Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 21 March 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 4)
2001-03-21
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 21, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 4
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the leader designate of our
Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Danny Williams,
to the gallery of the House of Assembly today.
Mr. Williams became our Party's leader designate on January 31, and will be
officially installed as our Party's fifteenth leader since Confederation on
Saturday, April 7, at Memorial Stadium. He brings a tremendous breath and depth
of experience to the leadership of our Party. Right across the Province there
was a buzz of excitement and anticipation as people sense they are witnessing a
historic moment, I say to my members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed, a pivotal moment not only for our Party but for the
entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I go on to say that I look forward, as all members do on
this side, -
MR. J. BYRNE: And that side.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, we will see about that, I say to my colleague. I look
forward to a time in the very near future -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, to conclude?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: I look forward to a time in the very near future when Mr.
Williams will take his seat amongst the members on this side, among the group of
forty-eight, first as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and then, at
some time not too distant in the future, the ninth Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to recognize the achievement today of a hockey team from
Bonavista, the Peewee A hockey team, that traveled to compete in provincial
hockey with just twelve players. In fact, they were the only twelve players who
could lace up their skates in Bonavista, who were old enough to play in this
particular league. They went over on the West Coast this past weekend and won
the provincial championship, with just eleven players.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: I think there was a statement made that says it all.
Bonavista Minor Hockey Association President, Mr. Len Bragg, said, "It's
a big accomplishment for our association. It's a big win for a small
team."
That is exactly what happened. Eleven people, eleven skaters, including a
goalie they had to borrow from my colleague's District of Whitbourne, went
over, took
part in the competition, won the provincial championship, and
returned home as champions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am not surprised, because there are a lot of champions
from the Town of Bonavista, and they have always been represented by a champion
in this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
acknowledge the reaching of a milestone by a couple in my district. Andrew and
Tamer Canning of Roddickton celebrated their sixtieth wedding anniversary on
March 17. Mr. Canning is eighty- three years old, and Mrs. Canning is
seventy-nine. I would like to ask all members of the House to join with me in
congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Canning on their sixtieth wedding anniversary, and
hope they enjoy many more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on the successful fish price
negotiations which have recently been completed between fish harvesters and fish
processors in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the Task Force on Fish and Crab Price Settlement
Mechanisms was appointed to investigate price setting in the fishing industry.
Prior to that time, there had been a number of disruptions in the fishing
industry, resulting in an inconsistent supply to the market place and a lower
quality product.
The Task Force's report was presented to government on January 15,1998, and
the chief recommendation was to implement a three-phase interest-based approach
to negotiations on a pilot project basis.
Mr. Speaker, following the success of the pilot project between 1998 and
2000, a new fish price settlement mechanism for collective bargaining was
devised for the fishing industry.
Referred to as the Final Offer Selection model, this process was designed by
the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Labour and
industry stakeholders, including the Fish Food and Allied Workers and the
Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. All stakeholders agreed to
implement this process on a permanent basis, and in June 2000, the Fish Industry
Collective Bargaining Act was legislated into effect.
I would like to take this opportunity as well, Mr. Speaker, to thank my
colleague from Port de Grave and my colleague who used to be the Minister of
Labour - the previous Minister of Labour.
This process has proven to be effective, efficient, and an equitable way in
which to determine fish prices. Since the introduction of this process, all
fisheries have started on time.
So far this year prices have been successfully negotiated for crab, shrimp
and cod for the 2001 season. Crab prices were negotiated using a price to market
formula, and will be in place for the remainder of the season. Shrimp prices
were negotiated for the period from April to June, and an arbitrator set prices
for cod for the same period.
Prices for other species to be negotiated this year include capelin, herring,
mackerel, lumpfish, squid and some groundfish species. These negotiations will
begin in early April.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been pleased to work with the FFAW and FANL
in developing and implementing this process which serves to benefit and enhance
the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the FFAW and FANL, and certainly our former Fisheries Minister,
should be commended for moving down this road toward straightening up our
Collective Bargaining Act and putting a process in place that gets us away from
the strikes and deals with the industry in a more orderly manner.
I can remember the days - in one of my previous lives, I guess - where we had
lots of controversy in industry at this time of the year. In trying to set
prices we always ended up with delays in the season; so they are to be
commended.
I say to the minister, this time is no time to be resting on the laurels of
the former minister, the FFAW and FANL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I think the time is now to identify what he is planning on
doing in the next while, as minister of this department. As long as there is
lump roe going to Europe in plastic barrels with a little bit of salt thrown in
it; as long as there is shrimp coming in from the offshore, industrial shrimp,
20 per cent of it, approximately, 16 million to 17 million pounds, enough to run
a shrimp plant like the one in St. Anthony for about half a year; as long as
that is coming in and going on to Europe with the tariff regime that is in place
in Europe right now that prohibits us from buying it; as long as there is crab
going from Newfoundland -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No leave?
MR. TAYLOR: As long as there is crab going to China to be further
processed en route to Japan, I would suggest that the minister stop talking
about what has happened in the past and deal with what he is going to do in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister refers, of course, to the process whereby instead of having to
stop harvesting and stop putting our product to the market before a price is
negotiated - the Final Offer Selection Process, which has proven to work. It was
the initiative of the parties, the fishermen's union, the FFAW and FANL, with
the cooperation of the former Minister of Fisheries. We moved in tentative
steps, not imposed by government but with the parties cooperation, and it has
proven to be successful to date to the point that this year a negotiated price
for crab was reached rather than have to go the Final Offer Selection Process as
last year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I think it is a satisfactory process that has proven to be
working for the fishermen and the plant operators in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I rise today to inform hon. members, and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that tomorrow, March 22 is World Water Day. The
United Nations adopted a resolution in 1993 to declare this date as World Water
Day as a way to advocate and promote awareness about the importance and value of
clean and safe water for the environment and for public health.
The theme for this year's Water Day is "Water and Health". Water
and health are intertwined in many ways and it is important to address the
increasing need for clean and safe water to protect both human health and the
environment. World Water Day focuses attention on the need to address the
problems related to drinking water supply and increases awareness about the
importance of conservation, preservation, and protection of water resources.
Mr. Speaker, to improve the quality of drinking water and to provide
education and training to the operators of water supply systems, the Water
Resources Management Division of my department is hosting a workshop in Gander
on March 26 and 27.
The theme of this workshop is "Clean and Safe Drinking Water".
Drinking water experts from around the country have been invited to speak at the
workshop, and early registration indicates that we will have a high level of
participation.
My department is working hard with municipalities and other stakeholders to
protect our water supplies. I want to acknowledge the efforts and cooperation
that municipalities extend to my department in protecting and improving the
quality of our Province's drinking water. I ask that all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians reflect on the fact that the responsibility of protecting our
drinking water supplies is a responsibility borne by all.
Mr. Speaker, all living things depend on water. Without water there would be
no rivers, lakes, forests, fish, wilderness, wildlife, plants or people. All of
us need clean water to survive, and it is important for all of us to work
together to protect and conserve this precious gift of nature.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for his first statement and for receiving
a copy of the statement. It is an important issue, and there is no doubt that
the conference that is being held in Gander will discuss some very important
issues, but I say to the minister, there is more than just a conference needed.
There is more than just talk needed. We have over 200 communities in this
Province with boil orders in place. You go to communities in this Province and
go to their hotels, they have signs posted saying you cannot brush your teeth
with their water. What message does that send to tourists? You are right,
without water we would not have rivers but this Province is spewing raw sewage
into our rivers, into our streams, and that is still happening in this Province.
Third World conditions, I say to the minister.
We have incinerators that are just upwind of drinking water supplies, of
freshwater supplies of rivers and streams in this Province. So, we need more
than just talk, Mr. Minister. We need action, and it is time for action. The
time for action is now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was wondering first whether or not this was written by Dan Quayle when he
says: without water there would be no rivers or lakes.
The minister should do more than call upon the residents of this Province to
take further action and be responsible. I think the minister could very well
take initiative to lead the Province by addressing a lot of the problems that
are out there now concerning our water supplies, concerning the raw sewage that
is going into the bays affecting the aquaculture in the Province and leading to
lots of other health risks for the people who are around the Province. I think
the minister could lead by example, by addressing a lot of the problems that are
being experienced right now in the Province, rather than asking the people of
the Province to take the responsibility for it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women, I rise today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, to inform my hon. colleagues of the release of a new brochure
and handbook designed with this very goal in mind.
This booklet called, Celebrating Diversity, Respecting Differences ,
was produced by the Women's Policy Office in consultation with a committee of
community groups and individuals with expertise in diversity. It is a handbook
which addresses discrimination based on race, ability, age, gender, sexual
orientation and class. The publication compliments the work of the Provincial
Strategy Against Violence and the current Violence Prevention Initiative.
The primary purpose of this project is to education and inform individuals
about attitudes and stereotypes which can lead to discrimination and violence
against particular groups. The handbook also encourages all of us to take
responsibility for our own biases and to work toward change. It proposes general
solutions which might be of use to individuals, community groups and social
action agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this handbook can be used by the public at large, but will also
be useful for public employees, women's groups, and post-secondary students to
stimulate discussion on the issue of discrimination and to inspire serious and
critical thought about day-to-day attitudes which may be considered
discriminatory.
Celebrating Diversity, Respecting Differences is an important tool in the
fight against discrimination in our Province and as the Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women, I am proud of the work done to bring this project to
fruition. Discrimination is a serious problem and I am sure I speak for all of
my colleagues when I say that this Province is committed to ensuring a future
based on the principles of true equality for all.
As a minister and as a woman, I am proud to celebrate a day where we can all
look forward to a more equitable future and recognize our contribution toward
that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the Women's Policy Office for
managing the development and production of this document, and I would like to
offer thanks to the many community groups and individuals who participated in
its production. I hope it has a positive and long-lasting influence.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her
statement in advance. I would also like to congratulate the Women's Policy
Office and the committee who produced this handbook.
I would like to refer to a couple of key phrases in the minister's
statement, "... take responsibility for our own biases and to work toward
change." and, "... a future based on the principles of true equality
for all." I suggest, Minister, that you look no farther than the policies
of your own government that keep 72 per cent of our children in poverty. That is
the highest in the country. We have the lowest minimum wage. Our seniors live in
poverty. Household poverty has increased. Aboriginal people and the disabled
live in poverty. Minister, I suggest that as long as this government's
policies prevail that the day when we can look forward to an equitable future
for all will remain an illusion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to commend the Women's Policy Office for this document which should
prove useful in helping to eliminate stereotypical thinking. When the minister
says that discrimination is a serious problem and that all of her colleagues are
committed to ensure a future based on true equality, why is she not standing in
her House and moving that the changes to the provincial Human Rights Code be
made to have source of income as a prohibited ground of discrimination, instead
of having a document here where people are urged to lobby government to change
the provincial Human Rights Code, which it does on page 16? If this government
was committed to the kind of equality that is documented in this book, we would
be hearing about changes in the Human Rights Code and not about public relations
efforts that are being made through this very useful process, but let us hear
about changes to our Human Rights Code too.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Premier stood to his feet and made a
statement that the commitment and the platform on which he and every member on
that side of the House was elected on was to maximize benefits, vis--vis
Voisey's Bay, or for the people of the Province. He went on to indicate
yesterday that was the commitment in the Red Book, but he neglected to point out
that the real commitment - which we have pointed out here day over day since
this Legislature has been opened to him - the real issue, the real mandate that
this government received was not to ship any ore, any unprocessed ore, any
nickel concentrate out of the Province.
Premier, my question to you is this: How can you stand day after day in this
House and try to make something out of nothing?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to further articulate the view with respect to
this very important issue. I can assure everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador
that Liberals, in the last election, did not run on a negative platform. We ran
on a positive platform to do something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
With respect to Voisey's Bay, we ran on a platform that said: We will find
a way to have nickel leave Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not campaign from a
negative point of view. We campaigned from a positive point of view that we
would find a way to have nickel leave Newfoundland and Labrador or there would
not be an arrangement with respect to Voisey's Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: One day he is here, the next day he is there, the other day
he is here, it depends on what day you ask this, supposedly, straight answer,
real solution Premier.
Let me ask him this, last Thursday you went outside this Legislature and you
indicated to the people of the Province, through the media, that whether or not
the business they are in suggests that every single rock that comes out of
Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a
different issue. Yet, in the Liberal Party Red Book it says Inco proposes to
take the ore in Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed.
That is unacceptable.
Premier, stand up and provide a straight answer. What is your position on
Voisey's Bay ore? Are you going to let any of it be shipped out or none of it
be shipped out? Be consistent with the position of you, your former boss and
your entire party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess a question can be asked many different ways and the answer is the
same answer, basically. We did not campaign from a negative point of view in
1996 or 1999. In both elections, by the way, the Voisey's Bay topic was a
matter of public discussion within the Province. Both times we campaigned on a
basis of positive action of things that we would try to do for the benefit of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our objective then - we will debate it more
fully in the private member's motion today - as it is now, is to try to find a
way to maximize the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by making sure
that there is full processing of the ore body in Labrador, in Newfoundland and
Labrador, into nickel for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be shipped out of
the Province as nickel.
Mr. Speaker, that is our objective. It was then, it is now, and most people
in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am suggesting to you, would hope that the
Minister of Mines and Energy has some success in finding a way to accomplish
that rather than finding a way not to have it proceed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what we are about, Mr. Speaker, positive action
if we can accomplish it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is just not factual. At the Liberal
Annual Convention in 1999, Brian Tobin, who spoke for all of you and everyone of
you to a person, were the first crowd on your feet leading the cheers at the
annual convention in the Liberal Party when he said this: we are not interested
in talking about a Voisey's Bay development -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I ask him if his position is the same as what his former
Premier was, that they are not interested in doing a Voisey's Bay development
that sees any nickel concentrate leave this Province unless, and it must be
this, that every single ounce of ore and nickel to be processed in this Province
must be processed to a finished state before it leaves it? Is that your
position, Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is the objective of this Liberal government. It always has been, and is
today. Now, let me just point this out, in 1998, 1999 leading up to the
election, the position of Inco had changed very drastically and dramatically
because the same -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: It is a serious matter. We should treat it seriously.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: The same company, Mr. Speaker, that had come here and
announced its plans for Argentia had turned around a year or so later and said:
We are interested in developing the project at Voisey's Bay but only if there
is a mine and a mill in Labrador and no processing whatsoever in Newfoundland
and Labrador. That was the context that led up to the election of 1999, and the
Liberals ran on a platform that said: Elect us and we will find a way to make
sure that if there is going to be a development in Voisey's Bay, the nickel
ore that is in Voisey's Bay will be turned into a nickel product in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: All of it is the objective. It was then, it is now, and I
challenge anyone to suggest how that has changed with respect to the position of
the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it has not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I will take up
the challenge that he just laid down. In the last several days he has tried to
convince and twist that we are somehow not getting it straight, that he is
providing the answers.
I will like to ask him this question: If what you say is true, than how is it
that the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the present Member of Humber West,
was on the radio this morning saying that if we ship ore out - well, if it
involves shipping ore out I think that is contrary to what we said back in 1999
in terms of the mandate. How do you jive your position in shipping ore out -
which you clearly did, people know it. You cannot fool everybody, Premier.
People understand it. They know what you said. How do you jive that last
Thursday with the position of the former Minister of Mines and Energy saying:
That is not we got elected on?
MR. SULLIVAN: He can't fool anybody, that is the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure you again, as I did yesterday, I do not think the people of the
Province are naive and stupid, as you characterized them yesterday, and I am not
trying to fool anybody. We are trying to make sure - because this is a serious
issue. The point of the matter that we are getting to in these questions is
this: The government, with the Premier of the day, took the stance in trying to
reach our objective which is to have all of that ore changed into nickel in the
Province. He characterized the hopes and dreams of Newfoundlanders by saying,
against the company: we are doing nothing here. He put up a position saying we
are doing it all here and not one spoonful will leave. We took that positioning
to the negotiation. It failed. It got us no deal. We are thirteen months later
and there is no development. So that proposition, that every single scrap from
the very first day has to be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, gets you no
development. Now, the objective is to get it all done here.
Now let me ask a question, as I normally would, and using nickel as the
example: If I were to lend you a nickel today and you were to give me back a
nickel tomorrow, do I still have my nickel?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This morning the Member for Port de Grave - if we think
that this is somehow a big joke, Premier, it is not. You have changed your
position. You do not have the courage, the intestinal fortitude, to stand in
front of the people of the Province and tell them you have changed it. You are
trying to convince people that what you have said as Premier is consistent with
what Liberals have always said. It is not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him this question: Has he
taken the time to sit down with the Member for Port de Grave, who said this
morning: I would like to have the opportunity to sit down and talk to the
Premier about his position. I did not clearly understand in Question Period
today what his position was, but I would like to talk to him.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, to point out quite clearly, this is a very serious issue in the
Province. The only person trying to be a little bit mischievous about it, and
trying to manipulate the truth, is the Leader of the Opposition.
I will state again, Mr. Speaker, the facts clearly show that the objective of
the Liberals who ran in the election in both 1996 and 1999 was to find a way and
to stand on a platform that said: we will not give a mining lease unless we find
a way to have the ore changed into nickel in the Province.
Now, that was our objective. Lots of speeches have been made, lots of
speeches will be made, but we will not be deterred from our objective to achieve
something positive and beneficial for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, by
finding a way rather than not finding a way to have nickel made in Newfoundland
and Labrador, and have the equivalent of everything that is in Labrador turned
into nickel in this Province over time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what we are committed to, Mr. Speaker, and we
will find a way to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, three days ago in this House, I borrowed a
page from this Premier's book and I said to every member in this House: Our
research is done. We know what every member said and, before this setting is
over, each and every one of you are going to have to stand and answer what your
position is. I will begin that today.
I would like to ask the Member for Humber West: Do you support the position
of the Premier? Do you support ore leaving this Province in any form, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the tactic, actually, that he did borrow from me during a debate
here a year or so ago, and I appreciate it being used in the proper forum. Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that he
can ask a question of any one of the government at any particular point in time.
The tradition and history of every Parliament is that ministers or their
designates answer for the government. Any minister or designate -
AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: If you want to ask the questions, it is fair game to ask
any member at any point in time, in open and free debate, and I am sure you
will. Go ahead and do so - and everybody in the Liberal Party - because,
remember this, and it is a good reminder, everybody in the Liberal Party
understands that the advantage and the benefit of being a Liberal is that this
is a Party that can encompass different points of view and still rally to do
what is best for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because we do not believe
that it has to be unanimous. We believe that if the majority of the people
support a proposition, that is what runs a democratic society. We do not rule
with an iron fist or suggest that anyone who has a differing view on any matter
at any point in time is, in any way, less entitled to be a Liberal or
participate in our caucus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Premier has his
cheering
section all wrapped up today, and in fine tune. I tell you, it is a lot
different than what it was this last few days.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not everybody.
MR. FITZGERALD: Not everybody, no. There are a couple over there not
cheering, I say to members.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development. I read a story recently in the print media in which the minister of
all things to all the people, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development, was asked about Friede Goldman using the shipyard and fabrication
facility at Marystown in Cow Head as collateral for a $10 million line of credit
to build offshore vessels at its facilities in the United States. I say to the
minister, that is some return on the dollar; but I will come back to that issue
on another day.
During the interview, the minister said there are a couple of things in the
works for Marystown shipyard. I ask the minister if he was referring to the
proposal to build two vessels in Marystown to service the offshore.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we are
working continuously with the two members from the Burin Peninsula, the Minister
of Education and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, incessantly, night and
day. We are working to try and get some activity underway in the Marystown
shipyard. There have been discussions with various people, and with the union
who are in the gallery today. I think we have met with them twice in the past
day to try and ensure that the shipyard at Marystown becomes more productive
than it has been in the last while.
I am not at liberty at this point to say what negotiations are ongoing
because I think - and I think the member would want me to take this responsible
attitude - to discuss openly and publicly where certain projects are or might
be, might endanger what we are trying to do.
I say to the hon. gentleman, as soon as we have concluded negotiations, or
anywhere near negotiations, or as soon as we are in a position to say publicly
what we are up to here, where we will not endanger those negotiations and will
not endanger future work at the Marystown shipyard, I will be certainly pleased,
happy, and overjoyed to tell the hon. gentleman exactly what we are trying to
do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I would like, for the record, to say that we on
this side of the House of Assembly as well would like to see something happen in
Marystown as well as in other areas, but we have to be responsible and ask
questions about what is happening.
Minister, it is standard practice in this industry for shipyard owners to
finance new vessel construction. That leads me to this question: Will Friede
Goldman use its own credit to finance work at Marystown, or will the government
participate in the financing, either through loan guarantees, grants, deferral
or cancellation of the $10 million to $15 million Friede Goldman already owes
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? If government is going to provide
financial services for the construction of vessels in Marystown, I say to the
minister, why did we give it away in the first place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman, as I said
to him before, and I recognize his right to ask the question, and he should, I
also would hope that he would recognize that when you are in certain kinds of
negotiations you cannot say everything that you might want to say publicly,
because you might endanger the livelihoods of certain people.
Let me just say to him that the government of the Province will do what it
believes is fiscally responsible in terms of trying to get work in Marystown;
and, of course, if there is a net gain to the economy, then we would look very
seriously at trying to help Marystown and the people of Marystown develop their
economy and get work.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, let me say to the hon. gentleman: The
Member for Bonavista North asked a very serious question and I gave him a very
serious answer, and the kind of comment that he is making is not becoming of
him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
When the Atlantic Co-operative Alliance acquired IPL a year ago, we understood
that the company had agreed to maintain and expand production of Country Ribbon
brand poultry products in Newfoundland. Now we hear that ACA is about to produce
part of the Country Ribbon product line in Nova Scotia and lay off workers in
Newfoundland.
Minister, does the government have any enforceable guarantee from ACA that
the production of chicken products under the Country Ribbon brand will not be
transferred out of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the dispute that the hon. member is talking
about, production going outside the Province, is between a private company and
the union workers that are there today. Having said that, there is a five-year
agreement there. There are compliance levels that the company must meet, and it
is incumbent upon me, as minister, and this government, to make sure that we
monitor that situation so that the compliance levels are met with the agreement
that was signed approximately a year ago.
Those compliance levels as of today are met. They must meet 75 per cent of
pre-sales levels; that has been met. Approximately 261 man years, that was the
agreement; they have over 400 people working there today. Secondly, they keep up
the quotas. The quotas are kept up. In fact, this year there will be a 4 per
cent increase in production. So those compliance levels are being met. I have a
meeting this evening with the unions to try to explain to them and tell them
where we stand on this. We have to remember that the government got out of the
chicken business and the broiler business a year ago, and we are staying out. We
have put $4.5 million to $5 million, over the last number of years, hundreds of
millions of dollars over the last number of years, into the broiler industry.
This problem today is between the union and a private company; and I underline,
a private company.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers invested over $200 million in
Newfoundland Farm Products and its successor IPL, which ACA picked up for little
or nothing. This looks like another Friede Goldman deal all over again.
I ask the minister today: Is this government capable of negotiating any deal
that returns real benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not a bad investment
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is right; my colleague said it is not a
bad investment and not a bad return. For the amount of dollars that have been
put into the broiler business over the years in this Province, and the amount of
monies that have gone into other commodity groups in the Province into
agriculture - we have 400 jobs. Remember, the agreement called for 261 man
years. That was it! Not only that, but all they have to do is maintain 75 per
cent of that.
The business is sold, it is out of our hands, and we will monitor it. Like I
said, it is incumbent upon me to make sure that they comply, and to make sure
that they go with value-added wherever they can. In this case, there are going
to twelve full-time employees laid off, there will be thirty-four part-time
employees because of the fact that they are getting out of their non-profitable
items such as breaded chicken and so on. That is the reason for it. Other than
that, they will maintain their levels there, they will maintain the 75 per cent
level, they will maintain their investment that they had to put in that, which
is promised at $3 million.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. WOODFORD: Two million dollars is in already, $1 million to go in this
year. So, Mr. Speaker, they are doing what they are supposed to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, I guess if I need to understand that agreement more, I will ask you
this question then: Will you table in the House any agreement that was entered
into with respect to the transfer of IPL assets to Atlantic Co-operative
Alliance? Will you table those agreements so that I can have a first-hand look
at what you propose for this industry, for the employees of this industry?
Minister, will you table those agreements?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the agreements, with the intent
of doing just that. If there is nothing there - like I said, it is a private
company - to stop that from being done, I will certainly be glad to do it.
Those are the three or four main components in that agreement. That was made
public at the time by the previous minister. Anybody who wanted to ask questions
on it, that was all public knowledge. If there is anything there to stop it,
well.... I will have a look at it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WOODFORD: If there is nothing in the agreement that says otherwise, I
will certainly do it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question also is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and
it is along the same lines, concerning ACA. The former Minister of Agrifoods
said last year, one year ago last week, in a press release, that they have
agreed to write off $13 million of an outstanding debt. In return, ACA has
provided a firm commitment to grow our poultry industry. Mr. Minister, I ask
you: Where is that commitment today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there was approximately $11.5 million written
off at the time. There was also another line of credit of approximately $5
million that was paid by the company, including a $1 million loan guarantee to
the provincial government.
Like I said, in the agreement, this is public knowledge. All that agreement
says is that company would have (inaudible) 75 per cent of pre-sale level, which
was 261 people. That was public knowledge; the hon. member knows that. It is up
to 400 people. If hon. members look a little further, they cannot produce beyond
what the quota levels are. They produced approximately 8.6 million birds last
year in that facility. The quota for this Province is approximately 9 million.
With the 4 per cent increase this year, they will reach the 9 million mark.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. WOODFORD: They cannot produce over that in any case, because that is
an allocation from the federal government and the chicken marketing agency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, what we are talking about here is not necessarily the
production; it is the processing of that production, and it is our understanding
that processing is taking place outside this Province at the expense of workers
in the Province. I ask the minister: Are these commitments that were made by ACA
one year ago as valid today as they were back then?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said from the outset that we would make sure
that all the compliance levels are met. If this company wants to sell chicken
outside the Province, if they want to sell it to Russia, if they want to sell it
to Bangladesh, if they want to sell it anywhere in the world, they can sell it
as long as they meet the compliance levels that were set out in the agreement,
and as long as they operate within that particular quota.
As I have said, there are 400 jobs at that facility and it is incumbent upon
me, as minister, to make sure they put everything through there in a value-added
fashion as can be done. We will continue to do that and we will continue to
impress upon the company that this must be done, and nothing be done outside the
Province.
As far as I am concerned today, there is nothing being done outside the
Province with regards to secondary processing on this particular chicken quota -
as of today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The minister
knows the Northern shrimp advisory meeting is taking place tomorrow, and when
the P.E.I. allocation was made last summer, the previous minister suggested
there would be riots in the street. Now we are faced with a possible 20 per cent
increase in the shrimp quota this year. It is possible. We have plants,
fishermen, sitting idle. Areas of this Province have the highest unemployment
rate in the country. My question to the minister is: What has the minister done?
What contact has he made with the federal minister? What message did he give to
Minister Dhaliwal on how any increase in shrimp quotas should be allocated this
year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member for his question. I think that the member opposite knows
the position that this government holds on this, and it was vocalized well last
year by my predecessor. Our position has not changed. I have written the federal
minister, telling him our opinion on this matter. The Premier met with the Prime
Minister last week and addressed this issue, and I will be addressing it with
the minister at the Boston Seafood Show and again next Friday in a First
Ministers Meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess that is what is causing me concern, that the Premier has spoken with
the Primer Minister on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: The minister knows that shrimp entering the European Union
from Canada is subject to an import tariff that prevents our industry -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: The minister knows that shrimp entering the European Union
from Canada is subject to an import tariff, that prevents our industry from
gaining access to this vast market. What steps has the minister taken to get the
federal government to negotiate with the European Union on this matter?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member knows, talks have been ongoing with the federal government with
regard to the tariff on shrimp going into the EU, and we can only hope that the
EU will reduce this tariff to allow more of our shrimp to go in there at an even
price.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a petition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of several hundred home support
and personal care home workers in this Province. Last fall, before Christmas, I
presented a similar petition, and these have come in since. I mentioned at the
time that it was accepted to present, they are petitioning the hon. House of
Assembly and the House of Commons. Of course, the same ones will not be sent on
to the House of Commons. We are presenting them on behalf of these workers.
Some of the words of these workers are: Persons in this field are responsible
for the care of people with various medical conditions. The duties carried out
by these valuable workers are stressful and demanding in nature.
I think most people realize that home support workers today get $5.84 an
hour, $7.01 for personal care - that is usually only a couple of hours a day -
but personal care attendants, with a couple of days orientation in nursing
homes, can go in and work for $12.44 an hour, and these people are working for
$5.84. So they are paid more than double to deal with seniors - people in homes
- and some of them are at the same level of care. There are people in their
homes today, and many of them are at the same level of care as people in a
nursing home, and they are paid more than double in salary.
The Shallow Report came down and was tabled just this past year - the former
minister, the current Premier in the House - and it addresses fairly well and
lays out what is needed. There has to be a significant move in the Budget
tomorrow to be able to close the gap, which is $5.84 as opposed to $12.44, and
that is immense.
I am sure everybody in this House knows somebody related to them, or in their
community, who has to go into those homes. People cannot even get out of bed.
They even have to take them in wheelchairs and feed some of these people for
$5.84 an hour. I think it is disgraceful, in this modern day, to have people do
that when people can walk inside a nursing home and get $12.44 an hour.
These people here, I have met with them on many occasions. I had a public
meeting with some of these people last fall, and the petitions have been coming
in fairly steady. I gave a commitment to present them in the House here. I know
the minister has indicated already that there will be movement, there will be
funds allocated in this Budget. I just hope it makes a significant step in
closing the gap there and allowing these people a decent level of income.
The people working at those jobs are getting below the poverty line. Some of
these are the single wage earners in the family. They cannot afford to have
transportation, and they have to walk. I know people who have to walk a
mile-and-a-half to go to work and go into these homes, and get back home again
sometimes late at night in very adverse conditions. They cannot afford to have
transportation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to take his seat.
MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly hope their voice is going to be heard.
Tomorrow, I hope the increase is going to be significant; it is not going to be
nominal and just passed out there in closing this particular gap.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: There was a motion that I would like to pass, just to expedite
our debate next week. I am just asking members to pass Motion 5, which is the
setting up of the Committees.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will revert to petitions. I recognize that the hon. the Member for
Labrador West was standing, but I had recognized the hon. Government House
Leader before. He stood on a point of order.
MR. LUSH: What I was asking the House was if I could go back to Motions
and call Motion 5, which is to move that the Committees named yesterday be set
up.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly we do not have a problem in dealing
with that after petitions, or whenever it is convenient. I think it would be
more appropriate that the petitions be finished on the agenda first.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise and present a petition on behalf of a number of people
in Labrador West, home care workers. The petition is:
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly showeth:
WHEREAS personal home care and home support workers need wage increases,
workers compensation and other employee related benefits; and
WHEREAS money was set aside in provincial budgets in the past to ensure the
coverage of workers compensation benefits and salary increases;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to fully implement wage increases, workers compensation and other benefits, to
live up to their commitment to personal care and home support workers of this
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Premier say that home care workers is
one of the areas that he intends to address. Home care workers across the
Province were very pleased with that statement. We are hopeful that tomorrow,
Budget Day, the results of what he intends to do will become fully exposed and
known to people across the Province, and we are hopeful that it will not be just
a pittance increase, and that the increase will reflect in many ways the work
that home care workers provide in this Province, the many hours of work, the
demanding nature of their job, the incidents in which they can hurt themselves.
I say to the Premier that it is more than just a matter of wage increases.
These workers are working in a very high area of exposure to risk. They are
lifting patients who are, many times, much more than their own weight, and while
doing so can easily become injured on the job. It is very important that as
workers - and very few workers in this Province who are not covered under an
insurance type program. I know that the review committee on workers compensation
that was just held recommended that this be paid attention to.
I say to the Premier and to Cabinet that on Budget Day tomorrow we are not
only looking forward to substantial wage increases for home care workers in the
Province but also that they would be covered under the workers compensation or
an insurance type program that will protect them if they should happen to be
injured in carrying out their duties.
Thank you
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am just wondering if members opposite would allow us to go back to Motion
5, which is to move that the following committees be composed of the following
members, that were read into the record yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we put the motion at this time, Motion 5,
which is a motion giving the composition of the Government Services Committee,
the Resource Committee and the Social Services Committee?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: It now being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I call on
the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes with respect to this
resolution, and I invite members on both sides to participate in this resolution
this afternoon.
This issue is fundamental to the very mandate that has been received by
members opposite, and of course it has in a very real way certainly been the
topic of discussion in this Legislature for the past number of days and the past
couple of weeks.
I think it is important if we put perhaps in context some of what has been
said and some of the questions and some of the answers that have been given by
the hon. Premier over the past few days, and also put in context perhaps some of
the details and some of the particulars that were found in the 1999 Liberal Red
Book. Of course, that particular document presenting itself as the basis and the
foundation that the Liberal Party put forward as its message and what it would
offer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the past number of days, through very effective, I would suggest, and
exemplary questioning by the Leader of the Opposition, points were raised and
answers were given by the hon. Premier which of course have led to only
confusion, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer to some of the
points and in particular some of the quotes. Again, the Leader of the Opposition
has referred to them on a number of occasions.
Last week the hon. Premier, in response to questioning on this issue,
indicated that: I appreciate the opportunity to give an answer in the
Legislature because I have answered that question probably 10,000 times
elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has
chosen not to listen. I believe the people of the Province have listened to the
answer. The short answer is this: Because I will try to give short answers.
There is no change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to today,
none.
Again, this particular quote was referred to today and on previous occasions
by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, and is directly on point in terms
of the issue that is being raised in this resolution as to whether or not this
government has a mandate to govern and to lead the people of the Province with
respect to this very important and vital issue. It refers to a comment that was
made by the former Premier, the leader of the governing party in 1999 during the
election campaign, when the Premier had indicated publicly: It is our policy to
have all of the ore processed in this Province, but beyond that we are not even
prepared to discuss any alternatives or any options with Inco, or with anybody
else, until first of all Inco formally moves away from the position that they
took early on this year. Last year, in fact, when they said that their position
was for a project that would see a mine and mill in Labrador and the ore shipped
entirely out of the Province. That, I would suggest, is the basis which
formulated the mandate that was given to the government as it was obviously one
of the main issues in addition to, of course, the issue with respect to the
development of Lower Churchill. This issue on Inco's role, and government's
response to Inco's role and what agreement would be entered into, if any,
forms significantly and fundamentally the basis of the mandate that was given to
members opposite.
Last week, in response to questioning by members on this side of the House,
outside the House the Premier indicated - again, I will use a direct quote: We
believe full processing. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that the
equivalent of a total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will be
changed into nickel in this Province, and whether or not the business that they
are in suggests that every single rock that comes out of Labrador goes into the
processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is a different issue. They
might actually be bringing some of the ore that is mined in Sudbury to
Newfoundland, and we will have an equivalent in terms of tonnage and volume.
That is the whole notion we are talking about with full processing, and over the
life of the project we expect to be able to accomplish that.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that response last week is a significant and wholesale
change from what was sold to the people of the Province during the election
campaign. Not only as Mr. Premier indicated earlier, I would suggest, not only
in the 1999 campaign, but going back even to the 1996 campaign. The Premier has
indicated that his position meets every detail of the mandate that his
government sought and received in 1999, but the record does not support that
claim.
I would like to refer to two specific quotes that were found in the Liberal
Red Book of 1999, that document which forms the basis and foundation, as I have
indicated earlier, of a campaign which was successful for members opposite.
There are forty-eight seats in this Legislature and as a result of that
campaign, there were thirty-two members who were elected. That is two-thirds of
the House, a significant majority.
The people of the Province accepted the offer that was put forward by what
was proposed by members opposite. There was an offer proposed. The offer was the
campaign. It was the details that were spelled out in the Red Book. There was an
offer presented to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador accepted that offer but, unfortunately, the terms and
conditions pursuant to that contract, as it were, had been breached. Therefore,
it raises the question and the question has to be asked: Do the members opposite
have the mandate to governor in terms of the fact there has been a breach of
those conditions which form the basis and foundation of that offer, and
acceptance that was provided and witnessed in the general election of 1999?
The two specific examples that I base that comment on - again, they are very
brief quotes. They come directly out of the Red Book. Government called a
provincial election in 1999 seeking a specific mandate to - and I quote:
"...maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our province that
there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built
in our province." Secondly, this also is a direct quote: "INCO
proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to
be processed. That is not acceptable."
That is what was put forward and presented to the people of the Province, Mr.
Speaker. That is what the people of the Province accepted in their analysis of a
proposal and the offer that was put forward. As I have indicated, it certainly
seems to us, on this side of the House, and I would suggest perhaps the majority
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are witnessing this whole debate during
the past number of weeks, what they are witnessing now is a breech of that
agreement, a breech of that contract which was put forward, offered and
eventually accepted in terms of a very significant majority that members
opposite received.
Mr. Speaker, it comes to a question, I would submit, of trust and confidence
by the people of this Province in its government at the present time, in view of
the shift and in view of the change, the very radical change, that appears to be
taking place. I can only use that language because I can only analyze what the
Premier, himself, has said. I can only go by what he has said outside the
Legislature. I often say to myself that the Premier speaks in riddles. He is
Roger the riddler. I can never understand if he is coming or going. He is all
over the map, I say. Certainly, the words that he used last week are a clear
indication that there has been a meaningful, significant and substantial shift
in what was presented to the people of the Province two years ago.
It is an issue, I would suggest, of propriety. I will go further and say it
is perhaps an issue of honour. That is why today we are proud, on this side of
the House, to present this resolution and offer to the members of this House,
and indeed the people of the entire Province, the notion that this government
does not have a mandate to govern in view of its shift and its fundamental
change of position on this very important, public policy issue which was offered
to the people of the Province, accepted by the people of the Province, but now
of that offer and acceptance are now in breech. We now say to the people of the
Province that this government no longer has a mandate to govern and to continue
on this particular footing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER(Mercer): The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to take a few minutes again to enter into this more detailed
debate. The issue that we have actually been debating in the Legislature for
several days now through the vehicle of Question Period. It is unfortunate
really, as I see it, with an issue that has such potential to be of such benefit
for Newfoundland and Labrador. That an Opposition, so hungry and thirsty for
political power, would want to try to manipulate what is happening, and try to
bring in disrespect and question; and doubt an issue for which there is no
disrespect, no question and no doubt. The idea that they would lower themselves
to try and desperately suggest that something has changed here is really a
little bit sad in an issue that is as important as this.
It is always important in political debates, probably more so important
sometimes, what they decide not to say as it is what they do say. The hon.
member who just spoke said a lot of things that were accurate, a lot of things
that were true, and a lot of things that reflect the record, but he conveniently
left out the contextual pieces. Particularly, when he talked about a statement
in the 1999 Red Book that did say, and he did quote it correctly: "INCO
proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to
be processed." The Liberals said: "That is not acceptable." What
he forgot to say, Mr. Speaker, was the whole context leading up to that, which
we talked about in Question Period today, was that Inco's position, publicly
articulated and announced in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time, is that they
intended to take every single ounce, every single rock that came out of the
ground in Labrador, and have it turned into nickel somewhere else, and that
their stated intention was to have zero, absolutely zero, processing occur in
Newfoundland and Labrador. A very convenient omission, I would suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, a very convenient omission to our friend who is a lawyer as well as
a member of the Legislature, to present a case to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and to forget the very underpinnings of the statement that was debated
very hotly and very openly in Newfoundland and Labrador during the election.
There is nobody in this House on different sides in this debate. We are all
of the one voice, and that is what is sad about the fact that they are trying to
suggest there is a problem. We are all of the one voice because, guess what?
Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike during the election in 1999, a couple
of years ago, the opposition parties, both of them, and the new leader who was
recognized here today for the Progressive Conservative Party, who I hope will
come into this Chamber at some point in time and ask questions like the Leader
of the Opposition is doing today, they are now saying that they agree fully with
the statement of the Liberal candidates and the Liberal government in 1999, that
it is unacceptable to take ore out of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was then and
it is now, and I am glad to see that they finally agree 100 per cent with our
position, because that was our position then and it is today; so there is no
disagreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: They are trying to fabricate a disagreement where there
is none. The fact of the matter is this: We did not campaign on a statement.
There is one statement that said what is not acceptable, but we did not campaign
on the basis of being negative and things that we would not do. We campaigned
from a positive platform that said: Here are the things that we would see
happening in Newfoundland and Labrador in another term of office with us as the
government and with us as the Administration. What we said were the things that
we would do, not the things we would not do. It was stated as a matter of fact
that now everybody is acknowledging that everybody agrees with, that it is not
acceptable. It was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now to deal
with a proposition from Inco that says we will do zero processing in
Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is the basis on which that statement was
put in this platform. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows it. Everybody
sitting in those seats on that side of the Legislature knows it. Everybody
sitting in these seats knows it, because the whole context was a company that
says, "We have changed our minds. We are not going to do what we said in
1996. We are going to take all of the resource outside of Newfoundland and
Labrador for processing", and the government's answer and the Liberal
candidate's answer was, "This is not acceptable."
What was acceptable is in the red words and the red letters in the Red Book.
What was acceptable was - and let me read it into the record so that Hansard
will show what the record says accurately and clearly what was acceptable. The
positive platform that the Liberal candidates ran on was: The Liberal
government, with a new mandate, will maintain a firm position on behalf of the
people of our Province, that there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a
smelter and a refinery are built in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what is acceptable to Liberals. That is what is
acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; because, as the hon.
member pointed out, they voted for it. They sent two-thirds of the seats of this
Legislature back to the government side because they agreed with a group that
said we will maintain a firm position that makes sure there will be no mine
unless a smelter and a refinery are built in our Province.
Our Minister of Mines and Energy, sitting in this seat instead of his own
seat, is now off on a mission that I would expect - I know, Mr. Speaker, as a
business man in the Province, that the Leader of the PC Party, who is not yet a
member of this Legislature, I know he, as a business person, understands the
components of a good deal and understands the basis on which Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians want to see full and maximum benefits for Newfoundland and
Labrador. He understands because he is interested. He is interested enough to
run for the position as leader of the Party. He may even be interested enough,
some time, to run for a seat in the Legislature. He might even, as an aside,
because the record needs to be clear on this too, he might be so commited to
being the Leader of the Opposition, which he is going to be for quite a long
time -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - that he will commit, just as he has suggested that his
business successes put him in a position where he does not need the salary as a
Premier, that he would do it for nothing, well, let him also state that he will
stand and sit as the Leader of the Opposition for free, because that is where he
is going to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He cannot give away this salary, because he is not going
to stand here!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: If he would be willing to give it away if he were ever to
get here, let him state that he is willing to give it away if he ever goes over
there, because right now he shows no interest in coming into the Legislature
whatsoever.
In any event, what we ran on was the whole issue of having ore processed into
nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot take a positive statement and a
platform from the Liberals and try to word it into a devious, mischievous motion
in the Legislature to say:
Whereas the current Administration was elected in
1999 on a commitment that Voisey's Bay nickel ore would not be shipped from
the Province.
We did not talk about what we would not do with this; we talked about what we
would do. We would have it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador. We
would have full processing, and we would have all of it, over time, turned into
nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Rather than get on with the nonsense that we are debating here today, Mr.
Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would really take pride in the
fact that the Opposition, as the leader said the other day in one of his finer
moments, in the years that I have seen him here: We will be reasonable and
responsible as an Opposition.
Well, a reasonable and responsible Opposition in my view, in this particular
case, would be suggesting that if a government said that we want to have all of
it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if a government has one
of its minister going off into a negotiation with the only stated objective of
having all of it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, why wouldn't
the Opposition say: Good, we wish you well, because that will give maximum
benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that will achieve something
that all of us want, and that we know that everybody wants.
Just out of interest, because from time to time members opposite take great
pride in polls and so on, the unscientific poll from The Telegram , with
no information and with all the confusion that the Opposition tries to spread
with respect to this issue, that if I lend you my nickel today and you will give
me back my nickel tomorrow, will I still have my full nickel? Of course, the
answer is yes. Will I still have the full benefits of that nickel? Absolutely, I
will. That is what will happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. With no more
explanation than that, 57 per cent of the respondents, with no explanation, no
deal, no nothing, said it makes sense.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: It is the sensible thing to do, Mr. Speaker, because they
are not tied up into political rhetoric. They are more concerned about a
government that will knuckle down to the task of trying to strike a good deal,
of trying to make sure that the commitments that were make in 1996 and in 1999
were met.
Let's go back to 1996: The new Liberal government will take every step
necessary by government to development and gain full benefits from the Voisey's
Bay mine, including the construction of a smelter and other ore processing
facilities in the Province.
Now, there is only one thing that happened after that. That was said in 1996
when Inco itself was saying, "We will do it", and this government
said, "We will hold them to it". Between that book and this book, Inco
turned around and said: We have changed our minds. We will have none of it. We
are not doing any of it. We are processing zero.
Then the government rightfully said: Processing zero is not acceptable. What
would we do about it? We would hold firm for an arrangement that would make sure
that the finished product leaves Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that some members of the Opposition today, rather
than carry on with this kind of frivolous motion, would stand up and wish the
government well, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: - in accomplishing a deal that is beneficial for everyone
in the Province, that gets maximum benefits. In any event, certainly we will
encourage our members to treat it in a manner that it deserves, which is to vote
against it and give it very little notice and attention, because we are about
the serious business of trying to do a deal that is in the best interest of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and not about trying to play silly, childish,
petty, political games with an issue that is extremely important for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It brings new meaning to the song title: Are you diggin' em Dillon.
Premier, I take exception to the remarks you talk about of this being a
frivolous motion, because it is not. If there is anybody who has added confusion
to this debate about where your government stands it is you, and you alone, Sir.
No question about it.
Editorials across this Province, which I will get into in a moment, one in
particular: "The right Grimes for the times? In his first pubic address
since becoming premier, Mr. Grimes broached the issue of Voisey's Bay at a
recent gathering in Gander." Gander is a significant point in terms of this
issue, and I will get to that in a second. "And like his pronouncements on
Inco and the nickel deposit during the Liberal leadership race, Mr. Grimes
raised more questions than he answered." That is the sentiment, that is the
sense, and that is what you have left in your wake since you became Premier on
this issue. Is there any wonder?
In 1999, for example, we talked about what you wanted a mandate on. You weren't
the who travelled around the Province up against Brian Tobin, I was. You weren't
the guy that Brian Tobin called the election on the backs and said: Who is it,
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that you wish to negotiate on Voisey's
Bay? You are not the person that opened up the Member for Gander's
headquarters during the election when, I might add, you raised your head
publicly, and the issue and the publicity said: Minister of Mines and Energy,
Roger Grimes, has raised the specter of ore leaving this Province. That was not
the impression or the commitment given by Premier Brian Tobin at Sandra Kelly's
headquarters opening during the election of 1999, when he said: not a spoonful,
not an ounce of unprocessed ore will leave this Province. You can wriggle, you
can move and you can try to deceive the people of the Province into believing
that your position has not changed, but it has.
Let's go to May 19, 1999, in this Legislature, when the question was asked
directly. If he is fond of quotes I will give it to him. When I asked the
question to Premier Tobin: "Is government still fully committed to 100 per
cent of the ore being mined, refined and processed in this Province? Yes or
no?" Premier Tobin, and I am almost gulping when I say this, gave a
straighter answer than you did, when he said: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. When I
asked you that same question three days ago in this House, was that the answer I
got? No, it was not. Was it the answer given to the people of the Province in
the media scrum? No, it was not, when you broached the idea of equivalent amount
going out. What is even more interesting, Mr. Premier, is that when you made
that statement, members of your own caucus and Cabinet, after I came in and
broached that subject in my reply to the Throne Speech, when I said that you
opened up the door to give ore away, ten minutes ago out in that Legislature,
members of your own Cabinet, sir, were surprised by that statement out there.
We see today the former Minister of Mines and Energy, who held onto this file
and negotiated on behalf of the Province on this file, said that if one ounce of
ore, or if any ore is to leave this Province, this is different than the mandate
that we received and contrary to the mandate that we received in 1999. Every
member in this place will have an opportunity to either vote against this or
vote for it, but I will assure you right now - and I will serve notice on each
and every one of you, as I did in the Throne Speech, that before this spring
session is over, if you are not on your feet telling me what your position is
then you will answer to the people in your own districts. I will phone and make
sure that you do because this is a very, very important issue.
Mr. Grimes, has been so eager to point about how frivolous, hungry and
thirsty we are for power on this side of the House. If you have accused us of
being hungry for the truth, and if your statements mean that we are hungry to
ensure that what you say, and all of you said to get yourselves elected, that
you do not move in a different direction, well then you bet your bottom dollar,
sir, we are hungry because we will hold your feet to the fire on this issue!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: He likes to talk about the context on which things are
entered into and how this government ran a campaign on what they would do; not
what they would not do. Mr. Speaker, there is no member on this side of the
House who understands that statement better.
During the election of 1999 they pounded the daylights out of us, or tried
to, on our tax policy. Six months later they implemented it! They did not say
they were going to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: When it came to the Office of the Ombudsman, we could not
afford it. It was not the right thing to do. Six months later, or in this Throne
Speech, what did they do? They did it.
In this Legislature this government and that member in particular, when he
was Minister of Mines and Energy, criticized us for our position on NUGS -
Non-Utility Generators System - on private rivers; that this government was
moving in a position, and what did they do? Six months later they implemented
it. So, I understand clearly. The people on this side and the people in this
Province understand clearly what you campaigned on, and that is the very reason
and essence for this motion today.
I will go back to the Throne Speech, because it is important in the reply,
that you and your government received a mandate. There are fourteen or fifteen
of you over there who owe your very existence into this Legislature because of
that. Fourteen or fifteen members on that side of the House owe their very
political existence - and they know what I am saying is true - to the fact that
Brian Tobin wrapped himself in the flag and sold the people of the Province a
slate of goods, and you have inherited that. If you move beyond it, you may say
what you want to say in here, you may get the loud applause from the
cheerleaders on the opposite side but the people of the Province are ahead of
you. They understand what you are about. They understand what the 1999 election
was about. If you want an opportunity to go ahead and sign a deal, you may have
every legal right to continue what you are doing, but if a deal is etched or
inked in stone, or you attempt to ink it in stone before you bring it before
this Legislature or the people of the Province, you will have much more to
account for then you even can imagine, I say, Mr. Premier.
The last thing I want to bring up, with respect to this issue - I am not
going to get into quotes. There are so many of them. Maybe I should provide them
all to hon. members. The entire chronology from 1992 to present, every
statement, every press release, every issue, every question, every answer
provided by every member, and every question by every member in this House,
including you. What was most telling, in the first Question Period of this week,
the first opportunity we had to go after this Premier on this issue. Do you know
what his response was? And Hansard will bear it out. He said: If you look at the
record closely, and if the people of the Province look at the record closely, I
never said that there would be every ounce. I have never made that statement. In
other words, the former Premier, and my former boss who appointed me, may have
said it but I did not. That does not give you the political right to make a deal
based upon what you said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: You were part of a team, you were elected as part of a
team, and we will hold you to the commitments that you have made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is clear - forget about us for a minute. Let's assume
that the place we live in is so partisan that you would expect the Opposition to
move in this direction, you would expect to hear from us. If I were Jane or John
Q Public today, I would be sitting in the gallery like people are here right
now, saying: boy, what a debate that is taking place today. The Opposition were
after the government in a private members' motion. Government were defending
its position. Let's assume that that is the way it should operate here. Let's
step out of that box for a moment. Let's add some real indications of where
you are headed and where you were headed. Over the last several months, for the
first time since 1996, members in this House and the general public got a
firsthand view of your stewardship over Mines and Energy. Through the Liberal
Leadership Convention - and these are not my words. This issue is important.
These are your colleagues words. In the live leadership debate the former
Minister of Mines and Energy, the Member for Humber West, said: Oh, come on
Roger, you want to ship ore out of the Province; on live TV. The Member for Port
de Grave said: Brian Tobin's language was strong but John Efford's was
stronger.
Today we are provided with yet more examples of the uncertainty and concern
within the rank and file of your own caucus. While everyone clapped and cheered
for you today, you were looking this way, we were looking that way. Not every
desk had hands clapping on it, I say to you Premier. Not everybody, because
there is legitimate and bonafide concern about the position that you have
personally carved out, that your Cabinet colleagues know you have carved out,
the position that you brought to the Table, which was rejected by Cabinet.
You talked in the House the other day - and this is very, very important -
when you stood up and said: The present Minister of Mines and Energy, I hope he
has more success than I did. I hope he can overcome the obstacles that were in
my way. In my view, that was a very telling statement too because he knows, at
least to this point, that his chances of success of implementing a deal to see
ore go out of this Province are more likely to happen right now because some
obstacles are out of your way, and you have eliminated some of them yourself.
Number one, that no one had control over, former Premier Brian Tobin returns to
federal politics. Two, current Premier wins the leadership race. Three, the
obstacles that were at the table to you, and the deal that you wanted to sign
back in November 1999, were the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the former
Minister of Fisheries, and the former Premier of the Province. Those were the
obstacles that you could not overcome, Premier. I will say this to you, that you
have a bigger one. That your obstacles are bigger than that. Your obstacles,
sir, are the people of the Province where you, if you sign this deal, intend to
move in that direction without seeking a new mandate on this issue then the
people of the Province are the obstacle for you. God forbid, that if we do move
in that direction, my only fear - and the reason for this particular private
members' resolution, the reason for the questions in Question Period, the
reason why we will continue to press on this important issue is simply this: my
fear is that you will go ahead and do it anyway, and the rest of us and
generations after us will have to live with that very mistake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today to say I am
extremely surprised as I read the resolution from the Member for St. John's
East. I am surprised for two reasons.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there are two things that really surprised
me on this motion. With all due respect to the member - and we heard it alluded
to earlier that the speaker being a lawyer - I am very surprised that when a
motion makes reference to some form or some previous document, or some statement
made by some hon. member, it is surprising that the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - the wording of the motion does not resemble the
wording in which it has been referenced.
Mr. Speaker, I will just read the first part of that resolution where it
talks about: "...the current administration was elected in 1999 on a
commitment...". It goes on to say what that commitment was and it does not
bear any resemblance to what the actual commitment was. I suggest to the member
that if you are going to make a motion that makes some reference to a position
and an earlier commitment, then I refer him to - and it has been constantly
referred to in this House this week -
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Were you part of the Liberal team in 1999 that got elected?
Was your name on the ballot, Sir, yes or no? No, it was not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition that I was successful in a by-election in April of last year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I was not there in 1999, but I was successful last year
in April in a by-election.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the hon. member opposite -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Could we give the member the courtesy of listening to what he has to say,
please?
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying to the hon. member, when he makes reference to an earlier
document in a resolution, it is important that he not just paraphrase or create
his own wording. He needs to make reference directly to the document.
I remind the hon. member and members opposite, as has been done numerous
times this week in the House, and last week, of the exact wording in which this
Party ran in a general election in 1999. Let me just read it one more time. This
is directly from the Red Book, "The Liberal government with a new mandate
will maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our province that there
will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built in our
province." That is exactly what the Red Book said, and that is the
position.
That is not reflected in here, and that surprises me. The second thing that
surprises me is how extremely anxious - because in the second part of the
resolution the hon. member makes reference to a need for a general election.
What really surprises me is how anxious this Party is and the Opposition is to
get to the polls.
When I go back to that 1999 election - and I refer to a press release from
the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dated January 18. Let me repeat and just
read from that press release for you - which really surprises me that they would
be anxious to get to a general election - where he says: An Ed Byrne PC
government will not walk away from a job half done.
At that time, he was criticizing our government for calling an election. He
was suggesting that a government should not walk away from a mandate when the
job is only half done. That was dated January 18, 1999, when he is saying that
government should not walk away from a job half done. Now his colleague wants us
to have an early general election.
Just to add a little more weight to that argument, he goes on to say: Why a
government would call an election barely half way through - he questions why a
government would call a by-election half way through its mandate.
Mr. Speaker, this Opposition wants to have an early election. I think the
real answer to why this Opposition Party wants a general election - I can take
it directly from a quote from the leader of federal PC Party when he says, and
this is dated just prior to the last federal election. The leader of the federal
PC Party is suggesting that the election that the Liberal Prime Minister, Jean
Chrtien, is expected to call is unnecessary. This is what is important. He
goes on to say: And it puts party politics ahead of public interest.
I think Mr. Clarke has captured the essence of what is taking place in this
Legislature now, because what is starting to happen is that party politics is
starting to take precedent and a higher priority in the minds of the Opposition
Party, over and above the best interests of the public. I think that is what we
are seeing in this motion.
I think the people of this Province are not ready and do not want to have
another general election. They have given this government a mandate in 1999, and
we are going to work through that mandate. We are going to stay in this position
and fulfil the mandate that was given us.
One of the Robinson-Blackmore papers just recently speculated about what
might happen if there were another general election in 2001, and they suggest,
in addition to the by-elections and the referendums that were held, if we were
to have another general election, this Province will have spent in excess of $8
million in six years on elections, totally unnecessary expenditure, but that is
the kind of thing the members opposite are trying to force this Province into.
We just do not need that kind of rhetoric and politics being played, and it
is not in the best interest of the Province.
MR. MANNING: When we are into the next one, John Efford won't be
helping you.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I ask the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - I
am glad you let me know you are still in the House and still alive over there.
One of the things you really need to ask yourself, because we just recently
heard your new leader comment about how there is no sense of urgency. We should
not be rushing into negotiations on Voisey's Bay. We should not be making the
attempt to have a negotiation.
I ask the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's: What is it that the
people down in his district are saying? What are they telling you? What are the
people of Placentia & St. Mary's telling you?
I can totally understand where the Leader of the Opposition may want to play
politics with this. He is leaving the position. I can understand where the
incoming leader may want to play politics with this because he is not here yet,
but I truly do not understand why the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
would want to let himself be hung out to dry by his Party. That is the thing
that amazes me, Mr. Speaker. I really do not understand that at all.
The other day when I was responding to the Speech from the Throne, I
commented that all the hon. members in this House needed to be accountable to
the people who elected them. I think it is time for the hon. Member for
Placentia & St. Mary's to be accountable to the people who elected him. I
challenge the hon. member.
I look at a weekly newspaper that covers his district. I just want to read
this. This is coming out of a weekly publication that services the area covered
by the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He goes on to say, and is
quoted as saying: The major topic that Mr. Manning is looking forward to is
debate on this Voisey's Bay negotiations and their impact on the Placentia
area and the Province as a whole.
Then he goes on to say - this is why I am surprised that he would have his
hon. colleague introduce a motion like this, because he goes on to say: I am
delighted - the hon. member was delighted - that Mr. Grimes and Mr. Matthews are
back at the negotiating table.
They are delighted; they want us to be negotiating. He goes on to say: I have
always said that if we are not talking, we are not even making a small step
forward.
MR. MANNING: If that is all you have, sit down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No, that is not all I have. That is the point. Listen
to the rest that I have. He goes on to say: Then let's have a good, fair
discussion on it, and I have no qualms if there is a deal laid on the table that
is a good deal for the people of the Province, that is a good deal for the
people here in Placentia.
Mr. Speaker, when I read this, what the hon. member says is, if it is a good
deal for the Province then I will endorse it. The hon. member did not say what
his colleague had said in his motion. The member said, if it is a good deal for
the Province then I will endorse it. Now, his hon. colleague wants us to endorse
a motion that says a very specific kind of a deal, okay?
One of things I think we need to ask ourselves in this debate is, what is the
real agenda for the Opposition here? They are not interested in having a
negotiated deal on Voisey's Bay. They are more interested in participating in
partisan politics and trying to make a major issue of this to their own
political end. I think it is time, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
- and we will ask his communities. The area Chamber of Commerce down there says:
Let's get on with it. Let's get a deal. Let's have negotiations.
You have, up in Labrador, the Chambers of Commerce and the town councils
saying: We need to have a deal. That is what we are moving forward with,
negotiating a solid deal.
Yesterday, we had a lesson from the hon. Member for Ferryland. The hon.
Member for Ferryland yesterday was giving us a lecture on negotiations 101.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The hon. Member for Ferryland yesterday was telling us,
with respect to the public sector negotiations, we cannot be negotiating in
public.
Now, one of the fundamental things here is that we need to understand that we
are, as a Province, in a set of negotiations with Inco. I think it is about time
that the Opposition recognize that in any set of negotiations you start out with
an objective. Let me read again an excerpt from the Speech from the Throne last
week, and I quote, "My Government sees opportunity in the development of
the resources at Voisey's Bay. We have the confidence to move forward and will
resume negotiations. We are not afraid to reach a deal because no deal will be
signed that cannot be clearly explained and defended. My Government has one
basic objective for the negotiations." - and that is critical, and it is
something that we need to keep in mind - "Any deal must provide maximum
benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. This includes a processing facility
which can serve as the foundation for an industry which will extend beyond the
life of the mine."
Now, I think the hon. member on the opposite side and the hon. members on the
opposite side need to understand that this Province is in a position of
negotiation, and it is irresponsible of the members opposite to be trying to
scuttle a negotiation process for a major deal in this Province that has major
implications for every single resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
really irresponsible for that to continue.
I cannot endorse the motion put forward by the hon. member. I think it is
irresponsible to be seeing that we are looking at, or suggesting that we should
be talking about a new election. It is irresponsible to be suggesting that this
government is not proceeding in the best interests of the Province. As outlined
in the Speech from the Throne, we have one major objective: to have an agreement
that is in the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Opposition House Leader - our motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate today on the
motion of the Member for St. John's East. I don't think I will need the full
fifteen minutes, because it is really a very simple proposition, a
straightforward proposition that has to do with the expectations of the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The question becomes: Where do those expectations come from? Because the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have developed a series of expectations
about Voisey's Bay.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to the opportunity, and I
don't mind the opportunity for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to speak
on it. Allowed within the time frame, we certainly support it, but we did move a
resolution by the Opposition and we agreed on a formula whereby every so many
sessions the New Democratic Party would get an opportunity to present theirs. We
would certainly consent within the time frame. We intended to put up other
speakers, and I think he should give consideration, with leave, to be able to
have an opportunity to speak on it, because they were given a certain number of
periods of time for their resolutions.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is not an Opposition day, and the other
Wednesdays are not government days. They are Private Members' Days. The
tradition of this House is to use them as Opposition days and to move Opposition
motions, but they are not Opposition days and they are not government days. That
is in the Orders of the House of Commons. The Orders of this House is to have
Private Members' Day and any private member can move a motion in this House
any day at all, and anybody can rise to speak on it any day at all. The
tradition, as Your Honour well knows, is that you go from one side of the House
to the other and recognize speakers who wish to speak.
The point of order of the Opposition House Leader is merely taking up time
that other members might want to use in debating this resolution. I think that
point of order is not well taken at all, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to be very brief. I will not take up as much time as the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi did in doing that, and using up time. There was a
precedence that had been established when a resolution is presented here in the
House, and there is an agreed ratio in which the member can present it there. I
was standing to be recognized on the resolution and we would like an opportunity
- it has been done as a precedent before, in which we were permitted to have an
appropriate number of speakers on our resolution within the time frame. If you
want to extend that to allow, I have no problem with him speaking, but we should
not be denied the opportunity to have our number of speakers required on the
resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point or order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: I was not aware that there were any rules or Standing Orders
relevant to the hon. member speaking in the House on a resolution. I was aware
that we had something with the presentation of a resolution, which is a
different thing. This is the hon. member speaking within a resolution. I was not
aware that we had done anything on that.
In the meantime, if the hon. member is concerned, we will certainly concede
from our time, concede to the member our time here, and the hon. member can have
his time. Okay?
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take into consideration the matter raised by
the Opposition House Leader. The Chair is following the practice of alternating
discussion on a private member's resolution and does recognize the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, there was lots of discussion in a Select Committee of this House
on the nature of the rules having to do with private members' business. In
fact, there was a suggestion that we should extend private members' business
the same way the House has been extended from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and that
we would have room for two private members' resolutions per day so that more
private members would have an opportunity to present their individual - not
their party's views, but their individual - views to the House.
We have the Member for St. John's East presenting his motion, a motion that
I am rising to support, I say to the Opposition House Leader.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) change your mind, now.
MR. HARRIS: I am tempted to reconsider my support, but the motion is so
straightforward and so compelling that I cannot do that on something that -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: The new minister misconstrues the position. This is a private
members' motion. The fact that the Opposition House Leader wants to try to
turn it into an Opposition motion is up to him, but it is not; it does not
change the character of the motion. The motion is a private members' motion
and I intend to speak to it.
Mr. Speaker, I ran as a leader in the last provincial election, and the one
before that. I want to say that I know what elections are all about and I know
what happens in the electorate. As I said before I was interrupted by the
Opposition House Leader, there are expectations created and developed in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador about resource development. The person
singularly most responsible for expectations about the Voisey's Bay mineral
development is the former Premier Brian Tobin. He did that in two elections.
MR. SHELLEY: The smelter on wheels was first.
MR. HARRIS: The first election, as the Member for Baie Verte has said,
where he tried to defeat the Member for Baie Verte by having a smelter in Baie
Verte. They wanted to defeat the member for - they actually succeeded in
defeating the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's by suggesting that the
smelter might go in Placentia.
MR. SHELLEY: The smelter on wheels.
MR. HARRIS: The smelter on wheels, it is being referred to.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a political issue for at least two general
elections. The public of this Province has been told, in no uncertain terms,
that what they are entitled to is a smelter and refinery and full processing of
ore.
The Premier stands in this House today and starts to talk about that being an
unrealistic negotiating position. He is now talking about that being an
unrealistic negotiating position, and that therefore he should not go to Inco
and suggest that is not the position; that the position of this government is
that the only deal possible is one that is consistent with the impression, the
promise and the commitment given to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by
Brian Tobin when he ran as Premier and for Premier in February of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, that was a very extensive and expensive campaign. It was a
million dollar campaign run by the former Premier. We saw helicopters flying all
over the Province. We saw buses traversing the Island - two, as a matter of
fact. We only found out afterwards that it was $45,000 worth of helicopter time
donated by one company and two buses donated by another company that provided
that opportunity for the Premier to buzz around the Province.
The message that he gave, and the expectation that he created in this
Province, was very, very clear: that he wanted to be the one to sit down and
negotiate with Inco. He wanted to be the one to sit down nd negotiate with
Lucien Bouchard. Now Lucien Bouchard is gone and Brian Tobin is gone, but Inco
is still there, and the commitment that was sought by the Liberal Party, with
Brian Tobin at the helm, was a commitment to sit down and negotiate with Inco on
the basis that there would not be ore leaving this Province without being
transformed into a finished nickel product. That was the clear commitment; that
was the clear expectation that the people of this Province had.
Mr. Speaker, if the Premier wants to negotiate a tentative deal with Inco, if
he wants to say, "This is the best deal I have." If he can stand out
on the steps, as he did one time before, and say, "I have done my best; I
have gotten the best that I can" - he can do it with tears, if he wants, or
he can do it with pride, and say, "I have done the best I can for
Newfoundland and Labrador." If the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want
this deal, here is an opportunity; support it and vote for it.
There are a lot of questions here. It is not just a one-dimensional question.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been focusing on this issue and
this commitment, but there are a lot of other issues too. It is not just what
level of processing there is going to be. It is going to be: What are the
royalties? What are the benefits? How many jobs are involved? Is the principal
beneficiary of this resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador going to be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people,
or is it going to be the Treasury of Canada? That is an important question that
has to be answered.
It may not be that all of these questions can be solved in the time that this
government wants to negotiate a deal; but if they do, and when they do, and when
they are ready, and when they say, "We think this is a good deal, we think
it is the best deal, we think it is a deal that is in the best interests of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador," then, Mr. Speaker, this resolution
offers them an opportunity to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide
whether they want that deal, and not have the kind of debate, the kind of
discussion and the kind of weaseling of words that we have heard in the last few
days; the kind of "words are important" statement on the one hand and,
on the other hand, using double meanings, using inaccurate meanings, using vague
meanings standing for things that mean nothing.
We can take you back to former Premier Clyde Wells. What was his slogan?
Fairness and balance. Then we heard Brian Tobin. Fairness and Balance, the watch
words of the Wells' Administration. What did it mean? Nothing, Mr. Speaker,
nothing.
Then we had Premier Tobin, full and fair benefits, another statement with no
content. Now, what do we have from this Premier? Full processing. What does it
mean? Well, we will tell you what it means some time down the road.
It is like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. These words mean
exactly what I decide they mean. This is what we have had from this
Administration, from the current Premier, from the previous Premier, and from
the one prior to that. Full processing means just as much and just as little as
full and fair benefits or as fairness and balance. They have no content. This
Premier cannot say that those are the words that are going to define their
mandate. Their mandate was very clear. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador
know what their mandate was, and they know what Premier Tobin convinced them of
back in 1999. They know that the kind of thing that this current Premier is
talking about is not what they voted for and were asked to support and did
support in February of 1999.
This resolution is pretty straightforward. It allows the government and the
Premier to say we are going to sit down with Inco. We are the government. We
have the legal right to sit down and negotiate a deal. But do they have the
right, after having negotiated what they think is the best deal for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, to saddle us with that agreement? Do they have the
moral and political right to saddle us with that agreement without asking the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador what they think?
The traditional way of asking the people of a Province what they think about
a significant, perhaps the most significant, action this government might take,
is to have an election and to seek a mandate for a deal that the people of this
Province have a lot of expectations created about. Those expectations were
created by the people who sit opposite, Mr. Speaker, by the Liberal Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador in the election of 1999. If they are going to change
that, then they have to ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether the
deal that they might negotiate is going to be one that is acceptable to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it contains the elements that the
Premier is talking about, whether it contains other elements, whether the
arrangements for equalization payments or royalties or all of that are
acceptable to the people of this Province, because we are the ones who are going
to have to live with that deal for this generation and the next generation. We
are talking here about a resource that is not renewable. Once it is gone, it is
gone. This is something that deserves a fuller debate, not necessarily in this
House although that is an important part of it, but also to be tested by a
general election.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will keep my comments fairly brief. We do have other speakers who wish to
speak here. There are just a few little points that I want to make. I think the
resolution itself is very straightforward. It says: "WHEREAS the current
administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment that Voisey's Bay nickel
ore would not be shipped from the Province for processing elsewhere; THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must not sign
any agreement involving the shipping of Voisey's Bay nickel ore from this
Province for processing elsewhere unless it first obtains a mandate for such an
arrangement from the people of the Province in a general election."
I want to refer to just a couple -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am just reading a resolution we have every right to
present.
Premier Tobin, in 1999, just after the election stated it. There are two
particular statements here that puts it in perspective. Former Premier Tobin
said: It is our policy to have all of the ore processed in the Province. That is
the policy. That is what we are referring to in this resolution. He said: beyond
the policy to have all of the ore - all means 100 per cent. That is what all
means. If it said most of it, some of it, part of it - he said all of it. If the
Member for Twillingate & Fogo does not understand what all means he should
It went on to say: but beyond that we are not prepared -
AN HON. MEMBER: Wrote a book on it actually (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: You should read all of it if you wrote a book on it. I say,
you should read all of it.
AN HON. MEMBER: You probably paid for it as well.
MR. SULLIVAN: I probably did. All that tax money I have been paying, I
probably did, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: It said: beyond that we are not prepared to discuss any
alternatives or options with Inco or with anybody else till, first of all, Inco
formally moves away from the position that they took earlier in the year and so
on. That is the statement by the Premier articulating the mandate they had in
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they can talk all they like because the
written word speaks for itself.
Here is what the current Premier said back on March 16. If this is the same
as what Premier Tobin said was their mandate, well, I will go back and do a
course in understanding the meaning of words. Here is what Premier Grimes said:
We believe full processing. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that
the equivalent of that total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will
be changed into nickel. That is what he said, the equivalent amount; and whether
or not the business that we are in suggests that every single rock goes out for
processing, is a different issue.
The Premier stated on March 15 in the Legislature in response to a question
from the Leader of the Opposition - we have two statements. One saying all of
the ore for processing is the policy of the Liberal Party. That was their
mandate in 1999, and we have the Premier of the Province today stating that
there is no commitment that we cannot send ore out and try and get the
equivalent back. That is what he said. Also, he indicated in response to a
question in the House on March 15: "I appreciate the opportunity to give an
answer in the Legislature because I have answered that question probably 10,000
times elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition
has chosen not to listen to the answer. I believe people of the Province have
listened to the answer. The short answer is this..." and he went on to say,
"There is no change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to
today." If anybody reads what the Premier said, all of the ore sent out of
Province - reads Premier Grimes' statement and thinks there is no difference
of opinion, I can say they are out to lunch.
I just want to make one other comment on this whole thing, that the Premier
has done irrefutable damage to us in negotiating.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: He is speaking next if you will keep quiet and listen. Give
him an opportunity. He is not going to be like some people when we debate on hot
issues in this House. I saw them scampering out the door before the vote. They
crawled out the door on education and other issues before the vote. Did you
stand up in 1999 at the Liberal Convention and applaud the Premier when he said:
all of the ore is going to be processed here? You sure did, and I could say in
your caucus today the riot act was read. We stood in this House yesterday and
there was no support for the Premier. There wasn't a tapping of desks. There
was no clapping of hands, and today the riot act was read.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: He is kind of excited. There you go, look!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, could we have protection from that yapper over
there? He is under a lot of pressure. I was out in Twillingate a couple of weeks
ago, and he is under a lot of pressure. I am hearing it out there everywhere. If
he doesn't get the plant opened in Twillingate, I am being told, he is
history! He is gone! The Minister of Fisheries is going to be doing everything
in his power, whether it is, guarantees from the taxpayers in the Province,
whatever it is, he is history! Well, the hospital in Fogo; they changed so often
I do not know where he is on that issue. When he is in Seldom he does not
support it in Fogo. When he is in Fogo he does not support it in the middle of
the island. When he is not on the island at all, he doesn't know what he is
doing. That is his stance!
AN HON. MEMBER: The only thing you know about Fogo Island is the chicken
you bought there!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. He
does not know the difference in chicken and Chinese food! He has to get it
straight!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: Don't you go to a Chinese restaurant and ask for Mary
Brown's chicken because you are going to be in deep trouble, I might add.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, he doesn't know. He has a major problem. He is the
new lapdog over there now to replace these other people here to set up their
attack.
I will try to get back to the issue here. These interruptions, these planned
diversions from that caucus lecture this morning - I have to get support in this
Legislature. There was no applause yesterday for the Premier. We have to have a
new vigorous bunch of peop