November 30, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 51
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to provide the House of Assembly with the preliminary results of the 1998 Newfoundland and Labrador tourism season.
After years of development and strong participation by Newfoundland and Labrador entrepreneurs, our Province's tourism industry has become an essential part of the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In Newfoundland and Labrador today, tourism is responsible for an estimated 15,000 direct jobs. Expenditures in all parts of the tourism sector, by residents and non-residents combined, are more than $500 million. Tourism is a major part of our Province's economy.
I am pleased to say that having assessed preliminary data for the 1998 tourism season, visitation to the Province continues to grow even above the record numbers achieved in the 1997 Cabot 500 year. This is a very significant achievement.
In 1997, the Province's Cabot 500 Anniversary Celebrations set an unprecedented benchmark for tourism activity in our Province. There was a 22 per cent increase in non-resident visitors who spent an estimated $204 million in the Province, an additional $40.8 over the 1996 level.
Many people expected that visitation would have declined after a year of special events, conventions and come home years. However, the strategy which underlies our marketing program is to create awareness and excitement about Newfoundland and Labrador which carries into future years.
It is apparent this strategy is working. Travel to Newfoundland and Labrador, overall, is up in 1998 over 1997. Airport activity in 1998 is holding its own compared to 1997. Charter air traffic in particular is up by 17 per cent this year over last, and up by an astounding 52 per cent compared to 1996.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Regarding ferry traffic to the end of September, non-resident Marine Atlantic ferry traffic is 2 per cent higher than the record 1997 level, and a full 16 per cent higher than 1996.
The improvements in tourism visitation means that we are on course with our markets, and we are providing the right products and attractions. Soiree `99 will be our next major event, and we invite all Canadians to join us in celebrating a series of events and festivals. In the coming weeks I will be announcing the key details of Soiree `99.
Major investments continue to be made in the tourism sector to ensure that our attractions and services deliver a quality tourism experience. The Civic Centres in St. John's and Corner Brook will deliver many new, high-yield conventions to the Province.
New interpretation centres, such as the Grenfell centre in St. Anthony, make our culture and history more accessible.
New snowmobile trails will add to our growing array of winter tourism activities, which now include Nordic and Alpine skiing, heli-skiing and cat-skiing.
Besides Marble Mountain, one of the jewels of the crown for winter tourism is Gros Morne National Park. In fact, two days ago, on November 28, The Globe and Mail said that "Gros Morne has the most exotic and varied cross country ski terrain in eastern North America." Now there's a reason to travel to this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: In closing, allow me to congratulate the many tourism operators and regional associations who display the entrepreneurial zeal necessary to make tourism grow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for her good news review. If only now the minister could talk to her federal counterparts in Ottawa to see what we could do with the ferry service coming across the gulf. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture never travelled that way, but I have. I travelled that way this past summer, and to say that the conditions on The Joseph and Clara Smallwood were deplorable would be putting it mildly, particularly when you see families of four, five and six people with sleeping bags and blankets crawling under stairs on the Gulf ferry to try and find a place to sleep for the night because all the cabins have been booked.
I certainly welcome this news. It is great to see our tourism is on the rise. Of course, with tourism in this Province I think we have unlimited resources. I would certainly ask the minister to address the problem of the Gulf.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It is interesting to note that the government is now speaking favourably of Globe and Mail reports. Although, I guess it depends what they are saying. Of course, it is said that the Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose. So I don't know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: Not that I would suggest for a moment that the minister is a devil.
We are delighted, of course, to hear of the success of the Province in attracting and continuing to attract a growing number of tourists. Mr. Speaker, to add to our tourism visits year over year is very positive.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues know, 1998 has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of the Ocean, and a number of major conferences have been held to discuss the challenges of marine resource management. In fact, right now the Premier is in Halifax addressing the conference of the International Oceans Institute. The experience of Newfoundland and Labrador makes us uniquely suited to comment on the topic. Perhaps no where else in this country has the ocean and its resources been so vitally linked to a way of life, our culture and our history.
While we remember with sadness the fishery of days gone by, we must also remember how we got to this point. Domestic mismanagement and foreign overfishing caused the demise of our groundfish stocks, and these are issues which must be addressed to ensure that the fishery of the future remains viable and productive.
It is therefore fitting that we once again call upon the Government of Canada to do its duty and ratify the 1995 United Nations Agreement on High Seas Fisheries - or UNFA, as it is called. This convention is necessary for sustainable management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, and when enacted as international law will prevent foreign nations from ever again fishing out of control off this Province's coast.
It was three years ago this week that UNFA was opened for ratification. To date only eighteen of the thirty nations required have ratified the agreement, and I am saddened to say that Canada cannot count itself as one of those eighteen nations. It is essential that Canada return to its leadership role on international fisheries issues and begin by ratifying UNFA quickly, and then to press other nations of the world to do the same.
The fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador is beginning to recover from the devastating blow it was struck. Today the fishery is diversified as never before, with more than forty species of fish - from rock crab to herring to sea urchins - being processed in communities and plants, which only a few years ago depended exclusively on groundfish. This year fish exports will reach more than $600 million, a record since before the moratorium began in 1992. Mr. Speaker, our industry is vibrant and strong, but it also needs the commitment of the nations of the world to ensure that it has a bright future. That commitment should be demonstrated by ratification on UNFA. Then we can continue to rebuild our domestic fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner, under the protection of international law.
If we could get our friend over there, his buddies, the IFAW, to do something with the seals, then we would have it all done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
About the only thing that I would change in that particular report, if I was writing it, would be the last sentence in the first paragraph: Perhaps no where else in this country has the ocean and its resources been so vitally linked to a way of life, our culture and our history.
I think we can say nowhere else in this world, I say to the minister opposite. It is shameful that our own country, Canada, our own provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has to put out a plea for our country to sign an agreement that will help protect straddling stocks. It is shameful and it tells you what kind of a commitment our federal government and our federal minister think of this particular industry.
Foreign fishing exists today not on the scale it probably did six years ago, but anytime during the year you can go out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and on the Flemish Cap, and see twenty-plus foreign boats fishing out there. The minister is right; until we control foreign fishing, until we control the seal population, our people, our Newfoundlanders, must sit at home waiting for this particular industry to provide them with a way of life. It is shameful that those two issues have not been addressed.
Mr. Baker talked about extending the 200-mile limit to 350 miles. He talked about a section in, I think it was the Law of the Sea Act -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - whereby this might be able to be done. I ask the minister, and I ask members opposite, to lend them some support. Nobody thought we could extend the 200-mile limit, but we did.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe we can do the same thing, to 350 miles.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to report on the 46th session of the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament. This semi-annual event brought youth from all over the region together to debate issues in the parliamentary style. During the weekend, the participants had the opportunity to hear the views of other concerned youth and to voice their own views. They debated issues which are currently of interest to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and some which we have debated here in this Legislature. This Youth Parliament has a long tradition and has been a springboard for a number of politicians who have led this Province over the last five decades.
Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament is one of five regional youth parliaments in the Province which offers our youth a forum for thoughtful debate in an atmosphere of respect, enthusiasm, and camaraderie. I wish to commend the organizers of the event, the Youth Parliament Association, and all participants. In particular, I would like to recognize the Youth Parliament Premier, Dave Tarrant; the Leader of the Opposition, Rory MacParland; Ministers Adam Barnes, Andrea Goodman, and Myron Hedderson; Opposition critics Marc Field and Shannon Hunt; and one of our own House of Assembly Pages, Lynn Hammond, who served in that capacity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: This type of exercise allows our youth to learn and understand our parliamentary rules and decorum. It was a great learning experience for participants and may well start the political careers of some of our future leaders. The level of debate was high and the youth participants were very impressive in their delivery throughout the weekend.
I would also like at this time to congratulate our Memorial University debating team which won a competition of thirty-two debating teams from the Atlantic Canadian Universities, held recently in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The two areas of competition included two-person debating teams, debating issues in an impromptu fashion, and an individual public speaking competition. The MUN team of Ron Fitzpatrick and Dave Tarrant won the debating part of the competition, and Shannon Hunt from MUN also won the public speaking competition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row that MUN has won this competition. Another MUN team placed third this year, and five of the six teams from MUN placed in the top ten from the thirty-two teams.
It is very encouraging to see the talents of our youth showcased in these types of events and competition, and it seems only fitting that we recognize them in this Legislature for their achievements. It bodes well for our future, knowing that youth of this calibre will lead us into the new millennium.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We on this side join with the minister in offering congratulations to the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament. It has been my privilege to have served as Lieutenant-Governor on one occasion, and I believe the Opposition House Leader has served in the same capacity as well. We certainly commend the youth of this Province.
We on this side as well want to congratulate the Youth Parliament Premier, Dave Tarrant; the Leader of the Opposition, Rory MacParland; and in particular, we also want to offer our congratulations to the MUN debating team. As the minister has noted, they performed quite well and they certainly brought great credit not just to themselves but to their university and indeed to the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we say to the young people that this was commendable on their part. It just goes to show that the youth of this Province can hold their own, not just in Atlantic Canada but also in any other forum where they have an opportunity to participate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join in recognizing the efforts of the St. John's Regional Youth Parliament. They are a terrific opportunity for young people to get public speaking experience and parliamentary experience.
I had the pleasure of attending the Western Region Youth Parliament last spring in Port aux Basques, and it is a wonderful opportunity for young people to be involved.
I particularly want to join in congratulating the MUN debating team. Clearly they have demonstrated their overall excellence by showing their place in the Atlantic over thirty-two teams. It is a good example of the young people from this Province being second to none when is comes to involvement in national and regional competitions of this nature.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
In the spring Budget of this year, 1998, the government announced $25 million in funding for ten health care facilities around the Province. The money, for the most part, was coming from the Immigrant Investment Fund, the money wealthy foreigners paid to gain privileged entry into Canada. Four of those ten projects involved planning and design work on the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank, on the Carmelite House in Grand Falls - Windsor, the Fogo Island Hospital redevelopment, and the Bonne Bay Health Care Centre.
Can the minister tell us or update us on the status of the planning and design work for those facilities? And, has government assigned any priority to these four projects or made any decision on when construction will begin?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The facility in Harbour Breton is close to being constructed. The others are in the process of planning at the current time.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister again: Has government assigned any priority to these four projects - he has indicated one is under construction - or made any decision on when construction will begin? In other words, will they all begin together? When will they begin? Is it slated for April or May of next year? Is it slated for June or July of next year? Could the minister elaborate a little bit further, please, on the question that I asked him?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, they will begin construction when they are ready. As the hon. member knows, there are two preliminary stages. The first is the planning - these are replacement hospitals, for the most part, for ones that already exist.
The hon. member mentioned Bonne Bay, the hon. member mentioned Fogo and so on. They are currently facilities that were replaced and, as the hon. member knows, there was a bit of a controversy in Fogo about the location. I have not heard his position on it and I would be curious to do so.
The other thing is that you are planning to replace hospitals, in these cases, that have been around since the 1930s or 1940s. What really has to be done is: decide how many beds, what type of facilities there should be, what type of medical service should be offered. Once that is determined, you then have to proceed with the design. Once you have the design, you then go to tender. Once you have tender, you evaluate the bids, you construct, you finance, and you finish.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) by half, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
Let me ask the minister this: In terms of the money to construct the facilities - the four that I am talking about, the money was allotted just for planning and design - where does government intend to get the money? Is it being allocated in next year's Budget to pay for the construction of the four centres, which planning and design work is now being done? Do you intend to borrow the money from other sources? Or, has a decision been made yet with respect to the funding of these centres?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. member knows, approximately $30 million was set aside. There was $25 million raised by the Immigrant Investment Fund. There has been some interest on that, and we have to maintain a certain reserve for it. What we have to do first is plan the size of the facilities. Then we have to plan the actual design. Then we will know how much of the $25 million will be used up to complete the construction.
At this stage, all of the planning has not yet been done so the hon. member's question is premature. We will know, and when we are in a position to do so we will advise the House.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If my question was premature, it is pretty obvious that the announcement in the Budget was much more premature, if I can say that to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Of the ten facilities that were announced in last year's Budget, does government intend to, or has government entered into any lease arrangements with any company or companies for the construction of any of these facilities or all of these facilities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, not as of yet. What the government is determining is the appropriate way to finance these. Part of the requirements for the Immigrant Investment Fund is, that has to be financed in a certain way and there is a certain structure that has to be followed. Government has not yet determined what that process will be, but we should do so shortly.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister said, `not as of yet', so is the minister looking at leasing arrangements - either twenty, twenty-five, or thirty-year leasing arrangements - for the building of any or all of these facilities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a five-year, a four-year, or a two-year.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Is the minister indicating that government is looking seriously at leasing, having an arm's length company build the facilities, and that the Province will lease back from the so-called company these facilities for, say, a thirty-year period?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the options, but government has not yet determined how exactly the funds will flow. What the hon. member should and may know is that the Immigrant Investment Fund has requirements on it. Government cannot spend the money directly; it has to deal with the third party. We have an option as to whether or not we use this fund for what are essentially public works or some other purpose.
One of the manners in which we can do it is, we have to follow a process to deal with the private developer to build and to lease them back. That is part of the obligations. It could be thirty years; it could be as short as the time length of the fund, which is approximately five years, or possibility even shorter for that matter.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board this: With respect to the option that he or government are looking at for the lease of the facilities over, say, a thirty-year period, within that period is also one of the options they are looking at a buyback at a certain point in time, that the government may be able to buy back the facilities as opposed to leasing outright, overall?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the government is looking at all of the options. The option is for government to determine what is the best price and whether or not it wants, at the end of thirty years or five years, to own the facility. Obviously, the shorter the time period the more likely it is that the facility will be of certain value that we would want to have at hand.
We are looking at all of the options. I say to the hon. member, the decision has not yet been made. When it is, we will advise the public and the hon. member accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a rule of thumb, and the minister should know it as well, that government can borrow money much cheaper on the marketplace than any private company, for the most part.
I would like to ask the minister this question: What financial analysis are you looking at right now on behalf of the government that would indicate to you that a lease arrangement would be much cheaper over the long run, or would be in the best financial interest of the people of the Province as opposed to the government actually borrowing the money and doing the construction themselves on behalf of the people in those areas?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reason we are looking at doing it this way is that the Immigrant Investment Fund has an interest rate of 5 per cent. If the government were to go to market it would pay interest, right at the present time, at about 6 per cent. One of the attractive options of doing it this way is that the interest rate charged would be 5 per cent, which is why we want to use these funds rather than -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Exactly. So what we would have to do is flow the money from the Immigrant Investment Fund to a corporation. We charge 5 per cent interest, so that is how we limit the government's exposure on interest. So that is cheaper than us going to market at a minimum of probably about 6.17 per cent today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question. It is my understanding on the Immigrant Investment Fund - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - that money has to be paid back in a five-year period, with accumulated interest, but if government is entering into contractual relationships or lease relationships for thirty years, obviously the lease arrangements will have longer term financial consequences for the Province.
I will ask the minister again the question with respect to, outside of the immigrant fund, what will be the financial consequences of a thirty-year lease? Would it not be better for the Province to borrow the money up front and do it itself, or does the minister have information at his fingertips that he can share with the House that a thirty-year lease would be in the best financial interest of the people of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a good point. Treasury Board and Cabinet have not yet decided on what the arrangements will be. What I can say to the hon. member is that the Immigrant Investment Fund has to repaid within five years from the date that the cash first flows, which would probably be about five years from December or January of this year - or January of next. So I say to the hon. member that before we go beyond the initial five-year period, we would look long and hard at it.
What I can say to the hon. member is that the interest rate will be fixed for five years and this is the manner in which we have to facilitate it, by creating a private entity -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Well, no. I say to the hon. member, we have not decided to go beyond it. The officials have looked at all the options but I think it is highly unlikely that government will go beyond the five-year period; but that decision has not yet been made.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this question: Have government solicited any proposals with respect to a leasing company to finance the construction of these ten health care facilities, or has government received any unsolicited proposals from a company to lease the facilities back to the Province? If so, could you elaborate on what the situation is there, please?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Only one has gone out to tender; that is the Harbour Breton Hospital. That one called for lease arrangements and the government has not decided which, if any, it will take. It will probably do so within the next week or two.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: You have indicated that, with respect to Harbour Breton, it has called for lease arrangements. Could you elaborate further on the lease arrangements that you have just referred to?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no arrangements entered into. Government invited proposals for the construction and lease arrangement for a hospital at Harbour Breton. That has not yet been decided on.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final question to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Could he table any information whatsoever with respect to the Province's assessment, whether it is today, tomorrow or next week - when the Province makes a decision - could he table the information on the financial dealings with the construction of these new facilities so that we can all have a look at it? And, in tabling it, also table the analysis that the Department of Finance has made that would support and indicate why government made a decision in a certain direction? Can he commit to that today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The government will make a decision, as I expect, within the next week to ten days or thereabouts. My recollection is that their decision may be made either by Friday, or may be required by Friday of this week or early next. I will undertake to the House that when that decision is made, and a successful tender is selected, we will make that information available to the public and I will tender it here in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has indicated that proposals have been called for the construction of the Harbour Breton health care facility announced in the spring Budget. He has indicated that they have received a proposal that would look at a lease option. When does government plan to make a decision on the bids that are before them now with respect to that facility?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: As I said to the hon. member, tenders have been received by the Works, Services and Transportation Department. My recollection is that the decision has to be made by Friday, I believe, in order to let the contract.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: No, I said by either Friday or Monday - and we will have an opportunity over this week to assess it. Then we will decide what, if anything, we do; which is not to say we will accept any tender, as the hon. member knows, under the Public Tender Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Many people who are totally deaf in this Province have been given their life back because of the cochlear implants. It is devastating to a person to wake up in the morning and find out it is not their hearing aid that is malfunctioning but it is a total loss of hearing. That has happened recently this spring to a constituent of mine. There are also twenty-five other people in this Province today who are waiting to get cochlear implants.
I am sure the minister is quite familiar with the young eleven-year-old boy who, for the first time in his life, experienced the miracle of sound - young Aaron Drover. It was in The Telegram back in June.
I ask the minister: Why can't this surgery be done here in this Province when there is a qualified specialist here in St. John's who can perform this surgery?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our department provided the Health Care Corporation with an amount of money this year to start doing the pre-assessment hearing as well of the post-op care. We are working with the auditory verbal therapist as well to try to find if we are able to do it from both a financial perspective, because it is something we have to very much consider....
While in this Province we would like to be able to offer all services at length, we all know that we are not able to do that on any number of procedures and surgeries that people have to avail of on the mainland.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Medical experts within the health care system, and specifically within the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, consider it viable. They are only waiting for you and your department, Minister, to say yes.
It is cheaper to perform the surgeries here in this Province because the costs are billed back to this Province here and are paid basically out of the Province's funds anyway. I ask the minister: Why would you subject these people and their families to expensive air travel and other related costs when it can be done cheaper here in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people involved right now are actually involved in some training with respect to the mapping and the other necessary components that would be required.
As I have said previously, we are working with the Health Care Corporation to try to find the best way to deal with this issue. If we can do it in the Province, we will work with the Health Care Corporation to try to find a way to make that possible. Clearly, if it is financial, that is something we do have to look into to make sure that we are able to provide that service.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke with medical professionals both inside and outside this Province otolaryngologist, auditory verbal therapists, audiologists and others, to get an appreciation of what is involved in this complex process.
Now the Province has agreed to buy the equipment to rehabilitate
these people, but they are not giving the green light for the cochlear implant itself.
I said to the minister: The implant, per person, is cheaper in this Province than elsewhere because the costs are billed back and the people do not have those extra costs to travel - seven trips out of the Province for each cochlear implant.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Is the reason because you fear that if more surgeries get done here, even though the cost per surgery is cheaper, there may be a potential increase to the overall financial commitment? I ask the minister, is that the reason? Are you managing the system or rationing by wait-listing? If not, Minister, what is your reason?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whenever you consider expanding a range of surgeries, for example - and I will use the example of paediatric open heart surgery - we know at one point in this Province we used to provide that service, but we also now know, and have since seen, that cardiac paediatrician move out of the Province because there was such a low volume that the surgeon was not able to maintain his skills.
Before you are able to provide a full service, you have to make sure you have the pre-assessment and the post-care follow-up. That is what we are putting in place right now, and we will look at providing the whole process if we are able to do it, if we are able to do it financially, and if, in fact, it is able to be done based on the surgeon maintaining the skills required to do that surgery in a low-volume province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.
Will the minister confirm that most school boards are running a deficit? And since school boards cannot incur a deficit without the minister's authorization, I want to ask him: What steps is he taking to help those boards address their budgetary shortfalls?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot confirm that most school boards are running a deficit. I know that some are. Whether or not any school board runs a deficit depends upon what plans they put in place for the fiscal year they are operating in. Basically we have been asking school boards to try to find ways, without curtailing programming options, for students to live within their budget allocations as were notified and given notice to them for last year.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister will know that boards are experiencing particular difficulties with their operating costs; that is the cost of fuel, electricity, telephone costs, snow clearing, and municipal fees. Allocations to some boards for these expenses are actually less than the actual cost they have to pay out.
How can the minister expect boards to pay for these costs and provide these services if his allocations are actually less than the actual purchase price of the service?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the urging of school boards some seven years ago now, the Department of Education gave them full flexibility to use their budget in a global fashion once it is assigned from the Department of Education, so we do not restrict them to use funds for any particular reason that we allocated from government to the boards. They asked for and received the full ability to manage the funds. Once the money leaves the government through the Department of Education, it goes to the school boards. They have full flexibility and full control to take the total budget, so we do on go through the exercise that the hon. member just did of saying: Let's pick these two or three items out of fifteen or twenty and say we may be short on these two or three so therefore we have to get money for two or three.
We allocate money on the basis of fifteen or sixteen criteria, but at the end of the day the school boards, because they asked for it, because it is better for them for managing and planning, have full flexibility to use their budget in a global fashion. So any requests that would come to the department would have to give us information about their total budget, not about two or three items from a list of fifteen.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that when school boards are expected to pay increasing costs for fuel, electricity, and these matters, there is a real danger that instructional budgets will be used to supplement the operating budget.
I want to ask the minister: Is he not concerned that instructional budgets, the moneys allocated to provide programs, will be redirected towards the operating budget and therefore we will compromise the integrity of our learning environments?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is not at all the expectation of what should be happening in the system. Maybe I should remind the hon. member that what the government committed to a couple of years ago in its three-year planning cycle, of which we are nearing the end of the second year now, was that we would leave the operating budgets for school boards frozen at the level from two years ago. In fact, almost all of the boards are now running significantly fewer schools than they were two years ago; some as many as ten or eleven schools fewer than they were actually operating a few years ago. They have the money for the operations for those schools even though the schools are closed.
In fact, the expectation from the department in putting that plan in place was that not only would they have enough money by having the operating grants for schools that are closed and no longer in operation available to them, as they do have, to cover off any increases in costs for electricity, oil, snow clearing, or those kinds of matters, but in fact they would have some extra money that they might even now be putting into the instructional budgets rather then having to think about going to an instructional budget to take those funds to pay for other costs such as heat and light.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, a final supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister will also know that the budgetary allocation of that program works well where there are numbers of schools that are closing - for example, in the Avalon West system - however, if you are looking at another school board on the West Coast of the Province you will find that where there are only one or two smaller schools closing there is a deficit of $288,000.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Will he address these particular school boards where there have been only small numbers of schools closing and they are finding themselves in real budgetary difficulties at this time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might indicate to the hon. member that as a result of representation made to the Department of Education by one of the school boards on the West Coast and by three or four members of the Legislature on this side of the House who happen to represent that area, three-and-a-half weeks ago, there is a full review of their budget being done and we expect to be able to have some answers for them as to the status of their budget and the final makeup of their budget very shortly.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
The Discovery Regional Development Board was recently mandated at a provincial meeting of all the regional economic development boards to start a broad initiative aimed at taking a new and comprehensive look at the Gulf ferry system. The board describes its mandate as going far beyond anything the provincial committee or Marine Atlantic is doing. Will the provincial government be making any representation to the board or supporting the board in its endeavours?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I must confess to the hon. member that I missed the first part of your question because of some comments that we going back and forth. The Clarenville Regional Economic Board?
MR. J. BYRNE: The Discovery Regional Development Board.
MR. MATTHEWS: Discovery, okay, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have not, we are not, and I do not anticipate that we will at this point, be dealing with the issue of Marine Atlantic services, beyond what we have already said publicly, many times. Number one: That it is a constitutional obligation that we will hold the federal government to. Number two: We believe that the rates cannot continue to go year over year higher than they are because of a lot of factors, not the least of which it has impacted in terms of tourism. Number three: We believe that the level of service must be upgraded and brought to a higher level of satisfaction to the travelling public. Number four: We are continuing to impress upon Marine Atlantic as an organization, and upon the federal government directly, that whilst we have accepted to some degree, particularly the Town of Port aux Basques, the decisions made with respect to that organization's restructuring, we are not happy with where it is.
Our position holds. Our stated position to the federal minister, my position, on behalf of government, and the Premier's position, has been this: Every job with respect to that organization should be moved and staged out of Newfoundland short of leaving enough people on the other side of the Gulf to tie the boats up safely and let them go in a similar fashion.
The organization, Marine Atlantic, now exists only to run three ferries from the Mainland of Canada to Newfoundland. We believe on that basis it is a service singularly dedicated to our benefit and one over which we must have more control.
We have also said, by the way, that we believe all of the directors of the new board, the seven-member board, should be Newfoundlanders. We believe the Chair should be a Newfoundlander, and I believe that if we can accomplish that we will have accomplished more than any organization out there (inaudible) thinks it is realistically possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, for years we have been saying that the Gulf ferry system should be an essential service within the Trans-Canada Highway system. Have you had any success with respect to lobbying the federal government in creating an essential service, keeping in mind that we have to take the rights of the workers and employees into consideration with respect to any grievances or whatever the case may be? Have you had any success with respect to creating an essential service, with the federal government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issue substantially is a labour issue because, as the hon. member suggests, it involves the employees of Marine Atlantic. The implications for declaring it an essential service have significant labour implications. I guess for that reason, amongst others, the federal government have not seen fit to accede to the position of the Newfoundland government which is, in fact, to have that service declared an essential service.
That cause has also been supported at the federal level by federal MPs on the government side of the House and maybe even on your side of the House, or the Opposition side of the House up there if you can find them amongst the seventy or eighty over there. I know they are few and far between. I believe if you could find a few PC MPs in Ottawa, I would suggest that amongst the two or three that are up there, there might be one or two who would support an essential service for the Gulf service.
It is the position of this government that it should be an essential service, and we hope there will be satisfactory progress made in that direction before the next labour negotiations have to take place with Marine Atlantic employees and before we again get ourselves into another threat of a strike.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Minister, the Fisheries Loan Board, which was put in place to help fishermen finance major purchases, was removed from your department and out of the minister's control, and put with the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. I ask the minister if he feels this was a positive change to reflect the concerns and the wishes of Newfoundland fishermen?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, this minister, or any other minister on this side of the House, would never be part of implementing a loan board of the past.
The new financing that we are discussing, which we will be discussing as early as today -
MR. TULK: Six o'clock.
MR. EFFORD: - six o'clock this evening - will be a financing system that will benefit all of the fishermen and people in the industry who need to access financing. Secondly, there is financing available today for fishermen, very readily available, through the loan board that is under the minister, through the banks.
As early as last week I talked with a fishermen, where he went to the bank and received his money without any consultation, or the need of any consultation, with any government agency. The banks are opening up their doors because of the new positive restructured fishing industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The new restructuring, I say to the minister, is to go to companies on bent knee. That is what fishermen have to do today.
Minister, most will agree that changes were needed in the way that the Fisheries Loan Board conducted business; however, some of the new rules and regulations of this funding agency are certainly not helpful today to a lot of fishermen.
I ask the minister: If a fishermen is seeking funding to procure a new boat under thirty-five feet, or to do maintenance on an existing boat, and the amount of funding needed is less than $50,000, would that fisherman be considered a priority with the new Fisheries Loan Board as it exists today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: All fishermen, all fisherpeople in this Province today, whether you are in an eighteen-, a thirty-five, a fifty-five, or a sixty-four foot eleven-and-a-half inch, remain a high priority with this government. Let me tell the hon. member that.
Fishermen with a need of $50,000 or less can access monies through the loan board, depending on certain criteria; but they now can access money in many instances, with the proper credit background, through the commercial banking institutions.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, time for one quick question.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, the new Fisheries Loan Board program is certainly not set up to help fishermen, especially inshore fishermen, fishing in the under thirty-five foot sector. The minister knows that.
Minister, you are a man who likes to portray himself as the fishermen's friend -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. FITZGERALD: - a man who is going to be the saviour for the fishing industry.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister how he allowed to have this board taken from his control and put in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, when it is so crucial to the fishery and the future of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Loan Board of the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could not be in any more -
AN HON. MEMBER: Capable hands.
MR. EFFORD: - capable hands, than my hon. colleague, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. member something else. We are sending our staff, Minister Tulk's staff and my staff -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: - around the Province, starting as early as next week, giving fishermen information on how to access money through the loan board and through the banks.
I suggest that the hon. member should sit in on one of those information sessions and learn something.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation".
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act."
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador West.
Residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Seven Islands, Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, on the eve of election day it is good news for Quebec to see our resources go to benefit people in Quebec again, but it is not good news for the people in this Province. People in Labrador West and indeed throughout the Province are still reeling about the decision by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to process iron ore down in Sept-Iles, Quebec to provide jobs for Quebecers. It is something that has not gone away.
Even as lately as the weekend the mayor of Labrador City was still asking questions, still asking government for information on what exactly transpired in this whole charade that has happened with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They are also asking the question - as we talked to people in the mining industry over the last few days - about the inconsistent message government is still sending investors throughout Canada and North America when it comes to this Province. One day it is a tough stand on Inco to take on the big giants. On other days it is okay that the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a company that has been here for thirty-eight years and made billions of dollars on the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we let it just waltz out the door without a protest, without anything from this government that tells them that they have to produce and do secondary processing in this Province and bring jobs to this Province.
The people of Labrador West have not forgotten about it. They continue to ask the questions. The mayor continued to ask questions this weekend. They are still waiting for answers from the government on exactly what happened, specifically with the Hatch report and some questions they have had there. Right off the top the one that I think about is this one. In the Hatch report they talked about $24 million of the viability that was considered for a bunkhouse they were going to build in Labrador City for people to work in that area, which was totally inconsistent. They are still asking the same questions of where this all started. Is Labrador City being used here as a pawn? Some message that the government of the day and the Premier are trying to get out to other investors when they see so many inconsistencies in our Province when it comes to the mining industry and mining development.
They certainly have a lot of questions still to be answered. They have not stopped asking those questions. I think that in the coming weeks and even months they have some strategies of their own to try to get more answers to these questions. Not only the people of Labrador West, but anybody in this Province who has been watching this unfold in the media and so on are asking the questions: How can it be so tough one day and not so tough the next day?
It is the same old story. It is the old cliche of here we go again, when we see the resources go out. Today there is an election in Quebec, and if the polls are right then we will see a separatist government take over again in the Province of Quebec. The first announcement when the election kicked off was Mr. Bouchard announcing the great news that the iron ore in Labrador City was coming to create jobs in his province. Imagine, to see a separatist premier kick off his election campaign and gloating about the resources that are coming out of Labrador.
It is a wonder that the Premier was not there with him. I tell you, the Premier was not in Labrador City the day they announced the great news for them. We were there. We were there when the people of Labrador City got the news but there was no sign of the Premier on that day. There were no signs of the cameras around the Premier on that day, but they were down in Sept-Iles, Quebec, where Premier Bouchard was gloating about the resources coming out of Labrador City to create jobs in his province. He was certainly there.
I can tell you that the people of Labrador City and Labrador West, and the people of the Province in general, feel betrayed. They were misled and led down the garden path, believing that the Iron Ore Company of Canada will indeed do expansion, but they would do secondary processing in Labrador City or not at all, or the Premier would have been on a flight to Australia. The minister was drawing lines in the sand. They had it all told to them, but at the end of the day, the iron ore out of Labrador West will be put on a train and sent to Sept-Iles, Quebec, to create jobs in that Province.
That company has a great, long history of a sweetheart royalty regime with this Province, and that was not good enough. Nobody is against these companies making profits but they are for using the resources in this Province to make sure that jobs are created in this Province. You cannot be flip-flop from one day saying let's take on the big giants, when the next day in the same breath you are saying: It is okay that you produce jobs from our resources in another province.
I still support the people in Labrador West. I still have the same questions, they still have the same questions, and they are still unanswered. Some people may think it has gone away but I talk to them on a daily basis in that area, the Chamber of Commerce and so on. They feel the same way, Mr. Speaker, about that today as they did before.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact it has gotten worse. They are going to continue to ask those questions, Mr. Speaker, until they get some straight answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support this petition. The people of our Province deserve better than this. They deserve good government and they deserve honesty. When the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy were in Labrador City last year for the winter carnival, the Premier said: If the pellet plant is not in Labrador City I will be on the plane to Australia. Probably he was being honest. I do not see him here today. Will we get a fax from Perth that the pellet plant is going to remain in Labrador City? They deserve honesty. They do not deserve the Premier of their Province and the Minister of Mines and Energy to go to a good time, and when it sounds good, and it will be good politically, for them to get up and say: I will fly to Australia personally if this pellet plant does not remain in Labrador City. Is that less than honest? Do the people -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Premier is not honest?
MS S. OSBORNE: He said he would fly to Australia. Was the Premier in Australia? Did he say he would go to Australia? Yes. Did he go to Australia? No. Is that honest? You answer the question. He said he would go to Australia.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: That is what he told the people of Labrador West, that he would personally go and fight for them. The people of this Province deserve more. They deserve good government. They deserve honesty. Just because it felt good and it was good politically, he stood up in front of them, and the Minister of Energy was there with him, and everybody was all happy and clapping and smiling. It felt good, it was a festival, it was a carnival, there was a good feeling among the people.
AN HON. MEMBER: It was a love-in (inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, a love-in with the people. He said: If this pellet plant will not remain in Labrador I will personally go to Australia. I have not seen him go to Australia yet, so you answer the question. I will say it again. The people of our Province deserve good government and they deserve honesty. The Premier said: I will go to Australia. Did he go to Australia?
AN HON. MEMBER: What are you getting on with?
MS S. OSBORNE: I am getting on with: Did the Premier say he would go to Australia? You answer that. Did he go to Australia? You answer that. Was he less than honest? You answer that. You do not need to be a genius to figure that out. It will not challenge you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador City who are urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
I support the people of Labrador City. We are trying to ensure that the resources of our Province benefit the people of this Province. I guess there must be some sense of satisfaction in Quebec these last few years. Even though back in 1927 the judicial committee of Privy Council decided that Labrador belonged to Newfoundland - and not to Canada and not to Quebec -, it seems in recent years, at least, the people of Quebec have benefited greatly from Labrador resources. We have seen the Churchill Falls agreement transfer to the Province of Quebec the major benefits of that development. We now see, in the case of Labrador City, a pellet plant being activated in Sept-Iles. The word reactivated is used, but it was never activated before, processing ore from Labrador. It was processing or attempting to process ore from Schefferville.
This change to the state of the development in Labrador West is difficult to accept. The government has given a rationale for it which the people of Labrador West and I do not accept. There is no reason why government cannot and should not insist that the Iron Ore Company of Canada continue the processing of ore in Labrador West. What is astounding is that despite the fact that the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada refused to give assurances to the people of Labrador West that the pellet plant in Labrador West would not be given a priority in the event there was a requirement of shutting down one or the other plants - there was not any assurance from the Iron Ore Company of Canada -, yet this government seems to accept, on the basis of some kind of expectation, that the people of Labrador West would take matters into their own hands. That is the only assurance that this government seems to be willing to talk about to ensure that there is no shutdown of the pellet plant in Labrador West and the continued operation of the one in Sept-Iles.
That seems to me to be a demonstration of the weakness of the resolve of this government when it is saying that it is not prepared to stand up for the people, but in the event that something bad happens the people will have to stand up for themselves. Because this government has indicated its unwillingness to stand up on their behalf.
There are a lot of questions that government has yet to answer concerning this matter. These questions continue to be asked by the people of Labrador West. The government seems to feel that this issue is going to go away, that people are going to stop talking about it, that they will not remember it. I want to assure this government the people of Labrador do remember and they will remember. I think the only people threatened are going to be this government and representatives of this government if they seek to be re-elected in Labrador West.
This is a very important issue, not only for Labrador West and Labrador City in particular, but also for the people of the whole Province, because it sets the standard by which this Province has the ability to protect the use of its resources for its own people. This decision sets its standard. The test has come and the government has failed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you with the ruckus going on over on that side of the House. I am sorry. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is the one as usual.
Yes, I am going to stand in my place and support the petition, no doubt about it, that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi presented here today. As a matter of a fact, I presented a petition here the other day from 159 people in the Town of Flatrock. I think I presented it the other morning, and I signed it, so I made it 160. I remember the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs standing and saying that at the Federation of Municipalities meetings a few weeks ago that a number of petitions went out across the Province to all the municipalities and they did not get one back.
I was quite surprised when the Mayor of Flatrock wrote, in a covering letter with the petition, saying that they supported the people of Labrador West in trying to get the project upgraded in Labrador instead of going to Sept-Iles.
One of the most important points, I think, involved here is the fact that the minister stood in his place, and the Premier publicly stated, that there would be no job loss with respect to that expansion in Sept-Iles. They also said if there was any job loss it would be through attrition. In actual fact as time goes on, because of this expansion in Sept-Iles, and not in Labrador, the people of Labrador City will lose jobs. If they are losing jobs, obviously as time goes on there will be fewer people working in the plant, fewer taxes paid, and things of that nature. In actual fact, it will have a negative impact upon Labrador City.
It is not really quite truthful, I suppose would be the right word, or accurate to make the statement that there will be no impact with respect to jobs in Labrador. That in itself is a factor. The other factor that I think is of major concern is the quality of the pellets that will be produced. Apparently, the pellets that will be produced in Sept-Iles will be of a higher quality than the ones that will be produced in Labrador. Therefore, in my mind, again - and it is hard to predict this, because you do not know what the markets will be demanding, you do not know what the industry will be demanding in the future - if there is a higher quality of pellet produced in Sept-Iles, the impact that will have is that the Labrador facility could possibly lose sales. If they lose sales, what impact will that have upon the jobs in Labrador? Aside from the attrition point of view, if they have a lesser quality pellet and the demand is for a higher quality, then in fact we could actually lose jobs from that angle.
I have some notes here. I dug them out of the Hansard and the different public statements by the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy. They made public statements, and here is one in particular. The Minister of Mines and Energy stated they would try and work a deal to ensure that the jobs would not leave Labrador, that they would give them a deal on the hydro that would be supplied to keep the jobs in Labrador. The Premier has stated here many times and in the public that if the jobs went out of Labrador to Sept-Iles he would be on the first plane to Australia to fight for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We just can't say Labrador. Because in fact this impacts upon all government policies with respect to the mining industry. With respect to that we have now the Mineral Act before the House of Assembly. There has been some debate on it. I think we may be in Committee on it now. This has been ongoing for some time. We have been asking for changes to the Mineral Act since back in 1994-1995. We have asked, we demanded, we forced, we presented petitions, everything that could be done. Finally this fall they bring in, four years too late probably, an act with respect to changes to the Mineral Act.
The amendments to the Mineral Act are giving Cabinet a far-ranging, very wide authority, from one extreme to the other, to make regulations with respect to the exploration, and to giving out the licenses, permits, fees and whatever, with respect to the mining industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: Just to clue up, I will say that certainly I support the petition presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 5. I would move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
We are back on Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.
Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I had to rise today to make some comments in affect to the Mineral Act as we get into discussion on clause by clause. Of course, it is a very significant piece of legislation. It is significant in a lot of ways.
First of all, there is the significance to this Province on the potential for mining in this Province. Most of the discussions these days is about Voisey's Bay and so on. The truth is that there is a lot of potential for this Province in some of the smaller mining companies and small mines. For example, in my own district, Nugget Pond right now has been in production just a couple of years. It is known across the country, and indeed even in North America, for its cost effectiveness, and the tidy job Nugget Pond is. Anybody that tours that facility will see Steve McAlpine and the crew of mostly local people that work there, some eighty to ninety people. It fluctuates with the number that work at that particular mine. We are not just talking about Voisey's Bay, and a massive find, and an mass of ore, but we are also talking about how in Newfoundland and Labrador the great potential is there for small mines such as Nugget Pond to be viable and to be a big part of our Province's economy.
As we talk about the mining industry everybody gets stuck with Voisey's Bay. The truth is what Nugget Pond has proven to the rest of the Province is that you can be viable, you can be compact, and you can create long-term lasting jobs for people throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, as we speak also there is a lot of exploration in the Baie Verte Peninsula area, in the Green Bay area. Right now we are hoping that a small mine near King's Point area, called the Hammerdown, operated by a company called McWatters, will hopefully be into production within twelve to eighteen months. That is their hope as of now. They have stated that publicly. Hopefully that will see about a hundred to 110 men.
The advantage of these small mines I have always believed - it is an analogy I used with the rest of the Province - is that if you have ten or twelve mines that employ eighty, ninety or one hundred people, if one of those mines are finished, as what happens with mines - because remember, the day you start mining of the ore is the day that it moves toward closing. Because mining is not a renewable resource. These small compact mines that start up - like Nugget Pond, like hopefully the one near King's Point, and if we can eight or ten or more of those around the Province -, the good news about that is that if one shuts down you still have eight or nine or more still operating.
That is also the analogy we use with small business in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are always looking for this big mega-project that is going to save our great Province, always looking for the Hibernias, the Voisey's Bays, and so on. We are looking for this great infusion of money into some major industry, t-shirt factories and so on, when the truth is we should be looking at small business the same way we look at mining. If we can start a small business with ten, twelve or fifteen people then the government should be doing everything in its power to make sure those companies survive and that they go into production and basically put people to work. That is what it is all about.
At the end of the day, if you have fifty, sixty or seventy small businesses throughout the Province with five, ten, fifteen and twenty workers, then you have a stable economy. Because even in the times if a company goes under - which is normal, that is a normal process in business; any businessman will tell you that there are businesses that fail, sometimes beyond their control - when those business fail, if it is a huge business with 500 or 600 employees - like what happened in Baie Verte years ago at Advocate Mines. There were 650 people working at that mine in Baie Verte at one time. The next day an announcement was made that the mine was gone, and 650 jobs were gone in a small community. They are surviving, they are surviving because they are tough.
AN HON. MEMBER: Because they have a great member, that is why. (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: That is another point, Mr. Chairman.
The whole point is that if we have these small compact mines like Nugget Pond, which employ eighty or ninety people, they are solid, they are environmentally safe, they are very compact. If you ever visit the site, which I have done on several occasions, you will see how clean it is. They have a whole plan. You can see their plans today: how long they plan to mine a certain area, what they plan to do after, to reseed and replant trees and put things back, as best they can, to its natural state. That is the type of company we need to encourage to come to the Province.
On this very particular piece of legislation, the Mineral Act, the encouragement of getting investors to come into the Province is what this is all about. We have stated here already and have been on record, and our Leader has been on record, that generally we support the whole concept of the changes that are being brought forward here. Basically, in a nutshell, for anybody who is reading it, it does what we all want to do. That is to make sure the resources of our Province stay in our Province for the full benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That what it is all about, the full benefit, and that is the key word, "full."
A lot of people around this Province for many years, from our fishery resources, our forest resources, our mining resources and so on, it seems like everybody has benefitted outside the Province. Many people have benefitted from our resources outside the Province. We are saying the full benefits of those resources are for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why the people of this Province also get that mixed feeling. They see one day where the government of the day takes on a big company like Inco and say that resources have to be for the full benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is something we have supported, and it's a principle that was so important to this Province, the real principle that gets at the core of what this Province is all about. That is, keeping resources within our Province. That is why we stand shoulder to shoulder - hard to believe, but we did - with the Premier on his stand with Voisey's Bay, and how everybody said it was the right thing to do. That is what we believe.
It is also a mixed signal when you get wishy-washy with the words and talk about: We stand tough with Inco, but at the same time IOC is allowed to carry on with their plans of expansion, and that means outside the Province.
When they talked about expansion and how much money they were spending - $650 million - in the Labrador City area, that was good news, there is no doubt about that, to expand and to make themselves more competitive. I understand with the Canadian dollar, with the fluctuating markets with nickel, gold and so on, that the global market certainly changes. The bigger companies have to take all of that into account. Because every time the dollar drops a cent or the price of nickel drops a cent or two cents that means hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to a particular company.
Those are factors beyond our control, and they are beyond the government's control, but they are factors there, there is no doubt about that. Economic viability is the word that needed to be tighten up. That is what we need. We do not need a company like IOC - stay away from Voisey's Bay for a second -, but look at IOC. They made billions - and that is not an exaggeration any more - of dollars over the years, and to be able to say when they want to expand: You do it in this Province or you don't do it at all.
Changes to the Mineral Act affect us all for a long term. It is long-term history. What we do today is going to be passed on to the future generations of this Province as hopefully we start to do the right thing. In ten, fifteen or twenty years from now when new members are in this House of Assembly they can say that the legislation in place, and that the laws that govern the resources of our Province are good tight laws that are going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Simply put, people are sick and tired of seeing our resources going outside the Province. So the decisions we make here today are going to affect our future generations. Not just mining, but our forestry and fishery resources. Those three alone, if we don't even talk about the oil - we have not even mentioned the oil resource -, if we just talk about those three resources alone, I believe if we had our rules tight enough and did the things right that those three resources alone, with 500,000 people, would employ every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that, if we had the full benefit from each one of those three resources.
Now, to speak particularly with the changes to the Mineral Act. As we spoke about before as we get into clause to clause, and I want to make another mention today - because I did mention it to the minister the last day in the House about some of the house cleaning parts of this clause - of one particular clause. I mention it to the Minister of Mines and Energy again, because after my discussion on it a couple of days ago - somebody heard it from the House of Assembly, I guess some people do follow it. I will mention the clause to the minister again as I mentioned it the other day. I cannot remember the exact number, but it is on the licences, the lining up, and putting a draw out.
There are some concerns that if we do the route you are going - and I agree we have to go a different route to try and clear that up, that mess we have down there when people camp outside the door and so on - that if you do the draw you have to be very careful. I mean, it is a very practical means. As we all know, anybody who can use the system and abuse the system is going to do it again. What you have to do is tighten up those loopholes. One of the loopholes in that - and I do not know if the minister has considered or talked about it - is piling it on.
Very simply put, and I should not put the idea there, but I am sure it is there already, because it was mentioned to me, but a person can go in who wants to stake a claim on land and get his brother, his cousin, his aunt, his uncle and everybody else to put in the draw for the same ones. He has ten tickets going into the draw for that particular piece of land.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. SHELLEY: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, and I have not got the solution to it, but some of the people want to have discussions on it. Maybe they have some ideas where we can close that loophole, because it is a loophole. I do not know if you have considered anything yet.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: There may be a regulation there that would close that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) under the law and then be able to close that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: One of the other suggestions was, and I do not know if this is possible, is that in the particular area of the Province where those stake claims come open, why not, for two or three days, have an office for example on the Baie Verte Peninsula if there are going to be 100 claims staked there this year? On June 2 and June 3, anybody wanting to stake claims in that area can put in their request for the lottery. I do not know.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I do not know if it does, but I will say this. It answers this question, which is a certain disadvantage and the minister as a matter of fact mentioned it himself. People in Port au Choix or Baie Verte should not have to drive to St. John's and park behind your building to stake their claim. They will not have to with the draw, so maybe it might not be needed. I am not sure. Do you want to answer it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: He understands. You would not understand.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to answer that point, the way that it happens, as the hon. member probably knows, is that when they are ready to stake a claim they will... If there is more than one, so you create a competition, if there is more than one you have to go out and gazette that for a thirty-day period. What this amendment in this clause is saying is that we will gazette all staking of all claims and make them public for a thirty-day period.
The disadvantage for the person living in Port au Choix, Port de Grave or anywhere else is that they would have to drive physically in here or Corner Brook, or Marystown, or anywhere else. They would physically have to drive in here, physically get in the lineup, and stay in that lineup for thirty days. What we are saying now, as the hon. member probably knows, is that the person from Port de Grave who wants to stake that claim is in competition with the person from Corner Brook, is in competition with the person from Marystown, and some people from St. John's. You can fax it right in. There is no benefit or advantage for geographically living here where the mining office is.
Even if it is in Baie Verte and there are, say, 400 people from Baie Verte who want to chase that one claim, they just fax it to the office and they are in the pool for that lottery.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the minister for that, but like I say, the last (inaudible) closes how many times they can put a name into that draw. Like I say, that is one other one I would like to see the minister address, as we do it. If you are going to close it and correct it we might as well do it right, because it has not been done right for a long time.
I had a constituent call me last year - as a matter of fact he is here again this year - and I had to get permission from your building to get an extension cord to run it out to his car to stay in the parking lot for a couple of days during the winter so he could go in and stake his claim in the morning. That is how archaic it is.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: We got the permission. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Is that right? My point is not that. It is how archaic and how senseless this whole thing is, right? Hopefully that will be cleaned up.
Now, back to one of the other clauses, and the whole changing of the Mineral Act altogether. I know there are many members in this House that do understand the mining industry. The big key in mining is that you look at a map, you look down on the ground, and you know there is something down there. These days with technology and so on you have the seismic work you can do, with the helicopters that go by and do seismic tests over the land surface, and then you have the ground work which is done by prospectors. They tap on the rocks and find out if there is something there. That is the kind of ground work you do. You do your seismic work, you do your geology and your prospecting, and so on. Then if you are lucky you do some dredging. That is another example of doing your preliminary work.
All of that work has to be done and needs to be done, but the real work starts when you have to get millions of dollars to get down under the surface to find out what is there. That is what mining is all about. The key factor to doing all of that is having the dollars to be able to do it. Because you can have all your prospecting work done, you can have all of your seismic work done, but if you cannot get the millions of dollars that it takes... For example, this year I think in Voisey's Bay alone, if I am not mistaken with the numbers, there is $20 million in further exploration in that area alone. I know there are millions of dollars in the Baie Verte Peninsula area for exploration.
The key is when these junior mining companies tap the rocks and do their seismic work, then the have to go and sit in some boardroom in Toronto somewhere with a big company and say: We need $5 million, $6 million or $7 million to get under the surface to see if we are right. Because that is what happened with Voisey's Bay.
They walked over Voisey's Bay hundreds of times. Then they had to go out and get an investor. In this case it was Diamond Fields, which put a lot of money into that. Yes, get those people out there and do the prospecting and so on, but the key is to find the millions of dollars after and to convince a major company which has a lot of money, or a brokerage firm, to do a deal of $4 million, $5 million, $6 million or $7 million to dig under the ground.
I know there are some members here that deal with the stock markets. A broker will tell you a mining stock is one of the riskiest. I know all about it. The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is out checking his stocks, I would say. If you dabble at all in the stock industry, you would find that the people in the mining industry say: If you are going to touch that, that is high risk. They will tell you to do mutual funds and so on. I guess a lot of members would dabble in mutual funds. Something that is safer. As we have seen with Bre-X and we have seen with Cartaway, you can ask the Member for Ferryland, and all these, you take risks. You can make a lot of money, but you can also lose a lot of money. You can lose money very quickly.
That is what the mining industry is all about. It is taking a big risk. Risk is very closely associated with the mining industry. Once we get the person to tap the rocks and the seismic work is done, then we can have to go and ask these guys to put in $4 million, $5 million or $6 million to encourage them and try to sell them. It is a big job to do that. As a matter of fact, the story on Voisey's Bay is now being told. It is called The Big Score, I think. Is the minister familiar with that one? The name of the book that is out now on Voisey's Bay?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I have not read it yet.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. SHELLEY: I want to read that book, Mr. Chairman, and I am also going to ask the people involved, the Verbiskies and Chisletts and so on, how close it is to the real story. It always better to ask when the story is written, ask the people who know it first-hand. I am going to ask these people somewhere down the road if it's worth it. Is it really written with a lot of fiction, or is it written based on truth? I want to find that out from the people who know it best. When they read the book I am sure they will tell me if it is true or not.
The story on Voisey's Bay, I do not know all of the details of it now, but they were down to the last few days of drilling. They were down to the last few days and the last few dollars of putting into Voisey's Bay and drilling to find out if there was really something there. It really got down to the last few days where they decided if they were going to go any further or not. They were that close to doing that. As a matter of a fact, there is a company in the Baie Verte area - I will not say much about it now, because it could be on the stock market, we could get a mad rush going there - but -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: You are enjoying it. I know the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is enjoying all of this mining talk. He loves to hear about the mining talk because he is tired of hearing about the fishery so he likes to hear about mining every now and then, and forestry.
There is a company in the Baie Verte area now which has done some drilling over the last several months. They have some pretty good showings, Mr. Chairman, but when they got to the end of their money for this drilling exploration program the last drill hole was showing very good signs, but that dried up. So they are right now in the midst of discussions with that company to extend some funding so that they can extend the exploration drilling. They have got to convince those people that they have to come in and do that. That is what is going to be important, that they can encourage these people to invest so they can continue the exploration.
Any time we talk about changes to the Mineral Act, always the concern - and we have to hear it from the sources that do this investing - is: How do you feel about the laws and regulations where we are going to govern? Because it is going to come down to that. The major companies, Inco and Falconbridge and all these companies, are going to ask what the rules of the game are. These guys do not come in and spend $5 million, $6 million and $7 million and find out what the rules are after. They want to see it.
Any time you change the laws of the land, and basically laws governing what profits they are going to make - I just heard Inco the other day. They are quite frank, and I don't have a problem with that, when they say: You know we are not there for jobs, we are not there to satisfy the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are there to make money. That is fine, everybody knows that is business, but at the same time it is the government's job to make sure that the benefits accruing from the development of that resource come first and foremost to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There has to be a real balance there. You have to balance that off between a company making a profit and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador getting the benefits and getting the jobs. That is what we have got to be concerned about, that is where our jobs come into being, that the people of the Province get the full and fair share of benefits of a resource that belongs to this Province.
As it relates to this particular act, it is the law of the land. People are going to invest to give us that money to make sure we do the right job. They are going to be looking at the laws of the land. They are going to say: Can we do business here? Is it something that is acceptable? We are not going to get this Province explored and we are not going to find more mines if we do not have the investors to come in and do it. There are some local people within the Province, but we are talking about millions of dollars, we are talking about thousands of square kilometres of land that has potential. We have to encourage those people to come in and invest and do exploration.
In the first clause of this bill we talk about, basically, clean up legislation that straightens away some problems we have now in the mining industry.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, with that I will finish on the title remarks and continue on some more clause by clause as we go through.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, we are dealing with clause 1 in the bill.
As we get through the clause by clause debate, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that some additional clarification on some of the clauses is required.
In clause 1 he has indicated that, "(4)...conduct a search for minerals on areas either licensed or leased under this Act shall submit a description of the planned exploration..." - that is legitimate under this act - "...work before starting work..." - I think that is obvious - "...and when that work involves an activity that the department considers capable of causing ground disturbance, water quality impairments or disruption to wildlife or wildlife habitant, the work shall begin only after the department has issued an exploration approval with terms and conditions prescribed by the minister.".
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Clause No. 1.
I guess the intent of that particular clause is to ensure that any sort of exploration continues or proceeds in an environmentally sensitive sort of approach. Can the minister confirm that?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Yes, that is exactly what it is; because what happens is, as I mentioned in the introduction to this bill, there are normally a number of environmental stepping stones that happen during development. Right now if there is exploration -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stepping stones are there?
MR. FUREY: In exploration it is very limited. What we are simply saying is that by law we would like to have an exploration plan that shows a minimal amount of - you see, we are going to be into some sensitive areas. If you think of, for example, Grand Lake, where we are trying to protect the pine marten, there are some areas of Grand Lake with a very high mineral potential, but we want an exploration plan from anybody who is going to go in there and disturb, in any way, the habitant. I think that is only fair.
What is interesting is, since we started thinking about this bill, you have seen that the courts, in an unprecedented decision here in Newfoundland, have set the pace with respect to what they call accelerated exploration.
You recall the Voisey's Bay people wanted to build an airstrip - temporary - and a temporary road. Under normal exploration rules and regulations and laws of the country, that would just be a fait accompli; but as the Aboriginal people, in this case the Innu nation, made a reference to the courts, remember the lower court said: No, this is part of the exploration program and it fits easily under the laws of the Province.
Then they appealed it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and His Honour, Justice William Marshall - which surprised me because while I know him to be a good, sensitive and sensible individual, I just thought that the judgement would be - he, having sat here and written laws - that it would just be the normal course of action to allow them to do what is called accelerated exploration. In this case it was the temporary road and the temporary airstrip. I was frankly flabbergasted that the Supreme Court of Newfoundland compared it to the cod fishery, if you read his judgement, but that is the way it is when the courts take control.
MR. E. BYRNE: Can I ask another question?
MR. FUREY: Yes, but I just want to make the point on that clause that there is no system in place now for an exploratory plan, and this will force all companies to do that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
"...after the department has issued an exploration approval with terms and conditions prescribed by the minister." I guess, `prescribed by the minister' puts accountability directly at the minister and discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; is that correct in saying that, in law? You said there was no process in place for that now?
MR. FUREY: What are you reading again, I am sorry? Are you saying prescribed or be submitted?
MR. E. BYRNE: "...work shall begin only after the department has issued an exploration approval with terms and conditions prescribed by the minister."
MR. FUREY: I am sorry, just let me -
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, clause 1.
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: I guess if there was ever a challenge as per what you might prescribe or what you might set as the terms and conditions, if such a challenge were to end up before, for example, the Supreme Court, then the Province would be on solid ground because we have enshrined in legislation, in the law of the land, so to speak, that whatever terms and conditions as prescribed by - in this case - you, as the Minister of Mines and Energy, is that correct? I just want to get clarification on the terms and conditions?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Yes, I think that is correct.
Is the leader finished?
MR. E. BYRNE: On clause 1 we are finished, yes.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 2, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will inform the Chair, no clause is going to carry without discussion.
Clause 2 essentially says, "(1) "Subsection 21(1) of the Act is amended by deleting the words "must be delivered" and substituting the words "shall be submitted either in person or by mail".
"(2) Section 21 of the Act is further amended by adding immediately after subsection (4) the following: "(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where an area is made available for map staking following rescinding of a regulation under paragraph 4(1)(b), an order under subsection 9(2) or a notice under section 27, applications for map staked licences for portions or all of the area coming open for staking may be submitted either in person or by mail during the period from the date of publication of regulation, order or notice to the effective date, and where more than one application is received, the priority of applications shall be determined by a draw to be conducted by the recorder as prescribed by the regulations.".
Could you elaborate, Minister, on that somewhat for us, please?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. E. BYRNE: I was not here, if you would just -
MR. FUREY: Yes, essentially what happens now is -
MR. E. BYRNE: I guess the question I am asking is: Industry certainly would be in favour of that, I would think?
MR. FUREY: Industry (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?
MR. FUREY: Industry welcomes this with open arms. You see, the way it works now is, as I mentioned before, whenever there is a staking of a claim and there is a competitive aspect to it - more than one person wants that particular claim - essentially what happens is the government is required by law to gazette that for a thirty-day period. Then, at the end of the thirty-day period, what happens is the clock is turned on for another period of time. What is happening is that people are coming from all over the Province and literally camping, in all kinds of weather, outside the Department of Mines and Energy.
If you go down there now you will see three of those travel homes, travel trailers, cars and tents and everything, down behind my offices, the reason being that whoever gets in the lineup first has priority outside the official mineral recorder's office. Now I changed that the other day for safety reasons because the back doors were blocked. I told them we would give them a number each night, go home and get some rest.
What we are trying to do is build some fairness into this. So we are going to put a lottery in place so that if somebody from Baie Verte, for example, somebody from Nain, or somebody from Corner Brook wants that piece of land as well -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: It is really captivating (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No doubt.
MR. FUREY: What happens is, if there is more than one we will create a draw. So that eliminates the geographic disadvantage for somebody in Nain, Corner Brook and elsewhere; and they can mail it in within that thirty-day period.
What this law will do, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, is enable us now to set regulations and criteria down.
The Member for Baie Verte raised a very good point, and it is one that I am a bit troubled about, and that is the whole business of piling on applications. In other words, say if there are five of us and I decided to get my five brothers - if I had five brothers - or five uncles, et cetera, to fill up the lottery so that they actually dilute the -
MR. E. BYRNE: Which has generally happened.
MR. FUREY: Yes, it has happened in the past. It has happened in the past on staking. When they go in to stake a certain claim, they put in a whole bunch for a whole bunch of people. What we are trying to do is eliminate that and build fairness into it. The industry is very happy with that. It is one of the parts of the bill, I guess, they are happy with.
On motion, Clause 2 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 3, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 3, "Subsection 22(4) of the Act is amended by deleting the word "the" immediately before the word "licence" wherever it appears and substituting the words "a ground staked".
It is pretty standard and straightforward. Do you want to go ahead?
On motion, clause 3 carried.
On motion, clause 4 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 5, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. FUREY: The one that you are most interested in is the business of the tribunals, right?
MR. E. BYRNE: We will get to that.
MR. FUREY: Okay.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is not a problem. I am interested in all of the bill. I am more interested in some sections than others.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I understand, but it is important I think, for the record, to demonstrate that.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Relax, I say to the Government House Leader. Settle down. Not to worry.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Don't we all, Sir? You only have to drive about five minutes further in the road further than I am.
CHAIR: Order, please!
Are we on clause 5?
MR. E. BYRNE: We are on clause 5.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
Section 31 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: "31.(1) A holder of a licence who wishes to obtain a mining lease of the unalienated minerals in, on or under the land or part of the land covered by the licence must insure that an application for the lease is received by the minister during the currency of the licence."
Would you like to speak to that section just for a moment? That is pretty straightforward, I think.
MR. FUREY: It is, yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: Just for a second.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: If I could just draw your attention back to number 4, I did not mean to bypass that so quickly.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, we do not have any problem with section 4.
MR. FUREY: Yes, you know what it does right?
Section 5 -
MR. E. BYRNE: Section 4 is fine. If you could just talk about that first section 31.(1) in clause 5.
MR. FUREY: What I understand it to mean is that if any changes are going to happen, they must happen while the licence is active. That is what it means to me.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what it means, is it? That is the question, I guess -
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: So in the case of a licence not being active -
MR. FUREY: Right.
MR. E. BYRNE: - what we are saying here is that no changes can occur?
MR. FUREY: Right.
MR. E. BYRNE: So again that puts more discretion and more power in the hands of who it should be in, for all intents and purposes, which is the government of the day or the Legislature, whatever the case may be. Is that -
MR. FUREY: That is correct.
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.
Section (2), "A holder of a licence who delivers an application under subsection (1) has a right to the issuing of a mining lease for the reasonable period, not exceeding 25 years, that the minister may determine, but only if the following provisions of this section are complied with.
"(3) A person shall not obtain a mining lease under this section unless (a) all the terms, provisions and conditions of or pertaining to the licence held by the applicant for the lease have been complied with during its currency;" - which means during its - if it is active, if it is an active lease -
MR. FUREY: Yes, right.
MR. E. BYRNE: "(b) the person has (i) submitted a survey of the perimeter of the area covered by the application which has been carried out by a qualified land surveyor." Fair enough.
"(b)(ii) submitted a certified plan of survey with the surveyor's notes and a proper description of the land described in the application for lease; and (c) the land is marked in a manner prescribed by regulation."
5.(4), "Notwithstanding subsection (3), where the licence held by the applicant for a lease has existed for a period of 3 years or less, a lease shall not be issued under this Act until all the assessment work required for the first 3 years of the licence has been completed and all reports required by this Act and the regulations respecting that assessment work and accounts of expenditure are made for those years."
Do you want to just comment on that section, Minister, for a few moments?
MR. FUREY: This pretty well mirrors the original but it takes into account the whole business of exploration.
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.
MR. FUREY: It is just making sure that it is uniform with what the export -
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Yes, the exploration plan.
MR. E. BYRNE: 5, "A lease under this Act (a) must be signed by the minister and the person holding it as lessee." Fair enough.
"(b) is subject to the following conditions: (i) that the lessee pays in advance an annual rental of an amount calculated in accordance with the formulae prescribed by regulation for the area of land to which it applies..." There is a formula already in place, I understand, which is pretty straightforward.
"(ii) that the lessee shall start mineral production capable of extracting a mineral or a mineral ore in saleable quantities within 5 years from the date of the beginning of the lease and maintain that production without cessation except for a period totally 5 years during the remainder of the period covered by the lease..."
MR. FUREY: That is the same as the previous act.
MR. E. BYRNE: Right there, correct.
"(iii) that the minister, and the other officers of the department that are authorized by the minister, having a right at reasonable times to enter a mine being operated by the lessee or land held by the lessee in connection with the working of the minerals demised by the lease and to search, view, inspect and inquire into the condition of that mine...". That basically mirrors what is there already, I understand.
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: "...or land and to inspect the books of account relating to the working of a mine and minerals or mineral ores being extracted from the land described in the lease."
You have that authority under the act as it currently exists. As I understand it, there is no change essentially, correct?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: (5)(iv), "...that the lessee fulfils and observes the requirements of all statutes of the province and of Canada and regulations, orders and directions made under those statutes in respect of or relating to the premises demised by the lease, including environmental control, maintenance of health, building and operational standards, the making of returns and reports and the doing or refraining from doing a matter or thing required to be done or not be done under or by those statutes..".
Again, that is fairly straightforward.
MR. FUREY: If you take five right through to the end of six, just prior 31.1, it is all the same.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is all the same. That is what I am getting to.
MR. FUREY: It replicates exactly the previous act.
MR. E. BYRNE: The purpose and order, in section 31.1, "(1) For the purpose of this Act, mineral and mineral ores in the province are considered to be an exhaustible resource which need to be conserved and utilized in a manner which maximizes the benefit for the province, its population and economy or for regional economic development." I do not think we have any hesitation in supporting that aspect of clause 5.
"(2) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, where it is of the opinion that as a matter of public convenience or general policy it is in the best interest of the province, order a person holding a lease issued under section 31 to complete primary production, in whole or in part, in the province, of a mineral or mineral ore extracted or removed under that lease, and may vary or rescind that order."
This section 31(2) has caused considerable concern. That has been articulated to you and has been articulated, it is my understanding, to the Premier as well. It centres around the words "may vary or rescind that order". Some of the criticism that has been given to us in terms of this particular thing is that it entwines all power within the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; it doesn't allow for accountability. I am not saying this is our criticism; I want to be clear on that. I am saying what has been presented to us in terms of the bill. This is a very serious policy shift in terms of the current legislation.
I guess the question or questions - and you can take as much time as you feel necessary to elaborate on it, because it is very important to explain to the House, for the record of the House and to ourselves - what led to this major policy shift in terms of amendments to the act? Why do you believe now it is necessary, at this point in time, in view in fact of the concerns that have been raised publicly and privately by those who were involved in the mining industry, particularly the investment industry, in terms of investment in the Province, junior mining companies and exploration companies, if the minister would just take a few minutes. Like I said, take what time is necessary as he sees fit.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: This is an important question, and I think it deserves a proper answer.
MR. E. BYRNE: This is the crux of the debate. This is one of the sections that is the crux of the debate.
MR. FUREY: Yes, it is. What we did is - originally in the 1995 amendment, we thought we have gotten it right. We thought that by amending that piece of legislation and forcing primary production as defined in the bill, we thought we had the language correct. It turns out, after we took legal advice - and we took legal advice not just within government from the Department of Justice, but we took legal advice from outside, a very reputable lawyer, Jim Chalker and others. The advice that came back was the language was ambiguous. It was open to interpretation. Therefore, we had a choice; that our public policy, which you obviously agree with, to maximize benefits from the resources of the Province...
If that public policy, which was enshrined in law under the 1995 amendment, was open in any way, shape or form to interpretation, then we would in a sense de facto be possibly passing our public policy intent and thrust to the courts to determine how it would be applied. That was the real bone of contention.
If you look closely at that particular section in the 1995 amendment, you will see that it goes on to say: and for any other reasons.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.
MR. FUREY: `And any other reasons', in the case of - let's use Inco because I do not mind using Inco, Inco could then take this law before the courts and say: Well, look we have other reasons, there are other reasons, and the minister should give us a lease. Here are the other reasons. We have surplus capacity within our own system with Sudbury operating at 60 per cent and Thompson, Manitoba, operating at 70 per cent. That gives us excess capacity under the rules of the game. We are going to ask the court to determine whether or not we have to comply with 1995, even though the policy and the thrust of the policy was very clear.
I just want the Leader of the Opposition to understand that we took very serious legal advice. The legal advice was to clear that up; the legal advice was to make sure the language was absolutely bulletproof before a court if, in fact, it ever had to go before a court; and the legal advice we took was that this gives certainty to you, to be able to negotiate on behalf of the Province a publicly stated policy that you require to be enshrined in law.
Let me go to his little section, on `may vary or rescind'. That is where you see some worrisome, because if you get some wing-nut government like they have in B.C., or somewhere like that, you could cripple the economy.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for that example.
MR. FUREY: No, but you could cripple the economy by playing tin-pot dictator and playing little games with real investors' lives.
I have to tell you, it cuts both ways. You see, currently under the legislation if a company has a lease and the Legislature under the law, the 1995 amendment, had approved it, and they needed right away a variance - let's assume that the Antinmony mine needed a variance right away on its (inaudible) plant in Bishop's Falls or in the Bishop's Falls area, we would have to wait until the Legislature - or call the Legislature back for every variance. It is not necessarily the government that wants to vary. Don't think of it in those terms.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I understand that.
MR. FUREY: It could well be the company that comes to the government and the government could say: Yes, you make a good point; let's save those 100 jobs. I know we were going after 150, but we have to protect that 100 and the circumstances that you present to us make it reasonable for us to do that, to protect those 100 jobs in the case that I just gave you.
So we would have authority to meet as a Cabinet - which we do every Thursday - and vary that order in favour of the company. I explained that to the mineral industry, but their worry, as I just explained to you, is that some future government, some crackpot, tin-pot government, may exercise this authority willy-nilly. My answer to that is, they will have to deal with the general public and the public won't put up with that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is important because you raised a concern which has been raised by the mineral industry, the exploration industry, and that `trust me' sort of approach. That is what we are talking about; let's be clear on it.
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is a `trust me' sort of approach in terms of the raising of capital that leads to further exploration, or it provides for - the necessary capital that provides for exploration, that could lead to discovery of significant ore bodies of any kind, or mineral bodies of any kind, that could lead to the development and further, I guess, broadening of our economy and adding to jobs et cetera. It is this very sort of - the words `vary and rescind', and `trust me approach', that the industry has indicated at least to me and to my colleagues that, that is the type of approach we are not going to be able to raise capital with.
We can provide, as members of the Legislature today, the assurances necessary in terms of how we would deal with it. You are right in terms of what future governments may deal with or, I guess, the question mark that is left: What happens next week if a significant discovery is found? What happens next week if we are into a situation similar to that with the exploration of Voisey's Bay nickel.
It could be on a smaller scale, but a similar sort of set of circumstances present themselves. Then the question remains. One individual described it to me. He said: If I am exploring and I have a significant find, and as a result of this legislation I go to those nationally, in terms of the brokerage houses et cetera, looking to raise capital, and they look at this piece of legislation and say: Hold on now, you have nothing. What assurances can you provide me that you are going to be operating in a stable environment?
I think this is where the criticism is coming from. I will ask the minister this. What assurances have you provided to the mining industry in terms of how the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, will deal with this? The other thing I will ask is: What assurances can you provide to the Legislature that decisions taken by the Cabinet - with respect to important public policy matters which are not exclusively, and do not exclusively, belong with Cabinet alone, but belong to each and every person in this House who is elected to represent their own constituents, who may be either positively or negatively impacted by such a change - what assurances can you provide: one, to this Legislature that decisions of Cabinet will be transparent with respect to should this clause need to be invoked or used at any particular point in time?; and two, what assurances have you provided to the mining industry that a level playing field and an environment conducive for the raising of the necessary capital for exploration and others will continue as it has for the last four years?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, to the last part first. The assurances that I would show the Legislature what I did in any negotiated proposition with the company I think -
MR. E. BYRNE: Not entirely though. There is no requirement by this act for you to do that entirely.
MR. FUREY: What I am about to say is that each deal - for example, let's take a hypothesis. Let's take the Baie Verte situation, the magnesium corporation out there, where they are looking to take those tailings and create a huge possibility out there.
Let's say that we struck a deal with them under this Act, and we both agree with it, and we both sign off on it. The details would be made fully public, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. You would have to judge for yourselves then whether in fact we have come to a good arrangement or a bad arrangement. Every one of those deals would be made public. They would have to be made public. I would have to tell the public what power I have used under this act. Whether I have negotiated a good deal or not would be then determined by the public and by the Opposition, I guess, in the Legislature.
Let me just speak to the point about the mining chamber of mineral resources. The Premier and I met them the other day. I am a little concerned about that too. I do not want to appear heavy-handed or to chase away investment. It is a delicate balancing act. Neither do I want to turn and have the courts interpret what is our said policy. It is a delicate balance that we are walking here.
I have given a personal commitment, I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, for any company. Any time, anywhere that they need reassurance from the Minister or the Premier, we are happy to go and speak to their investors, or speak to them here if they want to come to the Province.
This is not about driving investment away. It is about getting our resource management right, and it is about time we got it right. In fact, in this climate, in just the last couple of days, if you have read, Altius Minerals have attracted one of the largest corporations in the company ##tech to put $2 million in their company. I do not think we are chasing investment away.
Am I concerned that a kind of mob mentality may set up and say: Newfoundland is a bad place, a banana republic? I suppose some of the bullies on Bay Street could attempt to do that, but I am not worried about that. I saw in The National Post today the President of Inco saying: We will leave it there for five years. Well, we will leave it there for five years.
MR. E. BYRNE: I was just asked about it out there too. I guess that is their decision.
MR. FUREY: Right, but we are not going to be stampeded into doing a deal that generations from now will look at us as legislators and say: This was a stupid deal. We are not going to be stampeded by people who are threatening us, but I get your concern, I get your point. It is going to require hard work on our part.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I would just like to concur with the minister. No, nor should we be stampeded into a development that is not in the best interest of all of us for generations to come. I don't think there is anybody in this Legislature who would disagree with that approach.
I guess from the point of view of the assurances that need to be provided to the people who are operating outside of the present stalemate, if I could put it in those terms, that a business as usual approach can be adopted in terms of exploration. Because there are many exciting things happening in the mining industry. There have been many exciting things happening, in particular, in the last three to four years in terms of exploration activity, the number of find that have occurred, the number of people who have been employed as the result of exploration.
Because this Province has been generally seen as one of the best places to do business with respect to exploration in the country. I think the minister would concur with that. I think all of us have to provide whatever assurances we can, in terms of if we ever need to invoke any section of this particular act, that it is seen to be done and done, where there is no other alternative left before us.
Section 5.31.1 (3): "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order exempt the holder of a lease from completing primary production, in whole or in part, in the province, on those terms and conditions as may be prescribed by that order and may rescind that order."
I guess that is the flip side of what you are talking about, so that if a legitimate, bona fide set of circumstances present themselves by where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, the government of the day, see that there are reasonable circumstances that have presented themselves, they may, on the other side, provide latitude to the company.
I know that this may seem somewhat repetitive, but this is our opportunity to debate the bill. You have been at it for two months, in terms of putting the legislation together. You have had a team of people on it, both lawyers from the Department of Justice and outside legal counsel. It has been layered against certainly NAFTA agreements and others to ensure that what is here is here, that it is not going to require any other amendments or close up any more loopholes. It is important from my point of view as Leader of the Opposition, who represents the Opposition, to get as much clarification as possible.
Section 31.1 (4): "For the purpose of this Act, `primary production' means production resulting from smelting, processing or refining a mineral or mineral ore and includes the concentrating and milling of any mineral or mineral ore and all metallurgical operations in which metal or minerals are separated from those impurities with which they may be chemically combined or physically mixed." It is pretty clear who this is aimed at, I would think.
MR. FUREY: Yes. That section, did you want me to speak to this?
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, if you could.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: The hon. gentleman is correct, that subsection (3) does allow us to exempt somebody from a lease. In the case, for example - if you needed an example to look at - if this bill were applicable to the Voisey's Bay copper situation, because the copper concentrate coming off Voisey's Bay is about 62,000 metric tons, and what is required to get a copper smelter going would be roughly 140,000 metric tons, if the lease were to be issued under this particular arrangement with Voisey's Bay, we would use this section to exempt copper in that circumstance. Simply because it would not be economically justified on the basis of smelting with volumes that you could not (inaudible) to sustain the economic argument.
Primary production. That definition pretty well mirrors what was in the 1995 amendment, so I don't think there is much to be said about that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The flip side could hold true too, Minister.
MR. FUREY: Pardon?
MR. E. BYRNE: If a set of circumstances present themselves where a company, any company, tables information that says it is not viable to proceed on the basis of the terms and conditions as set out by the act or by the powers that we are now giving the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and the government presents its own set of figures which says it is viable, but clearly they are on two different perspectives, where is the recourse? Cabinet has all full authority then to say to the company: Whether you think it is viable or not. Our approach is what matters here. That is clearly where -
MR. FUREY: Absolutely correct.
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.
On motion, clause 5 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 6, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Clause 6, "Section 32 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"32. The minister shall, upon being satisfied upon reasonable cause shown that a lessee is unable to comply with the obligations contained in subparagraph 31(5)(b)(ii), relieve the lessee of the obligations for a period and on the terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate."
Would you like to make some -
MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) flip side of the equation, on variance. That really speaks to the whole issue of variance, that if the company came to us and said: Look, you have restricted us in certain ways that we must comply with this lease.
We need to be able to have the ability to sit down with them for a period of time to say: Look... All that is doing is giving effect to the previous (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I just want to be clear on it.
On motion, clause 6, carried.
CHAIR: Clause 7, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Clause 7, "Subsection 35(1) of the Act is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (a) the following:
"(a.1) that the lessee has failed to comply with an order made under section 31.1;".
MR. FUREY: Clauses 6, 7 and 8 basically bring the act in line with the amendments.
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, so do you want to do clause 7?
On motion, clause 7, carried.
CHAIR: Clause 8, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Clause 8, "Section 38 of the Act is amended by renumbering it as subsection 38(1) and by adding immediately after that subsection the following:
"(2) The board does not have the jurisdiction to hear or determine a question, matter or dispute relating to an order made under section 31.1 or to the cancellation of a lease where that cancellation results from an order made under section 31.1."
Essentially what we have done is that we have eliminated the independent right to appeal. As I see it, any criticism levied at any other section of the act really is not - while they may be legitimate and assurance is given, this is the section of the act that really closes the door, I think, for any independent right to appeal any decision.
Now, I know the language in what we are repealing and what we are - because we are taking it out of there altogether and saying that the board has no right to determine... I will just read it again so I am clear:
"(2) The board does not have the jurisdiction to hear or determine
a question, matter or dispute relating to an order made under
section 31.1 or to the cancellation of a lease where that
cancellation results from an order made under section 31.1."
AN HON. MEMBER: It means Cabinet has supreme power.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well it means that as I see it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: There is no recourse. This is correct, there is no recourse with respect to this section. Fundamentally I guess, Minister, in every other legislation that we have passed in the House of Assembly - current legislation - whether it deals with, say, the Workers' Compensation Commission, where there is a dispute arising out of - either by the employer or employee, where there is a dispute, where either of those groups have, with a decision made by the commission - and this is just one example. The Labour Relations Board is another one. There are many, many examples: independent appeal boards, agricultural boards, and the list goes on per department, as he knows.
I guess from the point of view, have we circumvented a notion by where I know that the board - could we not have drafted up softer language which would have allowed the board to have jurisdiction to adhere and to make recommendations to Cabinet as opposed to actually decide upon it in term of if a dispute -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is the concern. This is an important part of the debate because in terms of the other sections of the act where the industry has problems, at least at some level they know within the legislation there is an opportunity for some sort of non-partisan, independent - I would not say hearing, it does not necessarily have to be hearing - process would take place where both parties - and it could be government; the cloth cuts both ways... I would like the minister to elaborate on that because as I see it, if I have a problem with any clause in this particular piece of legislation, it is with that one and that one only.
I understand the public policy thrust. I understand that we as legislators all have to be accountable, ultimately, because that is what we are going to be judged by at the end of the day no matter what side of the Legislature we sit on. To disallow some sort of right to an independent appeal strikes me as being maybe overly heavy-handed in this case. I would just like the minister to elaborate on why government came to that view with this particular clause, and why it was so absolutely necessary. In elaborating, could he indicate, too, what legal advice was in terms of maybe softening what existed there in terms of making recommendations as opposed to?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: To the Leader of the Opposition, the short answer to that is lawyers. I can elaborate on that if you want.
The problem was: Under section 38 of the bill there was a Mineral Rights Adjudication Board. That is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking about. It has never been used, by the way.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Mineral Rights Adjudication Board has never been used because my understanding of the act as it presently exists, before we repeal it is -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is the trouble, John, that it might end up in a set of hands like yours, I say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Seriously speaking, while you are right, that has never met because you must refer it, as minister. Is that correct?
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: My understanding of the present act is that if you do not refer it then it will never meet anyway. Is that correct?
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: I understand. It has never met but at least, from a pure investment point of view and investment climate point of view, it provided I guess for those seeking capital in terms of exploration and other activities related to the mining industry provided within the legislative framework that they have to operate. It does not necessarily circumvent government policy, or question it, but it provides the opportunity, if something should arise. Obviously it has not because the Department of Mines and Energy has been successful in negotiating with companies. That is why it has never met.
I will sit down and let the minister take whatever time is necessary.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, the advice again we took from the lawyers, and they are the ones we were relying on - unfortunately you have to rely on lawyers sometimes - told us that under section 31, which is the power for the government to determine on what conditions a mine can proceed into production - and those would be negotiated. It is not government coming in and beating up on a company. It is government looking at all of the economic feasibility surrounding a mine: the investment, the jobs. We incorporate all of that into that. We were told that if you pass any of that, that right, that direction, under section 31.1, to a third party to adjudicate, then it opens up the whole opportunity for a court to interpret what the government meant. We want it to be very clear what the government meant.
Section 31 gives us the ability to set down in law the way we want a mine developed. We are not going to pass it - the lawyers tell us not to pass it - to a third party, not to allow under section 38 a Minerals Adjudication Board to adjudicate under appeal what is the government's policy and right to set in law. All we are doing is removing any opportunity for interpretation by the courts.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, have you done that though?
MR. FUREY: Yes, we have. Well, we have not; we will.
MR. E. BYRNE: In leaving that process in place, or putting in language such as allowing the board - if it was ever referred to by you, because you had to refer it in the first place to make recommendations - are you in fact leaving yourself open to the board? You can refer what you want to refer. Are you in fact leaving open, basically, because you defined up front, in all other aspects of the legislation, what your power is in law.
MR. FUREY: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: So in terms of reference to the court - it is a hypothetical situation we are discussing, I understand that, but the court can only interpret what we pass as legislators in the House. The rest of the legislation seems very solid. We have closed the loopholes. We have strengthened the language, and that is where support generally comes from in terms of all other clauses; but are we taking not only the right but the appearance of a right to an independent partisan view?
The other side of this too is that it opens up - and this is where we get into, and the minister I can count on to - the opportunity for even companies who may be marginal, could be operating in specific districts, it opens up the notion of political interference. I am not saying that it would happen. You can comment on it, but it does. It opens the door.
I am not pointing the finger and saying it is going to happen, that the present Minister of Mines and Energy or this government are going to do it. That is not what I am talking about, because the legislation that we pass here on any given subject or topic or matter goes far beyond us here in terms of its implications for those after the next election who will be here, or whatever the case may be, but we have opened up the door for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make decisions - maybe of a political nature - with respect to companies that are operating in the Province in a number of districts.
I find it scary, it is true, to remove the right. I don't think - and maybe the minister can comment on this - I am not convinced that based upon all the other amendments that we have made - I don't know if the Leader of the NDP would like to comment on it because we are eliminating what appears to be a fundamental right within the system that we have right now.
I will just sit down because I -
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a few comments on this. I have some concerns obviously about giving the executive total, ultimate power on this. On the other hand, I do sympathize with what the minister is saying about - when you pass over a jurisdiction to a third party there is some question as to what you have passed over and what you have not, whether it be to a board or in the case of a mineral jurisdiction what could happen. I think that most members would want this Legislature to be ultimately in charge of our natural resources.
This is the problem I was discussing the other day, when we talk about - if you give the executive all the power then the executive can certainly do whatever it wants in the sense of protecting the resources but it can also go the other way and be walked over by a company that has more power or more influence over the executive than it should have, whether it be for political reasons or other reasons. I don't know if the solution would be to - instead of just giving that power over into legislation and leaving it with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, perhaps it would be appropriate to ensure that any arrangements that are made with a company to carry out a mineral development, based on the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's dictates, should be subject to or be ratified by the House of Assembly, be brought before the House, so that the principles and the particular proposal can in fact be debated.
Now there is lots of legislation in our books ratifying agreements between the government and Anglo-Newfoundland Development Corporation, right on up. There is a whole section of the - if you look in the index in the Statutes, called Private Legislation, that ratifies agreement between the government and various developers on the conditions of particular developments. It seems to me that if there were processes like that, the government could go ahead and establish what it considered to be fair and reasonable conditions for development but that they would be subject to the ratification of this House, being brought before this House, so that the matter could be debated here. If you pass it over to a so-called independent third body you get into all kinds of jurisdictional issues. I think it is a danger that the people, through its elected representatives, would in fact lose control.
I sympathize with what you were saying, but at the same time I think that the ultimate decision maker has to be the people of Newfoundland, through this Legislature, not necessarily the government which is not really accountable until four years down the road. One might say the government always has a majority and they can bring any agreement they want into the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: That may be. They can bring whatever they want.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) something to this Legislature, or if you do a deal, it is going (inaudible). Surely the greatest (inaudible) is right here. I mean, you have the opportunity (inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Yes, but if it is put before this Legislature - some might say: Yes, you do have a majority and you can bring what you want to the Legislature, but that does not mean that it is going to get passed. If it is something that cannot stand up to the kind of scrutiny that this Legislature would give it, then -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Other than a motion of non-confidence in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). For example, let's go back to 1972 (inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Yes, but that was closing the barn door after the horse was gone, though, and the commitments were made. If you go back and look at the issue of bridge financing for the Come By Chance oil refinery, for example, because it had to be ratified by this House, and it was brought in by the government, and the government passed it.
AN HON. MEMBER: The government passed it.
MR. HARRIS: The government passed the legislation in the House of Assembly and they did so with political consequences that, as you say, may have flowed a couple of years later. They still had to bring it to the Legislature. They couldn't do it by Order in Council, behind closed doors, without the full agreement being made public and without the full agreement being ratified by the House of Assembly.
The Government House Leader says it doesn't matter whether the Cabinet does it or whether this Legislature does it. I have to disagree with him on any number of levels. Of course it matters. It matters whether it is the decision of the Executive Council or whether it is the decision of this Legislature. Because if it is the decision of this Legislature, there is an opportunity for all the elected people, not just the people who are chosen to be in the Cabinet, to have a say on it. If the government proposes to enter into a deal that -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: It is a question of political process. Are we going to have this Legislature have the final say on what is a pretty wide reaching power on the part of government, or are we going to let government go ahead and do what it likes and announce it to the people, and if the people want to throw them out in the next election they can do it? I think there has to be some balance between something being spelled out in the Legislature and the kind of flexibility that government is seeking here, and the right or duty of this Legislature to examine major public policy issues. I do not think that is met be giving total power to the Executive through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment on this. I am sure this discussion (inaudible). What I am concerned about, and I would like to make the point to the minister, is that when we are talking about the mining industry we are talking about investment, as I spoke about many times here today. The truth is there is still guesswork going on, whichever way you look at it right now. The government of today are hoping, and we could argue that the jurisdiction and the legalities of this are going to get mixed up and there will be arguments down the road.
I guess mostly what we are talking about is what is in the Province right now. My concern, and it should be the government's concern, and I am sure it is everybody's concern, is that we can argue this point all day, but the point is that we need investment for future exploration and development in this Province. Really the question is - and I guess the minister cannot really answer it because only time is going to tell - that from the rebuttal we have had, from calls we have received, people who called us and so on, and we have met with some groups, the bottom line is: Is this going to turn off investment in this particular part?
We do not really know that. I am hoping it doesn't. Like we have said, we support generally the concept of the whole bill, but at the end of the day I hope the minister is right. I am putting forward the argument. I just want to raise it as a concern, as a point, and as a matter of fact. Time is really going to tell us what this holds in store for us. The concern I raise with this particular part of the bill, as I read it over and over, and with the people I have talked to, is: Are the investors that are out there now that have not come into the Province, the ones we are waiting for to do different exploration companies in Central and Eastern Newfoundland and so on, is this at the end of the day saying to them it is a closed shop, and that because of this particular part of the legislation it is going to turn off future investments?
That is a question, I guess, we can debate all day, whether the jurisdiction and the legalities are going to be arguments for people, Voisey's Bay and the other mining companies, that are here now. Because it can be retroactive. The investment down the road, is this going to be a turnoff to that? That is why I think we should be very careful in that. Because if we do turn off that tap and that possibility, then we see future investments in this Province by the mining industries, well, this could be a stopgap for them and a reason for them to back out of it. That is what we are really worried about. I have to tell the minister I am sincerely worried about that as I listen to mining companies discuss this piece of legislation.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, let me just put it in perspective here. If this legislation is passed what it means is that the government can sit down in the back rooms, meeting rooms and negotiating rooms, whether they are here or in Montreal, Toronto or wherever, and make a deal with Inco, establish their requirements, and say: Here is the deal, we have discussed it back and forth and we have now reached a deal. There well be give and take on this and that, but they make a deal. They say: Based on this deal here are our requirements for the project. We spell them out, issue an Order in Council, and after that is all over then it is made public. We, the people of Newfoundland, through our Cabinet, have made the following rules and regulations and made the following deal. Alright?
Is that what the people of this Legislature want? Is that what the people of this Province want? Or do they want to have the final say through the Legislature that an agreement and a deal of that nature will be subject to be ratified by the House of Assembly?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: The member knows that the Legislature can raise whatever it wants at any time during question period, during debate, and then go out and raise it publicly. I think my friend said the ultimate court is the court of public opinion from which we all derive our very existence as elected members.
Ultimately we can be thrown out if we are doing bad deals. I am not sure we should be running to the Legislature for every small or medium-size mine, or anything to do with our resources in terms of the Mineral Act. What you are saying is we should table everything prior to signing off on it. I do not think that is practical or reasonable.
Deals that we have done, that came under immense scrutiny - the Transshipment Terminal came under huge scrutiny. I think at the end of the day we did okay. It is a $200 million project.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: No, there is $200 million. There are about 1,000 people for the last year-and-a-half. Now there will be about fifty full-time and twenty-five part-time jobs, I think.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many?
MR. FUREY: Fifty on the two tugs, the transport tugs and the Transshipment Terminal.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Don't take me off track here now. It is an example of how you can do a deal and how it can come under scrutiny and how we are accountable.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: You are painting a boogeyman that somehow we are going to cook something behind closed doors and come out. If we do, or if some future government does, you will pay a political price for it. I think that is the ultimate court.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Right now it is not painting a boogeyman because it is one that already exists in this sense. Cabinet makes deals every day. More often than not, the people in this Legislature, particulary those who are not within the government party, we find out when the rest of the public finds out. That is the reality of the situation. To put in the general argumentative point that: If we do something that really is not in the best interest of people then the electorate will get us again four years later, is not good enough, I say to the minister.
Surely, a mechanism that contains some accountability and checks and balance by where we do not get in a situation where government can make those types of decisions, so that four years from now the electorate can be that upset that they throw a government out because of a bad deal we made. I would be more concerned about putting a system in place, legislation and otherwise, that ensures there are checks and balance up front so that no bad deal is ever made. That is the point I guess we are trying to make, or that I am trying to make. As to the notion that the House should not be accountable if we do not know every detail, well, we do not know every detail that goes on in Cabinet. It is not the way it works, I say to the minister.
The point I am trying to make is this. You have made all the necessary amendments in the legislation to tighten up the language and close the loopholes. Is it absolutely necessary to take the heavy hand of taking away the appeals or the perception of appeal process? You have said it yourself, the power rests with you as Minister and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to refer a matter to the appeal board or to the adjudication board.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that, but is it satisfactory enough to eliminate it altogether, just take it out of there? A situation may never arise, but we may never know if it has arisen or not.
MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?
MR. FUREY: It is for purposes of section 31.1, clause 8.
MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of the court, does this open us up to a court challenge? You have defined the legislation as it exists anyway, so the court can only interpret what you have here. You have closed the loopholes legally, so to speak.
MR. FUREY: But the court could interpret what the minerals adjudication under 31.1 has said about any particular section.
MR. SULLIVAN: Not only if they have powers for recommendation.
MR. E. BYRNE: The point I am making now is that as it currently exists now, Minister, you are right, but if the adjudication board has the power to recommend only to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, no legal authority, but it provides - do you want to go ahead?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: This is not me as minister inventing this or Cabinet inventing it.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I know.
MR. FUREY: This is the best legal advice we could get to, for lack of a better word, bulletproof ourselves in legislation so that any policy direction we give or set is not altered or varied or interpreted otherwise by a court. I heard the Leader of the NDP say that he would agree with that, that if a policy were to come into place, maximum benefits for our resources, you do not want a third party to interpret that.
That was the only point I was making. In my own defence, I can only say to you that the lawyers we hired - and they are very good, incredible people - said: In order to make sure that section is absolutely bulletproof you must remove that section from any minerals adjudication board, and therefore for any future interpretation by any future court that may want to interpret what they said.
CHAIR: Shall clause 8 carry?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Could I ask the House Leader a quick question?
This is the only section of the Act that we have some questions on. The minister has provided more information than we had before, obviously to force a debate. Is it possible to just take a five minute recess and come back? Just five minutes? Based upon new information that the minister has provided to me, I would just like to take five minutes to reflect upon it. Just for a few moments and come back. Because the rest of the act there are no problems with. Five or six minutes, that is all. Say five minutes. Would that be fine? Ask the Committee just to rise.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Let the clock run?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by leave of the House (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Just by leave. Five minutes.
CHAIR: The Chair will recess the House for five minutes.
Recess
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: I just want to make sure that everybody understands, and I am sure you do, but just for clarity: section 8, which deals with amending the adjudication board, that is only in relation to section 31.1 which gives the Cabinet the power to set the conditions. Now the adjudications board normally, when I said we have not referred anything, or there has not been any reference - there has not been - it is normally dealing with claim staking disputes. Most of the disputes happen pre-1990, before we brought map staking into effect, which happened on the Island, I think, in 1994 and in Labrador after 1990. That is where the bulk of those disputes were. That is why that board was constituted and why it would be brought together.
What we are saying here, and what the lawyers are telling us, is that if there is a reference at some future point - I am not saying I would refer, but if a minister used this legislation because he was pressured to - to pass this authority over to this appeals board, then it opens up the whole question for interpretation by a court or a future court. That is the problem with it from a legal perspective.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have debated it. I am not going to hold up - if I can get the minister's attention just for a minute.
I hear what the minister is saying. I understand it relates to the section that he referenced. I still think there is a way by which we can still allow this adjudication board, as opposed to not giving it the teeth it necessarily has now but just the teeth to make recommendations, it could cut the other way, Minister. It could cut where this could be in the government's interest and the people's interest.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and for the benefit of the Province and others interest in further demonstrating the case.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: I understand what the hon. member is saying. I am not a lawyer myself.
MR. E. BYRNE: Neither am I.
MR. FUREY: Thank God. But the lawyers - and there were a significant team of lawyers both from downtown and senior lawyers, James Chalker and some others, Green - and some people from the Department of Justice are telling us that the only way to make this bulletproof is to eliminate any possibility of any reference to 31.1 by a separate adjudication board. Now if you have a legal opinion or some legal opinions that differ with that, perhaps you can show them to me.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Given the resources -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to sound trite now, but given the resources at our disposal - we are fortunate to have the Member for St. John's East at our disposal, as a lawyer. I think it is important enough that -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I would like to make an amendment -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I would just like to make an amendment and to preface it by this. I am not going to belabour debate any more on the amendment that I am about to make because we have all - your position is clear, our position is clear, but for the record I would like to make an amendment that basically -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, clause 8 of Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, which is now before the House, be amended by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and (inaudible) therefore that the board shall have the jurisdiction - and here is the difference -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) subsection (2).
MR. E. BYRNE: The proposed subsection (2), and substituting the following: therefore the board - now it is different than what it exists now, but - the board shall have the jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a question, matter or dispute relating to an order made under section 31.1 and to the cancellation of a lease where the cancellation results from an order made under Section 31.1.
So it does not give the power to the board -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: All it does is gives the board, if you so choose to refer it to a board, the power to recommend.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) look at the wording of the...
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, did you want to look at this amendment to see if it is in order first?
CHAIR: The Chair has not yet seen it.
MR. FUREY: Yes, sorry.
CHAIR: The amendment is in order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour this either but again I can tell you that the wording that we have here came from the team of legal advisers that we have.
As I look at this, the Board shall have the jurisdiction to hear. Well if they hear something, obviously whatever it is they hear could be interpreted by a court; and we are removing any interpretation.
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All opposed, `nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.
On motion, Clause 8 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 9, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
On motion, Clauses 9 and 10 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 11, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could ask the minister just to make a quick point on clause 11: "45. An action or proceeding, including an action or proceeding for compensation or damages, shall not lie against the Crown for or in respect of a matter or dispute relating to an order made under section 31.1..."
Again, you are eliminating any possible recourse by any company, in any situation, to hold the people of the Province liable, whether it be for $1 or $1 billion. Is that what you are saying?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
On motion, Clause 11, carried.
CHAIR: Clause 12, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 12(1): "A right, privilege, obligation or liability vested, acquired, accruing, accrued or incurred by a person under the Mineral Act..." - who writes this stuff up? - "...with respect to a lease under the Mineral Act which has not been issued under the ..." "...vested, acquired, accruing, accrued or incurred on or after January..." This is the retroactive piece. Do you want to provide just some explanation on it?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: This is to ensure - again the lawyers gave us advice - that we capture everything under the Voisey's Bay, which goes right back from Diamond Fields, back to Archean, to make sure there is no uncertainly, no dispute, no interpretation, that it captures every single part of that particular development.
On motion, clauses 11 through 14, carried.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill No. 38).
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 38 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bill 38 carried without amendment.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said Bill be read a third time?
AN HON. MEMBER: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill No. 38.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 38).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, tomorrow we will proceed to do Committee on the other bills, and then proceed to the bill in the name of the Minister of Health and Community Services. I forget the exact number of it now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: Bill 37, An Act Respecting Child, Youth and Family Services.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.
***********************************************************************