up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Premier of the Province wants to continue to be Premier, it is time for you and your government to start to be accountable, Premier. That is the purpose of these exercises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say this to the Premier. It is obvious to me that this Premier's definition of accountability is different from the former premier's definition of accountability. Because the same Minister of Finance and Treasury Board three years ago rose in his place, November 3, 1995, and updated the Province on the financial situation. He said:

"During the first half of the fiscal year several developments have occurred which have caused our fiscal position to deteriorate by approximately $60 million. Our net expenditures have increased by approximately $15 million while our estimated current account revenues declined by about $45 million."

The reality is that the same minister three years ago could stand in his place and be accountable to the people of the Province. The question remains, Premier: Why could he not do it this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that if you want to compare leaders and former leaders, I knew the former leader and believe me, you are no `Loyola.' He knew where he stood on all the major issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on education reform he would tell you where he stood, even when it was not easy to tell you where he stood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The referendum has been over for nearly two years and we still do not know where the current leader stood. He is still hiding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, it is true, Leader of the Opposition, yes indeed. We do not know where you stand on Churchill Falls, and we are not going to find out. We only know where you stand when there is a parade and you can sniff your way to the front of the parade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Hustle, Mr. Speaker, like an anxious crab crawling across the beach trying to get in front of the parade.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, if he were serious, and if he expected me to respond seriously to these questions, would know that the Province's finances are very much impacted by the adjustments and readjustments and re-estimates of federal payments under the transfer program. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has raised publicly the impact of population on transfers, and that is true, that is a factor.

Tax rates. The performance of our economy verses the national average is a very big factor. He would also know that the last re-estimates for the year come in February. Shortly after that we get a federal budget. It is impossible and would be misleading for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to stand and tell you this year what his numbers are going to be in advance of knowing what the last federal re-estimates are in that regard. I think what is important is this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We have go a Minister of Finance and Treasury Board who has credibility in the business community, in the international financial community

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - who has done a tremendous job, and tells us not to worry -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: - we are in solid control of the finances of the Province.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have some question today for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Of course there have been many questions already raised about the situation at IOC in Labrador City, and there is going to continue to be more questions as long as some of the answers from the minister and from the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the question, (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the question when I am ready, I say to the minister. This is going to be a straight question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister said that somewhere between, on average, over the years, it depends on $20 million to $25 million in royalties from IOC. On an average per year. I want to know if the minister stands by those numbers when in fact this year's estimate was $29 million for the entire royalty regime in revenues to this Province. Are you telling me that between $20 million and $25 million of that $29 million comes from IOC? Is that right?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is accurate. What I said was that the Leader of the Opposition asked me the average revenues coming from IOC, which is measured 5 per cent against net profits. So it is fluid; it changes each year depending upon the profitability of the company.

With respect to the royalty fund, it is 20 per cent of the Iron Ore royalty fund. On average it is somewhere in the order of $30 million a year, including corporate income tax, including fuel tax, including payroll tax. On average it is $30 million a year.

What was the other half of the member's question, Sir?

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

MR. SHELLEY: The corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker... I would like for the minister to just explain straight up, and we will ask today that it be tabled in this House, the royalties alone from IOC from last year. Would he table those royalties in this House for last year?

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

MR. FUREY: For last year? Yes, I will be happy to get the royalties, specifically for the last ten years if he would like.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Just one more question for today. Once I get the tabling of the royalties for tomorrow, hopefully, or soon -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have one question left for today. In the eighteen months -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: One last question for the day, because I will wait to see the tabling of the royalties in the House.

I want to ask the minister: In the eighteen months leading up to this final decision, and all the talks and negotiations and discussions, was the royalty regime ever discussed in these negotiations?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not here yesterday, obviously, but the Leader of the Opposition asked that very question and I answered it, and from the very Hansard that he is reading from. Look at the next paragraph and he will see the answer. If he can't read it, the member from Torbay or St. John's East probably will read it for him.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, there has been a movement to centralize services on Fogo Island for some time, and I might add it has been supported by the government of the day. In fact, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just spoke, I think, at a municipalities' federation and indicated the importance of centralization.

On Fogo Island now, the centre of the Island contains the schools, the co-op, the police, and the regional council office. It has the stadium, the library, and the Works, Services and Transportation offices. They have all been moved in a centralization process.

Clearly, the central location on Fogo Island is rapidly becoming the service growth centre of the Island; and it is happening, Minister, because it is fair. It is the sensible choice, and it is accessible to all the residents of the Island. It is closer to the airstrip and to the ferry terminal.

I want to ask the minister: Why now, Minister, are you throwing the centralized planning to the wind and allowing a new hospital to be built in an area that is further removed from 75 per cent of its population?

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

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

If the member across the way had done his research, he would have known that there have been two reports done about site location for a new facility in Fogo Island. The most recent report, which was done by an outside consultant - which all parties agreed they would accept the recommendation - that outside consultant group made a recommendation that this particular facility would go to the centre - not to the centre of the Island, but rather to the Town of Fogo.

The board received that recommendation, they accepted that recommendation, and they wrote and asked me to concur with that recommendation, which I did, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the people representing the concerned citizens of Fogo Island have written you, and sent a copy to the Premier, and they are becoming disillusioned with your lack of response to it, I say to the minister.

Yesterday, I received a copy and it is very disturbing. It was signed by over 100 fishermen on Fogo Island, saying that they are going to refuse to sell their product to be processed in Fogo. So what is happening on Fogo Island, Minister?

That is very serious. We are pitting resident against resident, community against community, I say to the minister, because we have a consultant's report that is flawed and biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she do what is right? Will she take the necessary action and listen to the people in their legitimate fight to have the hospital at the central Island location?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because the member who has just spoken, the Member for Ferryland, has just introduced as an example of the level of frustration that people are feeling, this notion that some fishermen - this is the reason I rise - and other businesses are going to begin to boycott each other on Fogo Island.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for everybody in the House to be aware that there is a difficult and sensitive - I would ask the member just to give me a moment - conflict between communities on Fogo Island. There is no question about that. I think there is no question equally that we need to find a process to facilitate a dialogue. I should say to you that the Member for Fogo Island has been in to see me to discuss this, together with the Minister of Health, to raise the serious differences that exist on the Island itself, and the fact that those differences have spilled over into other areas of economic activity.

I would hope, knowing the member opposite, that no member of this House, including the member who just spoke, certainly nobody on this side, would ever suggest that the way to bring about resolution of a conflict between communities - and it sometimes occurs in rural Newfoundland - is, in any way, shape, or form, to validate or give credence or credibility to actions where one community would boycott another. Because that would give rise on a whole range of issues to a series of actions which quite frankly would be counterproductive to life in rural Newfoundland. I would ask the member to be at least clear with regard to that issue.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, in fact I am very concerned about that. The minister appointed a board in this Province with responsibility for health care, to serve the people. I find problems in a report that does not address the concerns and put proper weight in this report to issues of importance.

I will ask the minister one question on this flawed report that I call it: Do you think it is fair, or is there something wrong, when a consultant puts more points to the views of a few medical people - three or four - as opposed to 3,500? There is a spread of forty-two points by the opinion of a few medical people, and the whole population of the Island only has, say, a credit towards forty points. We are asking three or four people, and they are given more weight in this report. That direction had to come from somebody. They had to sit down; they did not consult.

It is flawed, Minister, and you know it. I have gone through it and discussed it. It has nothing to do with the politics of the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister now: Will she admit that there are flaws in this report, it is not based on fact, that there is a false premise here, and go get somebody locally to look at it, who understands the area and the issues here, not some New Brunswick company to come in and tell everybody in a particular area what they should do and what is best for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In response to your warm-up before the question, I would like to make a few comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: First of all, in response to the preamble, I would like to make some points to clarify some of the information that has been put forward.

If the member opposite had any knowledge of the type of issues around the decision-making here, he would clearly understand why an outside group was chosen to make this decision, because of the ongoing issues around those kinds of things; for example, the site of the facility.

Second of all, I find it appalling that he would think that the medical, the physicians', views would not be important when every other day in the House he is standing up talking about the whole issue around physician and physician recruitment.

Yes, that was certainly a very valid point that was raised in this report, along with a whole lot of other issues in that particular report. Cost was also a factor, location, firefighting services, and a whole range of other issues were also rated.

Second of all, I think it is important to state that this is the second time an independent report has been done and the same decision has been reached: that a location for a new facility should be in the Town of Fogo.

I think most importantly I want to say again that the Member for Twillingate has been actively working with us on this issue. He has expressed concern over the level of anger and hostility that has been shown - and frustration - by all residents on the Island.

As a matter of fact, we have appointed a mediator to go to the Island to work with the people, to try to help them resolve their differences and outstanding issues on this very important matter. We take this very seriously. We see the whole income and impact of the Island being affected, and that is why we have moved in this direction to appoint a mediator to go to and help the various towns resolve their outstanding issues.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province.

Could the Minister of Justice please tell the people of the Province how much of their money was paid out recently in the Atlantic Leasing case?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that he has written the Department of Finance and asked for this figure. He has also been told that when the money was paid out there was a non-disclosure clause which was put in at the request of the company.

We have an obligation to the company to advise them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) taxpayers.

MR. DECKER: Yes, we have an obligation to the taxpayers and eventually the number will become public, no doubt. However, the hon. member knows that when he wrote under the Freedom of Information there is a process which must be taken.

The Department of Finance has written to the company's council and advised them that we have received this request, and we are awaiting a reply from the company. We do not want to do anything which would in any way jeopardize the ongoing business of that company. We want to make sure that we strike a balance between the rights of the company and the rights of the taxpayer. There is no desire by government to cover up the amount. I would be quite pleased to make it public as soon as we hear from the company and we hear what they have to say. We have to be reasonable in this whole affair.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Tell the Minister of Justice how it is done, Mr. Speaker. He has one of his lawyers from the Department of Justice prepare an application for court. He and the lawyer for the other side attend upon the judge's chambers. That can be done tomorrow. A proceeding can be put down in Applications Court, in the Trial Division, the very next morning. Both lawyers can appear and we can have this matter resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is absolutely no justification for what this minister has done on behalf of the government of the Province (inaudible) with the people's money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This government is entrusted with trust. The people of this Province require that this government uphold the trust at all times.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is not being done. What possible justification, I say to the minister, could there be? What possible rationale could exist, that this government could enter into a gag order or any sort of non-disclosure agreement which hides from the people of this Province the very money that this government is responsible for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this government does not have to take direction from the hon. member as to how to govern and take into consideration the rights of the taxpayers to have knowledge. We acknowledge that. We also have to take into consideration the rights of a company to have this number made public at the appropriate time. We do not want to do anything which would jeopardize a private company in this Province.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting up and complaining because we do not make the number public. I suspect if we did make that number public at the wrong time, and we did hold ourselves up for another lawsuit, the hon. gentleman would be the first one over there accusing us of opening up the Province for another lawsuit and probably pay out some more money.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister fails to realize that in both the Trial Division decision and the Court of Appeal decision, the government, the Administrators of the day, were found to be negligent. In fact, the last line in the decision of the Court of Appeal states: Such administrative intransigents can - and in this case does - constitute negligence.

Let me ask the Premier: Is he comfortable today in knowing that around him are the very ministers who sat several years ago at the time when the basis for these decisions was in fact founded? Is he comfortable in knowing, and will he now hold his ministers accountable for negligence as has been established and found by the senior court of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when I look at where I am sitting, and compare myself to where the member is sitting, I am extremely comfortable - and the people who are around me.

When you get these kinds of questions that want to go back in time, I can only borrow a phrase from the hon. John Crosbie, who would say that the member opposite looks like he was weaned on a pickle, and the pickle was grown by Sprung cucumbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question for the Minister of Mines and Energy concerns a question that I raised on a petition yesterday.

The government, in responding to the Chamber of Commerce in Labrador West on a question as to what benefit the construction jobs would have in Labrador, the Minister wrote, and I quote: Based on a preliminary analysis of this aspect of the project there appears to be little direct gain to the Province related to the construction project.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about 1,150 person years of employment, and the government's attitude appears to be there is no direct gain in the Province as a result of this project. What kind of an analysis is that, and what kind of attitude does this government have to the necessity of this kind of job with the employment opportunity in the Province of Newfoundland?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in typical lawyer fashion, the hon. member has taken one sentence from a very long letter and twisted it completely out of shape. Let me read the full sentence. Based on a preliminary analysis of this aspect - what aspect? The aspect of applying the net gains to the treasury back against the capital cost to the company. Would there be any net gain?

When you look at the capital cost, and recognize that there are capital allowances which even it out, there really is no net gain. Of course the construction jobs are important to the Province, but the question he is asking is the analysis of this aspect - what aspect? - the aspect of the net gains to the treasury against the capital cost for the company.

Do not twist it out of shape or put up a specious argument; be honest with the letter and the facts that are in the letter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if that is the minister's explanation, that we are only taking about the capital cost of the project verses the income tax that the construction workers would pay, let me ask him this: What does he have to say about the income tax that is going to be paid by the workers who are building that project in Quebec and not in Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that capital cost going to be deducted from the income tax that this company pays in Newfoundland, or deducted from their profit next year and result in fewer royalties? Or is it going to have an extremely negative impact on this Province's position because we are now, in fact, subsidising jobs down in Sept-Iles?

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

MR. FUREY: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. If the capital project had proceeded on the Labrador side, roughly on personal income taxes it would be about $5 million. That $5 million can go nowhere to closing the gap of $250 million. The hon. member knows that.

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

Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to table for the House the reports of exemptions under the Public Tender Exemptions Act for the months of May, June, July, August and September, and October will be along shortly.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present another petition from the Labrador West area.

WHEREAS the residents of Labrador City 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.

Mr. Speaker, this debate started some time back. A lot of people from Labrador West were here over the last few days to listen to the debate in the House, and they were not very impressed because this very argument - before we get into details of expenditures and viability and the expansion of IOC - goes to the very root of the problem that we have seen in this Province year after year, and that is the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador going out to benefit other Provinces, and we still see it continue as we head into the new millennium. The people of Labrador West are finally at a threshold where they are saying that enough is enough, it has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped right now.

What they cannot understand is how inconsistent the government can be, looking on one hand at the extreme of Voisey's Bay, and how tough they were there, and then looking at IOC in Labrador City and the history they have had.

They believe that after thirty-eight years of mining in Labrador West, of a resource that they say still has maybe 100 years' reserve left, that IOC is going to continue to mine in Labrador West. It is not new. It is not like Voisey's Bay, and Inco coming in and taking over. They believe their argument is sounder; that because this company has had such a long history and made billions - we do not have the exact numbers but it is safe enough to say that the Iron Ore Company of Canada had made billions of dollars over the thirty-eight years that it has mined there... The good news is that they want to expand, and everybody is glad. They looked at the markets and the demand is there so they want to expand. The bad news is that they want to expand and the resource go outside of Labrador West.

The way they talked about it, in the three days I spent in Labrador West, is that they believe that this company should not even have the face, the gall, to even consider - after the years they have been there and the money they have made over the years - expanding outside of Labrador West.

They did not want to get into numbers and specifics on viability and how big the expansion was. They wanted to say that this company and the new takeover by North, after years there, the history of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador West, if they are going to expand, it is a insult to them and an insult to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to believe that they want to expand outside this Province.

They did not like it very much, either - I will add to that - that the Premier of Quebec - some people watched the debate last night and you could still see him gloat to the fact that resources coming from Labrador West are going to put 200 to 300 people to work down in Seven Islands, Quebec. That is what they do not like.

It is driven so far now, and it is in people's minds right across this Province, that again we are going to see our resource go out. They say this is the same Premier - we said it here yesterday - who would take on Estai, the same Premier who stood up to the Inco, the giant nickel producer of the world. He could all of those, and there was nothing normal about how he took on those big factors.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. and it is Private Members' Day. Unless the Chair is directed otherwise, we will now go to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Goulds' bypass road worked.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. The hydro petition worked. The Goulds' bypass road worked. Now that we (inaudible) that early, who knows? Jack's petition yesterday on the school, and your very flattering comments - going to let him announce it - that obviously worked. You never know, I say to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise - I think the private member's resolution speaks for itself - to talk about a significant development in the Province in the last little while, and that is the decision by IOCC to relocate or to expand its pellet operation in Sept-Iles, Quebec and not in Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular Labrador West.

This is a difficult issue for everybody. I understand that. It is not something that we come to terms with easily. It must have been a bitter pill for government to swallow. I guess the hub of my argument has been the question of economic viability, or economically feasible. They are the same thing really. It is our contention that such an expansion is very viable. It is our contention that such an expansion by North Limited could have occurred. I will get to that in a few moments as we talk about the Hatch report and other reports.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say this general remark. I was in Labrador West for four days, myself and the critic for mines, the Member for Baie Verte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not necessarily. It depends on your point of view.

The sense of betrayal that we felt by people in the region was very real and legitimate for the following reasons, as I see it. April 2, 1997, when North took over IOCC's total as majority shareholder in IOCC's operation, it was clear in their own release at the time that they indicated that part of the condition of sale was the reactivation of the Sept-Iles plant. That was a year-and-a-half ago.

If that was the case, Mr. Speaker, obviously government was aware of it, as we were, and obviously government took certain actions that would see that that would not happen. I am not going to question anybody's motives here today. I don't think that it will serve the debate whatsoever. I am not going to question the reasons why people have taken stands because I do not think it will serve the debate, but I have to question the decision.

Based upon questions that were asked in this Assembly last fall it was clear that the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time indicated clearly, when asked under direct questioning about this very decision would this happen, the answer was clearly no. We passed a private member's resolution in the House unanimously, I believe, generally speaking about resource developments in Newfoundland and Labrador, secondary processing, value-added. A unanimous resolution passed in this House on a Private Members' Day.

The people in the region - and I can only say it from this point of view - have expressed to me, based upon the comments and the commitments made by ministers in the Crown, that they felt that this would not happen. One individual said to me he would have bet his life's savings, based upon what he felt were commitments by government, that the expansion at Sept-Iles would not happen.

The Premier himself, I am told by people who were at the meeting, some thirty or forty people who were there last year, when the concerns were raised by the Chamber of Commerce, a meeting organized by the Chamber of Commerce, indicated to the people and the leadership in the region that he would be the first person on the plane to Australia where North's headquarters are located if this took place.

Nobody in this Province, and I am convinced nobody in this Legislature, would want to see this decision happen again on any other resource. In fact, I believe it should not have happened here. Government's contention has been this. They indicated earlier that North had chosen a company to study the economic viability, the economic feasibility, of expansion either in Labrador West at Carol Lake or expansion of the pellet plant and its existing operation in Sept-Iles. It was indicated in the debates here, certainly last fall, and it was indicated in the debates last spring.

I am led to understand from briefings by the Minister of Mines and Energy's staff and the conversation and meeting we had with the company themselves that last spring, when the company gave the Province its decision, showed the Province on what basis they were basing that decision in the MetChem Bechtel report, that they said then that they would be moving towards expanding the Sept-Iles plant.

The Province, I am led to believe, responded that they were so flabbergasted by the numbers that they could not believe the numbers. They wanted their own independent study done. Fair enough. The company told us - the Member for Baie Verte was with me - that when we met with Mr. Porter and Mr. Oliver at IOCC's operation in Labrador West, when we got into this discussion, they said that they would agree to such an independent study only if they had some say in who was going to do it.

In other words, they did not want any company, we were told, to come in to look at their numbers. They wanted to have, I guess, a notion that it was a credible, reputable company. Some people have argued that the notion of independence has gone out the window. You can argue that on both sides of the coin, but it is a moot point, as I see it. It is a point that we can get into discussion on a little later.

The point is this. For government to get access to the company's own records the company had to have input into who was going to do it. I am lead to believe - again by government's own officials, by statements publicly by elected officials, minister and otherwise, by the company - that when the Province said that Hatch was going to do the study, the company had no problem. Nor should they have. Hatch has done a lot of work for IOCC.

IOCC has been operating in this Province since 1938. Here is where the roads, in terms of government's opinion and ours, start to diverge. Government entered into a confidentially agreement with the company, on the one hand. Government then asked Hatch to have a look at the MetChem Bechtel report. I believe what government should have done then - and we have been asking them - was to expand the terms of reference for Hatch to look at the total and complete operations of IOCC, factor in the expansion costs in Carol Lake, and then determine if the expansion was viable or not. That is what I believe government should have done. I believe that had they done it I think that what would have been concluded is that IOCC, a subsidiary of North, is a very profitable company.

The Minister of Mines and Energy has indicated that government looked at the study, without looking at the broader operations of IOCC, and said there is no way we could make up the difference in the numbers. Obviously, that is true if you want to look at it from that point of view. If you want to look at it with those narrow terms of reference that government, in terms of Hatch, asked Hatch to do. They asked Hatch to confirm or deny , essentially, what was in the MetChem Bechtel report. Hatch was not asked to look at all of the operations of IOCC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess that is the point. Mr. Speaker, government may be able to stand from their point of view, in their own minds, and argue successfully in favour of this private member's resolution because of the terms that I have used: terms of jobs, secondary processing, where it is economically feasible. Because that is where, I guess, the two roads diverge.

There have been many questions that have arisen since the decision has been raised. For example, the concerns that the people in the region have, legitimate ones have come to my attention, and to all of our attention I guess over time. The Minister of Mines and Energy, I think on behalf of government, and the Premier on behalf of government, will take the time to answer some of those. Legitimately, they are concerned about the expansion in Sept-Iles. Who wouldn't be?

There are two lines in terms of the pelletizing operation there. People in the region are concerned that if there is an economic downturn in the region, then who is to say that the operation in Labrador West will not be the operation that the company decides to shut down. That is what people in the region are afraid of. It is a legitimate concern. I am sure that government is concerned about it. When asked directly what commitments the company had given that this would not happen, we have not seen it. I hope that they are there, but we have not seen it. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns.

The other thing I think we need to clearly understand from the public debate is that there is no question that at the same time while North is a profitable company in terms of a corporation - a worldwide, global company - that IOCC as one of its subsidiaries is very profitable. Actually it represents about 33 per cent of its net profits. North's operation on the Rhobe River represents about another 22 per cent or 23 per cent of its net profits. It is a very profitable company for North. It is a publicly traded company now, where it has not been since its existence. We get to see, I guess, the numbers that we have not seen before.

There is no question that North is expanding, there is no question they are investing in the area. A $650 million investment, we have been told, will occur in Labrador West. While there is no mistaking that, there is no mistaking also the impact that investment will have. Obviously the impact will be in terms of increasing productivity. There is new technology, bigger shovels, larger locomotives, larger trucks, and the impact of that in terms of increasing productivity will have over the next four or five years will be a diminished workforce. A diminishment in the workforce I am told - again, by the company and by people involved in Labrador West, with the union, with the town council, the chamber of commerce and otherwise - that could be between, I am told, 300 and 500 individuals.

While the company and some members in the House have heralded that it has a no layoff policy, that is true. At the same time it has a no hiring policy, which is also true, in that through early retirements, through attrition, that the workforce will steadily decrease over the next four to five years. These are facts that have been presented and given to me by the company itself.

Now the company when we met with them assured - I guess everybody at the time - of their continued investment. Their ore reserves are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The company's higher cost to operate? We will get to that in a second, if we could.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the investment itself, $650 million, unlike the operation and expansion in Sept-Iles, Quebec, the $350 million or $400 million that will be the money that the company will spend in Sept-Iles, Quebec, based upon our resource, our ore, Sept-Iles will feel the direct impact of that in terms of jobs, in terms of construction, in terms of new jobs created.

The $650 million, the equipment it is being used to purchase in Labrador West, we are not making the locomotives, we are not making the trucks, we are not making the parts associated with it, we are not making the shovels. The other thing to be understood is that probably a decade from now, if the company wants to continue to prosecute the ore in the ground, they will probably have to make another similar investment.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: They will probably have to make another similar investment to continue to create profits, to continue, Mr. Speaker, to be able to take ore from the ground.

There is been an impression I think, either rightly or wrongly, but there has been an impression left that this company has made a $650 million investment and that it is great news for the area. We should understand, and ground ourselves in reality, that these are the types of investments this company has made over time since 1938, when the leases were originally granted in the 1960s, that these are the types of investments that it will have to continue to make to prosecute and develop that resource and add value to it, if it wants to keep making the profits and being the profitable operation that it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He told me yesterday he was considering it. Did you know that your brother, at a business luncheon, actually stood and gave me a standing ovation for my comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Did you? So you have my brother and I have yours.

I have been accused this week of some things in the House. Of not being serious, of jumping on a parade, and all those sorts of nonsense and innuendo. We do have a legitimate point of view, and it centres around the notion of economic feasibility. Government believes that, and I believe that in taking one aspect of the company that you can demonstrate it was not feasible. I cannot argue with the numbers in Hatch because they are clear, but I can argue this, that the terms of reference for Hatch were so narrow that it could not have proved anything else.

I believe, and I hope I am wrong, that we may have opened up a can of worms as we define economic feasibility. What is next? A legitimate question in terms of economic feasibility, economic viability. I am not going to make the passing references to Inco and the double standard that people have talked about because I cannot make it, because government has not released any information. Government has not provided to me the information as they have in Hatch. They have not given me the information that demonstrates clearly and soundly on what they are saying that the nickel operation at Voisey's Bay is economically viable. They have maintained that it is.

So I cannot make the assertion that it is a flip-flop, but I do understand people who make it, because on the surface you wonder why people are sceptical. They have a right to be. The minister must and has to admit what appears to be so is that there is one standard for one company and one for another. Now, he holds all the cards. He has all the information. I am not even sure the back bench in government are aware of what the information is that they have with respect to Inco and the numbers that Rowat has crunched. I am sure of it.

However, it is a legitimate concern people have raised. I will say to the minister though -

AN HON. MEMBER: What time (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Just about five minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five minutes more?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that's about it. Alright?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifteen minutes at the end.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not going to hold up at the end. I want to make my points now and that's it. Alright? It is a serious topic.

I want to say to the minister, in terms of the numbers on Inco, the minister has asked me a question, and for the public record it is important. The Minister of Mines and Energy just said: Surely you do not want us to publicly release at this time the confidential information we have that could influence the negotiations or the possible negotiations when they occur? No, I do not. Do not let it be said that I do. At the same time, Minister, I think that if you can -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just give it to us.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. I think as soon as possible - there is nobody who disagrees with that. This is for another debate, but when time is appropriate I would like to see them. Because if not, if at some point in those numbers the economic feasibility question tips in terms of Inco's balance or tips to the scale of Inco, then we have ourselves one big problem. The problem is this. That by letting IOCC or North go ahead and define economic feasibility by one aspect of their operation, then we have given them the definition of what is acceptable by this Province. That is how I see it.

I said by not having the numbers. For example, the numbers that the Province has on Inco. If at some point, based upon the price in the markets, the balance in terms of what is feasible or economically feasible tips in favour of Inco and the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, then by what we have done with North and the allowing of what North has done in terms of just separating out one aspect of its business, we have defined what is acceptable to us as a legislature, and what is acceptable to the government in terms of economic feasibility.

It is a legitimate concern. I cannot comment further on it because I do not have the information. Government has the information. While they will not share it at this point, and the minister has made a commitment he will share it at the appropriate time, as soon as possible, I want to make a commitment too that if he does so I will hold the confidence. I am not going to release it publicly, if that is the requirement. When other public issues have come up, he is aware my commitment will be exactly what I say it is.

With respect to the decision that government has made, I want to focus on one last concern or issue and that is this. Some have suggested that the government had no other legal choice, that the company could have put the expansion in Sept-Iles if it wanted to without even consulting with government.

Let's assume for a moment that is true. Maybe it is. If that is true then why did we go through the exercise? If that was a fait accompli upfront, if that was the condition of sale, then why did we go ahead and create the false expectations over the last eighteen months? Why did we go ahead and make commitments that were shallow, upon reflection, that could not hold up to what we publicly said? Why did we bother to make those commitments in the first place if we did not have the numbers we had now?

I think if there is anything that has angered people, it is that. If there is anything that has angered people in Labrador West and in the Province, it is that we have made seeming commitments but yet, at the end of the day, we could not live up to them. The question is: Why did we create them in the first place?

If we had to wait for the numbers to come in, if we had to wait and say we will do an independent study if it does not turn out our way, wouldn't we have been better off in going to the leadership in the region and saying exactly that? Wouldn't we have been better off in going to the region and saying: We have a situation on our hands that is going to take all of us together to resolve. That did not happen, and that is why people are angry. I understand their frustration and I understand their anger.

I will say this with respect to the royalties. We had opportunities to change the royalties. The minister indicated yesterday that legal opinion said they could not. We changed the Mineral Act yesterday that will come up for debate, and while we generally support the thrust in that, generally there are issues of concern in some of those clauses that need to be discussed, I say to the minister, because of the impact they may have on the industry.

Generally, we can support any initiative that maximizes benefits for the people of this Province, but I will finally say that if we could not have done it, why did we create the expectations in the first place?

With that I am going to sit down and let members speak. I want to say on the record as well to the Member for Labrador West that you will have noticed in all of the debate since this decision was made that there has not been a reference to you personally, by me or any other members on this side of the House. I want to say to you that I understand the difficulty that you are in. It is not a situation any elected member would want to find themselves in. While we disagree probably on the sides of the issue, none of my comments, either here in the House or publicly, are aimed either at you personally or question your intentions. I want to make that clear for the record as well. I am sure in all of our political lives each and every one of us will at times face difficult situations, whether it be if we at some point have the honour to serve in a Cabinet, to serve in a government, as private members, or as critics, those things are unavoidable.

I want to make clear for the public record that the focus that we brought to this issue has been one that we believe technically could have been argued otherwise, and had it not we believe that government could have extracted other benefits from the company, had we had no other choice; but in no way, shape or form have they been, are they now, or ever will be personally directed at the Member for Labrador West and I want to make that clear.

With that I will sit down. Thank you very much.

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

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make one quick point before you leave. I thank the hon. member for his concluding comments, and I do believe they are sincere with respect to dealing with the Member for Labrador West, because he is quite right that all of us throughout our political careers, whether they are long or short, run into some very interesting difficulties.

The first three months after I was elected in 1985, I remember having to deal with a crisis at Daniel's Harbour when the zinc mine was closed. It is not much fun going in to face 400 miners and trying to understand their problems and to deal with the difficulties and the fallout, the closure of homes and the movement of families. It is extremely difficult.

I do thank the hon. member for pointing out that it is not a personal thing, that it is not aimed at the member, and that he does understand and emphasize with his situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It is difficult, and all of us will have our problems. The hon. member from St. John's was a very young looking member when he started a couple of years ago and had to deal with the fallout from the dockyard, the transition it was going to go through, and the layoff -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: That is right, it receded. Like the synchro-lift, it receded backward.

We are all going to have our difficulties. Can I just say, though, that I was looking at the resolution and I do not believe it is designed to embarrass the Member for Labrador West. Because if you look at the recitals that are here, the exact recitals are the exact recitals he tabled a year or so ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: The member is right in terms of the WHEREAS (inaudible). Again, it is not designed to embarrass the member, absolutely not.

MR. FUREY: Oh, yes. I am going to amend it.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister would agree that the real meat of a private member's resolution lies in BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED.

MR. FUREY: Yes, I was going to get to that.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) absolutely and completely different.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree. I was just pointing out that the recitals that are reflected in that resolution as tabled a year ago are identical to the recitals as reflected in today's resolution that the Leader of the Opposition has put down. That is right; the actual resolution, the conclusion to the recitals, are somewhat different. I believe him when he says they are not aimed to embarrass the member for Labrador City.

In fact, if you look at the second recital, he clearly points out - and I underline it for the House - it says: Where it is economically feasible to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: That is right, where it is economically feasible to do so.

In the spirit of not attempting to embarrass a member, I thought I would move an amendment so that the resolution is amended by striking out the words `to occur in Labrador West' and substituting the words `in Labrador West when it is economically viable to do so'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: The new conclusion would be: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House affirm its support for its expansion of the pellet plant in Labrador West when it is economically viable to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to Your Honour that this in no way, shape or form, changes the intent of the resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, why change it?

MR. FUREY: Well, if it does not change it - and you obviously, by your acknowledgement, agree that it does not - then you will vote for our amendment. I am asking you -

AN HON. MEMBER: It completely changes it.

MR. FUREY: Does it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: He has not even read it. He has not even read his own resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Oh, I am sorry, I thought I just read it out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment to the resolution and would refer hon. members to the Standing Orders of our Assembly, Standing Order 36: "A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words."

I also refer hon. members to Beauchesne '567, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question."

I suggest that the amendment meets the requirements of our Standing Orders and Beauchesne, and I rule that the amendment is in order. However, I would ask the hon. member who moved the amendment if he could identify the seconder of the amendment, please.

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

MR. FUREY: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment is seconded by the Government House Leader, the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. SPEAKER: Duly acknowledged.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling, and I am not surprised. If you look at the recitals from the Leader of the Opposition's own proposition which he has brought before the House today, and the second recital talks about where it is economical feasible to do so, it is just really changing those words and putting them in the resolve to re-state what the intention clearly was, which was not to embarrass the member from Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a few points in his debate and I know he will be listening outside, wherever he is, but I am astounded to see a Conservative Party, a Conservative caucus, a party of business, a party that historically has been the business party of Canada - and that is what they have been. They have been the business party of Canada. They have been the spear holders for the establishment, for Bay Street, and for Wall Street with the Republican Party. The Conservative Party of Canada -

I am astounded, because what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say today is that he would move their party into an interventionist space. He would move them from the right to the left. That must send shudders up the spine of the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, who is the real Socialist in this House, who is the real New Democratic Party member. The truth be known, the Socialist should move his seat over to where the Leader of the Opposition is because he really is a Conservative. He is a Socialist. He is a Conservative in Socialist clothing. He is the wealthy lawyer, the independent lawyer. The Socialist should really be the Conservative, and the Conservatives - all of you, with the exception perhaps of the absolute right-wing fringe that would vote against Confederation, like the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis... He is a real Conservative, a dogged-true John Carter, blue-blooded Tory like there was never in the House before. He is it.

I am astounded because what the Conservative Party has said here today publicly is that they would intervene into the economy and force a business - the Conservative Party being the party of business everywhere else on the planet - force them to make an uneconomic decision.

Now I ask you: take that argument to its logical conclusion. They would force FPI to make uneconomic decisions; NewTel to make uneconomic decisions; Kruger to make uneconomic decisions; Abitibi to make uneconomic decisions. All of the other fish plant operators and people who conduct business in this Province, who would present the business case that is uneconomic - the Sullivan Brothers - to make uneconomic decisions. Do you know what we would be left with? A welfare state, which is where their party really is. It is way over on the left side of the spectrum. Whereas the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, even the Socialist understands that there is only so much you can intervene in the economy; that proper business practices have to stand up; that an economic case must be made; that it must be a solid economic case to generate profit, which will generate jobs.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot permit the minister to go on with this charade and state something that is not factual. Maybe he could answer one simple question and that would clarify the intent of what he is stating. Is the minister saying that it is not economically feasible to put it in Labrador West? Is that what he is saying? Or it is less economically feasible? Could he define it?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, old Rip Van Winkle just woke up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I am sorry; the Chair had not recognized the hon. minister as he was ready to rule on the point of order. There is no point of order. The hon. Opposition House Leader took advantage of the opportunity to ask the minister a question.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments concerning the relative positions of the party is very well known to New Democrats - that both Tories and Liberals, in a period leading up to an election, act like New Democrats. It is only after they get elected that they carry their free-market banner, whether they are Liberals or Tories. Because we are in the lead-up to an election you will find the Tories act like New Democrats, and I think we will even see the Liberals act like New Democrats during the election period. It is only afterwards they change their mind.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is well known that people, when they get into power, change the way they act when they are in Opposition. That is a well-known fact; but I will tell you, there is another fact that we should consider and that is that when certain leaders of certain parties - and I suspect the hon. gentleman being the wealthy capitalist that he is - will take the same route as his former leader, Mr. Fenwick, who came here and was left of left, and now Attila the Hun is left of Peter Fenwick. Now we do not need to be reminded -

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the record show that he has agreed.

MR. TULK: You agree? And you agree that when you leave, the wealthy capitalist, you will follow the same route? You have more money in more stocks than anybody else that I know in this House, outside of Newfoundland. Refute it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order from the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Hon. members have been taking advantage of the opportunity to engage in debate when there is a clearly defined process where hon. members can engage in the debate today.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the question that Rip Van Winkle woke up and asked was: Is the project economic?

I have been saying for three weeks, for two weeks, a week, Monday in the House, in the media, last night, today, the project is not economic in Labrador City versus the project in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Let me finish. You are not letting me finish. Look, if the hon. member is going to take his attack dog into the

House, he should at least feed him once a week.

Mr. Speaker, if the project had to go alone in Labrador - the $480 million; forget Sept-Iles - it is not economic, not economic, uneconomic. Let me deal with the business of the total project, and the company, and all of its assets, that the Leader of the Opposition talked about. It is the equivalent of saying that if Fishery Products International had five fish plants and three were profitable and two were losers, we should force them to blend together to take a reduced profit. That is what you are asking. That is what they are saying, to make them less competitive, force the losers in with the winners, to become less competitive internationally.

What a stupid nut case, voodoo economics that is, that this so-called party of business, the Conservative Party, the party that has supported businesses and businesses have supported throughout the century, are getting on here in public in Newfoundland and Labrador with this kind of voodoo economics. How foolish can you get!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, they did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Let me put it to the hon. member. I don't like to personalize things, but let's personalize it. You ran a fish plant, okay? Before you ever entered politics, you ran a few fish plants. Would you, if you were out in the business community today, under your holding company, keep losers that were losing money open to subsidize winners that were making money for you? Would you blend them and take less profit so that your shareholders couldn't generate a return to be competitive? Answer it, yes or no? Yes or no from your seat - from your seat. Sit down.

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

MR. FUREY: Sit down and answer it, Rip. Sit down and answer yes or no. It does not require a big answer, does it? Is the answer yes or is the answer no? Would he keep the losers open and blend them with the winners to take less profit, to become less competitive to lay off more people? Okay, make a note and you can answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: I told you what to do with your attack dog. Take him out and feed him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course they would not, because what they are saying is really voodoo economics. That is the best way to talk about it. It is like a bunch of zombies sitting around and sticking pins in dolls, saying: We will do it this way, we will do it that way, depending upon the moon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Good question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: We did not promise that. What we did say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Let me finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that when she is over here - and I believe she will be someday - as a minister, when she is a great, great grandmother, when she is on this side of the House, she too will have to take responsibility; not just to argue, not just to attack, not just to throw out innuendo, but to take strong positions.

I ask the hon. member: Would she, as Minister of Mines and Energy, have gone in as a weakling, as a wimp, taking a really flimsy position, or do you go in from a position of strength so you can get certain things? And there were certain things that we got.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Sit down; don't be so foolish.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that you go in from a position of strength.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just need about ten more minutes.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to conclude, before the hon. lady rises in her place, to say that any reasonable person - any reasonable person - Liberal, Conservative Party of big business, or Socialist - even the wealthy Socialist - who knows business, who has run a business, who is a lawyer and who understands business, any `reasonable' person, who looks at this case on its merits, who looks honestly at this case on its merits, knows that the government did everything in its power to make this happen.

The case rises and falls on the facts. The facts are very clear that IOC presented, that Bechtel reviewed, that Hatch reviewed, that our own department reviewed. We all came to the same conclusion. So did the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council come to the same conclusion. So did the Newfoundland Chamber of Mineral Resources, the industry people who operate in this Province, come to the same conclusion.

That leaves me with only one conclusion: They are not interested in policy, they are not interested in truth, they are not interested in the business case; they are simply interested in playing politics with an issue that is sensitive to one part of our Province, and I predict that will come back to haunt them big time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker I can start off by saying very quickly to the minister: It is not going to be us who it is going to come back to haunt. The truth is that we have been quite honest with this and listened to people up front. We went to Labrador City very quickly after it all happened. A few things that the minister conveniently leaves out of his discussion -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely. The minister did give us a briefing which started to raise more and more questions. The minister keeps talking about the Hatch report. I had some problems with the Hatch report when we talked about a copper smelter in this Province also. There were problems then.

Let us take, for example, one fact out of the Hatch report. We can go through a full list in the Hatch report but I am not going to do that here today. We had a briefing from Hatch. One of the numbers used in Hatch - I do not have the numbers in front on me but - I think $24 million was part of the Hatch report that said they would need accommodations in Labrador West.

Anybody in Labrador West can tell you very quickly they do not need those accommodations, to build new accommodations in Labrador West. They have bunk houses in Wabush, and they have all kinds of facilities throughout Labrador City that could be used very easily. They do not have to build a camp for the construction in Labrador West. That is $24 million right away we can take off the top.

Without going through a list of those in Hatch, how can we even start to believe that they are all facts? If we want to talk about facts again, the first study that IOC did, the Bechtel study, I am sure they had a lot more time and a lot more information to use than Hatch. I want to go along with an example that was used by one of the union members in Labrador City. Basically what Hatch did is, they went in and were given the same numbers. If I gave you a set of numbers and somebody else in this Chamber a set of numbers, you are going to add them up and get the same amount. All that Hatch did was take the numbers that the previous study did and add them up and get the same numbers.

Really you have got to start asking yourself the question: What was the Hatch report all about? That goes right to the root of this whole problem. A lot of people in Labrador West and in this Province wonder what really went on here. What went on was: On June 2, 1997, the government had the answer clear that this company had all the intentions of expanding in Sept-Isle, Quebec.

Then the minister himself, who has left the Chamber right now, admitted that they could not really have a challenge, that if they had to challenge the legislation that is in place right now for the Iron Ore Company of Canada they would not win that challenge.

Mr. Speaker, those two things don't jive. If the government was going to mount the attack on IOC they knew they could not do it under the current legislation. So why was there the whole process of the Hatch report? There was only one main lever that could have been used by this government and it was not the process of going with Hatch.

There was one - and everybody in this House of Assembly should read Cain's Legacy. It is all about IOC, its history and how it began. There is one particular section when the premier of the day, Joseph R. Smallwood, had a ten-minute meeting with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The Member for Labrador West knows this book very well. Let me back up for a second. Prior to that meeting the Iron Ore Company of Canada said publicly that they were going to put the pellet plant for Labrador City in Sept-Iles, Quebec. That was their intention. They publicly stated thirty-eight years ago now that they wanted to put the pellet plant for Labrador City in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

There was a quick meeting. I cannot remember the other individuals involved in the meeting but you can get it from the book. After a ten minute meeting, in which the then-Premier, Joseph R. Smallwood, said to the company: Yes, you can go to Sept-Iles, you can put your pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec. We do not have anything that stops you in the legislation of the day. We do not have anything that stops you legally. He just simply said: As the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador I will make your lives miserable. Whatever I can do in my power and my authority as the Premier of this Province I will do, and you will not like it.

That is basically what it said. You can paraphrase it all kinds of different ways, but that is what it says in the book. After a ten-minute meeting the Iron Ore Company of Canada came out and said: No, we have changed our mind, we have decided not to put it in Sept-Iles, Quebec, and we will put a pellet plant in Labrador City where you see it today.

That was the lever that was missed. The premier of the day, Joseph R. Smallwood, was under the same legislation as the Premier of today faces. I have said it many times already and I will say it again. On June 3, the Premier of this Province and the committee, the Member for Labrador West, the minister, and whoever, should have been in a boardroom with North saying: We are glad you are coming, we are glad you are investing, we are glad that you are spending money on expansion, and we know that we cannot stop you with the legislation that is in place. But the Premier of the day never ever said to them what Joseph R. Smallwood said to them. That changed their minds. That is in the history books. It is not something that is fabricated.

Like we have always said, the Member for Labrador West, on a personal note, we have never mentioned him publicly. I haven't, and neither did the Leader of our party, at any time talk about his attempts and his intentions. By the way, as a member, when I first got elected, I faced some of those controversial situations in my own district. We all do as members from time to time, and that is tough stuff. We are not talking about the member personally. We are talking about the government in general and the way they approach situations. I want to make that clear to the member, that it was government's attempts, not the member's attempts. I am sure his intentions were there and he did what he could do under the circumstances and so on. He will have to answer to his electorate, like I would to mine, or any other member in this House of Assembly. What he is going to be questioned on is what his government's attempts were. Was it enough?

To move away from the details and to get into the principle on what he is going to have to go to his electorate with, the argument is that: Your Premier was really tough with Inco, beyond normal. It is not normal what the Premier of this Province did with Inco. Beyond the Legislature he had to make some changes now that is going on. He was very tough. When you look at him when he dealt with the Estai, it was not something normal that the Premier now - who was the Minister of Fisheries at the time - did with the Estai.

What I am saying to the member, and other members in this House, when you look at the public perception of it, the people in the Province were saying: Boy, a tough premier. Add on to that that the Premier, the member, the minister and everybody else, including myself, when I asked the first day, June 2, in this House, I believed that you had a great battle going. I thought you had a great fight going. I felt secure and assured, and so did the people of Labrador West, that we were going to win this battle.

No matter which way you cut it, that's the way the people felt. Whether it was unjustified or it was not for real, that's how they felt. We cannot take that away from them because everybody I have talked to up there said the same thing. As a matter of fact, from time to time over the last year and a half or so I would run into somebody from Labrador West, or I would speak to my family who still live up there. When they would ask me about it, I would say to them: No, I think it is going to be okay, I think you are going to get the pellet plant. I honestly believed that, I say to the minister, I really did.

I will not go into the statements for the sake of pettiness to say what the Premier said or the minister said at a chamber. We do not need to go into that. We will not even use them. The point is that people in the area were solidly convinced that would not happen. When it happened they had to start asking some questions, and then they started asking themselves: Besides the commitment we had, we had this backing of a premier who took tough stands, who went above and beyond the normal call of duty, so to speak.

This is a premier (inaudible) normal. This a Premier that took on the tough battles and went outside of the legislation. Remember he was going to turn off the power to Churchill Falls. Go across Canada. He went outside international law with the Estai. That is what they were expecting. What happened was the reverse, and what I would say is that the people of Labrador West still feel about it the same way today. The approach that was taken on the Hatch report and so on, the people asked the question: Was it a complete sham right from the beginning? Was this process that we were walked through a case of futility? Where it really was not going anywhere, but the image had to be there, the perception was there, that we were putting up this great fight.

There is another point I would like to make. When people in Labrador West started to compare the fight that this government had with IOC, then they did two comparisons, Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls. Let's stick to Voisey's Bay first. When they did the fight on Voisey's Bay - the Minister of Mines and Energy was not the only one involved, and the Premier himself -, and many discussions and negotiations that were going on, they brought in the expert. They brought in the expert from Ottawa, Mr. Rowat. They were going to bring down the best available personnel in Canada to take on the fight for Voisey's Bay.

Let's take a step away from that, let's look at what they did with Churchill Falls. Was the Member for Lake Melville involved in a committee? No. Was it the minister himself that was going to deal with energy? No, it was Mr. Thistle. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Thistle took on the Churchill Falls. I cannot lose this train of thought because it was a good point made by some people in Labrador West. What we saw was that in the comparisons, when they took on Voisey's Bay they sent for the outside experts. They did not just let the minister handle it. No, it was a big issue. They couldn't let the minister handle it. Mr. Rowat had to come down to handle it. We had to send for the experts. Nobody in Cabinet could handle it.

Then we went to Churchill Falls and nobody in Cabinet could handle it again: We will use Mr. Thistle. When it came to IOC, what was it? They let the local member head up a committee. No sign of the Premier. How many times did you hear the Premier speak up on this issue while it was ongoing? Except for when he was at the Winter Games to say everything was fine: Do not worry about it, I will be on the first flight to Australia. That is the only time I heard the Premier talk about it. Everybody talks about the facts, but there is much more to this than the facts. The so-called facts, the facts that the government wants everyone to believe.

The fact is there is another resource going out of this Province to benefit another province. Was the best fight put up to stop that? No. That is what the verdict will be on this. If you walk into Labrador City today and ask the people there, that is what they will say. They are tired of seeing the resources go out of the Province, and they let this one slip through their fingers too easily. No, they do not believe it was a good fight put up on it.

Let's look at our fishery resources. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture always talks about how we should do more secondary processing in the Province, bring in new stuff to do. We have to remember something here. The processing done in Labrador City, and what is going to be expanded now into Sept-Iles, Quebec, is not new. They have already been doing that in Labrador City. We are not talking about bringing in new processes. They are already pelletizing in Labrador City. It is not a new process. Basically they are going to expand on a process that has been there for thirty-eight years. That is why people do not understand why it cannot be done in this Province.

Economically viable? To who? To the company, of course. Do we mean economically viable, or do we mean profits and more profits? We are talking about more profits, that is what it all comes down to. That is why the people are upset. That is why the people in Labrador West do not accept this, and a lot of people in the Province do not accept it. When we talk about facts, there is more to the facts than what the government wants us to believe, or would like us to believe, I should say.

The people in Labrador West, with the economic benefits that have accrued over the years from that particular part of the Province, have a right to be frustrated, have the right to feel betrayed. Because they are not settling for it. No matter how long this goes on, they never ever settle for what happened in Labrador West.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. SHELLEY: Believe me, I know very well. They will not accept it. It should never have happened. It should have been nipped in the bud the day that it happened. The people in Labrador West are speaking up -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I just did it. The Minister of Education must have been sound asleep over there because I just went through it, but I will do it again, I will repeat it. Because the Minister of Education has had this ornery look about him all day long. He gets on edge after awhile, and the Geritol slowly dilutes in his system so he has to go out for another shot. He comes back and he is okay then. All he needs is a few people to sing out `four' and he is okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: The golf season must be over.

MR. SHELLEY: Golf season is over. He gets so ornery, that is what happens. I will repeat it again, Mr. Speaker. I still say that on the day of June 3 the minister, the Premier, whoever was in that committee they are talking about, should have sat down with North and said: If your intentions are to expand into Labrador City, yes, according to the legislation that is in place now, you can do it. Go ahead, we know we cannot stop you that route. But Joseph R. Smallwood thirty-eight years ago said to that same company, with the same question: Yes, you can do it, but I as the Premier of this Province today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - will use every power available to stop it. The decision was changed ten minutes later. Read Cain's Legacy. That is what the Premier of the day said. That is what changed it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking by leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave has been granted. I ask the member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk again, as I did the other day in my speech to the House, regarding the expansion plans of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. More particulary their corporate decision to open an old pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

This decision has caused a very frustrating experience in Western Labrador. There is a lot of anger. The reality is nobody anywhere in this Province wanted to see the Iron Ore Company of Canada open that old pellet plant in Sept-Iles. There is not a single living soul that I know, there is certainly nobody on this side of the House, that wanted to see that occur.

The previous speaker talked about Joseph R. Smallwood and his defense of the resources in this Province, and more particulary his view that they had to build a pellet plant in Labrador City. That was his view. It is easy to read in Cain's Legacy. There was no town there at that time. He could have waited, he had time on his side, as we do now with Inco.

We are in a situation in this Province, whether we like it or not, whether we want to accept it or not, where the Iron Ore Company of Canada has been for some thirty-six years exporting two products, pellets and concentrates. This year they will have exported about 12.5 million tonnes of pellets. If you stand by Wabush Bridge and look at the train, two-thirds of that train has pellets, one-third of that train has concentrates. There are 4 million to 5 million tonnes of concentrates going down over that railway into Quebec. It has been doing that for thirty-six years.

Technically, the company does not have to expand their concentrating capacity in Labrador City to feed enough concentrates to Sept-Iles. If they decided not to expand the concentrator - they have decided to expand the concentrator in Carol Lake, incidentally - but if they didn't, they still have access to 5 million tons of concentrate that is flowing down over that railway this year, last year, the year before, and years before that for thirty-six years.

What would the folks on the other side have us do? Would they say we must pass some piece of draconian legislation that says you must keep that ore in the ground unless you pelletize it in Labrador West? That would have an immediate and very terrible effect on the workforce here in Labrador West. Would you have a law of general application saying no concentrate shipments? That is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party said. He said: Yes, there will be a law of general application that says no concentrates shipped on the QNS & L Railway from either Labrador City or Wabush Mines.

What would he have Wabush Mines do? Shut down? Is that what he would have them do? They do not pelletize Wabush ore in this Province. They pelletize it in Pointe Noire, in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

If you are going to have a law of general application - as the lawyer, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, would say - then that has to be applied to Wabush and the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The problem is that we have faced a very challenging circumstance but we took it on. We took it on with every bit of vim and vigour possible.

Mr. Speaker, there are some today who criticize us for being too strong. I remember the meetings we have had with senior officials of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. I served twelve years on the executive of the steelworkers. I can tell you, those meetings we had were as tough or tougher than any meetings I have ever sat in between the union and the company. We laid our cards on the table and we were very firm with the resolve that your expansion will come under the 1995 legislation. That was the view that we took.

We cannot back up the clocks and put the whole of the project under that legislation. They do have an act that was signed in 1938. Again, whether we want to accept that or not, it is a reality. It was signed eleven years before we joined Canada. They have been mining for thirty-six years, almost four decades. They have mined a million tons - one-third of their product has been concentrate - and we are going to pretend that none of that happened?

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when we engaged this issue on behalf of the people in Labrador West - in fact, on behalf of the people in the whole of the Province, it was a tough struggle. We had a tough fight on our hands, but I can tell you that we fought that to win.

I was as disappointed or more, given the amount of work we have put into this in the last eighteen months, I was more disappointed - or at least as disappointed - as any person in this Province. I can tell you, so were the members of this government.

If I had thought for some reason, somehow, members on this side contributed to our loss of that opportunity, or did not do enough, I would be angry with them, too. They know that I was watching to ensure that they would do everything that is literally possible to do, and they did that. They did that because the people of Labrador West expected them - indeed the people of the Province expected them - to protect the resources of this Province. That is why we passed the resolution on May 7 outlining what we expect out of our resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) May 6.

MR. CANNING: I have May 7, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that all people in Labrador West are absolutely frustrated and there is anger.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: Yes, of course there is.

What can the government do now? Should we nationalize the company and take control of their Board of Directors? Is that what we should do? Because, short of controlling their Board of Directors, they have a decision-making capacity to do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: They do have now the right to do this. The fact of the matter is, we do not have the right to stop them. If we did, would we try to conjure up some special right to do that? If we try to conjure up some special right to prevent them from doing that, what immediate effect would it have on the people of Labrador West?

The previous member kept talking about Joseph R. Smallwood. He did not have a town that would be shut down if you took that kind of policy direction. It is very easy, it is simple, to say: Yes, this is the answer. There is just one button you have to press, and if you just pressed it and had a ten-minute meeting then you would fix all the problems of the world. Well, who in God's name would not press that button if it was so simple and it had no fallout?

The fact of the matter is that if we tried to press a button here by drawing that 1938 act back through the Legislature, by forcing the company to do something which is uneconomic, that is an obvious money loser, is a proven money loser, what then would the Board of Directors of the Iron Ore Company of Canada do? These are folks who live in Australia, Melbourne, Tokyo, Japan, in the United States, and they live in Toronto. It is their money. Am I to say to them that you have to spend this money regardless of whether it gives you a return or not. I would love to be able to tell them that, and I would simply love to be able to go back home and say: This pellet plant here will be expanded.

That is where I work. My friends and neighbours work there today, and we are going to protect everything we can. That is why the Premier has asked the council, the chamber and the unions to join with him and with members of this government and sit down with the company and iron out and clear up a lot of the issues that are left outstanding.

These are very challenging times, there is no doubt about it. There is no doubt there is a lot of concern, but for people to say that the value of houses now is going to drop from $100,000 down to $10,000... It is terrible for people to be saying that. I can tell you, the price of houses in Labrador West went up since the last election, because when I entered the campaign my house was worth about $40,000 or $50,000 and it is worth a lot more than that today because we have been doing a lot of things in Labrador West.

Almost all of the land in the industrial park is sold out. It is a function of us wanting IOC and Wabush Mines to begin increasing their procurement in Labrador West, creating real jobs there, making sure that we get the spinoff rather than going to Sept-Ilse, Quebec.

There is nobody who has fought the issue with respect to Sept-Ilse, Quebec - whether it was the QNS & L workers, whether it was the train crews coming up through the loop underneath the load-out area of the pellet plant, whether it is the opening up of this pellet plant they have down there - I have always fought those on behalf of the constituents I serve, and I always will.

As long as I believe, and I do, that this government backs me up on these issues and ensures to the extent possible that we do everything, exercise every proper authority, to maximize benefits to the people of Labrador West, that is all I can expect from them. I cannot expect that they are going to take on some banana republic kind of notion that all of a sudden we are going to take charge of the Board of Directors and we are going to take over their decision-making authority on a project that has been in place for almost four decades. It is just not practical, and I do not know whether it would be done anywhere in the free world. I am sure it would not.

The people of Labrador West ought to know that we are working on their behalf. We are going to try to do everything we possibly can do and properly can do, but that does not mean offering false notions. They does not mean saying: Yes, this is simple to fix.

If anybody has a simple solution to this, bring it forward because I would take it back, I can guarantee you that right now. There is no simple solution to this. Everybody recognizes a very complex problem. It is like saying that it is so easy to fix the Churchill Falls agreement of the past by just increasing the rates that they pay.

There are others who would say: Let's increase the royalties paid by the Iron Ore Company of Canada. If you did that you would drive up their cost. They have already said that they want to reduce their cost by $5 U.S. a ton. That is what they tell me. Five dollars U.S. a tonne is about $7 Canadian. If I drove up $1 a ton on royalty to $17 million, are they going to come back and say: Well, okay, now we have to reduce by $7 U.S. a ton, or $11 Canadian. How many jobs do we have?

Listen, it would be fine for some folks. You would be pumping more money into St. John's to spend elsewhere but it would not do anything for the local economy in Labrador West and it certainly would not do anything for the people who have jobs in Labrador West today.

We are fighting for the people in Labrador West. They pay a lot of taxes, they see themselves as great contributors to governments, but they do not see themselves a lot of times as being able to benefit from government's largesse. They see themselves as working hard for the company. There are a lot of issues that they need to sit down across that table with the company, with the government, the Premier, the town, and the chamber to work out.

As I said the other day in the speech I made, the company many times has been really what has given us our greatest opportunity but at the same time created our greatest fears and anxieties. That is what happens in a one-industry town. I can tell you that we are going to continue working with these people in Labrador West, and we are going to continue fighting as much as we can to get every benefit we possibly can get. That does not include saying that it is so easy to fix a problem; all you have to do is call someone into a ten-minute meeting. How foolish, how insane that notion is. We would have 1,000 ten-minute meetings because we would solve all the problems across the Province in the first day or so. They need to have a reality check. It is simply not accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the Tory Party many times say they are great friends of labour, when they are in Opposition, but I remember what happened when they were in government, when they took $1 million from the steelworkers in Wabush. That is the kind of record the Conservative Party has in this Province. They have not always been friends of labour. I have been on the receiving end of some of their letters and faxes - or telexes at the time - when I was with the executive of the steelworkers. I was on the receiving end of some of those telexes from the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Mines of that government way back when. I can tell you, they were not always friends of labour.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say to the people of Labrador West that I have tried in every way possible and every way practical, in every way in which we can action any legal means, any responsible means, to try to capture every opportunity that we could. I stand by the notion that the people on this side of the House, in every way possible, went to the wall to try to capture this for Labrador West, and nobody is saddened about it any more than I am.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to this private member's resolution today because we are truly concerned on this side of the House when we hear statements by the Premier such as: If there is no smelter, there is no mine for Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what is the difference when you are looking at Inco and IOC? What is the difference? Inco say that a smelter would not be viable and at the same time IOC say a pellet plant would not be viable. So there is no difference at all. There is a difference in viable and profitable.

When you look at a smelter on its own, that may not be viable; but when you put it into the overall project it is. When you look at a pellet plant on its own, it may not be viable. When you put it into the overall project, it is. Considering the fact that it is our resource, we should be the masters of our own resources.

The Minister of Industry earlier said that if Fishery Products had five fish plants and -

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister of what?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy said that if Fishery Products had five fish plants and three of them were profitable and two were not, would you keep the two non-profitable fish plants open? Well the answer to that is evident. If Fishery Products were going close one of those fish plants and open one in Nova Scotia, yes, you would keep the two fish plants here instead of allowing them to open one in Nova Scotia. It is our resource. If they were fishing our resource and going to take that resource to Nova Scotia, as opposed to letting them take that resource to Nova Scotia you would demand that it be done here in this Province.

The Premier's promise on the smelter was made when it looked like a sure deal anyway. He made it during an election campaign when Inco said that they were going to put a smelter here. So it looked like a sure deal. That is why he made that promise. Now he is afraid to make the same promise with IOC. He is afraid to make the same promise with IOC because he knows he cannot deliver, the same as he could not deliver on the smelter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Province has given away our resources for decades and the results of that are clear. If you look in Ontario, at a document that the Minister of Mines and Energy is only too familiar with because he was the Minister of Industry, and a document printed by the Department of Industry only a couple of years ago, it shows that as a result of Newfoundland resources being exported to Ontario, Newfoundland creates 2,500 jobs in Ontario, but because of Ontario's exports to Newfoundland they only create 4,000 jobs. That is what we are speaking of here today: of jobs, of our resources giving the maximum benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are talking about. When you look at a pellet plant in Labrador West -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the member is making. Maybe he can clarify for the House how the Government of Prince Edward Island should deal with the fact that their is some pulpwood coming over to support the mill in Stephenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Education should check his own pulp.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is exporting jobs when we export our raw resources, and that is the issue here today. That is the issue, the fact that we are exporting jobs when we export our resources. If you look at a pellet plant in Labrador West, as a stand-alone industry it may not be profitable, but when you put it into the overall industry of IOC it is profitable. The overall industry is profitable, and as long as that overall industry is viable in this Province then our resources should give the maximum benefit to the people of our Province. That is the bottom line.

You look at money invested by IOC in Labrador - and government are making a big deal of that, saying that they have invested money in Labrador West; they are heroes because they have invested money in Labrador West. When you look at the reality of what that money is going towards, it is going towards bigger buckets, bigger trucks, newer equipment, that in the long run it is going to mean less jobs. Their investment is only for their bottom line. It is not to benefit the people of Labrador West. It is going to create less employment because you are going to need less people working there to operate larger scoops, larger buckets, larger trucks. When you look at this and put it into the overall operation, that pellet plant should be in Labrador West, not in Quebec.

As a young person in this Province, I am sick and tired of seeing our resources going out to the benefit of people elsewhere. They should give maximum benefit to the people of this Province before there is ever any consideration of them going elsewhere.

You look at water exports, you look at our fisheries. When we joined Confederation, who in the world would have thought our fishery, our cod fishery would have collapsed, but it did because we have exported the fish as a raw resource for decades and decades. That has to stop. We have to start gaining maximum benefit from our resources for the people of our Province before there is anything exported from our Province.

We have to look at getting the maximum benefit, and that is not happening with IOC. Because the pellet plant on its own may not be viable, government have bowed to the wishes of IOC, but the overall operation is viable. They are making tens of millions of dollars out of that mine every year. When you look at the fact that they are making tens of millions of dollars from our resources, then that should be processed in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the private member's motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

I just want to make three or four brief points in the few minutes that are available to me. I have seen true evidence today that there are a group on the other side that have no idea what they stand for or what party they are supposed to be, or anything else. As my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, has been pointing out - I could not believe it. I got a bit of a sore throat because I was coughing and hacking because I could not believe what I was hearing with respect to the member opposite for Conception Bay South - or I should say St. John's South - who started speaking about the fact and included issues, saying that in Labrador West we have had an operation for almost forty years where they have been mining ore and actually refining it into two products that they have been shipping out for forty years - one which is a concentrate, and one which is a pellet plant - and that they have a full pellet plant in operation going full tilt, flat out, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, and that they have just made improvements to it. Because when I was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations they did major improvements to take care of the dust problem that was created. They put in a wet-milling system, and they have done other things now to improve the calibre of the pellet so that it can draw a better price on the market to secure the future of the operation for the hundreds of people and actually the thousands of people in Labrador West, all who work there.

He is saying it again now, that to make sure they stay competitive in the marketplace going into the next millennium they should not get bigger buckets to mine the ore, when everybody else in the world they are competing with are getting bigger buckets. They should go back, I suppose, to pick and shovel. Is that what you would have them do? You would have them go back to pick and shovel in a mine and get maybe a couple of hundred tons of ore a year and lay off all the people in the pellet plant because they won't get enough ore to keep it going. You would have, I suppose, 600 or 700 or 800 people out with a pick a shovel and quickly it would disappear because they would not compete with anybody and they would have to shut down.

They are over there suggesting these things. I do not believe they have thought it through it all, because this private member's motion today has nothing to do with this issue at all. It has a little bit to do with some politics they are trying to play, and it has a little bit to do with absolute, total lack of leadership.

Let me just make one point on one issue that has been raised, in case I risk the great fear for me of running out of time. I would like to have a bit more time. On one issue alone they are saying that there should be some assurances. The Opposition party, the Official Opposition party, the Progressive Conservative Party, joined by the Socialist New Democrat - the lone New Democrat in the House... He might be here lonely for a long time. He really wants to be the Mayor of St. John's, everybody knows. It did not work out. He wants to run something because he has never run anything in his life. He really has no interest in being here. He would like to run something, he said. I heard the speech myself. I actually voted for the man, to try to get rid of him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: It did not work, so now we are in here tortured and tormented with him again for another period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the whole notion was that they used the big fear tactic. One of the issues I heard raised, for example, at the Federation of Municipalities that caused me to make a little speech that made some headlines in the Province, the notion was that they suggested - and the Leader of the Opposition said it - that we are fearful like the people in the Labrador West. If we let this expansion go forward, which will secure Labrador West itself as the mining centre, will continue the full smelting process with respect to the pellets going on in Labrador West, will continue to produce the concentrate in greater volume than ever in Labrador West but will require an extension of the pellet plant, which is not economically feasible, which is what is in the WHEREAS and in the preamble to the resolution today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: In the shorter term it is not economically feasible, but they are saying that our big fear, and we believe with the people in Labrador West there is a big fear that it is only a couple years down the road - you throw up these big boogie men - then you know what is going to happen, of course. They are going to shut down the pellet plant in Labrador West and keep the one running in Sept-Iles. He says we need leadership from the Premier and from the Minister and Energy to go in there and say: You cannot let that happen.

Mr. Speaker, you do not need leadership today on that issue because that is not going to happen today. That is not the plan today. Like I said to the Federation of Municipalities, if it ever became apparent to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador - you would not need any debate in this Legislature or anywhere else - that they were planning, that there was actually a stated plan to shut down the pellet plant in Labrador West and ship concentrate only out to Sept-Iles, then first and foremost the workers in Labrador West would shut down the mine because they would refuse to work, the town council would board up the place and refuse the work, the Chamber of Commerce in Labrador West would be up at the gates and would shut the place down. You would not have to come to this Legislature. It would shut down on its own because nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador is ever going to tolerate that or let it happen.

The Leader of the Opposition gets up today and says: We have to support an expansion in Labrador West. Never mind any economics, never mind any of that rationale, because ten, fifteen or twenty years down the road somebody might shut down the pellet plant in Labrador West and keep the one open in Sept-Iles.

No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that I said at the Federation of Municipalities that I never heard such a pile in my whole entire life, because that is absolute, entire, total nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It will not happen, it cannot happen. The people of Labrador West will not let it happen. There is nobody in this Chamber that would ever let it happen, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition says: That is why we have to support this in Labrador West, regardless if it makes any sense or not today. Because in twenty years' time this big bogeyman might come out of the sky. It might take all the jobs out of Labrador West and ship all the concentrate to Sept-Iles. Absolute nonsense!

Even the people who make the speeches, unless they are admitting that they are the people who would let that happen if it were ever to be planned, they are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves. Because I am sure there is nobody here who would let that happen. As I said, you will not have to worry about it because it will be stopped right in its tracks, right in the mine, right at the plant in Labrador City. Because then the people would take matters into their own hands and shut it down and stop the whole issue.

The only leadership that should have been provided, instead of trying to jump in front of the parade by the hon. Leader of the Opposition - he saw a big parade and tried to jump in front of it again - all he had to do was give that kind of a speech and say: Sure, people, you do not have to get all excited over this. You know that will never happen. It is no good to tell me that you have to support me because they might shut down the pellet plant in Labrador West ten, twelve, fifteen or twenty years' time. The rational, sensible real leadership approach to bring some calm to the issue would have been to say: Surely goodness, none of you believe that that will ever happen? That if I am the leader of the Province sometime I will never let that happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to say a few brief remarks with respect to this. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition concluding the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 4:45 p.m., and I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition has fifteen minutes to conclude his remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) if I could, for the information of the Leader of the Opposition who introduced this motion - this is his private member's resolution -, just read to him Section 53, subsection 6: "The Member introducing a Private Member's motion has the right to close the debate and if at 4:45 o'clock on the day of debate on the motion the debate has not been concluded, the Speaker" - not may - "shall recognize that Member who shall" - not may - "then close the debate."

Which says to me, Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, there is no leave, because we are not going to have people passing stuff back and forth. We have to have some rules in this House and we intend to follow this. Because otherwise we will have people saying: You can have my time, or you can have part of my time. (Inaudible) it will be a bear pit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order raised by the Government House Leader. It has been the practice of this House, since I have been here, for a speaker to join private member's debate, particulary the closing speaker, to have the right to allow another speaker to take a portion of his time.

I understand the Government House Leader and the crowd opposite do not want me to participate in this debate, and it has been obvious from the Government House Leader prompting people over here to speak, and reminding people to speak, and having the Deputy House Leader point to people to speak. I know they do not want me to participate in this debate.

The practice of this House has been, since I have been here, that if the person who moves a private member's motion, who rises to close the debate, offers a portion of his time to somebody else, that has been at the leave of the person who moved the debate, not the leave of the House. That has been the practice since I have been here. It has happened on a number of occasions, both in my case and in other cases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order. The instance that the hon. member refers to I believe has been by the consent of the House, and not just by leave or consent of the person presenting the resolution.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: To be clear, we have some moments left in the debate. I have spoken already for, I think, twenty or twenty-five minutes. The Government House Leader will not allow me to provide some opportunity in the last fifteen minutes to the Leader of the New Democratic Party to say a few words on this. I want to be clear. Is that what is happening?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that he can try to sit over there and play cute so he can now go down to Labrador West, because that is what he wants to do, and say that the government would not allow the NDP to speak in this debate.

The truth of the matter is that the hon. gentleman's side, first of all, had it in their hands. All they had to do was when somebody stopped speaking over here to stay in their seats. For example, the Member for St. John's South knew the time, could have stayed in his seat, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi could have stood in his place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: Be quiet. You might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is that the rules of this House are quite clear, and we are not going to have the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else standing up and playing little games and saying: I would like to give five minutes here to somebody, five minutes there to somebody, five minutes to somebody else. Use the rules of the House to your advantage. You could have done that. You could have your people sit in their seats and he could have stood and spoke in his turn as is normal, back and forth across this House. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we will have a bear pit there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is no leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Question.

MR. SPEAKER: Question. We are voting on the amendment.

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Now voting on the resolution as amended.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution as amended, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready?

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Flight; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Mr. Noel; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Anderson; Mr. Canning; Mr. Ramsey; Ms M. Hodder; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Mercer; Mr. G. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. H. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. T. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Ms S. Osborne; Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-five `ayes' and ten `nays.'

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution as amended, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate for the Opposition House Leader, tomorrow we will be calling the mineral act.

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

***********************************************************************