The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to offer congratulations to the City of Mount Pearl on being awarded first place at the recent Economic Developers Association of Canada's National Conference in the 2002 Marketing Canada Awards category.

When we note that Mount Pearl's community profile is among 256 submissions in this national competition, it is indeed a significant recognition of the depth and the well-structured and comprehensive details included in the document.

The Economic Developers Association's mandate and mission is to enhance the professional competency of development professionals and thereby to advance economic development in communities across Canada.

The Marketing Canada Awards program is open to those organizations which undertake to promote and market Canada's provinces, its territories, regions, cities and towns with a view to improving the economic well-being of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Mrs. Bronda Alyward, the Economic Development Officer for the City of Mount Pearl and her staff. Their professional dedication and expertise are commendable.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House will want to join me in offering congratulations to the City of Mount Pearl and its Economic Development Office on receiving this prestigious national award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently a number of people from the District of Port de Grave and the Conception Bay North area received the prestigious Queen's Jubilee Medal.

The medal was presented by Bonavista-Trinity-Conception MP John Efford to six people from the Port de Grave District. They were: Mrs. Effie Boone, Mr. Walter Baggs, Mr. Augustus Mercer, Elizabeth and Eric Jerrett, and a former Member of this hon. House of Assembly, Mr. John Crane.

Although they are not from the district I represent, I would also like to mention the names of the other people in the Conception Bay North area who were also presented with this medal. They were: Mr. Max Hussey, Mr. Byron Rodway, Mr. Eugene Hurley, Mr. Robert Moore and Mr. Elihu Antle.

Mr. Speaker, the recipients of the award were selected from across the country in celebration of Queen Elizabeth's 50^th Anniversary. The medal is given to people recognized for making outstanding contributions to the community and Canada as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join me in congratulating the recipients of this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this house today to congratulate the Clarenville Cougars 4A high school volleyball team. The Clarenville Cougars had the biggest win of their career when recently they claimed the provincial 4A high school volleyball title.

This team has won the Grade 9 provincial volleyball titles, midget B titles and the midget A titles, together with a volleyball title, the provincial midget plus banners. A very accomplished team of volleyball players, Mr. Speaker.

These thirteen players, along with their coach, Randy Manning, and assistant coaches, Nancy Newman and Joe Wells, have been very active in their playing careers, playing in over thirty tournaments in this Province as well as throughout mainland Canada.

Mr. Speaker, many of these players have been together for three to four years now. They demonstrate a keen enthusiasm for the game and exhibit tremendous sportsmanship. They are a shining example of what hard work, dedication and teamwork can produce.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that these attributes will stay with these young men for the rest of their lives and I ask all members of this House to join with me today in congratulating the Clarenville Cougars 4A high school volleyball team for winning the provincial 4A championship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring attention to Labrador's 27^th annual Creative Arts Festival, which was held in Goose Bay during the week of November 13-19. This festival gives students and individuals all across Labrador a chance, not only to express, but to appreciate the arts displayed by the people of Labrador.

This event was founded in 1974, by Tim Borlase, and each year a festival is held to celebrate art. Today, the festival consists of a combination of plays, storytelling, writing, and networking. Each evening of the festival, students, along with some of the artists, are highlighted in a showcase. Whether it be in the form of a play or a portrait, each individual has the opportunity to display their work.

Mr. Speaker, the Arts Festival is a wonderful event. It gives students the opportunity to show and sell their work, as well, it encourages and supports their interest to continue study in that field. On top of all this, art is an indicator of mental health in a community, and by having this annual festival, community ties can be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to show appreciation to the organizers of this annual arts festival, and give recognition to Mr. Tim Borlase, the founder of this event, for creating such a wonderful tradition that is enjoyed by all Labradorians today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to extend congratulations to Mr. Todd Russell who has been re-elected President of the Labrador Metis Nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The competency that Mr. Russell exhibits was reflected in the percentage of votes he attained at the annual general meeting held in Mary's Harbour last month.

The Labrador Metis Nation is working to promote and establish a climate where the interests of the Metis people are taken into account and where business opportunities are open to them. Mr. Russell and the Labrador Metis Nation are active promoters of the Metis community, taking a creative role in managing its resources for future generations and maintaining as well and cultivating the spectacular Metis culture.

One example of how the Labrador Metis have recently collaborated with the provincial government is in an agreed memorandum to participate in forest management in the areas that are impacted such as Port Hope Simpson, Lake Melville and Cartwright. In this process, Mr. Russell and the Labrador Metis Nation have tried to incorporate guarantees that these forest initiatives transpire in a sustainable and respectful way pertaining to the Metis people and their land.

I would also like to congratulate other members elected to the Metis council, which include: Bernard Heard, Jim Learning, Don Dyson, Percy Davis, Kirk Lethbridge, John Martin, Edwin Heard, Nina Pye, Guy Poole, Beatrice Hancock, Edward Turnbull, Lorenda Campbell and Bonnie Burt.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in wishing Mr. Russell and the other members of the Labrador Metis Nation well in the imperative work they do for their people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past three weeks or more, oil from a leaking and, ultimately foundered tanker, the Prestige, has fouled the coastal waters and the northwest coast of Spain. As a result, there has been and continues to be environmental and economic hardship - wildlife, fish and shellfish harvesters and markets, the tourism industry and the residents of the coastal communities have been dramatically affected by the pollution.

We, in this Province, must learn from this unfortunate incident.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that we have arranged for a delegation from this Province to tour the spill sites and to meet with the key people and agencies involved in the response to the spill. The delegation will consist of government officials, spill clean up contractors, the fishing industry, wildlife recovery teams, townspeople, and the insurance industry.

The site visits are being planned with the input and advice of our colleagues in the Government of Spain and the Canadian Embassy and will take place as soon as practical, anticipated to be within thirty days.

Mr. Speaker, there are lessons to be learned from all aspects of this situation. In recognition of this, the delegation from the Province will include representatives from government, industry and a non-governmental environmental organization. The delegation will include representation from the Departments of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Mines and Energy. It is significant that senior personnel from various parts of the petroleum industry in this Province have indicated that they will participate in this fact finding mission. Mr. Speaker, representatives from offshore production, tanker operations, transhipment and refinery operations have indicated that they intend to be part of the delegation.

I continue to demand, and this government continues to demand, that the federal agencies increase resources to prevent such incidents as have occurred off the Coast of Spain. We have pushed for increased surveillance, increased fines, the accelerated introduction of the Automatic Identification System in Canadian waters, and mandatory sea lanes further offshore from our coasts. We have also strongly endorsed a risk analysis to fully examine the risk posed by all vessels travelling in Placentia Bay and along our entire South Coast.

Recently, the federal government has agreed to initiate this risk analysis. I have indicated to the federal minister our strong interest in this risk analysis and requested a direct role for the Province on a Steering Committee for this significant study.

Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to reduce the risk of an oil spill off our coasts to zero, but we must learn the lessons and seek the means that will reduce this risk to the maximum extent that we can.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Newfoundland Armada, I say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister's sudden concern to this issue is astounding. Let me remind him of some of the responses that I have received to my repeated demands over the past five years regarding this issue. The former Premier, Brian Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have an industry, we have an emergency plan. It is already in place. It is administered through the C-NOPB, the federal/provincial government, the private sector, the offshore oil and gas industry, the Come By Chance Oil Refinery. The equipment is here in Newfoundland. The costs are already covered. We should be happy the work is already done.

The former Minister of Environment: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for St. John's South stood before the House of Assembly and implied in his questions to government that there were inadequate measures in place to address the potential for an environmental emergency such as an oil spoil, that might occur as a result of the offshore oil production activity. The people of this Province need to know there is, in fact, a great deal of planning and equipment in place in this Province.

The Minister of Environment: There are plans in place in the event of a spill; we will be well taken care of.

The Minister of Environment, again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not say whether he was going to Spain or not. I hope when the delegation goes to Spain, his actually goes to Ottawa and tries to solve some of the problems that we are continuing to have even today, as recently as two weeks ago, with bilge water and oil from bilge water being pumped on our shores. We have very low fines, paltry compared to the United States. We have a RADARSAT technology that is going to expire in February. We have the Coast Guard unable to patrol. These problems have yet to be solved, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister, instead of going to Spain, goes to Ottawa to try to get them solved.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, in a news release dated December 5 of this year, Inco said, and I quote, "this news release contains forward-looking statements regarding the Company and its Goro nickel-cobalt project and the Voisey's Bay project. Actual results and developments may differ materially from those contemplated by these statements depending on, among others, such key factors as business and economic conditions in the principal markets for the Company's products, the supply and demand for nickel and other metals, the completion and results of a comprehensive review of the capital costs, scope, schedule, and other key aspects of the Goro project," - and, finally - "the completion and results of a feasibility study for the Voisey's Bay project."

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that as recently as last week Inco is acknowledging that actual results and developments may differ materially based on comprehensive reviews and results of a feasibility study on the Voisey's Bay project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer, of course, is no. The fact of the matter is - and the Leader of the Opposition knows this, but again it doesn't stop him from trying to describe it as something different - just about every single word that he used and read out is a standard disclaimer that is used by every major company and corporation that are traded on the stock market. When they try to speak to the public, because they are publicly traded companies, they are advised by their legal counsel, and they all do it. It is a standard disclaimer given to suggest that what they are saying today is their best information today, but they cannot be held liable for it in fifteen years, twenty years or thirty years, because some things might change.

So, there is nothing to be alarmed about, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing extraordinary. It is an ordinary standard disclaimer used in every public pronunciation by publicly traded companies, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know what a disclaimer means. I wonder if the Premier knows what a disclaimer means. A disclaimer means no guarantee, no safeguards, we claim no responsibility whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what a disclaimer means, standard or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate last June we pointed out the importance of the fact that feasibility studies were an integral component of the Statement of Principles and a way out for Inco. Yesterday I asked the Premier if Inco could walk away from their commitment on a hydromet plant on the basis of economic feasibility, and he said, absolutely, positively not.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree, upon reflecting overnight, under Article 4.6, that if a hydromet plant is not economically feasible then it will not be constructed in Argentia or anywhere else for that matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess the Leader of the Opposition wants to have the same debate that we had in June month when we had a special session of the Legislature and dealt with these things at length and in-depth for the full period of time. That is why there are provisions that suggest that the hydromet plant is subject to technical feasability, that is in the legally binding agreements, and there is a whole mechanism by which they look at whether or not the technology works. Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel don't get to make that determination, Mr. Speaker. Others decide whether the technology works. Then, if the technology does not work, it is not anything to do with financing, Mr. Speaker. If the technology doesn't work they go ahead and build the other plant. That is what is in the legally binding agreements. That is what the people of Argentia know, that is what the people of the Province know. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to try to make somebody believe that something else happens to be possible but it is not possible, Mr. Speaker. These are the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could point out to the Premier that in the decision process the term decision materials is used. Decision materials are the feasibility study and all other information and data in the proponents possession, Inco's possession, including information on data generated by its advisers and its consultants. Inco will determine whether it is economically feasible or not.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone from a smelter to a hydromet to a nickel matte or some other facility. Yesterday I asked the Premier why the words committed to process Voisey's Bay concentrate in the Province had been deleted from the signed deal. He replied that it is guaranteed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that it absolutely must be processed in Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier now confirm that if there is a nickel matte facility or some other similar facility then all or 100 per cent of Voisey's Bay concentrate, and not just the ovoid, could leave the Province for processing elsewhere?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the misinformation. I do not understand, for the life of me, why the Leader of the Opposition wants to try to suggest to the people of the Province something different than is in the legally binding agreements. In the agreements, in section 4.7.3, it states clearly that there will be the appointment of experts - external experts, not Inco's experts - and that the information has to be provided to the government and the experts to decide whether or not it goes ahead, Mr. Speaker. Completely and exactly opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition just tried to make the people of the Province believe was the case.

Mr. Speaker, it is a despicable continuation of what we saw yesterday. Trying to go out and frighten and scare the people of the Province, in this case in particular, in Argentia. They have been calling in today, as I understand it, to let the people know that they are hopeful and optimistic in Argentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: They are not the pessimists that the Leader of the Opposition would like them to be.

Mr. Speaker, they would probably be interested to know whether or not the member for the area shares the line of questioning, and the deep and grave concerns, and the dark and ominous clouds that are over this whole project as described by the Leader of the Opposition, because they sure did not share their view in the vote. One voted for it and one voted against it. Then they hugged and kissed and made up because they parted company for a few minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: So, there is nothing new here, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this. The project is on schedule. It has been tremendously successful to date and we hope it continues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier accused me of trying to impress people, the people of our Province, with details and with numbers. But, unlike the Premier, I feel that numbers and details are very, very important and so do the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, concern was raised by the Opposition during the Voisey's Bay debate that there was no requirement for a blended mining operation of the ovoid and the underground, the guarantee that both would proceed. Would the Premier confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that under article 4.4 and article 4.5 of the signed deal, that this underground mine may not happen if Inco determines otherwise, and that is why paragraph 4.5 starts with the word, if?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am at a great loss as to why the Leader of the Opposition would persist with these misrepresentations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: The Leader of the Opposition knows that those very sections subject the underground mining to the further exploration but it is matched up to - and the real consideration is whether or not the proving up of the reserve meets, not Inco's standards, but national standards that are in place for mining operations all over the country that suggest they can have an underground operation based on proving the reserves to normal national standards. Again, Mr. Speaker, it has been taken out of the hands of Inco to make the decision. The decision to proceed is based on other standards, other factors, that protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I read the definition of sufficient reserves. It means the estimated quantities determined by the proponent in accordance with its methodologies. Inco determines it. Read your agreement, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in article 8 of the Statement of Principles on employment opportunities, it states: the project will create various jobs at various phases. It specifically mentions 800 people in the underground mine operation but yet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In article 3.3.2 of the signed agreement, the similar paragraph on employment deletes any reference to 800 jobs in the underground mine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Premier not agree that although this commitment to create 800 jobs was in the binding Statement of Principles that was presented to this House of Assembly, it has now been omitted because there is no safeguard or guarantee of these jobs at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say, again, is that the Leader of the Opposition out of desperation in trying to find a problem is dead wrong again. Absolutely, positively dead wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, I said it yesterday, and I guess I will have to say it for a few more days if he wants to persist with these kinds of questions. The legally binding commitments strengthen and reinforce all of those that were made in the Statement of Principles. They make them stronger. They make them real. They make them enforceable, and that is the fact of the matter. Now, it is not going to stop the Leader of the Opposition from going out as he did yesterday to get a headline in the paper to suggest that the plant in Argentia might be at risk. All he is interested in is a scare tactic and a headline for a day. We are interested in doing something for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not going to stop me from sticking up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You wanted details, you are going to get details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the last four weeks on the Lower Churchill, disclosure of information is very, very important, and hidden documentation is harmful to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is another new clause added to the deal signed on September 30, which was not in the Statement of Principles in June.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that Article 9.1 renders information confidential which is supplied by Inco with respect to the demonstration plant, the processing plant, the decision on which plant, the force majeure clause, and the dispute resolution process; and, further, that the government has agreed that if it disclosed such information, it is now liable for damages under Article 9.5.2 for simply telling the people of our Province the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the people of the Province are delighted to be discovering all these great loopholes that we have been waiting so long to find, that we are supposed to be able to drive Mack trucks through and so on, because they do not exist, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition has been exposed for what he was at that point in time - someone who made up a story and could not substantiate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, the Leader of the Opposition knows - and this is why it is difficult to deal with these questions and answers, because he asks questions in which he knows the exact opposite of what he is saying is the fact. There is another way to say that but we are not allowed to say it in this Legislature, but let me say it again: He asks a question and implies a certain scenario in which he already knows himself that the exact opposite is the case.

That is hard to deal with because he refuses to acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. He refuses to acknowledges that he knows the exact difference of what he just said, but it does not stop him from saying it.

Mr. Speaker, again, all it outlines is this: that the information is shared with the government. The government has external experts who also judge it, and if Inco does not meet its commitments, the project does not proceed. Those safeguards are built in and it does not have to be disclosed to every single person in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: It is disclosed to the government. It is monitored by an external agent who is also an expert, and then we hold them to meet their commitments, Mr. Speaker. That is what is in the agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, for a man whose motto was: straight answers, straight solutions - no answers, bad solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, under Article 5 of the signed deal with Inco, an event of force majeure can suspend Inco's obligations for as long as that particular event exists.

Mr. Speaker, in my thirty years of looking at legal documents, I have never seen a force majeure clause as open-ended as this one.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that any of the following could suspend Inco's obligations under the agreement: a) - this is in Newfoundland and Labrador now - adverse weather conditions;

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the question, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat the question: Would the Premier confirm that any of the following could suspend Inco's obligations under the agreement: a) adverse weather conditions; b) informal hostilities; c) delay by suppliers of labour, materials, parts or services; d) contractors or sub-contractors shortage or inability to supply labour, equipment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- parts or supplies; e) breakdown of equipment; f) accidents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to conclude his question quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, are these not responsibilities which any other developer, other than Inco, would assume as a natural part of the risk of any project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition is interested in slogans. I would appreciate, if he is going to quote my slogan, that he get it straight. It is: Straight Answers. Real Solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing for some eighteen months. We give the straight answers and we find some real solutions. We do not go around with bogeymen and scare tactics. We deal with issues and we find a way to make things work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We do not spend out lives living in the past, afraid of our own shadows, afraid that some prosperity might come to Northern Labrador, a bit of prosperity might come to Argentia and Placentia, some people in the Province might actually go to work for a change. They would rather have, like the Leader of the Opposition, higher unemployment, more social assistance. That is what they stand for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Do nothing. Sit on your hands. Sit back. Cry foul. Chicken Little, the sky is falling. That is not our motive, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way we operate, but I can tell you this: the force majeure clause, to get to the question - that was just answering the preamble -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The force majeure clause, Mr. Speaker, has been vetted by very, very reputable lawyers from several law firms in Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Mainland of Canada, from Toronto and elsewhere, whose reputations are every bit as good as any lawyer in the country, who have said, for a deal of this magnitude and this size, billions of dollars - not a few million, not a few hundred thousands - billions of dollars, thousands of people spread over thirty, forty, fifty years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - that this is a very normal, acceptable and proper clause to have in this contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be here the next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has, once again, brought another Ontario consulting firm into the Province to cut tens of thousands of dollars from health care boards' budgets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to elaborate on what he is talking about - again, the hon. member stands up and makes a blanket statement. If he wants to ask for specifics, certainly go ahead. In terms of what -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. Member for Ferryland needs to get to his feet and ask a question, because obviously he seems to want to engage in a debate. Obviously, the hon. member, in terms of the question that he has asked - this is part of an ongoing process within the department. It is rather interesting. Any time that we, as a government, or any of our corporations, are asked to be accountable and to try to ensure that the health care dollars that we are being provided, that benefits are being maximized for the people of this Province, the hon. members opposite take great exception to it. Yet, the day before, they are on their feet criticizing the fact that we are wasting money. So, which way do they want it, Mr. Speaker? They cannot have it both ways.

I would suggest to them, that the people of the Province are well aware of the game that they are trying to play.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No, they have not done that, which was his answer.

Can the minister confirm for this House today that senior officials from his department, together with health board CEOs and the unknown and the non-appointed consultant groups met yesterday at Holiday Inn reviewing budgets to look at how they can cut millions of dollars out of the system for next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can confirm that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, in fact, the officials from my department met with the CEOs from throughout the Province, and we have engaged an outside consultant. Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting. The hon. member begins his question, prefaced his remarks, saying: We are looking to save millions of dollars. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to be responsible in the way we allocate and spend the taxpayers' money in this Province.

I would like to know what the hon. members opposite - every other day in this House we are hearing them, and through the medium of television, everyone in this Province is seeing the hon. member opposite, the hon. Member for Ferryland, who is the critic for finance, get up and preach about the fact that we are not being accountable in the way that we are spending the taxpayers' dollar. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are trying to do. I think what is in doubt right here, right now, is what the hon. member opposite and the party that he is part of would do if the roles were reversed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Quite frankly, I do not think anyone in this House knows and I do not think anyone in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder what is wrong with the talent and skills in this Province that you have to be bringing people in from Ontario and paying them. I ask the minister: Will he table in this House the terms of reference for the appointment of the Ontario consultants and how much money he is paying them for this attack, just like the HAY Group did? Will he table those two things in the House at the next sitting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way the hon. member opposite tries to spin this out, that this is really a major undertaking and that this is going to be a tremendous cost to this government and to this department. Quite frankly, what we are undergoing is a very modest review. We have hired someone who can sit with the CEO's and with the officials of the department to try to determine how, in fact, we can best spend the money that is available to us.

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly in this House, and I would say throughout the days, that in meetings with various groups from right throughout this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: - when people are lobbying for additional funds, I am trying to explain to them how we are restricted and what we are able to respond to. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this government is expending, at the present time, nearly one-half of all monies going into the area of health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Everyone in this Province knows it is a priority and we will continue to make it a priority on behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

It is concerning the Labrador Benefits Agreement for workers in Labrador - represented by CUPE, NAPE, the Nurses' Union and teachers - that have expired. Negotiations have been unsuccessful mainly because government is unwilling to recognize the high cost of living in Labrador and the high cost of travel. Currently, employees receive $350 per year travel allowance. I say to the minister, that is not enough to fly from Wabush to Churchill Falls return, much less to St. John's.

Recruitment and retraining has always been an issue in attracting and keeping workers in Labrador with the provincial government. I want to ask the minister: Why is it that this government cannot offer employees a reasonable rate for their Labrador allowance and travel allowance similar like the private sector does and some of the municipalities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the member who asked the question about the negotiation of Labrador benefits, this is a negotiation process like all others with one exception, all the various unions come together, they sit at the table and work towards negotiating an agreement for the Labrador benefits. Like any process, there are various components. At this point in time, there has not been an agreement between those parties and the next stage of the process, as the member opposite probably knows, is conciliation.

To the best of my knowledge, the unions, if they have not already applied, are in the process of applying for conciliation to bring the discussion and the negotiations to a further level. Certainly, it would not be appropriate for me, at this point in time, to discuss ongoing negotiations. What the issues are, that is done between our officials who are quite competent in the area, and the unions also have their issues to address. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, if it has not already been applied for, very soon we will get application to the Labour Relations Board for an appointment of a conciliator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the minister, it is my understanding that conciliation has already taken place and that there is no agreement reached. The minister knows full well that all issues are solved in the negotiations.

The issue of Labrador benefits is not one that the unions can strike on. It is a separate agreement from the regular contract. Let me say to the minister, given the fact that the Labrador Benefits Agreement provides money to workers in Labrador that - you can call it what you like - is part of their salary. I ask the minister if she thinks it is fair that the rest of government workers in this Province received a 15 per cent increase while - if you look at no raise in the Labrador benefits - the workers for this government in Labrador actually are only receiving a 10 per cent benefit? I ask the minister if she thinks that is appropriate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will say for clarification to the Member for Labrador West, that the application will be for conciliation board to the Minister of Labour. That is my understanding. They have worked through some conciliation and now, as you probably already know, they will be applying for conciliation board with the Minister of Labour.

As in any negotiation, whether it is for Labrador benefits or with any of the other individual unions, each of the cases have to be brought forward for the rationale for that. I understand that is part of the process. There is not an automatic increase given for Labrador benefits. It is always based on cost of living, basket of food, all of the things that are part of the process they do to determine the costs associated with living in Labrador. I know this is part of the process that they are going through. The data I am sure is there for the cost of living and the cost of travel. That will be put before the appropriate party and hopefully, very soon, a conclusion will be reached to the outstanding Labrador Benefits Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

PREMIER GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Speaker, point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order arising from Question Period and the approach and the tactics taken by the Leader of the Opposition because it is a continuation from yesterday. To use yesterday's example, Mr. Speaker - this is serious, I know the Leader of the Opposition is laughing at it, but this is very serious. He laughed, Mr. Speaker, that is how serious he takes it.

Yesterday he tried to make the people believe that there was a problem with respect to Argentia for something other than an environmental assessment. When he had read the documents - he claims and I believe him, that he has read all the documents, the Statement of Principles and the legally binding agreements in complete and total detail, several times. Knowing that the only thing that could stand in the way now, in Argentia, would be not passing an environmental assessment - which is the law of the land, that everybody has to go through. He raised that as an issue yesterday.

Today it was relating to several items. The first one was the disclaimer put forward by Inco when they talked about, the results may vary differently in the future. My answer, of course, was that he would know that that is a standard practice. That does not mean there is any problem. That does not mean there is any reason for concern. It is just that a publicly traded company has to say that when they are giving information that is for other than today, and looking into the future, they have to give that disclaimer. He would know it because I hold a communiquè from Rogers Wireless Communications that he probably knows something about, Mr. Speaker. In it - because they are giving forward looking information, there is the cautionary statement regarding forward-looking information. The company cautions that future events and result may vary substantially from what the company currently foresees, Mr. Speaker. The company understands it has an obligation to update and to alter its forward-looking statements when any information is to change.

That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what Inco said at the beginning of their press conference this week, and the Leader of the Opposition stands in the House and suggests that is a major reason for concern, that the sky is falling, that the whole project may fail. So, I would just like for some ruling from the Speaker. I know you could not read his mind in terms of what he was trying to get to, but when a member in this House raises a question knowing the exact opposite of what they are implying with the question is a fact, there must be something wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, under our orders and under our rules, where we are bound to come in here on our honour and tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points in response to the Premier.

First of all, what the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday was for the Premier to confirm that, if certain conditions were not applied - it was question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, and that is correct under the terms.

What is very interesting is that, on his point of order -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not need Hansard, Premier, to put you in your place on a parliamentary point of view, let me tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier, unto himself - the Premier, in rising to a point of order, just rose and made the allegation, and made the assertion, that there has to be something wrong with the Standing Orders of the House, where he accused the Leader of the Opposition, saying that he asked a question which he knew was the exact opposite, and thus imputing motives upon the Leader of the Opposition, which he knows he cannot not do, but he did it anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the point to this is, there is no point of order. We understand that the Premier is having a bad hair day and a bad hair session, but this is a point of frustration more than anything, than a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Premier under advisement.

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

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

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

In keeping with your ruling in terms of asking not to rise on points of order during Question Period, during Question Period when the Leader of the Opposition was up asking questions to the Premier related to the details of the Voisey's Bay agreement - which the Premier had speculated on publicly last week, where were the questions, and we have provided them with some of those in the last two days - on three separate occasions, the Member for Humber East - and I quite clearly heard him - said, in response to the questions: Good liar. That is a big lie. What a big lie.

On another occasion, the Premier again stood in his place and imputed motives to the Leader of the Opposition, saying this: How is it that the Leader of the Opposition - I can almost quote it - is asking questions to which he knows the exact opposite is true? Insinuating, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to leave impressions other than what are facts.

The fact of the matter is, the Leader of the Opposition is bound and, let me tell you, very determine to get the facts out on the Voisey's Bay deal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on that point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Again, Mr. Speaker, a clear example of the Opposition House Leader trying to bring discredit to the House. I don't know if the hon. Opposition House Leader has bionic ears or what.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate going back and forth, in the heat of debate, members on both sides say certain things. When somebody is obviously straining their ears to hear if somebody said something unparliamentary, some member, it goes beyond the call of duty.

I will say this. I, for one, want parliamentary procedure to be followed, but for members to be straining their ears to listen for remarks is absolutely frivolous. I am certain if the hon. member said what the hon. Opposition House Leader stated he said, he will make the appropriate withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair did not hear what the hon. member had said. Certainly, if a member in this House does make comments that are unparliamentary, it is traditionally accepted that if the member did that, then he will acknowledge that and withdraw the remarks, so I leave that with the member.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recall during the debate when the Leader of the Opposition was expounding on the legal merits of the Voisey's Bay deal, I did use the phrase: big lawyer - l a w y e r.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ,oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, through you, there was no one straining to listen, or trying to strain their ears, as the Government House Leader said. On three separate occasions: big lie, what a big lie, and liar.

Now, the member should stand and apologize. He knows he said it. He should stand and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today a former MHA, Mr. Chris Decker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to present a petition on behalf of approximately 900 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. The petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the issue of the high cost of drugs for MS and other debilitating diseases. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis drug therapies, Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif, under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 to $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these high costs drugs, as is the case in other Canadian provinces.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is interesting about this petition and the others that I have presented recently, and I hope members across pay attention because there are constituents of the majority of members in the House on this petition, and I would like to read out, just for the impact, if I may, some of the communities that the signatories on this petition represent. There are signatures on this petition from Fogo, Musgrave Harbour, Gander, Lewisporte, Grand Falls-Windsor, Baie Verte, Norris Arm, Badger, Milltown, Pleasantville, Gaultois, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Pollards Cove, Triton, Buchans, Hermitage, Embree, Bay d'Espoir, Point Leamington, Boyd's Cove, King's Point, St. Alban's, and others, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't had the opportunity to identify by going through the petition. I think this indicates the magnitude of the problem that is in our Province, of people not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: - having access to high cost drugs to treat MS to improve their quality of life.

As we said, Mr. Speaker, what gets me the most about this is that it is not that this government will not provide assistance to people, not that they cannot afford to. It is what they require people to do to themselves and their families before they will step in to help.

Mr. Speaker, the government could look at it another way. They could introduce these drugs to be covered and look at the long-term savings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: They could look at the long-term result, Mr. Speaker, and see that this can have significant savings for the heath care system because these people will not require to be admitted to the hospital and they will have a better quality of life in the long run.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to impress upon members opposite that it is ridiculous and unacceptable where people living in this Province, hard-working people, can be working for $30 an hour and leave this Province and go to any other province in this country and make $10 a hour and be financially better off at the end of the day. That is not acceptable and it is time that this government took the action to cover these drugs so that the hard-working people of this Province do not have to reduce themselves to income support levels or leave this Province in order to get the coverage that they require.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some retired teachers in the Province, and some from my own district. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

We, the undersigned, all Members of the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador present at BGM 2002, wish to register our support for and agreement with the recommendations made within the brief on the urgent need for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity once again for me to stand on behalf of several teachers from around the Province and indeed, my own district, who have sent to me the concerns and issues that they have in relation to the Retired Teachers' Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in November of this year the retired teachers presented a brief to the Premier and put forward for the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador many concerns with the Retired Teachers' Pension Plan, especially the fact that they have not had an increase to their plan since 1989.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know the ever escalating costs of living in the past twelve to fifteen years is something that concerns everybody, and the fact that we have, in this Province, several thousand teachers now who are retired and are not in a position to meet the financial needs that they have. I think that through this petition, and through registering this petition here in the House and bringing forward the concerns that they have, these people hope that government will look at their concerns and certainly address them in whatever way they can.

We understand the fiscal restraint that government finds themselves under from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but I think to say that we have not found the opportunity to have an increase to the pension plan since 1989 speaks for itself in the fact that somebody is not taking this seriously at the top. It is time that government started taking it very seriously. These people have spent, in most cases, thirty years plus in the educational system in this Province, providing an invaluable service to our children and certainly to our communities as a whole.

I believe teachers play a very important role in our society, and have for the past number of years and continue to do so. We have to try to find a way, Mr. Speaker, to allow these people to enjoy retirement and to certainly give them an opportunity to benefit from the many, many years they have provided service to our people and our Province.

I put forward this petition today. This is one of several that I have put forward and will continue to do so if they are brought to my office, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the retired teachers of the Province need a fair shake. Through this petition they are putting forward their concerns and making the case for regular increases in pension benefits. I think that right throughout the Province different sectors of society that had the opportunity to avail of a pension plan, have increases built into their plan on a year to year basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, other pension plans have increases built into their pension plans on an ad hoc basis each year. I think it is only fair that we do the same thing with the Teachers' Pension Plan and give them a fair shake, Mr. Speaker, for their years and years of service to our children and to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity today to present a petition to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the road linking Conche to Roddickton is in deplorable condition and is in desperate need of upgrading and paving; and

WHEREAS the deplorable condition of the roads make it a hazard for the large volume of traffic using the road including the residents and transport trucks that truck fish products out of Conche; and

WHEREAS the road conditions hinder tourism development in the area and with the historical connection to the French Shore, roads need to be maintained so they do no deter people from visiting the site; and

WHEREAS the twenty-six kilometres of dirt road have to be travelled daily by its residents in order to access needed services including the hospital, pharmacy, groceries, gas, et cetera;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to make this road a top priority and begin upgrading immediately, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again I present a petition on behalf of the people of Conche and signed by many residents, I would imagine by all the residents of Conche and some people from outside Conche, in Roddickton. I noticed when I skimmed through this, people from Roddickton have signed it, people from Raleigh, people from St. Anthony and people from as far away, actually, as McCallum have signed this petition. I do not know what they were doing in Conche from McCallum in the meantime, but nevertheless, they were down in that area; probably moose hunting I expect, Mr. Speaker. That is something else that was not mentioned here, that quite a number of moose hunters travel on this road over the course of the year. There are logging contractors that haul wood out over this road in the course of a year. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile to mention, I think, that this road going into Conche, by and large, was constructed as a woods road, not as a road to the community. It was probably only the last few miles of it that was done as a provincial highway, done by the provincial Department of Highways years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the road is in deplorable condition and there were many promises made over the years to the people of Conche on this road. I remember when, as I have said before in this House, the by-election was on, not quite two years ago now, there were commitments made to the people of Conche that this road would be done within two years. Here we have the French Shore celebrations coming up in 2004 and certainly Conche will be an integral part of the French Shore celebrations; I would hope and would expect.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot expect the people, tourists and traffic to beat over twenty-six kilometres of dirt road in the type of condition that this road is in; to access these communities and take in the sites that they have to offer and the history it has to offer.

The people of Conche, they have a fishplant there that provides work to the community. There is fish hauled in. There is fish hauled out. As I said, there are logging contractors that use the road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: As we know, the Northern Peninsula Highway was once a dirt road. We never seen tourist traffic and economic activity on the Northern Peninsula until we had a decent road for people to travel over. Just like the cross-country road from Plum Point over to Roddickton and Englee. We did not see the traffic there. We did not see the people travel around Hare Bay, obviously, until there was a road there. The former members here today know what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Transportation, when he is developing his priorities for the next year, to take into consideration the commitments that have been made to the people of Conche and take into consideration this petition today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:

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

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, here again I stand today bringing forward a petition which I will continue to raise the issue in this House of Assembly until the minister's department and this government commits to upgrade and pave this section of road, one of the main roadways leading into the Town of Bonavista.

It is a situation - and I say to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I will keep whining until this particular petition and those people's wishes are adhered to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is why I was sent here, I say to the minister, and this member will not be quiet while there is a need in his district, and will not be stifled by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, people opposite might get sick and tired of me standing here and presenting petitions, but I will continue to do that because there is certainly a need to have this section of road upgraded and repaved. The people in that particular area have been responsible, they have gone out and they have demonstrated on the roadway there, they have passed out pamphlets, making a plea to the government to listen to their wishes. You drive down over that particular road today and the shoulder goes out almost to the center line. The pavement has deteriorated so badly that they are driving on gravel road for the most part, more than pavement, in certain areas there.

It is the situation, Mr. Speaker, where snow clearing cannot be done efficiently. You drive over the road there now and there are always a couple of inches of slush left on that particular road when the snowplow goes over it, because of the condition of the road.

This particular road is not a woods road, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is one of the main arteries leading to the Town of Bonavista. It is Route 235, one of the most travelled highways on the Bonavista Peninsula.

What the school children are saying is that they would like to have that section of road upgraded and repaved so that they can at least get aboard the bus and be able to go to school in a safe manner.

People use this section of road to access government offices. They use it, Mr. Speaker, to get to the hospital. They use it to travel back and forth, to buy groceries, to do shopping and to get to their place of business in the Town of Bonavista. The people in that particular town, the biggest town on the Bonavista Peninsula, Bonavista itself - the council has written the minister, I know. I know that they have attended meetings. I have had two ministers who have gone over this section of road asking that it be upgraded and repaved. Every year, Mr. Speaker, while there is an attempt made to do something, we see 200 meters, 700 meters, of roadwork done there without attending to the real need. We are only asking for three kilometres. It is not 300 kilometres, it is not thirty kilometres, we are asking for three kilometres of road to be upgraded and repaved so that the people on the Bonavista Peninsula might be allowed a decent road to drive over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we will call Order 24, which is second reading of An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 31.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to introduce today amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 31.

Before I start, I just want to tell you the reason why we are here in this House today and why I am introducing this bill.

In early October, I received a letter from FANL, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, exercising their rights under section 35.12, which regulates the opting out window for the model. There is a two month window every two years, beginning September 1 and ending October 31, where one of the parties can do that. I had a letter, a request from FANL, requesting that they opt out of the fish pricing model. Of course, I respected that letter and I respected that request, but I did not let it stop there. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself held repeated meetings with FANL, and also with the FFAW, and also the Inshore Fisheries Resource Council, but unfortunately none of those meetings resolved the issue and FANL continued to go along with their request; they wanted to opt out of the fish pricing model.

So, Mr. Speaker, the object of this legislation here today is to preserve the model, and that is our only objective as a government. I wanted to say that these changes are designed to provide stability in the fishing industry throughout the 2003 fishing season while government undertakes a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

I am just going to give you a bit of brief background into this act. In 1998, government introduced an interest-based approach to collective bargaining in the fishing industry as a pilot project. This approach has become known as the Final Offer Selection Model. Prior to the1998 pilot, prices for the main species were negotiated under the traditional collective bargaining regime provided in the legislation. Based on the success of that model and the collaboration of the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers union and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2000 my colleague, the hon. Oliver Langdon, introduced amendments to enshrine this mechanism in legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Final Offer Selection Model introduced a very significant innovation for the fishing industry, a mechanism to ensure that there would be no strikes and no lockouts.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will remember that in the few years before this mechanism was introduced, relations between harvesters and processors in this Province had deteriorated sharply. Price disputes were commonplace and strikes became increasingly prevalent, resulting in delayed openings of fisheries and unreliability in the marketplace. There were labour relations problems in every major fishery, with major disruptions in the crab and shrimp fisheries. In 1997, for example, there was a strike in the crab sector that lasted three months. I think most members in this House of Assembly will recall that very well. As a result, almost half of the crab landings took place in late summer at that time when the fish was at its worst biological condition and after the markets peak demand.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report to this House that since the implementation of this approach to collective bargaining, stability has returned to a vital sector of our economy and our society. All of us know how important the fishery is to this Province. Last year, we recorded almost $1 billion in sales, so it is the backbone of the economy of our Province.

Over the past five years, forty-eight price agreements have been settled under this model. Twenty-six agreements were achieved by processors and harvesters. The remaining twenty-two were resolved through arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, without this model it is likely that some of these price disagreements would have been disputes and resulted in a strike or lockout, which could have impacted on employment levels in processing facilities.

Mr. Speaker, in its review of the pre-1998 negotiation process, the task force on price settlement mechanisms found a number of problems in the fishing industry that contributed to disruptions and poor labour relations. One of the main factors was mistrust. The Final Offer Selection Model has improved trust in the industry by providing all parties to negotiations with independent and unbiased assessment of market conditions. The effectiveness of this model is further illustrated by the party of collaboration on changes to the Memorandum of Understanding each year. As conditions merit, the parties can change some aspects of the model as long as they agree to do so. The fact that they routinely agree is evidence of the model's success.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, from government's perspective, this model has been very, very successful. In fact, we have had five years of stability in our fishing industry that, prior to 1997, had not occurred. Government, processors and harvesters see this price settlement mechanism as a strategic advantage over the traditional collective bargaining process used in the industry prior to 1998.

Under the current model, collective bargaining has been dramatically expedited as the negotiating schedule is predictable and it is manageable. Yet, there may be room for improvement in this legislation.

If anything, Mr. Speaker, there was no provision under the current legislation for review, and all of us will probably agree in this House that all legislation from time to time needs to be reviewed. Consequently, government will undertake a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act in 2003. This review will provide an opportunity for harvesters and processors to shape the future of the legislation that regulates their industry and ensure that the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act remains relevant to their needs.

It is important to engage in a review at this time and it is important to be true to our partnership agenda and involve the stakeholders. We will invite representation from industry and the union, and government will take a leadership role.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that together we will identify areas for improvement. Together we will design amendments that will strengthen the legislation that regulates such an important sector of this economy and this society.

I want to say to hon. members in this House that since this event has started, early October, that myself and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture have both received all kinds of correspondence, both from processors and harvesters, asking government to step in and preserve this model so we can have stability in the 2003 fishery - not chaos, as would be predicted if we did not have this model in place.

I want to say thank you to the stakeholders who have made this model so successful, and I urge all hon. members of this House to support these amendments in the spirit of the proposed legislative review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say that I am happy to stand here today to speak to Bill 31, but I must say that I rise today a little bit disappointed that we have had to come to this, and I suspect the minister is also.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, I guess, we are unfortunately in a position where there is very little else that can be done at this point.

The minister gave a brief overview of what brought us to Final Offer Selection. As she said, in the three or four years prior to 1998, especially in 1997, the collective bargaining negotiations in the fishing industry for crab especially, and to some extent for shrimp in 1997, because prior to that the only shrimp fishery that we had was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the limited size of the fleet there, roughly fifty, fifty-five, fifty-six boats - I am not sure of the exact number right now - made it something that was much easier to handle. Two companies: Fishery Products International operating in Port au Choix; Daley Brothers operating in Anchor Point, those being the only two shrimp processing companies in the Province, and with a small number of boats engaged in the fishery, it was much more manageable. Even though the same type of negotiation process that we see in all other industries, in collective bargaining in general, took place there, for the most part the disputes were limited and it did not provide a great deal of disruption to the fishery. It allowed it to get underway, for the most part, when the ice cleared up and the fishermen were prepared to go and the season was open and what have you.

Of course, the crab fishery was much different. We had a large number of fleets with staggered opening dates, and ice conditions providing challenges all of its own, I guess. Of course, the season could almost always get underway on a timely basis in 3L, allowing fishermen to get out and begin the harvesting without much in the way of disruption from ice conditions and environmental conditions. Really, when the weather was fine and DFO said you could go, the fishermen were really able to go. Of course, 3K is a little bit different. Ice conditions, in a lot of cases, drive the fishery off, especially in the inshore area, for the small boat sector. It drives it a little bit later into the year.

That is sort of the environment that we found ourselves in, in 1997, and also we found ourselves in an environment, I guess, where we knew that our shrimp fishery was going to expand. It was in the process, I guess, of expanding quite significantly from what it was in the early days. Prior to 1997, I guess, is probably a better way of putting it, from the early 1970s up until - or late 1960s, up until 1997, being restricted exclusively to the West Coast of the Province in the Esquiman Channel off Port au Choix. As I said, we saw ourselves facing a fishery that I don't think anybody knew exactly where it was going to go, but we had some fair idea of the magnitude of the increase in landings, the increase in the number of boats, and we found ourselves, I guess, within a couple of years, having moved from fifty-five or fifty-six boats engaged in the shrimp fishery, to a situation where we had 350, I think it is, roughly, now, and landings gone from less than 20 million pounds, around 14 million pounds, I believe it was, in the Gulf, up to right now a situation where we have annual landings of 110-plus million pounds in our shrimp fishery, what is considered our inshore shrimp fishery. Our less than sixty-five foot shrimp fishery is probably a better way of putting it, because we all know that it is not inshore; it is very much offshore, near shore, mid-shore to offshore.

We all recognize, I think, the challenges that was going to present. It was going to present challenges much like what we saw in the crab industry with a very diverse fleet, fishing over a very extensive piece of seascape, I suppose, not landscape, a piece of real estate, with all kinds of differences in seasonality of the fishery and a lot of challenges as a result of that.

We found ourselves in the mid-1990s with a great deal of difficulty trying to arrive at a timely resolution of fish prices, especially in the crab industry, to the point where we had, as the minister said and we all know, we all recognize, anybody who has any kind of a memory at all can remember the problems that we had in 1995-1996, and especially in 1997, where we had a three month strike where the season was driven off into the middle of summer at a time when market conditions were such that we were beyond the peak of June. The June market was obviously always the best market, and early July. We found ourselves into a July, August and September fishery, into the fall of the year, when we had the market problems, as I just said, but also resource problems.

When we get into a summer fishery there is much more in the way of soft-shell. Then, when we move into the early fall and mid-fall we have a problem, of course - as everybody in the industry would know - with what is considered, what is called new hard-shell, where there are problems with yield, I guess, is probably the best way of putting it. There is a lot of water content, less weight, less meat, and stuff that the market does not like to see.

That, I guess, is just to paint a picture of what we were presented with in 1997. Of course, everybody will remember 1997, what we in the industry commonly refer to as the pepper spray summit, up at St. Teresa's Hall, or over at St. Teresa's Parish Hall in Mundy Pond, when the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province went for a meeting with a group of fishermen who, by that time, had had their fill of just about everything that was going on in the industry and things got a little bit out of hand, I suppose. I will not overstate it by saying that, I am sure, that it got a little bit out of hand.

Fortunately, I suppose, arising from that was a process whereby a review of the industry took place, where Mr. David Vardy and a task force reviewed the industry, looked at collective bargaining approaches throughout the world and came back with a set of recommendations on how we could improve our situation, and how we might make some changes to our situation. The result, I suppose, of all that was Final Offer Selection. There were other recommendations, there were other things that could have been done, I suppose. There are those who suggest that maybe a combination of a negotiated approach and some kind of a pay back at the end of the season, similar to what was done in New Brunswick, was a way of doing it.

There are those who suggested that maybe we should look at something that is done in parts of Iceland and Norway - or all of Iceland, probably, for some species, some parts of their fishery - the Eastern States, Alaska. There are various places, various constituencies, I suppose, where this takes place, and that is an auction, a fish auction. Certainly that was one thing that was explored to a limited extent anyway, but we ended up with Final Offer Selection where collective bargaining still takes place, where the fish processors and the fishermen and their representatives sit down at a table, over an extended period of time, with market information that is gathered by an independent analyst, brought to the table, and, as the minister said quite rightly, that helped to deal with that sense of mistrust that was consuming everybody in the industry - brought that together and the negotiations took place, just as they always did, other than there was probably more independent information available to all those involved.

We found ourselves with Final Offer Selection where if they did not arrive at a negotiated settlement, each party at the end of the time, a predetermined time period, made their final offer to the arbitrator - to an appointed arbitrator, independent arbitrator, as we would hope all of them are. They made their final offer on fish prices for that season or that part of the season and the arbitrator, which is significantly different from other types of arbitration, the arbitrator would take one or the other. It would either accept the fishermen's final offer or it would accept the plant's final offer.

That worked reasonably well. We got ourselves going in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. It worked reasonably well. It allowed us to get our fishery underway at the appropriate time of the year. It allowed startup in April for shrimp and crab, subject to DFO's seasonal openings and subject to ice conditions and whatever, but those were the only real constraints that we faced then. It was not a situation where disputes, labour disputes and disputes over pricing, caused the season to be delayed. It allowed us to get it underway when we needed to capture the best market. It allowed us to get it underway so that we could avoid that soft- shell period in the summer and the new hard-shell period in early fall, and things got a reasonable degree of harmony in the industry, I suppose.

All was not well, and we all recognized that all was not well in the industry and all was not well with Final Offer Selection. There were a number of disruptions after the Final Offer Selection came in. There were fleet tie-ups, situations where the fishery stopped. There were situations where the plants stopped buying. There were situations where the fishermen stopped fishing, sometimes by mutual consent and other times by mutual disagreement, I suppose, is probably a fair way of putting it. I think that we all recognize that this needed - as the minister said, there are times when this type of legislation needs to be reviewed. The first couple of years this operated under a pilot project, to see how this would go. That was by mutual agreement of the fishing industry, the industry participants, FANL and the fishermen through the FFAW. Now what we found afterwards, it seemed to be working reasonably well so we brought in amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act and made Final Offer Selection legally binding, I suppose, for lack of a better way of putting it, and subject to an opting out period; an opting out period that came by every two years starting this year, in 2002. For a two month period either party could decide to opt out.

As the minister pointed out, section 35.12, which is one of the sections that will be amended if we pass this before the House closes, and I expect we will - commencing September 1, 2002, and every two years after that date, a party may, between September 1 and October 31, inclusive, signal its intention to opt out of the requirements of section 35.1 to 35.11 by writing a letter to the minister stating that intention, and that letter shall, unless revoked, effect the opting out of that party on December 31 of that year.

That, I guess, as the minister said, is what brought us to this debate today. Mr. Speaker, as I said when I started, I rise here today and I wish we did not have to do this. I wish we did not have to bring in an amendment that says that nobody is able to opt out of this until September 1, 2003, because that is what we are going to do once we pass this. We are going to change now a right, we are going to change a piece of legislation that was mutually agreed upon by all parties, so to speak, or the representatives of both parties in the fishing industry - the fish harvesters and the fish processors. They agreed back a few years ago, in 1998 and again in 2000-2001 after a couple of years of a pilot project, they agreed to do this. They agreed to what was in this legislation. They agreed to what was in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Unfortunately, today, we find ourselves in a situation where some in one part - if that makes sense - of the industry do not agree with what we are about to do. That is understandable. That is perfectly understandable because they have been raising concerns about the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. They have been raising concerns about the Final Offer Selection process, that it has not been working. I guess, in the face of no resolution to their concerns, no dealing with their concerns, they decided to opt out. Who knows what issues are at play there? We can only speculate to some extent on what is causing the industry to decide to do this, what caused FANL to indicate its intention to opt out, of Final Offer Selection. I can only speculate. Maybe the Minister of Labour knows, maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows, but I have not been privy to the discussions that they have had with FANL, so I can only speculate and I will leave it at that.

The problem here, as we all know, as we look at the situation prior to 1998 and the turmoil that we saw in the industry, and we look back to 1997, and we look at what we had before Final Offer Selection, and we look ahead from where we are now and think about what we might have if we don't have final offer selection, in the absence of some other type of mechanism, dispute resolution mechanism.

It is scary to look ahead, because we know what we have been through. It is scary to look ahead to what might be an industry crisis in the spring of 2003, similar to what we saw in the spring of 1997. I, for one, don't want to be faced with it and I am sure nobody in this House wants to be faced with it, or they shouldn't be. They shouldn't want to be faced with a situation in 2003 like we had in 1997, where the industry was three months late getting started, where we have a $500 million industry, effectively, today, $500 million roughly, I would suggest, Minister of Fisheries, in crab and shrimp, where the industry is brought to its knees, where it is not starting up, where we lose a significant portion of the value of that industry because of a late start-up. We cannot take the chance on that happening, and we have, unfortunately, to do this here today.

As I said, you know, I am sure that while FANL may indicate its intention to opt out, I don't, for a minute, believe that all in the fish processing side of the industry are in agreement with FANL's position on that. I am sure that all in the fish harvesting side of the industry are not in agreement with the Fishermen's Union when they say that they want to stay in the final offer selection process. It is a judgement call, I guess, that we have to make. There have been representations made from all sides to do this, and it has to be done.

Why did we end up here? I am glad that the Minister of Labour today, and in the last couple of days since she has tabled this legislation, indicated her intention to have a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I believe that is a worthwhile endeavour, something that probably should be done, as she indicated, with much of our legislation after a period of time. I agree, and I applaud her for making that statement and I hope she follows through on it, and I believe she will. I hope it comes to something, I say to the Minister of Labour. I hope it comes to more than the review of the fishing industry processing licence policy, the review that was committed by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture back in the Throne Speech on March 13, 2001, where it says, "My government is committed to a vigorous examination of the adjacency principle to ensure our approach protects the viability of rural communities. We must ensure a regional balance is achieved within our Province, while maintaining the viability of the industry and continuing to address issues of over-capacity in the processing sector."

This is the sentence I am getting at, I guess. The Throne Speech says, "My government will review its present fish processing licensing policy to ensure that these objectives are being achieved." Now, that is what was said on March 13, 2001 by this government. Now, I am waiting today, still, for that fish processing licensing policy review.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not done, is it?

MR. TAYLOR: No, that is not done, I say to the finance critic. No, it is not done. Like so much other that is not done.

I will mention something else that is not done. I will go back to December 10, a little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, December 10, 2001, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture news release where the minister announces panel members for a Structural Study of the Inshore Shrimp Fishery. The minister announced on that day that the panel will be chaired by David Vardy - who, by the way, as I said earlier, chaired the review that was done that brought us to Final Offer Selection, and did a good job, I believe, and has to be commended for it - and be assisted by Ross Peters and Brian Delaney.

Mr. Speaker, that committee, as I said and I will say it again, was announced on December 10, 2001. Now, I neglected - I should have checked it, I suppose, I forget now exactly when that panel brought in their report but it was some time around April, I believe.

MR. REID: Go back to the issue (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I believe, it was some time around April, Mr. Speaker, that the panel brought in its report. The minister tells me to go back to the issue. This is the issue and this is what the minster has failed to recognize in the past two years, or just about two years, since he was appointed the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He has failed to recognize that the issue we are confronted with today is because the minister has had his department on autopilot for just about two years now, Mr. Speaker. That is where the problem lies. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has not been doing the job that he was appointed to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The minister, as I said, appointed a panel last year to review the shrimp industry, the shrimp peeling industry, the inshore shrimp fishery in this Province. At that time, you know, there were problems. We knew there were problems in the shrimp fishery last year. A little over a year ago, one of the reasons the panel gave for opting out of Final Offer Selection was because of the strike - they called it a strike - the tie up of the fishery in September, 2001. That is why; one of the reasons that they gave. Because they say they had a legally binding agreement. They say that they had negotiated in good faith. They say that the fishing industry tied up; the fish harvesters tied up. They wanted to see a resolution to it.

The minister, as a result of that dispute last fall, appointed this panel, Mr. Speaker, and there was a report brought in last spring. Well, it was probably about nine months ago now, I guess. Sometime in April, I believe. Early April, if I am not mistaken, the report was tabled or given to the minister. There was a bunch of recommendations in there. A substantial number of recommendations. To this day, we have not been told by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture or his government what they intend to do with those recommendations, whether they accept them all, whether they reject them all, whether they take x, y and z and condemn a, b and c. We have not been told that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have this problem today. We know that there are problems with Final Offer Selection that need to be resolved. We know that there are problems in the processing sector in the industry and in the harvesting sector of the industry but the minister is not dealing with it. That is why we are confronted with this today.

MR. REID: Trevor, you know that is not true.

MR. TAYLOR: I say to the minister, I know that it is true. I know that it is true, and if he can tell me why, I will gladly listen to him. If he can tell me why we are at this point today and it is not because of those things. It is because there was, in1997 when we started the shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador - on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, I should say because there was one in the Gulf before that - when we had a move towards an expansion in the shrimp industry to 110 million, 120 million pounds of shrimp, there was no plan put in place by this government. There is still no plan by this government for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether you are talking about the shrimp side of it, the crab side of it, the groundfish side of it or whatever. You can look where you like, Mr. Speaker. You can search high and low in this building from the east wing to the west wing, from the basement to the tenth floor and you will not find a plan for the fishing industry in this Province from that government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Until they get one, there is going to be the same problem. This government is stumbling from crisis management situation to crisis management. That is what they are in all the time, crisis management. We see it with the forestry industry. We see it with the Abitibi Consolidated deal - the amendments to the Forestry Act there the other day that was brought in.

When we are down to where we can go no further - we saw it with FPI. Just about a year ago, we saw it with FPI. When things started to hit the wall, the government reacted. There is no such thing as pro-activity from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and this is where the problem lies.

I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that when we finish with this act that we have, this amendment that we have to do, with Bill 31 - that we have to do, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. When we finish with this, then I suggest that when the Minister of Labour starts her review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, I would suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture live up to the commitment that he made on March 13, Throne Speech, 2001, and get on with the review of the fish processing licencing policy of this Province, Mr. Speaker, because he has not done it. The minister has not done it. Get on with dealing with the inshore shrimp industry panel report and let the Province know, let the industry know, where this minister and this government wants to see the industry go. Let them know, because then, Mr. Speaker, once people know what the game rules are, then they can get on with it. They can get on and they can change there. They can make their plans and make their industry, their corporation, their company and their fish harvesting enterprise, they can make it fit whatever the rules are. But don't, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: It is time for this government to give up what they are doing. It is time to stop leaving everything until we hit the wall. It is time to start doing something. As I said, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has had his department on cruise control for two years now. For two years there has not been one major policy initiative come out of that department, Mr. Speaker. There has not been a piece of paper, not the size of a matchbox, with an idea of where they want the industry to go in the future.

They say to the federal government, they say to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we want a change. We want a change to the Fishing Vessel Replacement Policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you can tell me what they want done with the Fishing Vessel Replacement Policy, I would love to know, because I do not know what they want done, and nobody in the industry knows what they want done. They have not said it, they have not got it on paper, Mr. Speaker, and they have not had a debate with the industry on where they want to go. We know what kind of an industry we have now. We know what we need for five to ten years time. We have a pretty good idea of where the industry is going from a resource perspective, from a market perspective. Why can't they put a plan in place?

Back in 1993, I guess it was, in 1992 or 1993, sometime shortly after the moratorium on Northern cod, the government of the day, Mr. Wells, brought in - I believe the late Mr. Carter was the minister at the time, if I am not mistaken. I cannot remember if it was a white paper or a green paper, but anyway whichever it was, it was a discussion document on the fishery of the future. What the government of the day's plan was going to be for the fishing industry for Newfoundland and Labrador in the wake of the groundfish moratorium. In the early stages of a development and expansion in the crab industry and the shellfish industry, they decided to - which they should have done. It was a White Paper or a Green Paper that they tabled. It was quite controversial. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, it was controversial. It generated a great deal of debate at the time, and quite frankly I had, at the time, a fair bit of opposition to some of it, I suspect, but that is beside the point. It does not matter if I was opposed to it or for it, or if anybody was opposed to it or for it, they did start.

I think the bit of opposition that was there scared them off. They did not come with the second paper, whichever it was, to really get on with putting together a plan for the industry. They did not get on with that, just like they did not in 1997 or 1996 when we knew we wanted a shrimp industry. When the then government, the then minister, was running off to Ottawa saying we want access to Northern shrimp, did they sit down, when they were doing all their crying about wanting access to Northern shrimp? Did they sit down with the industry, the processing sector, the harvesting sector? Get market information? See what kind of fish we wanted, where the market was going, where we wanted to be in ten years time, five years time? If they had done that, if they had said where we want to be in five years time, we would have been past that now. We would have been there. This is now five years. This is the fifth year, the sixth year, the sixth season - five full years since we started fishing Northern shrimp. It has been six seasons that we have been at it, but they did not do it, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of that, we are here today doing this type of stuff. We are here today taking something, and we are amending an act in order to deal with a crisis - what potentially could be a very critical situation next spring. As I said to the Minister of Labour, and I will say it again, I support what you are doing here today, I do, and we will support it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you for it or against it?

MR. TAYLOR: We are for it, we are not against it, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are for it?

MR. TAYLOR: We are for it, yes, Sir, we are for it. We are for it because we know what we went through in 1997 when we did not have Final Offer Selection. We are not for it because it is the thing that should be done, because what should have been done - there should have been a review of fish processing licence policy, like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he was going to do. There should have been some reaction to the shrimp panel report that he commissioned, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I am sorry, Mr. Speaker - commissioned a year and two days ago. A year and two days ago, Mr. Speaker, the minister commissioned this panel to look into the shrimp fishery. If that was done, if some of these things were dealt with, if the industry - the processing side and the harvesting side - had a clear indication of where the government was going, then maybe this stuff could have been dealt with. Maybe in the months leading up to today, maybe this could have been dealt with. Maybe we would not have found ourselves in October with a letter from FANL saying they are opting out of this. Maybe it could have been dealt with in other ways.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this, what should be done now. I guess I will deal with forward now. I have looked back on what should have been done, what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should have done, so that the Minister of Labour would not have to step in and save his skin on this one. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture had done some of this, the Minister of Labour would not have to be doing what she is doing today.

What we should do now in the future, as the minister prepares her review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, maybe we should now look back at what Mr. Vardy presented to the government, to the industry, to the harvesters and to the people of the Province, in 1998 after he and his panel did their report and looked at different options for the settling of fish prices in this Province. Maybe it is time now to go back and start with that again. Maybe it is time to start looking at new and innovative ideas for the future in settling fish prices for this Province. Maybe it is time to look at auctions, as they are done in other parts of the world, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will find out, after we review that, that it is not going to work. I am willing to concede that, that it might not work here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Although right now I cannot see why it would not work, I am willing to concede that it might. The problem that we have is that nobody has looked. There has been no review. We know that there are problems but nobody is trying to figure out how to fix them, other than this here again - crisis management, as I said.

Why don't we go and look? In looking to the future - as the Minister of Labour does her review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act - that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, whether he has to appoint another panel or appoint people from his department, send them off and tell them what to do, to look at what we are doing with collective bargaining in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and say: Are we doing it right? Why do we have these problems here? Why have we had these problems over the past couple of years? Why have we found ourselves at the point today where FANL has decided to opt out? And, where do we go in the future? That is what really needs to be done now, Mr. Speaker. That is what needs to be done. We need to look at fish auctions in Portland, fish auctions in Alaska, fish auctions in Iceland and Norway. We need to look at that, Mr. Speaker, and we need to look at, again, because we looked at it five or six years ago, we looked at what was done in northeast New Brunswick and the Gaspe Bay with their fishing industry price setting mechanisms. We looked at that, but maybe it is time to have another look. It is defiantly time to have another look when we find ourselves here on December 12, 2002, less than two years since we actually amended this act the last time. I say to the Minister of Labour, I was in the House of Assembly, and I have not been here very long, when this act was amended the last time in order to make the Final Offer Selection process binding. We finally legislated it, because before that, as I said, it worked by mutual agreement. It worked because both parties agreed on a pilot project basis. Now, here we are, less than two years after it was instituted in legislation, after it was enshrined in legislation, we find ourselves here today having to make an amendment to it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up now. I say we will support this amendment. We support it reluctantly, we support it because we know that it is the only option that we have right now. We support it because of the chaos that might result in the spring if this was not the case. We do not support it, we do not like to do it because these types of amendments to an act should be done by the mutual agreement of the fishing industry: the fishing industry, the processing side and the harvesting side. When the act was amended the last time, it was done because both parties agreed. That is what needs to be said here.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should be the lead minister on it. It is the industry side of it that we are talking about here. He should be doing more, and be more proactive on these files, bringing the industry together, the harvesters and the processors, to resolve these things so they do not end up here today with one side probably threatening legal action against the government if they institute this type of thing. This is no good. We did it with FPI after the fact, when it should have been done before. We are doing it here. We are always waiting until we hit the wall on these things, or the government are always waiting until they hit the wall, until there is a crisis that we have to deal with.

We are here now and the bottom line is, if we do not amend this act within the next week, this will lead to a crisis in the industry this spring, in all likelihood. We have potentially three legislative days to make sure that this happens in order to avert what could be a critical situation in the industry next spring similar to what we saw in 1997.

That is why we support it, because we want to head off what could be a critical situation in the spring where we could see a $500 million industry in crisis. This Province, with the desperate economic situation that we have in rural communities, where the vast majority of them are depending on the fishing industry, where the vast majority, actually, of the service centres in the Province in Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Deer Lake and St. Anthony, those types of places, they depend entirely - not entirely; I hesitate to say that - they depend, to a large part, on the success of the communities that surround them. Gander will not make it if Fogo is struggling. That is the bottom line. We all recognize that, and that is why we will support this legislation. That is why we will support these amendments to the act.

In conclusion, I will say it once again, it is time for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to get on with the review that they have committed to, the review that the minister just committed to. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will do it. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made a commitment almost two years ago to a review. He had a review of the shrimp industry done last year. He has done nothing with the report from that. It is time for him to get on and deal with those reviews, deal with those reports, put a plan in place for the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, a plan that is developed with the processing side, a plan that is developed with the harvesting side, and bears in mind where we want this industry to be in ten years time, that bears in mind what the market is today and where the market is going to be in ten years time, where the resource is today and where we think the resource is going to be in five to ten years time. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that has been lacking from this industry for probably its entire history. It is something that, if it is done, will ensure a viable industry in the future. If it is not done, it will ensure that we go from situations like this where we are constantly in a mode of crisis management.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act at second reading, which is approval in principle of the legislation. Let me say, first of all, that this legislation is very significant and important, and we support it wholeheartedly. This is an amendment to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, which was first passed in 1971 in this Province - the first province in the country to have such a right of collective bargaining for fishermen, and I think perhaps still the only province with a Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, a very, very important piece of legislation, and important for all kinds of historical reasons.

The very thing that this particular piece of legislation here today is about is something that has been a source of contention for fishing peoples in this Province, fishermen, their families for centuries, Mr. Speaker. Because of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act passed in 1971, fishermen in this Province ultimately got the right to negotiate the price of fish. The price of fish before that was something that was set. Set by the fish merchants and had to be abided by the fishermen, regardless of what that price was, and very often, as we know, the very same fishermen were dependent upon the merchant to whom they sold their fish to buy all of their goods, to get credit for their goods and the price of those goods was also set by the merchant.

That is the system that has, in fact, historically defined the problems of rural Newfoundland over the centuries and, in fact, had kept the fishermen down, had made them at the lowest rung of the social ladder in this Province that was supposedly built on fishing. That has changed in the last thirty years, and the last forty years, but the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act is a very important part of the reason why that has changed, because once this came about fishermen could legally, through a process, help to set the price of fish by being put in the same situation as plant workers, as factory workers and be able to withdraw their labour, withdraw their fish in a collective bargaining regime and set up a process to do that. That has led to an awful lot of progress in this Province with respect to the incomes of fishermen and fisherwomen, to incomes of fishing families and to the incomes and success and stability of rural Newfoundland when it comes to the fishing industry in terms of price. Obviously, the issues of supply are a big problem. The issues that we have had with the cod fishery are a big problem but with respect to the relationship between fish merchants and fishermen, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act has played a major role.

Let me get to the situation that we are dealing with here. The previous speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said we do not really know what is going on in the industry and we do not really know why it is that FANL does not want to agree to this, at this point, but I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We are not left to speculate about what is happening. It seems to me that, at the very least, we can use our instincts and when we see the fishermen and the fishermen's union, on the one hand, saying we have to have this legislation. We have to preserve this Final Offer Selection process, and, on the other hand, we are seeing the industry saying we do not want it, my instincts are with the fishermen. That if the fishermen want it and the merchants do not, then my first instinct is that there is something in this that is in favour of the fishermen and fisherwomen of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is going on is that some, not all, of fishing companies do not like the system and see some advantage in having instability. They do not want the stable relationship they have had for the last four or five years. They do not want to ensure that there is a mechanism for ensuring stability, that we do not have a disruption that might advantage some, or one or other, or a couple of the fishing industry players, but not advantage the fishermen. We have seen what happens when you have an unregulated system. The actual regular collective bargaining process did not work for the fishermen and their families; did not work for the industry; did not work for the markets; did not work for the price of crab in this Province. In the long term, in the real, real long term, the problem was that the markets themselves were being destroyed and deteriorated our creditability as a supplier of crab in the market was being lost rapidly. That market is very, very important and has become of pre-eminence importance to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador with a value of in excess of $500 million, a very significant source of income for this Province, for the communities involved, for the fishermen and women, and is something that we must preserve. It is very, very important.

What happened in 1997, where the boats were tied up, the only choice the fishermen had was to tie up their boats, and they did so because they were not going to be dictated to by the companies. The boats were tied up for four months. Not only did the quality of the crab go down as time went on into the spring months and summer months, the crab quality went down considerably. The price therefore, that was ultimately achieved, was terrible. But, people who were being supplied with this crab, the people in markets into which we were trying to build in the United States and elsewhere, principally the United States, all of a sudden had no reliable supply from Newfoundland and Labrador. They had to look elsewhere for this product, to change the product in their supermarkets, or in their fast-food outlets, restaurants, and all of a sudden their interest in this market went down, down, down.

So what we had as a result of this study - and, yes, it was done with the agreement of both parties, ultimately. The Final Offer Selection Process was considered to be a way to try - it was started as a pilot project. It worked, and we came in a year or so later and we said: Okay, we are going to put this in as a permanent feature. Now, that one party, one side of the equation, has decided that they do not want to play this game anymore because it is to the advantage of a couple of their members. They have gone and said that, and they are prepared to disrupt the whole system. Now I think it is time that the government said: We have to act in the interest of the industry, in the interest of the price, in the interest of the market and in the interest, finally, of the fishermen and women of this Province, because that is the responsibility of government.

If we asked the fishing industry what they wanted in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, it should gutted. If we ask the employers, as a whole, what they wanted in the Labour Relations Act, that would be gutted, too. Because these acts are not designed for the benefit of the employers. The Labour Relations Act is designed for labour stability yes, but it is designed to protect the workers and give them the right to collective bargaining, to give them the right to fight for better wages, better working conditions, decent health and safety, and to fight for these things, for which rights they would not have without that legislation. It is the very same with the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. If you took that act off the table we would be back to the last century where the merchants dictated the price of fish and they dictated the price of the goods that they sold to them.

So the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act is there, not for the fish merchants, it is there to protect the working men and women of this Province. That is why it is there, and if it is not working for them, it has to be fixed. It has to be fixed, because if it is not fixed the industry is going to lose as a whole, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the people who rely and depend on that industry in the bays and coves and ports of this Province are going to suffer if this is not done.

This is a very important legislation. I know the Minister of Labour is the one introducing it, and, of course, it relates to the relationship between fish merchants and fishermen and women, but it is obviously part of the management of the fishery and the important role that the fishing industry plays in the Province that is at stake here as well.

We support this legislation wholeheartedly. It is absolutely essential that if there is a battle between the merchants and the fishermen over who is going to have some, whether it is going to be a say, in the ultimate price of fish and that is going to work for the fishermen, then I think we have to be on the side of the fishermen and their role in the fishing industry.

I have no hesitation in supporting this legislation. I asked the question last week in the House because I wanted to ensure that this government was prepared to deal with this question before Christmas because it had to be dealt with before Christmas, otherwise the whole process would have been off the rails and the kind of stability that was engendered by the action of FANL in issuing its letter opting out of this process was something that could not be tolerated because it would lead to a disaster coming up in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the legislation only goes so far and only extends it for a year. I would be in favour of making this compulsory. We have had a trial period. It has been on the go for the last four or five years. It is a process that has worked. It has worked for the fishermen, it has worked for the fishing industry, it has worked for the Province as a whole and the economy of the Province. Why don't we make it mandatory? Why don't we say this is the method that will be decided, in deciding the price of fish in the crab industry? Perhaps that is something that maybe even the fishermen's union is not ready to go to yet but it is something that we should consider as an ultimate solution to have a Final Offer Selection process there if the union chooses to use it as a method of enforcing a price of fish in a market where if - if the one thing that the fishermen can do is tie up their boats, if that is not going to work, if that is not going to have any effect then we ought to ensure that they have the right to use other methods.

The previous speaker has talked about auctions and other things. These are worth exploring, Mr. Speaker, and they may or may not have some validity in this Province. I can see them working in a place where you have one or two ports where all the fish come to and you might maximize the price there. It might work for some ports in this Province but if you have fifteen or twenty or thirty ports where fish are brought ashore then it might be working to the advantage of some ports in some places but not the others. It is worth looking at. But, certainly in terms of this legislation here today, this is vital and essential and I think we should get wholeheartedly behind it because without it we are going to see chaos.

I do not have any hesitation in saying, in this House of Assembly, that I am on the side of the fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province when it comes to issues that give some authority and some opportunity for the fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province to negotiate the price of fish and to have a situation where instability, which might work to the advantage of some of the fish buyers, is something that we can avoid. Where there is an opportunity to maximize the price of fish to fishermen and women in this Province, something that they have not had the opportunity to do prior to the coming into the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act and it is something that we have had to make improvements on over the years. There is nothing wrong with saying we should have a look at and review it, but I do not want to see a situation where the only changes that we are prepared to make to legislation in this House are ones that are agreed with by the union and the employers.

That is not the role of a Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to implement agreements between other parties. It is the role of this Legislature to show leadership and vision, and make sure that the laws that are put in place in this Province are the ones that are best for the people of this Province, and not just the subject of a bargain between one group and another.

We have an overriding responsibility, I say to hon. members, to ensure that the laws are progressive, that they achieve social progress, and that they provide a level of fairness for the people of this Province because that is what justice is all about. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, justice requires the passage of this legislation to ensure that the vast majority of fishermen in this Province do not suffer because a few fish buyers want to change the system or do not like the system the way it is.

This legislation has the wholehearted support of our party in this House and I hope that we move to pass it quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak. I am just wanting to move a motion that I know hon. members have been waiting for. Motions 4 and 5, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our Standing Order that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today and the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, December 12, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't realize that the Government House Leader was such a grinch, his bringing in those resolutions and wanting people to sit all night long during Christmastime. I thought he was more of a fair-minded individual.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to say a few words on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I listened to the Minister of Labour as she introduced the Act, and I also listened very intently when my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North spoke. I listened to his great knowledge of the fishing industry. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he might do himself a big favour some time if he invited him over to his office to sit down, have a chat, and ask what direction he would suggest.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture continues, when there is a problem, to say: Join with us, we need you. We need you to join with us in order to solve a problem. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has probably never called my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North to ask for his opinion, a fellow who has probably has - not probably, but does have - the greatest knowledge of anybody else sitting here in this Legislature, in this Assembly, about the fishing industry. He has travelled all over the world, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but travelled all over the world, taking part in this particular industry and knows the way it operates quite well, knows what the problems are. I think if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture took the time, he would find out that he knows the answer to a lot of the problems and provide him with some solutions as well.

Mr. Speaker, like that member, I am disappointed today that we have to stand here to bring back a piece of legislation to amend a piece of legislation to extend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act as it relates to the Final Offer Selection because, really and truly, what we are witnessing here, is this particular act working. What we are witnessing here today, and the reason why this act was put in place, and the reason why we should not have to be speaking about it, is the whole reason for the act that was brought in, in the very beginning. That act is working as it was intended to work when the minister introduced it and brought it in, in 1998, Mr. Speaker. What should have been done at that time, maybe the government should have had enough foresight to see where this would have been going and not have to stand here and debate this particular piece of legislation today in order to amend the act, to extend it for another year.

Sure, another year is going to look after this fishing season, but I say to the minister: What is your plan for the following year? Where do we go from here? All we are doing is extending a problem and putting it off for one more year, just buying time.

Part 4 of this particular act says, "A letter signalling the intention of a party to opt out, written and submitted to the minister under the authority of section 35.12 as it read before the coming into force of this Act shall, on the coming into force of this Act, be void and of no force and effect."

What we are doing here is, we are taking this piece of legislation that was brought forward by this government back in 1998 to attend to a problem and the people - and we are talking about the processors here - living up to the agreement of that act and doing what that act allowed them to do, we are seeing here today that once that happened, that the minister steps up very quickly, in this government, and says: Oh, no you cannot do that. That is not the way it should be.

While we support - we will be voting for this particular piece of legislation because it is a piece of legislation that is going to allow, hopefully, an ordinary transgression, I suppose, if you would, bring some form of civility to the fishing industry and allow it to unfold and open up in a timely fashion so that we might be able to go out and allow harvesters to harvest, processors to process, plant workers to be able to go to work in a timely fashion and not see a repeat of what we saw back in 1987 where fishing boats were tied up to the wharf and then there was the big push to go out and catch your quota of crab and put it through in a way that people were working day and night for a couple of months, and then the whole thing was closed down again and everybody knows what happens when it comes to quality. I do not understand how you can supply markets when you have that kind of a process happening.

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly grave problems within the fishing industry of this Province. It is an industry that just last year was worth a billion dollars. This year, I think, the estimate is for the crab and shrimp alone to be worth $500 million to the economy of this Province. So, it is not something that only happens in a couple of communities. It is what makes rural Newfoundland and Labrador tick. It is what makes rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive.

I have had a fair amount of representation about this particular piece of legislation, and I am certain at least the processors - and I am talking about the plant processors, the plant workers in my district, which has two plants that this particular bill would affect. I am talking about the shrimp plant in Port Union that, this year, employed something like 150 people for probably twenty-five or twenty-six weeks, and a lesser number than that, maybe fifteen or sixteen, for probably thirty-five weeks, where they go in and they do bagging and make the shrimp ready for the market as they need it and as orders come by.

The crab plan in Bonavista this year employed something like 230 or 240 people for thirteen or fourteen weeks. While there is a great number of people who were not fortunate enough to get those number of weeks, it is still the most important industry in that particular town. It is what keeps Bonavista moving. The same thing with the plant in Port Union. So, naturally, I have had a fair amount of representation from plant workers wanting to make sure that there was some protection there, whether it was a change to legislation or whether it was a new piece of legislation that would make sure that this industry would open at a time when they could go back to work, and at a time when there would be a good product landed, and a good product of quality value going into the supermarket shelves and into the market so that particular industry might continue.

Mr. Speaker, we all know where we have moved to as it relates to quality. I worked in a fish plant myself, as I stated, for thirteen years. I tell you, in the thirteen years I was there I saw a big difference in the quality of fish from when I went there until the time I left. In fact, at one time most people who worked in a fish plant would not eat the fish that was put through that particular plant. They knew the way it was processed. They knew what was happening, and it was the last thing that they would do. They would go to the supermarket and buy fish, or they would catch it themselves. They would not buy fish from their own fish plant. All that changed over a process of time. There is no need of me getting into what happened and how it came about. Everybody knows the stories very well, and I have told them here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I believe today that we put up one of the best products put up anywhere in the world. If you go to any of our fish plants today, they are second to none. They are second to none in cleanliness, the quality that is demanded, the way people dress, the way they handle the fish, the way it is processed. It is second to none. Today, when we go and allow employees of those particular plants an opportunity to buy the fish that is processed in those plants, they jump at that opportunity and are quick to speak out and speak up and purchase local product that they process themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the minister would be wise to look at doing other things in this particular industry as well, and I am going to refer to fleet separation, whereby you see a lot of the processors now going through the back door and doing what they cannot do through the front door, and that is to go and purchase licences and take part in harvesting. A lot of times today, we see many processors go out and, while it is not shown at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that they own harvesting licences, there are agreements being entered into. The minister knows it very well. Everybody in the industry knows it very well, where there are agreements entered into by a licence holder and a fish processor, and it puts that fish harvester at the whims and the wishes of the processor. It all started when we did away with the Fisheries Loan Board. It all started when we took the Fisheries Loan Board and moved it from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and put it with Industry, Trade and Rural Development. That was the beginning of it but, Mr. Speaker, what we also did was we eliminated many of the fish harvesters out there. We eliminated them from being able to go and access that program. What they have become - we have gone full circle - is slaves to the merchants again. It is a situation where many of the merchants - I am talking about processors, I am talking about plant owners - have gone out and financed fishermen, financed their fishing gear, financed their boats. In order for that to happen, they have to sign an agreement that they will sell a certain part of their catch back to that particular processor. The processor can pretty well pay what he wants. The fishermen are in hock to him, he owns them.

That was the way it was in years gone by and that is the way, for the most part, it is today. I would fear that if this particular piece of legislation was not brought about or was not put into force then maybe we would see the same thing happening today. It has brought some form of organized way for the fishing industry to unfold and also, Mr. Speaker, some organized way and some organized fashion were there is a degree of trust put there because the processor knows that he has to make an offer. The union has to make an offer and somewhere in between - or not in between because it has to be one offer or the offer. So it cannot be in between. The onus is on both parties to make an offer that they might be able to have to be successful in order for the industry to unfold and people be given an opportunity to sell their fish and the fish plant workers to be able to go and process that particular product.

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly problems that are about to unfold there. Members also talked about the inshore shrimp panel report that was brought about some months ago and nothing has happened. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not seem to be making any statements anymore about the fishing industry. All I am hearing is a reaction to what is happening up in Ottawa, but that minister and this government are responsible for processing in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly have lots of problems here.

I do not know if the federal government - I am sure they did not consult the minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Maybe he would like to stand and tell us what he has done as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on trying to bring about and resolve some of the problems that we are experiencing in the fishing industry today. An industry that is so important, not only to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the whole Province, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he would like to stand and tell us what he has done as it relates to the size of fishing boats. It is a big issue out there today, Mr. Speaker, where fishermen are not looking for any extra licences, they are not looking for any extra quotas, they are not looking for anything other than to say to government: let me build a boat or let me buy a boat that I feel I need in order to carry out my profession. Something that is going to be big enough and safe enough to allow me to take the crew, go out, carry out my profession, and fish in a safe manner. That is all they are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, from rules that are made on high up in Ottawa, has not seen fit to allow that to happen. I would like to know if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has gone and met with Minister Thibault and put forward what he is hearing from the fishing industry because I understand that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture agrees with it. The former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture indicated that he agreed with it, Mr. Speaker, but it seems like there is no will there for it to change.

We have a provincial government that continues to stand in this House, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture are saying that this should be changed. Fishermen should not be limited to the size of boat that they want to use, but I do not hear anything else. I do not hear any representation being made. I do not hear the minister saying that he is going to Ottawa and he is going to meet with the minister, and he is going to bring about and implement those changes.

MR. REID: I did it.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he did it. He could not have had much of an effect. I understand it is still in place. He cannot be very effective. His cousins up in Ottawa cannot be listening to him.

When we see an election roll around, Mr. Speaker, we are always told that you have to get on the side of government. You have to have the same stripe in Newfoundland as you have in Ottawa. It is so important. It is so important to have your cousins in Ottawa of the same political party that you are from. Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the case with this government here and their cousins up in Ottawa because I can tell you, they are not being heard. If it were my cousin up in Ottawa and I was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I was treated the way that you were treated just a few short weeks ago, I tell you, I would not be sitting here today heckling across the House. I would be up there demanding fairness from that particular federal government who are supposed to carry forward the same aims, morals and convictions that I did. It is certainly not working. In fact, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I think we would be a lot better off if we were of a different political stripe. I can assure you that there are no great benefits emulating from Ottawa by being a Liberal government here and a Liberal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, when we heard the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the other day talk about the possibility of closing down the cod fishery, a lot of people thought it would not have any great effect. Some people were not even sure that we were having a cod fishery. Sure the cod fishery closed down back in 1992. There was a moratorium.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is still a very viable, active cod fishery in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you look at - I am going to refer to Bonavista, Port Union and those places because this is the area that I know best. When you see the number of people who even go to work on the wharf in Bonavista - employed by Fishery Products International, I might add - that go there and handle fish for other companies; like the company from my colleagues district, Bonavista North, Beothic Fish. A lot of the fish that is landed and processed in Bonavista North, in Valleyfield, is landed in Bonavista. The workers for Fishery Products International are the workers that handle that cod. They handle it, they take it, they weigh it, they ice it, they put it in a tub, the forklift drivers put it on a truck and it is carried somewhere else.

While some of us might think that that 7,000 pounds of cod that was allocated to people in area 2J3KL did not have great meaning and did not supply a great boost to the economy, Mr. Speaker, they are certainly wrong.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that I would have liked to have seen strengthen. I would like to see this bill strengthened because all we are doing is buying time again. It is another band-aid solution to get us over another year. When the bill was brought in in the beginning maybe it should have been quite clear then, the way this particular piece of legislation was supposed to work. Now we are buying time again because the first Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, the first piece of legislation that was brought in this House in 1998 did not work. It did not work. We saw that happen when we saw the union advising their members not to fish a few short years ago because they thought they could not go out and fish for the amount of money that was offered; the amount of money that the arbitrator decided was the amount that should be paid for shrimp. We saw a strike at that particular time. While it did not last a long time, it lasted too long and it upset the whole fishing industry.

Then we see this former piece of legislation, known as the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, again, do what it was supposed to do. Where there was a window there every two years for one party or the other to give a two-month notice that they were pulling out of this particular agreement. We saw it work. That is the way this piece of legislation was supposed to work, but here again, we see government now having to come in, change the act and say to the processors, who did not want to continue being part of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, that we do not pay any attention to your letter. Even though you did it according to the legislation that we brought in, that letter is now null and void and we are going to extend this agreement until September 1, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, what people are going to ask and what they are saying to me: What is going to happen in 2003? What is the minister going to do after 2003? Why don't he bring in a piece of legislation now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to deal with this particular problem so we will not have to bring forward and debate another amendment to this particular piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is up. I will sit down. I know there are other people on this side of the House who want to speak and listen to the minister's rebuttal.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today to speak to this piece of legislation, but I do thank my colleague, the Minister of Labour, for bringing in the legislation because it is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, it was forced upon us and we are doing the right thing today for a host of reasons.

Mr. Speaker, for the last five years we have had relative peace in the fishing industry when it comes to bargaining for fish prices in the spring of each year, and the reason we have had that is because of what is known in the industry as FOS, Final Offer Selection.

Part of 1997, as everybody in the Province knows, in the spring of the year we usually had chaos when it came to negotiating prices for fish. Mr. Speaker, with that chaos came a number of problems, and it affected everybody in the industry from the person who worked in the plant, to the plant owner, to the fishermen and the crew aboard vessels in this Province. Due to not being able to negotiate prices, it culminated in 1997 in what my critic called the pepper spray incident. That was one of the most unfortunate things that I have ever seen happen. In the spring of that year, or in the summer actually, that year the crab fishery did not start until July. As a result of prices not being negotiated, the fishermen felt, as a last resort, they had to march on the capital city to make a point known. It was unfortunate what happened at that meeting but, in hindsight, I guess, it was probably a good thing that it did happen. Because after that incident, the minister of the day appointed a panel led by Mr. David Vardy, a man for whom I have the utmost respect, a man who has been involved in the fishery, indirectly, through the department and through the Marine Institute, all of his life, a man who, given the task, came forward with a mechanism to settle fish prices.

As I said, prior to 1997, when prices could not be negotiated in a timely manner, not only were they not negotiated in a timely manner, but they had an affect on a lot of things. They had an affect in the fact that they could not get those prices negotiated early enough. They had an affect on our markets, because, Mr. Speaker, as you know, a market demands something. The supply has to be there, and it has to be there on a timely basis. It is no good for someone to go out this year and say: We are going to deliver crab to you on April 30, only to have that crab delivered to your restaurant, down in the States somewhere, on July 30. That does not cut it, Mr. Speaker, and when that happens, those markets will look elsewhere, those people who buy our fish products will look elsewhere for a more secure supply.

It also affected the quality of our product because, Mr. Speaker, to harvest crab, or most of our crab, in July and August, is not the most opportune time, because of the heat in the middle of the summer. The other thing it affected was the duration of work in fish plants. It was all thrown up on the wharf, basically, in a month or a month-and-a-half in the middle of the summer. Obviously, the people who worked in that plant may have gotten their hours but they got them in a very short period of time, maybe in four to eight weeks. That would affect the unemployment insurance that they would have drawn that following winter.

So, like I said, David Vardy was hired. He put the plan in place called Final Offer Selection and it worked very well. I am not aware of very many people in this Province who actually had a problem with the Final Offer Model. What it was, as some of my colleagues across the floor said earlier, is that the union would go forward with their price and the processors, represented by FANL, would come forward and say: Here is the price we can pay. What would happen then, if they could not come to an agreement: You have put your final offer on the table on each side and the arbitrator picked what he thought was the best, either the processors or the union. He did not settle in the middle, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, it was to both side's benefit to try and get as close as they possibly could, because they knew that the arbitrator had to pick one or the other. It could not go both ways. It was to both their benefit to come as close as they could before the arbitrator had to rule.

In fact, I think the Minister of Labour said this afternoon there were twenty-eight of the forty-eight arbitrations, or times that the Final Offer was used, of those negotiations that took place, that were settled without having to go to an arbitrator. So, that is twenty-eight out of forty-eight, Mr. Speaker, which was not bad. As a result, we got the fishery open in a timely manner.

Now my critic across the floor, this afternoon, said that he does not know what happened this fall. He said he did not know what happened for FANL to back out of Final Offer. You have to stop to think -

MR. TAYLOR: I could only speculate.

MR. REID: Pardon me?

MR. TAYLOR: I said, I could only speculate.

MR. REID: You could only speculate. Well, I have been standing here now for the past two years and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition stands quite frequently. In fact, I think he did it today in the House of Assembly, when he said: The minute that the Premier was not interested enough about FPI to ask the question. Just think about that, now. Because the hon. member, the critic, the individual who wants my job, who wants to be Minister of Fisheries for the Province, stood in this House this afternoon and said: I can only speculate as to why FANL pulled out of this Final Offer Selection. Just think about that, Mr. Speaker. Because FANL delivered a letter to the Minister to Labour and to myself back at the end of October, almost two months ago, and he does not know why they pulled out. Just imagine! When you talk about interest and about people not having interest in what is going on. A man who says that he spent all of his life in the fishing industry, and he had since October 31 to find out why FANL pulled out of this Final Offer Selection, and what did he do? He did absolutely nothing. He did not have enough interest. Just think about it, Mr. Speaker. He did not have enough interest in the fishing industry of this Province to pick up the telephone and phone the members of FANL to find out exactly what the problem was.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the man worked for the Fishermens' Union of this Province for ten years, and takes great pride in the fact that he worked for them, talks about it all of the time. He never picked up the telephone and called the head of the union to ask Mr. Earle McCurdy: What is going on here and is there any way that we can solve this problem?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, not the peep did I hear from one member opposite, since October 31 of this year. To give the member over here his due, the Leader of the NDP -

MR. TAYLOR: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I rise on a point of order. The minister should know that I did talk to Mr. McCurdy. I did talk to members of FANL. I said I could only speculate on what the real reasons were. I did not say that I did not know what the reason that was given was. I said I speculate on what the real reasons were. Maybe the real reasons are not entirely the same as the ones that were given. We do not know, we can only speculate on that.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I sat here this afternoon, as all members on this side, and listened attentively to what the members opposite were saying, and I would appreciate it if the member opposite would afford me the same privilege. Hansard recorded exactly what the member opposite said.

To continue on with what I am saying, not one member opposite with the Official Opposition said one word about this from October 31^st up until today. Like I said, the Leader of the NDP did not sit by and wait until today to find out what the problem was, because he was the only one who stood and asked me a question on this, and he asked it last week.

MR. TAYLOR: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order here. I will correct the minister again. If he checks he will see that there was a press release put out on it and there were several interviews done on this. So once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would again say I listened attentively while the member opposite spoke this afternoon, I never interrupted, and I have been on my feet for five minutes here today and he has interrupted me twice.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about press releases and going to the media. The only incident that I am aware of, when he went to the media on this, was when the Leader of the NDP raised it in this House last Thursday afternoon. That is enough said about that, Mr. Speaker. That is enough said about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, that a man who wants to become the Fisheries Minister for this Province should have enough interest to find out exactly what is going on out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Another thing, Mr. Speaker: When the Member for Bonavista South says, why wouldn't I have him down to my office to seek his advice, well, Mr. Speaker, I might, but I am not quite sure that anyone in the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture would want to see him come through the door after last week, when he called them all a Mickey Mouse outfit and referred to them as the Mouseketeers. I think it is absolutely disgraceful!

Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits is sitting over there now laughing. Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Fisheries are not laughing about the insults that he has hurled at them in the last few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the Final Offer Selection: In October of this year, the President of FANL submitted a letter to the Minister of Labour saying that they were withdrawing from the Final Offer Selection process. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, we know full well why they did it. We know full well, because we have been talking to not only FANL but the union on almost a daily basis since October 31. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had many a discussion prior to October 31, and not only are we calling them and meeting with them during the day, I have had many a discussion late into the night on the telephone in my own house with both those individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I tell you, we are, this group over here, interested in what happens in the fishery, because that is what affects the lives of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is with no great pleasure that we have to bring in legislation today to deal with collective bargaining, but we are prepared to do it because we know the impact this will have on the economy of this Province, in the spring, if this fishery does not get opened in a timely manner. We know, we have seen it happen. We do not feel good about doing it but, Mr. Speaker, we will do what is best for Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the reason this legislation is on the table.

All we are saying in this legislation today is that, whomever negotiates in the spring of this year, whether it be FANL, whether it be one individual company or whether it be a group of companies, that they use the Final Offer model. That is the gist of the legislation that we putting here today.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to get political about anything here today, but obviously the members opposite could not keep politics out of it. I listened all afternoon about: You don't have a plan, you don't have a plan, you don't have a plan. Well, let me talk about plans, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the Tory plans. Let me talk about the Tory plans, because, Mr. Speaker, I was a student of history and I remember things. I make it a point to remember things.

Back in 1972, the Liberal government was defeated and a Tory government came in. In 1972 -

MR. TAYLOR: I was in Kindergarten at the time.

MR. REID: The Member for The Straits & White Bay North said that was when he was in Kindergarten. Well, he might not have known what was going on at the time, but if he would listen today he might know what is going on today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Tory plan. In 1972, when the gang across the floor - and the member for Bonavista talked about my cousins. They were not his cousins, they were his brothers and sisters here in the Province, the Tories here in this Province. In 1972, there were forty-five fish processing licences here in this Province, forty-five in 1972, when the Liberals went out and the Tories came in. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? In 1989, when the Tories went out and the Liberals came in, do you know how many licences were here?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. REID: How many do you think? Not fifty-five, not seventy-five, not 105, but 255 processing licences.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: They talk to me about a plan, Mr. Speaker. They talk to me about a plan.

Not only that, but the proof is there that they were giving them out during the election in 1989 to buy votes; giving out processing licences during an election in 1989 to hold on to the power so that they could give out a bundle more after that. That was their plan in 1989. They were defeated, thankfully, and the people of the Province in the fishing industry should be thankful that they were.

The next plan that came along was in 1996. The Member for Bonavista North, or Bonavista South, who criticized me today for not having a plan, and the Member for Kilbride, and the Member for Ferryland, all stood behind their leader in 1996 during the election, every one of them, a great leader, Ms Verge, their new leader, going to be the new Premier of the Province, and they had a fisheries plan. They had a fisheries plan, Mr. Speaker. They had a fisheries plan, and a good one they thought, a good one. They were going - the first plank in their platform was: We are going to open seventy-five new fish plants during a moratorium. During a moratorium, when the Province was on its knees with regard to the fishing industry. They were going to open seventy-five fish plants. I can remember out on Fogo Island during that election, and the plant workers out there and the fishermen saying to me: Yes, boy, she is also going to promise a ferry, but we have a Tory ferry tied up at the wharf down there because she cannot go through the ice. Just like it. That was their plan.

They talk about a plan. You have this new leader and they say over there - when the Member for Lewisporte is not there, by the way, every time you mention the past they always say: Oh, no, none of us over here had anything to do with that, but they forget, because I remind them, that you were there. When you are not there, they put a disclaimer, right? When you are not there, they put a disclaimer on you; they do not want to have anything to do with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Let me tell you what their latest plan is, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you what their latest plan is. I will tell you what I have figured out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have some protection from the members opposite? Because I sat quietly while they spoke this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I will tell you what their new plan is, Mr. Speaker, but it differs. The leader's new plan for the fishery differs depending on where he is in the Province. If he is on the Northern Peninsula: Yes, you have to do something for St. Anthony and that area. You have to give them a licence. Right? You have to do it there. Then, all of a sudden, he goes to Bonavista North during a by-election and the leader and the Member for Bonavista North are going around telling all of the plant workers - guess what the is telling them down there? If we were the government, no more licences, got too many licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he tell the member for St. Anthony?

MR. REID: Oh yes, the member for St. Anthony was down there at the same time. The member for St. Anthony was in the district campaigning with his leader when his leader was knocking on the door, along with the Member for Bonavista North, saying: Oh, no more licences. There are far too many out there. Never mind St. Anthony, but if they go up there next week again they will say, of course, oh yes, we are all in favour of that.

While they are down in Bonavista North campaigning about no new licences, the Member for St. Anthony is in here beating the doors down: Give us a licence, boy, give us a licence. So, that is their plan, Mr. Speaker. That is how consistent they are. They are consistent in one thing, Mr. Speaker, their inconsistencies. That is exactly what they are consistent in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The Member for Bonavista North talks about buying time. Why didn't we, instead of making this for one year, why didn't we do it for four or five years? Why? Because I had discussions with the people involved in this industry and that is what they are looking for, one year, while we can review this and get the processors, get the union back to the table and make a plan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: - make a plan that involves the stakeholders, the processors, the union and the government; not what you would do, legislate from the top down. That is the reason we only put it in for one year, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, it is not a pleasure to stand here today, to have to legislate some type of collective bargaining, but we will do what is necessary and we will do what is right for the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I want to take the opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly and former MP, Roger Simmons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Certainly, I want to stand today to make a few comments on this particular piece of legislation before us today, which is dealing with the fishing industry.

Before the minister had spoken, I had some thoughts in mind and I will certainly mention those in a second, but just to think about the fact that we are standing with this piece of legislation today, which we have all said we should not be here doing. There should have been a solution beforehand. To take the time of a minister of this Province, the minister responsible for the fishery, to get up and do a rhetoric statement, a political history, instead of dealing with this very serious issue, shows the leadership, Mr. Speaker. Then the minister tries to give us some type of comfort, as the leading person responsible for the fishery in this Province, and talks about a year from now, because this is a stop-gap measure for now, and the review and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have a December 10, 2001, statement from the Minister of Fisheries, one year ago almost to the day, on the inshore shrimp fishery, when he said, and I quote: I look forward to receiving the panel's report in the new year, said Reid. The work of the panel combined with the recent report from a special panel on corporate concentration in the fishing industry will certainly assist us in developing sound, future fisheries policies, as we continue to grow this billion dollar industry which is the cornerstone of the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself, if he is talking about a review for this year, he was talking about a review a year ago, and he was talking about a review two years prior to that, is he really going to finally do something to address the concerns?

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House today, who stood and spoke, talked about the concerns that the industry has in the harvesting sector and in the processing sector. Concerns have never really rightly been addressed through panel reports or any other manner. So, today we are standing here really, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this one year extension so that we can teach stability in the fishing industry, and that is what the harvesters and processors, for a long time, have been talking about. We can go on back through history, like the minister wanted to do. I guess we could say the same thing for a long time, but the fact of the matter is that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, in the changing fishery in this Province, we need the stability to continue on or we are going to be going one year to the next, as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said, from crisis to crisis.

Are we going to be standing in this House next year, if this is still the Minister of Fisheries, to deal with another crisis? That is the entire point that we have all made today in a very constructive manner, I would say. What is ironic about today is that each member who stood in their place, including the minister who opened debate, was very constructive, dealing with the issue, pointing out some concerns. Hansard will tell what the Member for The Straits & White Bay North was referring to in his speculation, and he did contact different people on this matter, but that will all show. The point here today, Mr. Speaker, is how this situation will be handled now so that we indeed give some stability back to the fishing industry, because when that happens in this Province, when there is stability, as the Member for Bonavista South alluded to, the fact that the quality, the timing of fishery - if people know the fishery like the fishermen do, they know that the timing that they can harvest, and the timing that you can process means everything. Because when this Final Offer Selection was in place, and it has been (inaudible) for the last five years, after the 1997 summit of the pepper spray, as some refer to it, there has been some stability, and everybody has prospered from that. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador has seen stability in the plants around the Province, in my district and throughout the Province. That is what we are looking for here, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, as we have all said, and the minister started off on the right note, we do not, none of us, want to be here today to have to do this because mutual agreement and understanding and working out a problem is the best way to address the problem, to get both sides to come together, use this particular mechanism that they have used for the last five years so that the problem can be worked out on a mutual basis. That was what we were after. That is why some of the concerns, if there was a plan - and the minister talks through history of 1972 right up through - well, he is the Minister of Fisheries. The government that he is now a part of has been there for thirteen years, and if knew all of these concerns from the harvesting sector, from the processing sector, then why aren't they addressed? Why are they still cumulating into a bigger problem? Why are we standing here today to break a piece of legislation, to amend a piece of legislation that was agreed upon in a mutual manner where there was peace in the industry and stability was there? Because you have to remember, if there is not stability and security in any business - because that is what it is, a business. Look at the investments by the harvesters, the fishermen themselves, small boats, big boats. Look at the investment by the processors. It is all investment, and that is what makes your business grow in any business, when you have stability. That is when you can invest, do better things, use better technology when you are harvesting, use better processing technologies. It all comes together in a cycle.

Mr. Speaker, without prolonging this and without getting into political rhetoric - as the leading person responsible for the fishery in this Province here today - let's stick to the issue. Let's stick to this bill and really understand what it really is, a stop-gap measure because things were not addressed over the long run. Another year has gone. What we are going to do now is give some breathing room, which has to be done. We are going to support this. We will get some breathing room, but hopefully - this is why I stood today, because the fishing industry, like so many other parts of this Province, is the backbone in my district and throughout many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When the fishery is stable, the economy is stable and there is some sort of security about people where they live, not having to look at leaving the Province again. That is what it means. That is why it is so important; too important for a political rhetoric statement from the person who is leading the fishing industry in this Province.

I was really disappointed in the minister today, to be honest with you. The Minister of Labour, who stood in her place to introduce this bill, did a very good job in pointing out some of the facts. That is what we are dealing with here today, not some political statement.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, because I do not want to use all the time as there are a few more members who want to speak on this, we need stability in the fishery for the long term; because, the fact of the matter is, when there is stability in the fishery, the timing of harvesting is critical. We all know that, depending on the time of year that you go fishing, when some of these disputes were happening, fishermen were forced to go fishing at the wrong time of the year. They know when to go fishing for crab, shrimp, and so on. They know. Make sure that the stability is there so they can harvest at the proper time. That means better quality, therefore better markets, therefore a better economic outlook for the industry. That is the point to make here today.

I guess the message is this: Yes, we have to do this today in this Legislature. It is too bad we have to, but the point to the minister is that he is the lead hand in this Province right now, for how long we do not know, but for right now he is the lead hand on the fishing industry in this Province. The industry has to be stable. It has to be secured. Between here and next year, when this runs out again, hopefully some of those concerns are addressed and a plan is put in place so that it is not a one year stop-gap, so that we can look down the road to this industry and where it can go into the future, because it does have a good future. The fishing industry in this Province has a good future if it is controlled and properly managed. That is the key to it, Mr. Speaker.

I will not take up any more time but to say that this particular bill today we reluctantly support, but we know we have to support it to keep the stability for this year, but hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the concerns will be addressed and they will listen to the people in the industry, the people on the water, the people who know this industry the best. If that is done, if consultation is done - not just for the listening but for action on this, we will see a longer term plan and stability in the fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel compelled to rise today and speak to this particular piece of legislation, the amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. Coming from a predominantly fishing district, I have fifteen communities in my district and I would say all but one depend entirely on the fishery. It is hard to sit in my seat and not rise and speak to this important amendment today, and to thank the Minister of Labour, in fact, for bringing it in because, of course, what she is doing in bringing this forward is helping to return some stability to the fishing industry. Again, being very familiar with the fishing industry, having grown up in Grand Bank, the very historic fishing community of Grand Bank on the Burin Peninsula, I was certainly exposed to every aspect of the fishery.

Again, I want to thank the Minister of Labour for bringing this forward today and I also want to speak in defence of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because, having heard some of the rhetoric from across the way, I think it is only fair that I take this opportunity to speak to how knowledgeable he is about the fishery, and what he has done since being Minister of Fisheries to make a difference and to make sure that the fishery is one that is prosperous and one that is moving in the right direction for this Province. There is no one more capable among our colleagues than the present Minister of Fisheries, to handle this particular portfolio, and we all know that he served with a former Minister of Fisheries as executive assistant to that minister.

We know how important it is to have certainty in any industry, but particularly in the fishing industry. It impacts on so many people, hundreds of thousands of people certainly directly and as many again indirectly. It is really important for us to realize that, when we talk about the fishery, we are talking about, in particular, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about the entire Province because the entire Province is affected by the fishery. It is that one industry that we all know is actually the lifeblood and the mainstay of Newfoundland and Labrador, but for rural Newfoundland and Labrador it is a way of life. It is a way of life for our people and it is one that we have to do everything we can to preserve, again making sure we have certainty, that people know they can rely on set prices and people know that the industry is going to be there for them. That is really important for all of our people.

It is important for fish harvesters, so they know in advance approximately when they will fish and what species they will harvest. Certainty it is really important for processors and plant workers, so they will know in advance approximately what they will produce and what resources will be required. It is important for harvesters and processors, because they also appreciate the financial stability associated with knowing when and how much to harvest and invest in gear and equipment.

Other businesses benefit as well, Mr. Speaker. When I talk about the direct benefits to our people just in terms of earning a living and being able to provide for their families, let's not forget those indirect benefits that come from purchasing equipment, from purchasing gear, from buying groceries, from the impact that it has on other people who rely on the fishing industry.

Certainty is imperative if we are going to see this industry survive. Even though there are those who would question amending the legislation, we have to look at the bigger picture. We have to make sure we have a fishing industry that is going to survive in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that means, as a government, doing everything we can to make sure that is the end result.

Clearly, the benefits of the fishery, whether you are involved in it directly or whether you see the benefits of it as a result of indirect benefits that come to people, we all realize how valuable the fishery is.

Again, having grown up in a community like Grand Bank where people, in fact, fish for a living, where they work in the fish plants, clearly you can see every day what it means to have a thriving fishery. The uncertainty - when people are not getting the number of hours they would like to get, or when the plant is opened for fifteen weeks or thirteen weeks, or when people want to work for a living but cannot, the uncertainty associated with it, Mr. Speaker, is devastating for people who have relied on this fishery for years and years. We have to do everything we can to make sure people can have a sense of relief, that they know that there is someone, in fact, looking out for their best interests. I want to be part of a government that does just that. I am proud to be part of a government that does just that, because clearly we know. A lot of us on this side of the House represent fishing districts and we are going to do everything we can to ensure that the fishing industry survives in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that means standing in the House today and introducing an amendment to the act, then that is exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it. We have every intention of doing what is right and what is proper.

The amendment before us today will preserve this model for 2003 and will provide our people with the level of comfort that they need, that, in fact, for the next year we will have a policy in place that will be in their best interests. It will give everyone that year to work through the problems that we are seeing today.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this is a good amendment. It is unfortunate we have to do this, but it is the right thing to do, we are doing it for the right reasons, we want to bring back certainty into the fishery, and, unfortunately, without this amendment that would not be there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I must say that I am pleased to be able to stand here today and speak on this Bill 31.

Before I do, in speaking to the Final Offer Selection process, I would like to make reference to a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries in this comments, when he mentioned about the contradiction, if you want to call it that, between myself and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North during the by-election in Bonavista North.

I would say to the hon. minister, that after 1992, when the moratorium was declared, this government had a perfect opportunity to set the fishery in this Province on the right course which would have taken us from the problems that we have today. I say that this government has failed, and not only failed, Mr. Speaker, but they have failed miserably. I came from the processing sector in this Province and I know what problems there are out there. It is in total chaos.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now make reference to the Final Offer Selection process. As most members know, this came into effect about four years ago, and it came as a result of the major problems that we were experiencing in the fishing industry, problems especially with respect to the start-up of individual fisheries. The process was that the two parties involved, FANL and the FFAW, would negotiate for a defined period of time. If they didn't reach a settlement, then they would present their final offers to an arbitrator. The arbitrator had seven days in which to make a decision. After that decision was made, Mr. Speaker, it was handed to the two sectors, the processing and harvesting sectors, and a minimum price was set. A minimum price was set for each species of fish. This price was based on the results of consultation with a consultant, Mr. John Sackton, that was mutually agreed upon by both parties.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that after that minimum price was settled, it was then that the major problems began. I notice the minister, in saying that he did received a letter from FANL two months ago, back in October, he did not come out and say why they were getting out of the Final Offer Selection process.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that we are here today, now, because the government of the day have not really addressed the major problems that are facing this industry. The Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Labour have known for some time that these problems exist, but while he did say that they have been talking to FANL and they have been talking to the FFAW, we do not see any major proof or any major positive results of those consultations.

Where do we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker? In the eleventh hour. We are caught in a situation, just a few days before Christmas, that we find this government trying to ram through a piece of legislation that really we should not be caught up in at this point in time.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, why is it that this Province, this government, is lurching from one crisis to another? It seems like we get into this situation even though we have had plenty of time to resolve it, but we never seem to have things work out that way.

I want to make reference to some points that we made a few days earlier, and the government prided itself on, in reaching agreements with twenty-eight bargaining units in this Province. Sure, they have reached agreements, but how was it done? Settlements were done because the gun was put to the head of every worker in this Province, in those units.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I would go back to one particular bargaining unit. This was with respect to the school support workers last winter, Mr. Speaker, when we had good, upright parents down in the communities of Greenspond and Newtown and Valleyfield who had to go out and break the law, Mr. Speaker, in support of their children, because of the situation that the bus drivers and other school support workers were put in, and that is totally unfair to those people. One of those people in particular, I guess most everybody may remember the statement she made, the lady from Greenspond, when she looked up and said: My red blood is now turned blue.

Mr. Speaker, that blue blood was part of the reason why I got elected in Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, it is not in the processors best interests to see this industry shut down this year, because I came through that in 1997 when I was involved with the processing sector and we had all kinds of problems, some which the minister alluded to earlier. The result we see is poorer quality product being put up by the plants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, we see poor quality product being put up by the plants in going to market. We see major volumes of products coming to the plant in a very, very short time, and not only the product in particular - in this one we talk about crab, but also this was coming at a time when turbot was coming in greatest supply. Capelin was also coming at the plants. With such a demand on the refrigeration system, nothing could result only some of the worst kind of product being sent to market, and there is no question about that. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, in June or July month, a plant with 300,000 or 400,000 pounds of crab on the floor and 200,000 or 300,000 pounds coming to the wharf, if there was a major breakdown in the electrical system. There would be utter chaos in those plants.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that perhaps if this government had been active over the past couple of years, and the past few months in particular, in addressing the problems that we have in the fishery, we would not be here debating this bill today. But, as my colleagues have said earlier, we are going to support this bill but we are supporting it reluctantly. We would rather see this bill pass and the problem solved rather than have the government do nothing, because we know what the results of doing nothing would be.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I could have those few minutes today and speak in support of the bill, and, like I say, doing it reluctantly but also doing it, we know, in the best interest of the fishing community in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, she closes debate.

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate today, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members who participated in this very important bill today.

I would like to say, for the record of this House, though, some members opposite have said that we have waited until the last minute, Mr. Speaker. Really, you know, that has not been the case.

In early October, when I received the request from FANL to opt out of Final Offer Selection, we worked long and hard to try to resolve this situation. We were hoping against hope that FANL would withdraw their letter but they did not. I must say that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself have met repeatedly with both sides. The only reason we are bringing this to the House today is that we want our fishery to start on time this spring. This was the last opportunity, because we know that this session will close probably next Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I take offence to a notion made by several members across the House, that this is a last ditch effort and it should have been fixed before. You cannot fix something that is not brought to your attention. We had every hope that FANL would continue to stay in the Final Offer Selection. As I have said repeatedly, we tried but we could not get both sides to agree to this resolve. To protect our fishery in the spring, we had to take this action. This is the only recourse that we had to ensure an early start of our fishery in the spring because it means so much to the economy of our Province, to our fisherpeople and to all of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say there was also mention made, whether or not I would actually bring forward this review, this thorough review that I am talking about as part of this legislation. I commit today, that thorough review will take place. Any stakeholder who is interested in participating in that review will have an opportunity to do so, because whatever comes out of this review at this time will shape the legislation in the future.

I also want to say that even though we are going to the Legislature right now to correct this problem, I know full well that I will be going to the Legislature again in 2003, because, whatever comes out of that review, we will act on it immediately.

Mr. Speaker, in closing debate today, I want to thank all hon. members and I move now that this debate close.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders, Bill 30.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders." (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak in support of this Bill 30, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. Already it has commonly been referred to as the ISO Act. This bill is based on model uniform legislation that has being developed by federal-provincial-territorial family law committee group, which is a group of senior family lawyers from across the country and deputy ministers from various jurisdictions.

The purpose of this bill and what it will accomplish is, the repeal and replacement of the reciprocal enforcement of Support Orders Act, which is the current legislation governing the recognition and establishment of interjurisdictional support orders. That legislation was originally passed in 1988.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation will significantly streamline and simplify the process by which support orders are granted, obtained, both varied and recognized, in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions. Probably the greatest achievement of it is that it will minimize delays that are usually encountered in trying to obtain or trying to vary a support enforcement order.

Currently, as many members of the House are probably aware, if a person in our Province is seeking a support order here against someone who lives outside of our Province, it is a two-stage process: the person makes an application to the court here. The court takes the evidence from that person, decides what the support shall be and makes what they call a provisional order. The court then forwards that documentation to the jurisdiction where the other party is residing. There is another court hearing held in that other jurisdiction. The other party, whom you are requesting support from, attends the court in that jurisdiction - for example, Alberta - and the court listens to their testimony, and either confirms, varies, or denies the provisional order that was made here in Newfoundland in the first case. So that is obviously a very complicated and time-consuming procedure, particularly in the case of families who want to get support matters dealt with in a timely fashion.

What this does, and we are only one of all the other jurisdictions - the hope is to have this processed and implemented by January 1, 2003. It came to fruition back in the spring and to date all other provinces this year have gotten to this point where they are going to bring in this legislation. For obvious reasons in the spring when we did not get to it, that is why it was put over to this session. So what we are trying to do here is make this amendment in this session so that we can comply, as the rest of the country, in getting this done by January 1, 2003.

What will happen under the new process, the reason it is being simplified is that you do not have to go to court here any more in first instance. A party who wants to get support can go to a courthouse or a legal aid centre, for example, and get a form which they fill out. It has to be sworn to saying who they are, where they live, why they are requesting the support, the amount of support they want, their reasons for justifying their support. That is sworn to, it is delivered to a processing centre here in the Province, which we want to be our support enforcement agency, which already exists and has operated in Corner Brook. That agency will ship it off to wherever the other party lives, be it Ontario, be it Alberta or whatever. The paper documentation goes to a court in the other jurisdiction, that person then - whom against the order is being sought - has the right to come into the court in that other jurisdiction and say they will either agree or disagree with the application that has been made in the paper application. Obviously, if the judge who hears that testimony feels: I do not have enough information to make the decision. There is provision in here where he can come back to the originating jurisdiction and say: Look, I need more information. You have to go ahead with an order back in Newfoundland in order to get more complete. That is if there is a problem with not having enough evidence, or the judge in the other jurisdiction feels he does not have sufficient evidence.

All things being equal, the application has been properly filled out and processed, what will happen is that it puts the onus on the person against whom the support order is being sought, as opposed to having the person trying to get the support. Which is generally in our system in Canada, it is normally the female spouse who is trying to get support for herself and her children against a payor who has generally, in many cases, left the jurisdiction and is out in Alberta somewhere working. There are all kinds of problems trying to get that person to pay their support. Commonly referred to sometimes as deadbeat dads. What this is doing is trying to simplify the process so that the deadbeat dads are going to be held more accountable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any deadbeat (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Any deadbeat person but, statistically, it is usually deadbeat dads. To a large proportion, it is usually deadbeat dads.

That is the purpose, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation. I think it is very timely. It is necessary, and is one example where all the family law areas of the country have agreed that it is a good thing to do and it is a right thing to do because it simplifies the process. Why have complications if we do not need them? So, that is what this is trying to accomplish. Every person in this Province who has viewed this from the courts, from the support enforcement staff, to women's groups, for example, are being very supportive of this legislation and feel that it is about time and it is the proper thing to do. We would certainly like to get it processed during this sitting of the Legislature so that we can have it and be in line with the rest of the country and proclaim it as of January 1, 2003.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say right off the top, on behalf of my colleagues, we support this legislation. This is good legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Any legislation that makes it easier for child support orders to be obtained across the country or in our own jurisdiction and also makes it more user friendly, then, obviously, we support it. We should support it and we, in fact, do.

I compliment the minister and the government for bringing this legislation forward. I think, as he said, it will, once we pass it here, I guess, companion legislation will now exist right across Canada, and not only across Canada but this legislation, in fact, makes it possible for a citizen of this Province to look for orders in jurisdictions outside of Canada, in foreign jurisdictions. That might be more difficult but, nevertheless, it provides a legislative framework for allowing that to happen.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have looked through the legislation. I do not see any pitfalls in this legislation. There is no earthly reason why a working parent, whether it is mom or dad, do not support the children. It should not fall on the taxpayer generally to do that. That is our responsibility and a legal framework to make sure that people who try to skirt that legal responsibility, in fact, cannot do it. It is something that is progressive. It is something that is supportive and is something that we all should strive to enforce.

I think this will go a long way, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring that children in this Province are able to get the financial support that they deserve from their parents, wherever those parents might be, if it is in a Canadian jurisdiction or if it is in a jurisdiction outside of Canada.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we will be supporting the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, on behalf of our party, that we do support this legislation. It is very progressive legislation and it is very good to see, Mr. Speaker, that this is legislation that is in place in every jurisdiction in Canada, or will be enforced in every jurisdiction in Canada as a result of this legislation being passed in this House. It is legislation, I think the minister alluded to - it is designed, of course, to ensure that spouses and children who are entitled to support from another spouse or parent are enabled to get them. We have a situation in this Province where lots of people leave the Province to seek work elsewhere; or, if families break up, often one spouse leaves the Province and goes to work in Ontario or Alberta or some other province of the country. In a lot of cases there is a great deal of difficulty for the other spouse and the children to actually get enforceable orders or sometimes even find the spouse. Let's be frank here, it applies equally to men and women but we are talking principally here about men who abandon their support obligations by leaving the family and leaving the Province.

It is really designed to protect women and children, for the most part. Undoubtedly there are very rare and occasional circumstances where it works the other way around, so let's not beat around the bush here; we are talking about men who abandon their responsibility to their spouses and children and do not wish to support them in the manner that the law provides.

We have come a long way in the last number of years in reforming our legislation, the Family Law Act. We now have the Divorce Act establishing a standard that is applied so that you do not have to go through, in each and every case, have a big argument about how much support a person is entitled to, how much of that person's income goes to support his wife and children or dependent spouse and children. Now we have seen that take place.

We have seen some advancement in information sharing with Revenue Canada under the EI Act. Information can now be available to actually find spouses where they try to hide their place of residence. So, there have been some advances in that stage, and this thing here is a further act to streamline the process whereby an individual seeking support for herself and her children can now go through this single stage process, recognized in every other jurisdiction. In return, we will recognize in this Province the enforcement of other jurisdictions.

We see, Mr. Speaker, that despite the out-migration numbers that we have seen, there is migration coming the other way as well. The numbers of 50,000 or 55,000 people leaving this Province in the last five years were offset by 16,000 or 18,000 people coming here. There are people coming to this Province to which this act would apply as well. It is not a one-way street for people from this Province trying to seek support elsewhere. There will be many applications which are sought to be enforced in this Province as people come here to work, whether it be to work in the oil industry, whether it be Newfoundlanders coming back home, individuals coming back home, or people coming here to make a living and to participate in our economy. It is not a one-way street. That is why it is inter-jurisdiction; it is one of those acts which is reciprocal to other provinces. We are certainly very pleased to see that this government has been willing to move along with other jurisdictions to impose this act.

I was going to suggest earlier, and I asked the minister, I said, perhaps we can criticize for not bringing in the act in sooner, but he reminded me that none of this legislation will actually come into force until January 1, 2003 anyway. The fact of the matter that we are here when everybody else is here, we are not delayed by any means by being the last jurisdiction in the country to adopt the legislation. I think that is just a matter of our legislative agenda which makes us the last one. No jurisdiction will have this legislation come into force until January 1, 2003. On that score, Mr. Speaker, we are not being left behind. In fact, we are in tandem, or rather - not tandem, because there are other jurisdictions - we are in -

AN HON. MEMBER: In sync.

MR. HARRIS: -in sync with the other provinces and other territories who have passed similar laws.

I do have one comment to make and it is a concern that I raised with the minister earlier. I think he addressed it in part. The act does provide for a designated authority. The designated authority, I understand, will be the support enforcement agency.

We do have a lot of provincial courts around the Province, not in every town, obviously, but we have a number of provincial court jurisdictions. We have superior court jurisdictions where they have offices where they have staff, where hopefully there will be forms available so that the natural instinct of someone who is looking for a support order is to go to the nearest court because that is where they see the ability to get support orders, to get the court action. They will go to the court looking for information. I do not want it to be a situation where people who go to the court looking for information and are told to phone some 1-800 number in Corner Brook and eventually might get hold of copies of forms. This should be made user friendly on the ground everywhere we can so that individuals can have access to these applications, to the forms that they need. There may be affidavits required, so it is not simply a matter of filling out a form. There is a judicial process after all and there will have to be some assistance to people around the Province, whether it be through Legal Aid lawyers or even through social workers, Mr. Speaker, who could assist clients or individuals who are in need of support to say, okay, sit down and we will spend half an hour going over these forms. Here is what you need to do, because this is a matter of individuals having access to the support that they are legally entitled to from their spouses or former spouses.

Often, it is a situation where a variation - there is an existing order, where someone got an order. The order might be two years old, it might be three years old, it might be five years old. Circumstances may have changed considerably to the point where the dependent spouse and children need more money. They need to increase it or they find out that their spouse who claimed when they got the original order had no income or claimed that they had no income, they found out that the spouse now has a job, a very well paying job, and want to seek a variation in that order. This happens very, very often, Mr. Speaker, where the financial circumstances of the spouse from whom the order is being sought, that he has gotten a new job, being paid a lot more money than the job that he had when the original order was obtained, and there is a necessity to act quickly to get an order varied so that the dependent spouse and children can take advantage of the income that the spouse, who is not supporting the family in accordance with the requirements of the support legislation, can be very quickly brought into court if need be, assuming that the law has been met. So, that is important, too, that there be easy access to this procedure. I am sure the minister, when closing debate, will perhaps identify the measures that his department is going to take to ensure that there is access across the Province to this process as easily as possible, as accessible as possible with the most help that can be provided to individuals who need support orders.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say we support Bill 30. It is very good legislation. It is another step forward in providing for fairness for women and children who need support from their husband or spouse who has left and who is not properly supporting his family.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the Opposition who are supportive of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: Learned colleagues too, with that.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, both learned colleagues actually - who are supportive of this piece of legislation.

I would comment and respond to the Leader of the NDP in his comments concerning accessibility to the forms. He is quite right. There is no point in making a progressive piece of legislation that is intended to help principally women or any spouse who is looking for support, but principally women and children, if you do not make it accessible. So, similar to all other court documentation and forms in this Province which can be obtained from courthouses, in fact there are women's groups, legal aid offices, for example, these forms will be accessible at any of the normal venues.

In fact, I noticed - again, I guess, it is a sign of the technology - that forms under provincial court right now are accessible through the Internet. For example, if one wants to do a small claim in this Province now, you do not have to walk down the street to a courthouse or phone anywhere. You can actually go on the Internet and haul down your own forms, process them, and scan them back to the courts without even leaving your own room if you wish to. So, that is the intention here. It is to simplify things; not to complicate things. Accessibility is, of course, what is going to make it work in addition to having the process simplified.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 30)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 22, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act, Bill 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act , 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act." (Bill 24)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill has a fairly long title but the bill itself is fairly straightforward. This is a followup to the work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information which was set up in 1966. The idea of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is to improve the flow of information, to put in place an improved information system and to make sure that quality information is provided on a timely fashion to all health professionals, to consumers, researchers and the health system decision makers.

Over the past six years the Centre itself has been evolving and developing its organization. In 2000, the Centre began work on the UPI, the Unique Personal Identifier, and the client registry program, which is a centrepiece of its mandate for improved health information. Now it is time to ensure that the legislation which supports the transfer of health information to the Centre is clear and explicit. That is why it is necessary to amend these various pieces of legislation that were just referenced to allow that information to flow to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

As well, Mr. Speaker, Bill 24 will provide government with the authority to further strengthen privacy, access and confidentiality standards through regulation, if necessary, that provision is provided. When these acts are amended our Health and Community Services Board, MCP, and Vital Statistics will have the explicit authority to release health information to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre of Health Information.

Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the listed statutes is intended to ensure the transfer of personal health information to the centre. This is explicitly provided for in law and it is to enable the development of regulations to identify the terms and conditions under which such transfer can take place.

The amendments, Mr. Speaker, are being made to solidify the protection of personal health information. This government is committed to the protection of individuals' privacy and this bill is another example of our commitment in action.

The Centre will adhere to the same rules and regulations as our health boards and facilities. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, our health boards are required to respect the privacy and confidentiality of health information. I certainly can assure hon. members and the people of this Province that the same integrity will be maintained by the Centre for Health Information.

To ensure protection of privacy, regulations will be prepared to prescribe the terms and conditions for the release of information to the Centre. Mr. Speaker, enabling the Centre to collect pertinent health information would help to enhance the operation of our Health and Community Services system. I think all health care providers recognize that the work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is an important and integral piece as we move forward with reform and improvements to our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, one of the guiding principles that certainly I adhere to, as minister, is evidence -based decision making. In fact, it is such a fundamental component of the administration of Health and Community Services system that evidence-based decision making is a guiding principle of our Strategic Health Plan. To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that our decisions are evidence-based, we do need a comprehensive data base and we do need comprehensive information about our Health and Community Services system. This information in turn needs to be accessible to government from one source, and this is the purpose for the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

Mr. Speaker, amending these pieces of legislation will enable the Centre to collect and analyze its wealth of health information from our health institutions and enhance government's evidence-based decision making.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the centre, since it has been in operation, as I mentioned, in 1966, is certainly very impressive. They have undertaken a number of important pieces of work. It has reached a point now, I think, where it has demonstrated the importance, and the important role that it can provide, in the delivery of health care in this Province. It is necessary now for us to enable the board to move on to the next level. The amendment that we are proposing here today will provide exactly that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. I certainly recommend to my colleagues a speedy passage of this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Trinity North for allowing me to speak first on this particular piece of legislation, just in case my personal circumstance is such that I will not be able to get back after dinner.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should say right up front, this is not, in my view, good legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This is terrible legislation. As the spouse of a cancer patient I cannot, in all conscience, support this legislation. I do not know what the legislation is doing here to be honest with you. I mean, just read it: The foundation may release information, including personal identifying information, to the cancer centre. Where does it go from there? Do I trust the Cabinet of any day, not just this Cabinet, to bring in regulations that are going to guard the personal confidentiality of my spouse, for example? Should that be a role for any corporation yet to be incorporated in this Province? Statistical information, yes. I have no problem with that. But, personal identifying information which this bill provides for, Mr. Speaker: There should be a companion piece of legislation accompanying this before it is dealt with that allows and protects the confidentiality, the privacy, of individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the legislative guarantee that the things that identify that individual will never be made known, will never become public.

I understand, from some of my colleagues, that there is such legislation in other jurisdictions. For example, I believe in Manitoba there is a companion piece of legislation to this piece of legislation that deals with the matters of confidentiality and privacy and so on. I do not know what the system is in initiating legislation under this government, but I do know that, in the past, all legislation had to flow through Cabinet committees and on up to full Cabinet and so on.

I implore the minister to back off on this for the sake of individuals in this Province who have no control over what is put out about them, to whatever foundation or to people, to employees. I mean, who is going to guard it? Who is going to be the watchdog to make sure, if there isn't a legislative framework, if there isn't a companion piece of legislation, who is going to make sure that individual confidentiality, privacy issues, are taken care of adequately if we pass this piece of legislation?

We have lived for quite some time without this piece of legislation. I would suggest to the minister that we can live some more time without it. There is nothing stopping the gathering of statistical information so that governments and corporations and individuals and so on can have access to individual statistical information. But to go beyond that, as this bill proposes to do, and to open up personal identifying information to a yet to be incorporated, as I understand it, corporation, and to leave it to Cabinet through rules and regulations, to depend on Cabinet to protect the confidentiality and privacy of individuals, Mr .Speaker, I do not think we should go there. I do not think we should go there.

I ask the minister, with not a political iota in my mind, and I ask the government, to back off and look at doing companion legislation that will have the effect of protecting the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's not go there yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to dig in his heels, as sometimes ministers are known to do, and if the government is going to dig in its heels, as sometimes governments are known to do, and get contrary and balky and everything else, then sometime or other over the next several parliamentary days, the government will have its way, but I do not want to get into that. I think this legislation is too important for us to get down into a drawn-out political wrangle over it. I hope the minister and the government will be open-minded, will take this suggestion in the temper in which it is tendered, and will determine, will want to determine, will gladly want to, what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those who are victims of some of the dreaded diseases that we are dealing with in our society today.

So that is the spirit in which I make this plea, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues again for allowing me to do it now just in case I cannot get back here later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on this bill, as well. I am very pleased that the Member for Lewisporte did go first and bring forth, as he suggested, in an non-partisan way, vital concerns about this legislation, which I, in fact, share. I am glad that a member with the stature of the Member for Lewisporte, as a former Premier of the Province, as a long-time Cabinet minister of this Province, is the one, in fact, to first make these concerns known to the House.

This legislation, in my view, is ill-conceived. It talks about giving information to the Newfoundland and Labrador Center for Health Information, which I am told is a company that will be, or is planned to be, incorporated after this legislation is passed. I assume it is going to be incorporated under the Corporations Act. It is going to be just another company, another corporation, bound by the Corporation's rules, not something that is a statutory corporation under this government, not something that this government is going to have direct control over, as is my understanding.

There should be legislation before this House incorporating the Newfoundland and Labrador Center for Health Information, setting out its role, setting out its duties and providing protections for the public whose information they will have. That is something that should be done for a matter as serious as this.

We have so many people who have illnesses or diseases. We understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is an important role that the Newfoundland and Labrador Center for Health Information will play. We have talked about it in this House many times, about evidence-based decision making so we can plan for health care and all of that. This is a vital role that they play, and they need information to conduct that role properly, whether it be information of a statistical nature, information from vital statistics like we have here, births and deaths, age information, so they can know what percentage of the population might be suffering from various diseases. Very important information is going to be available to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, and we support that work.

We also know, I certainly know, from talking to people who have been involved in devising this within the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, which now I understand is a division of the Health and Community Services of St. John's, it is now a division of an existing health care corporation, I know that they are very sensitive to issues of privacy. I know that. They are developing policies to protect people from that, but these policies, Mr. Speaker, should be - there should be a legislated framework in which they operate, not something that is left to the policy-makers of a corporation about to be incorporated. We should not have legislation here before us today which gives the power to pass over all sorts of private and personal information to a corporation that does not yet exist, with the only safeguard being that the Cabinet can make regulations. The Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions for the release of information under clause 17.1.

I am not satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that this particular Cabinet over here is irresponsible. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that there should be a legislated framework in this House, public, on the record, debated here in this House, gone through the process of legislative review, ensuring that it is in conformity with the privacy act, ensuring it is in conformity with the expectations of the people of this Province, that when they go for treatment in this Province, which they have to do - very few have an option of going anywhere else, they have to go for treatment in this Province, whether it is for cancer or any other disease; 99.9 percent of the people in this Province go through our health care system - they are entitled to know that their personal and private information is going to be protected and not available to people who should not have access to it, and is only going to be used for specific purposes.

Not every disease, and I am not going to get into any detail, not every disease that a person has, or every reason that they go to see a doctor, is something they want known. It is not something that they want known by their neighbours or by the public or by people who might, for whatever reason, have access to the computers of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

So, here in this House, we would like to know what the protections are. We would like to see them in legislation. We would like to see, for something as vitally important and sensitive as the kind of information that doctors and hospitals have access to for the purpose of treating individuals, which they need, we would like to know that information was in fact going to be private and secret and not available for any other purpose that it is not necessary for.

We do not even have before this House what the framework is, what the purpose of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is. I have seen brochures a few years ago. I have met, in fact, with the people who originally set it up, and they are certainly very sensitive to the idea, but we do not have any legislated framework in which this Centre is going to operate. I think it is wrong for us to give over this information to an organization that has no legislated framework, that we do not know what the guidelines are, we do not even know, through legislation, what the purposes of this organization are. So I am afraid that this legislation is premature. It is legislation that ought not to be before this House.

I would say, in the same spirit that the Member for Lewisporte has offered, that we do not need to have a knock-down, drag-'em-out battle here the week before Christmas over this legislation because I am afraid that if there is a stubbornness here in saying we are insisting on passing this, that may be exactly what will happen. I hope it will not. I hope the minister, after he hears a few more speakers on this issue, will give consideration to the suggestion that this bill be tabled or left on the Table, and that more thought be given to it, and that we come back to this House with a piece of legislation, a companion piece, whether it be a piece of legislation providing for the statutory incorporation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, with a set of objectives, a mission statement with some guidelines for what they are going to use in the legislation.

We know there is a privacy act out there, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to force individuals in this Province to go to court and fight over what the interpretation of the privacy act might be as it might apply to health information, as it might apply to a corporation that has yet to be incorporated, as it might apply to personal records. There has to be a framework that we can have confidence in, as a people, Mr. Speaker, that the information that is going to be passed over by the Cancer Treatment Centre, by the hospital corporations, by the hospitals across the Province, by MCP, by the Registrar of Vital Statistics - all of these individuals and public authorities are going to be required to pass over information to a, as yet to be, incorporated body whose mission and control has not been set out in legislation. We do not have - it is not that we do not have the confidence in the individuals who are trying to do this. The fact of the matter is, in a society like ours there are certain things that should be in legislation. There are other things that can be in regulations. There are other things that can be left up to policy. These are three levels of control. There is legislation, there is regulation - which means the Cabinet can change them whenever they see fit and gazette them - and then there is policy, which is something that can be changed from day to day by an organization.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this kind of framework for the release of this sort of information is something that I firmly believe ought to be in legislation, should not be left to the Cabinet and should not be left to the policy of an organization that we understand is going to be incorporated under the Corporations Act but we do not know the details of that. I think that this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is misconceived. I think it is something that needs a lot more thought. As the previous speaker, the Member for Lewisporte has said, is something that perhaps should have a companion piece of legislation. Yes, give this authority when the time comes but only in keeping with a legislative creation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and some statutory rules, whether it be in this particular bill or in the companion bill, as to exactly what controls there would be on the information that is available to this corporation, and whether or not it should be allowed to - the framework in which it should use the information and to what extent it needs to have the personal identification in order to do its work.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I notice the time is getting very close to our regular closing time, so I would adjourn debate.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I want to give notice of a motion, on Monday that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - and the accompanying motion, Mr. Speaker, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, no motion in order. I think it is an agreement that we recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to continue for a few minutes on Bill 24, the act in relation to the providing of information to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

Just to sort of sum up my concerns about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides for the giving of private information, personal information, health information, including personal identifying information from the Cancer Treatment and Research Centre, from the Health and Community Services Boards, from the hospitals, other information from the Medical Care Insurance Corporation, the medicare commission, and from the registrar of Vital Statistics to an organization known as the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. A body which is now, as I understand it, a division of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, but which is about to be, or hopes to be, incorporated as a private corporation under the Corporations Act.

There are a number of concerns about this, principally that there is nothing in this act that provides the kind of protection that I believe, and we believe as a party, should be contained in an act of this importance. With information of this level of sensitivity and privacy being dealt with, there needs to be a level of public confidence about this. This is not a reflection on the people who are involved with the Centre for Health Information, and it is neither a reflection on the government, frankly, who I think are trying to, or want to do the right thing here but I think that this is - I mentioned before we had the adjournment and the Member for Lewisporte had mentioned - a matter of real concern as to how this is done. Particularly when, as I understand it - I am surprised to hear it - the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is intended to be set up as a private corporation under the Corporations Act, which I believe is the wrong way to go.

We have not really been given any briefing as to how this is proposed to be done. I would have thought that a centre of this importance would in fact be a statutory corporation with aims set down by this Legislature and stipulations in legislation as to how they might operate. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that while we may have had this legislation, we would have also had legislation incorporating the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information with the aims and objectives set forth and with restrictions on the use to which it might be able to put its information with people who are a part of that corporation having the same kind of oath of loyalty as public servants would have or employees of Crown corporations, subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other legislation, subject to privacy legislation for government. This is the kind of expectation that I would have had for an organization of this importance.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is taking the objection seriously. I hope that the comments I have made here today and those of the Member for Lewisporte and other speakers, who I understand might wish to speak to this legislation, that there will be a rethinking on the part of government about its proposal here. I look forward to hearing other members of the House speak about this so that we may have a full debate on this before we go any further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of comments that I would like to make about Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation - and I think I understand the basis for which it is coming from. The Centre for Health Information has been established for a number of years now. It grew out of a fairly extensive study and committee activity in the early to mid-1990s and it looked at health information systems in this Province. One of the significant recommendations of that committee was to establish this Centre For Health Information. That centre had a couple of major projects on the go. One of them was, it is to be an organization that will provide all of the statistical information around medical activity within the Province. In addition to that, it had a mandate to develop a unique identifier.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be very careful when we proceed with this kind of legislation because I think that the act itself or the bill here proposes to give the jurisdiction to all government agencies, hospital boards, the cancer foundation and other people who collect vital personal information, to be able to use that information and transfer it to the Centre for Health Information.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at some point in time it is important for the Center For Health Information to have the ability to gather health information and personal health information to be able to facilitate a number of things. For example, as I understand it, the centre has already worked on a major project about having a unique identifier for each resident of the Province, which is the first step towards establishing an electronic health record. This would be consistent with projects of many other jurisdictions across the country where we are able to - we are trying to create a balance here, I think, Mr. Speaker, between making sure that our health system is able to provide quality health care, quality services, and provide fast and easy access to patient information to ensure that all health providers provide quality care. So, if you are seeing a physician in Port aux Basque, or you are seeing a physician in St. Anthony, or you are at a pharmacy in Grand Falls, that your patient information is available to the person who is treating you to ensure that the care is appropriate. One of the basis for this kind of proposal here is to have the Centre For Health Information be the nerve center for that kind of gathering of information and facilitate that kind of process.

The other thing, as I understand it, is that the centre will be actively involved in providing statistical information, doing analysis, utilization information. As I understand as well - and we have heard the minister talk many times in this House about, as he has talked about the future of health care and some former ministers, evidence based decision making. It is going to be important, in fact critical, for this kind of information gathering process to occur.

I believe the thrust of the bill is to ensure that the Centre For Health Information has the ability and can facilitate that kind of evidence based decision making, can facilitate and provide the services to health agencies in this Province to ensure that we have good utilization of our health resources and we are spending our money appropriately and where we are going to get the best value. If we are going to be talking about an improvement in the health status of a population, being able to monitor that, and govern how we in fact allocate the resources to do that, a good, solid information system is critical to the success of that kind of process.

I think the thrust of this bill was to ensure that the Centre could function as it was intended to when it was initially established. I think the intent of the bill is to ensure that we facilitate that kind of flow of information into the Centre For Health Information. On that particular point, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and the department have developed a piece of legislation that would facilitate that; but there is one critical issue here and it is one thing, I think, society as a whole, needs to balance here. There is a balance between what I have just described as being a critical part of our health system and a critical part of our ability to track information, balancing that between the right to privacy.

Last year in this House we debated the freedom of information legislation, and at that time I questioned the Minister of Justice around this whole issue of privacy, particularly the privacy of health information, and the legislative framework that would facilitate the protection of health information. I believe at the time the minister suggested that might be something that would be done down the road because that was a big piece of work, a major project to be undertaken, but it was something that he had indicated would be something that would happen in the future.

I think it is important for us to be talking about privacy and protection, but one of the big things that I question here, I think that the ability - and I suggest to the minister that there is an ability here to, I think, allow the Centre For Health Information to gather statistical information, and there is an ability here to ensure that they have a flow of information from health agencies and health providers in this Province to allow them to do one piece of their mandate, which is the gathering of statistics and provide reports on utilization data and things like that.

One of the unfortunate things though, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the introduction of this bill now is done in the absence of having an appropriate legislative framework in place to deal with the privacy and the protection of health information. I think some jurisdictions have called it the privacy of personal information, and other jurisdictions have called it the personal health information legislation.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that inasmuch as the intent of this bill is commendable, as we talk about the content of this bill, I hope one thing does not get lost in the discussion, and that is the value of the work that the Centre For Health Information is doing and how critical that Centre is to moving forward in health reform in this Province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, and I hope, from the discussion that I have had with the minister, that there is a willingness, I believe and I understand, to have some further discussions around this particular bill prior of getting into the Committee stage of it, because I think it is very important. Inasmuch as we have a major concern about privacy, and that must be paramount on our minds as we deal with this and as we debate this bill, unless it provides for the protection of people's privacy and it protects health information, describes who owns it, how you access it, who has permission to use it, and what protocols are in place to protect the transmission of information - and we are talking about doing it electronically and making sure that we have the security systems in place to protect it - I think we need to do all of that. At the same time, inasmuch as I am suggesting that this legislation may be a little bit premature and being introduced in advance of having the privacy protection piece in place, I suggest that there is some opportunity with some changes to this proposed bill, particularly in the area of the kind of information that can be transmitted to the Centre. I think there is still an opportunity, with some amendments here, and some changes, to be able to allow the Centre For Health Information to still get itself established as a separate legal entity so it does not have to operate under the auspices of the Health Care Corporation, so it can move froward with some pieces of its mandate, and at the same time allow it to gather some information of a statistically nature from various health agencies and health providers so that it can start the basis of a system-wide health information system and a Province-wide health information system.

I think it is important that we not rush into the debate of this legislation until we, number one, have a better understand of how people's privacy is going to be protected, and I believe at the end of the day what we may find, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that in order to get the concurrence from members on this side of the House, I think it is going to be important that we not only have some assurance but we have built into the legislation that we provide the legislative protection.

Any time we have bills introduced that talk about such a critical issue of the protection of personal health information, and we are not going to build that into legislation but rather leave it to a future or present Cabinet to develop regulations to govern that, I think that is a dangerous road to go down. We have just seen the Kirby Senate Committee Report released very recently, and we have just seen the Romanow Commission release its report on the future of health care in this country. Two of those reports, Mr. Speaker, very clearly talked about the need of much more sophisticated information systems, but they both talked about how critical it was to protect the privacy of Canadians, the privacy of their health information.

People need to be assured that the health information that they provide to their pharmacist, and personal information that they release to their physician or that is gathered in hospitals or gathered in clinics or gathered whether it be at physiotherapy clinics, occupational therapy clinics, dentist offices, pharmacies, what we are talking about here, the vision that is being shared across this country, is a network of health information systems plugged together where health providers can share information across jurisdictions and within provinces.

That may sound like a wonderful thing, and I think it has some merit in being able to improve the quality of health care that we provide, it has some major benefit for people who are involved in the administration of health systems and managing health systems, in terms of how they allocate resources, where resources should be directed, and how we can have a major impact on the quality of people's lives and improve their overall health, but, at the same time, in the interest of making sure we have a more effective, a more efficient functioning health system, we cannot proceed at the risk of providing undue exposure to release of personal information about all Canadians.

I think all of us in this House would want to have a high degree of comfort and some degree of assurance that there is a legislative framework in place to ensure that not only is there, as Commissioner Romanow suggested, some change in the Criminal Code to make provisions to punish people who breach such confidence, but we have in place a legislative framework that regulates the Centre for Health Information, regulates health providers in terms of how they store information, how they transmit it, who owns it, when it can be released. There are a range of questions here that we have not yet had answered, and I think when we do get the answers as to how that is going to be done, I think it is very important that we not leave it to either a Cabinet to develop regulation, or an organization such as the Centre For Health Information to develop policies or to comply with national standards or to comply with some regulatory body that we, as a Legislature, would have no control over, some accrediting agency across this country.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is very important, before we proceed with any further discussion around this particular bill, that we have a full understanding of how government proposes to protect the privacy of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and how government proposes to ensure that the confidential health information that we share with our physicians and our pharmacists on a daily basis is not somehow or other going to be used not just for medical purposes or for our benefit in the provision of our health care, or for some research purposes, but will be in fact available to many people who might have access to that and who have no real reason, no real business, of having it, and compromises ourselves.

One of the things that the age of technology has done for us: it, in fact, has helped improve, in many cases, care we get relative to health care. It has made communication much easier, but it has also made us much more vulnerable as a society. I think, inasmuch as we see the benefits of this kind of legislation and exchange of information, we cannot be running into it without ensuring that Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are protected and their health information is, in fact, not going to be falling into the hands of people who have no business having it.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's earlier comments from a discussion that he is very receptive to having some further discussions on this issue before we get into Committee stage, and maybe having some people from the Centre For Health Information share their views and thoughts as to how this might work, and the mechanics of how they might do it, but also I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that might give us some insight and some comfort as to how it would be done. I think we need to think about two things. One is how we can allows the Centre For Health Information to continue to function and establish themselves as an independent legal entity. I think that is something that can easily be done with some modifications to the legislation, but I am not so convinced that even with that kind of reassurance that we might get from the staff of the Centre about what they are proposing to do, even though that might give us some level of comfort, I think it is going to be very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to still be able to proceed and allow personal information to be transmitted from one agency to the other without having it in some fashion regulated by legislation passed in this House, fully debated in this House, so we can give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the assurance that the health information and personal information about themselves is protected by law and protected through legislation.

I welcome the opportunity for some continued discussion and debate on this issue as we get into Committee stage. I thank you for the opportunity to be able to make a few comments at this particular point at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank all hon. members opposite for their interventions. Indeed, as has been pointed out, I think this is an important piece of a larger piece of work that is being done on behalf of the people of the Province. The work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is indeed a significant step forward in terms of improving our ability to provide first-rate heath care to all the residents of our Province.

I think we all recognize that having ready access to all information is certainly of tremendous benefit to all of the health care providers. When you consider the number of interactions that each of us, as individual citizens, have with different agencies, all of them at this point in time operating in complete isolation and independence of one another, there is certainly a strong argument for having a vehicle whereby when you do present yourself for a service that ready access can be had to all of the information relevant to your particular situation.

However, Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the concerns that were raised by hon. members opposite. This minister and this government certainly have no desire to rush forward with something unless we are absolutely certain that it does satisfy what we intend to do here. Certainly, the information that I have from my officials, and the officials of the Centre, and also the legal counsel who worked with this, is that the difficulties do not exist there.

What I am committed to, and I have talked to a couple of the hon. members opposite already, is, before we come back to the House to deal with this in Committee stage, to certainly arrange for a full briefing, to involve the officials from the Centre, officials from my department, and allow an opportunity for a frank exchange to see if we can first of all, in the first instance, maybe lay the concerns that are there; but, if not, to see if there is a way that we can move this legislation forward.

As the hon. Member for Trinity North has pointed out, it is an important piece of legislation because it does enable the Centre to move forward with the important work that it is doing. As I said, before it goes to Committee, hopefully we will have an opportunity to deal in some detail with the concerns that have been raised here today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude and move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 24)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3: To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Certain Mining and Mineral Rights Taxes, Bill 21.

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

"An Act To Impose Taxes On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." (Bill 21)

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of certain mining and mineral rights taxes."

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to speak to Bill 21 concerning amendments to the mining and mineral rights tax.

Mr. Chairman, government recognizes the importance of the mining sector to the economy of our Province. We also recognize that the people of our Province expect and demand reasonable compensation for the mineral resources that belong to the people. That is why I am pleased this evening to introduce legislation to revise and consolidate the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. This new legislation will encourage the development of mineral resources which will continue to contribute to our economic growth of the Province as well as create jobs, while at the same time providing revenue to help pay for programs such as health care and education.

Mr. Chairman, the current Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act implemented in 1995 imposes taxes on two different activities: a tax on mining operations and a tax on the recipients of the mineral royalties. The mining tax component, which is imposed upon a mine operator, has two sub-components. Part of the mine operator's income is taxed at 15 per cent and part of the mine operator's income is taxed at 20 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, the second activity taxed is the royalty paid by the mine operator or other person to the recipient of the royalty in relation to the value or the amount of production from a mine. In other words, if a mine operator pays a royalty to an explorationist, the explorationist is liable for 20 per cent mineral rights tax on that royalty income. This is a tax over and above the corporate income tax. Again, in other words, if the royalty recipient, for example, leaves the Province and hence would not pay corporate income tax, the recipient of the royalty would still have to pay 20 per cent royalty tax, so the Province will still achieve 20 per cent tax on its own non-renewable resources.

Mr. Chairman, the calculation of the tax on the mine operator, and the calculation of the tax on the royalty recipient, are interrelated. The mine operator may deduct any royalties paid to another person who is liable as a royalty recipient for the 20 per cent mineral rights tax. This means that we get 20 per cent tax on a portion of the income from either the mine operator or/and the royalty recipient, depending on the value of the royalty.

Mr. Chairman, this is the basic structure of the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act since it was implemented in 1975 in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Mineral Resources in 1974. This draft bill does not propose to alter the structure. The recommendations of the Royal Commission were sound in 1974 and they are sound today.

While the basic structure of the tax regime will remain unchanged, there are deficiencies which will be rectified and there will be enhancements made. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act are: to provide adequate and stable revenue from our non-renewable resources, to encourage exploration, to encourage processing, to maintain a competitive position, and to enhance administration, compliance and enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, these amendments specific to the mining tax will limit the corporate income tax credit or, in other words, often called the tax holiday, to a $2 million annual amount for the first ten years. This new mining tax will remove the minimum processing allowance and it will enhance provisions respecting the treatment of non arm's-length transactions. It will also clarify that cash payments made under impacts and benefits agreements are not deductible. It will also clarify that royalties paid by mine operators are deductible only if subject to the mineral rights tax. This new mining tax will also provide that exploration expenses - this is new - incurred by the operator may be carried forward indefinitely to be deducted against income versus the current treatment of only a five-year carry forward. Also, this new mining tax will provide for deductibility of certain expenses related to mine reclamation.

Mr. Chairman, amendments specific to the mineral rights tax will modify the language affirming the original policy intent adopted in the 1975 act as it pertains to mineral rights tax. It will also provide relief from mineral rights tax for the first $100,000 in royalty recipients. I think this is very important for explorationists with smaller finds, and that is the first $100,000 that they receive in royalty will be relieved from mineral rights tax, with that relief being phased out at $200,000 in royalty receipts. So, as the amount of the royalty goes above $100,000, it gets tailed off at about 50 per cent of that.

It would also provide unlimited deductibility for exploration expenses; again, a good strong incentive for further exploration in that it provides unlimited deductibility for exploration expenses against royalty income. For example, if an explorationist was to spend about $1 million on exploration, they could get a deduction up to $200,000 for that $1 million exploration.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of general amendments to enhance administration compliance and enforcement, including: modernization of the language to be more consistent with other tax acts, enhancing the ability to determine fair market value respecting non-arm's-length transactions, enabling electronic auditing mythologies and procedures, enhance director's liability procedures, and increased fines and penalties for offences.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time to speak to some of the more significant amendments. The $2 million cap on the Newfoundland corporate income tax credit addresses concerns surrounding the so-called tax holiday introduced in 1994. While there is little justification for the open-ended unlimited credit as is currently in place, some form of tax credit is important to maintain a competitive tax regime in order to encourage continued exploration and development. It is critical. This change has the potential to generate substantial revenue compared to the current act.

The current act provides for a minimum processing allowance of 15 per cent of net income, whether or not the mine operator actually undertakes processing. This minimum processing allowance will be eliminated and, further, the act is being amended so that only those processing assets which are located in the Province are eligible for processing allowance. This is a financial inducement and a reward for processing to the maximum extent in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments also provide incentives for prospectors to engage in exploration. Most significant is the implementation of a tax-free threshold of $100,000 on royalty income, with that relief being phased out by the time royalties reach $200,000. This will help ensure that prospectors who discover smaller mineral deposits receive a reasonable return on their find if their rights are sold for a royalty interest. As another incentive for development, 100 per cent of annual exploration expenses will be allowed as an eligible deduction in calculating the mineral rights tax.

Mr. Chairman, amendments to the legislation also strengthen and clarify provisions with respect to the treatment of transactions between related parties. These are important administrative and enforcement provisions which are currently absent from this act but will be a part of the new act.

Consistent with current interpretation, the law will be clarified to specifically state that cash payments under an Impact and Benefits Agreement are not deductible. The general requirement for deductibility is that an expenditure should be directly related to extraction or processing. Cash payments under an Impact and Benefits Agreement would not be a cost of extraction or processing and hence would not be considered deductible, and these are not contingent on the level or the value of production. However, this does not preclude deductibility of expenses respecting employment and businesses which also may be provided for under an Impact and Benefits Agreement. These expenditures are deductible on the same basis as any other expenditure relating to extraction or processing of minerals.

Mr. Chairman, in 1999, government amended the Mining Tax Act to require mining operators to make financial provision to restore the mining site to an environmentally acceptable state. However, under the current Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, when a mine operator sets aside funds for a mine reclamation at a future date there is no provision to deduct that expense. The proposed act will allow the mine operator to deduct amounts paid into a financial assurance fund mandated by the Minister of Mines and Energy. When amounts including interest are withdrawn, they become income to the mine operator and the operator can claim the actual mine reclamation expenses as they are incurred.

Mr. Chairman, exploration expenses are generally incurred before a mine goes into production and produces revenue. The current act provides a carry forward of unused exploration expenses for a five-year period; however, given the long time lags between exploration and the mine becoming profitable, five years is not sufficient. Under the proposed legislation, unused exploration expenditures may be carried forward indefinitely to be deducted against future revenue.

These amendments to the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act will increase revenues while maintaining the Province's competitive position, will encourage exploration and processing, and support growth within our industry from the grassroots level up.

Further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to restate and add that the tax portion associated with royalties of 20 per cent has been in the law, in the legislation, since 1975, as a result of a Royal Commission report. It has not changed over the last twenty-seven years. It is just a confirmation of the interpretation of the law as it relates to court cases that have been brought forward, and a reconfirmation of government's intent, and upholding government's intent, in the application of the 20 per cent tax on royalties.

I think perhaps one of the most significant pieces associated with this is that even if a royalty recipient chooses not to live in our Province, or has set up in another province, the royalty tax, the 20 per cent, will still come back to the people of our Province in a form of a tax to deliver programs and services through going in, of course, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the provision of health, community services, social assistance and education.

I look forward to other colleagues' comments on this proposed legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I want to ask the minister a particular question pertaining to it. In light of the fact that many people affected by this certainly have not had an appropriate opportunity to have input into the passage of a very important bill, I am wondering if the minister would be receptive to referring this to a legislative review committee where we can hear submissions from affected and interested parties even over a short period next week, and come back to this House and debate the bill when we have had the full effect of input by interested parties around this Province. Even something early next week, for a couple of days, and bring it back to the House so we could do that. That would probably eliminate a lot of debate and time. It might be more expedient if the minister is acceptable to that. I would like to know that, if I could, at the outset here so it could save a lot of time and effort in the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just wanted to inform the member opposite there has been a significant amount of consultation with the industry on this bill, a bill that has been recently changed in 1995, but on these specific issues there has been a fair bit of consultation done, I know, through my department, but perhaps more specifically through the Minister of Mines and Energy. He has also done a very significant amount of consultation with his officials, so we feel pleased, in fact, that this bill represents a good cross-section of a consultative basis and that is why we are bringing it forward in this fashion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Do I take that as a yes or a no? I gather it is a no, but I would like to know. Would that be yes or no, Minister? Are you not willing to refer it to a committee? Because I have heard from people that they have not. It came upon them. They did not know that it was coming and they have not have time to do the appropriate representation to a committee of the House here that could hear it.

Would the minister tell me if she would agree to refer it to a committee, or if she is not going to agree. I would just like to know and then we can get on and do whatever we have to do pertaining to it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, what I will say is that we have had major consultations with the industry on this bill. What I will say, in addition - and I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, will speak to those consultations, and I would ask the member opposite if he knows of a group or an individual who has questions. We have done a complete briefing on this for the meeting, including the Opposition. I understand one of your representatives came to the briefing on the bill. I have not heard any questions about it up until this point in time.

I will say to the member opposite, if there are individuals or groups who have not already met with us to discuss this - they may not like the outcome of it but they certainly had the opportunity to present their concerns and issues to my officials and to the officials of Mines and Energy - please let me know and we would be happy to discuss it with them, but we have done major consultations so at this point in time we are pleased with the level of consultation and will not be referring it to a type of committee.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, that surprises me because I have asked the minister questions in this House awhile ago and she said publicly - and followed me on Open Line this morning - across this House, with reference to the questions I asked her in this House on that very topic in Question Period in this House. I cannot see why it is the first time she heard it here tonight. Why are you making those comments in public? Why are you shouting questions across the House? Why, in Question Period, when I asked questions didn't you get up and give an appropriate answer? Acknowledge now that we have raised this topic. We have raised it publicly and have raised it here on the floor of this House of Assembly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, a point of order, but it is also a point of clarification.

I will say to the Member for Ferryland, he asked the question in the House. He was asking me questions about why we are imposing a 20 per cent tax on two individuals instead of spreading it over to the company. I answered the question. Again, I say to the member opposite, he may not have liked the answer but I answered the question.

I would be happy to provide for the Member for Ferryland, in the morning, a list of all the people we have consulted with in preparation for this bill. I know it is an extensive list. We have consulted widely, both my officials and my colleague and his officials. I would be happy to present the list of all the meetings we have had, including those with Archean Resources, with the mining and mineral rights community and with all the various individuals, including town councils, et cetera. I would be only too happy to present that. I do not want to leave the impression, Mr. Chair, that there has been no consultation or we have refused to meet with people, because that, in fact, is totally inaccurate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will let the people speak for that themselves, the people who were not able to meet. I will let them speak for that, I say to the minister. I will go on now and take it as a no, that you are not prepared to let a committee of this House hear from interested parties so we, as members, can be more informed about that. I have taken efforts as critic to get informed. I have taken efforts to inform people in our caucus about this, distributed all the pertinent information I had to every single member of the caucus to enlighten and educate them about this bill, on the pros and cons of this bill, and I would hope the minister did the same. I would like members, who are going to be voting on this bill here in this House, to be informed and know about it. That is why I want to see a committee of this House, so that we know exactly what we are voting on.

I do not think anybody could sum it up better than an e-mail I received today. It says: Dear hon. member - I know some of my colleagues received it and maybe people on that side of the House received it too. I just want to speak on this bill to point out the negative aspects of certain parts of this bill. I think it very, very hits the point of why we are opposed to efforts that would put a damper on exploration here in this Province.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, if he did not get it, I will give him a copy.

I would like to relate it here to this House. It says: The people of the Province, through your elected representatives, are currently -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that, too, and tell you who wrote it. It came from the President of Altius, which is a mineral exploration company here in our Province.

It said: The people of the Province, through their elected representatives, are currently being asked t to judge a newly proposed mining and mineral exploration tax regime. Please consider the following analysis of the taxation regime as offered to you by an informed and active member of the Province's exploration community.

I entered the exploration business just over ten years ago, shortly after high school graduation, and after completion of the Province's prospector training program. Five years ago, having by this time studied geology at MUN, I became one of the co-founders of Altius Minerals Corporation. Altius is one of several recently homegrown stock exchange listed junior exploration companies operating within the Province. Altius currently contributes $1 million to $2 million annually towards mineral exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador. The money that Altius contributes originates both from mining companies with which we negotiate specific property investment agreements and from individuals and mutual funds that invest directly in our company. In each case, the investors are hoping that Altius will discover an economic ore deposit on one or more of its exploration properties. All of Altius exploration properties are located here. However, only a small percentage of the investment originates here. The money is sourced globally. Investments, to date, have originated in North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia and South America.

Altius and, indeed, all locally based explorers compete with a very large number of exploration companies throughout the world for a share of this global pool of speculative exploration investment. Success, in this regard, requires perspective geology, a capable and hardworking exploration team encouraging exploration results and concerted marketing efforts.

I am writing this letter - and this is December 11 - from a hotel room in New York, having already met with potential investors located in seven other North American investment centres over the past two weeks.

There is, however, one additional and arguably the most important factor required to successfully attract this investment. We must always be in a position to demonstrate to potential investors that a discovery made here will generate a competitive level of return on investment. A discovery in our Province must reward investors, at least to the same extent as a similar discovery would reward a similar investment in any of the other principal jurisdictions with which we compete. This is achieved when the Province presents a stable and competitive taxation regime.

Mineral exploration investment is sought after by hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the world. Newfoundland and Labrador is only one of those jurisdictions. During the past decade, through aggressive promotion and progressive initiatives, such as the Prospector Training Program - very positive - this Province has successfully captured an impressively disproportionate share of this investment, probably half a billion dollars, and significant discoveries have been a major added benefit.

One particular element of the new proposed mining and mineral exploration tax regime will severely injure the Province's continuing ability to attract these important investments and discoveries. I refer specifically to a unique 20 per cent tax that is proposed for those whose investments cause a significant discovery. This special tax will make the return on investment, in the event of such a discovery within this Province, 20 per cent less than he or she could expect from the same discovery if located practically anywhere else in the world. The completely logical consequence will be a universal decision by exploration investors to direct their investments anywhere else in the world.

Policy makers in the Department of Finance are defending the proposed new taxation regime on the basis that it will cause significant additional total revenues for the Province from its mineral resources. This argument is fundamentally incorrect. The additional revenue proposed to be collected from a mine discoverer through the royalty tax will be largely offset by a directly linked mining tax deduction from the mine operator. Another defence states that the partial tax exemptions applicable to royalties of up to $200,000 annually are being introduced to address the competitive concerns raised by explorationists. This concession is as hollow as it will be ineffective. A future mine that only generates royalties in these amounts simply does not offer the type of motivation that attracts investments from the world's exploration investors. An annual royalty of up to $200,000 would likely not even result in discovery of the net amounts commonly invested during the exploration process, let alone cause a positive return on that investment.

I advise, with both honesty and certainty, that the current proposed structure of the Province's mining and mineral exploration tax regime would actually cause a net decrease in the amount of future economic benefit that the Province can expect to receive from its mineral resources. On one hand, the tax creates a severe deterrent for tens of millions of dollars in annual investment while, on the other hand, generating only nominal amounts of additional revenues.

I am sure that each of you are mindful of your responsibility to strike an economic policy balance in legislation of this type. The balance required in this case is between full and fair benefits to the Province and the maintenance of our reputation and competitive position as an investment destination.

The current proposed version of the mining and mineral exploration tax regime unfortunately achieves neither objective. I appeal to you to recognize that the mining and mineral rights taxation regime you are presently being asked to ratify requires significant additional deliberation, and ultimately revision.

That is on an e-mail, I assume to all members, certainly to several I have checked with on our side - respectively submitted - and that was by Brian Dalton of Altius Minerals.

MR. NOEL: They are investing under the present regime. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to answer that question for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. He said they are investing under the current regime. Here is why. Let's look at the history. With the Goundrey Commission back in the 1970s - and the minister said: The Royal Commission was sound in 1974 and it is sound today. I will just comment on that and then I will move to the minister's question.

Large mining companies monopolized the exploration industry back in the 1970s and we have seen a shift to junior companies and other exploration occurring since that time, I say to the minister. What happened then, in the 1970s, when John C. Doyle - and we have all had our fill of John C. Doyle. He must think he had his fill of us, too, because he fled this Province, and the Moores government at the time initiated this tax, at 20 per cent. So a person living in Panama, pays his taxes in Panama and takes all of the revenue out of this country, should be taxed on the royalties that he received from Wabush Mines. If he is not living in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They wanted money. They could not get any, because he did not live in the Province, and he left.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Premier keeps interrupting, I will not get to explain it to the minister. I will not be able to give the minister an answer.

What happened? I will say this to the minister: In the 1970s, this 20 per cent tax was brought in and it currently now applies to Wabush Mines and IOC. There is no other jurisdiction in this country that collects the 20 per cent; and, I might add, it was never collected by this Province. I have been informed that it was never collected by this Province. The only time they collected it in the last few years was when attempts were made to clarify the act and then they started collecting for Nugget Pond in 1998, I believe it was, and that was when they started to collect - or 1997. They never collected until that step was done, so not another jurisdiction. We were becoming non-competitive. That is why people invested at the time, because it was only then when steps were made to have a clarification that it would not be applied to royalty holders who did not have the right to mine, in this case, on a lease. There was a distinction.

I want to point out a few things, and I want to look at a comparison of why this is unfair, and it could put a damper on exploration activity across this Province. I think it is only fair, we are competing in a global environment, but we at least have to look at the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in comparison to the rest of this country. If you look at the taxation with the royalty tax, when you factor in - and this is prepared. Price Waterhouse Cooper are a leading firm in mining. They produce an annual Canadian mining taxation 2002 - this edition - when provinces change their taxes, do revisions. You can go in on the Net and go through it. They are the foremost, I would say, in the country, and advise mining giants around this world. They have estimated that the taxation that applies to here in our Province is the highest effective rate, that only two provinces in the country have it on their books. New Brunswick is not applicable, does not collect. Our Province is the only one. We have tacked a 20 per cent tax on, and that is going to be a disincentive, 57.3 per cent. What are they doing?

Let's look at the other side of the coin, Inco. Let's look at the multinational, multi-billion dollar Inco. Right now, to mine - it is good to have competitive mining, and I do not knock that - Price Waterhouse Cooper estimate, based on a hypothetical situation applied to all provinces, that 34.9 per cent would be the tax for a mining company here in our Province. That would make us the lowest of every Canadian province. We know that there are certain parts of this bill that are necessary, and certain parts of this bill that are very positive, that we support. There are, and I acknowledge that, but with the changes and factoring in the $2 million a year tax back to Inco, a $20 million tax break we are giving to a multinational, multi-billion dollar company, so they would pay at an effective rate, when you factor in the breaks, about a 36-point-some per cent taxation rate - Inco will pay - and anybody in this Province, if you spent ten or fifteen years over bogs and frozen land, out slaving to make that discovery, you would end up paying over 57 per cent, more than 20 per cent more than the mining company.

We are giving a sweetheart deal to Inco on taxation, and we are saying: Let's get a tax grab from a couple of local people who hit it rich and made it big. I think we should have more people with the initiative and drive to make discoveries here in this Province, and they should pay their fair share in taxes to the people in our Province. They should pay their fair share. I do not think they should pay their unfair share, and I do not think we should send a signal to the investment community that Newfoundland and Labrador is a poor place to do business in mining exploration, because what happens - once again, this is penny-wise and pound foolish. You think you are getting a grab now, and you are putting a damper on further exploration. It is costly to explore in Labrador. Labrador is very costly. It is a large land. It is remote. The cost of moving into the area is very expensive. It is a great land, and they discovered one of the richest deposits in the world. The nickel in that ovoid ranks anywhere in the world today. It is a prize, sitting on the surface of the ground practically, easy to access, easy to mine. They should, royalty holders, pay a fair share. I think multinational companies should not be given sweetheart deals at the expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They should not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) not going to get up any more?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Minister, I have a right to get up every ten minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) up again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly will, Mr. Chairman, get up again. I will allow the minister - certainly, I will sit down. I will not take leave now. I will allow the minister to speak, and I am sure I will have other comments after.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure to speak, particularly in response to the comments from the Finance critic, because I think he actually makes a good case for all the people in the Province who would be listening - and the colleagues in the House - for why it is so important to have a royalty tax that is good for the people of the Province with respect to what we all deserve as our portion of a non-renewable resource that belongs to all of us. I think it is important to understand, there is a history here. I heard the e-mail. I listened attentively to the e-mail that was read out from an individual who has some concerns, many of which are unfounded, because the individual who wrote the e-mail -

MR. SULLIVAN: Everybody (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I may, I say to the Member for Ferryland, I listened attentively as you were reading out the e-mail because I was quite interested. I did not get the e-mail myself, but I am quite interested in what this individual had to say.

What he does not say, and perhaps he was not aware of it, this same regime has been in place for about twenty-seven years. This is a twenty-seven-year-old piece of legislation. The 20 per cent tax has been in place for twenty-seven years. I would say to the member opposite, this is not new. The 20 per cent royalty tax has been in place for twenty-seven years. Now, that is an important point. I would say, in terms of the consultation that was raised earlier, since 1995 my officials and my colleague's officials from the Department of Mines and Energy have been reviewing this bill.

The member opposite asks for time. We have met with numerous groups from the industry, individuals, communities, and it has only been the last three weeks or a month that we have heard any of the concerns, and we have met with a lot of these groups through the officials. We know what their issues are and I can honestly say, and I would not want anyone listening here tonight, colleagues on that side of the House or this side, to think that this 20 per cent royalty tax is new. It has been in place since 1975, and that is an important piece.

The other case the member talks about is encouraging exploration, and he talks about the fact that in this case - because he talked about Inco and he talked about the royalty, I am assuming he is talking about Archean Resources - they will pay 57 per cent taxation. That is not correct. The member opposite knows, with the federal government rebate, once the dividends are paid out, there is a 5 per cent -

MR. SULLIVAN: Five per cent (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right, there is a 5 per cent - but you did not add it in, with all due respect. You may know it but you went with the higher number, so it is around 52 per cent after the dividends are paid out.

I will say further that he talked about people not investing. Now, look, put this in perspective. This mining and mineral rights tax, around the 20 per cent, has been in place since 1975. When have we had the most exploration? Since 1975. We have had Voisey's Bay discovered since 1975, when this very same royalty tax was in place. The 20 per cent has been in place for twenty-seven years. Maybe people do not like it. I can understand that if I had discovered this - and I am quite proud of Archean Resources, as are all my colleagues. We are delighted for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I agree. I am very pleased and I am very proud. I think it is wonderful, but I also think, and people need to know, they got the exploration licence, and they went out and they were skilled enough - not lucky, but skilled enough - to make such a major find which, for them, on royalty payment, will give them millions and millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hundreds of millions.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Hundreds of millions of dollars. Okay, I admit, hundreds of millions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Archean. That is what I am talking about at the moment.

Based on those hundreds of millions that they get as a result of their find through their own skill, the find of our - all of us here in this room and in the Province - they found our non-renewable resource. What is this for us? This is our share of their good fortune and their great skill, 20 per cent. What are we doing with the 20 per cent? I can tell you what we are doing with it. We are putting it into health care, education, and all those programs.

The member opposite is laughing, but when you spend $1.5 billion a year we need every cent we get. Quite frankly, I will say to the member opposite from Ferryland, and to anyone, we make no apology on getting a good royalty regime from our non-renewable resource, because every day of the week -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - we are hearing that we do not collect enough royalties on our own resources, particularly the non-renewable resources. I make no apology for that.

The member opposite talks about what Inco is paying versus what Archean Resources will be paying. I will tell you. Let's talk about risk. Who is taking the risk here? Inco is taking the risk, a $3 billion risk. What are the risks? Mineral prices - the bottom might come out of mineral prices. There could be production problems, there could be anything that might affect -

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said today that everything is hunky-dory. (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Premier was very realistic in his comments. The member knows that nobody, clairvoyant or otherwise, can look into the future and know what prices are going to be in the markets years out. That is a risk to Inco. Our interests are protected with Inco, but Inco's interest, as a business, is not as protected as they would like it to be, for obvious reasons. They cannot control market rates, world markets.

I would say, over the life of the agreement, and the member opposite knows, that Inco will pay substantially more in taxes to the people of this Province than Archean Resources. I am talking about hundreds of millions more from Inco than we will ever get from Archean Resources, and that is the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: To talk about exploration, and to talk about damaging the future, why do people go and explore? Is it because of the tax regime? I have never yet met a geologist who said: We are not going to explore up there because the tax regime is not great.

I have always heard that they do it based on the geology, based on the quality, and based on the likelihood of a find. Now, granted, the tax base is very important. It is important; I can say that. That is one of the reasons why we believe a 20 per cent tax rate on royalties is important, but the most important reason is perhaps one that the members talk about all the time. What if Archean or another big company with a huge find decides to leave our Province? That means that they pay no corporate income tax at all. That means that the 32.5 per cent that we get - which I admit most of it goes to the federal government, but we do get a portion - to me, his example makes a perfect case for having a royalty tax. Because if they move lock, stock and barrel, out of the Province, we will not get one cent of corporate tax; but I guarantee the people of the Province one thing: we will get our 20 per cent royalty tax, and it is only right that we should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Why shouldn't we? No matter where they go in this world to live, they have to pay us for the royalties, the cash they receive in their hand, on our non-renewable resources. To me, I make no apology to anybody for that. I think Archean Resources - I am proud of them, I am happy for them - I think the 20 per cent they will pay as a royalty on their find is our share, as the people of the Province, of that non-renewable resource, because it is ours, and I think most of the people of the Province would say: Yes, even though they are making significant amounts of money, it is only right that we should get a share of that, a 20 per cent share of the royalties.

Now, what is the relationship between Inco and Archean? Well, I am sure Archean wants Inco to succeed, because, the more they succeed, the more royalties they will get, and that is an important piece. There is risk associated, the $3 billion they have put in. There is risk associated with it. Anybody knows that on a $3 billion investment and over the life of what would be mined, that there will be a lot more tax entering this Province from Inco over the life of this agreement than we will ever hope to get from Archean. That is just the nature of the ratio, and members opposite know that.

I also would like to say that this is not about, as the member opposite said, short-sightedness or a money grab. This is about being fair to the people of our Province. He says, people will not explore or invest.

We have had a robust exploration economy here in the Province. You stood up and admitted that. There are exciting things happening here, and they continue to happen. I was glad to hear as well that there are some things good about the bill that you support. For example, I am assuming that would be the limit on the tax holiday. That is a good thing. This is something that I know was raised over the years. Also, I would like to think that, even though he thinks $100,000 in a royalty that would not be taxed is not much in terms of, it would not be much of a discovery and it would not be much of a mine, I think most people would be happy enough with $100,000 in royalties that would not be taxed. I think that is a good sign to junior smaller explorers, that we are supporting you.

Also, I would say the fact that this new bill allows exploration expenses to be deducted, I think, is a very good initiative to get people to come in and explore. I think the other piece that is very important is that most explorers who go out and do the exploration are not spending their own money out-of-pocket. They are being supported by larger companies.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to standing again to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak on this bill. It is quite a complex piece of legislation, I should say, when one looks at the detail of it. It is very complex in terms of how tax is calculated and what the deductions are. I think it might surprise a lot of people in the Province as to how much deductions are able to be taken from the gross revenue before any tax is imposed at all.

Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to try and put this all in a little bit of perspective. I know there have been debates in this Province for many, many years about whether or not we, in this Province, are getting our fair return on our resources, particularly non-renewable resources. Just to put it into perspective, I have a copy of the Budget 2002 numbers which has, as an exhibit to it, the estimated provincial and federal revenues for the government for the current fiscal year, the one that goes from April 1 of 2002 to March 31 of next year. This shows the revenues of the Province from provincial tax sources and other provincial sources. The total revenues of the Province from provincial sources is estimated to be, for the next year, $2 billion.

To get a handle on the numbers, the Province, from its own resources and provincial sources, intends to raise $2 billion in revenues. Now, there is an additional amount coming from the Government of Canada which would total $1.5 billion dollars, partly in equalization payments and partly in Canada Health and Social Transfers. So, there is a total of $3.5 billion of revenue, $2 billion coming from our own sources.

To put this in perspective: The benefit that we get from our mineral resources, our natural resources, our natural resource taxes and royalties, where would you think that would be? Would you think, for example, that would be number one or number two or number three? If you did, Mr. Chairman, you would be wrong. According to the revised estimates for the year 2001-2002, the natural resource taxes and royalties combined, and we were only talking about taxes here, but taxes plus royalties - I see a smile on the Minister of Mines and Energy's face. I am sure he is happy that he is getting this much even, but compared to other revenue sources it is quite a surprise.

The total gross revenue from natural resource taxes and royalties is $47.5 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, $47.5 million is in the Budget and that is the figure that matches what the Public Accounts did, the other volumes that were released the other day by the Minister of Finance. So, $47.5 million.

Now, it has to be understood that the Department of Mines and Energy itself spends - it may have spent less this year, but budgeted $21 million for the same period. So they got $47.5 million in natural resources taxes and royalties but spent $21 million in its programs and its activities. So, the net revenue for natural resources taxes and royalties is pretty small potatoes when you look at some other revenue sources.

For example, personal income tax, the income tax that each individual taxpayer pays, when you add it all up that is $611 million. That is twelve times what we are getting from our mineral resource taxes and royalties. What about the sales tax? Now, our provincial portion of the HST, not the 15 per cent that we all pay, seven of those fifteen cents goes straight to Ottawa; straight to Ottawa. The eight cents of the fifteen that you pay, that ordinary people pay on anything that they buy, the revenues on that for the Province, $535 million, tens times as much as we are getting from our vast mineral resources in taxes and royalties.

What about other things that we all pay? Gasoline tax, $130 million, just about three times as much as we are getting from natural resource taxes and royalties. Then we have the payroll tax, $81.5 million. Tobacco tax, people smoking cigarettes and smoking pipes, the people collectively -

MR. REID: They are probably taking more out of me than they are taking out of Archean.

MR. HARRIS: Well, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture says, they are probably taking more out of him than they are taking out of Archean. I am sure they are. They are taking more out of him and other smokers by almost $20 million - $65.5 million in tobacco tax - and only $47.5 million in natural resource taxes and royalties.

There is another tax that is higher than that, just barely. Corporate income tax is $55 million; $54.6 million. Then, number seven in the taxes, is natural resource taxes and royalties.

Now, there are a few other revenue sources that are actually higher, too, so it might be number seven in the taxes but it is not number seven altogether because we have other provincial revenue sources that are way higher than what we are getting in revenue from our natural resource taxes and royalties. The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation collects $90 million a year in revenue for the Province, twice as much, twice as much as we are getting than natural resource taxes and royalties.

What about this one: lottery revenues? More than twice as much as we are getting from natural resource taxes and royalties in lottery revenues. People buying the Lotto 649 or buying whatever they buy at these video lottery terminals that this government is using to collect money from people who use these machine. One hundred and two million dollars last year, projected to go up to $106 million in lottery revenues. That is what we are collecting from people who buy these lottery tickets in the hopes of making as much money as Archean Resources make every year from their royalties if and when the production starts in Labrador. Nevertheless, twice as much is being collected from these people who spend that money than natural resource taxes and royalties.

Then we have another - I see some people yawning. They find this a bit boring. I find it very interesting, Mr. Chairman. I find it very interesting that, for example, we are collecting more in revenues from drivers' licences and vehicle permits. You know, you are registering your car and paying for your driver's licence. They are collecting $54.5 million from that revenue source and only $47.5 million from natural resource taxes and royalty.

Mr. Chairman, when we hear people say, in general, we are not getting enough; here we are, we are resource rich and yet we are cash poor, well there is a very good reason. It is actually number ten. Number ten in provincial source revenues, counting taxes and other sources such as the liquor corporation receipts, lottery revenues, vehicles and drivers' licences, number ten of all of those, plus other taxes, is actually what we are receiving from natural resource taxes and royalties.

That is both, Mr. Chairman, natural resource revenues and royalties combined. We are only talking about natural resource revenues here; we are not talking about royalties at all. It would be very interesting and perhaps the Minister of Finance, when she speaks next, can give us the breakdown as to what proportion of that is actually natural resources taxes and what proportion of that is royalties.

I have noticed in this legislation that this does not apply to existing mines and operations that have other regimes, other forms of leases, other forms of legislation, such as the tax regime for the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines legislation passed in the thirties, that gives special provisions and special breaks to those kind of companies.

We are not here talking about a regime that applies to everybody. We are not even looking at that. We are looking at, on a go-forward basis, what tax regime would apply to people who are developing new mines.

There was a debate, and the minister mentions how it was totally unsatisfactory to have this open-ended ten-year tax holiday. Well, I agree. In fact, it was me, Mr. Chairman, who opposed that when that legislation was brought into this House after, I have to say, after the discovery of Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only one?

MR. HARRIS: The only one, Mr. Chairman.

Members opposite, some of whom are - I cannot blame all the members opposite because they were not all here then, but the Premier was here, the Minister of Mines and Energy was here, the Government House Leader was here. There were a lot of people here, who are here today, whose government brought in that legislation, and it was supported by the Opposition, but I opposed it, Mr. Chairman, because I did believe that we should not have had that kind of tax holiday which has now been changed, but only changed to the point of putting a $2 million-a-year cap on it, only changed to that extent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you supporting it, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: I beg your pardon?

I just spent almost ten minutes - I am surprised I was not cut off. I just spent -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I will be back again, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries has been asking me, while he listened to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, whether or not he supports or whether he is against this bill. What do you think? I said the answer is yes, because clearly the member is on both sides of pretty well everything that he debates in this House. He is usually for something, but, or he is usually against something, however.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the minister is - not deliberately - misleading the House. It is pretty clear that it was I who opposed the $2 million tax holiday, the ten-year tax holiday, unlimited, for any revenue, any new mines, in 1994 when the legislation was brought in. It was pretty clear that I was totally opposed to that, and opposed to this legislation too, as he will hear the detail of as we go on tonight.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member on the other side jumped to his feet too quickly, because, while I was making the case that it is difficult to know sometimes whether he is for unequivocally, or against something unequivocally, I was about to get around to congratulating him on supporting the substantive purpose for which this act is before the House today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and that is to ensure that as a result of the massive Voisey's Bay find, that a sort of loophole, or extraordinarily beneficial tax arrangement on the corporate side, would be fixed to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, what is interesting about this debate tonight is this: We have had this piece of legislation in the Province for the past twenty-seven years. The mining industry has operated fairly satisfactorily under this piece of legislation for twenty-seven years. We have had an extraordinary circumstance in this Province during the last five or six years whereby we have had the good fortune of seeing good explorationists go out and having good luck in finding the Voisey's Bay find.

What I have heard, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this bill - I just want to share this with the House and the people of the Province. Over the last two or three - the last two years almost, now, as Minister of Mines and Energy - I have heard two or three things. I have heard two or three things rhetorically from the people in the mining industry. I have heard it at the provincial level from the Chamber of Minerals, I have heard it at the national level when I have gone to their conferences, and I have heard it internationally as well. What they have said to me in the last two years with respect to the Mining Tax Act, the royalties, and that sort of thing, there has never been one comment made to me with respect to the issue of the 20 per cent tax on royalties. What I have heard for two years is this. I have heard the following: Number one, Minister, if your government can find a way to see the development of Voisey's Bay go forward, you will have done the most positive and extraordinary thing to the benefit of the mining industry and the mining community that can ever be done on our account and in our interest. They have said to us rhetorically: Please find a way to get the Voisey's Bay project up and running because it, like nothing else or like no other action you can take, will renew confidence and instill confidence and renew interest and attract people back to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do further exploration and investments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The second thing they acknowledged was this: that, in this circumstance, it would be appropriate for government to fix the ten-year so-called holiday that existed. So, two things. They said, get Voisey's Bay going, by all means; it is the most positive thing you could ever do for us. Secondly, fix the loophole so that Voisey's Bay does not get a holiday. Thirdly, if you can, make things a little better for the hundreds of explorationists in this Province who go out day after day, month after month, year after year, dream the big dream of the big find but go out and do the hard work to see if they can make that big discovery.

In this bill tonight, we have accomplished all three goals. We have seen, as a result of our development of the Voisey's Bay project, the industry return and rebound with vigor and enthusiasm. We, in this bill tonight, have fixed the ten-year holiday. Thirdly, we have made a better circumstance for the explorationists in this Province, and we have made it a better circumstance on this account, Mr. Chairman: We have changed to give an additional incentive for the average local explorationist, such as Brian Dalton Altius, who was referenced by the Finance critic. We have given recognition, in this bill, that money spent on exploration activities up to the first $100,000 for the first time is now deductible before any royalties are required to be paid. We have phased out that tax only after it gets to $200,000.

I say, Mr. Chairman, what is interesting here is that, as a result of the introduction of this tax, of the changes to the Mining and Mineral Tax Act by the Minister of Finance, what we have done is two or three very positive things, none of which has occurred in the last twenty-seven years until this bill hit the floor of this House for debate tonight, and all of which have been recommended to us by the mining industry.

We recognize in this Province, Mr. Chairman, the importance of the exploration industry in this Province. That is why, three years ago, we introduced into this House, for the first time, a $22.5 million five-year mining mineral exploration program. Where was it targeted? Not toward the big companies but toward the explorationists who wanted to go out and try and make the big find. We have encouraged the development of the dimension stone industry in this Province. If hon. members on the other side are not aware, that is one of the fastest growing and most exciting industries that we have today in our Province. One only needs to go to a place like Ten Mile Bay in Nain to see what is happening there with respect to the development of the dimension stone industry, as an example.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to say much more at this point. I may speak later. What I want to say is this, that the industry has said for the last couple of years: Please ensure that you continue to provide stability in your mining and mineral tax regime so that we know where we stand.

Tonight, Mr. Chairman, we are debating a generic piece of legislation that gives a better circumstance for the small exploration that is in the Province, that captures and cures and fixes a tax loophole for the major, major corporations, such as Inco, as a result of Voisey's Bay. Above all, as a result of getting the Voisey's Bay project, we have done more, in the signing of that development agreement, to move the mining and mineral exploration industry forward in this Province than has been done singularly or accumulatively in the last thirty years of our history.

I have heard it from Bay Street, I have heard it on Wall Street, I heard it in London at the London Metal Exchange where it was shared with me, that the reality of the Voisey's Bay development is such an internationally recognized great accomplishment, not by Inco but by this government, to be able to get the regimes in place, the agreements in place that we found, so that we benefit handsomely from this development and that the developer benefits appropriately and reasonably; no more, no less than that.

We are proud, Mr. Chairman, of what we have done, as a government, on behalf of the mining industry and the explorationists in this Province over the last few years, and we are even more proud tonight to be debating a bill that makes things better for the average explorationist and the mining operators that we are trying to attract to this Province, to move our industry and to move our Province and to move our economy forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand to make a few corrections on what the Minister of Finance said. I know in ten minutes it is kind of difficult to address all the points. Over the course of the night, hopefully, I will get to them.

The number one point I want to make: The minister of Mines and Energy said it is a tax that has been here for twenty-seven years. First of all, this tax was initiated to the holders of a right to mine and collected from Wabush and the Iron Ore Company of Canada. There was never a cent collected, to my knowledge, not a penny, for all of that time, until 1997-1998 when the discoverers of Voisey's Bay, who held the royalties but not the right to mine, said it did not apply to them.

I have correspondence from a law firm that advised this government on the Voisey's Bay deal - and I will make reference to that in a moment - that disagrees with the interpretation. When movement was made by Archean to go to the courts and start it, it is then they start collecting on Nugget Pond.

I said to the minister in Question Period in the House: You did that to cover your back on the legislation to say it applied to them too. Here is what this firm said: We have contented that section 9, royalty tax, does not apply to the mineral explorationist prospectors royalty in the course of the mineral exploration activities. It goes on to say: It is my view that there is an enormous difference between royalties acquired by prospectors and mineral explorationists in the course of their dealings with their mineral exploration rights, which under the Mineral Act do not confirm mining rights, and concession holder type royalties of this type targeted by section 9 of the Mining and Mineral Rights Act. It is in my experience, royalty interests are a significant positive impetus to the mineral exploration industry. They are invariably bargained for by all prospectors and mineral explorations in their dealings with their mineral exploration rights.

We know it did go to the courts, and lost in the Newfoundland courts, and they made leave to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada on that basis. This government, in their submission to the Supreme Court, rather than let the Supreme Court make the decision whether it applied, said it is all going to be moved because we are going to change it and make sure it does not apply to you whether it was intended in the beginning or not. That is what I say advocates. It cuts off the normal legal due process to have an interpretation on a law that exists in the Province by now changing it so it will apply even if it did not. There is a difference between - keep in mind, these companies had the right to mine - concessions as opposed to a royalty tax. That is the point I want to make and that is not the impression the two ministers give here.

The second point I want to make, the minister said they are not getting 57 per cent. She said they are getting 5 per cent federal tax credit. I think the minister should realize that this 5 per cent federal tax credit, maybe she does not understand the taxation of it, the 57.34 per cent there is a 5 per cent - I am a little bit familiar with taxation. I am far from an expert, but I do talk to accountants on taxation on a reasonably regular basis. I have reasonable knowledge of it. I sought expert advice and we were informed that the 5 per cent federal refundable credit is an incentive for corporations to disburse income to their shareholders. That is a 5 per cent credit, but the shareholders then - it triggers a landslide taxation in the hands of the shareholder up in the vicinity of 70 per cent to 75 per cent. In the process there are no savings. There is a cost triggered to the shareholders. The minister did not mention that or she did not know that, one or the other. That is not accurate what she said, let's take it at the 57.34 per cent. Well, that tells us -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I have ten minutes to speak and he is continuously shouting across and preventing me from making very legitimate points, Mr. Chairman. I would like to see the minister stand and rebut these points and tell me, from a tax expert, and try to show contrary. Then I will believe it, if I see sufficient information that convinces me, but I will take the information from people in the field and experts on it. I am not in it myself but I have a limited knowledge of it.

This is a very important bill. We do not want to do anything in this Province that is going to put a damper on income and exploration in our Province. There are a whole array of issues I would like to address, but I only have a few minutes. I keep having to correct some things the minister is saying. I cannot even get to the points, unless they want to give me leave to make several points and deal with them over the course of the evening.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said we have a week. Well, we had all fall. We did not come here to this House in September and October. We had the whole fall.

Now I want to mention another particular point. I was making reference to a firm that - I think the Premier was proud to say - advisers on the Inco deal has indicated that government is wrong on this particular one. They are saying, they are basically wrong.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What was the name of the firm?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to name the firm but it is a firm that you referenced. It is on your letterhead and signed by someone there. Private members do not have to table information, only ministers do if you refer to it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: An important point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The member speaking referred to why the government had not met all fall. Now the hon. gentleman knows that we have a parliamentary calendar and we try to abide by the parliamentary calendar. We could change that, and we would be all in agreement to change it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope he follows it by adjourning a week before Christmas too. I hope you will follow that calendar. We will see if you follow the words that you have just indicated. Let's see next week. According to legislation we have to be out of here next Tuesday, according to the parliamentary calendar. Let's see if you will do it. I will follow the parliamentary calendar. Let's see if you will next week, and stand and be counted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: There was nothing in the parliamentary - I vice-chaired that committee which brought in that legislation. I worked with people on your side and this side, and set a minimum of four weeks. What is wrong with having six or eight weeks, instead of ramming through thirty-some bills here and trying to do it in a matter of four weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will live by the rules of this House if the Government House Leader will.

Now, I want to talk about some other things. The minister indicated - I will ask the minister and let her stand in her place. Explain to me, minister, you said: 57.34 per cent less five federal tax credit. I am saying that was a credit given to shareholders. When they defer income to shareholders of a corporation it reduces that 57 per cent but it triggers a landslide in the hands of the shareholders up to seventy, to seventy-five. I am hearing that from tax specialists. If you can stand and explain how that works and how you are right in saying that it is 52 per cent, I will take notes then and go back and speak to accountants and ask them that. I have spoken to people who have a specialty in income tax.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) there is nothing that anybody can tell you in the next 100 years that will make you vote for this bill the way it is presented today.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I can tell you one thing, there are lots of things that would make me but I have not heard anything coming from that side yet that would do it. I do know that you are prepared to give a $20 million tax break to Inco that will pay the lowest taxation in this country. You are going to tax future royalty holders in this Province, who go out and make discoveries, a rate of 20 per cent more than you are taxing a nickel giant. And you call that fairness? The minister calls that money for health care -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is estimated -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier keeps interrupting, too. I think that is their strategy. They do not have a defense so they are trying to go on the offense. That is their strategy. He should know that. They do not have a defense.

If the 20 per cent royalty was eliminated and incentives sent out to the community in investment around the world, Inco would have to pay a maximum of - and different tax people would tell you, depending on how it is cut - anywhere from .2-some per cent to .48 per cent more taxes to recover all that revenue. Charge Inco less than half a percent, and still we could be the very lowest in the country. Inco is locked in. They can never pay more than the average in the country. This government has said to Inco, we will give you a tax break no matter what our taxes go up for anybody else in this Province in mining. Yours will never be higher than the average mining tax across this country. Right now, I believe, the average mining tax across this country is 39.48 per cent for mining operators. You are saying (inaudible). It is positive to be competitive in the mining tax for operators, but we are the lowest now. It will bump up a bit but it is not positive when you look at Nunavut, no royalty tax; Northwest Territories, no royalty tax; Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick that has never collected; and this Province 20 per cent that had never collected until somebody made a find. Now they are sending a message out to explorationists and investors not to invest, and it is going to be tough.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? I have been interrupted about five times. I would not mind (inaudible) make up the time I got interrupted.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I stood three times and did not get recognized because other people have to speak, too. So that is why I would like to get the time made up for what you took away from me on your side.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am happy again to speak to clarify a few issues around this bill because I think it is very important. I will start off again saying -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know the member is trying to interrupt me, but that is okay, I will carry on and try to get my points out.

I will say to the member opposite and to all people listening, this bill, as it relates to 20 per cent, has been in place since 1975; twenty-seven years. Now, the member opposite would like to leave the impression that we sat in the corner and wrote up a 20 per cent royalty tax after we found out that Archean had made this big find. That is totally false. It is totally inaccurate.

I would say to the member, with all due respect, he might know a lawyer who has given him an opinion that says this is not taxable but I would say to anyone listening, and with all due respect, this has gone to the trial division and those judges have upheld the decision that this is taxable. Now, quite frankly, I have a lot of respect for the courts. I would say to the member opposite, you have a law firm that gives you an opinion. We have -

MR. SULLIVAN: Your law firm.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I do not own any law firm, I say to the Member for Ferryland. I do not own any and I am not associated with any that could give this kind of an opinion. I can say that this was tested in the courts, taken to the trial division and it was confirmed that this was taxable. This 20 per cent taxation on our non-renewable resources was taxable and it was certainly within our jurisdiction. Now, that was in 1998. We have not heard much about it since 1998, but this was when this was first tried. In 2000, the member opposite knows -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The courts did decide in 1998 - and I have all respect for the courts - they decided that what we were doing was appropriate and that this was taxable. Maybe the member opposite does not agree with the courts but, for the most part, I would say that we are working particularly with this decision.

Now, if you did not believe the Trial Court, I say to the Member for Ferryland, and if that was not enough, Archean Resources, who were the ones questioning this, took this to an Appeal Court. What did the Appeal Court decide? Unanimously they decided that this was taxable. They upheld government's interpretation of this 20 per cent tax on royalties.

What are we taxing here? We are taxing our resource, a royalty that is received on our resource. I say, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the member is arguing for. Does he want a company to get more money from our resource? Because what we are saying is, we believe -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He said he does. He is arguing for Archean Resource to get more money on our non-renewable resources. Well, it is finally out. That is what he is arguing for.

Well, on this side of the House, we are arguing for a royalty on our non-renewable resource for our people of the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - for everyone in the Province, not for a particular company. That is what we are doing with this legislation.

I will say further - and he talked earlier about exploration funding, and how a funding entity may not be wanting to invest. We have not had that problem. In fact, our exploration industry is robust. It is also important to note that the person or the group that funds the exploration may not be the one receiving the royalty. I think that is clear. We know that. We know cash transpired that was never taxed at the beginning of Voisey's Bay. Because of the process that went on, there was no taxation applied, tax-free transactions; but I can say in this case, to try to lead people to believe that since 1975 when this tax was imposed that there has been no exploration - people out there listening know the difference. I do not think people listening will support an individual company paying less tax so that the Province can receive less tax for the services that we provide.

He talks about the Inco giant, and it is important to talk about the balance. Who owns the risk here? Is it Archean, or the explorationists, or is it the company, the mining company? I think no matter how you look at it, it is clear that Inco in this case is the one with the risk. They are the ones putting up the $3 billion. Are we at risk? No, we are protected. We do not have the loopholes that we hear about. We are protected with the Voisey's Bay deal, but Inco has a lot of risk. They have a risk about world price markets. They have a risk about production. They have a risk about all kinds of things, as a company. What is the risk for Archean? The only risk for Archean is that they are not going to get as much royalty as they could get if Inco is not doing the mining. That is the risk they hold. Anybody listening will know that if you put in $3 billion risk, certainly there should be some deductions allowable for that, and Inco are the ones paying directly to Archean the royalties so they are able to deduct that cash payment.

I think it is also important to note that in the case of the industry, and I think my colleague mentioned it as well, there are many incentive programs for explorationists, and people are quite interested. They come and they explore based on the geology. They do not come on the tax basis. We also said at the beginning that there was an option for this company to negotiate a better net smelter royalty, which is what this is based on, this 3 per cent net smelter royalty. We will still say that over the life of the agreement - and the member opposite talks about Inco giant - Inco will pay the people of this Province, through taxation, much more than an individual company; in this case the one he is referring to, Archean. There is no doubt about that.

He is arguing that Archean should get more money; they should pay less taxes and receive more royalties. I am arguing that the people of the Province should get the 20 per cent. He is arguing and saying that, you know, the tax rate is high.

We also know that if people decide to leave this Province, that they will not pay corporate income tax. The only thing that we can be guaranteed to get from this is a 20 per cent royalty on our non-renewable resources. This is our share of their good fortune and their great skill. We make no apologies for that. That has been in place since 1975 and is not new. It is confirmed. It has been confirmed by the Trial Division and it has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and unanimously, I might add.

With respect to the taxation, I would certainly refer the member, too, to any of the accountants or the tax specialists in the Department of Finance. What amounts from the 57 per cent to the 52 per cent is that there is 5 per cent rebated when the dividends are paid to the shareholders. Now he is saying, oh, that affects the shareholders. Of course, any shareholder has to pay tax on the income they get, but the reality is that there is a 5 per cent deduction and the member opposite knows that.

Now, if the shareholders also happen to be the owners, well, I guess, you know, in some cases that is - well, not the owners. There are only two owners in this particular case, but I will say again that you pay your taxes based on your income, and members opposite know that.

Further, I would say with respect to the other pieces of the bill, this court case was first brought to light in 1998. We have not heard anything about it since 1998, from any of the outside interested parties, and I would say that this meets the commitments that we have made. We have been reviewing it since 1995. We have met with numerous groups and, in fact, even with the deduction that we are providing for exploration, I think it is a good incentive. I also think that the 100 per cent deduction on royalties - $100,000 a year as a royalty is a significant amount of money. Now, it might not be a big find. It might not be as big as you would like, but to get $100,000 a year that is not subject to the taxation, I think it is pretty reasonable. I think it shows junior explorers and miners that we are trying to nurture and encourage more exploration. I frankly think that it is a good sign and it sends a very good message.

We do not apologize for the balance that we believe we have struck in allowing the mine to be developed; because, without the mine being developed, we would not have the economic benefits that we know we are getting from Voisey's Bay.

This is a generic piece of legislation but it is very much talked about in the Voisey's Bay Archean Resources piece. It is a generic piece of legislation that has been worked on and developed since 1995. We have met with lots of groups and we have addressed the changes that we have set out, making clearer the intent of the 20 per cent royalty tax, making clearer and reducing the tax holiday from an unlimited period of time to a ten-year component.

Mr. Chairman, I would say again, and I would be happy to get up again to talk about any other components, that we are quite confident that this 20 per cent royalty tax that will be paid on our non-renewable resource is only a right and proper taxation for the people of the Province on a non-renewable resource that belongs to all us in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill 21.

In the last forty-five minutes or so, we have focused mostly on the taxation part of the bill. The bill is much more than that. It is a huge piece of legislation, and I just want to offer my support to my colleague's request for a legislative review committee to deal with some of this.

The minister has already indicated that her department and her officials' department have talked to many people in the industry, as have, she has indicated, the people from Mines and Energy, and the minister has talked to many people.

I believe she also said earlier that she would gladly table tomorrow all of the groups that she has spoken to with respect to developing this legislation. I look forward, on the next sitting day of the House, on Monday, to the minister tabling that as she said she would.

I would like to deal with a couple of important points first of all. Where the discussion has focused in on the taxation at this point, I will deal specifically with that. As the debate occurs throughout the next week or so, I will deal with other sections of the bill.

First of all, the minister is absolutely correct in telling the people of the Province tonight that this law has been in place for some twenty-seven years, since 1975; however, I think we need to understand and have some perspective, and here is what it means. It is almost as if you were asked to look out your window from your front porch tonight and say: Just look through that little piece of the glass right there. What you are going to see is just that little piece. If you opened up your front door and walked out on to the front step you would see the entire picture in front of you, and that is what the minister has failed to paint, the entire picture. I will try to do that right now.

In 1975, under a former Administration, the Moores Administration, there was a royalty tax targeted, brought in place. This royalty tax was called the Newfoundland and Labrador Royalty Tax, which targeted the mischief promoter, John C. Doyle - everybody understands that - and it was targeted to go after him particularly.

The Minister of Fisheries can shake his head when I say mischief, but that is why he lives in Panama and is not back here, Minister, because it was mischievous. That is a matter of recorded history now.

I asked the Premier earlier tonight - and this is important, Mr. Chair - a rhetorical question, because it is one to which I already knew the answer. How much money has the Newfoundland government, since 1975, collected on that tax - outside of John C. Doyle - from mining exploration in the Province, mining companies that have been successful?

MR. SULLIVAN: Up to 1997.

MR. E. BYRNE: Up to 1997, sorry. How much has been collected?

Do you know what the Premier said? Zero, and that is correct. It is important to note. As the minister tries to leave the impression that this is not a new piece of information, that this act has been in place for some twenty-odd years, that is not true. It is only partially true. The fact of the matter is that it has never been imposed on anybody. That is an important point.

The second point I would like to make - I do not know where the information is coming from, but the minister seemed tonight to become Inco's chief apologist. It seems to me, when the Minister of Finance stands and says Inco is assuming all of the risk, that prospectors assume no risk.

Here is another fact of information that people need to understand. There is a good reason why banks in this country, banks in the United States, banks in Europe, and banks all over the world, do not fund prospecting. Do you know why? Because, 90 per cent to 95 per cent of prospectors never hit a find. The risk is associated with prospecting.

There is also a very good reason why banks and bond rating agencies in Canada, in the United States, in Europe - again, all over the world - finance significant finds like Voisey's Bay. Because, guess what? The risks associated with a find like Voisey's Bay are minuscule compared to the risks associated with trying to find a find like Voisey's Bay.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) not necessarily related.

MR. E. BYRNE: They are related. They are not necessarily not related either.

The other point I would like to make, and it is an important point, we have talked about how we should get more from our royalties. There is nobody in this Chamber, I would believe, and I would be willing to bet the last dollar that I had in my possession on it, who would not stand up and say: Yes, we need to get more from our royalties.

My learned colleague and friend, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, talked about tonight, the picture that he painted, the correct one, from the financial statements about: Where are the royalty taxes, what we get from resource taxes? It levels tenth behind lottery tax, cigarette tax and gambling tax, et cetera. There is nobody in the world, or nobody certainly in this Chamber, who would argue against getting more from our resources.

I am going to assume for a moment, and just for a moment - while I do not agree with it, I would like to use the minister's argument this way - let's assume that the 57 per cent, if this act passes as it is, that we will charge Archean and any other prospector - it is not just about Archean Resources, although they are going to pay a lot; they are going to get a lot and they are going to pay a lot - let's assume that is fair. Let's assume that 57 per cent, which is the highest in the country, maybe the highest amongst the world - even in a backward country like Russia taxes are at 44 per cent. Let's assume for a minute that 57 per cent is what we, in this Legislature, have judged to be fair and prudent in charging a tax. Then the question begs to be asked, in this context: Why is it then that this government has given Inco a different deal? Why is it? Why is it that they are going to have the lowest tax in all of Canada?

This is a company that, over the life of the project, will make significant money. No one can argue that. The ovoid alone - just the ovoid, with no underground development. The nickel in the ovoid is estimated at $15 billion, at least. The copper, cobalt and zinc and other minerals that are contained just within the ovoid, another $5 billion. That is $20 billion. So, why is it that we have judged a local company, and other potential local companies, at 57 per cent? Yet, on Inco, a significant company internationally - its sales last year were two-and-a-half times larger, just in sales on its products. On its finished products its sales were two-and-a-half times bigger than our provincial budget. So, why is it then that we are going to charge Inco the lowest tax in all of the country? Because these are the facts. That is not an opinion, they are the facts.

How the Minister of Mines and Energy, earlier, can make the assumption and the assertion that we close the loophole by offering them the lowest tax in all of the country, there is something that does not fly in the argument. If we are going to make the argument and policies surrounding the argument, and a body of regulations surrounding that policy, then you would think that across the board, what would be sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Mr. Chair, it does not make any sense to me. If it was based upon Inco taking all the risk, maybe, but that's not the facts. That is not entirely the facts at all. As a matter of fact, I do not know if the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury - can she tell us today what the tax will be for Inco? Is it yet to be determined? If it is going to be the lowest in the country - does she know, for example, if any other provinces right now in the country are amending their mining taxes or their legislation associated with mining taxes to make them even lower?

MR. SULLIVAN: Three provinces are.

MR. E. BYRNE: There are three provinces? Ah, ah, that is a good question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three right now, coming on the books shortly.

MR. E. BYRNE: The point is this, the tax that Inco will pay has yet to be determined. I find that startling, to be honest with you. If I were to use my colleague's words from across the way, I would say it was shocking. It might even be baffling. The fact of it is, it is unbelievable because what we have negotiated with Inco is that they will have amongst the lowest, if not the lowest tax in all of the country. Today the Minister of Mines and Energy or the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board cannot tell people in the Province what percent that will be yet, is my understanding. I stand to be corrected. If that is the case, then I am wrong. I will stand up and say: I am sorry, I was wrong. But my understanding is that they cannot because it is not yet determined.

We have three other provinces in the country who are in the process of amending their legislation to offer lower taxes which means, if that is the case, it will bring down the Canadian average; which means it will bring down the average of what Inco will pay. So the question begs to be asked, on this point: If we assume 57 per cent is what we should get from this find, in this Legislature -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just one sentence to clue up, if I may, Mr. Chair.

If we assume 57 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just concluding a sentence, Minister of Fisheries, just one sentence. The Government House Leader said it was okay.

If we assume that 57 per cent is good enough for Archean Resources or Tommy Joe or Jimmy Jane or Jane and Mary, whatever company it may be, then why can't we make the same assumption for Inco? I really find that disturbing, to be honest, particularly in view of the fact that right now we do not know what the tax will be for Inco. Right now there are three other provinces who are bringing down their tax rates on mining companies, which will lower the average that they will have to pay and ultimately what they will pay for the province. I think that is a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will not take too long, Mr. Chair. I have been sitting in this House now for close on seven years - seven years in February coming - and in all of those seven years I have been looking across the floor everyday, it starts just after Question Period, that the hon. members get up on petitions. Everyday these members ask the government for more money, because each one of those petitions - the Member for Bonavista South has it down to a science. Everyday, I think, for the last four or five years he stood at the end of Question Period and asked for more money for paving on the Bonavista Peninsula. I heard the Member for The Straits talking about the condition of the roads, and it goes on and on and on.

I know, Mr. Chair, in representing a rural district - probably the largest one in the Province, thirty-nine communities on four islands, two of which are only accessible by ferries. Let's talk about ferries for a minute. Everyday we hear members opposite criticizing the Minister of Transportation because all we have are rustbuckets operating in this Province for ferries. That has been said here, I suppose, fifty times in the last three weeks, and they get it out in the media. They go and talk to the media about it. They talk about drinking water. How people in this Province do not have drinking water. I have the same problem in my district. In fact, I received a call today from residents of Island Harbour on Fogo Island. They have artesian wells and they have arsenic in it.

The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chair, is that everyday we are looking for money. The members opposite stand and ask the Fisheries Minister for more money for wharves. They ask the Finance Minister for money for everything under the sun. When I go out to my district, or when I am sitting in my office, I have forty or fifty calls a day from individuals looking for money for one reason or another, and they are all legitimate requests, very legitimate requests.

I need new roads. The road going to Twillingate, Route 340, is in desperate need of repair; just as bad as any of the members opposite, the roads in their districts. I tell the people in my district: We can't do it all in one year. We will do it a bit at a time. Do you know why? We do not have the money to do all of these roads. We do not have the money to put water and sewer into every community. We do not have money to build the hospitals and the additions to hospitals and the new equipment for hospitals that people would like. We do not have the money to do it today. That is what we tell people, that we would like to honour your request. There is no doubt about it, when people call me and say: Listen, Gerry, we want our road paved. I said: I would like nothing more than to be able to pave every road in my district. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't I like it when they threaten that they are not going to vote for me? They say: I am not voting for you unless my road is paved. I said: I would love to have your road paved. I am not just looking for votes. These people have been on New World Island and Fogo Island for hundreds of years. Some of them have never driven in their communities on a paved road, and it is like it all over the Province. The point I am making, Mr. Chair, is that we need money for all of these programs. It is not only me, it is every member in this House.

Mr. Chair, we announced a job creation program just recently and I bet you every member in this House has come back to Oliver Langdon, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, looking for more money for job creation programs. Why? Because we do not have enough money to satisfy the need that is out there.

We are into a time of the year, just before Christmas now, and of course there are many families out there who would like to have money to put gifts under the tree for their kids. They are calling us, all of us, looking to be put to work. All of us have constituents like that, and it would break your heart to talk to some of them when they tell you about how bad they have it. I would like nothing more, Mr. Chair, than to be able to pass the money over to those people. I would like nothing more than be able to deliver the cheques to the councils and to the development associations. What a Christmas present it would be, to put every single sole in this Province to work. What a Christmas present that would be.

Mr. Chair, I have listened for years, not only since I came in here but prior to coming in here, about politicians in the House of Assembly here and people in the general public, talking about: We are giving away our resources. We will get nothing in return for it. Then tonight I heard at least two members of the Opposition stand up - when we have an opportunity to get some money from those resources, when we have the opportunity to put a royalty regime in place where we can gain some royalties, gain some taxes, gain some much needed money for this Province. What do I hear from the Opposition tonight? We are taxing multimillionaires in this Province too much money. There is something not right about this picture. There is something not right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Multimillionaires.

I respect the two individuals who found Voisey's Bay because they are going to contribute to the economy of this Province. They are going to contribute to the prosperity of this Province, and I think it is only right that they get their fair share, but when you are talking $300 million over the life of that project for those two individuals - $300 million - and we are here tonight saying we should lower their taxes, we should lower their taxes. I came from a poor family, Mr. Chairman, a very poor family. A very, very poor family, as poor as any member in this House, I will tell you that. When I hear that we are taxing multi-millionaires too much, from the same people in the Opposition, the same Finance critic who stood here for four or five years in the House of Assembly and said: You are not taxing the people in Voisey's Bay enough money; you are not taxing them enough...

MR. SULLIVAN: What about the billionaires, Inco? (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, then tax them more as well, I would say. Tax them more as well. I am not saying, Mr. Chairman -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) giving them break. That is what I would say.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, can I have some protection from the Finance critic? Can I have some -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I cannot stand here and have someone stand here and making inaccurate statements. I have indicated, quite clearly, there should be a fair tax, an equal tax. Why tax billionaire Inco 20 per cent less than millionaire exploration companies that discover the minerals, and they are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Give the equivalent treatment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that you give to foreigners and holders in the United States, all over this country and the world. That is the point I have been making here. He is misconstruing my statements here and he is grossly unfair to try to play - that is their strategy, Mr. Chairman - upon two successful Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because Inco paid too much for Voisey's Bay and you are going to give them a tax break now.

They need to get it back somewhere. They cannot get their price back and now they are going to get the cheapest tax in the country and get it out of the pockets. Their tax is coming out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, every cent of break Inco gets. A $20 million tax break on top of the lowest rate in the country. That is what we should be looking at. That is what we should be using for health care and roads and everything else in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Twice today I rose in this House to make a speech on two issues that are very near and dear to my heart. This afternoon, on the fishery, I sat here and I listened attentively while every member on that side of the House who wanted to speak to that bill spoke. I never said a word. When I got up, I was interrupted twice by a point of order by my Fisheries critic.

Tonight, I know I have hit a nerve with the hon. Member for Ferryland. I know I have hit a nerve, and that is the reason he jumped to his feet to try to throw me off my train of thought, Mr. Chairman. I know I have hit a nerve over there. I know I have hit a nerve.

To get back to what he is saying - we are giving Inco a tax break - well, I will tell the member opposite, the Finance critic, a member who should know about finance and royalties and everything else because that is his job, he also knows, but he will not admit, that Inco will pay far more in taxes over the life of that project than Archean Resources; far more in taxes and royalties.

The argument, Mr. Chairman, that I am making here tonight, is that we have a group of people opposite who should be ashamed of themselves, who have complained for years that we have given our resources away, that we have not received enough in return. If you turn on any Open Line show, you read any paper, you listen to any newscast in the last twenty-five years, what do the people say in this Province? You are giving it away. We are rich in resources but we give it away. Finally, we are bringing in a bill here tonight, a royalty regime, where we are going to start taking it back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: What do they say? We are going to take it back. For once, we are standing and saying: That is our resource. The people of this Province own that resource.

I am not the first to say that. Everybody in this Province has said it, we have given it away in the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. REID: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is bringing a bill forward tonight where we are starting to take that back, and the members opposite have stood here in the House of Assembly tonight saying, we should reduce the taxes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise for a few minutes and participate in this important debate. It is an important public policy discussion as it relates to a very important industry in our Province. Obviously, we are talking about the exploration industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I dwell on that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the point that was made at the outset by the Member for Ferryland, and it was alluded to as well by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, when they talked about a legislative review committee. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that what we are hearing here tonight and what we are witnessing in this Chamber tonight is perhaps proof positive as to why a legislative committee on this very important piece of legislation is required, and why the people of the Province would then have an opportunity to participate and to bring proposals and to bring suggestions and to be active participants in this particular discussion.

The minister had said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that there were opportunities for those in the industry to make representation and to form an opinion and to speak with officials within the Ministry of Finance, I guess, and in particular the Ministry of Mines and Energy. However, because of this debate this evening, and because we are debating this particular piece of legislation this evening, Mr. Chairman, now it is certainly much more public, it is much more in the open, and it seems to me there would be much more interest from the public-at-large point of view, and it seems to me an appropriate time for perhaps the government members opposite to reconsider the suggestion and to reconsider the proposal of having this particular bill now the subject matter of a legislative review committee, to allow any individual, to allow any corporation, to allow any exploration company, to become more actively involved in what the consequences of this particular legislation would be.

Mr. Chairman, there is more to this particular piece of legislation than what we have heard tonight. I know there has been some reference to Archean, a company that feels, by the way, that it has been targeted by this piece of legislation, a company that feels that it had the rug pulled from under its feet when the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada were aborted recently because of this particular legislation coming forward.

There is more than just the representation of a particular company that was referred to tonight by my colleague from the District of Ferryland, when he read correspondence from Altius. However, I would also like to refer to a piece of correspondence from the Newfoundland and Labrador Explorationists, in some ways an umbrella group that deals with this very important sector of our society and in many ways perhaps presents the sentiments of those within the industry as to why they feel this particular piece of legislation is repugnant and why they feel this particular piece of legislation is not only obviously not in their best interest but, in the overall sense, not in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

There was a letter that was written only a few short weeks ago to the Premier, and copies were in fact distributed to members of the House and also to the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and the Mining Association of Canada. I would like to read it just in part, if I may. It states, "Our mineral exploration and prospecting industry is an inherently high risk and very low payback business. The majority of us in the business do it for the life-style but mostly because there is always the hope of finding the "big-one" with a significant reward if it makes a mine. The prospectors who found the Voisey's Bay deposits in 1995 caused an exploration boom in the Province which incurred close to $400 million in exploration expenditures to date. As you aware, INCO will spend many times this amount in developing these deposits and the spin-off effect from this will be tremendous for the Province."

The correspondence goes on to say, Mr. Chairman, "The prospectors, geologists and exploration companies who discover these mineral deposits are directly responsible for all of this investment and employment." They ask a question, "Why would we punish these important contributors to Newfoundland and Labrador with a tax rate far beyond the mine developer or any other corporation in this province."

It states as well, Mr. Chairman, "Mineral royalties are critical and are a major incentive for explorationists to continue to strive to find mineral deposits and effectively create wealth for the Province as well as themselves. In order for prospectors and mineral exploration companies to strive for mineral discoveries they need this type of significant payback even if it is a pipedream 99.9 % of the time. What will crush the spirt of prospecting and mineral exploration..." - the correspondence continues, Mr. Chairman - "...is more government interference and especially unfair and unprecedented tax-grabs."

The correspondence again continues and states that they ask to seriously consider the major negative impact that the 20 per cent tax grab will have on the mineral exploration industry. They ask government to have the entire 20 per cent tax completely eradicated and to leave the royalties to a regular corporate taxation level. The grab on the mineral exploration industry will undoubtedly have far-reaching negative effects with other industries from future investment perspectives in Newfoundland and Labrador. It states, as well, "...the eradication of the tax-grab will surely be seen as positive for future investment in Newfoundland and Labrador and put us on a level, competitive playing field."

It concludes by stating that this is not an unreasonable position and restates, I guess, the position, Mr. Chairman, that this is being presented to government, and to the Premier in particular, with the view to ensuring that there is a competitive and stable tax and regulatory environment.

The spirit and the thrust of this particular piece of correspondence, Mr. Chairman, is important. It represents a mindset of a particular industry, and what it in fact says is that explorationists in this Province have to be given an opportunity to participate in this industry on a level playing field. It has to be seen as being fair. It has to be seen as being equitable with a view to that, if they are successful, obviously, in the short-term and in the long-term, not only will these individuals, these corporations and these exploration companies be ultimately successful, but in the long term - as was alluded to by my colleague, the Finance critic - it would mean success for the people of this Province.

That is the thrust of this correspondence. This is not written on behalf of Archean, a group that obviously feels targeted by government. It is not written by Altius, another well-respected organization and group of individuals in this Province. It is written by the Newfoundland and Labrador explorationists who, as a group and as an entity, feel that this particular piece of legislation is repugnant, it is unfair, it is inequitable.

That is again, just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, perhaps support and evidence why a legislative review committee which would allow participants and all those interested parties to have an opportunity to review this, what is being referred to by the Minister of Finance as a very important piece of generic legislation. It is certainly incumbent on government to give all those interested parties an opportunity to fully debate and participate before any final and ultimate decisions are made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise tonight and give a few thoughts on this particular bill.

I have been in this House now just about fourteen years. I think that today, and since this bill has been introduced in this House, to me, I guess, it is one of the saddest moments in terms of what has transpired in this House.

I guess the debate we are talking about here today is whether we are going to give a tax break to multi-millionaires; multi-millionaires we are going to give a tax break to. It is interesting that the members opposite, for awhile we were not able to determine which policy area, which direction they were going in terms of policies within this Province. When we see the debate that is taking place on this particular bill, we know that the Tory Party is going back to its roots. We all know the history of the Tory Party, the way they look at things, the type of policies that they implement, that we do not care about people who fall through the cracks. That is the Tory Party. That is the way they always operated; that is the way they always will operate.

I sit here day after day, and as I travel around this Province I see the great need for infrastructure and all the other things that are needed in this Province. For me to get up today and to vote against this particular bill, I would have a difficult time explaining to the children in English Harbour East, in my district, who get on a school bus every day and travel over a gravel road and over the potholes and the rough surfaces, I would have a difficult time saying to them, when I go back for re-election: I voted to give a tax break to the multi-millionaires. How could I ever justify in my own mind and in my conscience?

The hon. Member for Trinity North - you go down in his district and you look at the communities. We are blessed this year, we were able to pave the road in Little Heart's Ease. After all those years of gravel road in the district, the kids are able to get on that school bus and have a smooth ride to school because they have a nice paved surface. The hon. Member for Trinity North - I will tell the people of Little Heart's Ease, and in those communities down there, that their member in Trinity North was in the House of Assembly and he was fighting for a tax break for the multi-millionaires. He was out there fighting for a tax break.

The message needs to go out in this Province today, and I will do everything I can, in my power, to make sure that this policy is spread throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that the Member for Trinity North, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and all those communities - the Member for Baie Verte, I travelled in his district - the great need for infrastructure and for roads in his district, the great need for a ferry to go to Little Bay Islands and all of that. He is going to have to go out and say to them: I was in the House of Assembly and I voted for a tax break for the multi-millionaires.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Oh, talking about the bill, this bill gets down to the real root and to the whole philosophy of what this party stands for and what that party over there stands for. You want to give a tax break to the multi-millionaires in this Province.

We hear them on the Open Line programs, the members of the PC caucus, saying that we are giving away our resources. We hear them on the Open Line program. We are giving away our resources, and we are bringing in a bill that we are going to tax people who are taking away our non-renewable resources, when here they are up fighting, saying: No, do not implement a tax on our resources.

Well, I can tell you one thing: that this member here will be making it loud and clear in my district and around this Province that the party over there is in the House of Assembly fighting for the multi-millionaires.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to just say a few words. We get ten minutes in Committee. I listened to the minister and I hope the minister is going to listen to what I have to say.

Mr. Chairman, tonight as I stand to make a few comments on this bill, I will say a few things to the Minister of Mines and Energy to start with. The Minister of Mines and Energy came to my district about a year ago now, or a year-and-a-half ago. He was welcomed there. He was there for the mining conference, and one of the first things the minister said, and I take him at his word because I believed him, in his opening statement in Baie Verte at the mining conference was: I do not know a lot about mining. You people know a lot more than I do about mining.

That is fair enough. The reason I make that comment is because, in one of his opening statements tonight, if you really know about mining - and I have lived and grown up around the mining industry - in the late 1980s exploration, because of flow-through shares that came through Ottawa, the exploration activity on the Baie Verte Peninsula and in the Green Bay picked up substantially. It was very encouraging to see the activity. If anybody has ever been around mining exploration and seen the activity - the Member for Humber Valley and some parts of the Green Bay, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and in Central Newfoundland, down in Botwood and so on. If you have ever been living around exploration activity, you see how much excitement is in the air, and the whole idea that somebody may discover something. I have grown up with that. As a matter of fact, even recently you would hear a rumour going around that somebody may have found something, and that exploration has actually picked up.

If you really know the exploration industry, you know that it is as simple as this: without exploration there would be no mine. Without the exploration there would have been no Voisey's Bay. What we are worried about here tonight is the exploration industry in this Province. That is what we are worried about. We are not going to get up and do a political rhetoric speech about all the needs as though they have a monopoly on the needs we have in this Province. We all understand that, and we have all said it many times over about our resources and what we are getting for them.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi tonight singled out those particular revenues, what we get from everything else, and then he compared it to revenues in the Province. One of the questions that I hope the Minister of Finance will answer when she gets up, because she did tell the truth as far as 1975, being in effect - that is true, Minister - but will you tell this House also what we have collected, aside from John C. Doyle, in this Province since 1975 to 1998 on that particular piece of legislation? Tell this House what we have really collected.

The answer is none, zero. That is the truth of it. So, it is spun in that way; but as I hear the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines and Energy stand up in this Province and say that they have heard no concerns, the Minister of Mines -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: - said that he has talked to all kinds of groups and they were glad they were going ahead with it all. He said this would be an incentive for exploration. Well, that is not what we are hearing, Minister. We are not hearing that it is an incentive for exploration. We have heard it from many different companies. We have heard it from, I know, exploration people in my district.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Explorationists have written a letter. I have a letter here from the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources. They have concerns. They represent - I assume they would represent - a lot of mining people in this Province. Why don't we just read the letter from this group that represents a lot of mining interests in this Province? This was just a short time ago, on October 10, to the Premier: The 20 per cent tax imposed by the Province on royalties from mineral production appears to be unique among the principal mineral-producing jurisdictions in Canada. It is both punitive as it results in what amounts to a double taxation of Newfoundlanders and hurts Newfoundland and Labrador's reputation and competitive position as a place in which to invest in mineral exploration.

That doesn't sound like it is an incentive to exploration, to me. If these people are writing on behalf of all these groups, they must know it first-hand.

Then they go on to say: Royalties nowadays, generally net smelter royalties - which is the case here - are an easily understood and integral part of the agreement to transfer exploration properties from prospectors to junior mining companies, or junior mining companies to major mining companies. As a result, many individuals and corporations in the Province hold royalties. The holders of such royalties today are more than likely to be explorationists who are resident in the Province and, should a royalty become payable, they would be eager to repeat their success by investing - that is important; they are about to repeat their success by reinvesting - the proceeds in the Province. Onerous taxation, however, may well induce these individuals to take up residence and conduct exploration elsewhere.

They go on to say: The possibility of a significant future return via the royalty interest is one of the key drivers of exploration.

That is what the Mineral Association of this Province is saying. That is what we are afraid of, as you look into the future.

As I saw exploration activity throughout the Baie Verte-Green Bay area - and right now there is some very interesting exploration going on in the Green Bay area, where Hammerdown and some other sites are potential right now - there is excitement about exploration. These people who are in this industry - and I will refer back again to the risk, which was noted a couple of times here tonight. The risk is in the beginning. The risk is with the explorationists, who have a hard time going out and trying to come up with investment, mostly international investment, so that they can move on to the first step, and that is exploring. Without exploring, we are not going to find anything. There will not be another Voisey's Bay or Nugget Pond, even the smaller or bigger finds. What we have to remember is, what is this doing to the beginning of the mining industry, which is the exploration of the mining industry? What kind of message is this sending?

According to the Minister of Finance so far, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the Premier, this is not at all hurting the exploration industry. Where is it going from here? This is historical. What we are doing here is historical. The Premier believes that it is not doing anything for disincentive for exploration companies. If that is true, why would the Chamber of Mineral Resources - who I have a lot of respect for. Mr. Brian Dalton is going a lot, as a matter of fact, probably the most exploration industry that is going on in this Province right now under them. Why do they have those concerns? If you were consulting with them all along - and the Premier seems to get upset over this - when all of these people, Mr. Chair, are saying to him: This is not good for our industry. We are the ones who start the mines. We are the ones who go looking for it. Why are those people - and why not, in that case? If that is so right, and it is according to the Premier, why don't we have the review, as my colleague asked for earlier tonight? What is wrong with hearing those? If all of these companies and the different groups - and if the Premier says he heard it all before, than why? What is wrong with them hearing that again, so that every member in this House, every member of the public, anybody who has a vested interest in this, down the road, will have the opportunity to express their concerns? I do not think that is a lot to ask for, Mr. Chair. I think this is straightforward and to the point, that mineral exploration in this Province could be severely damaged by this particular piece of legislation.

The bad part about it all, Mr. Chair, is that as this bill passes through this House and becomes law and the change is implemented, then, I guess, we are going to see in the near future, not the distant future, what really happens. It is misleading for the minister to say that since 1995 this has been in effect and it has not deterred anybody before from exploration. The fact is, that since 1995 - apart from John C. Doyle in 1998 when they started to collect from Nugget Pond - they did not collect a cent. We will see if the minister will confirm that when she stands to speak in the House; not a cent.

When you talk about the risk, the risk is with exploration. I have seen people go out in the woods day after day, year after year - and as somebody said earlier tonight, that of some 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the exploration that goes on only 5 per cent make it to an actual mine. That is what actually happens, Mr. Chair. That is what mining is about. If people know mining, that is a fact, that most exploration, over 90 per cent of it, does not actually develop into a mine. So the risk is very high in the exploration stage of it. Anybody in the mining industry will tell you that. As far as a substantial find like Voisey's Bay, the risk is in the banks, the banks that back up Inco. I think there was quite a scramble, I would say, for banks to be a part of this. I am sure when they saw the substantial find in Voisey's Bay there was not a problem getting a bank to deal with Inco. I do not think that was a problem at all, but ask the explorationists and the small junior mining companies where the risk is, when they are out everyday, day after day, going to conferences, making contacts, travelling the world to get investments so that they can take the first step and the risk, and go into exploration so that the next step will be in the development of the mine. That is where the risk is, Mr. Chair.

What we have been saying here tonight, on behalf of all people who do exploration in this Province, whether it be a person - I know there are people in this Province who have been exploring for years - twenty, thirty years some individuals - but never gotten anywhere with that exploration. But, Mr. Chair, they are the ones who are taking the risk and that is what we have to remember here tonight as we look at this piece of legislation because this will determine the history of exploration in this Province for a long time to come and that is where we have to look to.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start off by saying I am not a tax expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I also know a bit about mining. Like the previous speaker, I grew up around mining all of my working and adult life as well. I can remember not too long ago when we were pretty upset about a royalty regime in this Province - that was talked about here tonight - with Canadian Javelin, when Wabush Mines, in negotiations about 1993, were threatening that they would have to close down because of costs. We approached this government, or the government of the day, to try and do something about one thing that was happening in this Province, and that was the $2 a ton royalty that Canadian Javelin was getting, which was going to John C. Doyle who did not live in this country, was not contributing anything in the world to this country and living like a king in Panama, while workers here were being threatened with the loss of their jobs. They were prepared to give up things. The company was prepared to give up things. Everybody else involved in that equation were ready to give except the royalty regime that paid John C. Doyle $2 a ton. That threatened an entire community in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that workers who work in these mines - once they are found, once they are developed and once they are in operation - pay their share and they pay a lot more, proportionately, than anybody else pays. They work in 30 degrees below and 40 degrees below, not trying to find the mineral, but working to extract it and process it.

When we look at the legislation that is before the House tonight, Bill 21, and we look at something that gives $100,000 upfront tax free, tell me one worker in this Province, or one other business person in this Province, who would not like to have that. I do not see too much unfair about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: When we are taxed 20 per cent on the remainder, do you mean to tell me, if I listen to some of the arguments here tonight, that if I am going to get $400 million for discovering something, that I not going to take the bother to go and look because I am only going to get $360 million or $340 million? I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. I do not think so. I do not think there is too much wrong with the legislation here tonight, particularly when I look at the whole picture and we talk about things we need in this Province. We need a lot of things. That is evident from the debate that takes place in this House every day, and from Question Period.

When I look at people in my district who have to travel out here for medical reasons, what tax break do they get? That is coming from their net income, after they pay their taxes, plus 15 per cent on everything else they buy. When you look at the person who is making $10,000 a year, and they are paying about $1,800 in taxes on $10,000 a year, who is championing their cause? Who is saying they should not be paying anything? We are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, like I said, I am not a tax expert at all, but I can tell you, when we talk about people and explorationists who go out and look and maybe not find anything, and we talk about the risk, that is a reality. I acknowledge that, but there are a lot of other business people in this Province who start businesses that are high risk as well. A lot of these may fail from time to time, and what do they get? Where are their guarantees?

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: The hon. Member for Torngat is showing pictures of, I think, old exploration or abandoned exploration camps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem at all in saying that people who earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year should be taxed 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I do not have any problem saying that, Mr. Chairman, when people who make $60,000 or $70,000 a year are charged a much higher rate of tax than that. I do not apologize to anyone for that.

Those are the remarks I wanted to make. Again, I do not apologize for supporting anything that is going to give $100,000 free, with no tax, and charge 20 per cent on the remaining millions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report progress, and call Order 10, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Mr. Chairman, An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance, Bill 12.

CHAIR: Bill 12, An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance.

Shall clause 1 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a second, Mr. Chairman. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 12 inclusive carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 12, An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance. I did not have an opportunity to speak at second reading of this act.

We, in our party, have a lot of problems with some of the things that have been happening in student aid in the Province. I know that we have brought in a new regime in the last little while which was a very positive step to provide some breaks for students to fix the rebate program, which did not work very well in the past, to allow for remissions of student debt for programs of longer than thirty-six months, which I think is a very positive thing. It changed the regime in a very positive regard for a lot of students in the Provinces, but there are still very significant problems with our student aid program.

We see, for example, students now being turned down for financial assistance, turned down for eligibility, because they have already undertaken one program and, because the program they are seeking to undertake in applying for student aid is a different program, then they are deemed not to be qualified because it is not directly related to the program that they have.

I see some things happening here which are very detrimental to students and young people in the Province because it really does prevent them from having recognized that they may have made a mistake in undertaking a program that was not in their best interest, not to their advantage, and not going to give them the career or a job opportunity that they expected, Mr. Chairman. That seems to be happening in this Province where someone may have made a mistake in choosing a course in a private college, for example, that turns out to be one of the ones that a student has almost no opportunity of getting a job in this Province. For example, I have heard a case of students who have taken a forestry program in a private college and haven't even been able to get a work term with the Department of Forestry or any other employer, and have sought to go on to other programs, go to university instead, because the forestry program that they undertook was not regarded highly enough to allow them to get employment, and having been turned down for student aid because they are not considered to be eligible because the program - whether it be engineering or some other program that they undertook - was not deemed to be directly related to their previous studies.

I don't know why that is happening, Mr. Chairman. I don't know why that is happening because as far as I am concerned there are lots of people who go to university, go to college or go to school and find out after a few months, after a year, or even after two years, that the program they are in is the wrong one for them. It is happening more today, I would submit, than it had five or ten years ago because what we see happening around this Province is a profusion of private training institutions that heavily advertise, that are using recruitment tactics to get students into their doors, students who may, with the best intentions, are going to these colleges thinking that the advertising or what they have been told is accurate and they are going to be able to get a career by taking a ten month course, or a twelve month course, costing a very substantial amount of money. In fact, the amount of money that they pay for a one year course in tuition is often the cost of a full university degree or certainly the cost of a three-year program at the public college, the College of the North Atlantic.

We see a big competition out there in the post-secondary institutions between the private and the public. The private institutions offering, in some cases, a quick fix for people who really do not know what their full options are, who have not received the proper level of career counselling, and who are considering: I can take this course. The tuition might be $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 but the government has approved it. The government is offering student loans for it. So I go and take the course and I end up being in a situation where the opportunities for getting employment are slim to none. I am left with a debt I cannot afford to pay back. Now I cannot correct that mistake. I cannot go on to another program. In fact, I am hobbled and not being able to do anything because I have now been saddled with this debt. I cannot get a job to pay it off or I get a job being paid the minimum wage and unable to pay it off.

A lot of people in this Province are trapped. A lot of young people in this Province are trapped because of a student loan that they have been saddled with for a program that has not been advantageous to them at all. We see that happening time and time again. We get calls in our office, I am sure hon. members get calls: What am I going to do? I owe $15,000, I owe $18,000, I owe $20,000.

We have people on social assistance, Mr. Chairman - we see the income support - who cannot get a job, cannot get into school. If they get a job the first thing that happens is that the collection agencies are down their backs trying to take money from them, harassing them for paying back loans. They are being hounded by collection agencies, being told that they are going to be taken to court, being told that they have to pay this money, in many cases, Mr. Chairman, in violation of the consumer laws. We have had to call people to task because of the tactics they have been using against people who just cannot afford to pay, just do not have any money and yet are saddled with huge student loan debts. Very young people - eighteen year olds, nineteen year olds, twenty year olds - who have nowhere to go because they cannot get out of a mistake that they made because this government has approved a course at a private college for a student loan, that has given a stamp of approval to a program that has resulted in a student or young person taking a course, engaging in a huge debt and not being able to pay it off. So I have a lot of problem, Mr. Chair, with the way the Student Loans Program is administered. We have a whole category of people - I call them the lost generation, from time to time -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am sorry. The Government House Leader says he is concerned about people making mistakes and having to pay for it all their lives. I am concerned about that. If they owe $17,000 or $18,000 dollars and they have a minimum wage job, they have been ruined. They are certainly disillusioned with education, they are certainly disillusioned with life, and many of them are forced to leave this Province. They disappear, I say to the Government House Leader, they go off to Alberta, they go to Ontario or they go somewhere else, in many cases hoping that they can get something and hoping that they can avoid their creditors, because they don't have money to pay these creditors.

They have been put in this situation by the policies of this government, frankly, and its predecessor, in opening up the availability of the student loans to a whole raft of programs and colleges that grew up in this Province; probably more here than elsewhere in the country, Mr. Chairman, because in this Province we had a proliferation of private training institutions that grew up during the cod moratorium, starting in 1992. In fact, people who used to be in the fish business went into the education business because they were making more money in the education business than they were in the fish business. HRDC federally and then the Student Loans Program provincially got into financing it, as well, financing placements in colleges.

We have had examples of the Career Academy, for example, going under after advertising hugely to bring students in, with programs that, in many cases, did not lead to any kind of job, with huge expenses and huge debt. This government had to go in and try to bail out the circumstances because there were hundreds of students camped out in front of the Confederation Building in the summer of 1998, I believe it was, in August of 1998, because the Career Academy had gone bankrupt.

We have seen some attempt at reform in that, Mr. Chairman, but we don't see the degree of monitoring that the Province promised. We see a situation where far too many students in this Province are still going to substandard courses, lack of proper monitoring by this government, lack of follow-through on its promises to reform the supervision of private training institutions. We see students again being drawn in for, what I call, the quick fix: Come to our college, take a course, and at the end of your course, you will have a job. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is very, very untrue for far too many students. Many of those who do get jobs get very low-end jobs, minimum wage or slightly better.

I would far rather see, Mr. Chairman, the money that is being put into the student loan program in private colleges put into the development and improvement of our public college system. We have seen that deteriorate over the last dozen years, programs being cancelled, trades programs being eliminated entirely. We have deteriorated to the situation that employers and the trade unions themselves are complaining about the lack of trained people, about the lack of available apprentices who have the qualifications, the lack of trained people to work in industry. We see that as a very serious problem in this Province, in part because this government has allowed the public college to go down in terms of the number of course offerings that it has, go down in the number of places where it offers those courses, and basically passing over the obligation to provide an opportunity for young people to get a decent education, passing it over to private enterprise whose main interest - not their only interest, but whose main interest - is in making money, whose priority interest is in making money, because they are operating as a business first and foremost, providing an educational service second.

If you look at the tuition rates, the tuition rates for a private college system are three, four and five times what the public college charges. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? That is there because the people who operate these institutions are doing it on a for-profit basis.

We have an obligation as a society, I say, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that students have an opportunity to learn and get a chance to operate in life. We had a great argument going a couple of years ago where the former chair of the College of North Atlantic made this analogy and it was very good. He said that, thirty years ago, the job entry level for a career in this Province was high school graduation, and high school graduation was available to every student in this Province free, paid for by the public purse, paid for out of general revenues as part of free and compulsory education. That was the job entry standard thirty years ago.

What is the job entry standard now? Can someone go into the job market with a high school education and expect to make a career, and make a good life for themselves and their children? No, Mr. Chairman, they need training. They need one or two years - probably two years at least - of training before they can get into a career path. The entry level requires a level of training, a level of skill development, that can only be provided in post-secondary education. What is happening, Mr. Chairman? What is happening is, we see the availability of programs in public colleges diminish and we see private entrepreneurs, being supported by this government through the student loan program and others, extracting huge amounts of money from young people by way of tuition, and being saddled with debt without having the opportunity to have a free chance to get a career path to start at a job entry level. I think that is wrong. I think we have to change that.

To the extent that this bill here supports and continues the existing problems, we cannot support it, Mr. Chairman. We cannot support the continuation of a situation where young people are being used, disadvantaged, and in some cases downright exploited by the system.

I want the minister to address some of these issues, because I think there is a crying need in this Province for reform in our post-secondary education system so we do not have young people being exploited, we do not have young people coming out of high school and being saddled, after one or two years, with a $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 debt through a huge expense to a private college system. We need to ensure that public post-secondary education is accessible and available to all students in this Province, and I am calling on the minister to make a commitment to undertake that task.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond briefly to some of the remarks just made by the hon. Leader of the NDP. While some of the things he is saying are correct, some of them are very incorrect.

When he was talking about students being turned down for a student loan because they have been in other faculties or other programs and they wish to switch, that is perfectly alright for students to do. The problem that we have encountered over the last few years, and we are trying rectify for students, to help them, is that if they have gone more than halfway through a program, we want them to have counselling before we will be okaying them to have more student loans, because some students are going in and, you know, they are two years into a program, for instance, of a four-year program, saying, well, I would like to switch. Then they switch for another year or so. Then they think, oh no, I do not think I would like that either, I will switch again.

They are not stopping to think that, in many instances, if they live away from home, if they are from a rural or remote area of the Province, it is often costing them $12,000 to $15,000 a year. They are not figuring that, you know, every year I stay here and I do this, I am adding on to the debt. Sometimes they are coming out of programs where the career search documents very clearly show them that they are maybe going to make an average salary but not one that they can be paying off $800 a month to student loans. So, we are saying to them, let's sit down and consider what you are doing. It is the whole reason we are doing the career search documents on a yearly basis, so that a year after a student finishes a program they will be surveyed to find out: Did you get a job? Did you get a job in the Province? How much money did you make at this job? What was the average cost of your education before you went into this job?

This, then, gives students who are looking at these various jobs some real information so that they are able to make informed decisions. All we are trying to do, more and more - while the member is criticizing and saying that, you know, students are going into these programs ill-informed, it is not for want of trying, and it is not just the students to whom we are trying to give these pieces of information. It is the guidance counsellors, the home room teachers in the school, the school boards, and, in particular, the parents.

One of the biggest problems that we have right now in this Province, and in this country, I might add, is that we are going to have a very big skill shortage in the upcoming especially five years. Yet, we have many parents who have long dreamt that their children will go to university and they feel, if their children finish high school and they have an average that will get them into university, that they must go to university. It has been my dream that my child would go to university.

While it is very acceptable for many young students to be going to university, many of them are not considering the options of the skilled trades. In this Province, in the next few years, that is where very many of the opportunities are going to lie. We are going to need - because of the White Rose development, Voisey's Bay development, and hopefully the Gull Island project - a lot of mechanics, boiler workers, electricians, pipefitters, and all of those sorts of professions. So we have to get out young people better informed. We are doing a lot now with the Department of Education to make sure that our children have better career counselling through school. A lot of people say all of our guidance councillors are too busy. It is not just the guidance councillors who should be doing this, all of us should be better informed. There are reams of information out there, various government departments, all kinds of programs. The matter is of getting young people to understand what their options are. Then, when they understand them, to have very informed decisions about student loans.

We are already finding this year - the University is telling us that because of the new programs we have brought in, many more students are taking more than two and three credits. We have been saying to them, if you are a high-need student, if you do all five of your credits and you pass all of those credits, we will, upon graduation, term by term, write off all of the provincial portion of the Canada Student Loan that you have borrowed from. This is a very important thing. You could graduate with $35,000 to $40,000 worth of debt, or higher, and your student loan could be written down to $22,400. It is very important for young people to know this. It is also very important for people to know that in exceptional circumstances you can be exempted. You can do three courses if you have a disability, you are a single parent, or there is an extenuating circumstance in your life. You can do three courses and still be treated the same as if you were doing five. You can still have the full debt reduction grant. It is important that our young people understand that and it is very important for us to make sure that we are giving them accurate information.

The new program we have put in place, sure it has had some glitches in it. We now - right after Christmas, after going through the first full term under the new Student Financial Assistance Program we have in place - will be doing a full evaluation. We will be talking to students. We will be putting a group in place who will sit down to see how we can further improve it. But, let me tell you, this new program, already parents, educators and students themselves are telling us this is a much better program. Maybe it needs some improvement, but we will continue to try to improve it. We will evaluate it and listen to students until we get the program that students say it is the best it could be with the financial resources that we have in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance." (Bill 12)

On motion, clauses 1 through 12 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 13.

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to clause 13, An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance.

Clause 13 of the bill we would like amended by deleting subclause (1) and substituting the following: Where the government of the Province has paid money to a lender to fulfil the obligations of a borrower under a loan made under this act, the government of the Province has the same right to collect from the borrower the amount paid to the lender and interest that the lender would have had if the government of the Province had not made that payment.

Clause 22 of the bill be amendment by deleting the word "comes" and substituting the words "shall be considered to have come", or should I wait for clause 22?

CHAIR: It might be better.

MS KELLY: Clause 13, then, is the amendment that I propose.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 13, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 14 through 21, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 22 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to clause 22 of the bill, to delete the word "comes" and substituting the words "shall be considered to have come". That is more to speak to when it will be enacted and the retroactivity of it to August 1, 2002, I believe.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 22, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 13, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, Bill 14.

CHAIR: Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I am very pleased to rise this evening and to, again, offer general support for this particular bill. As members will recall, I spoke on this bill in 1999 when it was first brought in, and I note that there has been extensive consultations and training over the last two years. I am very pleased to support the amendments that have been brought forward here because this is a very significant piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, I would say to the minister responsible, this particular piece of legislation is not only significant for Newfoundland and Labrador but it is significant, indeed, for the entire Canadian nation. If I were to say to you that this is a great piece of legislation, I would say it reflects the studies that we did, as members of the Select Committee, when we met parents who wanted to tell us that they wanted to have more openness in the whole adoption process. I was the Vice-Chair and the Minister of Heath and Community Services was the Chair. We met with great numbers of people throughout the Province. This piece of legislation reflects those findings, but they also reflect the most recent philosophy and approach that is pertinent to this particular topic.

Let me say to you, that just today, on this very day, when I went home at suppertime this evening, I got a Christmas card from my grand-nephew, who two years ago was a young lad in Siberia. My niece has adopted this young fellow, and we were so happy to welcome him into our family.

Members on this side will know, that a few years ago I had the great joy of welcoming back to our own family a nephew that my sister had given up when she was a young sixteen-year-old. I can tell you that when you have gone through those experiences, I can say from my experience, that it is traumatic but it is also very, very heartwarming. Also, it turned out, I say to the House, that the young lad who is my nephew was a student who I taught at Mount Pearl Central High School. I was his teacher. I taught him in high school in my class, and yet I didn't know that he was, indeed, my nephew. Sadly, he knew but he wasn't allowed to say. I taught him all throughout his high school years. In fact, he campaigned in my campaign in 1993. He knew but I didn't. Eventually, through a contact, we were able to make the arrangement, and the relationship is an example of how this piece of legislation should work. He has a wonderful relationship with his birth mother and he also has a wonderful relationship with his adoptive parents. There isn't a conflict at all.

There are some myths that this particular piece of legislation helps to dispel. I want to just mention a few of them. There is the myth that is often mentioned, that birth mothers are inherently inconsiderate, that if they knew where the child was they would want to find them. My experience with that is that when my sister found out where her child was it took six months and a lot of counseling and a lot of help. The advise was take it slow, and that is the advise I would offer anybody who happens to be listening. Be sensitive, be caring, be outreaching, and try to be very helpful and encouraging.

Also, there is the myth out there that if a child finds out about their birth parents it will perhaps destroy their relationship with their adoptive parents. That is not grounded in research. That does not exist. I am not saying that it never existed, but it certainly is not the practice, it is not the experience.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased, as one member in this House who has some experience in dealing with the way this process does work, has worked, I am hoping that all those people in this Province who are affected by this legislation will find encouragement in it. It is not something that I think the Province has gone into fast. It has been a gradual process. There has been lots of consultation. I am pleased to support it. Overall, as my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services would say, the philosophy here is the best interest of the child.

That certainly is the right approach. It certainly is an approach that we would commend to all legislation affecting children. When you keep that in mind you are not likely to go off the track, because the best interest of the child is paramount in all legislation that deals with the interests of children.

I am pleased to say as well that there is provision here for opening up the files. The experience that I mentioned at second reading, in British Columbia, where a parent, if they wish to keep the file secret, can file a veto. The experience in B.C. is very, very positive. Less than 5 per cent of all the adoptions that have occurred in British Columbia are protected by a veto. Therefore, parents do not mind facilitating the opening of the file.

Fundamentally, every single person has a right to know who their parents are, where their genes come from. They need to know what biology they have. They need to know their family history, and they need to know it for all the right reasons. It helps establish for them an answer to the question: Who am I?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this legislation enthusiastically, knowing from experience the way it should work and knowing from experience as well the way that I hope it will work for every family in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to briefly speak in support of the passage of this legislation. A lot of work has been done on it, as the previous speaker has mentioned, a lot of consultation with everybody who might be affected by this. I think the legislation is good. It reflects the work of the Committee on Children's Interests. It reflects a lot of consultation with adoptees and people who have a very strong interest in this field and, in particular, opens up an opportunity for adoptees to find out their origins, which I think is very, very fundamentally important.

It is a fundamental right, as the previous speaker has said, to have knowledge of your origins, to know where you came from, and there are other health reasons and other kinds of genetic reasons why this is of very practical effect as well, but fundamentally answers the question, as the Member for Waterford Valley has said, that every person has, as to: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I who I am?

It is a philosophical question but it is also something that people wonder about and need to have answers for. This Adoption Act provides the opportunity, for the most part, respecting at the same time the wishes of the natural mother who may, for other reasons, not wish to have her whereabouts known, et cetera. I think there has to be some sort of balance there. Otherwise, it may be very difficult in some circumstances to have children put up for adoption.

I just want to put on the record my support for the new Adoption Act and echo, I suppose, the concern that I heard expressed on the radio in the last day or so by a person who said: It is really time that this be put into effect. It is long overdue.

There are a lot of people waiting for this act to be put into place. I am glad that we are here now. I know there have been delays and there may have been some reasons for it. I am not going to get into a criticism over that, but I am glad it is here. It is long overdue, and I want to support the passage of this bill at the Committee stage.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a few brief remarks. I do want to thank the hon. members opposite for their remarks and obviously their recognition that what we are about to do here this evening is something - my friend from Waterford Valley referenced the fact that he and I had occasion to work together on the children's interests committee. It was certainly a very rewarding experience and it is nice to have the opportunity here this evening to be able to vote in support of a piece of legislation that reflects some of the issues that were raised, as my hon. friend pointed out, some years ago when we were doing those consultations.

As the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi pointed out, in fact right now there are a number of people who are waiting in anticipation of our passing this legislation. We have gone through a thorough consultation. The original act was passed. We have gone back and consulted. We are back now to make some very relevant changes.

I do thank hon. members for their support on this issue, on behalf of the parents, but mainly, as my friend from Waterford Valley pointed out as well, the many children who will be the beneficiaries of this very visionary piece of legislation, with the accompanying amendments, that we will be passing here this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act." (Bill 14)

On motion, clauses 1 through 30 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 15, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 22.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 22)

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 16, Mr. Chairman, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Bill 13.

CHAIR: Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if this is the right time or not, but there is a slight amendment that I have to read into the record. Do you have the copy of it?

Subclause 7(1) of the Bill is repealed and the following substituted: "7.(1) Section 2 of this Act is considered to have come into force on October 1, 2002."

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to the amendment. I just want to speak on the title.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alright.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to have a few comments, and very brief, because I happen to believe that again this particular bill follows from the collective bargaining process that was negotiated with, I think, the nurses, NAPE, CUPE and the IBEW. However, I did have communication with the retirees of primarily NAPE in the last few days, and they were concerned about the fact that the joint trustee pension management board that was agreed to be set up last year, that they are not represented in an effective way on that particular management board.

We know that, to manage the pension fund, there has been a board set up which has representation from the government and from the unions, namely the Nurses' Union, NAPE, CUPE and the IBEW, but the retirees of the public service are not represented on that board and just as late as last week, when the retirees' representatives met with the minister, the minister did not even find it appropriate or necessary for her to even advise them that this bill was coming forward. They are very concerned. They met last week with the minister, and they think it would have been appropriate - this particular piece of legislation affects them - to see the minister relative to having a more active voice. Now, they have been offered representation to sit on the board of management but they have not been given a vote. They can sit there in an ex-officio capacity but they have no right to vote on the management of their funds.

Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe that if we are going to be effective in managing the joint trustees pension management board, we have to keep in mind that the people who are retired should have some voice in that particular management board.

Last week, when the Minister of Finance met with the retirees association, it would have been incumbent upon her to advise them of this particular piece of legislation. It was not until we discussed this here in the House the other day, and one of them was watching on television, they called me and said: Can you send me a copy? I did. They said: We had no idea. We want to know what is in it.

They had no idea, yet they felt they should be consulted because potentially they are also affected by it.

I understand why the unions do not want the retirees to have a vote on the management board - they have that opinion - but somewhere out there, there has to be some group that is going to say that somebody has to give the retirees who worked all their lives some active voice, not just to sit in. It is their pension too, and yet they have no opportunity to participate in decision making. They can speak, but when a vote is taken their presence does not count. That is not fair. It is not the right way to do it. I would say to the minister responsible, yes, she has had discussions but these people want to be more actively involved. It would have been real appropriate if they would have been informed that this legislation was coming before the House, and they could have all had time to react to it and time to reflect on it before it got to this stage in the process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 13)

On motion, clauses 1 through 6 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Minister for Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: That subclause 7(1) of the bill be repealed and the following substituted: 7.(1) section 2 of this act is considered to have come into force on October 1, 2002.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 7, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 17, An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax, Bill 16.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill 16)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, we have Order 19, Bill 10.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I was going to move that the Committee - but the hon. member wants to say something.

MR. E. BYRNE: You asked a question, I would love to answer.

MR. LUSH: Okay, you can answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I can only say that it is not December 24 yet, send in his list and we will check it twice.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move 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): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report that Bills 14, 15, 16 and 22 are passed without amendment and Bills 12 and 13 are passed with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendments read a first time and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for a good days work. In view of that, I will give four or five hours off and move that the House adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, 1:30 p.m.