June 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28

The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Motion 3.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to participate in

what is a very significant debate for our Province. A very significant deal for

our Province that I think will go down in history as one of the best deals that

this Province has ever seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: My colleagues have spoken at length about the benefits of this

agreement, and I concur with them. Clearly, there are significant benefits here

for all sectors of our population but I want to speak about our most important

resource, Mr. Speaker, and that is our children. I want to speak about what this

deal means for our children and for their future.

Before I do that, I also want to take an opportunity to congratulate the

Premier of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: - because this deal is all about leadership. It is about

finding solutions. It is about identifying opportunities. It is about making

sure that we do what is right and what is in the best interest of the people

that we serve. I congratulate this Premier, Mr. Speaker, a man who has no other

agenda but to do what is right and proper for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I also extend congratulations to the committee who worked so

hard, so diligently on reaching this agreement. A lot of our civil servants put

a lot of time and effort into this and I congratulate each and every one of

them, as well as the negotiators on behalf of Inco. I do so under the leadership

of the Minister of Mines and Energy because clearly, he worked very hard and

tirelessly to make this deal happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this past week I have spoken to hundreds of

individuals around this Province about the Voisey's Bay deal. I have spoken

with students, I have spoken with parents and I can tell you that I can count on

one hand the number of people who have expressed concerns about this particular

deal.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I have had a chance to have a

discussion with them - when I say on one hand I am serious - when I have had a

chance to have a discussion with those people, I have been able to allay their

concerns, at least four of the five. One individual, who still had some issue

with it, was a young man who is looking for the Tory nomination in the next

election to run against me. So, I have a real problem having a serious

conversation with him and trying to respond to his questions knowing full well

there was another agenda there.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to hundreds of people. In fact,

I had the pleasure of being in Marystown last week, last Thursday evening, and

spoke to the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Business Development

Corporation. I have to say, there were about 100 people there, about 100-110

people there, and to a person - all of those who came up to speak to me about

the deal, and I had done the presentation to them on what the deal involved,

about the Statement of Principles - they all came up to congratulate the

government and to thank the government for moving ahead on this initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: There only message was: Get on with it. Get the deal done.

These were individuals who work on a daily basis with the business community.

They knew exactly what they were talking about and they knew a good deal when

they saw it.

In Placentia, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of being there to accompany the

Premier, Mr. Scott Hand, Stewart Gendron and the hon. Member Percy Barrett. I

had the pleasure of being with them to talk about the deal and to talk to people

after the deal. It was a pleasure to hear the people from Placentia-Argentia

area speak to what this deal meant for them, what it meant to the young people.

There were young people there who told me they were going to go back to school

as a result of this. That was music to my ears because when we talk about doing

something to influence our young people and providing opportunities for them,

this was good news for them and good news for their parents; and good news for

all of us when it entices young people to go back to school because they see an

opportunity. I have to say that parents were there coming up to us saying: This

bodes well for the future of this area and for our children because now we can

see opportunities in our communities.

I have to give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Stewart Gendron,

the President of Voisey's Bay Nickel, in fact, encouraged young people to stay

in school, to get their education, to recognize that there is an opportunity

here for them but you have to be qualified in terms to access the jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Principle of Adjacency, which is very important in this

Statement of Principles, will also bode well for the young people in our

Province, particularly in the Placentia-Argentia area, and certainly in

Labrador. That is very important because young people want to stay in this

Province. They want to find employment opportunities here and they want to find

them in their own areas if they can. They are quite willing to move if it means

an opportunity for employment, but I have to say that from the people I have

spoken with, this for them means that they can live in their own communities and

not have to travel back and forth.

To have a company like Inco, a solid Canadian company, 100 years in

operation, bodes well for the future of this Province and certainly for the

young people of our Province. Inco will require engineers, Mr. Speaker. Inco

will require tradespeople, people in the construction industry. Inco will

require people who are in mineral technology and other fields. In fact, there

are people in our Province right now who are trained as mineral technologists,

who cannot find employment, and I am sure they are looking forward to this as

well. Talk to the ones who are leaving the Province because they cannot find

employment opportunities and you will clearly hear them say: Get on with the

deal.

Some people say we should leave the ore in the ground until we get the

perfect deal. Well, I have yet to see a perfect deal on any front, clearly

anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, you work with what you

have; you get the best deal that you can for the people you represent. I have

every confidence that the negotiating team, on behalf of the people of the

Province, have done just that.

Will there be jobs for everyone, Mr. Speaker? Obviously not. We are not

believing that this is a panacea. We are not believing that we can create

employment for everyone as a result of this deal. We do know that those people

who prepare themselves to work in this industry and look at this industry as one

of the future where they are involving new technology, that for those who

prepare themselves and get the appropriate training, there will indeed be

opportunities for them.

There will also be jobs for the many men and women in our Province who are

engaged in the construction industry. Just some of the numbers, Mr. Speaker, if

we look at construction that is going to take place in Labrador alone, we are

talking 550 jobs at peak construction. Look at Argentia. We are talking 300 jobs

at peak construction, at the demonstration plant, and we are talking 1,000 jobs

at peak construction for the commercial plant. So clearly there are jobs there

for our young people, but as well for other people in our Province, people who

have left our Province and who want to come home to work. There are all kinds of

opportunities here.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? It is very difficulty for government because,

no matter what you do, we cannot win. You are damned if you do and you are

damned if you don't. We have been trying to revitalized rural Newfoundland and

this would provide an opportunity to do just that. We are being constantly

harangued by the Opposition saying, you are not doing enough to revitalize rural

Newfoundland. You are being accused of not doing enough. You are being accused

of not putting enough programs in place; and when we do, this is the kind of

response that we get, that it is not good enough.

Well, we have to do what we feel is right. Here is a deal that will help to

address the concerns of rural Newfoundlanders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We found a deal that will help people in the Placentia-Argentia

area. We found a deal that will help people in Labrador, but we have a deal that

will help people in all parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I was in Marystown

last week, as well as spending a considerable amount of time in my own district.

I can tell you that the relationship that exists between Peter Kiewit and the

Innu, a long-standing relationship, bodes well for the future of the new owners

and the people of the Marystown Shipyard. Frank Smith, the man responsible for

running Peter Kiewit, or Acker Kiewit in this Province, was there and spoke to

the benefits, if they are competitive, that may accrue to the people of the

Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, those who are critical of our efforts, those who

are criticizing what we are doing in terms of putting a deal in place, are they

really interested in seeing rural Newfoundland revitalized or just in playing

politics with this? Because, clearly, here is a deal that is doing the best that

can possibly be done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not seeing the support that

should come from the Opposition with respect to this deal.

I want to get back to our students and the importance of preparing our young

people for career prospects. I want to pay tribute to the teachers in our

Province and to our guidance counsellors who work with our children to try and

ensure that they are prepared to go into post-secondary education and then on

into the workforce. It is not an easy job, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say that

teachers probably have the most important job in the world because they get a

chance to influence the minds of our very young people. I would say they spend

more time with our children, next to their parents, than anyone else in the

Province. They work very had to make sure that they are indeed prepared to go

into the workforce.

In addition to other career possibilities, our students can now consider a

job in the mining industry, in the new technology that is being offered, knowing

that upon graduation there will be very real opportunities for them. That is

always an issue for our young people, not quite knowing where to go, what to

study, and relying on others like their teachers, like those in the business

field, to mentor them, to give them some idea of what they can expect in terms

of job prospects.

I think the fact that Inco is here, Inco's presence in this Province now

gives them another avenue to pursue. For that, I am very grateful to Inco

because it means, again, more job opportunities for our very young people, and

something that they can aspire to as they get their education.

It is important that our students have every opportunity to prepare

themselves for the future, and when I talk about preparing our students, we have

to start with the very young, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many of your are

familiar with the research by Dr. Fraser Mustard, who says we must start

preparing our children at a very young age, recognizing it is between the ages

of zero and three when they have the greatest ability to absorb information.

We need to start preparing our very young to prepare them to build

self-confidence, to build self-esteem so that when they are in the position to

find employment, when they graduate from school, they have that determination to

succeed, and they will have that only if we have done our jobs in the education

system to prepare them for the future.

A number of ways that we do that is working with our students and making sure

that we build that self-confidence. One way, of course, is by using a

locally-made product called The Real Game. I do not know how many of you are

familiar with that, but it is a wonderful product designed by Bill Barry, a

former teacher and now a local entrepreneur. That product is a series that

starts in Grade 3 and goes through to Grade 12 and talks about the importance of

building self-confidence, self-esteem, about decision-making process, about team

work, and looks at career opportunities. I am sure that, along with The Real

Game, a locally-made product of which we can all be proud, that our teachers

will be looking now, and our guidance counsellors, to other opportunities to

talk to our children about opportunities in the new mining industry, new in

terms of the new technology that will be utilized with Inco's new plant in

Argentia.

Another avenue, Mr. Speaker, that is used to build confidence and introduce

our students to different career possibilities is the Techsploration program.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a program directed at introducing young women to

non-traditional jobs for women. It is an excellent program, a program I had the

pleasure of attending the launch of and as well the closing ceremony. It is a

program that is sponsored by women in resource development. It is financially

sponsored by Exxon Mobil to the tune of $85,000. This is the inaugural year for

the Techsploration program in the Province and students who were involved in

this particular program were very enthusiastic about it and at the conclusion of

the program had really identified opportunities that they could consider career

prospects for them upon graduation, if they follow a particular curriculum.

I have to congratulate the companies that has been involved in this

particular Techsploration program: the Hibernia Management Development

Corporation; xwave; Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd.; Kruger Helicopters;

Control and Equipment Limited; BAE-Newplan Group Limited; the Offshore Safety

and Survival Centre of the Marine Institute, and I know, with Inco's presence

in the Province, that in fact Inco will be only too happy to be a part of this

wonderful program, as I am sure it will continue next year.

Another program of interest to young women, and you will notice that I am

focusing on young women because I think it is important that the young women in

our Province and the young girls who are coming up through our education system

look at non-traditional jobs. Of course, for women to be involved in the mining

industry is, I would say, a non-traditional job for women and I would encourage

them to consider opportunities in the mining industry.

Another program of interest to young women is Women in IT. This is sponsored

by the Canadian Information Processing Society and it was sponsored here by the

Viking Branch, the local branch. They held a forum for Grade 9 female students

at which my colleague, the hon. Sandra Kelly, Minister of Youth and

Post-Secondary Education, and I attended to speak with them and encourage them

to consider IT as a viable career choice. These young women can now look forward

to having another company to target for jobs and that, of course, is Inco.

When you look at the opportunities that are there now for our young people,

the opportunities for them to pursue as a result of Inco's presence in this

Province, I think we can only look at this agreement and say this is indeed a

good deal because of what it means for the young people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Again, I go back to talking about our most important resource as being our

young people, and the need for all of us - opposition, government, all of us -

to really focus our thoughts on what is important for them and help us to go

forward and what we need to do to ensure that they have a successful and

productive future.

Jobs such as geological exploration and mineral technology come to mind

immediately as jobs that our young people will be able to pursue as a result of

Inco's presence in this Province. Today, there are people in our Province

trained in both of these fields and looking for work. I am confident that when

those people are able to avail of jobs they will look at this deal and say, yes,

it is good to have Inco here and they will welcome them.

We also have programs like Junior Achievement. We have the Enterprise Program

in our school system. Again, these programs are there to mentor young people to

have them consider entrepreneurship. Again, for those young people who want to

look at jobs, and look at jobs themselves in terms of hiring other people, there

are all kinds of possibilities here in terms of putting in place a business that

will enable them to service companies like Inco.

In my district, people look at the opportunities that come with Inco and they

say to me: We need the jobs. We know that there are all kinds of issues being

talked about but, for us, we need employment. We have every confidence that this

government will do what is right for them in making sure that this happens.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting with my constituents when I vote for this deal. They

have told me that it is the right thing to do. It is right to do because, for

them, the possibility exists of jobs both directly and indirectly. There are

small businesses which will benefit from this deal in my district. Yes, Voisey's

Bay, in terms of the number of jobs that we will see happen in our Province,

will accrue mainly in Placentia- Argentia and in Labrador. I have to tell you

that, from my perspective, the people in my district are telling me about

spinoff opportunities that will accrue to them. That, for me, is very positive.

I think if we look at small business, we all know that small business is,

indeed, the backbone of this Province. It is in small businesses where we find

sustaining jobs, and it is those small businesses that will benefit from having

corporations like Inco among us. As I said before, to have a Canadian company,

100 years in operation, that is doing very well around the world, speaks volumes

for the company and for what it can mean for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The business relationship again, as I say, between Peter Kiewit and the Innu

bodes well for my district. Having listened to Mr. Frank Smith, I am confident

that what he has to say is something that we have all taken to heart,

recognizing again that there are opportunities here for all of us if we put our

minds to it and recognize this as a deal for what it is, a deal that will

benefit the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the areas of

Argentia-Placentia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we can look at any deal and say: Well, what about this

and what about that? You know, what if? Well, nothing is perfect, but I think we

have to be realistic, we have to work with what we have been given and recognize

that we worked very hard to achieve the benefits that are there for us in this

deal. People have said to me: I will take the deal. I believe in your judgement

on this one. You have explained it to me and nobody has been strong-armed to do

anything, nobody has been forced into doing anything. I have considered this

deal. I have looked at the Statement of Principles. I have sought advice. We

have gone through the deal as a government, as a caucus, and we are confident

that what is before us is the best deal that this Province could get for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS FOOTE: I will vote for this, Mr. Speaker, and I will vote for it on

behalf of my constituents because to do otherwise would be to do a disservice to

them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in my place to speak to the resolution brought forth by this

government seeking ratification of the Statement of Principles regarding the

Voisey's Bay project.

As a Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne I am proud to stand today to

represent the interests of the people in this great district. I do not have to

remind this House of the work ethic of these people in my district, and

certainly their forebearers. Many of the projects in this Province, this

country, and indeed abroad, over the last century have involved workers from my

district, indeed throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Twin Towers of

New York, the SkyDome of Toronto, the Churchill Falls, all of these projects and

many more, my workers in my district have been a great part of. They have been

ready now for six long years to join with other workers of this Province to turn

this project into reality, to get the greatest return on this non-renewal,

valuable resource. This project, I say to the members opposite, is important to

the people I represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Given, Mr. Speaker, the limited time to poll their opinion

on this current debate, I have received a variety of responses, from total

acceptance to total rejection, from cautious optimism to downright pessimism,

from absolute elation to absolute despair. The only consensus, I say, Mr.

Speaker, the only clear direction for me, to gauge the responses I receive and

act responsibly, is to hold this government accountable, to listen to the debate

and to vote according to my conscience.

Now, this debate, Mr. Speaker, I assume is intended to give members of this

hon. House the opportunity to voice their position on the document, to express

their degree of satisfaction with the government's ability to get the maximum

benefits for this Province, and to say either yeah or nay to the Statement of

Principles. For me, I say, Mr. Speaker, my principles would be compromised if I

were to accept this agreement as the best deal for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the members opposite, that I was elected in 1999,

I was elected on a platform -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, it is obvious that if you get up and don't say

what the people opposite want to hear, they want to interrupt. I sat here for

the last two days, I say to the members over there, and I listened to you

selling hope. I am trying to sell reality this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: So I say, Mr. Speaker, to members opposite, give me the

courtesy of taking the few minutes that I have to try and get across the points

that I want to get across, so that people of this Province can understand what

is going on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the members opposite, that my position has not

changed. In order, I say to the Premier, to get the maximum benefits for the

people of this Province, there were a number of principles that had to be

followed. These are not my principles, these are the principles of not only this

party but of other parties as well. The principles were, Mr. Speaker, no ore was

to be shipped from the Province unless it was refined to a finished nickel

product. The mine, the concentrator, the smelter at that time - the processor

now, I guess - had to be developed simultaneously to prevent the ore from

leaving unprocessed. Mining would start as a blended operation, with extraction

from the ovoid and underground in the Labrador section.

In the 1999 election, Mr. Speaker, the three political parties represented in

this Province went to the people of this Province on a commitment, and I will

repeat that, on a commitment. Three parties, a commitment that no nickel

concentrate from Voisey's Bay would be sent out of the Province for

processing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Now that was the commitment, I say. All of the nickel

concentrate would stay right here in this Province to be fully processed to a

finished nickel product in order to create maximum employment, maximum benefits,

maximum opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the

firm position I took as a candidate in that election in Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

This is the commitment that I made to the people that I was elected to

represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: This government, these members across, are asking me to

stand and break that commitment to my constituents, and I am not having any part

of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, that despite what

the government's ads and brochure say, this is not about meeting a commitment

of this government, this is about breaking a commitment by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the past week the extensive

and expensive advertising campaign by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is a PR campaign, is what they say. I say: Yes, it is a PR

campaign, Mr. Premier, it is a political re-election campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I might add, paid for by the taxpayers of this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, trying desperately to convince the people of

this Province that this is the best deal possible; that the Premier and the

government of this Province have met their commitment, the commitment that I

just referred to, the commitment that they have not kept but they have broken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: You speak about commitment. Mr. Speaker, when you speak

about commitment you have to speak about trust because trust is what this is all

about. That is what Statements of Principles are all about. They are revolving

around trust.

You tell me how I can sell this to the residents of Chapel's Cove, to the

residents of Avondale who sucked down arsenic laced water for six months while

this government sat on the results. Now, is that trust? That is what I am asked

to sell to my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: To get to the Statement of Principles, and we have to get

to the Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker. I asked myself - and I sat pretty

silently, as you will agree, and I have listened to both sides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I know I have, pretty silently, there are a couple of

times that I have blurted out but I have been pretty silent.

Members on this side know that I have weighed up this, that I have entered

into discussions, that I have listened, but now it is my time to speak. I say to

you, I have been looking at the Statement of Principles and is there anything

there that can make me break my commitment to the people who elected me? I have

to say that I have looked, I have looked, and I have looked, but there is

nothing. There is nothing there that will convince me that I should break my

commitment.

The biggest loophole in all of this -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) as a Liberal.

MR. HEDDERSON: You wished! You wished I had to go around as a Liberal but

certainly not. I can tell you one other thing, Mr. Premier, I am not going

around.

The biggest loophole in all of this is the fact that this document that I

have been asked to vote on, by its own admission, does not create any legal

binding rights or obligations. Not one of the promises -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I didn't hear that.

Not one of the promises in this document, Mr. Speaker, to build a refinery,

to ship nickel back, not one of these promises is a legal binding obligation

because it says right here in this document that nothing in this document

creates a legal binding obligation. Is this a basis for me to break a commitment

I made to the people of my district to keep the ore in this Province for

processing? No, I say to the members opposite, it is not.

Our parties made that commitment in 1999 for three reasons. Number one, we,

as a Province, are sick of watching our raw resources shipped away on empty

promises that we will benefit later because later never ever seems to come.

Number two, because there is absolutely no reason why one of the richest ovoid

deposits on the planet, a resource worth $30 million, $40 million, $50 million

has to shipped away to make a project feasible. Number three, because we have

already heard from Inco that they are prepared to finance a mine and

mill/concentrator smelter refinery in this Province. They knew what they had

when they paid $4.3 billion to get their hands on it.

Besides the export of ore, Mr. Speaker, there are two other aspects of this

deal that make me very wary that we have been sold, once again, down the garden

path. The first I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is the high-grade. Inco's intention

is to scrape the cream off the top of this resource by scooping up the rich

surface ovoid first and then deciding on the underground later.

Paragraph 19, of the Statement of Principles, says: underground mine

development is subject to completion of a successful underground exploration

program. Inco, Mr. Speaker, already know that the underground contains a great

deal of ore but it is far more expensive to get at that ore than it is to scoop

up the ovoid from an open pit. That is why we have always argued that Inco

should be obligated to do the same thing, both at the same time, so that the

ovoid helps pay for the underground and assures the underground resource is

indeed developed.

I have difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in placing my trust in a company, in a

government, that says it will take the ovoid now and make a decision on the

underground later. Your commitment, the government's commitment, should have

been to demand the blending mining as a condition of the mining lease. Why is

this government afraid to demand? Or why was it, I should say, because it is a

done deal, I am told. Why was this government afraid to demand blended mining in

order to guarantee an underground mine and to maximize long-term benefits? Mr.

Speaker, had Inco perhaps threatened that unless there were major concessions,

such as this, that there would not be a deal? Because this is certainly the

Province's non-renewable resource, we are the stewards, we should be setting

the conditions not Inco.

The second aspect of this deal that makes me very wary - again, we are

getting less benefits than we should - is Inco's desire to stagger the start

of the mine and the start of the hydromet refinery that we are told we are

getting. Apparently Inco has told the government that it is 97 per cent certain

that hydromet will work on Voisey's Bay. I think one of the speakers last

night indicated that there was supposedly a successful operation out in

Saskatchewan. I do not know the truth of that.

If they are pretty certain, 97 per cent, then why are they hedging their

bets, Mr. Speaker, by starting the refinery in 2011, 2012, five or six years or

more after they have started to mine? By that time half, or more, of the ovoid

will be gone to Sudbury or Thompson without any refinery ever having created a

single refining job in this Province. If they are 97 per cent certain hydromet

will work, and will be far cheaper than conventional refining, then why don't

they agree to start the mine and the refinery simultaneously? This could have

been arranged. Construct the demonstrate plant - and, like you said, it has been

delayed two years. Why not construct it or begin to construct it now? Get the

sample of the ore even before the mill and concentrator are built. I understand,

for the demonstration plant, there is not a lot of ore that is required.

Concentrate on the small sample at the existing mill, send the concentrate to

Argentia, start the perfecting of the hydromet process, and once it is

perfected, then prepare to operate the mill and concentrator at Voisey's Bay

and the refinery at Argentia. No concentrate would ever need to be sent to

Sudbury or Thompson. It will all go to Newfoundland and Labrador.

If Inco is truly 97 per cent sure that hydromet will work, and will be the

cheapest way to process this ore, why aren't they fighting for that option?

Their behaviour gives me, again, concern. Number one, that this has everything

to do with keeping Sudbury and Thompson going because they need our concentrate

to save their jobs. Number two, they are not 97 per cent certain that hydromet

will work or that they will ever have to build a plant at Argentia. That is why

paragraph 22 talks about a nickel matte facility or other facility not yet

defined.

There are clauses in this deal that allow Inco to export every single ounce

of concentrate from Voisey's Bay before a single refining job is created at

Argentia. This gives me great concern, Mr. Speaker. I encourage every single

person in the Province to read -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to you Premier, that I have been sitting here taking

notes for the last couple of days and this is what I have to offer. Now, if you

cannot accept that, that is your problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to get back to what I was saying before I was

interrupted. Meanwhile, I say to you, that I would encourage every person in the

Province to read

Schedule A in this document because that is the nightmare

clause. I move on.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on in talking about - the guarantees that I look

for in this agreement of Principles - and I do not find too many guarantees but

I did find four guarantees. These are the four guarantees that basically are

outlined, or I would like to outline for the House. The only things guaranteed

in this document is: One, a mine will begin removing the ore.

Number two, the guarantee that ore will be shipped to Ontario and Manitoba

for processing, perhaps for the life of the project. Number three, that

taxpayers of Canada will finance a pilot plant in Sudbury. Number four, that

Inco will receive a significant break on taxes.

Everything else, Mr. Speaker, is conditional. Inco has clearly shown to me,

to the Province, and indeed the world, that they have superior negotiating

skills against this particular government. They have played hardball and the

government has caved in on their principles, on their commitment, on our trust.

It is as simply as that. They have arm-twisted the government into one of the

worst deals that I can see.

Inco certainly has seen this, perhaps, as an easy ride for them. They were in

a position where they were in the driver's seat. I will leave on that point,

Mr. Speaker. We thought, with the commitment that this government had given in

1999, that we were in the driver's seat. We now find ourselves in the back

seat; and, if we are in the back seat, I don't have to tell you what kind of

influence we might have in making sure that this deal goes through. Inco is in

the driver's seat and certainly we, in the back seat, cannot prevent them from

taking the off-ramps, the exists, that are so prevalent in this particular deal.

What we need is someone who is capable of holding this company to the principles

that we set down in the election of 1999. The last thing we need is a deal such

as this, that allows Inco to basically take our resource and do as they please

with it.

I finish off, Mr. Speaker, in saying that it was certainly a privilege to be

given the opportunity to rise today, but, in looking at it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: - in all conscience, I cannot support this agreement of

principles.

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.

I am especially pleased to stand today, on the first anniversary of my

election to the hon. House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - and to represent the people of the great District of Port

de Grave and give my views during this historic debate on the Voisey's Bay

project.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition. This is his

first anniversary as well, and I feel sorry for him that he cannot stand today

and be on a more positive note with this major project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2002, the people of this Province

heard the announcement that a Statement of Principles between the Province and

Inco had been signed to develop the Voisey's Bay project, a project that will

create jobs and boost economic activity in Argentia, as well as in Labrador, and

through that, economic spinoffs throughout the Province. It is a project

development that will provide the maximum benefit to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. It is a culmination of striking the balance of many people to work

together to see this world-class project become a reality with a company that

has been in this field for 100 years.

Now, some naysayers have said that this is a giveaway of our resource similar

to that of Churchill Falls many years ago. Mr. Speaker, this agreement should

not be judged on mistakes of the past, but on the guarantees that are enshrined

in the Statement of Principles to ensure maximum benefit for our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - by an open and accountable government.

We have released the Statement of Principles to the public to gauge their

views on this historic agreement. I have attended public meetings in my district

and I was sad to hear the individual who has received the Tory nomination again

this time around, when he called it a Liberal road show. I was so pleased to see

him there, and he was one of the last five or six people to leave the building,

to see that possibly he was going to jump on the bandwagon, because there is

still time for him to do that.

MR. FITZGERALD: It shows you care, when you talk about your opponent

(inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I will get to you later, Sir, from Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit to Inco for taking the

time to understand our Province, to understand our desires and our people's

vision for prosperity. They have shown an understanding of our law which was

made in 1995, that companies who want to come to this Province and work with our

resources, must work with them 100 per cent all the way through. We demanded

processing, a finished product in the Province, and that is the deal that we

have. We also have a guarantee that if by chance the experimental hydromet

process does not work, a mining facility will still be constructed at Argentia

creating jobs. We have a guarantee that no concentrate will be shipped until the

experimental hydromet facility is constructed in Argentia. Inco is spending $850

million before the resource goes anywhere. We have a guarantee that the

concentrate that is shipped out will be replaced.

I want to get back to my hon. friend from Bonavista South, when he stood in

his place here last evening and said that the Member for Port de Grave stated

very clearly that he would be satisfied if all the ore were shipped out. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to correct that. My comments were: I know ore has to be

shipped out. I know ore will be coming back, but even if the ore that is being

shipped out for the five years at the beginning of this project never, ever came

back, I would be able to fight for this proposal. Because, when I look at a

thirty to seventy-five year facility in Argentia, I think that is a lot to deal

with.

I want to say to him also, that the people on this side have not been

dictated to. There are none of us over here with casts on our arms, where our

arms were twisted to go along and agree with this proposal.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member from the Straits last evening

speaking against this proposal, but I also read last week in one of his local

papers where the construction people in his area were looking forward with great

joy to be able to get jobs at Voisey's Bay. Yet, he can come in this House,

stand and go against it.

I cannot believe that all those members on the opposite side can stand in

their places day after day, presenting petitions, looking for money for roads,

water and sewer, and still they cannot see the prosperity that will come with

this project. They stand in their places, Mr. Speaker, and they complain about

out-migration. I know a former Premier said one time that every mother's son

would come home. We know that is not going to happen, but I can guarantee him,

some mother's son will come home with this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We are seeing jobs, Mr. Speaker, for Inuit and Innu of

Labrador, for Labradorians and the residents in Argentia and all around this

Province. We also have an agreement in this Statement of Principles called the

Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreement that could see spinoff work of

Voisey's Bay go to local companies, manufacturers, consultants, contractors

and service companies. The Industrial Benefits Agreement should be the most

important part of the Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker. Our local companies

will have an excellent chance to play an important role in the development of

Voisey's Bay. It shows, again, the commitment Inco has made in getting this

historic project underway.

This Statement of Principles shows that this Province will bring maximum

benefits to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and will

revitalize the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, one of the foundations of this agreement that I

take so much pride in is the benefit that the Innu and Inuit people will

receive. This agreement will give our Aboriginal people more than just jobs and

a paycheque. This agreement will give our Aboriginal people hope. We have all

witnessed, over the past number of years, the pain and suffering that our

Aboriginal people have endured. I am proud to support an agreement that

recognizes the contributions of the Inuit and Innu people of Labrador to the

success of this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to have a

part in an agreement that

shows respect and admiration for the culture of our Aboriginal people, and to

have a

part in an agreement that will help to address the changes and pain that

our Aboriginal people have had to endure over the past number of years. I am

proud to be a part of an agreement that will see our friends in Labrador take

control of their own destiny and take their rightful place in Newfoundland and

Labrador society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I think, Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs, yesterday, when he stood in his place and said: Who will lose?

I say to my hon. colleagues across the way, that when they stand and vote

against this proposal, they are voting against the Aboriginal people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I cannot help but go back to a short period of time when the

Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and referred to a visit in

Placentia-St. Mary's district with the hon. member, when he spoke to graduates

in one of the high schools and asked how many of them thought they would be able

to get a job in Newfoundland, or have to leave the Province? He said that all

but two of them put their hands up, that they would have to go outside of this

Province. Here we have the same leader today, saying that this is a bad deal.

So, he is condoning to those young people: Yes, pack your bags and go outside of

the Province. Prosperity is here, but we do not want any part of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The facility at Argentia, Mr. Speaker, will operate many

years beyond the thirty years of the life of Voisey's Bay, possibly

seventy-five to 100 years. This facility will operate long after - and I repeat

this - this facility will operate long after Sudbury and Thompson facilities

have closed. I will say why, Mr. Speaker. I will explain why.

Argentia is on a tidewater. The most economical way to move is by bulk. We

will have the most modern, cost-effective plant in the world, operated and run

by a stable and well-trained labour force. This facility will operate, Mr.

Speaker, many years into the future and provide employment to our people for

many years to come.

This project, I say, Mr. Speaker, is good for Corner Brook, this project is

good for St. John's, and I want to say to my hon. friend for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne, this project is good for his and mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to the same economic

spinoff that our area saw from the Bull Arm site. The impact of this agreement

on our area will be nothing but tremendous. I know there are hundreds of

construction people in my district, as well as in the Harbour Main area, people

who have to travel outside this Province every year looking for work, and they

are going to be very pleased - maybe not all of them - that a lot of them will

be able to stay home and find employment, possibly for the next twenty-five to

thirty years.

I say to my hon. friend for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - he said that he was

voting with his conscience. I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

people of that great district, I guess the Leader of the Opposition got to his

conscience and not his voters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, we have acted in their interests by having a finished nickel

product for the Province. We have met our commitment to them, unlike other deals

of the past. I say to my hon. friend for Ferryland, I listened to you, Sir, for

twelve hours unlimited and was bored; I ask for your condonation for twenty

minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I say, twelve hours, Sir, of nothing. At least I will get ten

out of my twenty with something good in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We have achieved, Mr. Speaker, maximum benefit for the people

of the Province, and the Innu and Inuit of Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't learn anything.

MR. BUTLER: You can't learn much from nothing, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We are laying the groundwork, Mr. Speaker, for a development

that will not only be important for the Province, but will be internationally

significant.

Most importantly, the reason I stand in support of this project today is that

we have given some hope to those who will benefit the most from this

development, and that is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as I travel through my district and other areas,

the people of this Province are sick and tired of the Opposition saying that

this government is misleading, we are mismanaging, we are stealing, we are

giving away. The people of this Province have spoken in the poll that was

released last week, when 89 per cent of them agreed with this proposal. I can't

believe that the hon. members opposite, none of them could find any support in

their districts. However, when those who took

part in that poll admitted that

they were Tory supporters, seventy some odd percent of them agreed with the

proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I credit Premier Grimes and Minister Matthews, the

negotiating team and Inco, for striking the balance and working together to get

the project underway, so that our people will benefit for many years to come.

I have but two questions for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I hope he is

listening. I have two questions for him. If he were Premier tomorrow, would he

terminate this deal? Would he take away the hope of this 89 per cent of the

people in this Province? I think I know the answer to that, it is yes.

In closing, I want to use a quote that I heard on one of the Open Line Shows

this past week, where it said: Never in the history of this Province, never have

so few known so much and so many known so little. Mr. Speaker, I stand today -

and I think the hon. Member for Bonavista South said last evening that I was the

only one on this side of the House who did not stand shoulder to shoulder about

the one spoonful deal, but I want to say to him and all his colleagues and the

people around this Province, that I am proud today to stand shoulder to shoulder

with the people on this side because not one spoonful will be leaving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: What is going out will be coming back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this deal and to say

that I will be supporting it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to have a few words on the Voisey's Bay resolution. I

will start off with the consultation process. It did not serve my district very

well. The opportunity to get back from St. John's, back into the district, and

to travel through the district was next to impossible. I have thirty-three

communities that are two-and-a-half hours apart. To get out there and at least

visit your councils, which I thought would have been a great idea to get out

there and talk to the people in the councils, at least the town clerks and what

not, so that they knew there was another side to this story. They were there,

they had information as to what was happening in the deal, although that

information was not being in great demand.

I think there was one person who had picked up information at one council

that I did manage to get to, and that was about it - that I have known of the

Statement of Principles that were passed out. However, I did not get to them,

only about a couple of my councils. That is very unfortunate because as I was

there - I had an opportunity to talk with those people and say that there was

another point of view out there and they were very interested to hear what that

other point of view was. So, that left me with only an opportunity to go out

there and spend my time in restaurants and garages and whatnot; back and forth

in my district because it takes me a day to drive down through, if you are going

to have an opportunity like that, and then a day back. As my district goes, it

is in three major sections. There is the north, central, and south. Then I had

to leave the next day and go back down into the central part to get in - and

still maintain in my home.

As I went through this, many people were out there. Some of them thought it

was great because of the job opportunities that were out there; and God knows,

we need jobs on the Northern Peninsula. We have absolutely none; but as you talk

about the possibilities in jobs and whatnot, some of the points that I touched

on, they saw that those job opportunities weren't there (inaudible) a couple

of the reasons I will go through later - as I talked, people had changed, but as

in the process that goes there - and I suppose what is worth noting is that one

of the places that I did get more optimism about the jobs, and that was around

garages and whatnot with the construction companies. Those people saw it and

they understood the mining industry or they thought the possibilities and the

world would come open, but many other people out there that I would meet in

restaurants and whatnot, did not see the opportunity that would affect the

District of St. Barbe.

Of the people I met as well, there was a couple I think that went on - and it

was reflected on the Open Line so many times - was that they did not understand

the role of the Opposition. They thought that maybe we were putting our nose

into something that really was not our business and that we should just get away

from here because this deal was out there and that it should not be scrutinized

or should not be looked at very closely by an Opposition or anybody. It is like

you kind of hold your breath I think. We have been up on the Northern Peninsula

holding our breath so damn long we do not know when we are going to ever breathe

again. Opportunities have come and gone on the Northern Peninsula for us and

people feel this very deeply.

Although, when you stop and talk about what happens in a Statement of

Principles and you sit around and talk about the opportunities we have. One of

the things I know in my area, the northern part of the District of St. Barbe but

up in our area, the airport of St. Anthony - it has been talked about so many

times, as I volunteered, how important the airport of St. Anthony would be for

this area, because when Voisey's Bay came online that we would be right there,

we would be in there, that those jobs would be ours as much as anybody. Well,

today when I was out there and started talking to those people, they realized

that they were not included. They never had an opportunity to get those jobs.

They had to be in Labrador. Any family who was going to take advantage of what

is happening in Voisey's Bay would have to move from a place like Bird Cove or

Port au Choix, and move to Goose Bay or Labrador West in order to be on an even

par. They would still have to move their families, whether it was to Labrador or

if they were going to go to Fort McMurray. So they still had to move their

families.

When the council in Port Saunders or Bird Cove said this was an opportunity

for us - well there is no tax base here when someone has to move out. That is

what we are fighting now, the people that are moving out of here. Those councils

wanted those people to stay. They thought Voisey's Bay was (inaudible) but as

they understood now, this is no deal for those communities, no opportunity. The

airport there has become - as I said, that was our opportunity, that was our

connection to the world. We fought long and hard to keep the St. Anthony Airport

open, but unfortunately for Voisey's Bay, it does not mean anything to us.

The royalties; when you go out there and you start talking about the

royalties. As you know, on the Northern Peninsula there are many needs. We have

been stretched to the limit. Our infrastructure has gone to pieces. When you

talk about pavement, you talk about wharves, you talk about water and sewer, all

those things are gone and we talk about royalties. I think it was in the back of

our minds that when Voisey's Bay came online that it would help with some of

those things. We thought that royalties would not be $500,000 a year or less. We

thought that the royalties there would be significant, that it would be an

opportunity where new programs would come on because of Voisey's Bay. That is

how the people on the Northern Peninsula thought. Today, they think very

differently from that. When you sit down and think about $500,000 and what it

can buy - as in a nurse or teacher or whatever that it would bring in. I

suppose, one of the ones that we talked about so much was pavement.

We have invested so much into tourism on the Northern Peninsula and we are

going to be a bunch of isolated communities out there because the road will not

be sufficient for anybody, from a tourism point of view, to come in and visit

us. That opportunity just will not ever fulfill its dream because of the

infrastructure, such as the roads, the water and sewer - where you have

communities that have sewer running through the ditches. That is not why people

want to leave New York, to come to see in rural Newfoundland. It is just not

what is there. The royalties, I think, from this project was something that

people had sort of waited, it was sort of that hope, that dream, that the day

would come when something like Voisey's Bay would come and that would be

fulfilled to some degree. Not all of it, but it would play a significant part,

that we would turn the corner.

I suppose the other point - that you could stand around and talk - is the ore

coming back? I think, when you talk about the ore coming back on the Northern

Peninsula, or the people I have talked to, it was like a knowing smile came

across their faces. It was like, what are you doing? You are talking about ore

coming back.

If this ore has to leave, nobody believes this ore is coming back, not for a

minute, not the people I talked to. It is sort of like how you would stand back

and have that knowing smile and then talk about something that is a little bit

funny in this, because now this is entertaining versus talking about the reality

of what is going to happen in this deal.

Then it goes on as well, I suppose. When I looked at the document, I talked

about what can happen or what can possibly happen in Newfoundland - in this part

section 22 that says, other facility. So you get back and look at a hydromet,

you look at a nickel matte, and then, other facility. So it seems that the road

is paved there for something unusual to happen in Argentia so that maybe there

will not be any smelting at all, or any refining in Argentia in a commercial

stage. Maybe that just will not happen, because, if you were to go ahead, I

suppose, to 2009, if Inco was going to say, "I am not going to process

anything here in Argentia", what is the government of the day going to do?

One of the things they will point back at is: You must have been thinking some

odd to be thinking, back in 2002, that you were going to ship ore from Voisey's

Bay to Sudbury and ship it back to Argentia, and that is going to be

economically feasible. I think there are people going to criticize that,

rightfully so, and put that on the table.

When you sit and talk about those points, those points were brought home to

people. When you finished talking about it, you knew those people were not in

favour of this deal. They want a deal that was good. They have waited a long

time. They have waited six years for something like this to happen, and I do not

think they were willing to give up then just to go ahead and have this deal go,

and have those weaknesses or those non-starters in this deal.

I have talked about it. If you were to go ahead to 2009 and see the

circumstances that would unfold, you would have to realize where the players are

all lined up. You have Inco lined up. If they had their choice, there would be

no Argentia. They would ship it to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba. There would

be no doubt about that.

I think, if Ottawa was in there and they had their choice, they would have

Inco ship their ore to Sudbury and Thompson. If you were to look at the fishery,

and how much significance they put on the fishery as a resource that we have,

that we all rely on, Ottawa just does not seem to stand and back us when we need

to have this resource benefit us. I think they would probably look at Voisey's

Bay as a national resource that goes out of there, and the support and industry

that is already out there, I think, would be their priority.

When you think about it, in 2009, if it ever comes to a worst-case scenario,

I do not think we are going to be looking at a legal argument that is going to

put this forward. I think it will be a political argument that will rule the

day. Because, if there were no political arguments, I do not think the

exemptions orders that we have before us today would be in it. They would not be

included, if we were going to rule by the law of the land. That is why we take

the law of the land and put it to one side when the political climate is right

to do that.

If we were to, in 2009, have a debate of the realities of that, there is

nothing going to come into Argentia, and that, to me, from what I see in the

document, is possible. There is nothing going to come in there.

You have two parts to this project. One

part is in Labrador and the other

part is in Argentia. So, to stop Inco from not abiding by what they have agreed

to today, we are going to have to shut down the mine, because we can stop them

from exporting our ore, and everybody agrees with that legally.

You have to realize what is going to be happening there today. You are going

to have 400 people who are going to be unemployed in Labrador, who have just

started working, have been working for two years. There will be new businesses,

and businesses that will expand on the assumption - they will take out fifteen-

and twenty-year mortgages to go out there. Now this business community is

booming, and we are talking about shutting this down now.

Goose Bay and Labrador City, they are doing fine because this new expanded

opportunity is out there, all kinds of new people moving into town. You cannot

fly out of St. Anthony and get into the job site, but you can fly out of Goose

Bay, so those towns are expanding and this economy is coming along just fine.

You also have another player, the City of St. John's. I think, with any and

all projects that happen in this Province, they get a fair slice of that pie, so

I don't think they are going to be that enthused about shutting down, as well.

Then, of course, place it with Ottawa, their support. Maybe at the time you

may have a situation where you have Ottawa coming back with a bag with a little

bit of goodies in it, trying to say: We didn't really size this deal up well

back in 2002. I think we have to look at it a little bit differently. Maybe we

can go to a different project, and kind of detatch us from where we have been.

When you look at the possibilities there, to me, I see how it can happen.

When I read that document, and I see it, and I listen to what all the people

have had to say about this particular deal, there were ones that are very

troublesome. I brought them up because those were the ones that we sat and

talked about, when I talked to people in the district.

One of the things about being there, I was privileged to information that a

lot of my neighbours were not. As we sat and talked through it, we all came to

understand how this deal was different than it would appear first. It has been a

good experience to go through and see people, and see them change, to come to

understand that they do not want - even though we are desperate, we just do not

want to stop, today, and give this away, and go back and know that there is

going to be a little bit of prosperity even though it certainly will not touch

the shores of the District of St. Barbe. There still will be a little bit. We

will see our neighbours going. I think, even at this point, if we were to see

our neighbours go, it would be a great benefit for us, just to see some

optimism.

The reason I picked a negative attitude, I suppose, I will back it up with

the fact that, if, in 1997, I was to stand up and say that the shrimp industry

in this Province will go from 12 million pounds to 120 million pounds and the

people in Port au Choix, who had the only shrimp plant in this Province in 1969,

will have to rely on make work in 2001, nobody would have believed me. They

would say: Get out of my face. There is something wrong with you; you are just

not with it.

The people on the Northern Peninsula - I think that is why we have come to

understand - we have gone through so many difficult times and we are still going

through so many difficult times. We see where the Premier, in his first Speech

from the Throne, how adjacency would mean - and we hung on to that for a while.

Those people, and myself, we believed that things would come. We thought the

political climate had changed on the Northern Peninsula and maybe some things

would come our way or do something because of the realization, but it did not,

and it is not. To see this industry, those opportunities, escape us when we

should be contributing to this Province as a people who have an industry that is

providing employment and taxation. Instead of that, we have an industry where

the talk of the day is trucking costs and quality, and if this industry will

survive. It is not right.

If you go out there, I suppose - part of the thing that we did, as I went

around and talked to some of the people, is that we spend some of the royalty

money. I guess the thing that came to the top was pavement. We went out there

and we talked about how much pavement you could buy with $500,000 worth of

royalties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five kilometers.

MR. YOUNG: Five kilometers. Well, like, not one teaspoon kind of thing.

One teaspoonful of what? One teaspoon of asphalt is maybe what we will get as

our share from the royalties. From the desperate need that we have, and the

opportunity that we have, and to see it slip away with us being there.... I

guess the perspective we are coming from is, we are somewhat distant from it. It

really does not affect us up front. We can distance ourselves from it and we can

see a fuller picture than if you are out there. Because I know, if the District

of St. Barbe had this smelter coming and it was going in Port Saunders, right in

the centre, God knows. If we could live for the next six years, or even ten

years, without any hope whatsoever, and for someone to tell you that you could

live for the next six years? By God, I think we would be out there and dancing

in the streets, and that kind of thing.

In the meantime, in Port Saunders, we were there. When I go down to Port

Saunders, the biggest industry there is our hospital. It is a service in our

town. You go down, and how those people are going to cope with the cutting that

they have to take is what we discussed. That is the talk of the matter.

There is a big difference, because everybody realizes that out of this there

will be no share for a doctor, there will be no share to help with the nurse,

there will be no share with any of the extra supplies and the things that we

need as we go on.

Our education, having to go from K-12, to be able to utilize our resources

there more efficiently, to have what it takes to better manage the system. I am

not disagreeing with that whatsoever. I think whatever money you have, you have

to manage it wisely, but as we go through those things it is losing the

opportunity, or losing for us, I suppose, the dream that there is a better

tomorrow kind of thing, and that has been taken away.

I see the opportunities that we do have, that have never been fulfilled, and

the wharf in St. Barbe where we have gone out there - the port that it is and

the significance of that port - and realize that we just took it and put a ramp

there without any planning, design, thought and management for it. We are there

now with the ferry situation where on a blowing day she cannot get in unless we

fix up the old ramp, which means that we have to plan; we have to have two

different off-loading ramps in order for it to work - a poor thought of design

and whatnot. If we had gone out there and we had the means to go out there and

develop a port, if the financial restrictions were not as such, you could have a

well-designed port, because it is a very important port. It is not something

that is out in the middle - oh, we are not asking for a wharf; we have a boat

that doesn't tie up to it. It is very important.

I suppose the last point was how many people had talked about the money that

was spent on the ad campaign. They spent a lot of money. A lot of people

realized that. A lot of people got really tired of the fact that every ten

minutes they were told something, particularly if it was something they did not

particularly agree with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: That was the thing. You start off, like some of the people who

had been out there. If this is such a great deal, why doesn't it sell itself?

Why can't you put it up there and punch it and see if a hole comes in it? If

no hole comes in it, then I am for it. But, if holes come through this agreement

then I do not think I am for it. Some of the holes, I find, are there. They are

very real, and the people realize that. Then they look at the amount of money

that we are trying to cover up those holes with, and it is a temporary fix

again. A lot of what I see in it is temporary fixes. It does not bring you

anywhere; it just lets you slide harder into the back. Instead of moving ahead

or instead of trying to get a grip on what is happening, to move ahead, you just

slide back further into desperation, I guess would be the word.

Anyway, those were the points that I wanted to cover off. I think I have

covered them off. That is about all I have to say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this Assembly since 1985, first got elected in

April, 1985. I am heading into my eighteenth year now as an elected

representative for the District of Humber Valley, and I have seen over those

almost eighteen years, all kinds of highs and lows and expectations; the

mid-1980s to the late 1980s, hydro developments, the possibilities of offshore

developments, the Hibernias of the world, went into the 1990s. Again, we talk

about small hydro projects that are going to save us; going to create jobs;

offshore again ongoing. We come into the discovery of Voisey's Bay in 1993,

another hope, and all of a sudden faded again a couple of years after. Mr.

Speaker, for me to stand here today, as an elected representative in the

District of Humber Valley, I am proud after all those years to be able to stand

here and say that I could support this deal on Voisey's Bay put together by

this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, to say, as some members put it yesterday: Who

took the thirty pieces of silver; like sheep just following their leader, and so

on. Mr. Speaker, I take offence to that. I make up my own mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I ran for elected office five times and got elected, and

six times as a Mayor in Cormack, almost twenty-eight years in public life, and I

always told it like it was and like it is. They may not have liked the answer,

if I go to people and give them one, but you were firm. They may not have liked

you but they respected you.

When this deal came up a year - well all along, but especially a year ago,

some fifty-two, fifty-three weeks ago when we went back to the Table, we were

all a part of that. That is one thing I will say about this Premier, it wasn't

just Cabinet, it wasn't just planning and priorities, caucus was involved

pretty well every step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, when they had the

negotiators and the team had to come back to this caucus to try to see how they

felt about it, they might have been comfortable with something but we want to

see if the other members of caucus are comfortable with it. That is why we could

sit down, because we were informed. We could ask good questions on this

particular deal because we were all informed. Having said that, Mr. Speaker,

even at the end of the day when it got down to the possibility of a deal being

signed, when the media of the Province, when the Opposition of the Province,

when other people were saying, oh, it is signed, it is done, I can assure you

today that this was not done. This was taken on that weekend and I am telling

you, we went through this clause-by-clause, page by page, asked all kinds of

questions, even to the point of going back and getting something else clarified.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier let his caucus be informed, ask questions and take

their time before a decision was made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing is further from the truth with regards to anything

shoved down anybody's throat. Nothing! Nobody was strong-armed. None

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, none.

When this deal was signed last Tuesday I went out to my district and I said:

How am I going to do this? How am I going to try to get everybody informed?

Because in the Statement of Principles I understand, if someone is not up on it

and not informed and so on, it takes a little bit of time to go through it and

get to the real meat. What I did, I got the Chamber of Commerce in Deer Lake to

call a meeting, went to it, and there were about seventy people who showed up.

All the mayors of the municipalities in the district came - not all came, no I

am sorry, they were all invited. About 70 per cent of them came. I gave out the

Statement of Principles and let them look at it, let them peruse it. I said very

little. I just gave an overview and then I asked for questions. I asked them to

question me on it. No matter what, or how foolish it might seem, question me on

it.

I did the same thing when I went around to the Irvings of the world, the Tim

Hortons, the Deer Lake Motels of the world, the airports, like I do all the time

in my district. I visit all the coffee shops and make sure that if there is

anybody there who wants to ask me a question, then I am available. I made it

quite clear that if there were any questions on it, call me. Call me at the

office and if I am not there, then I will certainly get back to them and try to

answer those questions.

I consider, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district just as smart and just as

bright as members opposite. They can ask good, informed questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: They have done it. They have proven it over the years. They

have also said to me over the years: You were elected. We elected you as our

MHA. We elected you to speak on our behalf. And I am answerable to those people

in that district every four years or every three years or every two-and-a-half,

whenever the election is called.

When you make decisions in this Assembly, whether it is a piece of

legislation, whether it is a deal such as this today, a very important deal to

the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, you make it - yes, you

weigh all the probabilities, you weigh all the faults, you go through it, you

peruse it, and at the end of the day, you cannot go out and have a referendum

every time you have to make a decision here. Why do we have elections? You

cannot go out every time and go around and put out a pamphlet and say: What am I

going to do with this? You should be man enough and woman enough to show

leadership, stand up, go out and ask (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Whether it is for political reasons, whether it is to save

my own political hide, whether it is to save a position in Cabinet, whether it

is to save myself in caucus, it does not matter, because at the end of the day

the people in my district got the final say. They know I have to come back to

them in three or four years time and say: Look, will you please mark an x for

me? Then they could give you the tiff, they could flick you at any time.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about mining it is a bit dear to

my heart really, because my father worked underground for forty-five, forty-six

years with Asarco in Buchans. I had a brother killed in the Little Bay mines in

Springdale some years ago. I worked underground six years myself in MacLean's

shaft in Buchans. I lived in a mining town all my life - well I can't say all

my life, from four years old up to nineteen, twenty. I saw what could happen to

a mining town. I saw what could happen when people's lives were all of a

sudden given some hope and you had to leave the Harbour Mains and the Holyroods

and the Conception Bays of the world to go to Buchans and work all year long and

get three weeks off; three weeks off you used to get then to go back to

Conception Bay for a holiday. The first question asked by people in the area

then was: By the way, what are you doing? Oh, I'm back on holidays. When are

you going back? They never asked what you were doing, if you were working

underground everyday and night of the week, and worked hard. What used to happen

then? I saw it. I worked on nineteen level in MacLean shaft, myself and another

gentleman, for nineteen months. What were we doing? High-grading gold at a

MacLean shaft in Buchans.

In case people do not know, Buchans started with the oriental shaft, mostly

open pit, very little underground, because they figured that was all that was

there. A few years after they moved into the Rothermere shaft and mined that for

years and years in Buchans. And, only as they got to getting the Rothermere mine

used up and mined out, and as far as I am concerned, high-graded, did they move

in and go underground and put a drift into what they called the MacLean shaft

next to Sandy Lake. This is an example of what can happen in a place like Voisey's

Bay.

Everybody is talking about Tally Pond. I remember sitting in the lunch shack

in the MacLean's mine with a buddy of mine when they told us that Sprague and

Henwood had found an ore body in Tally Pond. There is nothing new about Tally

Pond. It was just the economics of the day. Again, they wanted to high-grade it,

and they did. They sent it, stored all the concentrate mine and mill/concentrate

in Buchans, everything was put in hangers, great big sheds and shipped down to

Botwood in the spring of the year. It all went out.

What happened in St. Lawrence? What happened on Bell Island? What happened in

Baie Verte? What happened in all the other mining areas of this Province until

1995 when the law was changed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: What was happening?

Mr. Speaker, the law was changed in 1995 so that it would not happen in this

Province after that. The processing must be done in this Province. Just imagine

all the years - people opposite and people on this side know what I am talking

about when we talk about communities. When we talk about Labrador, the potential

down there and the high-grading to go in and take the ovoid. Yes, they will take

the ovoid, but you have to remember that they will have $1 billion invested in

this Province by 2012. They will break even. That does not have to come from us.

I told my people in Deer Lake: Don't look at this. Go back. Some of them

were accountants. I had two lawyers in the audience. I said: Go back and look at

it. Do your sums. Look at the figures, the investments that are going to be

made, the infrastructure that is going to be put in, you know the price of

nickel, based on today's prices if you like, and that is cyclical. That could

be down to $2 tomorrow, it could be up to $10 the next day. I said you do those

figures and come back to me and tell me if this is a bad deal. But no, they did

not. Some of them did, two in fact, two business people in Deer Lake. They went

back and did some analyzing. They heard someone yesterday, the other side said

something about there is going to be $40 billion worth of ore come out of the

ground, but they are going to go bankrupt.

When I went into business, when I went to the banks to try and get money to

start a farming operation in Cormack, they said: What do you have for assets? I

had 100 acres of land. I had to buy that because when I went to the government

to look for some - well, I farmed in spite of government, not because of it. Let's

put it that way. They say: Okay, what do you have to give? I have 100 acres of

land. Oh, not enough. Do you have a quota? No, I don't have a quota. Do you

have any animals? Yes, I have sixty head of cattle. Where are you going to sell

your milk? I am doing it myself. I am doing the pasteurization, I am doing the

processing, and I am selling it myself. No good, because we do not know what you

are going to do with them. You could kill all of them next week.

So, I went off and I got a quota. I went into the bank - perfect - because

they knew that if I defaulted on a loan, if I did not make a payment, pull my

quota. They had the quota security, the same thing we ran into in the IPL thing,

security of quota. What do we do with agricultural leases in this Province?

Fifteen and twenty-five year agricultural leases are issued now in the Province.

Why? Because, if you do not keep up the terms of that lease, whether it is a

short-term or a long-term lease, we (inaudible).

Do you have your 20 per cent of land cleared? No, sorry. Well, then, I am

sorry, it must revert to the Crown. If you do not make a payment on your

mortgage, what happens? They may give you one, they may give you two, or they

may give you three months; other than that, they are coming. They have your

home, because they have your signature.

This deal, the comfort that I have in this, Mr. Speaker, is this: This mining

lease is issued by the Province. Everything is done incrementally. As the

Premier said yesterday, there are checkpoints and balances. We could go in and

send out 160,000 tonnes of ore for thirty months, yes. Then you must do

something else. If you do not do that, we can take it. We are checked all the

way through.

The hon. Member for St. Barbe just said: Oh, yeah, there are going to be 400

or 500 people out of work in Labrador because they might pull out there. Who, in

the name of God, do we think we are talking about? A 100-year-old company

working in twenty-eight countries around the world with a $2 billion or $3

billion investment here in this Province. Come on, get real and get a life. Who

is going to pull out then, with that kind of an asset in the ground that could

revert to the Crown and we would own it?

The other thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is, what are the alternatives?

Members are saying - there is only one other way to go and that is, if you do

not go with this, if you want to start a mine, mill and concentrator tomorrow,

you can; anybody can. Now, there is only one other way they can do it, if they

want this project to go. That is, they would have to say: Okay, you can go ahead

with the project, if you put a conventional smelter in Argentia, build your

mine, mill and concentrator and your conventional smelter the same, or the

matte. Something has to start simultaneously or no company in this world today

would be able to come in and swing a deal financially with any financial

institution in the world. I cannot see it. But, here we are saying: You put up

your test plant and after thirty months, then, you must do something else - one

or the other. As other speakers have said, the least we can have is a matte

plant with $670 million infrastructure and capital investment and fifty jobs

less for the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, they deserve it, as far as I

am concerned. They deserve every job we can get and everything we can squeeze

out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I feel comfortable with this plan, and the

other thing that I would like to have answered - there is a very important

question in this House today that should be answered. If this deal is so bad, if

this deal is going to be a sellout, and if this deal is going to be the end of

all the hope for everybody in this Province, then someone answer this question

for me: If, at the end of the day, the Member for St. Mary's votes for this

project and this is so bad, how can the other members in the House sit there and

watch him vote for it? If this is such a bad deal for the Province, Madam

Speaker, it is a bad deal for everybody, if it is a bad deal.

There is only one answer to that question. It is because of politics. This is

politics. I mean, let's face it; if it is bad, stand up and say it is bad. How

can the hon. member get up and say it is good when it is such a bad deal for the

whole Province?

Now, I am going to tell you something. When it comes to being patriotic about

this Province, when it comes to standing up for your constituents in this

Province, then as far as I am concerned, I can do it with anybody here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I can do it with anybody here, and I do not want, at the

end of the day, in public life, for someone to come along and say to me, or say

to my daughter, or to my family, my grandchildren: Look at what your father did.

Look at one of the things he did. Or, to look at the television every night and

say: Look, he was responsible for this. He was one of the ones responsible for

it.

We all want to try. All I am saying to each and everybody in this House, and

I said to my constituents, is: Look at it fairly, look at it objectively, and,

at the end of the day, you make your decision. I respect that decision at the

end of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but there is a point to be made. There is a point to

be made. If it is bad for the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) free vote over there.

MR. WOODFORD: It is a free vote over here.

If it is bad for the Province, how can you - when everybody in the caucus

sees it bad..... I say this: If there was another part of this for Baie Verte,

or another part for Harbour Main, would the same thing occur? All I am saying is

for members to look at it objectively and with a clear mind. Go through each

point and ask good questions. There have been some good questions asked, that is

right. That is our right to ask good questions and, at the end of the day, be

able to go back to our constituents and answer for it.

Madam Speaker, I understand my time is up, but once again thank you for the

opportunity. I want to say congratulations to the Premier, the negotiating team,

and to the Minister of Mines and Energy, for, as far as I am concerned, a job

well done.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, during the course of this morning's

debate, when the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne was up, after he finished

speaking, a colleague of mine brought to my attention a comment made by the

Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I personally did not hear the comment but,

just having reviewed and listened to the audio tape, it is very clear that a

comment was made, in my view, which breaches the privilege of the Member for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne and, in my view, and according to Parliamentary

Privilege in Canada, Joseph Maingot , meets the test of holding this member

in contempt and insulting the member. I want to just quote for a moment.

On page 189 of Maingot , under Alleged Acts Must Relate to a Member's

Parliamentary Work: Words or Acts Must Amount to Contempt, it says, "But it

is because of its nature that a valid question of privilege arises only

infrequently. There must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's

rights, such as his freedom of speech..." - which, in my view, his comment

certainly does impute that, and I will get to that in a second - "...or

from freedom from civil arrest. The interference, however, must not only

obstruct the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to

obstruct the member in his parliamentary work."

The comment clearly meets that test. The comment, when I reviewed the tape,

clearly says, when the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne was up speaking on a

free vote, outlining to this House and to the people of the Province, and in

particular to the constituents he represents, why he would not be supporting the

Statement of Principles, based upon what was commited to in the past, I reviewed

the tape and you can clearly hear the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace say:

Your head is in such a dark place that you would not know the difference.

That is what is on the tape, or something to that effect, but clearly it is

an obvious obstruction of the member and it imputes motives to him.

Madam Speaker, I will further refer you to page 195 of Maingot ,

Improper interference with corporate privilege. It says, "When the

corporate rights of the House are interfered with in some way, the "breach

of privilege" could result in the offender being held in contempt of the

House and ultimately being subjected to the penal jurisdiction of the

House."

He goes on to define it this way, and I will conclude with this, under the

category on page 196, Assaulting, threatening, challenging or molesting members

and officers of the House, where it says, "Members are entitled..." -

and that is the word, entitled - "...to go about their parliamentary

business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any member on

the floor of the House or while he or she is coming or going to or from the

House, or on account of his behavior during a proceeding in Parliament, is a

violation of the rights of Parliament."

Clearly the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace, in making that slanderous

comment, brings into question the integrity of the Member for Harbour Main-

Whitbourne. It suggests that he has been forced to vote in a certain way.

Madam Speaker, I ask you, in your capacity as Speaker of this House, to do

the right thing, to rule on this breach of privilege - and we would like a

ruling - to review the tape and bring back a ruling that the member indeed has

breached the privileges of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and, in so

doing, has put this entire House in contempt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Speaker, the comment that was accredited to me as

being said, the inference was to having one's head in the sand. If I have

touched upon the hon. member's sensitivities, this debate is much more

important than to be belaboured today over this sort of thing.

I withdraw my comment.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I agree that this debate is much more

important than members of this side of the House being subjected to cheap,

slanderous attacks by members.

I ask, Madam Speaker, that you take our motion of privilege seriously, that

you review the tape and you rule on it.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: I will take the matter under advisement and report back to

the House.

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

It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, and you can certainly correct me if I

am wrong, that, when a question of privilege arises, it takes precedence over

all other business of the House and that this matter must be ruled on before we

go any further.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, it has been long accepted in this House that

when an hon. member withdraws a statement there is no point of privilege. I did

not speak on the point of privilege. If I want to speak on the point of

privilege, I can, but the hon. member withdrew the comment and therefore that

removes the whole circumstance.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

That is not necessarily so. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace rose to

his feet. Clearly what I heard on the tape does not reflect what the member said

during the debate. It is clear precedence in terms of Beauchesne , Erskine

May and Maingot that when a motion of privilege is put before this

House that it takes precedence over all other business of the House.

We are asking you, as Speaker, to rule on that, to review the tape and to

report back to the House if, in fact, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne,

while up speaking - that the slanderous and contemptuous comment made by the

Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace does, in fact, breach the privileges of the

House and holds this place in contempt.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I maintain that the remark has been withdrawn,

that there is no remark on the - it has been withdrawn by the member. There is

no point of privilege. It is just a stalling tactic by the Opposition. Madam

Speaker, they should get on with the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member has withdrawn the comment. Therefore, it does

not exist.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Member for Harbour Grace cannot withdraw what he did not say. What, in

fact, he said, was not what he withdrew. That is why we are asking you, in your

capacity as Speaker, to rule, to listen to the tape, which is the official

record of this House, to review it, to make a ruling that we believe it is

contemptuous for the House. It has called into question the integrity and

honesty of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and I submit to you that if

the House is going to resort to dealing with the slanderous comments thrown from

members opposite when they are not on their feet, we are not going to stand for

it. In our view, when a breach of this occurs, we believe that it must be dealt

with expeditiously.

MADAM SPEAKER: I have already ruled that I would take the matter under

advisement and report back to the House.

PREMIER GRIMES: Make up your mind. Are you going to speak or do you want

to close debate? Make up your minds right now. (Inaudible). I'm here paying

attention, not like him (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier, yesterday morning, Madam Speaker, asked

everybody for courtesy while he is speaking. Since this morning he has been

after everybody. Just now he said I am not like your leader, who doesn't even

have the courtesy to be here. He knows full well that he cannot, and other

members cannot, refer to members who are not in their seats. I ask him to

withdraw that comment.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

That comment is not on the record of this House because I was not a

recognized speaker, but I will withdraw it out of respect for the rules, and I

would ask the Opposition to respect the rules and resume the debate instead of

grandstanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is very instructive to sit back and be quiet

and listen and say nothing this morning, and just watch the Premier, as he did

just a minute or so ago, try to threaten and take this place on his back. Get up

now or I will close debate! Get up now or I will close debate! How silly, Mr.

Speaker. I am too old of a cat, Mr. Speaker, to be spooked by a kitten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place for a long time.

There are some who would probably legitimately say I have been here for too long

a time, Mr. Speaker. It is my constituents who will judge that at the end of the

day.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one person, as far as I know, who has been here

longer than I have, and that is my friend, the Government House Leader. Over the

last day or so, Mr. Speaker, I have heard all kinds of people, members speaking

from the government side of the House, getting up and patting each other on the

back, clapping for each other, saying what a wonderful job they have done, Mr.

Speaker. You know, having listened to that, and thought about that, I could only

come to this conclusion: Never before have I heard so many people heap so much

praise upon themselves, Mr. Speaker, for having accomplished so little.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: At 10:31 yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, a half-hour after

the debate began, the Premier rose, as leader of the government, and asked

people to give him the courtesy to be listened to in silence.

We leave the proof, Mr. Speaker, before anybody who might be watching this

morning. We leave the proof. The people can judge themselves. Courtesy goes both

ways, Mr. Speaker, both ways. I have a few things to say about this agreement

and I am going to say them. I only have twenty minutes. If the government

members insist on interrupting me, leading me off in tangents, then I am not

going to get to say very much. That is fine. I am an experienced

parliamentarian, as I said. That is the way it goes. My twenty minutes will be

taken up in one way or another. The rule of this debate is, when they are taken

up, I have to sit down, and I will. You play by the sword, you live by sword.

So, we can do that.

There are a couple of things I want to say before I speak to a couple of the

clauses in this Statement of Principles, Madam Speaker. One of them flows out of

the remark made by my friend, the Member for Humber Valley, when he questions

how somebody from this side - but every party in this House, as far as I know,

has declared to be a free vote. All leaders, I believe, have said members of

this Legislature can vote their conscience on this particular resolution. I

think I am correct in saying that. The suggestion from my friend from Humber

Valley is that if one or two or three of our members do that, and all of the

rest of us do something else, well then, somehow or another, those people are

questioning whether we have the right to keep them in the caucus. He said: How

can he stay there? What is he going to do? What does all the rest think of him?

What is the definition and the purpose of a free vote? Isn't it the right to

vote how you feel at the end of the day? Vote your conscience. I mean, if it isn't

a free vote, it isn't a free vote. If it is a free vote, it is a free vote and

there are no consequences. Right? I believe one way. Somebody else believes

another. We are going to vote how we believe and how we feel.

I want to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to compliment the leader of

our party for being open-minded and fair and democratic in allowing anybody in

this caucus -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have seen lots of leaders come and go in my day, Madam

Speaker, but I haven't seen very many who have agreed to allow their caucus

members to vote how they feel. I take my hat off to the leader of our party who

called for a free vote on this matter and who is allowing his members to vote

how they wish at the end of the day. I have no hesitation in saying that I have

debated within myself and taken him up on that. I heard him say there will be no

consequences for anybody who takes him up on that. That, Madam Speaker, is the

mark of a leader. That is the mark of somebody who understands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I also want to say in this particular debate, on the

political side of things before I move on, the leader of our party from time to

time in the past has been criticized for smelling the political wind and seeing

where the crowd is. Even some in our own party, allegedly, some of our own party

supporters, in recent times, have suggested that. He likes to smell the

political wind, see where the crowd is going, then jump out ahead of the crowd

and say: I am your leader, follow me. Madam Speaker, in this particular

situation, this leader, in my view, demonstrated his metal, and he demonstrated

his vision, and he demonstrated his foresight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: He knew, after a $250,000 ad campaign, where the crowd were.

He knew after all of the oomph and the umph of this announcement where the crowd

were. But, even knowing where the crowd were, Madam Speaker, this man said I am

going to lead. I see things wrong with this agreement and I am going to point

them out. I am going to bring them to the attention of the people. If, at the

end of the day, I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am going to lead and I am

going to do my job as Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is leadership, Madam Speaker, that I have respect for.

That is leadership that I have confidence in. That is leadership that I believe,

at the end of the day, the people of this Province will want to buy into and I

think they will buy into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, we have before us a Statement of Principles.

We do not have before us an agreement. We do not even have before us a tentative

agreement. I am not so sure that I would even call it a framework of agreement.

We have a Statement of Principles and we are told that out of those Statement of

Principles: believe us, trust us. We are told that out of this Statement of

Principles, at the end of the day, there will be a legally binding agreement

between the parties. That is what we are told.

There was a framework of agreement on the Lower Churchill several months ago.

There was over $1 million - I believe, wasn't it? - spent in advertising that

framework of agreement. There was a photo op that got thrown off the rails up in

Labrador by the Aboriginal people who were not prepared to buy into it. All of

that happened and where is the framework of it? Where is the final agreement

today? Where is it? Not here, not before us, it is not reality and it has not

happened. That has to be a caution in this particular matter. This is a

Statement of Principles. It may or may not, between now and September 30,

translate itself and materialize into a firm, legal written, binding agreement.

It may or it may not. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, the caution, I think,

ought to be said.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand how this Statement of Principles would generate

enthusiasm in certain parts of the Province, Labrador in particular. Labrador

will receive from this project - if and when the project proceeds - as I

understand it, everything that was committed. It will receive a mine, it will

receive a mill, it will receive a concentrator and the Aboriginal people of

Labrador will have their legitimate aspirations built into the final agreement.

I can understand enthusiasm in Argentia, but Argentia may or may not receive

what was committed to Argentia. Argentia is not going to receive what was

originally committed, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about that. Argentia is

not going to receive the conventional smelter that was originally committed to

Argentia and to the people of Placentia Bay. That is off the table, that is a

given, that is not going to happen.

If the hydromet process works, if - and we are told there is a 97 per cent,

98 per cent probability of it working. Well, I do not know where that comes

from. I mean any research, any background documents that you can look at,

suggests that this particular process on the Voisey's Bay ore, nobody knows.

Oh yes, I forgot, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources knows. He told us

last night that it was a proven process. It worked in Fort Saskatchewan, it has

to work in Voisey's Bay. Of course, he failed to realize that it is two

different type ore bodies and it has not yet been proven. Maybe it will, may be

it will not, but if it does, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of information in some

hands makes people look awful foolish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That's not personal. It's a fact. It's not personal.

The member said what he said. He said it was a proven process, and it was proven

in Fort Saskatchewan. That's not a personal attack. That is a fact. So, that

is the first point. That is the first point, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) personal attack on you (inaudible) that's

okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the record will show, I suppose, that the

Premier is interrupting the debate.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the process in Argentia. Now,

if the hydromet process is proven up and it works, and if the deal goes forth,

then there will be a hydrometallurgical plant built in Argentia. The fallback

position from that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of Argentia, certainly is worth

exploring. The fallback position, as I understand it, is the hydromet process.

Now, what is this? Frankly, I fully admit that when I saw this I did not know

what it was. I did not know if it was something good to eat or something to put

on bread or what, so I asked. I inquired, I said: What is this process? I have

never heard of it before. It was explained to me that this process brings the

ore to about 75 per cent or 80 per cent refined.

In other words, the ore would go through the concentrator in Voisey's Bay,

it would leave that and go somewhere - it will not be Newfoundland and Labrador

- Thompson, Manitoba maybe, Sudbury, maybe. That concentrate would go somewhere

and be 75 per cent or 80 per cent refined. Then it would be put on a barge or

ship or whatever, and sent back to Argentia for the last 20 per cent or 25 per

cent of the refining process. That is called, as I understand it, the hydromet

process.

AN HON. MEMBER: The nickel matte process.

MR. RIDEOUT: Nickel matte process; and that's what it would be. Then it

would be ninety-nine, at the end of the day, after this process in Argentia,

99.99 per cent nickel. That is what I am told.

Now, if that is the fallback, if that is what becomes reality in Argentia, as

part of that, the exemption orders under this agreement means that every single

bit of concentrate will go out of Newfoundland and Labrador for as long as this

project exists, to be refined - 75 per cent or 80 per cent refining from

somewhere else; somewhere else it will happen. It will not happen here, and the

government can take taxpayers' money and put ad after ad, ad nauseam on,

saying: Commitment made. Commitment kept. I say, not likely, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty or twenty-five percent of the refining, to make it into a nickel matte

at the end of the day. Is that the commitment Brian Tobin talked about in 1999,

when he said not a spoonful? Is that the commitment that all of us - every

political party in the Province, I believe, bought into that concept, bought

into that principle, bought into that position. Some people even told us we were

foolish to do it because we were boxing ourselves into corners and we should not

be at it. But, for the sake of the people of the Province and because of the

importance of this resource to the people of our Province, we bought into it,

and we all did it. Politically, we all did it. Now we have a government that

will squirm and use the taxpayers' money to convince us, or try to convince

us: No, no, no, that is not what we said. That is not what we meant. We are

keeping our commitment. Not likely, Mr. Speaker.

Now the other thing that comes out of this debate, as I get down to the last

minute or so that I am allowed. The other thing that almost everybody refers to,

particularly members on the other side, is that: Why can't you vote with us on

this resolution? They are almost casting us in a non-patriotic light if we do

not do it. I heard a number of them over there yesterday and today: Why can't

you vote with us on this particular resolution? I say to the members of this

House, and particularly to those members on this side, there is a downside to

unanimity, Mr. Speaker, a great downside to unanimity. If this resolution were

unanimously passed by this House, is there any pressure to improve the final

document? Is there, Mr. Speaker? Who is going to do it? If this resolution is

passed unanimously by this House, what is the message that is sent to the other

side in building this final, legal and binding document? The message is: What is

in here is fine. What is in here is acceptable. Let's keep every off ramp that

we have. Let's keep every exit that we have. Let's keep every way - any way

to do the minimum possible to allow us to proceed with this project but let's

not do anything extra. Let's not tighten up any language. Let's not put

ourselves into any further boxes. Oh no, Mr. Speaker, unanimity has downsides to

it.

I am delighted with the fact that we have the freedom to decide which way we

want to go, and how we want to vote on this particular resolution. As I said at

the beginning, I have given a lot of thought to where my vote will be, but I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, having heard some of the comments from the other side

really says to me, the other side does not want support. All they want is a

political show. All they want is a political parade across the Province, hoping

that support, that is presently a mile wide and an inch deep, will stay there

and solidify over the summer. That is what this government wants. Well I

believe, at the end of this week, that mile-wide, inch-deep support will be

half-a-mile wide and half-an-inch deep and by the end of next week it will have

dissipated, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House stands recessed until 2:00 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, this government has spent literally many hundreds of thousands

of dollars promoting commitments that they have made and commitments that they

have kept. I would like to challenge that theme this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and

focus on promises that were made and promises that were, in fact, broken.

The first promise was that any deal to develop Voisey's Bay would contain

an ironclad guarantee that a smelting facility would be in fact constructed in

this Province. Now we are talking about an experimental hydromet facility.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm that the construction of a

hydromet facility is not guaranteed but rather is subject to commercial,

technical and economic feasibility, as stated in clause 13 of the Statement of

Principles, and Inco is merely obliged to use its best efforts to build that

facility?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I laid it out fairly well at the announcement a week ago and

yesterday in my presentation to the House of Assembly in one hour. What I can

confirm again, Mr. Speaker, because we are here to address the concerns and the

questions that people want to hear asked and answered with respect to this

agreement to move forward, what I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, which I confirmed

yesterday, at length, is that there is an absolute guarantee with no conditions

attached whatsoever that the bare minimum that will happen in Argentia - because

this is all about a processing facility in Argentia, what is happening in

Labrador can happen any time, this is all about processing - what is absolutely

guaranteed, Mr. Speaker, in this Statement of Principles, no qualifications at

all, is that there will be at a minimum a $670 million plant that employs 350

people and produces finished nickel.

We have acknowledged that there is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent chance, which

we are going to try to overcome with a research and development project of $200

million with 200 people working for two-and-a-half years to eliminate that risk.

There is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent risk that we might not get the $800 million

facility with the 400 jobs that produces finished nickel, but there is no risk,

Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, about the $670 million plant that produces

finished nickel and employs 350 people in Argentia.

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 thank the hon. the Premier for indicating that there, in fact, will be no

conventional smelter. That promise has been broken. In fact, he has also

confirmed that there may not be a hydromet. So, there is no guarantee of a

smelter and there is no guarantee of a hydromet facility.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm, in the event that the

experimental hydromet facility does not prove to be economically, technically or

commercially feasible, that this Province will not receive a conventional

smelting facility, which I am certain that he has, and he has already done so,

as was promised and guaranteed by both the Premier and the Minister of Mines and

Energy, but instead may, not will - may, and may only - receive a nickel matte

refinery or some other facility, which is referred to in the documentation as

some other facility? It doesn't specify what it is. It is some other facility,

as stated in clause 22. Will the Premier, in fact, confirm that particular

facility is also not guaranteed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say it again. I guess I have learned

a long time ago that you cannot convince someone against their will. If they

refuse to accept the answers which are given as factual, and they are

guaranteed, and the person chooses to absolutely ignore it and continue on when

they know the difference, there is not much I can do about that.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it again. The hydromet facility, the $800 million

facility, is a combined plant that would do smelting and refining together in

the same plant. That is the one that requires some research and development.

That technology is fully proven in the world for other kinds of ores, for soft

ores, for laterites. The Leader of the Opposition agrees with that. What they

are trying to do is to take that proven technology and make sure it can work on

the ore from Labrador. That is what the $200 million, 200-person, thirty-month

research and development project is all about, trying to make sure that a proven

technology for other kinds of ores works for the ore in Labrador. If it works,

then the $800 million plant does smelting and refining, the equivalent of both,

in the same plant. If it does not work - let me say it again, Mr. Speaker - if

it does not work, the Statement of Principles commits Inco to guarantee, without

any other qualifications at all, that they will build a plant that will see

finished nickel leave the Province. It will be in the range of $670 million. It

will employ 350 people, and it is in the Statement of Principles for anybody to

read. Now, if somebody wants to spend this week, next week, next month, next

year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - trying to twist that around, trying to convolute it,

trying to suggest it means something else, then I guess they are welcome to do

so. It means what it means, Mr. Speaker; it is guaranteed to be built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier once again for indicating

that there is no guarantee that a hydromet facility, a hydromet processing

facility, will work in Argentia. In fact, he has actually indicated that the

hydromet processing that is proven to work, works on laterite ores and not the

sulfide ores that are contained in Labrador. Isn't that correct, Premier?

Now, I would ask the Premier: With regard to the nickel matte refinery

facility or other facility that is planned for Argentia, is that not also

subject to technical and economic and engineering feasibility? And, if that

decides that feasability is not there, won't that nickel matte refinery, in

fact, not go ahead?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me try it again. I will try it again and

I will try it slowly because it is important that we understand. I said it

yesterday in my one-hour address, I am looking forward to hearing the Leader of

the Opposition; he might decide it is important enough to speak to it some time

soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: There is,

Mr. Speaker, and I said it yesterday, a 100 per cent chance - I think that

sounds like a guarantee to most people in Newfoundland and Labrador - there is a

100 per cent chance that a $670 million plant that employs 350 people, that

produces a finished nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is what

our legislation requires, there is a 100 per cent chance, a guarantee, no

qualifiers, no technical assessment, no financial assessment, no qualifiers, Mr.

Speaker, and I ask and beg the Leader of the Opposition to read it again because

he even convinced his good friend from the Northern Peninsula, The Straits &

White Bay North, because he repeated in his address last night that there were

qualifiers attached to the second plant. There are none, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Anyone who can read it, reads it. It is not attached to

the second plant and there is a 97 per cent or 98 per cent chance, Mr. Speaker,

that we have acknowledged to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - that there will be an $800 million plant (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is 97 per cent and 98 per cent. It seems to rise by the

day. If it is a 97 per cent or 98 per cent chance that this is going to work,

why didn't Inco guarantee it? Why are we taking the risk? Why hasn't Inco

fully guaranteed that this will work?

The Premier has stated that there is a 100 per cent possibility here that we

are going to have a facility in Argentia. Those are his words, and I take him at

face value. However, I can only go by the words that are contained in the

Statement of Principles, and that is what we are going to be bound by after we

vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Principles says, "The principle conditions

to be met in order for the Proponent to proceed with the Project are... (

f) the

arrangement of suitable financing by the Proponent to enable the Project to be

developed on a financially prudent basis."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: If in fact financing is not

suitable to Inco, does not that in fact mean that the nickel matte refinery or

the hydromet processing facility, or in fact the underground exploration

program, will not occur and the resultant jobs will be lost?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems the questions are fairly limited be