June 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28


The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Motion 3.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to participate in what is a very significant debate for our Province. A very significant deal for our Province that I think will go down in history as one of the best deals that this Province has ever seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: My colleagues have spoken at length about the benefits of this agreement, and I concur with them. Clearly, there are significant benefits here for all sectors of our population but I want to speak about our most important resource, Mr. Speaker, and that is our children. I want to speak about what this deal means for our children and for their future.

Before I do that, I also want to take an opportunity to congratulate the Premier of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: - because this deal is all about leadership. It is about finding solutions. It is about identifying opportunities. It is about making sure that we do what is right and what is in the best interest of the people that we serve. I congratulate this Premier, Mr. Speaker, a man who has no other agenda but to do what is right and proper for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I also extend congratulations to the committee who worked so hard, so diligently on reaching this agreement. A lot of our civil servants put a lot of time and effort into this and I congratulate each and every one of them, as well as the negotiators on behalf of Inco. I do so under the leadership of the Minister of Mines and Energy because clearly, he worked very hard and tirelessly to make this deal happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this past week I have spoken to hundreds of individuals around this Province about the Voisey's Bay deal. I have spoken with students, I have spoken with parents and I can tell you that I can count on one hand the number of people who have expressed concerns about this particular deal.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I have had a chance to have a discussion with them - when I say on one hand I am serious - when I have had a chance to have a discussion with those people, I have been able to allay their concerns, at least four of the five. One individual, who still had some issue with it, was a young man who is looking for the Tory nomination in the next election to run against me. So, I have a real problem having a serious conversation with him and trying to respond to his questions knowing full well there was another agenda there.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to hundreds of people. In fact, I had the pleasure of being in Marystown last week, last Thursday evening, and spoke to the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Business Development Corporation. I have to say, there were about 100 people there, about 100-110 people there, and to a person - all of those who came up to speak to me about the deal, and I had done the presentation to them on what the deal involved, about the Statement of Principles - they all came up to congratulate the government and to thank the government for moving ahead on this initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: There only message was: Get on with it. Get the deal done. These were individuals who work on a daily basis with the business community. They knew exactly what they were talking about and they knew a good deal when they saw it.

In Placentia, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of being there to accompany the Premier, Mr. Scott Hand, Stewart Gendron and the hon. Member Percy Barrett. I had the pleasure of being with them to talk about the deal and to talk to people after the deal. It was a pleasure to hear the people from Placentia-Argentia area speak to what this deal meant for them, what it meant to the young people. There were young people there who told me they were going to go back to school as a result of this. That was music to my ears because when we talk about doing something to influence our young people and providing opportunities for them, this was good news for them and good news for their parents; and good news for all of us when it entices young people to go back to school because they see an opportunity. I have to say that parents were there coming up to us saying: This bodes well for the future of this area and for our children because now we can see opportunities in our communities.

I have to give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Stewart Gendron, the President of Voisey's Bay Nickel, in fact, encouraged young people to stay in school, to get their education, to recognize that there is an opportunity here for them but you have to be qualified in terms to access the jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Principle of Adjacency, which is very important in this Statement of Principles, will also bode well for the young people in our Province, particularly in the Placentia-Argentia area, and certainly in Labrador. That is very important because young people want to stay in this Province. They want to find employment opportunities here and they want to find them in their own areas if they can. They are quite willing to move if it means an opportunity for employment, but I have to say that from the people I have spoken with, this for them means that they can live in their own communities and not have to travel back and forth.

To have a company like Inco, a solid Canadian company, 100 years in operation, bodes well for the future of this Province and certainly for the young people of our Province. Inco will require engineers, Mr. Speaker. Inco will require tradespeople, people in the construction industry. Inco will require people who are in mineral technology and other fields. In fact, there are people in our Province right now who are trained as mineral technologists, who cannot find employment, and I am sure they are looking forward to this as well. Talk to the ones who are leaving the Province because they cannot find employment opportunities and you will clearly hear them say: Get on with the deal.

Some people say we should leave the ore in the ground until we get the perfect deal. Well, I have yet to see a perfect deal on any front, clearly anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, you work with what you have; you get the best deal that you can for the people you represent. I have every confidence that the negotiating team, on behalf of the people of the Province, have done just that.

Will there be jobs for everyone, Mr. Speaker? Obviously not. We are not believing that this is a panacea. We are not believing that we can create employment for everyone as a result of this deal. We do know that those people who prepare themselves to work in this industry and look at this industry as one of the future where they are involving new technology, that for those who prepare themselves and get the appropriate training, there will indeed be opportunities for them.

There will also be jobs for the many men and women in our Province who are engaged in the construction industry. Just some of the numbers, Mr. Speaker, if we look at construction that is going to take place in Labrador alone, we are talking 550 jobs at peak construction. Look at Argentia. We are talking 300 jobs at peak construction, at the demonstration plant, and we are talking 1,000 jobs at peak construction for the commercial plant. So clearly there are jobs there for our young people, but as well for other people in our Province, people who have left our Province and who want to come home to work. There are all kinds of opportunities here.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? It is very difficulty for government because, no matter what you do, we cannot win. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. We have been trying to revitalized rural Newfoundland and this would provide an opportunity to do just that. We are being constantly harangued by the Opposition saying, you are not doing enough to revitalize rural Newfoundland. You are being accused of not doing enough. You are being accused of not putting enough programs in place; and when we do, this is the kind of response that we get, that it is not good enough.

Well, we have to do what we feel is right. Here is a deal that will help to address the concerns of rural Newfoundlanders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We found a deal that will help people in the Placentia-Argentia area. We found a deal that will help people in Labrador, but we have a deal that will help people in all parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I was in Marystown last week, as well as spending a considerable amount of time in my own district. I can tell you that the relationship that exists between Peter Kiewit and the Innu, a long-standing relationship, bodes well for the future of the new owners and the people of the Marystown Shipyard. Frank Smith, the man responsible for running Peter Kiewit, or Acker Kiewit in this Province, was there and spoke to the benefits, if they are competitive, that may accrue to the people of the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, those who are critical of our efforts, those who are criticizing what we are doing in terms of putting a deal in place, are they really interested in seeing rural Newfoundland revitalized or just in playing politics with this? Because, clearly, here is a deal that is doing the best that can possibly be done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not seeing the support that should come from the Opposition with respect to this deal.

I want to get back to our students and the importance of preparing our young people for career prospects. I want to pay tribute to the teachers in our Province and to our guidance counsellors who work with our children to try and ensure that they are prepared to go into post-secondary education and then on into the workforce. It is not an easy job, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say that teachers probably have the most important job in the world because they get a chance to influence the minds of our very young people. I would say they spend more time with our children, next to their parents, than anyone else in the Province. They work very had to make sure that they are indeed prepared to go into the workforce.

In addition to other career possibilities, our students can now consider a job in the mining industry, in the new technology that is being offered, knowing that upon graduation there will be very real opportunities for them. That is always an issue for our young people, not quite knowing where to go, what to study, and relying on others like their teachers, like those in the business field, to mentor them, to give them some idea of what they can expect in terms of job prospects.

I think the fact that Inco is here, Inco's presence in this Province now gives them another avenue to pursue. For that, I am very grateful to Inco because it means, again, more job opportunities for our very young people, and something that they can aspire to as they get their education.

It is important that our students have every opportunity to prepare themselves for the future, and when I talk about preparing our students, we have to start with the very young, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many of your are familiar with the research by Dr. Fraser Mustard, who says we must start preparing our children at a very young age, recognizing it is between the ages of zero and three when they have the greatest ability to absorb information.

We need to start preparing our very young to prepare them to build self-confidence, to build self-esteem so that when they are in the position to find employment, when they graduate from school, they have that determination to succeed, and they will have that only if we have done our jobs in the education system to prepare them for the future.

A number of ways that we do that is working with our students and making sure that we build that self-confidence. One way, of course, is by using a locally-made product called The Real Game. I do not know how many of you are familiar with that, but it is a wonderful product designed by Bill Barry, a former teacher and now a local entrepreneur. That product is a series that starts in Grade 3 and goes through to Grade 12 and talks about the importance of building self-confidence, self-esteem, about decision-making process, about team work, and looks at career opportunities. I am sure that, along with The Real Game, a locally-made product of which we can all be proud, that our teachers will be looking now, and our guidance counsellors, to other opportunities to talk to our children about opportunities in the new mining industry, new in terms of the new technology that will be utilized with Inco's new plant in Argentia.

Another avenue, Mr. Speaker, that is used to build confidence and introduce our students to different career possibilities is the Techsploration program. This, Mr. Speaker, is a program directed at introducing young women to non-traditional jobs for women. It is an excellent program, a program I had the pleasure of attending the launch of and as well the closing ceremony. It is a program that is sponsored by women in resource development. It is financially sponsored by Exxon Mobil to the tune of $85,000. This is the inaugural year for the Techsploration program in the Province and students who were involved in this particular program were very enthusiastic about it and at the conclusion of the program had really identified opportunities that they could consider career prospects for them upon graduation, if they follow a particular curriculum.

I have to congratulate the companies that has been involved in this particular Techsploration program: the Hibernia Management Development Corporation; xwave; Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd.; Kruger Helicopters; Control and Equipment Limited; BAE-Newplan Group Limited; the Offshore Safety and Survival Centre of the Marine Institute, and I know, with Inco's presence in the Province, that in fact Inco will be only too happy to be a part of this wonderful program, as I am sure it will continue next year.

Another program of interest to young women, and you will notice that I am focusing on young women because I think it is important that the young women in our Province and the young girls who are coming up through our education system look at non-traditional jobs. Of course, for women to be involved in the mining industry is, I would say, a non-traditional job for women and I would encourage them to consider opportunities in the mining industry.

Another program of interest to young women is Women in IT. This is sponsored by the Canadian Information Processing Society and it was sponsored here by the Viking Branch, the local branch. They held a forum for Grade 9 female students at which my colleague, the hon. Sandra Kelly, Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education, and I attended to speak with them and encourage them to consider IT as a viable career choice. These young women can now look forward to having another company to target for jobs and that, of course, is Inco.

When you look at the opportunities that are there now for our young people, the opportunities for them to pursue as a result of Inco's presence in this Province, I think we can only look at this agreement and say this is indeed a good deal because of what it means for the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I go back to talking about our most important resource as being our young people, and the need for all of us - opposition, government, all of us - to really focus our thoughts on what is important for them and help us to go forward and what we need to do to ensure that they have a successful and productive future.

Jobs such as geological exploration and mineral technology come to mind immediately as jobs that our young people will be able to pursue as a result of Inco's presence in this Province. Today, there are people in our Province trained in both of these fields and looking for work. I am confident that when those people are able to avail of jobs they will look at this deal and say, yes, it is good to have Inco here and they will welcome them.

We also have programs like Junior Achievement. We have the Enterprise Program in our school system. Again, these programs are there to mentor young people to have them consider entrepreneurship. Again, for those young people who want to look at jobs, and look at jobs themselves in terms of hiring other people, there are all kinds of possibilities here in terms of putting in place a business that will enable them to service companies like Inco.

In my district, people look at the opportunities that come with Inco and they say to me: We need the jobs. We know that there are all kinds of issues being talked about but, for us, we need employment. We have every confidence that this government will do what is right for them in making sure that this happens.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting with my constituents when I vote for this deal. They have told me that it is the right thing to do. It is right to do because, for them, the possibility exists of jobs both directly and indirectly. There are small businesses which will benefit from this deal in my district. Yes, Voisey's Bay, in terms of the number of jobs that we will see happen in our Province, will accrue mainly in Placentia- Argentia and in Labrador. I have to tell you that, from my perspective, the people in my district are telling me about spinoff opportunities that will accrue to them. That, for me, is very positive. I think if we look at small business, we all know that small business is, indeed, the backbone of this Province. It is in small businesses where we find sustaining jobs, and it is those small businesses that will benefit from having corporations like Inco among us. As I said before, to have a Canadian company, 100 years in operation, that is doing very well around the world, speaks volumes for the company and for what it can mean for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The business relationship again, as I say, between Peter Kiewit and the Innu bodes well for my district. Having listened to Mr. Frank Smith, I am confident that what he has to say is something that we have all taken to heart, recognizing again that there are opportunities here for all of us if we put our minds to it and recognize this as a deal for what it is, a deal that will benefit the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the areas of Argentia-Placentia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we can look at any deal and say: Well, what about this and what about that? You know, what if? Well, nothing is perfect, but I think we have to be realistic, we have to work with what we have been given and recognize that we worked very hard to achieve the benefits that are there for us in this deal. People have said to me: I will take the deal. I believe in your judgement on this one. You have explained it to me and nobody has been strong-armed to do anything, nobody has been forced into doing anything. I have considered this deal. I have looked at the Statement of Principles. I have sought advice. We have gone through the deal as a government, as a caucus, and we are confident that what is before us is the best deal that this Province could get for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS FOOTE: I will vote for this, Mr. Speaker, and I will vote for it on behalf of my constituents because to do otherwise would be to do a disservice to them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in my place to speak to the resolution brought forth by this government seeking ratification of the Statement of Principles regarding the Voisey's Bay project.

As a Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne I am proud to stand today to represent the interests of the people in this great district. I do not have to remind this House of the work ethic of these people in my district, and certainly their forebearers. Many of the projects in this Province, this country, and indeed abroad, over the last century have involved workers from my district, indeed throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Twin Towers of New York, the SkyDome of Toronto, the Churchill Falls, all of these projects and many more, my workers in my district have been a great part of. They have been ready now for six long years to join with other workers of this Province to turn this project into reality, to get the greatest return on this non-renewal, valuable resource. This project, I say to the members opposite, is important to the people I represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Given, Mr. Speaker, the limited time to poll their opinion on this current debate, I have received a variety of responses, from total acceptance to total rejection, from cautious optimism to downright pessimism, from absolute elation to absolute despair. The only consensus, I say, Mr. Speaker, the only clear direction for me, to gauge the responses I receive and act responsibly, is to hold this government accountable, to listen to the debate and to vote according to my conscience.

Now, this debate, Mr. Speaker, I assume is intended to give members of this hon. House the opportunity to voice their position on the document, to express their degree of satisfaction with the government's ability to get the maximum benefits for this Province, and to say either yeah or nay to the Statement of Principles. For me, I say, Mr. Speaker, my principles would be compromised if I were to accept this agreement as the best deal for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, it is obvious that if you get up and don't say what the people opposite want to hear, they want to interrupt. I sat here for the last two days, I say to the members over there, and I listened to you selling hope. I am trying to sell reality this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: So I say, Mr. Speaker, to members opposite, give me the courtesy of taking the few minutes that I have to try and get across the points that I want to get across, so that people of this Province can understand what is going on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the members opposite, that my position has not changed. In order, I say to the Premier, to get the maximum benefits for the people of this Province, there were a number of principles that had to be followed. These are not my principles, these are the principles of not only this party but of other parties as well. The principles were, Mr. Speaker, no ore was to be shipped from the Province unless it was refined to a finished nickel product. The mine, the concentrator, the smelter at that time - the processor now, I guess - had to be developed simultaneously to prevent the ore from leaving unprocessed. Mining would start as a blended operation, with extraction from the ovoid and underground in the Labrador section.

In the 1999 election, Mr. Speaker, the three political parties represented in this Province went to the people of this Province on a commitment, and I will repeat that, on a commitment. Three parties, a commitment that no nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay would be sent out of the Province for processing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Now that was the commitment, I say. All of the nickel concentrate would stay right here in this Province to be fully processed to a finished nickel product in order to create maximum employment, maximum benefits, maximum opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the firm position I took as a candidate in that election in Harbour Main-Whitbourne. This is the commitment that I made to the people that I was elected to represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: This government, these members across, are asking me to stand and break that commitment to my constituents, and I am not having any part of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, that despite what the government's ads and brochure say, this is not about meeting a commitment of this government, this is about breaking a commitment by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the past week the extensive and expensive advertising campaign by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a PR campaign, is what they say. I say: Yes, it is a PR campaign, Mr. Premier, it is a political re-election campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, trying desperately to convince the people of this Province that this is the best deal possible; that the Premier and the government of this Province have met their commitment, the commitment that I just referred to, the commitment that they have not kept but they have broken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: You speak about commitment. Mr. Speaker, when you speak about commitment you have to speak about trust because trust is what this is all about. That is what Statements of Principles are all about. They are revolving around trust.

You tell me how I can sell this to the residents of Chapel's Cove, to the residents of Avondale who sucked down arsenic laced water for six months while this government sat on the results. Now, is that trust? That is what I am asked to sell to my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: To get to the Statement of Principles, and we have to get to the Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker. I asked myself - and I sat pretty silently, as you will agree, and I have listened to both sides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I know I have, pretty silently, there are a couple of times that I have blurted out but I have been pretty silent.

Members on this side know that I have weighed up this, that I have entered into discussions, that I have listened, but now it is my time to speak. I say to you, I have been looking at the Statement of Principles and is there anything there that can make me break my commitment to the people who elected me? I have to say that I have looked, I have looked, and I have looked, but there is nothing. There is nothing there that will convince me that I should break my commitment.

The biggest loophole in all of this -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) as a Liberal.

MR. HEDDERSON: You wished! You wished I had to go around as a Liberal but certainly not. I can tell you one other thing, Mr. Premier, I am not going around.

The biggest loophole in all of this is the fact that this document that I have been asked to vote on, by its own admission, does not create any legal binding rights or obligations. Not one of the promises -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I didn't hear that.

Not one of the promises in this document, Mr. Speaker, to build a refinery, to ship nickel back, not one of these promises is a legal binding obligation because it says right here in this document that nothing in this document creates a legal binding obligation. Is this a basis for me to break a commitment I made to the people of my district to keep the ore in this Province for processing? No, I say to the members opposite, it is not.

Our parties made that commitment in 1999 for three reasons. Number one, we, as a Province, are sick of watching our raw resources shipped away on empty promises that we will benefit later because later never ever seems to come. Number two, because there is absolutely no reason why one of the richest ovoid deposits on the planet, a resource worth $30 million, $40 million, $50 million has to shipped away to make a project feasible. Number three, because we have already heard from Inco that they are prepared to finance a mine and mill/concentrator smelter refinery in this Province. They knew what they had when they paid $4.3 billion to get their hands on it.

Besides the export of ore, Mr. Speaker, there are two other aspects of this deal that make me very wary that we have been sold, once again, down the garden path. The first I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is the high-grade. Inco's intention is to scrape the cream off the top of this resource by scooping up the rich surface ovoid first and then deciding on the underground later.

Paragraph 19, of the Statement of Principles, says: underground mine development is subject to completion of a successful underground exploration program. Inco, Mr. Speaker, already know that the underground contains a great deal of ore but it is far more expensive to get at that ore than it is to scoop up the ovoid from an open pit. That is why we have always argued that Inco should be obligated to do the same thing, both at the same time, so that the ovoid helps pay for the underground and assures the underground resource is indeed developed.

I have difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in placing my trust in a company, in a government, that says it will take the ovoid now and make a decision on the underground later. Your commitment, the government's commitment, should have been to demand the blending mining as a condition of the mining lease. Why is this government afraid to demand? Or why was it, I should say, because it is a done deal, I am told. Why was this government afraid to demand blended mining in order to guarantee an underground mine and to maximize long-term benefits? Mr. Speaker, had Inco perhaps threatened that unless there were major concessions, such as this, that there would not be a deal? Because this is certainly the Province's non-renewable resource, we are the stewards, we should be setting the conditions not Inco.

The second aspect of this deal that makes me very wary - again, we are getting less benefits than we should - is Inco's desire to stagger the start of the mine and the start of the hydromet refinery that we are told we are getting. Apparently Inco has told the government that it is 97 per cent certain that hydromet will work on Voisey's Bay. I think one of the speakers last night indicated that there was supposedly a successful operation out in Saskatchewan. I do not know the truth of that.

If they are pretty certain, 97 per cent, then why are they hedging their bets, Mr. Speaker, by starting the refinery in 2011, 2012, five or six years or more after they have started to mine? By that time half, or more, of the ovoid will be gone to Sudbury or Thompson without any refinery ever having created a single refining job in this Province. If they are 97 per cent certain hydromet will work, and will be far cheaper than conventional refining, then why don't they agree to start the mine and the refinery simultaneously? This could have been arranged. Construct the demonstrate plant - and, like you said, it has been delayed two years. Why not construct it or begin to construct it now? Get the sample of the ore even before the mill and concentrator are built. I understand, for the demonstration plant, there is not a lot of ore that is required. Concentrate on the small sample at the existing mill, send the concentrate to Argentia, start the perfecting of the hydromet process, and once it is perfected, then prepare to operate the mill and concentrator at Voisey's Bay and the refinery at Argentia. No concentrate would ever need to be sent to Sudbury or Thompson. It will all go to Newfoundland and Labrador.

If Inco is truly 97 per cent sure that hydromet will work, and will be the cheapest way to process this ore, why aren't they fighting for that option? Their behaviour gives me, again, concern. Number one, that this has everything to do with keeping Sudbury and Thompson going because they need our concentrate to save their jobs. Number two, they are not 97 per cent certain that hydromet will work or that they will ever have to build a plant at Argentia. That is why paragraph 22 talks about a nickel matte facility or other facility not yet defined.

There are clauses in this deal that allow Inco to export every single ounce of concentrate from Voisey's Bay before a single refining job is created at Argentia. This gives me great concern, Mr. Speaker. I encourage every single person in the Province to read -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to you Premier, that I have been sitting here taking notes for the last couple of days and this is what I have to offer. Now, if you cannot accept that, that is your problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to get back to what I was saying before I was interrupted. Meanwhile, I say to you, that I would encourage every person in the Province to read Schedule A in this document because that is the nightmare clause. I move on.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on in talking about - the guarantees that I look for in this agreement of Principles - and I do not find too many guarantees but I did find four guarantees. These are the four guarantees that basically are outlined, or I would like to outline for the House. The only things guaranteed in this document is: One, a mine will begin removing the ore.

Number two, the guarantee that ore will be shipped to Ontario and Manitoba for processing, perhaps for the life of the project. Number three, that taxpayers of Canada will finance a pilot plant in Sudbury. Number four, that Inco will receive a significant break on taxes.

Everything else, Mr. Speaker, is conditional. Inco has clearly shown to me, to the Province, and indeed the world, that they have superior negotiating skills against this particular government. They have played hardball and the government has caved in on their principles, on their commitment, on our trust. It is as simply as that. They have arm-twisted the government into one of the worst deals that I can see.

Inco certainly has seen this, perhaps, as an easy ride for them. They were in a position where they were in the driver's seat. I will leave on that point, Mr. Speaker. We thought, with the commitment that this government had given in 1999, that we were in the driver's seat. We now find ourselves in the back seat; and, if we are in the back seat, I don't have to tell you what kind of influence we might have in making sure that this deal goes through. Inco is in the driver's seat and certainly we, in the back seat, cannot prevent them from taking the off-ramps, the exists, that are so prevalent in this particular deal. What we need is someone who is capable of holding this company to the principles that we set down in the election of 1999. The last thing we need is a deal such as this, that allows Inco to basically take our resource and do as they please with it.

I finish off, Mr. Speaker, in saying that it was certainly a privilege to be given the opportunity to rise today, but, in looking at it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am especially pleased to stand today, on the first anniversary of my election to the hon. House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - and to represent the people of the great District of Port de Grave and give my views during this historic debate on the Voisey's Bay project.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition. This is his first anniversary as well, and I feel sorry for him that he cannot stand today and be on a more positive note with this major project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2002, the people of this Province heard the announcement that a Statement of Principles between the Province and Inco had been signed to develop the Voisey's Bay project, a project that will create jobs and boost economic activity in Argentia, as well as in Labrador, and through that, economic spinoffs throughout the Province. It is a project development that will provide the maximum benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a culmination of striking the balance of many people to work together to see this world-class project become a reality with a company that has been in this field for 100 years.

Now, some naysayers have said that this is a giveaway of our resource similar to that of Churchill Falls many years ago. Mr. Speaker, this agreement should not be judged on mistakes of the past, but on the guarantees that are enshrined in the Statement of Principles to ensure maximum benefit for our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have released the Statement of Principles to the public to gauge their views on this historic agreement. I have attended public meetings in my district and I was sad to hear the individual who has received the Tory nomination again this time around, when he called it a Liberal road show. I was so pleased to see him there, and he was one of the last five or six people to leave the building, to see that possibly he was going to jump on the bandwagon, because there is still time for him to do that.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit to Inco for taking the time to understand our Province, to understand our desires and our people's vision for prosperity. They have shown an understanding of our law which was made in 1995, that companies who want to come to this Province and work with our resources, must work with them 100 per cent all the way through. We demanded processing, a finished product in the Province, and that is the deal that we have. We also have a guarantee that if by chance the experimental hydromet process does not work, a mining facility will still be constructed at Argentia creating jobs. We have a guarantee that no concentrate will be shipped until the experimental hydromet facility is constructed in Argentia. Inco is spending $850 million before the resource goes anywhere. We have a guarantee that the concentrate that is shipped out will be replaced.

I want to get back to my hon. friend from Bonavista South, when he stood in his place here last evening and said that the Member for Port de Grave stated very clearly that he would be satisfied if all the ore were shipped out. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct that. My comments were: I know ore has to be shipped out. I know ore will be coming back, but even if the ore that is being shipped out for the five years at the beginning of this project never, ever came back, I would be able to fight for this proposal. Because, when I look at a thirty to seventy-five year facility in Argentia, I think that is a lot to deal with.

I want to say to him also, that the people on this side have not been dictated to. There are none of us over here with casts on our arms, where our arms were twisted to go along and agree with this proposal.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member from the Straits last evening speaking against this proposal, but I also read last week in one of his local papers where the construction people in his area were looking forward with great joy to be able to get jobs at Voisey's Bay. Yet, he can come in this House, stand and go against it.

I cannot believe that all those members on the opposite side can stand in their places day after day, presenting petitions, looking for money for roads, water and sewer, and still they cannot see the prosperity that will come with this project. They stand in their places, Mr. Speaker, and they complain about out-migration. I know a former Premier said one time that every mother's son would come home. We know that is not going to happen, but I can guarantee him, some mother's son will come home with this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We are seeing jobs, Mr. Speaker, for Inuit and Innu of Labrador, for Labradorians and the residents in Argentia and all around this Province. We also have an agreement in this Statement of Principles called the Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreement that could see spinoff work of Voisey's Bay go to local companies, manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies. The Industrial Benefits Agreement should be the most important part of the Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker. Our local companies will have an excellent chance to play an important role in the development of Voisey's Bay. It shows, again, the commitment Inco has made in getting this historic project underway.

This Statement of Principles shows that this Province will bring maximum benefits to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and will revitalize the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, one of the foundations of this agreement that I take so much pride in is the benefit that the Innu and Inuit people will receive. This agreement will give our Aboriginal people more than just jobs and a paycheque. This agreement will give our Aboriginal people hope. We have all witnessed, over the past number of years, the pain and suffering that our Aboriginal people have endured. I am proud to support an agreement that recognizes the contributions of the Inuit and Innu people of Labrador to the success of this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to have a part in an agreement that shows respect and admiration for the culture of our Aboriginal people, and to have a part in an agreement that will help to address the changes and pain that our Aboriginal people have had to endure over the past number of years. I am proud to be a part of an agreement that will see our friends in Labrador take control of their own destiny and take their rightful place in Newfoundland and Labrador society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I think, Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, yesterday, when he stood in his place and said: Who will lose?

I say to my hon. colleagues across the way, that when they stand and vote against this proposal, they are voting against the Aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I cannot help but go back to a short period of time when the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and referred to a visit in Placentia-St. Mary's district with the hon. member, when he spoke to graduates in one of the high schools and asked how many of them thought they would be able to get a job in Newfoundland, or have to leave the Province? He said that all but two of them put their hands up, that they would have to go outside of this Province. Here we have the same leader today, saying that this is a bad deal. So, he is condoning to those young people: Yes, pack your bags and go outside of the Province. Prosperity is here, but we do not want any part of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The facility at Argentia, Mr. Speaker, will operate many years beyond the thirty years of the life of Voisey's Bay, possibly seventy-five to 100 years. This facility will operate long after - and I repeat this - this facility will operate long after Sudbury and Thompson facilities have closed. I will say why, Mr. Speaker. I will explain why.

Argentia is on a tidewater. The most economical way to move is by bulk. We will have the most modern, cost-effective plant in the world, operated and run by a stable and well-trained labour force. This facility will operate, Mr. Speaker, many years into the future and provide employment to our people for many years to come.

This project, I say, Mr. Speaker, is good for Corner Brook, this project is good for St. John's, and I want to say to my hon. friend for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, this project is good for his and mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to the same economic spinoff that our area saw from the Bull Arm site. The impact of this agreement on our area will be nothing but tremendous. I know there are hundreds of construction people in my district, as well as in the Harbour Main area, people who have to travel outside this Province every year looking for work, and they are going to be very pleased - maybe not all of them - that a lot of them will be able to stay home and find employment, possibly for the next twenty-five to thirty years.

I say to my hon. friend for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - he said that he was voting with his conscience. I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of that great district, I guess the Leader of the Opposition got to his conscience and not his voters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have acted in their interests by having a finished nickel product for the Province. We have met our commitment to them, unlike other deals of the past. I say to my hon. friend for Ferryland, I listened to you, Sir, for twelve hours unlimited and was bored; I ask for your condonation for twenty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I say, twelve hours, Sir, of nothing. At least I will get ten out of my twenty with something good in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We have achieved, Mr. Speaker, maximum benefit for the people of the Province, and the Innu and Inuit of Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't learn anything.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We are laying the groundwork, Mr. Speaker, for a development that will not only be important for the Province, but will be internationally significant.

Most importantly, the reason I stand in support of this project today is that we have given some hope to those who will benefit the most from this development, and that is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as I travel through my district and other areas, the people of this Province are sick and tired of the Opposition saying that this government is misleading, we are mismanaging, we are stealing, we are giving away. The people of this Province have spoken in the poll that was released last week, when 89 per cent of them agreed with this proposal. I can't believe that the hon. members opposite, none of them could find any support in their districts. However, when those who took part in that poll admitted that they were Tory supporters, seventy some odd percent of them agreed with the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I credit Premier Grimes and Minister Matthews, the negotiating team and Inco, for striking the balance and working together to get the project underway, so that our people will benefit for many years to come.

I have but two questions for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I hope he is listening. I have two questions for him. If he were Premier tomorrow, would he terminate this deal? Would he take away the hope of this 89 per cent of the people in this Province? I think I know the answer to that, it is yes.

In closing, I want to use a quote that I heard on one of the Open Line Shows this past week, where it said: Never in the history of this Province, never have so few known so much and so many known so little. Mr. Speaker, I stand today - and I think the hon. Member for Bonavista South said last evening that I was the only one on this side of the House who did not stand shoulder to shoulder about the one spoonful deal, but I want to say to him and all his colleagues and the people around this Province, that I am proud today to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people on this side because not one spoonful will be leaving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this deal and to say that I will be supporting it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to have a few words on the Voisey's Bay resolution. I will start off with the consultation process. It did not serve my district very well. The opportunity to get back from St. John's, back into the district, and to travel through the district was next to impossible. I have thirty-three communities that are two-and-a-half hours apart. To get out there and at least visit your councils, which I thought would have been a great idea to get out there and talk to the people in the councils, at least the town clerks and what not, so that they knew there was another side to this story. They were there, they had information as to what was happening in the deal, although that information was not being in great demand.

I think there was one person who had picked up information at one council that I did manage to get to, and that was about it - that I have known of the Statement of Principles that were passed out. However, I did not get to them, only about a couple of my councils. That is very unfortunate because as I was there - I had an opportunity to talk with those people and say that there was another point of view out there and they were very interested to hear what that other point of view was. So, that left me with only an opportunity to go out there and spend my time in restaurants and garages and whatnot; back and forth in my district because it takes me a day to drive down through, if you are going to have an opportunity like that, and then a day back. As my district goes, it is in three major sections. There is the north, central, and south. Then I had to leave the next day and go back down into the central part to get in - and still maintain in my home.

As I went through this, many people were out there. Some of them thought it was great because of the job opportunities that were out there; and God knows, we need jobs on the Northern Peninsula. We have absolutely none; but as you talk about the possibilities in jobs and whatnot, some of the points that I touched on, they saw that those job opportunities weren't there (inaudible) a couple of the reasons I will go through later - as I talked, people had changed, but as in the process that goes there - and I suppose what is worth noting is that one of the places that I did get more optimism about the jobs, and that was around garages and whatnot with the construction companies. Those people saw it and they understood the mining industry or they thought the possibilities and the world would come open, but many other people out there that I would meet in restaurants and whatnot, did not see the opportunity that would affect the District of St. Barbe.

Of the people I met as well, there was a couple I think that went on - and it was reflected on the Open Line so many times - was that they did not understand the role of the Opposition. They thought that maybe we were putting our nose into something that really was not our business and that we should just get away from here because this deal was out there and that it should not be scrutinized or should not be looked at very closely by an Opposition or anybody. It is like you kind of hold your breath I think. We have been up on the Northern Peninsula holding our breath so damn long we do not know when we are going to ever breathe again. Opportunities have come and gone on the Northern Peninsula for us and people feel this very deeply.

Although, when you stop and talk about what happens in a Statement of Principles and you sit around and talk about the opportunities we have. One of the things I know in my area, the northern part of the District of St. Barbe but up in our area, the airport of St. Anthony - it has been talked about so many times, as I volunteered, how important the airport of St. Anthony would be for this area, because when Voisey's Bay came online that we would be right there, we would be in there, that those jobs would be ours as much as anybody. Well, today when I was out there and started talking to those people, they realized that they were not included. They never had an opportunity to get those jobs. They had to be in Labrador. Any family who was going to take advantage of what is happening in Voisey's Bay would have to move from a place like Bird Cove or Port au Choix, and move to Goose Bay or Labrador West in order to be on an even par. They would still have to move their families, whether it was to Labrador or if they were going to go to Fort McMurray. So they still had to move their families.

When the council in Port Saunders or Bird Cove said this was an opportunity for us - well there is no tax base here when someone has to move out. That is what we are fighting now, the people that are moving out of here. Those councils wanted those people to stay. They thought Voisey's Bay was (inaudible) but as they understood now, this is no deal for those communities, no opportunity. The airport there has become - as I said, that was our opportunity, that was our connection to the world. We fought long and hard to keep the St. Anthony Airport open, but unfortunately for Voisey's Bay, it does not mean anything to us.

The royalties; when you go out there and you start talking about the royalties. As you know, on the Northern Peninsula there are many needs. We have been stretched to the limit. Our infrastructure has gone to pieces. When you talk about pavement, you talk about wharves, you talk about water and sewer, all those things are gone and we talk about royalties. I think it was in the back of our minds that when Voisey's Bay came online that it would help with some of those things. We thought that royalties would not be $500,000 a year or less. We thought that the royalties there would be significant, that it would be an opportunity where new programs would come on because of Voisey's Bay. That is how the people on the Northern Peninsula thought. Today, they think very differently from that. When you sit down and think about $500,000 and what it can buy - as in a nurse or teacher or whatever that it would bring in. I suppose, one of the ones that we talked about so much was pavement.

We have invested so much into tourism on the Northern Peninsula and we are going to be a bunch of isolated communities out there because the road will not be sufficient for anybody, from a tourism point of view, to come in and visit us. That opportunity just will not ever fulfill its dream because of the infrastructure, such as the roads, the water and sewer - where you have communities that have sewer running through the ditches. That is not why people want to leave New York, to come to see in rural Newfoundland. It is just not what is there. The royalties, I think, from this project was something that people had sort of waited, it was sort of that hope, that dream, that the day would come when something like Voisey's Bay would come and that would be fulfilled to some degree. Not all of it, but it would play a significant part, that we would turn the corner.

I suppose the other point - that you could stand around and talk - is the ore coming back? I think, when you talk about the ore coming back on the Northern Peninsula, or the people I have talked to, it was like a knowing smile came across their faces. It was like, what are you doing? You are talking about ore coming back.

If this ore has to leave, nobody believes this ore is coming back, not for a minute, not the people I talked to. It is sort of like how you would stand back and have that knowing smile and then talk about something that is a little bit funny in this, because now this is entertaining versus talking about the reality of what is going to happen in this deal.

Then it goes on as well, I suppose. When I looked at the document, I talked about what can happen or what can possibly happen in Newfoundland - in this part in section 22 that says, other facility. So you get back and look at a hydromet, you look at a nickel matte, and then, other facility. So it seems that the road is paved there for something unusual to happen in Argentia so that maybe there will not be any smelting at all, or any refining in Argentia in a commercial stage. Maybe that just will not happen, because, if you were to go ahead, I suppose, to 2009, if Inco was going to say, "I am not going to process anything here in Argentia", what is the government of the day going to do? One of the things they will point back at is: You must have been thinking some odd to be thinking, back in 2002, that you were going to ship ore from Voisey's Bay to Sudbury and ship it back to Argentia, and that is going to be economically feasible. I think there are people going to criticize that, rightfully so, and put that on the table.

When you sit and talk about those points, those points were brought home to people. When you finished talking about it, you knew those people were not in favour of this deal. They want a deal that was good. They have waited a long time. They have waited six years for something like this to happen, and I do not think they were willing to give up then just to go ahead and have this deal go, and have those weaknesses or those non-starters in this deal.

I have talked about it. If you were to go ahead to 2009 and see the circumstances that would unfold, you would have to realize where the players are all lined up. You have Inco lined up. If they had their choice, there would be no Argentia. They would ship it to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba. There would be no doubt about that.

I think, if Ottawa was in there and they had their choice, they would have Inco ship their ore to Sudbury and Thompson. If you were to look at the fishery, and how much significance they put on the fishery as a resource that we have, that we all rely on, Ottawa just does not seem to stand and back us when we need to have this resource benefit us. I think they would probably look at Voisey's Bay as a national resource that goes out of there, and the support and industry that is already out there, I think, would be their priority.

When you think about it, in 2009, if it ever comes to a worst-case scenario, I do not think we are going to be looking at a legal argument that is going to put this forward. I think it will be a political argument that will rule the day. Because, if there were no political arguments, I do not think the exemptions orders that we have before us today would be in it. They would not be included, if we were going to rule by the law of the land. That is why we take the law of the land and put it to one side when the political climate is right to do that.

If we were to, in 2009, have a debate of the realities of that, there is nothing going to come into Argentia, and that, to me, from what I see in the document, is possible. There is nothing going to come in there.

You have two parts to this project. One part is in Labrador and the other part is in Argentia. So, to stop Inco from not abiding by what they have agreed to today, we are going to have to shut down the mine, because we can stop them from exporting our ore, and everybody agrees with that legally.

You have to realize what is going to be happening there today. You are going to have 400 people who are going to be unemployed in Labrador, who have just started working, have been working for two years. There will be new businesses, and businesses that will expand on the assumption - they will take out fifteen- and twenty-year mortgages to go out there. Now this business community is booming, and we are talking about shutting this down now.

Goose Bay and Labrador City, they are doing fine because this new expanded opportunity is out there, all kinds of new people moving into town. You cannot fly out of St. Anthony and get into the job site, but you can fly out of Goose Bay, so those towns are expanding and this economy is coming along just fine.

You also have another player, the City of St. John's. I think, with any and all projects that happen in this Province, they get a fair slice of that pie, so I don't think they are going to be that enthused about shutting down, as well.

Then, of course, place it with Ottawa, their support. Maybe at the time you may have a situation where you have Ottawa coming back with a bag with a little bit of goodies in it, trying to say: We didn't really size this deal up well back in 2002. I think we have to look at it a little bit differently. Maybe we can go to a different project, and kind of detatch us from where we have been.

When you look at the possibilities there, to me, I see how it can happen. When I read that document, and I see it, and I listen to what all the people have had to say about this particular deal, there were ones that are very troublesome. I brought them up because those were the ones that we sat and talked about, when I talked to people in the district.

One of the things about being there, I was privileged to information that a lot of my neighbours were not. As we sat and talked through it, we all came to understand how this deal was different than it would appear first. It has been a good experience to go through and see people, and see them change, to come to understand that they do not want - even though we are desperate, we just do not want to stop, today, and give this away, and go back and know that there is going to be a little bit of prosperity even though it certainly will not touch the shores of the District of St. Barbe. There still will be a little bit. We will see our neighbours going. I think, even at this point, if we were to see our neighbours go, it would be a great benefit for us, just to see some optimism.

The reason I picked a negative attitude, I suppose, I will back it up with the fact that, if, in 1997, I was to stand up and say that the shrimp industry in this Province will go from 12 million pounds to 120 million pounds and the people in Port au Choix, who had the only shrimp plant in this Province in 1969, will have to rely on make work in 2001, nobody would have believed me. They would say: Get out of my face. There is something wrong with you; you are just not with it.

The people on the Northern Peninsula - I think that is why we have come to understand - we have gone through so many difficult times and we are still going through so many difficult times. We see where the Premier, in his first Speech from the Throne, how adjacency would mean - and we hung on to that for a while. Those people, and myself, we believed that things would come. We thought the political climate had changed on the Northern Peninsula and maybe some things would come our way or do something because of the realization, but it did not, and it is not. To see this industry, those opportunities, escape us when we should be contributing to this Province as a people who have an industry that is providing employment and taxation. Instead of that, we have an industry where the talk of the day is trucking costs and quality, and if this industry will survive. It is not right.

If you go out there, I suppose - part of the thing that we did, as I went around and talked to some of the people, is that we spend some of the royalty money. I guess the thing that came to the top was pavement. We went out there and we talked about how much pavement you could buy with $500,000 worth of royalties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five kilometers.

MR. YOUNG: Five kilometers. Well, like, not one teaspoon kind of thing. One teaspoonful of what? One teaspoon of asphalt is maybe what we will get as our share from the royalties. From the desperate need that we have, and the opportunity that we have, and to see it slip away with us being there.... I guess the perspective we are coming from is, we are somewhat distant from it. It really does not affect us up front. We can distance ourselves from it and we can see a fuller picture than if you are out there. Because I know, if the District of St. Barbe had this smelter coming and it was going in Port Saunders, right in the centre, God knows. If we could live for the next six years, or even ten years, without any hope whatsoever, and for someone to tell you that you could live for the next six years? By God, I think we would be out there and dancing in the streets, and that kind of thing.

In the meantime, in Port Saunders, we were there. When I go down to Port Saunders, the biggest industry there is our hospital. It is a service in our town. You go down, and how those people are going to cope with the cutting that they have to take is what we discussed. That is the talk of the matter.

There is a big difference, because everybody realizes that out of this there will be no share for a doctor, there will be no share to help with the nurse, there will be no share with any of the extra supplies and the things that we need as we go on.

Our education, having to go from K-12, to be able to utilize our resources there more efficiently, to have what it takes to better manage the system. I am not disagreeing with that whatsoever. I think whatever money you have, you have to manage it wisely, but as we go through those things it is losing the opportunity, or losing for us, I suppose, the dream that there is a better tomorrow kind of thing, and that has been taken away.

I see the opportunities that we do have, that have never been fulfilled, and the wharf in St. Barbe where we have gone out there - the port that it is and the significance of that port - and realize that we just took it and put a ramp there without any planning, design, thought and management for it. We are there now with the ferry situation where on a blowing day she cannot get in unless we fix up the old ramp, which means that we have to plan; we have to have two different off-loading ramps in order for it to work - a poor thought of design and whatnot. If we had gone out there and we had the means to go out there and develop a port, if the financial restrictions were not as such, you could have a well-designed port, because it is a very important port. It is not something that is out in the middle - oh, we are not asking for a wharf; we have a boat that doesn't tie up to it. It is very important.

I suppose the last point was how many people had talked about the money that was spent on the ad campaign. They spent a lot of money. A lot of people realized that. A lot of people got really tired of the fact that every ten minutes they were told something, particularly if it was something they did not particularly agree with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: That was the thing. You start off, like some of the people who had been out there. If this is such a great deal, why doesn't it sell itself? Why can't you put it up there and punch it and see if a hole comes in it? If no hole comes in it, then I am for it. But, if holes come through this agreement then I do not think I am for it. Some of the holes, I find, are there. They are very real, and the people realize that. Then they look at the amount of money that we are trying to cover up those holes with, and it is a temporary fix again. A lot of what I see in it is temporary fixes. It does not bring you anywhere; it just lets you slide harder into the back. Instead of moving ahead or instead of trying to get a grip on what is happening, to move ahead, you just slide back further into desperation, I guess would be the word.

Anyway, those were the points that I wanted to cover off. I think I have covered them off. That is about all I have to say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this Assembly since 1985, first got elected in April, 1985. I am heading into my eighteenth year now as an elected representative for the District of Humber Valley, and I have seen over those almost eighteen years, all kinds of highs and lows and expectations; the mid-1980s to the late 1980s, hydro developments, the possibilities of offshore developments, the Hibernias of the world, went into the 1990s. Again, we talk about small hydro projects that are going to save us; going to create jobs; offshore again ongoing. We come into the discovery of Voisey's Bay in 1993, another hope, and all of a sudden faded again a couple of years after. Mr. Speaker, for me to stand here today, as an elected representative in the District of Humber Valley, I am proud after all those years to be able to stand here and say that I could support this deal on Voisey's Bay put together by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, to say, as some members put it yesterday: Who took the thirty pieces of silver; like sheep just following their leader, and so on. Mr. Speaker, I take offence to that. I make up my own mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I ran for elected office five times and got elected, and six times as a Mayor in Cormack, almost twenty-eight years in public life, and I always told it like it was and like it is. They may not have liked the answer, if I go to people and give them one, but you were firm. They may not have liked you but they respected you.

When this deal came up a year - well all along, but especially a year ago, some fifty-two, fifty-three weeks ago when we went back to the Table, we were all a part of that. That is one thing I will say about this Premier, it wasn't just Cabinet, it wasn't just planning and priorities, caucus was involved pretty well every step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, when they had the negotiators and the team had to come back to this caucus to try to see how they felt about it, they might have been comfortable with something but we want to see if the other members of caucus are comfortable with it. That is why we could sit down, because we were informed. We could ask good questions on this particular deal because we were all informed. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, even at the end of the day when it got down to the possibility of a deal being signed, when the media of the Province, when the Opposition of the Province, when other people were saying, oh, it is signed, it is done, I can assure you today that this was not done. This was taken on that weekend and I am telling you, we went through this clause-by-clause, page by page, asked all kinds of questions, even to the point of going back and getting something else clarified. Mr. Speaker, this Premier let his caucus be informed, ask questions and take their time before a decision was made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing is further from the truth with regards to anything shoved down anybody's throat. Nothing! Nobody was strong-armed. None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, none.

When this deal was signed last Tuesday I went out to my district and I said: How am I going to do this? How am I going to try to get everybody informed? Because in the Statement of Principles I understand, if someone is not up on it and not informed and so on, it takes a little bit of time to go through it and get to the real meat. What I did, I got the Chamber of Commerce in Deer Lake to call a meeting, went to it, and there were about seventy people who showed up. All the mayors of the municipalities in the district came - not all came, no I am sorry, they were all invited. About 70 per cent of them came. I gave out the Statement of Principles and let them look at it, let them peruse it. I said very little. I just gave an overview and then I asked for questions. I asked them to question me on it. No matter what, or how foolish it might seem, question me on it.

I did the same thing when I went around to the Irvings of the world, the Tim Hortons, the Deer Lake Motels of the world, the airports, like I do all the time in my district. I visit all the coffee shops and make sure that if there is anybody there who wants to ask me a question, then I am available. I made it quite clear that if there were any questions on it, call me. Call me at the office and if I am not there, then I will certainly get back to them and try to answer those questions.

I consider, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district just as smart and just as bright as members opposite. They can ask good, informed questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: They have done it. They have proven it over the years. They have also said to me over the years: You were elected. We elected you as our MHA. We elected you to speak on our behalf. And I am answerable to those people in that district every four years or every three years or every two-and-a-half, whenever the election is called.

When you make decisions in this Assembly, whether it is a piece of legislation, whether it is a deal such as this today, a very important deal to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, you make it - yes, you weigh all the probabilities, you weigh all the faults, you go through it, you peruse it, and at the end of the day, you cannot go out and have a referendum every time you have to make a decision here. Why do we have elections? You cannot go out every time and go around and put out a pamphlet and say: What am I going to do with this? You should be man enough and woman enough to show leadership, stand up, go out and ask (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Whether it is for political reasons, whether it is to save my own political hide, whether it is to save a position in Cabinet, whether it is to save myself in caucus, it does not matter, because at the end of the day the people in my district got the final say. They know I have to come back to them in three or four years time and say: Look, will you please mark an x for me? Then they could give you the tiff, they could flick you at any time.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about mining it is a bit dear to my heart really, because my father worked underground for forty-five, forty-six years with Asarco in Buchans. I had a brother killed in the Little Bay mines in Springdale some years ago. I worked underground six years myself in MacLean's shaft in Buchans. I lived in a mining town all my life - well I can't say all my life, from four years old up to nineteen, twenty. I saw what could happen to a mining town. I saw what could happen when people's lives were all of a sudden given some hope and you had to leave the Harbour Mains and the Holyroods and the Conception Bays of the world to go to Buchans and work all year long and get three weeks off; three weeks off you used to get then to go back to Conception Bay for a holiday. The first question asked by people in the area then was: By the way, what are you doing? Oh, I'm back on holidays. When are you going back? They never asked what you were doing, if you were working underground everyday and night of the week, and worked hard. What used to happen then? I saw it. I worked on nineteen level in MacLean shaft, myself and another gentleman, for nineteen months. What were we doing? High-grading gold at a MacLean shaft in Buchans.

In case people do not know, Buchans started with the oriental shaft, mostly open pit, very little underground, because they figured that was all that was there. A few years after they moved into the Rothermere shaft and mined that for years and years in Buchans. And, only as they got to getting the Rothermere mine used up and mined out, and as far as I am concerned, high-graded, did they move in and go underground and put a drift into what they called the MacLean shaft next to Sandy Lake. This is an example of what can happen in a place like Voisey's Bay.

Everybody is talking about Tally Pond. I remember sitting in the lunch shack in the MacLean's mine with a buddy of mine when they told us that Sprague and Henwood had found an ore body in Tally Pond. There is nothing new about Tally Pond. It was just the economics of the day. Again, they wanted to high-grade it, and they did. They sent it, stored all the concentrate mine and mill/concentrate in Buchans, everything was put in hangers, great big sheds and shipped down to Botwood in the spring of the year. It all went out.

What happened in St. Lawrence? What happened on Bell Island? What happened in Baie Verte? What happened in all the other mining areas of this Province until 1995 when the law was changed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: What was happening?

Mr. Speaker, the law was changed in 1995 so that it would not happen in this Province after that. The processing must be done in this Province. Just imagine all the years - people opposite and people on this side know what I am talking about when we talk about communities. When we talk about Labrador, the potential down there and the high-grading to go in and take the ovoid. Yes, they will take the ovoid, but you have to remember that they will have $1 billion invested in this Province by 2012. They will break even. That does not have to come from us.

I told my people in Deer Lake: Don't look at this. Go back. Some of them were accountants. I had two lawyers in the audience. I said: Go back and look at it. Do your sums. Look at the figures, the investments that are going to be made, the infrastructure that is going to be put in, you know the price of nickel, based on today's prices if you like, and that is cyclical. That could be down to $2 tomorrow, it could be up to $10 the next day. I said you do those figures and come back to me and tell me if this is a bad deal. But no, they did not. Some of them did, two in fact, two business people in Deer Lake. They went back and did some analyzing. They heard someone yesterday, the other side said something about there is going to be $40 billion worth of ore come out of the ground, but they are going to go bankrupt.

When I went into business, when I went to the banks to try and get money to start a farming operation in Cormack, they said: What do you have for assets? I had 100 acres of land. I had to buy that because when I went to the government to look for some - well, I farmed in spite of government, not because of it. Let's put it that way. They say: Okay, what do you have to give? I have 100 acres of land. Oh, not enough. Do you have a quota? No, I don't have a quota. Do you have any animals? Yes, I have sixty head of cattle. Where are you going to sell your milk? I am doing it myself. I am doing the pasteurization, I am doing the processing, and I am selling it myself. No good, because we do not know what you are going to do with them. You could kill all of them next week.

So, I went off and I got a quota. I went into the bank - perfect - because they knew that if I defaulted on a loan, if I did not make a payment, pull my quota. They had the quota security, the same thing we ran into in the IPL thing, security of quota. What do we do with agricultural leases in this Province? Fifteen and twenty-five year agricultural leases are issued now in the Province. Why? Because, if you do not keep up the terms of that lease, whether it is a short-term or a long-term lease, we (inaudible).

Do you have your 20 per cent of land cleared? No, sorry. Well, then, I am sorry, it must revert to the Crown. If you do not make a payment on your mortgage, what happens? They may give you one, they may give you two, or they may give you three months; other than that, they are coming. They have your home, because they have your signature.

This deal, the comfort that I have in this, Mr. Speaker, is this: This mining lease is issued by the Province. Everything is done incrementally. As the Premier said yesterday, there are checkpoints and balances. We could go in and send out 160,000 tonnes of ore for thirty months, yes. Then you must do something else. If you do not do that, we can take it. We are checked all the way through.

The hon. Member for St. Barbe just said: Oh, yeah, there are going to be 400 or 500 people out of work in Labrador because they might pull out there. Who, in the name of God, do we think we are talking about? A 100-year-old company working in twenty-eight countries around the world with a $2 billion or $3 billion investment here in this Province. Come on, get real and get a life. Who is going to pull out then, with that kind of an asset in the ground that could revert to the Crown and we would own it?

The other thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is, what are the alternatives? Members are saying - there is only one other way to go and that is, if you do not go with this, if you want to start a mine, mill and concentrator tomorrow, you can; anybody can. Now, there is only one other way they can do it, if they want this project to go. That is, they would have to say: Okay, you can go ahead with the project, if you put a conventional smelter in Argentia, build your mine, mill and concentrator and your conventional smelter the same, or the matte. Something has to start simultaneously or no company in this world today would be able to come in and swing a deal financially with any financial institution in the world. I cannot see it. But, here we are saying: You put up your test plant and after thirty months, then, you must do something else - one or the other. As other speakers have said, the least we can have is a matte plant with $670 million infrastructure and capital investment and fifty jobs less for the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, they deserve it, as far as I am concerned. They deserve every job we can get and everything we can squeeze out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I feel comfortable with this plan, and the other thing that I would like to have answered - there is a very important question in this House today that should be answered. If this deal is so bad, if this deal is going to be a sellout, and if this deal is going to be the end of all the hope for everybody in this Province, then someone answer this question for me: If, at the end of the day, the Member for St. Mary's votes for this project and this is so bad, how can the other members in the House sit there and watch him vote for it? If this is such a bad deal for the Province, Madam Speaker, it is a bad deal for everybody, if it is a bad deal.

There is only one answer to that question. It is because of politics. This is politics. I mean, let's face it; if it is bad, stand up and say it is bad. How can the hon. member get up and say it is good when it is such a bad deal for the whole Province?

Now, I am going to tell you something. When it comes to being patriotic about this Province, when it comes to standing up for your constituents in this Province, then as far as I am concerned, I can do it with anybody here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I can do it with anybody here, and I do not want, at the end of the day, in public life, for someone to come along and say to me, or say to my daughter, or to my family, my grandchildren: Look at what your father did. Look at one of the things he did. Or, to look at the television every night and say: Look, he was responsible for this. He was one of the ones responsible for it.

We all want to try. All I am saying to each and everybody in this House, and I said to my constituents, is: Look at it fairly, look at it objectively, and, at the end of the day, you make your decision. I respect that decision at the end of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but there is a point to be made. There is a point to be made. If it is bad for the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) free vote over there.

MR. WOODFORD: It is a free vote over here.

If it is bad for the Province, how can you - when everybody in the caucus sees it bad..... I say this: If there was another part of this for Baie Verte, or another part for Harbour Main, would the same thing occur? All I am saying is for members to look at it objectively and with a clear mind. Go through each point and ask good questions. There have been some good questions asked, that is right. That is our right to ask good questions and, at the end of the day, be able to go back to our constituents and answer for it.

Madam Speaker, I understand my time is up, but once again thank you for the opportunity. I want to say congratulations to the Premier, the negotiating team, and to the Minister of Mines and Energy, for, as far as I am concerned, a job well done.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, during the course of this morning's debate, when the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne was up, after he finished speaking, a colleague of mine brought to my attention a comment made by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I personally did not hear the comment but, just having reviewed and listened to the audio tape, it is very clear that a comment was made, in my view, which breaches the privilege of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and, in my view, and according to Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Joseph Maingot, meets the test of holding this member in contempt and insulting the member. I want to just quote for a moment.

On page 189 of Maingot, under Alleged Acts Must Relate to a Member's Parliamentary Work: Words or Acts Must Amount to Contempt, it says, "But it is because of its nature that a valid question of privilege arises only infrequently. There must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's rights, such as his freedom of speech..." - which, in my view, his comment certainly does impute that, and I will get to that in a second - "...or from freedom from civil arrest. The interference, however, must not only obstruct the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his parliamentary work."

The comment clearly meets that test. The comment, when I reviewed the tape, clearly says, when the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne was up speaking on a free vote, outlining to this House and to the people of the Province, and in particular to the constituents he represents, why he would not be supporting the Statement of Principles, based upon what was commited to in the past, I reviewed the tape and you can clearly hear the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace say: Your head is in such a dark place that you would not know the difference.

That is what is on the tape, or something to that effect, but clearly it is an obvious obstruction of the member and it imputes motives to him.

Madam Speaker, I will further refer you to page 195 of Maingot, Improper interference with corporate privilege. It says, "When the corporate rights of the House are interfered with in some way, the "breach of privilege" could result in the offender being held in contempt of the House and ultimately being subjected to the penal jurisdiction of the House."

He goes on to define it this way, and I will conclude with this, under the category on page 196, Assaulting, threatening, challenging or molesting members and officers of the House, where it says, "Members are entitled..." - and that is the word, entitled - "...to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any member on the floor of the House or while he or she is coming or going to or from the House, or on account of his behavior during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament."

Clearly the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace, in making that slanderous comment, brings into question the integrity of the Member for Harbour Main- Whitbourne. It suggests that he has been forced to vote in a certain way.

Madam Speaker, I ask you, in your capacity as Speaker of this House, to do the right thing, to rule on this breach of privilege - and we would like a ruling - to review the tape and bring back a ruling that the member indeed has breached the privileges of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and, in so doing, has put this entire House in contempt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Speaker, the comment that was accredited to me as being said, the inference was to having one's head in the sand. If I have touched upon the hon. member's sensitivities, this debate is much more important than to be belaboured today over this sort of thing.

I withdraw my comment.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I agree that this debate is much more important than members of this side of the House being subjected to cheap, slanderous attacks by members.

I ask, Madam Speaker, that you take our motion of privilege seriously, that you review the tape and you rule on it.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.

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

It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, and you can certainly correct me if I am wrong, that, when a question of privilege arises, it takes precedence over all other business of the House and that this matter must be ruled on before we go any further.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, it has been long accepted in this House that when an hon. member withdraws a statement there is no point of privilege. I did not speak on the point of privilege. If I want to speak on the point of privilege, I can, but the hon. member withdrew the comment and therefore that removes the whole circumstance.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

That is not necessarily so. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace rose to his feet. Clearly what I heard on the tape does not reflect what the member said during the debate. It is clear precedence in terms of Beauchesne, Erskine May and Maingot that when a motion of privilege is put before this House that it takes precedence over all other business of the House.

We are asking you, as Speaker, to rule on that, to review the tape and to report back to the House if, in fact, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, while up speaking - that the slanderous and contemptuous comment made by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace does, in fact, breach the privileges of the House and holds this place in contempt.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I maintain that the remark has been withdrawn, that there is no remark on the - it has been withdrawn by the member. There is no point of privilege. It is just a stalling tactic by the Opposition. Madam Speaker, they should get on with the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member has withdrawn the comment. Therefore, it does not exist.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Member for Harbour Grace cannot withdraw what he did not say. What, in fact, he said, was not what he withdrew. That is why we are asking you, in your capacity as Speaker, to rule, to listen to the tape, which is the official record of this House, to review it, to make a ruling that we believe it is contemptuous for the House. It has called into question the integrity and honesty of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and I submit to you that if the House is going to resort to dealing with the slanderous comments thrown from members opposite when they are not on their feet, we are not going to stand for it. In our view, when a breach of this occurs, we believe that it must be dealt with expeditiously.

MADAM SPEAKER: I have already ruled that I would take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.

PREMIER GRIMES: Make up your mind. Are you going to speak or do you want to close debate? Make up your minds right now. (Inaudible). I'm here paying attention, not like him (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier, yesterday morning, Madam Speaker, asked everybody for courtesy while he is speaking. Since this morning he has been after everybody. Just now he said I am not like your leader, who doesn't even have the courtesy to be here. He knows full well that he cannot, and other members cannot, refer to members who are not in their seats. I ask him to withdraw that comment.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

That comment is not on the record of this House because I was not a recognized speaker, but I will withdraw it out of respect for the rules, and I would ask the Opposition to respect the rules and resume the debate instead of grandstanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is very instructive to sit back and be quiet and listen and say nothing this morning, and just watch the Premier, as he did just a minute or so ago, try to threaten and take this place on his back. Get up now or I will close debate! Get up now or I will close debate! How silly, Mr. Speaker. I am too old of a cat, Mr. Speaker, to be spooked by a kitten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place for a long time. There are some who would probably legitimately say I have been here for too long a time, Mr. Speaker. It is my constituents who will judge that at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one person, as far as I know, who has been here longer than I have, and that is my friend, the Government House Leader. Over the last day or so, Mr. Speaker, I have heard all kinds of people, members speaking from the government side of the House, getting up and patting each other on the back, clapping for each other, saying what a wonderful job they have done, Mr. Speaker. You know, having listened to that, and thought about that, I could only come to this conclusion: Never before have I heard so many people heap so much praise upon themselves, Mr. Speaker, for having accomplished so little.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: At 10:31 yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, a half-hour after the debate began, the Premier rose, as leader of the government, and asked people to give him the courtesy to be listened to in silence.

We leave the proof, Mr. Speaker, before anybody who might be watching this morning. We leave the proof. The people can judge themselves. Courtesy goes both ways, Mr. Speaker, both ways. I have a few things to say about this agreement and I am going to say them. I only have twenty minutes. If the government members insist on interrupting me, leading me off in tangents, then I am not going to get to say very much. That is fine. I am an experienced parliamentarian, as I said. That is the way it goes. My twenty minutes will be taken up in one way or another. The rule of this debate is, when they are taken up, I have to sit down, and I will. You play by the sword, you live by sword. So, we can do that.

There are a couple of things I want to say before I speak to a couple of the clauses in this Statement of Principles, Madam Speaker. One of them flows out of the remark made by my friend, the Member for Humber Valley, when he questions how somebody from this side - but every party in this House, as far as I know, has declared to be a free vote. All leaders, I believe, have said members of this Legislature can vote their conscience on this particular resolution. I think I am correct in saying that. The suggestion from my friend from Humber Valley is that if one or two or three of our members do that, and all of the rest of us do something else, well then, somehow or another, those people are questioning whether we have the right to keep them in the caucus. He said: How can he stay there? What is he going to do? What does all the rest think of him? What is the definition and the purpose of a free vote? Isn't it the right to vote how you feel at the end of the day? Vote your conscience. I mean, if it isn't a free vote, it isn't a free vote. If it is a free vote, it is a free vote and there are no consequences. Right? I believe one way. Somebody else believes another. We are going to vote how we believe and how we feel.

I want to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to compliment the leader of our party for being open-minded and fair and democratic in allowing anybody in this caucus -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have seen lots of leaders come and go in my day, Madam Speaker, but I haven't seen very many who have agreed to allow their caucus members to vote how they feel. I take my hat off to the leader of our party who called for a free vote on this matter and who is allowing his members to vote how they wish at the end of the day. I have no hesitation in saying that I have debated within myself and taken him up on that. I heard him say there will be no consequences for anybody who takes him up on that. That, Madam Speaker, is the mark of a leader. That is the mark of somebody who understands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I also want to say in this particular debate, on the political side of things before I move on, the leader of our party from time to time in the past has been criticized for smelling the political wind and seeing where the crowd is. Even some in our own party, allegedly, some of our own party supporters, in recent times, have suggested that. He likes to smell the political wind, see where the crowd is going, then jump out ahead of the crowd and say: I am your leader, follow me. Madam Speaker, in this particular situation, this leader, in my view, demonstrated his metal, and he demonstrated his vision, and he demonstrated his foresight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: He knew, after a $250,000 ad campaign, where the crowd were. He knew after all of the oomph and the umph of this announcement where the crowd were. But, even knowing where the crowd were, Madam Speaker, this man said I am going to lead. I see things wrong with this agreement and I am going to point them out. I am going to bring them to the attention of the people. If, at the end of the day, I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am going to lead and I am going to do my job as Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is leadership, Madam Speaker, that I have respect for. That is leadership that I have confidence in. That is leadership that I believe, at the end of the day, the people of this Province will want to buy into and I think they will buy into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, we have before us a Statement of Principles. We do not have before us an agreement. We do not even have before us a tentative agreement. I am not so sure that I would even call it a framework of agreement. We have a Statement of Principles and we are told that out of those Statement of Principles: believe us, trust us. We are told that out of this Statement of Principles, at the end of the day, there will be a legally binding agreement between the parties. That is what we are told.

There was a framework of agreement on the Lower Churchill several months ago. There was over $1 million - I believe, wasn't it? - spent in advertising that framework of agreement. There was a photo op that got thrown off the rails up in Labrador by the Aboriginal people who were not prepared to buy into it. All of that happened and where is the framework of it? Where is the final agreement today? Where is it? Not here, not before us, it is not reality and it has not happened. That has to be a caution in this particular matter. This is a Statement of Principles. It may or may not, between now and September 30, translate itself and materialize into a firm, legal written, binding agreement. It may or it may not. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, the caution, I think, ought to be said.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand how this Statement of Principles would generate enthusiasm in certain parts of the Province, Labrador in particular. Labrador will receive from this project - if and when the project proceeds - as I understand it, everything that was committed. It will receive a mine, it will receive a mill, it will receive a concentrator and the Aboriginal people of Labrador will have their legitimate aspirations built into the final agreement.

I can understand enthusiasm in Argentia, but Argentia may or may not receive what was committed to Argentia. Argentia is not going to receive what was originally committed, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about that. Argentia is not going to receive the conventional smelter that was originally committed to Argentia and to the people of Placentia Bay. That is off the table, that is a given, that is not going to happen.

If the hydromet process works, if - and we are told there is a 97 per cent, 98 per cent probability of it working. Well, I do not know where that comes from. I mean any research, any background documents that you can look at, suggests that this particular process on the Voisey's Bay ore, nobody knows. Oh yes, I forgot, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources knows. He told us last night that it was a proven process. It worked in Fort Saskatchewan, it has to work in Voisey's Bay. Of course, he failed to realize that it is two different type ore bodies and it has not yet been proven. Maybe it will, may be it will not, but if it does, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of information in some hands makes people look awful foolish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That's not personal. It's a fact. It's not personal. The member said what he said. He said it was a proven process, and it was proven in Fort Saskatchewan. That's not a personal attack. That is a fact. So, that is the first point. That is the first point, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) personal attack on you (inaudible) that's okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the record will show, I suppose, that the Premier is interrupting the debate.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the process in Argentia. Now, if the hydromet process is proven up and it works, and if the deal goes forth, then there will be a hydrometallurgical plant built in Argentia. The fallback position from that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of Argentia, certainly is worth exploring. The fallback position, as I understand it, is the hydromet process. Now, what is this? Frankly, I fully admit that when I saw this I did not know what it was. I did not know if it was something good to eat or something to put on bread or what, so I asked. I inquired, I said: What is this process? I have never heard of it before. It was explained to me that this process brings the ore to about 75 per cent or 80 per cent refined.

In other words, the ore would go through the concentrator in Voisey's Bay, it would leave that and go somewhere - it will not be Newfoundland and Labrador - Thompson, Manitoba maybe, Sudbury, maybe. That concentrate would go somewhere and be 75 per cent or 80 per cent refined. Then it would be put on a barge or ship or whatever, and sent back to Argentia for the last 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the refining process. That is called, as I understand it, the hydromet process.

AN HON. MEMBER: The nickel matte process.

MR. RIDEOUT: Nickel matte process; and that's what it would be. Then it would be ninety-nine, at the end of the day, after this process in Argentia, 99.99 per cent nickel. That is what I am told.

Now, if that is the fallback, if that is what becomes reality in Argentia, as part of that, the exemption orders under this agreement means that every single bit of concentrate will go out of Newfoundland and Labrador for as long as this project exists, to be refined - 75 per cent or 80 per cent refining from somewhere else; somewhere else it will happen. It will not happen here, and the government can take taxpayers' money and put ad after ad, ad nauseam on, saying: Commitment made. Commitment kept. I say, not likely, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty or twenty-five percent of the refining, to make it into a nickel matte at the end of the day. Is that the commitment Brian Tobin talked about in 1999, when he said not a spoonful? Is that the commitment that all of us - every political party in the Province, I believe, bought into that concept, bought into that principle, bought into that position. Some people even told us we were foolish to do it because we were boxing ourselves into corners and we should not be at it. But, for the sake of the people of the Province and because of the importance of this resource to the people of our Province, we bought into it, and we all did it. Politically, we all did it. Now we have a government that will squirm and use the taxpayers' money to convince us, or try to convince us: No, no, no, that is not what we said. That is not what we meant. We are keeping our commitment. Not likely, Mr. Speaker.

Now the other thing that comes out of this debate, as I get down to the last minute or so that I am allowed. The other thing that almost everybody refers to, particularly members on the other side, is that: Why can't you vote with us on this resolution? They are almost casting us in a non-patriotic light if we do not do it. I heard a number of them over there yesterday and today: Why can't you vote with us on this particular resolution? I say to the members of this House, and particularly to those members on this side, there is a downside to unanimity, Mr. Speaker, a great downside to unanimity. If this resolution were unanimously passed by this House, is there any pressure to improve the final document? Is there, Mr. Speaker? Who is going to do it? If this resolution is passed unanimously by this House, what is the message that is sent to the other side in building this final, legal and binding document? The message is: What is in here is fine. What is in here is acceptable. Let's keep every off ramp that we have. Let's keep every exit that we have. Let's keep every way - any way to do the minimum possible to allow us to proceed with this project but let's not do anything extra. Let's not tighten up any language. Let's not put ourselves into any further boxes. Oh no, Mr. Speaker, unanimity has downsides to it.

I am delighted with the fact that we have the freedom to decide which way we want to go, and how we want to vote on this particular resolution. As I said at the beginning, I have given a lot of thought to where my vote will be, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, having heard some of the comments from the other side really says to me, the other side does not want support. All they want is a political show. All they want is a political parade across the Province, hoping that support, that is presently a mile wide and an inch deep, will stay there and solidify over the summer. That is what this government wants. Well I believe, at the end of this week, that mile-wide, inch-deep support will be half-a-mile wide and half-an-inch deep and by the end of next week it will have dissipated, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House stands recessed until 2:00 p.m.

 


The House resumed at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, this government has spent literally many hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting commitments that they have made and commitments that they have kept. I would like to challenge that theme this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and focus on promises that were made and promises that were, in fact, broken.

The first promise was that any deal to develop Voisey's Bay would contain an ironclad guarantee that a smelting facility would be in fact constructed in this Province. Now we are talking about an experimental hydromet facility.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm that the construction of a hydromet facility is not guaranteed but rather is subject to commercial, technical and economic feasibility, as stated in clause 13 of the Statement of Principles, and Inco is merely obliged to use its best efforts to build that facility?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I laid it out fairly well at the announcement a week ago and yesterday in my presentation to the House of Assembly in one hour. What I can confirm again, Mr. Speaker, because we are here to address the concerns and the questions that people want to hear asked and answered with respect to this agreement to move forward, what I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, which I confirmed yesterday, at length, is that there is an absolute guarantee with no conditions attached whatsoever that the bare minimum that will happen in Argentia - because this is all about a processing facility in Argentia, what is happening in Labrador can happen any time, this is all about processing - what is absolutely guaranteed, Mr. Speaker, in this Statement of Principles, no qualifications at all, is that there will be at a minimum a $670 million plant that employs 350 people and produces finished nickel.

We have acknowledged that there is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent chance, which we are going to try to overcome with a research and development project of $200 million with 200 people working for two-and-a-half years to eliminate that risk. There is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent risk that we might not get the $800 million facility with the 400 jobs that produces finished nickel, but there is no risk, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, about the $670 million plant that produces finished nickel and employs 350 people in Argentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. the Premier for indicating that there, in fact, will be no conventional smelter. That promise has been broken. In fact, he has also confirmed that there may not be a hydromet. So, there is no guarantee of a smelter and there is no guarantee of a hydromet facility.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm, in the event that the experimental hydromet facility does not prove to be economically, technically or commercially feasible, that this Province will not receive a conventional smelting facility, which I am certain that he has, and he has already done so, as was promised and guaranteed by both the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy, but instead may, not will - may, and may only - receive a nickel matte refinery or some other facility, which is referred to in the documentation as some other facility? It doesn't specify what it is. It is some other facility, as stated in clause 22. Will the Premier, in fact, confirm that particular facility is also not guaranteed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say it again. I guess I have learned a long time ago that you cannot convince someone against their will. If they refuse to accept the answers which are given as factual, and they are guaranteed, and the person chooses to absolutely ignore it and continue on when they know the difference, there is not much I can do about that.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it again. The hydromet facility, the $800 million facility, is a combined plant that would do smelting and refining together in the same plant. That is the one that requires some research and development. That technology is fully proven in the world for other kinds of ores, for soft ores, for laterites. The Leader of the Opposition agrees with that. What they are trying to do is to take that proven technology and make sure it can work on the ore from Labrador. That is what the $200 million, 200-person, thirty-month research and development project is all about, trying to make sure that a proven technology for other kinds of ores works for the ore in Labrador. If it works, then the $800 million plant does smelting and refining, the equivalent of both, in the same plant. If it does not work - let me say it again, Mr. Speaker - if it does not work, the Statement of Principles commits Inco to guarantee, without any other qualifications at all, that they will build a plant that will see finished nickel leave the Province. It will be in the range of $670 million. It will employ 350 people, and it is in the Statement of Principles for anybody to read. Now, if somebody wants to spend this week, next week, next month, next year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - trying to twist that around, trying to convolute it, trying to suggest it means something else, then I guess they are welcome to do so. It means what it means, Mr. Speaker; it is guaranteed to be built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier once again for indicating that there is no guarantee that a hydromet facility, a hydromet processing facility, will work in Argentia. In fact, he has actually indicated that the hydromet processing that is proven to work, works on laterite ores and not the sulfide ores that are contained in Labrador. Isn't that correct, Premier?

Now, I would ask the Premier: With regard to the nickel matte refinery facility or other facility that is planned for Argentia, is that not also subject to technical and economic and engineering feasibility? And, if that decides that feasability is not there, won't that nickel matte refinery, in fact, not go ahead?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me try it again. I will try it again and I will try it slowly because it is important that we understand. I said it yesterday in my one-hour address, I am looking forward to hearing the Leader of the Opposition; he might decide it is important enough to speak to it some time soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: There is, Mr. Speaker, and I said it yesterday, a 100 per cent chance - I think that sounds like a guarantee to most people in Newfoundland and Labrador - there is a 100 per cent chance that a $670 million plant that employs 350 people, that produces a finished nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is what our legislation requires, there is a 100 per cent chance, a guarantee, no qualifiers, no technical assessment, no financial assessment, no qualifiers, Mr. Speaker, and I ask and beg the Leader of the Opposition to read it again because he even convinced his good friend from the Northern Peninsula, The Straits & White Bay North, because he repeated in his address last night that there were qualifiers attached to the second plant. There are none, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Anyone who can read it, reads it. It is not attached to the second plant and there is a 97 per cent or 98 per cent chance, Mr. Speaker, that we have acknowledged to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - that there will be an $800 million plant (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is 97 per cent and 98 per cent. It seems to rise by the day. If it is a 97 per cent or 98 per cent chance that this is going to work, why didn't Inco guarantee it? Why are we taking the risk? Why hasn't Inco fully guaranteed that this will work?

The Premier has stated that there is a 100 per cent possibility here that we are going to have a facility in Argentia. Those are his words, and I take him at face value. However, I can only go by the words that are contained in the Statement of Principles, and that is what we are going to be bound by after we vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Principles says, "The principle conditions to be met in order for the Proponent to proceed with the Project are... (f) the arrangement of suitable financing by the Proponent to enable the Project to be developed on a financially prudent basis."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: If in fact financing is not suitable to Inco, does not that in fact mean that the nickel matte refinery or the hydromet processing facility, or in fact the underground exploration program, will not occur and the resultant jobs will be lost?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems the questions are fairly limited because we are back to one that was raised yesterday. Suitable financing was the issue that was raised yesterday. The suggestion -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) to the people of the Province (inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me answer the question, Mr. Speaker. I know the Member for Kilbride wants to hear the answer as well. He is very interested in this.

The inference in a question about suitable financing is that maybe this company will not be able to afford this; maybe they will not be able to get the money. I understand, he is nodding his head that that is the inference. That is the suggestion.

In Hansard yesterday, which is the verbatim record of what is said right here in this Legislature, the same Leader of the Opposition, who is now suggesting that this plant might not be built because they might not be able to get the money, is one who said that this reserve in Labrador - his words and his numbers, not mine - is worth $40 billion to $50 billion. So they are going to go to the bank and say: We have a licence, a lease, to prosecute a mine in Labrador that has $50 billion worth of reserve. We would like to borrow $670 million or $800 million to build a plant in Argentia, do you think you would lend us some money? Do you think we have enough credit built up now?

Not only that, this is the same Leader of the Opposition who has said in press releases twice last week, because he wanted to raise concerns in Newfoundland and Labrador that the government got outsmarted at the negotiating table and that we gave a gift - a signing bonus he called it - of $3 billion to Mr. Hand and Inco. Now, today he is trying to say they might not be able to get the money. Which is it, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We believe we have negotiated a great deal. We believe there is a great business case that makes sure that Inco can succeed. We believe they will be able to raise the financing because it is a great project. It is good for them. It is good for us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: It is good for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the designated cheerleader for Inco is now guaranteeing the financial security of that company to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador forever. Isn't that correct?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he said.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the term suitable financing, is a term that is very familiar to all the people around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who have ever, ever bought a house or sold a house. It does not necessarily mean that the person can obtain suitable financing. What it means, and I would ask the Premier to confirm this, is suitable financing to the person applying. If Inco determines that it is not suitable for their purposes, and according to the words of Scott Hand in his press release on June 11, "reasonable and suitable financing for the company" would the Premier not agree that if Inco cannot raise suitable financing for its own purposes, whatever they are, then they can get out of their commitments to build a refinery, to build a hydromet, or to do the underground exploration? Isn't that correct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions, as I thought they might be in coming to the Legislature, are useful; I think instructive for the people of the Province. The Leader of the Opposition, again, puts forward the proposition - I suggest that is what he is doing today - that Inco might not be able to raise the money. He says though, and -

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: - it is useful and I would like for you to make that clarification, he says, Mr. Speaker, because the people in television land and elsewhere did not hear what he said: They might not want to raise the money. We understand if they do not want to raise the money they do not want to do the project. It will not proceed. He did acknowledge - and I saw the faces of the members behind him - that getting suitable financing is standard business practice for any business anytime. It is regular, routine language.

He is trying to suggest now, as I said in answer to the last question, that there should be some great fear and concern in the Province because they might not be able to get the money. Or, he just added, they might not want to get the money. Why would a company that has just said that they want to come here, they want to do a mine, a mill, a concentrate in Labrador, in which they have to invest some $800 million - the only way they can ever move any of it from Newfoundland and Labrador is to build a demonstration plant in Argentia first and run it for thirty months. The only way they can get access to any more than that, which is only $1 billion of the $50 billion-worth that the Leader of the Opposition describes it, 2 per cent of it. They get access to 2 per cent of the reserve according to his own numbers. The only way they can get access to any more of it is if they build at least a $670 million plant in Argentia. If they don't build that, they don't get access to any more of the reserve in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ninety-eight percent of it is still in the ground in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: They would have spent a billion dollars, they would have gotten a billion dollars, and now he wants us to believe that they won't want to go get the money. He is trying to suggest they can't get it. He changed his position. Now, he is saying, maybe they won't want to go get the money, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the difference with this arrangement for suitable financing is that the suitable financing carries throughout the entire project. So, at any point during the thirty years they can use the term "suitable financing" to get out of the deal under any circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, in fact there is no guarantee of processing at Argentia after the demo facility in the Statement of Principles.

Let's move to underground mining exploration. The underground mine exploration in Labrador represents another 800 jobs, but rather than have a blended operation with the ovoid in 2006, underground mining is not due to commence until 2018. According to clauses 18 and 19, the underground mining phase is not guaranteed either, because it is subject to completion of a successful underground exploration program.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that if Inco is not satisfied - and I mean Inco is not satisfied - that their underground exploration program has been, in their opinion, successful, then will there be no underground exploration program and the loss of 800 jobs on this project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I sense that the Leader of the Opposition is warming up to the project and this deal a little bit. He has at least now acknowledged that we have succeeded until 2018, that they will be able to get suitable financing, that we are now out to the stage - because we have agreed, after six years of negotiation, a year intensively the last time, we have agreed to a phased in approach. That is all part of making sure, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very prudent approach to it that protects the reserve for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every step of the way, and gives the company the best possible chance to make sure that they can secure suitable financing each step of the way, because they will have succeeded. If they succeed, they will get the financing and they will continue.

The mining legislation in the Province requires an annual report and an annual development plan as to what you intend to do next. That will happen. There will be yearly monitoring of what happens. I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition is now acknowledging that we are out to 2018, we are ready to go underground. The only way that happens, by the way, is that the plant is already built in Argentia, at least a $670 million plant that would have been a success. Finished nickel will have been leaving the Province, by that time, for twelve years, Mr. Speaker. Now they are getting ready to go underground and continue on with a project that should go for another fifteen or twenty or thirty or forty years. I sense that he is coming to warm up to how good a project this really is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that the benefits really are allowed to work in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We look forward to getting out to them.

The last point, Mr. Speaker, he is now suggesting that we are going to lose 800 jobs in 2018. We have to get the 400 jobs and the 200 jobs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the 400 jobs in Argentia before we ever get out there to talk about the good (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my job here is to try and jam thirty days of questions into three days of Question Period so I will be exploring the entire agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The last question which was asked, which was unanswered, was: If it was not successful in the opinion of Inco, would there be an underground exploration program? The fact that it was not answered tells me that there will not and there will not be 800 jobs, if we ever get to that phase.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to point out as well that this government was elected on the promise that not one once, not one spoonful, of nickel would be processed outside of this Province. Obviously, this promise has also been broken.

Section 25 of the agreement allows over $3 billion worth of nickel, not counting the copper, not counting the cobalt, to leave this Province for processing. Can the Premier please explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why this agreement does not provide any financial penalty, any financial guarantee, any bond, any debenture, any financial security or any letter of credit, in the event that Inco unfortunately ends up in the same situation as Friede Goldman did in Marystown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite glad to answer the questions today, and again tomorrow, and others that he will raise in the one hour that he gets to address this issue. I am glad to answer all of the questions. They will be all answered any time they are raised. If the Legislature closes, which it will tomorrow, and if there is a question the next day, we will gladly answer it. If there is a question the week after that, we will gladly answer that, Mr. Speaker, because we know people want to have the facts. They do not want to have distortions. They do not want to have misrepresentations. They do not want to have contrived concerns. They have some legitimate concerns, and the one that the Leader of the Opposition just asked about is one of them. Because, in 2018, there will be underground, or not, depending on whether or not there is something down there to mine. That is why they are going to do more exploration for $95 million, employ seventy-five or eighty people to do it. That is how they found the reserves that are there today, Mr. Speaker, because they have already spent money on exploration. They have already employed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they have proved up the reserves to eighty-six - what is the number in terms of - ?

MR. MATTHEWS: Eighty million.

PREMIER GRIMES: Eighty million tonnes of reserve in Labrador. They have information that it is probably 140. They are going to more exploration, which means that it might be like Sudbury. It might be 200 million or 300 million tonnes. It could go on for fifty or sixty years. The exploration is important, and nobody - I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is not asking anybody today to prejudge the outcome of a $95 million exploration program.

Now the question, because that was his preamble, was: What about a security? What about a bond? What about a trust fund? That is a big question. It is a big question with this caucus. It was a huge question with this caucus. It is a big question for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; because, if you are going to take the stand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

PREMIER GRIMES: By leave, I understand, Mr. Speaker, to get directly to the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because, if you are going to take the deal that we have arranged, which says you have to let some go out with a guarantee to get it back, then the concern is: What if it doesn't come back? How are we going to be compensated for that? We have chosen to be compensated rather than have money put aside in a fund. We want Inco to use the money available to invest in Argentia, to invest in Labrador, to invest in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to meet their commitments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - not to put it aside in case something goes astray; and we have the confidence in the courts that has been instilled into us by people like the Leader of the Opposition, that if there is a problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - we will go to the courts and we will be awarded our fair settlement in current day dollars at that time with lawyers representing Newfoundland and Labrador, and making sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what I understand the Premier to be saying is that if you plan on spending $3 billion in this Province over a thirty-year period, he will give it to you up front. He will loan it to you from the government's resources, up front. That is a great business deal if you can get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are working with an eighteen-page document, a Statement of Principles. That is all we have. It is probably less than 5 per cent of the entire documentation, way less than 5 per cent that will be produced. Now, in light of the fact we do not have all of the documentation, we have very little of it, in light of the fact that there are 100 days, at least, before the final documentation is available, in light of the fact that I am offering, and our caucus is offering, to the Premier, all the available information that we have, any constructive criticism, any help, any of the 100 pages that we have which would help make this a better deal, we will offer it to you, we will sit with you, we will sit with the Minister of Mines and Energy, sit with the Minister of Justice, we will work through this together to make it a better deal. In light of that, would you then agree to provide us with the final documentation - not signed documentation, but final draft documentation - prior to the deal being finalized and binding, and bring it back then to a vote in this House of Assembly on or before September 30 so we can vote on the real deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is only the second day and the second Question Period but we are back to yesterday's questions again.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it perfectly clear yesterday that the negotiations are concluded. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition does not like that because what he asked for was a framework. On May 15, in the Legislature, Mr. Williams' words - the Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker - "We are not asking this government to bring the deal itself before this Legislature. We want the framework...".

Later on, the same Leader of the Opposition said, "We don't want a done deal. We want to see a deal before..." it is completed. Then, the same Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the framework of the deal includes all the terms of the deal."

That, Mr. Speaker, is what was asked for on May 15. That is what we are debating in this Legislature today. That is exactly what we are debating.

Mr. Speaker, we have made it perfectly clear, there is no requirement by law in this Province for this debate to be occurring. It is happening because we proposed it and we wanted it to happen.

The second thing is this: We have already committed. There will not be a further vote on this particular Statement of Principles or any of the legal binding agreements in this Legislature. That has never happened before, has not happened with Hibernia, has not happened with Terra Nova, has not happened with White Rose, but our commitment is this: Everybody in the Province who wants to see the final binding agreement, it will be released to everybody for their scrutiny -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - under the Freedom of Information legislation applicable to Newfoundland and Labrador as soon as they are complete. That is a pledge we will commit to and keep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier as well.

Considering that the residents on the North Coast of Labrador now rely on subsidized diesel-generated electricity, and given that Inco will need power, diesel-generated, to operate the mine and mill/concentrator, I ask the Premier: Is now not an opportunity to put a transmission line from Sail Lake, Churchill Falls area, through to Voisey's Bay and the North Coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. While it is not directly related to the Statement of Principles, and I think in fact, probably not one that is part of the debate that we had agreed to in these couple of days, it is an interesting proposition that we look forward to at some point in the future for the North Coast of Labrador. It is not, however, a condition of this project going forward. It is not something that we are trying to accomplish or achieve on the back of any one particular development. It is one of the wishes and hopes and dreams that we would like to commit to in the longer term, but because we do not make promises that we do not keep, because we do not make commitments that we do not honour, I would not want to raise expectations for the people of the North Coast of Labrador that there is going to be a line to the North Coast because of this agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the Premier that even though it was not in the Statement of Principles, there was reference to hydro for the smelter portion in Argentia and maybe this should have been part of the Statement of Principles.

Let me ask the Premier if he could ask Inco if they would do a feasibility study on this issue to see if it would be cheaper in the long run? Because this project is lasting thirty years, maybe much longer hopefully, will they do a feasibility study, and if it is proven that this is a cheaper way of providing power to the project, that they would bear the cost of putting that transmission line through?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Inco is as interested as any wise and prudent corporation would be to ensuring that they have a safe, a sound, and a reasonably priced power supply for their operation in Voisey's Bay.

While it would imprudent of me to commit, on Inco's behalf, to ask them to do a feasibility study as with respect to that particular option, I am sure that Inco will be reviewing all of the options to supply themselves with power at the Voisey's site. At what point the option that the hon. Member for Labrador West puts forward appears to have some reasonable basis of enabling them to have a successful mine operation and a reasonably priced supply of power, I am sure that Inco will be doing that. As a matter of fact, I am confidant that Inco in their business plans have already considered their power options, and at this point, they have indicated that they are going ahead with their own power source at site. The proposition that the hon. member raises is not an unreasonable one in terms of asking Inco to consider, and I am sure they would be happy themselves to have that discussion with the hon. Member for Labrador West if, in fact, he wanted to engage them on that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure for me this afternoon to rise in this House of Assembly and offer my unqualified and completely enthusiastic support for this Statement of Principles that will enact and enable this wonderful project, the Voisey's Bay deal in our Province.

Like my colleague who has spoken earlier, I too would like to congratulate our Minister of Mines and Energy, his negotiating teams and, of course, our Premier for the wonderful leadership that they have shown -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: - in being able to finally bring this deal to the point where we can stand here today and look at forty-eight principles that will underpin what is the largest development that we are likely to see in many, many years to come. I know that it took a great deal of work, a great deal of patience, a great deal of perseverance in order to work out all of the details to satisfy all of the concerns, to find out all of the information that we required in order to able to take a position with confidence, as we do today and as we have over the past twenty-four hours, and in fact since the announcement was made, because this is not an issue that anyone of us take likely.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that these are exciting times in our Province. You can tell a different sense in the air. There is a different atmosphere as you go about talking to people in the community today that just did not exist two weeks ago, because people were still coming up to me at that point and saying: I hope, I really hope, that you will be able to pull this off; that you will be able to do it.

As of the announcement last Tuesday, I had perfect strangers coming up to me in the gym, where I go very frequently, on the street, on the trails where I am walking, and saying to me: Congratulations! Thank you very much for doing this on our behalf. So excited, so enthusiastic about what the potential offers.

I feel very privileged to be able to serve in this House of Assembly at this particular point in our history. I have always believed that serving as a Member of the House of Assembly representing a district, representing my district of Mount Pearl, is a very, very special privilege, and it is one that very few people have the opportunity to do. All of us who are here, on all sides of the House, are members of a very elite club, if you will, a very small number of people who since Confederation have had the opportunity to represent people of this Province in this environment. So this is a privilege that I hold very sacredly; that I consider to be, in fact, a sacred trust. I believe that the people who elected me did so because they believe in my judgement. They believe that I will speak on what I believe to be true because they know that I will put their interests and the interests of people in this Province once and always first. It will always come before my own interests or any other interests that I could ever imagine, because this is such a sacred trust to be part of a democracy where you have that privilege to represent people in this way.

When I stand here and support this deal today I have to say to you that I do so knowing first of all, that I am not a lawyer. I have not had the background that some members of the House on my own side as well as on the Opposition side have had, who could look at these Statement of Principles and could analyze them legally. No, I don't have that kind of expertise.

I am not a mining expert. Heaven knows, I do not have a background which would enable me to look at this deal as a mining expert would and be able to indicate whether or not this is a positive deal, something that is good for the Province. I am not a financial expert either. I believe my colleague, who is the Minister of Finance, is very expert in the matter of finances today, but I am not a financial expert and I could not look at it in that light either.

I had to bring to this Statement of Principles my own judgement. I had to bring to it my own natural approach to anything that I consider to be important, as I consider this to be, and I had to ask questions. I had to ask questions of my colleague the Minister of Finance. I had to ask questions of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Energy. I had to ask many, many questions of the Premier but also, in addition to that, I made sure that those questions were asked. Indeed, I also asked some of those questions myself to the various mining experts, to the various legal experts, to the various financial experts, to ensure that a neophyte like me, someone who does not have all of this expertise, could get the answers to be able to make a good judgement on this particular Statement of Principles, because I knew, Mr. Speaker, that is what the people of my district expect of me. That is what the people of this Province expect of every one of us, to take the time to ask the questions, to make sure that we fully understand, to make sure that we have covered every possible base, to be guaranteed that this deal, these Statement of Principles, will serve the people of this Province well, not only today, not only in the next ten years, but in decades and decades and decades to come, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, our own negotiating team has said to us, in answering all of these questions, that this is a good deal. This is the best possible deal that we can get knowing that there are always two partners to a deal, and any deal has to serve the best interests of both parties if it is going to move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the independent analysis of the financial experts and they have told us this is a very good deal. In fact, some of them have almost been surprised at how good a financial deal this is for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the mining experts. They have said to us the same thing, that this is a very good deal for the Province. Likewise, the legal experts. None of them, not one of all of these experts have been able to point to a fatal flaw. Not one of them have been able to point to some statement in these forty-eight Statement of Principles which would say that we are putting the Province at risk, that we are exposing the Province to harm. Quite the contrary. They are taking a position and they have told us - and at some point when you are not an expert yourself, you do have to, after seeking out advice, decide if you are going to listen to that advice and to take it or not.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been with keen interest over the last day-and-a-half that I have tried to listen to the Opposition members who have spoken, thinking that if they, like me, are so privileged to stand in this House and to represent the people of this Province, if they are willing to vote against this, they must know something I do not know. You know, they must see something in this deal that we just cannot see and all of the experts that we have consulted with cannot see.

Mr. Speaker, I know they have lawyers on the other side, as well; maybe they have seen something. I haven't heard it yet. Maybe they have consulted with mining experts, but they haven't shared that with us yet and I know they haven't discussed this, as far as I know, with our officials and our negotiating team, because the offer was made to the Opposition to brief them so that they could have the same chance that I had to ask the questions and to get answers from the people who are at the table, and I understand that they did not take advantage of that opportunity, as yet. Maybe they will before this debate is finished.

I am sure that the Premier and the ministers would gladly agree to make our officials from the negotiating team available to them today, when we break for supper, tonight, tomorrow morning, whenever they would want, if they want to get their concerns addressed, if they want to ask them in the first person, as we, on this side, have had an opportunity to do.

Mr. Speaker, if the members of the Opposition were able to bring forward here something in the way of evidence, something of a factual basis that would say that this is wrong, then I think that every one of us would have to stop and reconsider. But, when I have listened for the evidence, when I have tried to seek out the facts here from the various comments of the members opposite, I just haven't heard any. I haven't been able to find one solid concrete piece of information in what they are delivering, and that really concerns me. What have I heard? I mean, we have just listened to the Question Period that has gone on. We listened yesterday in the same vein. Twenty minutes, twenty-five minutes of Question Period, with the Leader of the Opposition making the point that the Statement of Principles is not a final deal. Well, that is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. I think that every one of us recognize, as is stated in the document, that this is not a final deal. You know, that goes without saying. I don't see that as being a reason for us to deny the people of this Province the prosperity that this deal will bring to people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot imagine that anyone would make that their reason why they would not support this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: The second point that was brought up yesterday, and brought up again today in Question Period, was that this is subject to financing.

Mr. Speaker, again, I look at this and it is part of the Preamble which says that, "the arrangement of suitable financing by the Proponent to enable the Project to be developed on a financially prudent basis" is one of something like six conditions in the Preamble. Again, Mr. Speaker, what a blindingly obvious glimpse of the obvious. Of course it has to be financed. We have heard the Premier talk about all of the various ways, the amount of resource, the value of what will be going forward to know that they need to arrange financing. Of course they do. These Statement of Principles are necessary and will simply say that if that does not happen then, no, the project cannot go forward. So, that is fairly self-evident.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we have heard that another reason that the people of the Province should not support this deal is because it will only provide to the Province, it will only provide to the Treasury, $500,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say it here. I have heard his members say it here. I have heard members say it in the media, that this will only represent $500,000. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the statements that upsets me the most because it is so misleading. It is so obvious to anyone who knows how equalization factors into economic development in this Province.

If we are to hold out and to pack away all of our economic development until the time that we can say the federal government will not take back the equalization payments that they are giving us today, then what are we to do? What are we to say to people on the Northern Peninsula? What are we to say to the people in Labrador? What are we to say to the people on the Burin Peninsula and in Argentia and all over this Province? Sorry, there is no point in us doing anything, there is no point in us pursing any development, because we are going to lose 95 per cent of the royalties to the Treasury to the federal government. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but to me that is not a good enough reason to deny the people of this Province the kind of prosperity, the kind of prosperity, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: - the kind of prosperity that 400 jobs will bring to an area such as Argentia and Placentia; the kind of prosperity that 400 jobs will bring to Northern Labrador and indeed to all of Labrador.

We listened yesterday as one of the members opposite, I believe it was for The Straits & White Bay, who referred to the mere, the paltry, 800 jobs that would come with an underground mine. Now, Mr. Speaker, in Mount Pearl today, I would grab, in a flash, a project that would offer to our city's residents, or anyone on the Avalon Peninsula, or anyone in this Province, 800 jobs. I would take 400. Mr. Speaker, would you give me 100? Because I would take that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard any good reason why we should, in good conscience, not support this deal. That is where, I guess, I have to state that perhaps unlike some of my colleagues and perhaps unlike some of the other members opposite, when I hear, and when the Premier tells me, I have a free vote, that I am free to vote as I see fit, I interpret my free vote to be, as one of the members opposite said today, a vote of conscience. I believe I have to vote in what is the best interests of the people of this Province and what will serve their interests for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, if members opposite stand today or tomorrow, if the Member for Placentia stands tomorrow and says, I believe in my heart, I believe with my conscience, this deal is good for this Province, that this deal is good for the people of my district -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: - then I will applaud him and I will certainly respect the position that he has taken, because, he will be a person of principle.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is important for all of us to know that when members rise to speak here - and I respect every member who speaks in this House - that they are speaking with conviction and that they believe what they are saying.

In conclusion, because I know I have very little time left - it is amazing how quickly twenty minutes goes when you would like to have more time to tell just why this is so important to us, why I believe this guarantee will ensure the prosperity that we want so desperately for all of our people, our children and our grandchildren to come, why the Inco Innovation Centre will be such an asset to the young people who come forward in our Province and make us a centre of mining expertise for all of the world, right here, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the biggest guarantee that we hold as a Province is that lease. The Premier has spoken time and again about the guarantees we have put into place in this Statement of Principles where we can pull back, where we can stop exploration, where we can say: No, Inco, if you have not delivered in this phased-in approach, you can export any more concentrate. Mr. Speaker, after five years of no more export, well, we own it. It is ours. We take it back. We take back everything that is left there. That is greatest security that anyone could ever want to have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, when I stand and say, in good conscience, with my best judgement, I enthusiastically and in every possible unqualified way support this deal, I am also very pleased to say today that I also have the support of the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: In a press release today, and I will just read one brief quote from it, it says: The Chamber trusts the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes its crucial responsibility in the pursuit of due diligence as it relates to the specific details of the final binding contract.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Chamber goes on to say that Newfoundland and Labrador will be at the forefront of this technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, with that I will conclude my remarks. I am very privileged, as I have said, to have this opportunity to be part of history, and I look forward to thirty years from now when we will all be celebrating this day once again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to welcome to the gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Windsor-Springdale, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have an opportunity to participate fully in this debate today and to have a full hour to talk about the concerns and the issues as they relate to this particular project and to this particular deal.

I have listened carefully to what the government has been saying over the last number of days since the announcement. I have listened to what members opposite have been saying. I have to provide my perspective on what I hear - my perspective and our parties perspective on this very important question of resource development for Newfoundland and Labrador and to talk about the implications that it has for current policy, future policy, and our own future history.

One of the things I found astounding, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the government's propaganda - and I will call it that for a good reason - and for members opposite statement, is because they have not engaged in an information program. They have not said to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: here are the facts, here is the deal, it has weaknesses, it has strengths, here is the consequences to the people of Newfoundland, here is the consequences to the Treasury, here is how much money we will get to do our other programs, here is what we are getting for our resource. All they have talked about are jobs. Now, jobs are important. Jobs are very important to a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador with an unemployment rate of over 18 per cent. Jobs are particularly important in Labrador, and on the Labrador coast in particular. We have in particular our Aboriginal communities who have not been able to participate fully in North American life. A job is particularly important to a person who needs one.

When I hear members across the way talking in ebullient terms about how Mrs. So-and-so's sons and daughters are going to be coming home from Alberta; and I was talking to so-and-so, isn't it great because my kids can come home? I want to give a note of caution to those people who are going to be encouraging people to come home because the latest statistics for people unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador - and this is as of May, 2002 - is that there are 49,000 people unemployed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you want to encourage another 4,000 or 5,000, or 10,000 to come home, or some of the 40,000 that left in the last five years to come home, I would say be cautious. Be cautious because there are 49,000 people here who are looking for work. You are talking about hundreds of jobs, or as they used to say, hundreds of jobs for thousands of people. It is not something that you can make fun of but that is what you are talking about; a fraction of the problem.

If you start encouraging people to look at this as a project that is going to be the answer for themselves or their future or their families to come back home, then think twice before you encourage anyone to take that trip and take that chance because they may be sadly disappointed. So, that is the first note of caution but yet that is not what the government is doing. They are not saying this is a project that has good opportunities for those who are able to get them, but be careful.

On the radio at lunchtime today, VOCM has advertisements running by this government talking about jobs and how wonderful the project is because it will be jobs and bring benefits to the people who get those jobs. Yes, it will. Yes it will, but we have, as legislators, to look at the entire project and put it into perspective of where we are and what we are doing as a Province.

Let me also put into perspective a couple of other things, because this company, Inco, is a bit of a known quantity. It has been around for a hundred years and it has a very rocky history, I say, Mr. Speaker. The last fifteen or twenty years have been a little better than most, but let me say that this company has not always been rock solid financially. It has had close calls and it may well have them again.

I want to talk about two particular items that get a lot of publicity, and the company publicized it themselves. One of them is the support for the hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the $15 million contribution. They been ballyhooing that about for a number of years. Well, I want to remind Inco, or any corporate citizen, that health care is the responsibility of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We pay for that with taxes, Mr. Speaker, taxes that individuals pay and taxes that corporations are expected to pay. If Inco wants to enrich the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be hospitals, post-secondary education, social services, economic development activities, well I say pay your taxes, pay your fair share of taxes. We will look after that responsibility, which is our constitutional right to do, and Inco is doing that. Why, Mr. Speaker? They are doing that to court some support with the people, court favour with the government, court favour with people in certain areas. That is why they are doing it. They are not doing it because they are trying to be good corporate citizens. They are doing it because they want to have some influence.

The second piece of perspective I want to draw to this is the Inco Innovation Centre at Memorial University. A big announcement the other day: Ribbon cutting at the university. The largest corporate donation in the university's history, $20 million. Well, the perspective I want to put to this, Mr. Speaker, is where does this $20 million come from? Where is the $20 million coming from? Ten million dollars upfront and a million dollars a year for ten years. Well, a very amazing coincidence is that we passed into legislation in this House of Assembly six years ago something called the mineral tax amendment act. We amended that act to provide a tax holiday for ten years for all new mineral development in the Province. The government announced a year later, after they realized that they were giving a tax break to Voisey's Bay, that the government of the day said: We are going to amend that. We do not think it should really apply to megaprojects or to large projects, so we are going to put a cap on that of a maximum of $2 million per year for that ten-year tax holiday.

Here we see it today, in this agreement, the $20 million tax holiday granted by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is being used to pay for the Inco Innovation Center. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Inco Innovation Center is being paid for, not by Inco, but by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador in a tax concession granted to Inco. That's who is paying for that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are paying for it by giving a tax break to Inco. I think it is important to understand that because Inco wants to get credit for that as if it were something coming from its corporate largess.

What I say as well, is that if you see Inco or any company making those kinds of so-called contributions - $15 million to a hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; $20 million to the university - you can be sure that this is being done for some greater purpose. These are known numbers. What is not known here and what is not known in this House of Assembly this morning is: What is Inco getting? We heard Mr. Scott Hand say that he hopes to make a minimum of 15 per cent return on his investment. Well, how much is his investment? That is 15 per cent, not once, but that is 15 per cent every year. They do not just take the return on the investment once, it is 15 per cent every year, year after year after year.

They are talking about investing $3 billion into this project. You can see very easily that their minimum return on their investment is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year, at a minimum. So let us not be fooled by something like the Inco Innovation Center or something like a contribution to a hospital or any other donations that they might make. These are based on public relations efforts to try and get the big picture on their side. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that is what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter - and I think other members may have gotten the same letter - from an individual in St. John's, a retiree on a fixed income, and he says: Inco is investing $3 billion in a mine which is projected to produce $10 billion worth of nickel. Add to this the income from copper and cobalt, and it becomes obvious why Mr. Hand has such a magnificent smile. Well, that is his perspective, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is a perspective that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand, that this is not being done by Inco because they want to hire people, because they want to engage in economic development or even because they want to produce nickel. They are doing this because they can make substantial profits for their shareholders which is their role in our mixed economy capitalist society.

So let's not regard them as anything other than an organization which has a name and a purpose, which will do what it is able to do to maximize its own position. Now, this is a company that spent the first fifteen years of its existence in Canada, not even refining any nickel in Canada. In fact, it took a Royal Commission in Ontario to force them to refine nickel in Canada because they were telling the people of Ontario that they could not afford to, that they would never make any money, that it would not be profitable for them to refine nickel in Canada. But, when it became particularly odious during the First World War when nickel from Sudbury was being shipped for smeltering and refining in the U.S. and sold to the Germans for use against Canadian troops when the Americans were not in the War; when it became particularly odious that this was going on, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario had a Royal Commission and they found, lo and behold, that Inco could very profitably refine ore and refine nickel in Canada and then they were forced to do so by the Government of Ontario. So, they didn't do it until they were told they had to do that.

That is the situation that Inco is in today, Mr. Speaker. They are only going to do what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador require them to do as part of this project. That is the perspective that I am coming from, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about, and when we talk about, the jobs. I talked about the fact that there were 49,000 people unemployed in Newfoundland today and that is not counting people who are in training programs who are not considered, for that reason, to be in the labour force, the young people in school and all of that.

What are we talking about in terms of jobs? On a permanent basis, we are talking, in Labrador, 400 jobs, and maybe another 400 in 2018, maybe another 400 if it is economically feasible, subject to feasibility studies, subject to exploration and all of that, maybe another 400 in 2018. So, 400 jobs today, maybe another 400 in 2018, plus the construction, and construction is important. Construction is important because we have a large construction labour force that needs jobs. These are short-term jobs for a three-year period now and perhaps another three-year period building the mine. In Argentia, 200 jobs now and either another 150 starting in 2011 or another 200, depending on which project you are talking about.

So, in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Speaker, with a 49,000 unemployment rate, we are not looking at a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate as a result of this project. I don't say that, Mr. Speaker, to put down the project. This is a good project. It is a good thing to have a mine to mine iron ore in Labrador West. It was a good thing to mine iron ore on Bell Island. It was a good thing to have mines, and productive mines, Mr. Speaker, provided they are operated safely, they don't pollute the environment, and they clean up after they are finished, which Hope Brook, by the way, did not. It is a good thing to have these jobs. They are good quality jobs and they provide a decent living for families and lots of spinoff activity. So, it is a good thing to do this, but we have to put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the other side. The other side is what government hasn't told people.

I want to say, before doing that, that there are very good things about this project. One of the firsts for this project is that the Innu and Inuit are involved and have been involved. Now, that didn't come easy either, Mr. Speaker. That wasn't a gift from Inco. So, let's get that straight. That came about because the Innu and the Inuit insisted that they be full participants, and they were helped along by constitutional developments throughout the country and legal decisions in our Supreme Court of Canada which required that their interests as claimants against the land be taken into consideration. That is why we have IBAs, Impact Benefit Agreements, with the Innu and the Inuit. We have them because once again they were legally required to do so by law and by the actions and decisions of the courts and by our Constitution.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, one group is left out. The Metis Nation was left out. Why was that, Mr. Speaker? Because there was no court that said you had to include them. There was no law that said you had to include them. That is why they were left out, Mr. Speaker. There is no IBA with the Metis people, and that is a shame. There should be a direct involvement by them as well.

There are other good things, Mr. Speaker, about the project that I want to mention, and that is that the adjacency principle has been recognized to a large degree with respect to the mine, certainly in terms of the operations in Labrador, that all of Labrador is being invited to participate and allowed to participate. Labrador West through the fly-in operations, Labrador West through the business opportunities, the Coast, of course, which are going to be, and should be, the primary beneficiaries, but also Southern Labrador through the fly-in operations through Cartwright which should be able to be accessed by road, by people in Southern Labrador and, of course, Happy Valley-Goose Bay as the staging area for much of Labrador's activity. The adjacency principle has been recognized and that is a very good thing. It is perhaps more positive than any other project I have seen.

Again, to put it in perspective, the Innu had no involvement, no participation, not even any consultation, when Churchill Falls was built, and their lands, their traditional hunting lands, some of their burial grounds, their traditionally-used lands in Western Labrador -

MR. McLEAN: Where my parents came from.

MR. HARRIS: - and, as the Member for Lake Melville says, where his parents come from as well, their lands, the lands where they hunted, fished and lived were flooded without consultation and participation or any compensation to the Aboriginal peoples who were there many, many hundreds of years, if not many thousands of years, before the European settlers came along.

There are good things about this project and there are good things that will be happening in Labrador if this project if approved by this House, but I have to say, Madam Speaker, that the project itself, and the deal that has been negotiated by this government, leaves a lot to be desired.

Let's look back. The Premier talked about the history a little bit, the history that deserves some consideration, because back in 1994 - you talked about 1993, yes, the discovery was actually made in 1993, but it was not until October of 1994 when actual diamond drilling was done and the extent or the value of the resource was recognized. We really got something that was only, in October, 1994 - its value, as to the size of it. Some diamond drilling was done and the discovery that had been made one day in 1993 all of a sudden was revealed to be this magnificent ore body that it is.

This was so valuable, people knew about it. We had a debate here in the House of Assembly in December of that year, when this mineral tax amendment act was being debated and it was recognized. It was recognized then by certain activity on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, that maybe something pretty serious was going on in Labrador. Yet, the House still passed it, over my objection. I was the only one who opposed it at the time. I did not have my colleague from Labrador West with me at the time, but we opposed it as a party because it was giving a tax holiday, an unlimited tax holiday for ten years for any new mineral development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not recognized by government until some six months later, what they had done.

The Premier of the day, Premier Wells, acknowledged in the House of Assembly that this should not apply to Voisey's Bay and some six months later brought in a new piece of legislation which never passed, which never passed, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier resigned in December of 1995. A new Premier was elected. An election was called before the House reopened, and the legislation died on the Order Paper.

But, Mr. Speaker, this was during the period when there was great interest in the Voisey's Bay deposit. Inco had bought 25 per cent of the project from Diamond Field Resources and there was a battle over the other 75 per cent. This was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of a smelter and a refinery in Newfoundland and Labrador came about. It was not from Inco, Mr. Speaker; it was from Falconbridge. Falconbridge wanted to buy the other 75 per cent and they said that they would build a mine, a smelter and a refinery in this Province as a part of their interest in this other 75 per cent of the find. That was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the talk of a refinery in this Province from that resource came about.

It is interesting that Falconbridge would do that because they did not even have any refining capacity in Canada at the time, and they still do not. They send their matte ore, their smelted ore, to Norway for refining. They do not even refine it in Canada. They have an exemption from the Government of Ontario and from the Government of Quebec, the Raglan Mine. That all goes to Norway for refining. They were so convinced of the value of this ore body when they wanted to buy it, that they said that they would build a smelter and a refinery in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, that was the first notion - not from the Newfoundland government but from Falconbridge - that they would do that.

Later, as we know, Inco bought the property. They bought the other 75 per cent and became full owners of the property for some $4.5 million; $4.4 million or $4.5 million, maybe upwards of $4.5 million. They paid $4.3 for the 75 per cent and they already had spent $700-some million for the first 25 per cent. That is the initial notion of a smelter in the Province.

Following that, Mr. Speaker, the company carried out its own investigation after it bought the resource. They announced, after their study - in 1996, Dr. Stewart Gendron, President of Voisey's Bay Nickel, announced on November 29, 1996, that they would build a smelter and refinery in Argentia to employ 500 people in the smelter and 400 people more in the refinery. So, 900 people in Argentia, in a smelter and refinery, was announced in November of 1996. That was the plan in 1996. It was going to be in operation, smelting Voisey's Bay nickel and cobalt concentrate, in the year 2000. That was November of 1996. We are now talking here about a deal that is supposed to last thirty years. We do not know what is going to happen twenty-five years from now. We do not know what is going to happen ten years from now. We don't know what it going to happen.

The members opposite want us to talk about something that is going to happen in the future. Let me tell you what they said in 1996: A smelter and refinery in Argentia, 900 people, produce ore by 2000. Well all that changed. Well if all that changed, Mr. Speaker, in a matter of four or five years, what kind of changes are we going to expect in two years, in five years, in ten years, in the year 2018 when they say that they might build a mine? We cannot take that to the bank. This is all estimates, projections, plans. We can look back on this company itself and the promises that it made in 1996 and say that these promises are only vague hopes, only expectations. Why didn't they do that, Mr. Speaker? Why didn't they build a smelter and refinery in Argentia? Now, the Premier yesterday said: well, it was because the government was insisting that they do it differently. That is not the reason, Mr. Speaker. The reason they did not do it - and they announced it in August of 1997. They said that the $1.5 billion smelter refinery no longer made economic sense; no longer made economic sense because of world nickel prices and their own financial circumstances.

We talked about this 100 year old company but, Mr. Speaker, in December and the fall of 1997 and early 1998, that company was looking at selling off assets to raise cash. They were in a precarious financial state. This 100 year old company was looking at selling off assets to keep themselves afloat. They were being accused of being in a precarious financial situation and there was talk of being taken over by some other company, weak management, et cetera. They were in a precarious financial circumstance and they wanted out of their obligation. They came to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and said that world nickel prices were down and they were not in a position to follow through on the commitments they had made only two years before that. That is the real reason why they did not proceed at that time. The rest was positioning and posturing by this government. No smelter, no mine, not one ounce and all of the other arguments, and I am not going to go into the politics of all that. That history is well-known. Every person in this Province knows what happened in the election of 1999, knows what happened with the posturing and what went on since.

Now we come to the current regime and the Premier who was Minister of Mines and Energy for a year or so, and the talk of late about having some ore go out. Maybe we will let some go out. I am not sure how he first introduced it but it was a real delicate game of words that the minister, the current Premier made, a real little game of words floating the idea, maybe we will do this, maybe we will do that. What about this, what about that? So all the whole game of words went on, trying to prepare the public for the notion that maybe some of this ore would actually go out of the Province unprocessed.

Now the government thinks that we are there. Now they think they have the people of the Province convinced that it is okay to have ore go out. Not only have ore go out, Mr. Speaker, and then hopefully come back through the so-called guarantee, not only that, but secondarily to agree in the so-called principles here that not only can the ore go out for a period of years and come back at some indefinite point in the future, we could be in a situation, if the hydromet system does not work and we have the matte processing facility, that each and every ounce of nickel concentrate produced in Voisey's Bay will go out of the Province for smelting somewhere else and brought back as matte. Now matte, m-a-t-t-e, I never heard of this word before but I am learning an awful lot about it, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this Province may learn more about it than they want to know because nickel matte is a semi-finished product that comes from a smelter. I mean, nickel processing, you mine it and you concentrate it, then you smelt it using heat or whatever process, and you make it into matte. Then the matte is refined into the finished product. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to learn about that because if we end up with that process, every single ounce, every single ton, every single bit of nickel will go out of the Province forever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every spoonful.

MR. HARRIS: Every spoonful. Every spoonful will go out of the Province forever. It is supposed to come back. It is coming back in the form of nickel matte and to be finally processed in this Province. That is the prospect that we are now faced - away from Falconbridge's promise and commitment to build a smelter and a refinery; and the announcement in 1996 by Inco to build a smelter and a refinery at a cost of a billion dollars for 900 jobs.

Now we are at this process here by this government saying this is what we are going to get. Not only that, we are going to allow 440,000 tons of nickel in concentrate go out of the Province. That is a very, very important point, because what does that mean? Why that number? What is it worth? What does it mean? Well, I tried to put some perspective on it, Madam Speaker, by checking out what the value is, based on the ore content and the concentrate content that has been spelled out, you know, from the very beginning. So much percentage, 2.8 per cent, 3 per cent nickel in the ore; 1.63 per cent or 1.83 per cent of copper; and .12 per cent of cobalt. The very, very rich ore in the ovoid.

What is the value of 440,000 tons of nickel in concentrate? Assuming cobalt and copper are going with that, how much is that worth? Well, if you look at the values - and it is not that hard to do because we have, through the wonders of the Internet, access to the world markets, and there is a world market in metals. At a price of $7,000 a ton for nickel, not only today - and that is U.S. - but going forward for twenty-seven months; at $7,000 a ton, 440,000 tons of nickel in concentrate - now the finished nickel product is worth $3 billion U.S., about $4.5 billion Canadian. The amount of copper that would be a part of that, at the percentages that we know about, 261,000 tons of copper at a value of nearly $1,650 a ton, for a value of $429 million U.S.; and over 18,000 tons of cobalt at the world price of $10 a pound, another $410 million, for a total of $3.8 billion U.S. or about $5.9 billion Canadian. Now that is the value of the finished product of that 440,000 tons.

Madam Speaker, if that were produced in Newfoundland and Labrador, it seems to me that would give us a Gross Domestic Product of about $6 billion; if that were all produced in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not hear very many financial numbers, but the financial number that we heard is that there is going to be $11 billion added to Newfoundland's GDP over thirty years. Yet, the 440,000 tons, which they expect to take out over five years, is worth $6 billion. So that is putting into perspective what this government plans to do up front; that is the up front.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition is calling it a signing bonus. I do not know if it is a signing bonus, but it is certainly a concession from this Province to Inco. It is a big time incentive. It is a big concession to Inco to allow them to take out that kind of ore worth - as a finished nickel product, cobalt and copper, in that amount. When we look at that, we are looking at a very, very rich ore body.

Back in the beginning when Inco finally bought this, they were jubilant. They were even saying: we are getting the nickel for free because the value of the cobalt and the value of the other ores are so high that they pay the cost of producing the nickel. So we are getting the nickel for free. That is how jubilant they were when they paid $4.3 billion for this mining property back in 1995.

Madam Speaker, that is the nature of the concession that is being given to Inco. You can take out ore that is worth, as finished product, nearly $6 billion Canadian. The question then becomes: Why are we doing that? What are we getting for it? What is our return? What is our return for allowing that amount of ore to go out? Well, the Premier in his capacity as Mines and Energy Minister, and in his capacity as Premier, used all these words: Well, it is just a loan. We will let it go out now and we will get it back.

I have to say, I wanted a deal that I could support. I have to say that. I really, really wanted to see a deal negotiated by this government that would be good enough for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; that I could support it. I think all of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted such a deal and that is probably part of the reason why so many people said: Yes, it sounds good to me; when they just talked about jobs and nothing else. Now that people are finding out (inaudible) something else, they are not so sure; but we all wanted to have a good deal. The question we have to ask then: If this major concession is being given up front, what are we getting in return? The Premier said: we have a guarantee. Well, the guarantee is nothing more than: so sue me if I don't produce. That is no guarantee, Madam Speaker.

I am not going to get into this whole business about lawyers and lawsuits and all these games that people play, but I will tell you one thing, that any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit. Why do lawyers say that? Why do sensible, practical lawyers say that? They say that because there is an awful lot of uncertainty in court cases. If you have ever had occasion to go into a law library you will see lines and rows and rows of books on every shelf, and in every book there are reports on hundreds of cases - in some cases, in textbooks, thousands of cases - but I want to tell you something. In every one of those cases somebody won and somebody lost. The uncertainty of going to court is something that I do not recommend to people if you have an opportunity to resolve something without going to court.

The notion of having a lawsuit available to you is not something that I would offer as a guarantee to anybody. If you have an opportunity to define your damages, if you have an opportunity to define what you are entitled to, liquidated damages it is called, you would do that. This guarantee is the most disappointing thing that I have ever seen on paper, Madam Speaker, the most disappointing thing that I have ever seen on paper in terms of anything that you would expect to be credible or believable in the world of finance, business or law.

If we are not getting that - if you go around to people and you talk to people in all walks of life, and I mean people in the street, I mean people in business, people who are bankers, and ask: What do you think about this guarantee? They will shake their heads. We will never see that ore here again. That is people's attitude. I tell you, they are not going to have a lot of confidence or comfort in that clause saying you can go to court. What court, and who are you taking to court? Are you going to take Inco to court? Where is Inco going to be in ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty years time, or Voisey's Bay Nickel? Where is Friede Goldman now? We had a guarantee with them, Madam Speaker. You know all about it; it is in your district. Let's take Friede Goldman to court. It is only a joke. Everybody knows that. A 100-year-old company. Eatons is a 100-year-old company, or it was until a few years ago. Some of the largest corporations in the United States - Enron - gone. Arthur Andersen, one of the largest financial accounting corporations in the world, destroyed. I was listening to the news today; they will never survive. This was a huge multinational, respected corporation. If you said to someone two years ago that Arthur Andersen would be toast in 2002, people would laugh at you. People would have laughed at you and said: Arthur Andersen, what could happen to them? Well, they are gone. They are gone. They will never do another audit after their conviction for interference with the course of justice in the United States and their history after a year of activity.

When we see this kind of guarantee, and are convinced that we have no comfort, we have to know, what else are we getting? What else are we getting for our up front permission to Inco to take out what would end up being $6 billion worth of finished product? What are we getting?

I wondered about that for some time because there was some talk about that, but I think that the Premier actually revealed it. He revealed not what we are getting, but he revealed why they want it and what we were doing for Inco in a radio interview. It was not even an interview. He phoned in. He phoned into CBC Morning Line on May 15, 2002, before this, two or three weeks before the deal was announced, and he says - this was when he said there was not one ounce of ore going out. This was when he was playing with words. There is no ore going out, it is only concentrate. What he said was -

MR. LUSH: Words are important.

MR. HARRIS: Words are important, the Government Leader said. Yes, words are important. So, if I can say a word that you think means something else and get away with it, then I will do it. That is the Premier's attitude towards words. So what he said was, not one teaspoon of ore is going out, only 440,000 tonnes of concentrate. No ore, only 440,000 tonnes of concentrate worth $6 billion in finished product, that is all that is going out, not one spoonful of ore.

He wants people to take him seriously in terms of revealing to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador the facts and the truth, and asking people to make up their own minds. We have not heard one number from this Premier yet in terms of what the benefits are to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, except the number of jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What he said was: Now everybody in the Province, I think, including yourself and your listeners, understand that we have been talking about, after the ore is sent through a $600 million mill and turned into concentrate, that some of that concentrate, instead of coming immediately to a plant in Newfoundland on the Island, might have to be shipped out for some period of time to raise the money to build the plant on the Island.

Now we got it. Some of that concentrate -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the reason.

MR. HARRIS: Well, at that time he did not say 440,000 tonnes worth $6 billion. In order to build a $700 million plant on the Island, in Argentia, we have to ship out 440,000 tonnes of concentrate worth $6 billion. So, that is what we are doing.

We know who is financing the demonstration project, $130 million from the taxpayers of Canada. The taxpayers of Canada are financing the demonstration project which the Premier said was a $130 million plant. He talked about it at length yesterday morning, $130 million, not an $85 million plant like the hospital there. Can you imagine how big that would be, he said.

Well, you know, the Premier was exaggerating because it is not a $130 million plant. The demonstration plant is actually an $85 million plant. There is $130 million going into research and development but the plant itself, according to the government's own documents, is only going to be $85 million and, according to Inco's documents, is only going to be $85 million. The $130 million is the overall amount, but the Government of Canada is paying for that in research and development money. I do not have any problem with research and development money coming into this Province. The more the merrier. I will talk about that a little later. What we want to know is this.

Then, in the next sentence, the Premier says: We are talking about some of that concentrate for a defined period might be loaned to Inco to be replaced later on, so that they can raise the money to build the plant that we want, that will last there a long time after the mine is closed.

So, who is financing the processing facility in Argentia? It is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through their ore, through their concentrate, through what should have been and what was promised to be processed here in Newfoundland and Labrador into a finished nickel product, through that being sent away and going to Thompson and going to Sudbury.

The people of Newfoundland, through this concession, are not only financing that; they are giving a healthy profit to the company as well and they are going to put one or the other of a hydromet facility or a matte processing facility. They are going to do that with the money that they get from selling our ore, selling the concentrate that they produce from our ore.

They are going to get 15 per cent minimum on their investment. What are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador getting other than the job that it would take to take that ore out? Are we supposed to be thankful because we are going to actually be hired to take our own ore out our Province and ship it out? Is that what we need to be thankful for? Or, should we be looking as a Province to our own future and to the fact that we have been complaining for years that we have magnificent natural resources in this Province but we are not getting the benefit from them?

We are not getting the benefit from Churchill Falls. We are not getting the benefit from our offshore. We are not getting the benefit from our forestry. We did not get the benefit from our fishery. That is all we hear in this Province. Where are the benefits from our magnificently-endowed natural resources that we have, our endowment from nature? The natural resources are being used to benefit someone else.

Isn't this the same old story, Madam Speaker, the same old story? We get to have the job to dig the ore out of the ground and put it on some facility for shipping out of the Province, and we get to provide the money to finance what is going to be going on in Argentia, and we are not participants. We do not even have a share. The company is going to get 15 per cent per year, every year, in perpetuity, on its investment - that is their plan, that is their hope - minimum. What are we getting? Well, we do not really know because I have not heard one single figure from this government. If they thought we were going to get something magnificent out of it, we would have heard it. The public relations campaign would be talking about what the benefits are to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I asked a question yesterday in the House of Assembly to the Premier, one that I have asked many times before: What are the benefits? Where are the numbers? We had Inco itself produce figures back in 1998 and they produced them to the Environmental Assessment Panel when they were asked, and they had to be asked. Give us an outline of the fiscal benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, to the Treasury, because the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador has got what it is supposed to pay for hospitals. Not a gift from Inco. The Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador has to pay for health care, for education, for training, for social assistance, for all the other services that are provided by government. We have to find the money to do that and this government has been, you know, running a deficit for the last two or three years so, obviously, we do not have enough money to pay for these things. Transfer payments from Ottawa are being decreased, and we are in difficult shape. So, where is the money and the benefits to the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador for this magnificent project, the world's richest nickel resource? The ovoid, we just talked about, is worth $30 billion. Where are the benefits to this Province's Treasury to pay for this project?

Madam Speaker, I will go back again to the document filed by Voisey's Bay Nickel back in 1998. They list out the various benefits, the Treasury impacts, mining taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, direct and indirect; not just the people working there but all the spinoff. The Province, at the end of the day, net revenue is $417 million and the net revenue for the Government of Canada is $4.9 billion; $4.9 billion for the government and people of Canada, and $417 million for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the life of the project.

That, Madam Speaker, are the numbers that were put on the table by Inco back in 1998. I have asked, but not received, a similar table for this project as it stands right now. Does the government know? If they don't, they should be ashamed of themselves. If they haven't told us then they are hiding something. Now they might give some numbers tomorrow. The Minister of Finance has conveniently waited until after I have spoken. Maybe she will say some numbers tomorrow before anybody can counter them and before we can debate them further. If the numbers were anything worth talking about, we would have heard about them. We would have heard about them, Madam Speaker, because they would have been made available to us.

I will go back to the letter that I received from this individual. He makes a very important point, that I am making, he says: For me, a retiree on fixed income, the most important issue in these so-called mega projects is that of royalties.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could ask the Premier and others who are talking here to - they are actually disturbing me and I cannot speak about it.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): Order, please!

Could I ask both sides of the House to keep their voices down a little. The member is having difficulty, and I am having difficulty hearing him from here.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am losing my concentration, but the Premier should listen because I am talking about royalties here.

I was reading from a letter that I received from an individual who says: For me, a retiree on fixed income, the most important issue in these so-called mega projects is that of royalties. Since the only way that life for the average citizen here is going to improve is through significant amounts of hard cash going into the provincial Treasury.

I cannot say it any better than that, Madam Speaker. If we do not take advantage of projects such as this, with resources such as this, which are not just world-class, Madam Speaker, but in the very, very top of valuable resources in the entire world; if we cannot, as a Province, as a people, make some money on this for the people, the government of Newfoundland, that we can use for services, that we can use to build our economy, that we can use to conduct research and development into other economic activity, that we can pay for health care, that we can pay for education, when are we going to do it? When are we going to do it, Madam Speaker? If we can't do it with the biggest, largest, most valuable, richest mineral deposit of nickel in the world, when, I ask rhetorically, are we going to do it? In fifty years time, in twenty years time?

If we cannot do it now, Madam Speaker, how can we expect the next generation to have any hope, whatsoever, of changing things for themselves and for future generations? If we cannot now today, this month, next month, say to Inco that this deal is not acceptable unless the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as a whole, benefit - not just those who are going to be working there. I am happy for them. I am happy for them, Madam Speaker, I am happy for them. I am happy for every single person who needs a job and gets one, but I want to say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole need revenues, royalties, and taxes from this project but we have not heard one single murmur from this government in this debate about that particular issue.

When we look at this - and I only have a few minutes left, Madam Speaker. The previous speaker said it is amazing how fast twenty minutes will go. Well, it is amazing how fast an hour goes. If I had leave from the opposite side, I would go for two hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: My friends here would give me leave, I am glad of that, but I am afraid my friends opposite will not do that.

What we see in this deal, Madam Speaker, is that all the upsides belong to Inco. Their minimum rate of return of 15 per cent, minimum. They could be making 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent on their investments. The downsides are for the Province. I just have to look at a few. We talked about: the meaningless guarantee is a downside for the Province. We talked about: the requirement for the mine cannot be built unless the proponent is satisfied that it can get prudent financing based on proper feasibility studies, et cetera, that is put off. There is no specific commitment beyond 2006 even, for underground exploration. Clause 19, "Subject to completion of a successful underground exploration program..." they will have a mine. These are the kinds of things that are in this deal for the proponent but not for the people.

Here is an interesting one, clause 35, "The Government will commit to cause Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to charge the island industrial electrical rate, or such lower electrical power rate that may be offered from time to time... for the Proponent's processing facilities located on the island portion of the Province..." That sounds innocuous enough, Madam Speaker, unless you realize that we could be in a situation where if we had a matte processing facility that requires enormous amounts of electricity that we may have to build, at our cost, facilities at enormous expense to provide that electricity and give it to them cheaply; subsidize electricity the same way we did with ERCO. We would have the bill and they would have the cheap power. Either that or we would have to pass it on to every other industrial customer in the Province. That is a very interesting one, assisting the company at the expense - a downside for the government, a guarantee for the company. Exemption orders forever, if they happen to be in that circumstance, to let every single ounce, every single spoonful of ore and concentrate from Voisey's Bay would go out of the Province.

Number 42, we guarantee that the legislative framework will not change. We are guaranteeing that the legislative framework, as it effects them, will not change for the next fifty, sixty - I do not know twenty, thirty years - however long they are here. A guarantee from the government to keep things the way they are.

Corporate Income Tax. We are saying they are going to have the lowest corporate income tax in Canada, based on the average or the Newfoundland rate, whichever is lower. What if Newfoundland wanted to be in the higher range, not allow Inco has a guarantee?

Not only that, clause 45 says that if there is a problem with the agreement and they end up double-taxing, the Newfoundland government will indemnify, they will pay them back. They will look after the guarantee for Inco, a downside for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Item 46 spells out the tax regime, again with no numbers there and no protection for what these actual costs are going to be.

There are a lot of weaknesses, Madam Speaker, in this deal. There are a lot of weaknesses. If you look on the environmental side alone, there were 107 recommendations from the Environmental Assessment Panel report, all of which were very important and considered by the panel to be essential. What has happened to them? Some of them involved a reclamation of the site. What have they done with them? They have passed them over to the MOU partners. The MOU partners are the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada, the Innu Nation and the LIA. What are they going to do with them? Well, they are going to have an environmental management committee or board, but they are going to have no power. They can only recommend things to the minister. So, we have no commitments on the environment other than the environmental order that was passed in 1999 by this Province, no commitment to any of these recommendations which were considered essential, no real commitment to research and development. What an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to have research and development, not on hydrometallurgy but on the uses of our own natural resources. What about downstream activity in terms of research and development, uses of these products, further processing in Newfoundland and Labrador?

When I go back to years ago when we talked about the oil refinery, and that was one of the megaprojects we talked about, at least Joey Smallwood had a vision that went beyond the oil refineries. He said: Well, we are going to have a feedstock for a petrochemical industry. We are going to have research and development.

We did not have any of it, mind you. We did not have it, but at least the vision was there. Now, in this modern age, when governments are involved in research and development, and research and development is needed and necessary and funds are available for it, why don't we have research and development on further processing of our own resources in our Province? Why isn't there a significant vision on that side from this government?

Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous weaknesses in this project. The project itself, I should say, to actually mine our nickel resource is a good project, but the deal that this government is putting forth is one that cannot be supported by me.

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the major concerns that I have: the weaknesses in this project, the fact that this government has not answered the concerns. They haven't dealt squarely with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have engaged in a propaganda campaign on jobs, election-style campaign. They have not dealt fairly and squarely with the facts, not offered the facts on what the real benefits are, or lack of benefits, particularly on the financial side, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this deal. I cannot support these so-called principles. I am voting against it because it does not offer enough. It doesn't offer enough jobs. It does not offer enough benefits for all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, enough vision for the future, enough revenues to the owners of the resource, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that our government can provide the services, the health care, the educational programs, the economic development activities that we, and the future generations of Newfoundland and Labrador, want, need, and must have.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against it because it does everything to protect and guarantee the risks and the interests of Inco, and not enough to protect or guarantee the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[The continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard No. 28A]


June 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28A


[Continuation of Sitting]

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to stand in this House and participate in this historic debate on the Statement of Principles regarding the Voisey's Bay Project, a project that, certainly, as we have heard many speakers before me indicate, will have a significant impact on this Province for many, many years and generations to come.

Madam Speaker, this debate that we have engaged in now, going well into the second day on the Voisey's Bay Project, will certainly, I feel, become a proud and defining point in our Province's history. In that sense, I am certainly proud to be a part of it. Also, let me state at the outset that I begin by stating unequivocally my support for this Statement of Principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: I feel that what we have here is a good deal for all of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This part weekend, from Thursday night on through the weekend, I had occasion to be in my district to meet with groups and individuals to discuss the particulars of this Statement of Principles and to talk in general terms as to what this particular project means for our Province, but more specifically, what it could mean for the area of the Province that has been my privilege and pleasure to represent now for a number of years.

Madam Speaker, the people in the area of the Province that I represent know what it is to want. They know what it is to need. They know what it is to be in search of economic development. They know what it is to look for hope, to find a reason for staying where you are; to be living in an area of the Province that you love dearly, that you want to stay in and raise your family in and remain in for the rest of your lives, but they recognize that there has to be a reason to stay.

Madam Speaker, the people in my district applaud any initiative that provides any Newfoundlander or Labradorian an opportunity to have a reason to remain here in this wonderful Province, to raise their families here, to build this Province and continue to build and grow it to make it to be the tremendous place in which to live and work. In my consultations and discussions on the weekend with my constituents, they were supportive. After they had asked questions with regard to some of the specifics. Indeed, some of the questions that we have heard referenced here in the past couple of days in debate and in Question Period were indeed the same questions being asked by my constituents. Madam Speaker, in very short time the discussion led to: let's get on with the work; and, how do we mobilize ourselves to make sure that we take advantage of the benefits that may be there for the people of this area of the Province?

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus for a little while, in the time that I have available to me this afternoon, at looking at where some of the issues first of all that had been referenced in the debate here for the last number of hours. First of all, Madam Speaker, I think we all have to be reminded and constantly reminded that the deal we have now facing us in this Province, the historic deal that we, in my estimation, are about to ratify could have been available, or a similar deal could have been available to the people of this Province a long time ago. If it were not for the fact that government had made the commitment that we were, for the first time in our history, to embark on a course of action that would see that we would realize the maximum benefits from a resource that is found here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the Statement of Principles that have been realized, in my estimation, delivers on that and the people I represent recognize that and they applaud that.

Madam Speaker, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in terms of the long struggle that has taken us to get from the point where the discovery was made - and we could have immediately gone to a situation where we could have had an operation that we will see under this arrangement in Labrador. The defining piece, Madam Speaker, was the piece that we wanted to see constructed in this Province. The government of the day, our government, did not say where it should be built. They left that to Inco to determine. Inco, in their objective determination, felt that the Argentia area was a logical place to put this final piece of this operation.

Madam Speaker, while I would be delighted today to stand here - because my area of the Province certainly actively pursued the gold ring at that time, along with other communities in this Province, in trying to entice the company to look at us as a place to set this operation. I can say to you, Madam Speaker, that I am happy for the people of the Placentia and Argentia areas because I realize just what a tremendous impact this is going to have on their area of the Province.

We have heard several people reference in the last couple of days that the Voisey's Bay deal is no panacea. If we have learned anything in this Province, there is no one thing that will solve all of our economic challenges. For years and years we have pursued mega projects and we have heard countless speeches that have declared that our day has come, that it is finally here. But, we do have to acknowledge and recognize that what we are debating here now is certainly a very significant and important piece of that puzzle that will help us along the road to economic prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have heard members opposite in the last couple of days make reference to the fact of the difficulty that the Premier had in selling this deal to our caucus. Some people have referenced the fact and talked about strong-arm tactics. I can tell you, nothing could be further from the truth because it became pretty apparent within the first hour, or two hours of our first day of deliberations, that we had a deal here that was indeed in the best interest of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a number of these speakers opposite in their deliberations and presentations have referenced the fact: Well, what if Inco goes bankrupt? The what if scenario. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that strikes me when I hear people putting forward that argument is if you follow that logic, we will never conclude a deal. Because as much as hon. members opposite and the people of this Province might like to deal in absolutes, there are no absolutes in life, or very few, one of the them being death.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I wouldn't go down that road.

Mr. Speaker, all we can do is take the best information that is available to us, and what we have to recognize with a company like Inco that we have here in our Province, a company that has seen 100 years of service in this country - and I am delighted to see that Inco is prepared to start on the second 100 years of their operations here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we have heard reference to the whole issue of equalization and indeed, I have had one or two phone calls in the last couple of days with people referencing that particular area and saying: Why should we bother because by the time the federal government completes their clawback really there is very little left over for us? Well, as I said to my constituents who have called me on that matter and as I submit to the hon. members of this House, that is not a good enough reason for us not to embark on a project and on a proposal that is a good proposal. The other battle that has to be fought with the federal government is a battle that we will continue to fight and some day we will win out on that particular one as well.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn on the weekend in my consultations - to learn from a representative of the Federation of Municipalities that in fact they had come forward with a very novel idea of how we could move forward to engage the federal government in a practical and realistic fashion to try to provide to the people of this Province a better return on the revenues of what is our resource.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Opposition for the last number of weeks, certainly in the last session of the House, and the session prior, talk about out-migration. Mr. Speaker, I don't need anyone to come into this House and talk to me about the effects of out-migration. I represent a rural district. I represent a rural district that faces as many challenges as any rural district in this Province. I hurt, along with the people from my district when they have to, at this time of the year, leave their homes and travel all over this country to try to find employment. So, Mr. Speaker, what I don't understand, if on one hand you argue, you criticize and you complain about out-migration, how can you then say thumbs down to a development that is going to create jobs and keep people here in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have heard hon. members reference, within the last couple of days, and talk about the efforts, the extensive efforts that this government is making in terms of selling the project to the people of this Province. I have heard hon. members mention: Well, if it is such a good project, why don't you let it stand on its own merits? Well, Mr. Speaker, that might not be a bad proposition if you assume that you are starting from a level playing field, but anyone who has sat in this House, and anyone who has watched the proceedings of this Legislature within the last number of months, will know on a daily basis that opposite we have heard the hon. members spin out their stories about doom and gloom and the fact that we are on the verge of selling out the Voisey's Bay mineral here in this Province. This is happening on a daily basis.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the critic for Mines and Energy, the Opposition critic, just a few weeks ago was in the Stephenville area speaking to the Rotary Club and in part of his remarks he warned that government was getting ready to sign a sellout deal with Inco. Now, Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I would say to hon. members: Surely, you would not suggest that we were operating on a level playing field when you have been out for weeks and months in advance, out with your stories and your tales of doom and gloom, creating a situation that everything was going down the tubes. We had to get out to correct the misinformation you have been putting out for the last number of months and weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: And that, Mr. Speaker, is what this initiative is all about because we do not want the people in this Province to miss out on a wonderful opportunity because they do not have the information they need in order to make the kind of informed decision that is necessary in order to move this project forward, in order to move this Province forward.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits from the Voisey's Bay deal have been well annunciated. They have been annunciated in the media, in the public generally, and certainly in this House within the last couple of days. A total investment of approximately $3 billion over the estimated thirty-year life of the project. The total direct and indirect employment benefits estimated at $76,000 and we are talking about a GDP impact of some $11 billion.

One of the things that I think, through this whole debate, prior to the conclusion of this round of negotiations that has resulted in the Statement of Principles that is before us today, going well beyond that and certainly, on a regular basis in this Province, one of the things that is serving as a real albatross, in my opinion, for us in terms of moving forward, in terms of negotiation and trying to deal with things, are the ghosts of the Upper Churchill. All of us in this Chamber and everyone in this Province recognize what a terrible deal the Upper Churchill contract was. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that with the conclusion of this deal on Voisey's Bay we can begin the process of putting the ghost of the Upper Churchill behind us, because as difficult as it is and as hard as it is to accept, we must at some point in time recognize the reality of our situation, move forward, learn from our mistakes and make sure that we do not repeat them, but move forward and do the work that is necessary to be done on behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the deal, as is laid out in the Statement of Principles on the Voisey's Bay contract, is a very important piece of work and it will have a tremendously positive impact on the whole economy of our Province.

In my own department that I presently represent, Health and Community Services, I recognize, on a regular basis, the number of requests that we receive from individuals and groups looking for additional funding. I receive representation from hon. members opposite, doing their work as they should on behalf of their constituents, trying to deal with situations as they presently exist.

Mr. Speaker, anything that grows the economy, anything that increases our ability to generate wealth in this Province gives us more flexibility, makes more money available to invest in programs like health and community services, so we then can provide a better service to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In my own area, in talking to the people of my own district, we look at things like the limestone, our large limestone deposits. As a matter of fact, I had lunch today with the new company that is getting ready to set up on the Port au Port Peninsula to start doing some mining of limestone aggregates in the Aguathuna, an area that historically was where it all begin out in our area. It has been dormant now for a number of years, but we now have a company that is coming back in and will be shipping out aggregate. So this provides us with opportunities. The people in my area are certainly interested in looking at the procurement. At our meeting on Friday evening with the Chamber, the Town of Stephenville, Stephenville Crossing, Kippens and some other local groups, including the RED Board, what the group wanted to do was say: How can we mobilize to take advantage of these procurement opportunities that are going to be there for us? How can we mobilize to make sure that our airport is able to benefit from the opportunities that will flow from the Voisey's Bay deal?

Mr. Speaker, the one very interesting piece for us in our area, for years Abitibi Consolidated in Stephenville, the major employer in our area, a tremendous generator of wealth for this Province, has looked at the possibility of a cogeneration as part of their operation in Stephenville, utilizing peat moss. Now with the conclusion of this deal on Voisey's Bay and the realization that there will be a need for some forty to sixty megawatts, once the facilities are in place, the opportunity is now there for this project out in our area to become a reality; not only to see a cogeneration plant that will strengthen our mill at Stephenville, but will generate a whole new industry in our area of the Province, again creating more jobs for the people of our area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: This is the strength of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of minutes to conclude. First of all, we have heard a lot of talk, especially today, on the vote of conscience. I have to say to hon. members in this House, I respect that as much as anyone. I am one of the few people in this House who has gone through an experience here, when we had a debate some years ago on a very important issue in this Province, who found himself in a situation where he was out of step with government in having to make that kind of decision. I certainly relate to people who are in that kind of situation, and I do say to people, I applaud anyone who rises to speak and to vote on the basis of their conscience. I do recognize that and I certainly say that this is the forum for it. To have the opportunity to rise and speak here is an important thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, this deal is a good deal for the people of the Province. In the last couple of days, in hearing all of the arguments coming forward from members opposite, Mr. Speaker, the main problem with this deal is not the deal itself. It is the party that is delivering it. I am convinced that if the hon. members opposite, roles reversed, had this deal to bring to this House, they would be delighted to stand and defend this deal and promote it as a good deal for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I had an e-mail from an engineer of a large company just yesterday. He congratulated me on the deal and went on to say that he could not believe that we were able to get the level of commitment which we did from Inco. This is not a supporter of the party, at least that I am aware of.

Mr. Speaker, this deal that we have before us, this Statement of Principles, is about providing leadership. This deal is about providing good government. That is what this party, this leader, and this government is all about.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to representing the people of Port au Port as a member of the Liberal Party on this side of the House for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me today to stand in the House of Assembly and represent the residents of my district as I discuss the Statement of Principles re Inco and Voisey's. I know that I am representing the wishes of the vast majority of my constituents because, on the weekend past, I had information pamphlets delivered to all of the homes in my district. The purpose of the pamphlet was outlined in the first paragraph. I asked the residents of my district to read what was in this pamphlet and, having received their other glossy print pamphlet, the one that they paid for as taxpayers, to read both of them, consider them, and then contact me with their views on this very important issue. I have had a tremendous response to this pamphlet. I received several telephone calls -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I say to the Minister of Finance, I did receive several telephone calls and I have received several e-mails. I received telephone calls at home and in my office.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people are in your district?

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the member, there are about 10,500 people in my district.

Most of the people identified themselves and, with few exceptions.... There was a woman who called in, who wanted me to vote in favour of the deal; a couple who called in and wanted me to vote in favour of the deal. I have their names. There were a couple of people who did not identify themselves, who asked me to vote in favour of the deal, and the rest of the people who contacted me - and there were a fair number. I was surprised, actually, with the response, and I have a stack of e-mails here - the rest of the people said: No, don't vote for the deal.

So today, on behalf of the constituents of St. John's West -

MR. MATTHEWS: Nine people from Harrington Drive said vote for it.

MS S. OSBORNE: If nine people from Harrington Drive said vote for it, they did not call either my telephone number at home, my telephone number in the office, nor did they e-mail me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: The people who contact me and do not identify themselves, I recognize them but they are not calculated the same as people who identify themselves.

So today, on behalf of the constituents of St. John's West who have asked me to represent them here in the House of Assembly, I would like to bring their views to this debate.

One of the people who e-mailed me said that he had looked over the Web site pertaining to the deal. He had the Statement of Principles. He said that he is not a lawyer or a politician, but he is an engineer and he works in business development in a high tech company in St. John's. "As I read this agreement, and relate it in layman's terms", he said, "I see the benefit of this project being some construction work, for a few years, for select areas of the province. I think we could do better. I would not vote for this deal.... This whole deal appears to be rushed through, and I think due diligence is called for here, to take time to examine what we could get." He goes on to say: "I mean the Nickel is in our province, and INCO wants it, it seems like we have the upper hand." He goes on, "Instead we have an agreement here where INCO only acknowledges we have a right to claim damages once the ore has been gone, and INCO does not replace it. We're giving the Ore away."

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the person who sent that e-mail is correct; we are giving the ore away. I think that Voisey's Bay can be a very good deal, very good if it were negotiated properly. It has the potential to create significant long-term benefits for the Province, and while I am pleased, very pleased in fact, to see jobs coming to the Province, I think this tentative agreement or this Statement of Principles is not a good deal and is certainly not the best deal that could have been negotiated for the Province. No deal that sees our precious resources leave the Province and create jobs for residents of Thompson, Manitoba, or jobs for residents of Sudbury, Ontario, is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

From the residents, I also heard things like: What about the promises made by the government during the last election? The promise that no ore, not one spoonful, would leave the Province? One of the members over there today said: Drop that, leave it alone. We are not in a position to drop that and leave it alone because we are in the process of negotiating a deal to which that particular term applies: not one ounce, not one spoonful, would leave the Province.

The people wonder why, if the Liberal government, just three years ago, many of whom sit opposite and are sitting in this House today, if they felt that a deal like that could be done - and they must have felt like a deal like that could be done or they would not have promised it during the last election - if they felt it could be accomplished just three short years ago, why can't a deal similar to that be done now?

Some of the people who contacted me were concerned, not only about ore going out, but when, if ever, it would be returned. One man said: I am leery of Inco's promises. They are not strong enough. Ask for a list of the sources of the concentrate from where they will guarantee delivery.

When Scott Hand, CEO of Inco, was asked where the ore would come from, he could not be specific. He said: Oh, Inco has lots of locations to get the ore from.

Mr. Speaker, people are very skeptical and they have every reason to be.

Clause 25, here in the Statement of Principles, says: "In consideration of the Government granting the Exemption Orders referred to in paragraphs 37, 38, 39 and 40, the Proponent guarantees that it will, prior to the cessation of mining operations for the Project, commence shipping into the Province nickel and cobalt concentrate or other form (from one or more sources worldwide, other than the Project) for processing in the Province." Replacement nickel material, basically, an explanation of that, does not have to be shipped back until the mine ends. You know, that mine can go on and on and on at minimal operation, very minimal operation, for a long, long time and ore does not have to be shipped back until the mine ends.

Under Schedule A(f), Inco can wait until three years after the mine ends to get that replacement feed if supply and prices are a problem. The replacement material need not be concentrate. A nickel matte refinery does not process concentrate. Nickel matte is almost completely processed already, so by the time nickel matte will have arrived in Argentia, it will be 80 per cent processed by the people in Sudbury and Thompson, giving them the majority of the jobs, and the 20 per cent balance to be done here. So, where will the ore come from and what will the cost be? Does anybody know? Will the cost be so prohibitive at the time that Inco can take that reasonable and prudently financed off-ramp, they take that off-ramp right off the highway and right out of the picture if it is determined - and they are allowed to determine whether it is prudently and reasonably priced. They have an exit out of the deal right there.

Now, given our geographical location, and the cost of shipping goods to this Province, are we really expected to be naive enough to believe that a large business will ever find it financially prudent or reasonable to return ore to this Province, especially if they have to bypass one of their own smelters to do so?

I will refer to clause 11 in the Statement of Principles on that. Clause 11 in the Statement of Principles says, "The Proponent is committed to developing the Project in a manner which provides full and fair benefits to the people of the Province; has a solid business footing....and can be reasonably and prudently financed...."

So, right away there you have the off-ramp for Inco. If they determine that it is not reasonably or prudently financed, they can get out of that project right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Some of them are coming from Webster's, I say to the Premier.

If Thompson, Manitoba, or Sudbury, Ontario, had ore in their ground that was the same quality as the ovoid that is in Voisey's Bay, do you think for one minute they would agree to that ore coming out of their province? Of course they wouldn't. The reason they would not is because they would know that, when ore is shipped out, jobs are shipped out.

This agreement, as it presently stands, and as the Premier says this is what it will be, serves Inco far better than it serves our Province. What will we get from this deal? What we will get pales in comparison to what Inco will get. We all know what Inco is getting out of this and the Inco chief himself, Scott Hand, told his investors that this is an incredible deal for Inco because it will make a profit even if the price of nickel falls to a fraction of today's prices, and it will ensure that Inco remains the lowest cost producer of nickel in the Western World. That is what Scott Hand is saying. Those are not my words.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not care that it is a good deal for Inco. I really do not care that it is good deal for Inco. What I am concerned about, and what every Member of this House of Assembly should be concerned about, is whether or not it is a good deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If Inco gets a good deal then that is great, but what we should be worried about is the deal that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gets. What are we getting out of it? Take the royalties, for instance. The total royalties over the thirty year life of the mine are only estimated to be $280 million. We already know that 95 per cent, which amounts to $266 million, will be clawed back through equalization. William Barbour, the chief negotiator for the Labrador Inuit Association, said that the provincial government had agreed to give them 5 per cent of the royalties. That is another $14 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have a problem with that? (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I have absolutely no problem with that. I am merely outlining a breakdown of where the royalties will go. Ten chances to one, more than likely, assuming that Chief Barbour is correct, given that fact, it is likely that the same deal will be assigned to the Innu Nation. Out of the $280 million, there is $266 million in clawbacks and there is $14 million that will go into the Labrador portion of the Province and another $14 million into the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: In point of fact, there will be no revenue left that will go into health care or education. There will be absolutely no revenue go into that because, as a matter of fact, we will get less than nothing.

There was one constituent from whom there was a fair bit of correspondence, and this particular constituent agonized over what his decision would be. We had e-mails going back and forth and there were several discussions. This man genuinely put a lot of gut-wrenching thought into his decision. I would like to read from his e-mail. He said: Good Morning. I have had a change of heart on the Voisey's Bay deal. Upon further reflection of the portion of the deal which allows for a hydromet facility in Argentia, I can't help but feel that we are being set up so that we will be forced to accept a nickel matte processing facility and the Sudbury plant's longevity at our expense. By the pre-processing of all the nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay at the Sudbury smelter we need a proven, conventional smelter in Argentia, no less.

I had another person who got in touch with me and said: Why not let it remain in the earth until it can be processed here? No other province would be expected to agree to these conditions.

I am speaking the words that have been given via e-mail to me by the residents of my district. Another person said: Please say no to the Voisey's Bay deal. We do not want an ounce of ore to leave our Province. Process it where it is.

Some of the calls that I received were from seniors. It was very interesting, talking to the seniors. The seniors expressed to me that they have been around before when bad deals were made. They said they had experienced bad deals and they were familiar with what bad deals looked like. One woman said she can recognize a bad deal now, based on the other bad deals, and this is indeed one.

Another constituent sums up a lot of the questions that I have myself. One of his questions is: when will Mr. Grimes realize that we cannot progress if we continue to give away our resources? That is a concern of a constituent. The same gentleman went on to say: When will Mr. Grimes listen to the hard-working taxpayers of this Province who are barely able to shoulder the existing financial burden? Are we not as deserving of a tax break as Inco? He went on to say: When will Mr. Grimes understand that maybe and if and sometimes are not the terms to have embedded in a multi-billion dollar Statement of Principles? I referred to those before, where we have loose clauses like full and fair benefits, reasonable returns, reasonable and prudently financed, and best efforts. These are critical clauses and they are open to interpretation. As some of my colleagues on this side have said, you could actually drive a truck through them. This gentleman concludes with a very poignant question: If we are not able to come up with a better plan than what has been presented, let's leave the ore in the ground in the hope that our children will be wiser than we are.

Mr. Speaker, if I ever needed convincing to vote against this deal, that last comment from this constituent would have done it for me. In this Province today there are many children of those who went before us, those who gave us deals like Churchill Falls, and at the time Churchill Falls was signed there were promises, there was hoopla, there was hope given, and there was a giveaway. We, the children of those who signed deals like Churchill Falls, are condemning the very day that those deals were signed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want that to be my legacy. I look at my children and my grandchildren, as parents and grandparents do, wondering what the future has in store for them. I think of those who will come after them, and what lies ahead for them as well. I would like to know that some day in the future they will be proud to say that I did the right thing on their behalf: that I did not allow big corporations like Inco to improve their lot and the lot of their shareholders by taking advantage of our situation, by giving us a deal that was less than the best deal for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just in the short term but for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure, an absolute pleasure, for me to stand here today and participate in this debate on the Voisey's Bay deal. Mr. Speaker, this is a deal that is unprecedented in Labrador. That, I can tell you. I am going to start off today by complimenting the government and the civil servants who made up the negotiating team that put this deal together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this has been a piece of work that has taken many weeks, many months, a lot of thought, a lot of negotiation, and a lot of planning for the future of this Province that is centered around this development.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel because not only did they sit at the negotiating table with the interests of their shareholders in hand, but also for Labrador. They learned about what was important to the people of Labrador and they respected the rights of the Inuit and of the Innu and of the Labrador people. Mr. Speaker, they demonstrated that in their commitment to this deal and to the Aboriginal people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks in Labrador a few days ago when we made this announcement, Labrador's resources have oiled and continue to drive the economic engines of this Province as it has for many generations.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador has only ever wanted two things in return. One of them has been full and fair recognition as a part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this government was the one that made that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, they also wanted to ensure that they would foster growth and prosperity from the resources within their region, and this deal has allowed the people of Labrador to be able to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House in the last couple of days and I have listened to a number of speakers as they have stood on their feet. I heard members who stood to oppose this deal, and I have to say that I have not heard them speak with the conviction that one would, who was totally against something and did not want it to happen. Rather, I heard people who spoke with caution, with hesitation, but never with great conviction against this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I will speak today in great support of the deal that has been done on the Voisey's Bay project, but, before I do, there are a couple of things that I want to clear up.

Last evening, I listened to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North as he stood on his feet in this House and gave a speech, Mr. Speaker. He got up and said this, and I will quote it, "I will give Inco one bit of credit, I will give them a great deal of credit on this point, that whoever made up their minds that the smelter would go outside of Labrador made the best strategic move Inco made in this whole debate".

Mr. Speaker, it is those kinds of comments that foster separation. It is those kinds of comments spoken in this place that show the lack of understanding, the lack of commitment, the lack of compassion, to the people of Labrador and the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there are some people in Labrador - not all, but certainly a great deal - who, yes, would have liked to have seen a hydromet processing plant somewhere in Labrador, especially the people in Labrador West, as the member opposite would know. We did not sit back and let it happen. We went in Labrador, got together collectively, and we put a business case to the company. We did our research. We tried and competed with other areas of this Province to try and secure that development. At the end of the day, we did not make the business case that was needed to see it happen, but I will tell you that we are proud to see that resource will stay in this Province, will be processed in this Province, and will be done so in an area that understands and has experienced every bit as much economic depression and social depression as Labrador has ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, this is about sharing with each other as Newfoundlanders and as Labradorians. It is not about trying to drive wedges, as was the comment that was spoken by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. It is about working together collectively, to see a development implemented that will benefit all of us.

Mr. Speaker, this deal will provide a great benefit for Labrador. I will tell you what it does. In Labrador, it gives us back our dignity, it gives us respect, it gives us hope and optimism for the future, and it gives us confidence as a part of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Voisey's Bay is not just a good deal; it is a precedent-setting deal in many ways. It shows progress and promise for all regions of our Province. This development protects and maximizes the resources of our Province for the people who live here. It maximizes opportunities for our communities and for our people first, and it also provides for adjacency in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history in Labrador we will develop a resource that provides for adjacency and provides for Labradorians first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, government is rejuvenating the economy of this Province and at the same time it is showing respect for our people and respect for our Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal people of Labrador have been prisoners in their own homeland for far too long. The Inuit, the Innu, and, yes, the Metis, will all see benefits from this particular deal.

The two Impact Benefit Agreements that had been negotiated both with the Innu and with the Inuit are agreements that are solely of the making of those particular groups. Through their leaders, through their negotiators, they have secured good benefits for their people. Mr. Speaker, when we secure benefits for the Aboriginal people of our Province, we secure benefits for our entire Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Not as the Member for St. John's West has just said. The Aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador are every bit full players, full participants in our society, and what is good for them is good for us.

Mr. Speaker, the Metis people as well, the Metis people will achieve benefits from this particular agreement. I am a member who represents a great deal of Metis people in Labrador and I, too, look forward to the day when the Metis people will sit at the table and negotiate their own Impact Benefits Agreement on developments within their own areas, but the Metis people have to secure a land claim in Ottawa first. We will continue to work, as a government, with those people to ensure that happens. In the meantime, we will continue to work with them for the fostering and developing of other activities for the people they serve.

Mr. Speaker, because of this project, we are going to see a phenomenal transition in Labrador. We are going to move forward with Voisey's Bay, but it also means that we will move forward with the Aboriginal agenda for the first time in many decades. We are setting the stage for future progress in Labrador, and that means that we all progress together as a society. As we move forward with Voisey's Bay, as the Member for Cape la Hune said the other day, we are inflicting prosperity on all the people of our Province.

I want to talk a little bit more about what these benefits actually mean for the Innu and the Inuit, the Metis, and Labradorians in general. Because of the adjacency principle we will be given rights for jobs at the mine, the mill and the concentrating plant. We will have funding provided to do training programs, both within the three Aboriginal groups and within the other people in Labrador. We are allowing for business partnerships, to be able to form partnerships with the business community of Labrador, and they forming partnerships with people both provincially, nationally and internationally, to be able to service this particular development in Labrador and in Argentia.

Mr. Speaker, we have secured with the company, fly-in, fly-out operations that will allow people to live in their own communities and be able to work in the mine and mill/concentrator in Voisey's Bay.

You may have heard people who have said that we should be building a community at Voisey's Bay, and that we should not be flying people into the high Arctic in small planes. Well, those people have to walk a mile in our shoes first. We have been working in the high Arctic, in the North, all of our lives. We have been flying in and out of communities all of our lives. It is the only transportation system we know. This project allows our communities to remain as they are. It allows us to live in Nain, in Cartwright, in Port Hope Simpson, in L'Anse au Loup, in Labrador City and in Goose Bay. It allows us to maintain our homes and our families there and be able to fly back and forth to work at this site. We have no interest in building another community, Mr. Speaker. We are going to ensure that Labradorians and our Aboriginal people are trained, trained to be able to work in this mine and mine/mill operation and have the proper skills that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that this is welcoming news for a lot of young people across my district. I just think about the people right now, like Sheldon Russell, Joy Green, Byron Rumbolt and Karla Jefferies, all who are studying mining and engineering programs, to be able to work in a development like this. People like Allie Barney, Pius Hudson, Scott Rumbolt, Trent Acreman and Roger Trimm, these people are trades people, these people are looking for secure employment. What Voisey's Bay does is, it not only offers potential employment in the construction phase but it offers long-term, sustainable jobs for the next thirty years for this generation and future generations of Labradorians, and that is what we are focusing on.

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of listening to the party opposite as they talk about suppressing development in Labrador, but, I will tell you, development will occur in Labrador. Labradorians want it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We will not be held back by the naysayers, by the pessimists. We will not be held back by the negative attitudes, and we will proceed with opportunity that will not only benefit our people in Labrador but benefit all of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When I hear some members opposite get on the radio and talk about how they will go out to their districts, how they will explain to the people of Corner Brook what is in this deal for them, how they will travel around their district and get the word out, Mr. Speaker, well, I will tell you that what is good for the people in Nain is good for the people in Corner Brook, and what is good for the people in Argentia is good for the people in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We are all one and we must speak as one, we must develop as one, and we must benefit one another, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I will tell you that when this deal was done, it was one of the happiest days in Labrador. I went up to my district. I held four consultation sessions, had over 400 people in my district come out. I did not have a road to drive to every community. I did not have the luxury of bringing everybody together in nine hours, but I did it. I flew, and I went by whatever means I had to go by, but I consulted with as many people as I could. I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district who walked into these meetings wanted to know when it was going to start, how many jobs were going to be there, how do they get on, and where do they send their resume. That is what they wanted to know. They are real people. They are people who are looking for jobs. They are people who have families to look out for, Mr. Speaker. They do not want this to happen twenty years from now when they have all moved away and have had to move somewhere else. They want it to happen today. They are real people. This is what this is all about. It is providing for today and managing for tomorrow. We are doing that. We are managing this project thirty years out, and beyond that. We are not just looking at it in terms of what we will get today, six months from now, or twelve months from now, but we are looking at it and ensuring that those same people provide for their families for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, in my consultations I also travelled to Nain, I travelled to Goose Bay, I travelled to Labrador West, in the district of my colleague opposite. There was tremendous support all around Labrador for this project, Mr. Speaker, and all of them want to know: How do we become a part of it? How do we support it? How do we benefit from it? And so on and so forth. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from the many letters, press releases, comments that I have here - and if I could stand up and read them all it would probably take me the next hour - they are not just from my district. They are from all over the Province. Some of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Probably longer than that. I only highlighted the main parts.

Also, some of them are from other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when I stood here in the House last night and I listened to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North stand on this feet and talk about the paltry 600 jobs, I could not believe my ears. I know the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland every bit as much as I know my own district. I can tell you right now that the people on the Northern Peninsula would welcome 600 jobs, Mr. Speaker. They would welcome it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Right here, the Mayor of St. Anthony, the President of the Chamber of Commerce in the St. Anthony area, do you mean to tell me that they would look this government in the face and tell them: paltry 600 jobs, Mr. Speaker? No, they would not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: These people, Mr. Speaker, would be out there securing jobs, securing employment for their people. That is what Mayor Simms is all about. I could not believe my ears, Mr. Speaker, when I heard it.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: This is a good project for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I stand here in this House today and stand as a part of this government to fully support the initiatives and the benefits and the principles that have been laid out in the Voisey's Bay deal. Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It is a good deal for Labrador, it is a good deal for Argentia, and therefore it is a good deal for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge any member on the other side of the House that if this mine and mill/concentrator or this hydromet was in your district, if you would be standing on your feet saying the things that you are saying today and yesterday. I challenge you, because I do not think you would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I think all of us in this place want the same thing. We want to see this Province prosper.

Mr. Speaker, I will end on the same note that Peter Penashue ended his comments when he spoke of the Innu people in transition. He said: I want to urge the Opposition parties to put this new partnership before their partisan politics, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an opportunity for me to comment on the Statement of Principles. I might add, Mr. Speaker, I read this four times. I have read volumes of documents on this issue, right back into the 1990s. This is just some of the examples of words and statements given by members of this government in that period of time, from Hatch Reports to reports on copper, to look at the spinoffs and opportunities; the Leader of the Opposition to look deeply into many particular aspects of this operation from its beginning. I followed it fairly closely, I might add, Mr. Speaker. I am just going to spend a very brief period of time addressing the commitment angle and then I want to move on to addressing some of the more financial issues here today.

Mr. Speaker, this government said that not an ounce, not a spoonful will go out of this Province; not an ounce, not a spoonful. We are seeing nickel, copper, cobalt concentrate containing 440,000 metric tonnes of nickel going out over a minimum of a five-year period. That is a fact; that is a given. That is a commitment, I might add, Mr. Speaker, a commitment unkept.

They second commitment they gave - and this is in the Liberal Red Book, their commitments - everybody in the Province knows that the Premier ran and said: No smelter and refinery; no mine and mill. If the hydromet does not work, Mr. Speaker, after thirty months of a demonstration plant, there will be no smelter. That means every single ounce of ore mined in Labrador is going to go out of this Province forever and forever, every single bit. None will be smelted in this Province and there is not a guarantee in this Statement of Principles which tells us that is going to happen. It is simply not there. That is commitment number two.

The Premier of the Province today was the Minister of Mines and Energy in 1999. On May 20, the Premier, who was then the Minister of Mines and Energy, here is what he said on the taxation issue, and I quote. His response was, "For about the 250th time, in this Legislature and outside, we will give the same answer. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador and everybody associated with the Voisey's Bay project, including Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco, understands that there will be no tax holiday with respect to the Voisey's Bay project. That has been very clear from the very first moment that the Voisey's Bay deposit was discovered. Everybody knows that." That is what the Premier said on May 20, 1999. Well, I would like to ask the Premier: Why does article 46 of this Statement of Principles here spell out a $20 million tax break for Inco over a ten-year period? That is another commitment made, a commitment unkept, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is not living up to the words as Mines Minister and now as the Premier of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the revenue side as Finance critic. We have been told by government officials and Inco, and it has been made public and agreed by this government, that we will get $280 million over a thirty-year period. That is $9.33 million a year on average, or $9 million, we will round it off in them terms. We have been told and stated by - the Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy acknowledged, that 5 per cent of that would stay in this Province after clawbacks on equalization. That is $450,000 per year we will have, based on what government has stated, has told us, and based on what has been articulated in their information. We have also been told and we have heard publicly that in January the negotiator for the LIA has indicted that the Premier of this Province indicated that the LIA will get 5 per cent of those royalties, of those mining tax royalties. Also, I would assume the Innu Nation would also get a similar amount of 5 per cent. So that is 10 per cent. Five percent of that amount per year is almost $500,000 or $450,000, that means, Mr. Speaker - because equalization is factored on your ability to tax - that we could on mining tax alone, we could be into a negative position on mining tax based on those aspects alone. We would have no revenues.

Now, I am going to address what the Premier said just a couple of days ago. The Premier stated that the Minister of Finance has prepared and developed figures which show that this Province will make a $1 billion flow into the Treasury of our Province. I would like to look at that. I would like you to listen and look at these numbers and tell me if I am wrong. I would like to hear it from people. That is what Premier Grimes said: we will get $1 billion. Now Voisey's Bay Environmental Impact Panel, using a revenue model developed by economists that are engaged by Voisey's Bay, that's Inco, have said that 78 per cent of all the taxes flowing to this Province through corporate tax, through mining tax, through income tax, and through sales tax will flow through to the federal government under equalization payments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would ask the Minister of Fisheries to stop interrupting. I have twenty minutes and I am trying to cover a lot of points.

The Voisey's Bay Nickel Company forecast that this Province would retain, on a model used by economists, said we would retain $417 million of that over the life of the project, and what did they say the federal government would get? The federal government would get from this project, $4.9 billion. The federal government will get $5 billion on this project and we will get $417 million according to economists on a model used by Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel. That is not even the full amount we are going to get, Mr. Speaker, because our Province has agreed to share our $417 million. We have been giving Inco, that will come off that total - $20 million will come from that $417 million in tax breaks to Inco over ten years. Also, I might add, the 5 per cent - and I congratulate the LIA and the Innu on reaching an agreement in their best interests. They are to be complimented and applauded on that; but government has to realize, you can't count it twice, that comes off our share.

When you factor that in, Mr. Speaker, when you factor those costs, we have a net gain to this Province, over thirty years, of $369 million. That is $12 million a year. Now you look at $12 million net to this Province a year, based on independent people, not based on us, based on government, the deputy minister's statements, statements by Inco, and economists who have worked on producing this model, what do we get? Twelve million dollars a year net to this Province. What do we get in corporate income tax? We got $55 million last year. We budgeted for $58 million this year. What are we getting in tobacco tax? Eighty-point-five million. We are getting $103 million in liquor tax a year. We are getting $106 million in lottery tax a year, and we are getting $12 million net into this Province based on information supplied by government and Inco; not based on our figures, Mr. Speaker, based on figures that are coming from government or independent sources.

Mr. Speaker, on top of that, Inco is getting the lower of our corporation tax rate or the lowest of the Canadian average. If the Canadian average falls below our Province - and many companies have moved to make it more enticing for corporations - if it does, and it may not happen, they will pay a lower corporation tax than other companies doing business here in our Province. They will pay the lowest of that. That is not a privilege given to other companies, to fish plants, to pulp and paper mills, or to anybody else who wants to go out and do business in our Province. They are given a preferential rate on the corporate income tax over other businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

I heard the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods speak today and he said he has had the experience of working underground in mines and that he worked in high-grading. I just want to make a comparison there - and I don't have any experience actually working - but what we are doing in Voisey's Bay is we are high-grading. Every single bit of that ovoid, $16 billion worth of metal - if you take the estimated value, multiply it by the percents of each one and calculate it to a dollar value on the going rates today, it is a $16 billion project; the ovoid alone. Every single bit of that ovoid is going out of this Province before they start to take one ounce from underground. If that's not high-grading, what is high-grading? Can anyone tell me the difference? It certainly is high-grading.

On top of that, we don't even talk about - there are two concentrates coming through that new process. There are a couple of concentrates that are going out on the market, that based on a 150,000 ton smelter were feasible for copper. There is about 40 per cent of that coming through there. That is all going to the highest bidder because there are copper smelters out there looking for that, around the world. That is cash flow Inco was getting almost, you could say, right at the wellhead, right through the mill. That is money that Inco was getting right away. They have stated that. That is there in that. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation shakes his head. Inco have said that - to the highest bidder, on an auction, that is where it is going.

What is happening to the nickel, the copper and the cobalt concentrate? It is going out of our Province for five years and maybe forever; maybe forever, but definitely five years. Now, based on information provided by Inco, the Voisey's Bay environmental panel has observed that 60 per cent of the person years of employment are going to be in the underground operation. Here we are now, looking at taking that plumb. That ovoid has 2.88 per cent nickel. That is 44 per cent less nickel underground, in value per metric ton of ore.

Look at the copper, 1.67 above-ground, 0.61 under. That is only 36 per cent as rich, the copper underground, as above ground. Look at the cobalt, .14 per cent, underground it is .08 per cent. That is only 57 per cent as rich, what is left underground. We have the cream of the crop gone out of here with no guarantees here, no guarantees whatsoever, that we will ever see an ounce of that coming back into our Province. It is not there.

Why didn't we have a blended operation? Why didn't we make them go underground simultaneous to taking the ovoid, as was promised by this government? Commitment number four broken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Inco did it in Thompson, Manitoba. They didn't get away with doing it in Manitoba. Falconbridge didn't get away with doing it in Raglan when they did it. Raglan only has one-eighth of the known probable reserves as found in Voisey's Bay today, and they could do it in an ore base that is only one-eighth of our ore base. Why do we have to be the ones who are always giving away? Why do we have to be in that category forever?

I want to make reference to Robert Freidland. Robert Freidland had brokered a deal between Falconbridge and Inco who sold and pushed the price up to get himself about $600 million, or whatever he got out of it. I want to just make a few quotes and a few references to what happened at that time. They have indicated - they said: Do you know what it is going to cost to produce nickel at Voisey's Bay? That is nickel now, not counting copper and cobalt. He said less than a zero because of how rich it was and we were told that other minerals there would pay for all the costs of taking the nickel out.

Sopko knew - and you talk about the financial stability of Inco and their cash flow - it said that buying Voisey's Bay at an inflated price was froth with risk. Here is what they said was needed. They said the long-term success of a Voisey's Bay takeover depended on many variables. Lets look at those variables and see what is met. Once it owned the Labrador ore, it said Inco would have to sit on the sidelines while native claims were settled - and we are getting there - environmental assessments were conducted. The third thing they said, the third point they made before it could move was that federal and provincial transfer payments were resolved. Here is what he said: Not one chunk of Labrador rock could be mined until all these complex negotiations have been completed. He said if any piece of that puzzle fails to fall into place Inco would have to wait for years before it could put in a mine. They knew that federal/provincial relations were an important aspect because our Province would get nothing, it would flow in through the front door and flow out through the backdoor to Ottawa. We will get nothing. Inco number one, the federal government number two, us with zilch, and they knew that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: When they debated that $31 a share was too high, here is what Sopko said: We have to look at the company's future. I would like you to listen to this, one of the reasons they wanted to take this project. We have to look at the company's future. When people were doubtful as shareholders whether they were going to get this, he said: Our existing operations are getting very tired; Sudbury, Thompson. He said costs are going up. From a strategic point of view, Voisey's Bay is the company's future for the next twenty to fifty years. They wanted it badly and they got it. Further, they indicated, that angry shareholders had to be talked into approving a deal. They said it was imperative that the thorny, federal/provincial issues required resolution.

Here is what the Premier said at the time, and I make reference to that. This is the last quote from this particular chapter, it said: If it was going to produce ore at Voisey's Bay it had to eliminate numerous political, native and environmental obstacles. Sopko parachuted in, Scott Hand then, who was the President in the handling of difficult situations here in our Province, and Premier Tobin was adamant and said: not a single rock from Voisey's Bay until it honours its promise to build a smelter. By the end of July relations went sour and the deal went bust. Premier Tobin said: we will tax them for every year they don't develop that; and Inco said: we are going to cut off negotiations indefinitely. That is what happened.

We have seen overinflated figures. The demonstration plant and the mill concentrator will be 600 jobs, based on their figures; based on the figures of government and Inco. If the hydro smelter works with the mine and mill, 800 jobs. If it does not work, the nickel matte refinery, there will be 750 jobs in total in the operation. The fish plant in Trepassey had 650 year-around jobs in 1990; and Burin, Marystown, Grand Bank and all over this Province.

The Iron Ore Company of Canada had 3,000 workers twenty years ago and today it has 1,000 workers. Let's get it into perspective. They made a big wage; they had beautiful homes; they had no debt; they prospered the community. You should see some of the homes and so on that I have seen, it prospered. The numbers are grossly overinflated.

I know time is of the essence here. I don't have time to touch on even the surface, not even a fraction of the ovoid, if you put it into perspective, to what I am saying here today.

The Minister of Finance will get up and tell you about the billions of dollars - but people in Newfoundland and Labrador, don't you believe that. Don't talk about what is flowing in, talk about what is flowing out, and what is left here is what we get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been around here for four elections and I have seen road shows put on. I have seen it on numerous issues from hydro and education reform. I have seen it, and the Charlottetown Accord. I seen it back when Joey Smallwood went into the Ferryland District and said: If you don't vote for Greg Power here I will sit on the chest and not one red cent will go into this district.

I have seen strong-arm tactics and I have seen multimillion dollar campaigns going on in our Province. I am seeing a campaign going on here now today in this Province. I would like to see the figures on this campaign, the mailboxes, the drop-offs at stores, the TV, the radio advertisements. We will never see it. The Freedom of Information will never dig up the very cost in this campaign here on what Inco was spending. They will never do it. I have not (inaudible) over 100 constituents in my district and I have not talked to one who told me to vote for this deal. Not one single constituent in the District of Ferryland have asked me to vote in favour of this deal. Not a single one, I might tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, not one. I will stand on that record, not one has contacted me, e-mailed me, spoke to me in person, who did it.

We will see the glossy picture tomorrow when the government has six or seven members up in a row to speak, and try to put a glossy picture on things, but don't get fooled by that. I can tell you, the people in Ferryland district were not fooled when Joey Smallwood laid down the gauntlet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We will not be fooled on this issue either, and the people in Ferryland district! Mr. Speaker, I would like to look back - and we will not know that Joey will not be in on this deal before the next election, that Joey will not be on this deal before the second election from now, but he will be in after that. I am going to look back, I hope, in ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty years and say: I was not one -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier and (inaudible) to stop interrupting. I have limited time here.

I will not be the one to say that I played a part in sending out the resources of our Province without an ironclad guarantee!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The only hope we have is that government rolled the dice. I just hope that dice comes out in our favour and for the benefit of the people in this Province. If not, there will be a long, long future here of out-migration in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

 


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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me this evening to stand during this historic time to talk about the Voisey's Bay deal. I believe and want to recognize the very fine work of the Premier, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the negotiating team, who I think have done a fabulous job. I think it is important to recognize good work when good work is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, tonight during my supper break, I took a good opportunity of the lovely evening and went for a walk around Quidi Vidi with my husband. I saw very many people walking tonight and I expect there will be a whole lot more walking this evening, so I would assume that perhaps there will not be as many watching this debate as perhaps on a cold February night. I do believe that the benefits of this agreement will be around a lot longer than tonight for all the people to see and to witness as the years go by. Perhaps some would call me an optimist, Mr. Speaker, but I call myself an optimist with guarantees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In my short time, I would like to talk about a number of issues. I would like to finish off talking about the town hall meeting, the public meeting that I had, some of the reactions that I had, and also some political comments, because I think, obviously, this has become quite political and it is always important to look at the deal outside of politics, as was said many times here this evening and also was requested of us by Peter Penashue when he made his presentation during the announcement, in asking us to step beyond the politics and look at the substance of the deal.

Some of the key objectives of the Statement of Principles focused around processing of ore to a finished nickel product in this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that we have accomplished in this Statement of Principles. Also, a guarantee that any concentrate shipped out during the early years would be returned to the Province before the life of the mine, while the project is - certainly in the early years this is not possible, but over the life of the agreement it would be returned to the Province. This is a very important issue for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and one as well to our whole caucus.

Also, reduction of the ten-year tax holiday, this is very important because the legislation as it currently exists provides a much greater benefit. In this particular arrangement we were able to reduce that benefit to Inco and actually better our arrangement, which I will speak about a little bit later.

I think perhaps the most important for all of us in this Province, no matter what district you represent, no matter if you are in Labrador or in Newfoundland, you have to recognize the industrial and employment benefits that this Voisey's Bay deal will deliver for us and for generations to come. We have achieved our objectives, and we have achieved even more than what we set out to do. We have maximized the allocation of the corporate income tax to the Province. We have been very successful, as the recipients through the federal government with Inco, of a research and development project which we are very proud of, and also, of course, the Inco Innovation Center, strengthening the largest university in Atlantic Canada, providing new opportunities for our youth in this Province, and also helping to diversify the kind of economy that we will have in the future.

The general benefits of this agreement to me and to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I believe, are clear. They have significant economic and employment impacts in Labrador and on the Island. They have both direct and indirect employment opportunities during both the construction and the operation phase, and in fact has been identified as some 76,000 person years of employment; phenomenal.

This project also will contribute $11 billion to our GDP. We have heard so much about GDP. What does it really mean? We all know that GDP measures the strength of our economy, and that is an important number and it is an important definition because it is only through growing and strengthening our economy that we will ever get off equalization, which is the hope of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, not for us here today, but for our children and for our grandchildren in years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Eleven billion dollars in GDP, a strong, strengthened economy. Seven billion of it is related to the net value of production around the mine and mill/concentrator, smelting and refining, and $4 billion is related to the labour and the business components associated with that particular production. This is very positive.

We will see our GDP grow next year to 5.9 per cent. What does that mean? It means that our economy continues to grow and it continues to strengthen, and that is the right direction that this government will take to lead this particular Province, over the years, out of equalization through projects like Voisey's Bay.

Putting this project into perspective, I think, is very important for the whole Province. What does it actually mean to us? Obviously, you have to be able to relate it to some of the projects and some of the work and employment opportunities that we have. Once the mine and mill/concentrator is fully operational at Voisey's Bay and the hydromet demonstration facility at Argentia is operating, there will be about 600 people employed.

Now, I know last night we heard the Member for The Straits & White Bay North call is a paltry 600 jobs. I would say the people in his district would take those paltry 600 jobs any day of the week. I know the people in my district certainly would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now this paltry 600 jobs, as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North refers to it, is similar, Mr. Speaker, to the Abitibi-Consolidated mill operations in Grand Falls-Windsor. Is that a paltry 600 jobs? Is that an industry that we can pooh-pooh away? I do not think so. It is also equivalent to the number of people currently employed at Hibernia, a significant project, I would say; a very important project. It is also - and this is important - it is also, Mr. Speaker, equivalent to the number of people that will be employed year-end at the Marystown Shipyard for the White Rose Development. I think it is a significant indication of the success of this component of the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, looking out at the year 2018 when the underground mine operations begin at Voisey's Bay and the commercial processing facility at Argentia is functioning at full speed, we will see 1,200 people employed; 1,200 people. What is that equivalent to? That is equivalent to the number of people who are currently working now in IOC. I ask the Member for Labrador West, is that something to pooh-pooh away? Is that an important project? It certainly is. It is something that people can relate to because it is significant and it is important.

It is also equivalent to the number of people working right now in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power, which is approximately 900 people. These are significant impacts, employment impacts for our Province that we are very proud of and we think the people of the Province are quite pleased with and proud of as well.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk a little bit about research and development, because I think it is important to acknowledge that this Province did not secure $150 million for Inco. Inco, in fact, applied to the federal government and they were successful in getting this R and D money. For what? For training, for research and development, and for our Aboriginal groups. I support that. We support that on this side of the House. We support research and development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Other provinces get research and development money. We are entitled to it and we are very proud of that.

Now, let's talk about the tax revenue to the Province from this project. The provincial Treasury will receive revenue from the corporate income tax and from the mining and mineral rights tax. Over the life of the project, we will receive approximately $700 million in direct taxes; $700 million. Three hundred million of that is attributed to the mining and mineral rights tax and $400 million to the corporate income tax for a total of $700 million. This does not take into effect both the direct or the indirect revenues and induced benefits to the Province. This is very important because again it reflects that not only do you get direct impact from the financial benefits through taxation but you get the indirect impact as well. I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, it is significant, and even though some of these numbers only add up to 600, it is important to all of us and important to the Province no matter where you live - no matter where you live, Mr. Speaker - because we on this side of the House are more concerned about the overall picture for our Province; not what it does for me in my district only, but what it does for all of us, because we work on behalf of all of the citizens of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, what do we mean by indirect and induced benefits? Because, again, I think it is important. What we mean, of course, by indirect, we mean personal income tax, what we get from people working, corporate income tax, payroll tax, liquor tax, HST, cigarette taxes and lotto taxes: approximately $400 million. I believe it is low. I think, if things go in the way we believe, this is a very modest - I would not call it conservative but I would call it a modest - indication of what we hope to achieve. It depends, I guess, if you see the glass as half full or half empty. I prefer to see it as half full and I believe that we will even see more revenues being brought into the Province.

Now, induced taxes, what are they about? Induced taxes are not directly related to the project but let's take, for example, we know that we are going to see significant business opportunities and growth in places like Argentia-Placentia, in places like St. John's, in places like Goose Bay, Voisey's Bay, wherever, all other districts. Perhaps you will see a corner store open up and maybe three or four people will be hired. Two of those will buy cars, a couple of them maybe might buy a house, and then maybe they have some bad habits and they buy cigarettes or they drink alcohol. All of this adds up to the induced taxes that we get from the purchase and sales and the spin-off industry that comes from a project like Voisey's Bay; very important to the bottom line of our Province.

What do we do with the money? We have made it very clear. Members here have spoken and said this money will be used to enhance our health care, our social programs, and to continue with our prudent fiscal management.

I would like also tonight to talk a little bit about some of the misconceptions we have heard over the last number of days, particularly around Inco receiving tens of billions of dollars, for example, in revenues where the people of the Province are seeing very little money. That, in fact, is only part of a full picture. I know this is a normal tactic, to take a part of a picture or take part of a statement and only deal with that, but you do not only look in this case at the gross value of what is generated from the resource. You have to also look at the expenses. Whenever you run a business, there are costs associated with it and you have to look at the full impact of the revenues as well as the cost. I say that the total Treasury benefits are expected to be $1.1 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is significant. It is significant for us to grow our economy and to strengthen our economy over the next thirty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I also want to speak about the mining and mineral rights tax. We heard earlier this afternoon from the Member for Ferryland talking about the $20 million giveaway tax break. The member opposite knows that the current legislation, as it is written, does not have any limit on how much corporate tax a company can achieve over a ten-year period. We have, in fact, reduced the tax holiday by putting a cap on it, $2 million per year for ten years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this has put an extra burden on Inco and it has added an extra $90 million to our Treasury.

Now again, it is about half full or half empty. Personally, and as a government, I think that we would much prefer to achieve $90 million for our Treasury than continue to go on with an unlimited tax holiday. That is a good decision and I commend the team for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, another misconception around this whole deal results in so many things around the taxes and around how we calculate the numbers, and it always comes back to equalization.

Earlier today, again, I heard something which I found most startling from the Member for Ferryland, who said: The real benefits from this agreement will not be seen in the next election or maybe the one after, but I hope I am around long enough to be able to say I was right.

In other words, he is not supporting the deal. He doesn't think it is a good deal, so he wants to be around long enough to see it fail. Shameful, I would say, Mr. Speaker, shameful!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, I also have a few words to say about equalization. If we were to wait until the environment around equalization was absolutely perfect, we would not be doing this deal. In fact, we would not have done White Rose, we would not have done Hibernia. In fact, we probably would not get out of bed in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to recognize that this deal is about the industrial benefits. It is about growing our economy. It is about strengthening our economy. It is about moving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador off the equalization program. We believe we made the right decision in focusing on the benefits for this Province and we will continue, we believe, to strive and struggle and take on the federal government to try to address the issues around equalization, because they are very important to us.

In my conclusion, I do want to talk a little bit about my own public meeting, as well as some of the things that I have heard here over the last couple of days.

It is clear that the Opposition say that we should not have done this deal. In fact, what I have heard them do is pick out the pieces of the deal to find what they believe is wrong instead of looking at the deal as a full package. We recognize that it is not perfect. It is not the panacea. We believe, on balance, it is a very good deal and we obviously would not do it if we did not believe it was a good deal.

The Opposition would shut the deal down. They would not do it and they would be telling corporate Canada, and the corporate world for that matter, that they are shut for business, they are not open for business. They would wait and try to address all of the issues that they have pointed out, which clearly would have led to no deal, and that is obvious. It is frightening because politically, I believe, that the worst thing that could have happened here over the last week was that we got a deal with Voisey's Bay. Politically, for the Opposition, it is a nightmare. It is the worst thing that could have happened to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is their worst nightmare!

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, here is the same Opposition that three or four weeks ago took out ads condemning a deal we did not even have. So, I say to the people of the Province, logically I say to people listening: How would -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the Opposition House Leader, you had your turn. I am having mine right now. I would say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I obviously hit a nerve.

I would say to the people of the Province, logically, when you have a group of people who oppose a deal before they know what is in it, how would they possibly ever politically or logically agree with anything that concurs with what we have talked about in a deal? It is just not fathomable. It is not possible.

I would also say this, last night I heard the Member for Harbour Main talk about out-migration, hope, despair and everything. I would say to him, I do not apologize to the people of this Province for instilling hope, because that hope is based on reality. It is based on the reality of jobs, of growth, of industrial benefits and guarantees. I make no apology for that. I support what is happening in Voisey's Bay, and I say to the member opposite: I would much sooner see my children and grandchildren go to Voisey's Bay than go outside the Province, because Voisey's Bay happens to be in our Province, Mr. Speaker. It is part of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would also say that I have full respect for the Innu and the Innuit's vote that is happening next week. I know, and I think it is important, they are taking their vote on Discovery Day, a very important day for all of us in this Province.

I believe that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians support this deal. They support it because it is a good deal. That is what I heard at my public meeting. I heard people come forward and say that they believed in the deal. They said it was time to do it: Let's get on with it. The jobs, the economic development, are things we have all long awaited for.

I support this deal because I believe it is the right thing to do. I will be voting for it, in my own right, as the MHA for St. John's Centre. I support this deal because I am voting on behalf of my constituents.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sunny evening and it is our anniversary, myself and the Member for Port de Grave. It should be a happy, happy evening for us. We had a good year in the House this year, and I certainly commend the member. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy evening. It is not a happy evening for myself and it is not a happy evening for our caucus, for the members of the Opposition.

For the last two days I have been going around - and I feel it tonight - with a sick, nauseated feeling in my stomach, that feeling that you have when something wrong is about to happen, something terribly wrong. The reason I find I have that feeling in my stomach is that the reason I personally got involved in politics was to stop the giveaways. In my address in April of last year the main theme of the address was to stop the giveaways - enough is enough - to stop giving away the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to give these resources back to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I was really surprised today, Mr. Speaker, in my last question to the hon. the Premier. It was a sincere offer, by myself and by the members of the Opposition, to help, because that is what we wanted to do. I said to the Premier: We have the benefit of all of our research, we have gone through the Statement of Principles and we have constructive suggestions as to how this deal could be improved. I wrote the Premier on two separate occasions and I asked him to delay the vote tomorrow on this Statement of Principles. I asked him to give us all the documentation, not eighteen pages, not a couple of percent of the documentation. I asked him to give it all to us, every single bit of it, and postpone that vote until September 30 and allow us to work with the Premier, to work with the Minister of Mines and Energy, to work with the Minister of Justice, to sit down and work on the documents to try and improve them, to try and make them the best possible documents for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He rejected that offer and I, for the life of me, cannot understand why he would reject that offer.

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government, in the late 1960s, had spoken to someone or had the help of someone who gave them two words, "escalator clause", this Province would be a very, very, very wealthy province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We have given away too much too often, Mr. Speaker. We have given away our hydro and the Upper Churchill to the tune of $1 billion a year. Our fish are gone to foreigners. Our iron ore has gone to Quebec. Our oil is going to the States. Now it is going to be our nickel. The Premier announced yesterday that he is commissioning the minister, as soon as he has rest - and I am sure he deserves a rest, because I am sure he has worked very hard, the Minister of Mines and Energy. He is commissioning him right away to start on the Lower Churchill. That will be the next giveaway. That could happen before this gentleman has a mandate from the people of this Province and that is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: Why, on this particular project, are we creating jobs for people in Ontario and Manitoba? Why, with our other resources, are we giving the revenue and the wealth from those resources to Quebec, to the United States, to Ontario, to Europe? Why are we giving the great majority of our royalties to Ottawa? In this particular case, in this particular project, 95 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, if I could read the last five paragraphs of the editorial coming from my district in Humber West, The Western Star, just two days ago. "The provisions outlined above are a far cry from Brian Tobin's promise that "not a spoonful" of ore would leave the Province.

"No doubt Newfoundland and Labrador needs an economic boost..." and nobody denies that. We certainly don't, Mr. Speaker. "Many people want to see the Voisey's Bay deposit developed.

"However, it is a depletable resource and there will be only one chance to do it right." That is tomorrow, and that is why I have that sick nauseated feeling in my stomach.

"So far, the government has been giving a positive view and glossing over the negatives. There are many things about this deal that require full disclose and open debate, to determine their acceptability.

"Beware of deals done by governments desperate for good news prior to an election. Been there, done that and we don't like the souvenirs!" It says it all, Mr. Speaker. That is coming from an editorial in The Western Star.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about Voisey's Bay. This is about all the bays in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: This is about Notre Dame Bay, this is about White Bay, this is about Fortune Bay, this is about Hermitage Bay, this is about Trinity Bay, this is about Bonavista Bay. This is about our future. It is about the future of all of this whole Province, the entire Province. It is about the financial health of our Province.

It is appropriate that the Minister of Finance spoke before me this evening because nobody knows better than her the very desperate financial situation that we are in. We have to do good deals. We have to do deals that bring revenues to the Province, long-term revenues, long lasting revenues so that we can get out of the hole we are in. So we can get out of the $1.5 billion new debt that we have had created in the last five years, the $500 million worth of debt that will be created by this government this year. This is our chance. These are the big ones. They do not come every day of the week. It is our only chance in these particular major projects to turn things around. But, once again, it's short-term gain and long-term pain. That is our legacy.

That, Mr. Speaker, is why I have a sick feeling in my stomach this evening, and I apologize for it. I hate to be down on this particular night because it should be a night of great euphoria, great happiness, about a great project.

I am (inaudible) now to the role of the Opposition, which is a most difficult role and not one which we take lightly, which we take easily. It is our role to listen. It is our role to scrutinize. It is our role to point out. It is our role to review. It is our role to ask questions. But, we have a job to do. We are swimming against the tide on this one, everybody knows that. We have a job to do, and if we do our job right, we will be doing it in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will try and ensure that we can get a better deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is our goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is why we offered to help and I cannot understand why we were rejected.

Now, when I speak of the Opposition, I point out the Member for Labrador West and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, two hon. gentlemen who are in a very, very tough spot. What has happened in the Opposition is that they have been given a free vote. Both parties, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador have freed up both of these members to vote as they see fit, as their heart and their conscience and their constituents direct them to vote. As a result, we have already heard that the Member for Labrador West has decided that he is voting for the resolution, and I respect his judgement. I do not agree with his decision, but I do sincerely respect his judgement because he is sincerely doing it on behalf of the constituents in his district.

So, they are in a tough spot. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's will make up his own mind. I do not know how he is going to vote. Tomorrow he will decide. He will vote in this House of Assembly and I respect his decision. There will be no party consequences for his decision and I have made that quite clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We are all in this together. We are all here to do what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We take our role very seriously and we are doing our best.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to go to the process, what has happened since June 11. We now are one week since the announcement. We all witnessed a very glitzy press conference and I have no problem with that. If there is a big announcement, a big company coming to the Province, there should be a high-profile press conference. There is nothing wrong with that, providing you are announcing the right deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My first concern was when I heard the hon. the Premier stand and indicate that he was Inco's biggest cheerleader. I could not believe it. I could not believe he said it. This is before a deal is finalized; this is before a vote in the House of Assembly; this is before final, binding, definitive documentation and agreements that are not going to be signed for at least 100 days from now. The hon. gentleman is saying that he is Inco's biggest cheerleader. Well, if he is the cheerleader, who is protecting the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Then I heard Scott Hand, the Chairman of Inco, indicate that Inco was on the fast track. Then it was starting to click in. Inco wanted to fast track this deal. The Premier is their biggest cheerleader, then we could see it starting to shape up. Then all over this Province we all saw it, the bliss, the ad campaign, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spend on an ad campaign on television, radio and in print.

The hon. the Premier has indicated that if it has cost $250,000, he would spend at least four times that much in order to sell the deal. I would suggest that this government and that company have spent more than four times that much in trying to sell this deal. It is most unusual, and I think it is the first time that I have ever seen it in a deal of this magnitude, where the company also takes out its own ads, expensive ads, full-page ads in The Telegram. I do not know how much it cost. I do not know what the cost is of the ads that are appearing in the televison media. I do not know, and I have not checked what the cost of the radio ads are. But believe me, they are very, very expensive and they add up. This is money that could be used for better purposes for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because what they are doing is basically trying to shove this down their throats and using their own money to do it, and that is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: People all over the Province, my constituents, constituents of all the hon. members here in the Opposition - I certainly speak for our own party - are wondering: Why the hard sell? Why is this being sold so hard? If this is such a good deal, why the overkill? Why the hard sell? Look when it was rolled out. People had correspondence and mail outs in their homes just a couple of days after the deal was done. Nobody can tell me that this deal was not done a long time before. In fact, the hon. the Premier was indicating: No, the deal is not done. No, they have recessed. They are going back and meeting with the caucus. There are all kinds of other things going on. This print material had to be done in time to roll out early in the week. There is something wrong there. The deal was in fact done.

Mr. Speaker, after watching the announcement, then I read the Statement of Principles. I read that Statement of Principles, I would say, at least two dozen times. It is dog-eared. That is my working copy. That is the one that has my handwriting on it. That is the one that I used. I have gone through it a couple of dozen times. Every single time I go through it I find something else, and I am going to come back to that.

Then I heard Scott Hand. Scott Hand did a release on June 11. If I can, I would like to read an excerpt from that release. In the interest of time, I will try and read all of it. Mr. Hand, on June 11 stated that Inco and the government had agreed on a Statement of Principles. He indicated the uncertainty about such statements and estimates being accurate when he said this, and I quote Mr. Hand: This release contains forward looking statements regarding the Voisey's Bay nickel, copper, cobalt, project and Inco. A very important sentence coming up. The Chairman of Inco said: Actual results may differ materially from these statements - the statements in this Statement of Principles that we are asked to vote on - the estimates and the projections, depending on such key factors as timing, availability of financing on reasonable terms, cost of production, products to be produced, productivity, employment, engineering timetables, capital and operating costs.

He has basically said that the estimates and the projections and the statements in the Statement of Principles may not be accurate. In fact, he said they may be materially different. A huge statement. At that point, Mr. Speaker, alarm bells went off. I had seen the news conference. I had read the Statement of Principles. I heard what Mr. Hand has had to say about the deal.

We have a situation where we have a bad document. We have eighteen pages, and I will deal with that in some detail. We have a situation where the hon. the Premier is the head cheerleader for Inco. We have Inco saying that this has to be on the fast track. There is a hard sell going on in the advertising world for all the people of the Province. What can you conclude from that? To good to be true. Everything is happening too fast.

Then we were informed that the House was going to be fast-tracked. So, Inco is on the fast track, now your representatives in the Legislature, in the House of Assembly, we are all fast-tracked because Inco wants to be fast-tracked. Well, Mr. Speaker, I, the members of the Opposition, the entire members of the caucus, we do not want to be on Scott Hand's fast track, we want to be on the right track for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We have been asked to consider this in three days. I have heard the hon. House Leader for the government basically state that this is the equivalent of eight days or eighteen days. Well, in eighteen days I would have eighteen Question Periods. I have had two Question Periods and I will have one more Question Period. So it is not eighteen days of sitting, and that is the problem. We do not have time. We do not have time to consider it. We do not have time to review it. We do not have time to get expert advice on it. It is all being rushed too quickly.

Then I have to wonder, the Premier, does he not know it is a good deal or does he know it is not a good deal and he is going to do it anyway? Either way the people of Newfoundland and Labrador lose because if you do not know you are making a big mistake. If you do know, God help us. Either way the people lose. That is the question that I have to ask myself because this document is so blatantly flawed that I cannot understand why a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would ever sign it because I can tell you Premier, it certainly would not happen under my watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to understand, and I hope they understand, exactly what the resolution is that we are debating in this House of Assembly. We are not debating the Voisey's Bay Project. We are not debating the broad principle of a Voisey's Bay deal, a Voisey's Bay development. All the members of this Opposition are very clearly on the record that we support the Voisey's Bay Project. We support a Voisey's Bay deal. We are in favour of job creation in this Province. We are in favour of capital coming into this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We are in favour of infrastructure being developed in this Province but we want to make sure that the guarantees are in place, that the commitments are there. That if they say it is going to happen, we have to make sure it is going to happen. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not going to happen according to the words that are contained in this Statement of Principles.

The resolution itself - and here is what we have to vote on tomorrow as members:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the House of Assembly ratifies and endorses the Statement of Principles" - not the project - "with respect to the development of the nickel deposit at Voisey's Bay in Labrador tabled by the Premier."

The Premier is responsible for tabling this document before us in this House of Assembly and we are asked to approve this document.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier spoke yesterday I took detailed notes all the way through of everything he said and I must say, having read this document, I was completely flabbergasted by what he said. What he said in this Legislature yesterday and what he has said publicly outside this Legislature - with respect to the Statement of Principles he said - and when I asked him and I was talking about giving us more information, giving us the other documentation, giving us the final document that this Statement of Principles will be based on, giving us all the other agreements that are contained in the Statement of Principles, they refused to provide that to us. They have refused to provide the definitive and binding agreements. When he was asked how they would compare to those other documents he said: Nothing will be added to this Statement of Principles. He is categorically on the record as saying: There will only be eighteen pages of documentation to take care of a $50-plus billion project. Those are your exact words, Premier.

He also said nothing will be deleted. No additions, no deletions. On the public airwaves he said, "This is the full deal." Those are his exact words. "Nothing is going to change." Those are his exact words. He also said: Every eventuality has been covered off. This covers it all. This is full protection for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, this eighteen-page document.

I have done a lot of transactions, Mr. Speaker, some for myself, some for clients of mine, and I can tell you that a transaction of this magnitude would have documentation stacked three feet, to the top of that desk, before we started on it; I can tell you right now. Eighteen pages to cover a deal like this is absolutely disgraceful.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, in Clarenville, I am informed, indicated that this document alone, this binding, definitive agreement, the next agreement, will probably be at least 100 to 150 pages, but the hon. members of this House are being asked to vote on eighteen pages and are being told by the Premier of our Province that nothing will be added and nothing will be deleted. Well, who is right? Is the minister right? Are there another ninety-two pages? Are there another 132 pages? What is the answer? Who is right? Who are we to believe? How can we responsibly vote on this tomorrow, an eighteen-pages document?

Mr. Speaker, if I could take some time - and I realize I have limited time - I do want to discuss some of the terms of this document because it is very, very important. I have gone through it in some detail.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was quiet when the Premier spoke. I didn't speak when the Premier spoke, and I would expect the same courtesy from the Premier. The last time, actually, that I rose to speak in this House on the Budget debate, I spoke for an hour and forty minutes and I was interrupted eighteen times by hon. members opposite. In all fairness to the Premier, he was outside of the Province. He was on business in New York, representing the Province.

On the Statement of Principles, I am going to deal off the top, paragraph 1. The first paragraph is the Preamble of the document and I would recommend to anybody who wants to look at this document, you can get enough out of page 1 to destroy your confidence in this entire document, I can tell you right now, and I intend to go through it in a little more detail.

First, the Preamble talks about who are the proponents and who are the parties to this particular deal. It goes on to say that all costs and all dollar amounts are current estimates. Based on the statement of Mr. Scott Hand, they could all be materially different from what you see in the Statement of Principles.

One point which is a minor point but could be a major point, the question becomes: Who signs this final document? If Inco, the parent company and its affiliates, and Voisey's Bay and all the companies, sign the document, then it is binding; however, if, in the final documentation, a holding company for Inco signed this document - say it is Inco Newfoundland Limited - then the only people that this government can sue would be Inco Newfoundland Limited. And, Inco Newfoundland Limited could have absolutely no assets. I cannot say whether it will be Inco Newfoundland Limited. I have no way of knowing. All I am saying is, I caution the Premier, I caution the Minister of Justice, and I caution the Minister of Mines and Energy. They have to be very careful who signs this document, because, if you have to sue anybody, they are the only people you can sue.

In paragraph 2 of the Statement of Principles - this is just incredible, this particular section. "The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties."

That means that once this document is signed, if it has not already been signed - they signed something at the press conference and I don't know what it was, but even if it was signed - this document is not binding. It has no legal rights or obligations. It is completely meaningless. It does not count. It is not binding. It cannot be enforced against anybody.

It goes on to say, "The parties will use their best efforts to finalize mutually acceptable definitive agreements (the "Binding Agreements")...", at some point down the road, on or before September 30. So, they will try their best to both agree to put these principles in another document but they are not bound to do it. As a matter of fact, the last clause, clause 48 in this particular document, talks about the laws of the Province applying, but it applies to the Binding Agreements. It does not apply to this because this is not worth the paper it is written on.

MR. E. BYRNE: Because it is not binding.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the point. It is not binding. It is a useless document. Why are we being put through this sham here in the House of Assembly? Why won't the Premier provide the beef, the real deal? Why don't we get all the documentation?

Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 3, and this is just another indication of what we are not getting, "The principal conditions to be met in order for the Proponent to proceed with the Project are: (a) the passage into law of any changes to the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act contemplated by the Statement of Principles, (b) the completion of an Environmental Management Agreement, (c) the completion of required aboriginal agreements, including Impacts and Benefits Agreements and the Voisey's Bay chapter in the respective land claims agreements or other interim arrangements...". As well, Mr. Speaker, there are corporate tax agreements and there are Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreements.

We have not seen any of them. They are all relevant agreements to this entire large commercial arrangement. We have not seen them. We are not going to be given them. We are being asked to vote tomorrow without the benefit of that documentation.

This is a government that will tell you, that will tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that it is open, it is accountable, and it is transparent. Well, Mr. Speaker, why aren't we getting all the documentation? I can understand why the former Auditor General said that this is the least accountable government in this entire country.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have all the deal. That is what we find in the first three paragraphs. The final subclause in that first paragraph, I would submit, is probably the most important in the entire document. It says that the project is subject to, "the arrangement of suitable financing by the Proponent to enable the Project to be developed on a financially prudent basis."

Anybody in this Province who has ever bought a house knows what suitable financing means. If that clause is in the contract before it closes, you can get out of the deal because suitable financing may not be arranged.

The difference between that kind of a contract and this contract is that the suitable financing carries throughout the entire project. So, if you had this clause when you sold your house, then three years down the road they could come back and say that you have to take the house back. That is the difference. It is a condition precedent in a real estate document. In this particular document it goes throughout the entire project, so at any phase in this project Inco can say that they cannot arrange suitable financing. There are no standards here. There are no requirements here. There is no criteria set out. They can come back and say: We cannot get the financing. We cannot do your refinery. We cannot do your hydromet. We cannot do your underground exploration.

They also say: on a financially prudent basis. What does that mean? Does that mean that - if they have a hydromet facility or a smelter in Ontario or Manitoba, and they are being forced to duplicate some processing down here, then it may not be financially prudent. So, if it is not financially prudent then it falls by the wayside. They have an out. If that clause goes in the final documentation, they can walk away from any part of this deal at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on, in the interest of time. I am probably halfway there now.

Mr. Speaker, if we move now to paragraph 8, it talks about job creation, and there is good job creation in this document. There are jobs being created: 400 people for the mine and mill/concentrator processing plant; the research and development program, 200 people; underground exploration, 85 people; underground mine operations, 800 people; the hydromet processing plant, 400 people. That is a total, at the operations level, of 1,885 people. That would be good if, and that is the question. We will get the 400 people for the mine. We will get the 200 people for the demonstration facility. We will get the underground program. That is very, very likely; however, if - if - the underground exploration program, if, subject to financing comes into play on the underground exploration program after the fact, or as well on the processing plants that go in Argentia, Argentia will lose the 400 people after the demo plant is completed. It will also lose 800 people on the underground exploration. So, in fact, there are 1,200 people out of the 1,885 who may never have jobs. If they comply with this agreement that we have before us, those jobs could never happen.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in clause 11 they talk about their financing, and they talk about it on a best efforts basis. They have to put their best efforts into trying to obtain financing, and they talk about a solid business footing, a reasonable return, market conditions reasonably and prudently financed. Very loose, very, very vague words that enable them to do virtually whatever they want, bearing in mind that this entire document is not binding and, in effect, it is meaningless anyway.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue on through it, we see that we are going to get a demonstration plant in Argentia. I am here to indicate to the people of this Legislature, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are good things in this document if - if - they, in fact, happen. The demonstration plant in Argentia is a $130 million facility. That facility, that money, $150 million of that was provided by the federal government. One hundred and thirty million dollars of that is actually going to be spent in Argentia. That is good for Argentia. That will very, very likely happen. The mine and the mill will happen because they cannot scoop out the ovoid unless they get the mine and the mill and the processing in place, so that is good.

With regard to the mine and the mill, 400 people, approximately, will be employed at the mine and the mill, but the condition again is that the mine and the mill will start; it will start up. It will produce copper and cobalt and nickel, and it will be sent to Argentia to the demonstration plant. After that, it starts to go out and it starts to leave the Province. In 2006, our ore begins to leave the Province. The underground exploration - there will initially be an underground exploration program. That is good, because it will employ eighty-five people, but it is subject to that exploration study being successful. If that study is not successful, there will be no underground exploration, so 800 jobs in Labrador in the underground mine will fall off the table.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to the hydromet plant - and we are talking paragraph 21, paragraph 22, and paragraph 23 - the hydromet facility is not guaranteed. It is a demonstration facility. Therefore, if the demonstration of the technical and the engineering feasibility studies does not work, there will not be a hydromet plant in Argentia. "In the unlikely event...", the document says, that does not happen, then they will consider the nickel matte refinery. That, Mr. Speaker, is also subject to a feasibility study.

Interestingly enough, by comparison, in Labrador, the Iron Ore Company, when the ore left for Quebec and the pelletizing plant was set up in Sept-Iles, it was subject to a feasibility study. So, we could have the same thing all over again. We could have the Upper Churchill repeated, we could have the Iron Ore Company of Canada repeated, and, as well, we could have a Friede Goldman situation repeated in this Province. We have not learned from our mistakes. This allows it to happen all over again.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, there is one more point. It is still subject to suitable financing. If both of those committees come back, and those feasibility studies come back, and they say: Well, it is not feasible to do a hydromet, and, no, it is not feasible to do a nickel matte, then, if it is not feasible, it is not feasible. If that happens, there will be no facility. Even if it is feasible, Inco can come back and say the financing is not suitable.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to do this but this is a very important debate, a very important debate, and the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has just repeated something that other members, like the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, repeated last night. That is just not true. It is not in the Statement of Principles. Would he enlighten us as to where exactly there is anything that suggests the nickel matte plant is subject to feasibility (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I am making is that construction of these facilities and the jobs related thereto are subject to studies and subject to financing which may never happen, and therefore those facilities may never happen.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudibility) feasibility (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier just acknowledged, subject to financing, yes. As I said to you in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that is singularly the most important clause in this entire document. Everything is subject to suitable financing on a financially prudent basis, and I am delighted that the Premier has finally acknowledged that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on the guarantee of replacement ore - and that is taken care of in paragraph 25 - they talk about the guarantee of ore coming back to this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, ore will leave this Province, under certain circumstances, from 2006 until 2011. If there is, in fact, a nickel matte refinery in Argentia, all of our ore, every single bit of it, will leave this Province, exactly contrary to not an ounce, not a spoonful. Every single bit of it will leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So, what is our guarantee that it will come back? We have a promise from Inco, a non-binding promise right now, that it will come back. What if we had a Friede Goldman situation? What if, down the road, when this ore comes back - and it may be thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years down the road - if Inco is bankrupt? Then, who do we sue? What financial guarantee do we have? What bond? What security? What letter of credit? What can we take to the bank and cash when this company is gone bankrupt? Zero. Absolutely nothing. That is what we have in this documentation. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not good enough for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What the Premier has so proudly touted as being his great achievement is the fact they have acknowledge that we have a right to sue. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Hand. If I have broken a contract with anyone, they have a right to sue me. They have also been nice enough to say: We won't object to you suing us. Well, thank you very much. They have also said: We will acknowledge that you have suffered some loss. Well, thank you very much. Do you know what they have also said? They have also said that the ore has to come back when mining operations cease. Where, in this Statement of Principles, does it say what cessation of mining operations means? It is totally in their hands. If they have a couple of thousand pounds of ore left and they want to drag it out for 250 years, they just keep putting someone up there with a drill and a shovel and a bucket, and that is how they can prevent bringing the ore back forever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Inco Innovation Centre at Memorial: The initiative with Memorial University of Newfoundland is a good initiative, and I commend it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is interesting that the $20 million there is going to come in one lump sum of $10 million, and then $1 million a year for ten years. Well, interestingly enough, we are giving a tax holiday for ten years of $2 million a year. So, they are going to give $1 million to Memorial, they are going to keep the other ten and then they are going to give that to Memorial too. So, we have built the Innovation Centre at Memorial.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The paragraph on Industrial and Employment Benefits, a very, very, very important paragraph in this document. Not conclusive, haven't seen the agreement, but you know that it does? It talks about full and fair opportunity and it says how manufacturers and consultants will be given a full and fair opportunity. It asks the question. It doesn't give the answer. It says, how. Well, how? It talks about first consideration for procurement. It says how the purchasing practices will be done. It talks about first consideration for training and employment and it talks about how. It doesn't tell us how, it just talks about how. We don't have the details on industrial and employment benefits for this project; very, very important information for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on. I wish I had three hours because I could go down through this in some detail. The Aboriginal agreements, clause 29. It talks about: Agreements will be executed between the proponent and the Innu Nation, and they will provide specific industrial and employment opportunities. These documents are all unseen. There will also be agreements between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Aboriginals. These are all unseen. We can take no responsibility for those; we have not scrutinized them. We cannot tell the Aboriginal people or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether they are good or bad or indifferent. We do not know; we have not seen them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) figure it out yourself.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are here to help, Premier. This is not an issue of anybody not being able to figure anything out for themselves. We are here to provide assistance. I think we can help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The corporate income tax agreements, unseen. Electrical Rates and Provision of Power, "This government will commit to cause Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to charge the island industrial electrical rate, or such lower electrical power rate...". It is also committed to provide a sufficient power supply, that it will be available. What that means is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are paying their power bills will be subsidizing Inco Canada on their power. Inco Canada has $10 billion worth of assets. That is more than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owes, and we are subsidizing their power.

Mr. Speaker, Mining Lease, paragraph 36, it talks only about primary processing. It does not talk about secondary processing. It speaks only of primary processing. What about the processing for the people of Argentia? Where are the safeguards in all the documentation? I do not see it here. Maybe it is here. I do not know, we do not know, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not know.

Mr. Speaker, then we have Exemption Orders. There has been an indication that, well, you know, the mining tax act is a mining tax act, but what we have in this particular document are exemption orders. They are exemptions to the regulations. What they allow - this is very important; this is in regard to the ore leaving the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - they allow 440,000 tonnes of our nickel to leave this Province at a value of $3 billion. Not counting the copper, not counting the cobalt. That is how much of our ore is going to be allowed to leave this Province, and that government was elected on a mandate of not one ounce, not one spoonful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That exemption order also provides for all the ore to leave in the event of a nickel matte refinery in Argentia.

Mr. Speaker, that is just a quick overview of the document as I see it, and what I can do in a period of fifteen or twenty minutes. I have seventeen minutes left, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it also talks about approval by the House of Assembly of the Province. We are asked to vote on the Statement of Principles. I have indicated exactly the value of this Statement of Principles: eighteen pages of absolutely useless information for us to vote on. We do not have the documentation and we cannot make a sound decision based on that documentation.

Mr. Speaker, then, during the ad campaign, during the media campaign, we all saw: Meeting Our Commitments. That was the slogan. Delighted you chose it, because if there is one thing you certainly have not done, Premier - Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not met his commitments. He said he has made his commitments and he has kept his commitments. Well, let's talk about the commitments that have been made and the commitments that have been kept.

What about: not one ounce, not one spoonful? What about that quote, the quote that came in 1999 from the former, former Premier, the Premier who got a real mandate from the people of this Province? A Premier who was elected by the people of this Province. A Premier who would have a right to do a deal on Voisey's Bay, and a Premier that said no ore leaving this Province, and this Premier is prepared to let it leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What do we have? We have $3 billion worth of our ore leaving the Province. That is a long way, Mr. Speaker, from: not an ounce, not a spoonful.

Of course, the hon. Member for Port de Grave, at a meeting a few days ago - here is what the Member for Port de Grave said: But if what goes out in five years never came back, what a tremendous benefit it is going to be to the Province and this area. I am glad it is coming back, I know it is coming back, and I am glad a clause is there that it is coming back. He is taking faith in the clause that is in the agreement. But if it did not, if I had to make up my mind on that alone, I would be prepared, I think, to almost even forgive that. That is the position of the Member for Port de Grave. That is the position of that government. They would allow this ore to leave. They are allowing this ore to leave. That is a broken promise, that is a broken commitment. That is the first one, Mr. Speaker.

The second commitment that was made by former Premier Tobin, upon which a mandate was given to this government by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is the commitment to build a smelter; a very, very important commitment. Because, if there was a smelter going in Argentia, we would not have to go through a demonstration plant, we would not have to go through a mini pilot project in Sudbury, we would not have to wait to see whether hydromet is going to work, we would not have to accept some nickel matte refinery that deals with nickel matte that is already 80 per cent processed, we would have a smelter-refinery in Argentia. That is the promise that was made, that is the promise that was broken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there was also a guarantee that the ore would, in fact, come back. I have dealt with that, and there is not a guarantee that the ore will come back. In fact, there is no guarantee. There is a promise by Inco that the ore will come back, providing Inco is around. Inco have given us a promise. They have given us a guarantee that we have a right to sue them. That is not good enough, Premier. We need a financial guarantee, something that could have taken us out of the mess that we were in with Friede Goldman. That is not there. That is a broken promise. No commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: They are also promising that there will be an underground exploration program in Labrador, that 800 jobs will be created in Labrador. Well, according to this document, if it is not a successful exploration study, there will be no underground exploration program. You will break that commitment and you will break that promise if it does not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Premier said in this House: For the two hundred and fiftieth time, I can tell you there will be no tax holidays, there will be no tax breaks for Inco. They had a ten-year tax holiday of $2 million a year. He did not keep that promise. He did not keep that commitment. Why should we believe him now on this Statement of Principles?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, royalties: It is a big issue. It is a huge issue for the people of this Province. What is the royalty regime for this Province? What are we going to get after equalization? What are we going to get after clawback? The number that has been touted is a half million dollars a year after clawback. Our calculations seem to think that it is even less than a half million dollars a year. Let's assume that it is a half million dollars a year. That is one loonie for every person in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are going to get out of this Project on an annual basis. That is why there should be no more giveaways. That is why this is worse than the Churchill Falls agreement ever was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Even Mr. Sopko, if you read the book, the Friedland book, and you read about what Mr. Sopko said. He said the Aboriginal agreements had to be done, land claims had to be done, but he was also of the opinion that this deal could never be done unless the clawback and equalization payments and the problems with Ottawa were straightened out. He is on the record as saying that. That means that Inco actually thought that. That means that Inco did not think this deal was going to happen unless that was straightened out. They thought it was not going to happen, but we have allowed it to happen. What this government would have done, if we were in government, we would gone to Ottawa, we would have taken Scott Hand to Ottawa and we would have gone hand-in-hand with Mr. Hand, gone to Mr. Chrétien, sat him down and said: If you want this deal to go, if you want to create jobs in Ontario and Manitoba, you better give us a good clawback regime. You better get rid of it completely, and then we will do a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The irony is, Mr. Speaker, that is what Inco expected. They are on the record as saying it. That is what they expected would happen. That is what I expected would happen. I honestly thought that this government was going to come back with clawback gone on this particular deal. I really felt that was going to happen. I was completely surprised when I saw it was not. I was amazed that the Premier did a deal that allows 95 per cent of the royalties to go to Ottawa. I cannot believe he has done it. Inco, Scott Hand, must be flabbergasted that he got a deal from you. He drew you in, Premier, he drew you in. Another giveaway. He drew you in and he sucked you into a deal that you never should have signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have about nine minutes left.

What are the people saying? What are the people of this Province saying? We have gone all over this Province. Every one of our members have gone to their districts. They have spent a considerable amount of time in consultation. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has spent a considerable amount of money in consultation. He has gone out, he has used his own money to actually poll and send a ballot to the people in his constituency to find out exactly- his own money! - to find out exactly what the people in his constituency said. He will have the results of that and he will be relying on the results of that to make his decision at the end of the day.

What we have tried to do in the short time that was available to us - the conference was on the eleventh, Tuesday. We had an opportunity to review the documentation on Wednesday. We left and we went to our districts. We had to be back here on Monday night for the House of Assembly. So we had Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday to try to canvass our districts. Some of the members here must have thirty, forty communities. How many communities?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thirty five communities. How many communities in your district?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thirty-six communities. Impossible! Absolutely impossible! A consultation process like that is a sham. It is ridiculous and it is insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, do you know what we are finding out there? I heard it described very well by one of the members of caucus in the last couple of days. There is a cautious optimism in our people, a cautious optimism, and this government is playing on that optimism. It is trying to drive home their message through an expensive propaganda advertising campaign. Do you know what we are doing? We find ourselves in the role of the people who are exercising caution. We are trying to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we know they are anxious for jobs, we know they are very anxious for jobs. I drove home in the car two days ago with my son and his girlfriend from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's district and I said: What do your mom and dad think of the deal. She said: They are very concerned about it, they are very concerned about the details. They do not have enough information, but they are hoping that my two brothers will be able to come back from the Mainland and work. That is the optimism. They have a right to be expecting jobs in this Province, but we have to be realistic, we have to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just how many jobs are available. We cannot give them false hope. We certainly cannot give them false hope. I am the eternal optimist. To find myself in this role where I have to be cautious and have to try and criticize - you know, that is what I did, I created employment, I created jobs, I believed things would go well. That is why I have such a sick feeling in my stomach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The people need to understand that if you live adjacent to Voisey's Bay, if you live in Labrador, the Aboriginal peoples are going to have a good chance of getting a job, and of course the Labradorians are going to have a good chance of getting a job. With the 200 jobs that are going to be in Placentia for the demo plant, the people in Argentia and Placentia are going to have a chance of getting a job. But it is a limited number of jobs. Let's tell them the truth, let's me realistic. The people in Black Duck Cove, are they going to get a job? There is no guarantee that they are going to be a job. That is the problem. What about the people in Jackson's Arm or the people in Marystown or the Gills in Botwood or the Stricklands in Burgeo or the Coles in Flowers Cove or the Condons in Jackson's Arm? What hope do they have? The problem is that there are not going to be enough jobs so we cannot have them buying into a deal just because they think they are going to get a job. We are trying to show the cautious optimism. We are trying to caution them and say: Look, if certain things are not in this agreement, you will not get the jobs. If we can tighten the agreement, there is a better chance that you will get employment from this project. That is why we are trying to do what we are doing. We are trying to improve the deal, and this Premier will not accept our assistance and I cannot understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Our office has been flooded with faxes, flooded with e-mails and flooded with telephone messages. The government comes out today and commissions a poll. A poll comes out in my district today specifically intended to embarrass me. Well the poll that was done by The Telegram on last Wednesday and Thursday, finished on Thursday, said 89 per cent in favor. The poll that was produced by the government today is down to 54 per cent and that was done on Saturday and Sunday. If a poll was done tonight, according to those numbers, it would be 19 per cent in favor of this agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is exactly the way it goes. Let's call a spade a spade here. So do not try and confuse the people with misinformation. It is wrong. This is a very, very important matter.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for heating up a bit on this but I am concerned. I am very, very concerned about it. I am concerned about the time frame. I do honestly believe - as I said that is why I got in politics in the first place - that enough is enough; enough giveaways. We have given it all away before and we cannot let it happen again.

I cannot vote for this resolution because a vote for this resolution, in my opinion, is a vote for a giveaway, and I believe that we can do much better than this eighteen page Statement of Principles. I cannot understand how hon. members opposite, apart from those in Labrador who are close to the project, who certainly have the best interests of the people in their districts at heart - I could understand them voting for this agreement, for this Statement of Principles, but I cannot understand other hon. members, who are not adjacent to these particular projects, voting for this Statement of Principles.

What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that Inco's objectives, the objectives of a mega corporation that has more assets than we have debt in this Province, have taken priority over the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their cheerleader has said: Inco comes first, Newfoundland and Labrador comes second, and that is what that Premier has said.

Mr. Speaker, we have to make tough decisions, we have to stand firm. When it comes to making decisions, we have to stand up. We cannot just do the things that may appear to be popular at a given point in time. That is the position that we find ourselves in. We are standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are trying to make this a better deal, but we are not getting the information from this government that is not open, this government that is not accountable, and this government that is not transparent. We are in the dark, we do not have all the information, and it is impossible for us to make a responsible decision on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to be on the fast track, as I have said before, we want to be on the right track for the people. We cannot deal with a document of eighteen pages. We have offered to help this Premier and this government and they have refused our help. In my heart and soul I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that Opposition members who vote against this Statement of Principles are wrong, because I want this project to work, I want the money to be spent, and I want the jobs to be created. But I cannot, in all conscience, vote for this Statement of Principles and I am very proud to say that I am not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I would like to welcome to the gallery a former member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Tom Hickey, for the District of St. John's East Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: During the last several minutes of the Leader of the Oppositions discourse and presentation here tonight, where he did listen intently to the Premier's opening remarks, the Premier shouted out across the floor, quite evident and loud enough for all members to hear, where he called the Leader of the Opposition a master of deception. I would like to remind him that in this place, Sir, there are strict limits on the type of language that you use and this is clearly, Mr. Speaker, unparliamentary. I ask him to stand up and withdraw, because it is clearly unparliamentary. Yet again, his continuous personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition, calls into attack his integrity. Stand up and apologize for your comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I will deal with that issue outside the House, if that language is, in fact, unparliamentary. I did say it and I am glad that he repeated it. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly deal with that issue later. If it is unparliamentary to say it inside this Chamber, I most certainly will withdraw it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this evening to be able to rise in this House and speak to the motion that was laid down by the Premier ten o'clock Monday morning when we convened for this historic and important debate on behalf of the people of this Province.

I want to make some comments with respect to this important project, Mr. Speaker, because I have had the good fortune - and I say it humbly, but sincerely - I have had the good fortune of being asked by the Premier to endeavor, over the past year and a half, to move forward this project to a point of resolution, if it were at all possible, on behalf of the people and in the interest of the people of this Province. I want to publically, this evening, Mr. Speaker, speak a word of congratulation and thanks, sincerely, to those who were part of this process over the past twelve or fifteen months along with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if we were to listen to the words coming from the Opposition benches, one would think that we went out on the street corner and found the first ten Grade Kindergarten students that were walking up and down the street and we decided to ask them to form the nucleus of a negotiating team to put together the Voisey's Bay project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: You would almost think, Mr. Speaker, that we hired and engaged, that we had sitting around the table, a bunch of people who were (a) stupid, were (b) uninformed, were (c) unpatriotic Newfoundlanders because they had no interest in the well being of the Province, were individuals who had singular objectives, and that was to ensure that the people of this Province would forever be hurt because of a Voisey's Bay deal that they would recommend through the process to this government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the team that lead, under the direction of the Premier and myself, this project to a satisfactory and a good conclusion on behalf of the people of the Province. I want to recognize my lead negotiator, my deputy minister, Mr. Brian Maynard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - who has to his credit no less than nineteen years of faithful pubic service.

I want to congratulate and thank Gary Norris, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who has a mere twenty-five years of faithful and successful public service in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to Allister Taylor, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mines, who has just a teeny-weeny bit of service, twenty-two years of faithful service to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Terry Paddon, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, who has thirteen years of service in the public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want, Mr. Speaker, to say thank you to Sean Dutton, the Assistant Deputy minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who has eight years of service in that position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to say thank you to Charles Bown who has thirteen years of service in the Department of Mines and Energy and the Director of the Voisey's Bay project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to thank John McDonald, the Counsel who sat at the table at all times on behalf of this Province from the Department of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we went about our business on behalf of the people of this Province in a diligent, in a thoughtful, in a thorough, in a considerate, in a professional and in a heartfelt and patriotic manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if all of that wasn't enough, I think the record of service that I have read out on behalf of those gentlemen also indicates that they were eminently qualified to sit at the table on our behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I could speak to the strength of the legal team that we put together, both internally and externally, from within and outside of the Province and speak to their commentary on this Statement of Principles. I will leave that to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who I am sure will want to do that. We hired the best we could find in the business world, in the consulting world, and in the financial world to give us advice. We hired Strathcona Minerals Limited to give us advise under the direction of Graham Farquharson.. We hired Merrill Lynch's former employee who have faithfully served this Province for twenty-one years as a financial advisor, Mr. Tony Rosin, who sat with us through these negotiations. We engaged IBK Capital, Madam Speaker, and we engaged many, many others.

Why do I make this point and take my time to thank these people this evening? Because, Madam Speaker, I think it is important for the people of the Province to know that we just did not willy-nilly decide to do a deal with Inco. We put in place, Madam Speaker, a process that ensured that we would get the best recommendation from the negotiating team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, we did not direct our negotiators to come back with any singular decision or recommendation. We said: You go to work on our behalf and you bring us the best decision you can come to. It may be a decision to proceed with the project, it may be a decision that there is on project possible to be done, because our objectives could not be met. Madam Speaker, we put together a team that did a job that is well done on behalf of the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my caucus colleagues who, over the past fifty-one weeks, while we were going through this process, have been supportive. They have been patient, they have been diligent in asking questions of myself and the Premier, but they have been there to challenge us every step of the way to ensure that we got the best project. That is why, Madam Speaker, we didn't go into a caucus meeting and spend two or three hours debating the Statement of Principles. That is why we spent four caucus meetings and twenty or thirty hours explaining, debating, challenging ourselves, raising the hard questions, putting our own feet to the fire with respect to what is in this Statement of Principles before we decided, as a caucus, that this was the project to bring forward on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I want to pay just and due respect to the Premier of the Province, our leader, because the people of this Province know that no organization, that no group of individuals charged with the task, that no government can move forward successfully and can execute efficiently and in the best interest of the people of the Province unless it is served well by visionary, and by strong and sustained leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I submit that as one dispassionate and independent of all political stripes, I believe the person is, indicated to me once, I believe that this Premier will probably go down in history as the best of eight premiers we have had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Leadership, Madam Speaker, is about vision. Leadership is about progress and progression. The opposite of leadership and progression and progress is regression and retrenchment and rearview mirror public policy thinking. I submit, Madam Speaker, that if ever there was a group of individuals - there are eighteen sitting on that caucus over there who spend their time looking in the rearview mirror.

Fancy, the Leader of the Opposition rising in the House tonight and saying: Madam Speaker, I sense a ray of optimism in this Province and we must deal with that ray of optimism. It cannot be allowed to be sustained. It cannot be allowed to go on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Optimism cannot be the hallmark of the people of this Province. We need to roll out our policy that says in essence we believe every Newfoundlander should wrap themselves in tinfoil and they should pray for lightening in fear of something good happening to them because they are led by a government who is forward looking and visionary on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I will acknowledge that no one project is the economic salvation of this Province, but I will also put forward the proposition that many good projects in combination will lead this Province into prosperity and into a future that I believe we all desire to have for our citizens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, the issue of where positions are being taken from, with respect to the Voisey's Bay Project, is fundamentally rooted in the economic policy, view and position of people in this House. We, on this side of the House, believe that there is a possibility every single day to do something good on behalf of the people of the Province when we are willing to sit down and seek to find solutions to the challenges and difficulties that we have in society.

On the other hand, might I say this, that fundamentally, people who look at us on the other side of the House have a different vision of economic development in this Province. The people that I look at tonight by and large have a vision that says this: We invite you to come to this Province and participate in our economy. We invite you to come and bring your capitalist dollars to move our economy forward and to develop our natural resources. But you must remember one thing, Madam Speaker, you must remember that we are inflexible. You must remember that we are rigid. You must remember that we are entrenched. You must remember that our vision is in the past. You must remember that we are scared to death of a ray of optimism and we are threatened by the thought of moving forward. We cannot understand why that would be the new thinking of a government that sits on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Madam Speaker, that is in stark contrast to a government that is visionary, to a government that is prepared to sit at a negotiating table, and to a government that is prepared to challenge the proponents who want to come to this Province, prepared to challenge ourselves and prepared to work toward solutions as opposed to ensuring that nothing happens good, for fear that a ray of optimism might spring eternal in the breasts of all of us who reside in this Province.

Too long, Madam Speaker, have we been served by the naysayers, by the doomers and gloomers. I say, Madam Speaker, that people of this Province may see this deal nitpicked but I guarantee you that the people of this Province will not be hoodwinked by what is being put forward by the people on the other side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I have participated. I have had the good fortune, on behalf of the people of St. John's North, to sit in government in this Province for now almost ten years. I have participated as a part of government, as a member of a government that has taken many, many tough, public, policy decisions on behalf of the people of this Province. Sometimes, I confess, when you sit around a Cabinet table or you sit around a caucus table you are challenged to line up what is in the best interest of the people of the Province with what it is in your gut you feel is right, what it is in your conscience you feel is proper, how it is that it measures up against your principles. I participated in a lot of decisions on behalf of the people of this Province, so have a lot of us, and we have been honoured so to do. I can say this, Madam Speaker, never have I participated in a decision that I have felt more comfortable with in my head, more satisfied with in my heart or more confident within my gut than is this decision to move forward this project on the basis that we have laid out for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say that, Madam Speaker, because I believe with all of the belief that I can conjure up in one mortal body, that this is a good deal. This is the right deal. It is at the right time coming forward for the benefit of the people of this Province. It is coming forward for the best and finest of reasons, Madam Speaker, and it is being recommended against a set of principles that fundamentally see us as a government achieving 100 per cent of the fundamental commitments we made to the people of this Province over the life of this project.

Madam Speaker, if there is one thing that gives me, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested he had tonight, a little bit of queasiness in my stomach, it is this. The level of non-factual information, the level of half-truths, the level of contrived thinking, the level of fearmongering that comes with their explaining or trying to explain to the people of the Province what it is that is contained in this Statement of Principles.

I say, Madam Speaker, to the people of the Province that what we have before us in this House tonight is the deal. It is the final deal. The negotiating team has been disbanded. The negotiators have been given a break to go back and see their families, many of whom they have not seen much of for the past year. We proudly stand in this House and present a Statement of Principles that not only meets the objectives and the commitments to the people of this Province, it is more than that. It is drafting instructions, Madam Speaker, to the lawyers who will represent us and drafting instructions to the lawyers who will represent Inco to go and sit down at a lawyer's table and take the time to put into legal language exactly what is represented here. No more, Madam Speaker; no less, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: No more or no less than is represented here in principle.

Madam Speaker, what does this deal contain for the people of the Province? The Premier laid it out very clearly when he spoke in the House on Monday. Members on this side of the House have attempted to lay out the contents of this deal. I will tell you what we have fundamentally in this deal, Madam Speaker, I will tell you what we have. Notwithstanding the scare-mongering and the suggestion of that which is omitted in this deal, what we have in this deal, Madam Speaker, is this. We have a 98 per cent certainty that we will get 100 per cent of everything that we set out to get as a Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the worst-case scenario, Madam Speaker? What is the worst-case scenario of this full project? We have not a 98 per cent certainty, but we have 100 per cent certainty that we will get no less than 94 per cent of everything that we set out to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I do not know how people make decisions when they buy lottery tickets. I must confess, I do not buy a lot. As a matter of fact, when I buy the next one it will be my first one. I am not really into how people make decisions on how they buy lottery tickets, but I will opine this, that if I were a gambler I think I would buy a ticket on either one of these propositions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I think, Madam Speaker, that if the pot was $10 million and I was 100 per cent sure that I was getting $9.4 million, I would be tempted to go for it. I would be tempted to think about it. I might think for thirty seconds or so, and I might probably go against my own best, moral judgements in that case - and I might be tempted to buy the ticket. I am not sure that I would, but if I were a gambling man, I say, I think I would have a shot at it. I think I would only buy one because one will give me $9.4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: One ticket! One ticket guarantees me to be a winner of at least 94 per cent of the pot; and if not that, if I took the other ticket I would be 98 per cent sure that I would get 100 per cent of the pot. It would not be a difficult decision to make.

This, Madam Speaker, is a project that is for the benefit of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I submit humbly, that a project that comes forward, structured in a sound and in a seamless manner as this project is, with great respect to the opinion of others, a project that comes forward as seamlessly sound and as bulletproof as this is, with the guarantees that it contains, is project that I submit caused 89 per cent of the people in the Province, when they first looked at it, to say we think we have something here worth going for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me just describe some elements of the project, Madam Speaker, if I may, for the people of the Province and the members of this House. Think of the last company that came to this Province and put themselves in a position of having to invest $850 million of their own money without having to go against that one cent of revenue, and without having the right to move one ounce of natural resource product out of this Province before they made that investment. Think of who might come and do that, Madam Speaker. I don't think it would be a company that is trying to figure out a way to not be able to get their bank loan and not be able to meet the tests that we have put in place.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he has an hour.

MADAM SPEAKER: Okay, continue.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

I appreciate the reminder because it means that I have twenty minutes gone. So I know there is forty minutes left. Thank you very much, and if you would remind me, Madam Speaker, in twenty minutes time again I would be more than thankful for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Lloyd, it didn't seem like an hour to me.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Minister of Finance says it did not seem like an hour to her, but some over here seem to think it was a little longer than that.

Madam Speaker, think of a project that could be structured in a fashion that after they spent $850 million they are absolutely obligated to build either a full, lone hydrometallurgical new processing plant or they are obligated - no ifs, ands or buts, no equivocation, no test required, no benchmarks to meet, absolutely required to build a $670 million matte, hydro-metal, nickel processing plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: No, you're lying. Either you're lying or the Leader of the Opposition is. One of you is lying now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker - and the Premier reminds me - I was getting to that point because this is an area where the Member for the Straits & White Bay North last night, and many other members on the other side of the House have said, in standing in debate, that before we know we are going to get one plant or the other there has to be the test of a feasability study, there has to be the test of a technical analysis, there has to be a test of a financial standard met, before we get it. Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I submit, untrue, non-factual, totally, totally wrong. We will get one or the other, or guess what we will get if we don't get one or the other? We will get to keep 98 per cent of the full resource in Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So, I say, Madam Speaker, what does Inco gain? What does Inco gain up until 2008? They gain 155 tons of nickel in concentrate to ship out of the Province. What do we get in return? We get $850 million of infrastructure built in the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: In addition to that, Madam Speaker, we get all of the direct and indirect economic benefits that have gone between now and 2008. We get the value of the processing plant. We get the value of the work that went into building the mine and mill/concentrator. We get the value of every bit of infrastructure that is put there.

What do we do after 2008 when they start to build one or the other? Not if they start, when they start to build one of the other. We give them, on a yearly basis - not a blank cheque to be exempt in terms of the processing, in terms of their mine, mill and lease, we give them a tested exemption year over year. At the end of 2009 they need a test, they need a standard of measurement, they need a level of performance or their ability to export ore stops. The same thing in 2010. The same thing in 2011.

Madam Speaker, Scott Hand is not a stupid man. He did not fall off a turnip truck in New York after he came from California and practiced law there for twenty-five or thirty years. So, he was well advised. He was well advised to, not only say for this audience but also for the benefit of his own audience, his shareholders and the financial markets, because they needed to know what he signed on to. He was obliged to say, and he did say, Madam Speaker, that this deal is so solid, so rock-solid, so nickel plated, so firm in terms of its guarantees, that he said it has more checkpoints, more stoplights than the thousand miles of the 401 starting on the waterfront in Toronto and running straight through to Northern Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Young Street.

MR. MATTHEWS: Young Street. What street did I say?

AN HON. MEMBER: The 401.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, the 401. That was where the ramps were. We got off the 401 and we got on Young Street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Madam Speaker, with great respect, and in keeping with the concept I just laid out of those who live by looking in the rearview mirror, the people on that side of the House need to take the nearest exit off the 401 as well. They need to get on Young Street and they need to understand that there are going to be lots of stops along the way to ensure that we have a project that is delivered.

What is the project all about in big picture form, Madam Speaker? The project is about a mere, might I say, 2,700 jobs for thirty continuous years for the people of this Province; 76,000 person-years of work based on a project of thirty years.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are double-counting again.

MR. MATTHEWS: Nobody is double-counting, I say to the hon. the member. The voodoo economist should listen and learn!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If you would listen, you would learn. That, I commit to you, as being a promise. I think you have the ability to take it in, I say to the hon. Member from Ferryland, if he only had the will to listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read and succeed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Read and succeed. I would say, listen and learn.

Madam Speaker, this project is not the economic salvation of the Province but I will tell you what, it is a great project to kick-start certain parts of this Province that are suffering from high unemployment. It is a great project to allow the business community to expand and spread out their ambitions in terms of moving forward in this economy.

This, Madam Speaker, is a four-pronged project. Let me describe it to you, Madam Speaker. Eight hundred and fifty million dollars gets spent by 2008 to build a $710 million mine and mill/concentrator in Labrador; a $130 million R and D project in Argentia. The largest, I might add, project for R and D purposes ever undertaken in Atlantic Canada happens to be a byproduct of the project that we are developing; a project that will go on for thirty years, I submit, based on the usage of only 80 million tons of the 140 million tons of known and inferred reserve in Voisey's Bay. Add to that, Madam Speaker, the likelihood of the success of the exploration program, a $95 million program that will be undertaken which will employ an additional eighty-five people. Add to that the likelihood of success of that program, and it is not a fantasy. Scott Hand and Dr. Stewart Gendron, the Premier, my officials and I, have not made up the concept that this might be a fifty, seventy-five or 100 year project. It is probably the reality of what is steering us in the face. Clearly, it is a multi, multi-generational project.

The people on the other side, and the people on this side, I think have a singular interest in ensuring that because it makes the project work, we are allowing a small percentage of concentrate to move for a small period of time. Because we are doing that, we are just as interested as they are to ensure that concentrate comes back to this Province. That is why we worked so long and hard to get Inco to agree to put words like guarantee in places where a prudent proponent would rather have written in: best effort, will endeavour, will make every reasonable attempt, will do our best. We said: No, we want guarantees -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that you not only sign your name to on paper, but we want guarantees that you will go into the public domain, you will go before the people of this Province, and you will not only state what it is you have written in a document, you will also verify and indicate your intentions with respect to what you have signed on to. I say, while I am not a lawyer, Madam Speaker, that it is my understanding that in a court of law, notwithstanding the strength of a legal document -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) legal document.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not say that, I say to the Member for Kilbride. I said: notwithstanding the strength a legal document. If he would listen, he would learn. You will have your time tomorrow morning, I say to the hon. member. I will listen to you in silence and I would ask of you to do the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Notwithstanding the strength of a legal document, Madam Speaker, these people have gone out and said: We not only signed the guarantee, but we state publicly it is our intent to do what we said, and we understand that our commitment is a guarantee on paper but it is also a guarantee in terms of what we publicly articulate to the people of this Province.

That brings me, Madam Speaker, to the point of getting to some information that I want to deal with. I realize I will not have time this evening to deal with everything that I wanted to deal with, but I say this: I commend, first of all, my member in the House of Assembly in an attempt, I think, to honestly get information out to her constituents. I happen to be the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to be talking long?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, and if I could have your twenty minutes I would appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, I will just use my own.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my member for attempting, I believe, in an honest fashion to get some information around to her constituents. I received in that regard a piece of paper in my mailbox that said: The facts on Voisey's Bay. It is quite a strong heading to put on a piece of paper and circulate around to constituents, but I commend her for attempting to do that.

Let me speak to the information that is here. Point one is stated, and I quote: Why are we creating jobs in Manitoba and Ontario when we need them so badly here? I would challenge the hon. member to point out to me one syllable that suggests we are creating new jobs in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is not there. It is not true.

Madam Speaker, I will however submit to this House and outline to this House where we are creating some jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Madam Speaker, that we are creating some jobs from this project in the community of Nain, Labrador, for our Aboriginal people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Madam Speaker, we are creating some jobs for people in St. Anthony, who, when they came to my meeting, the meeting when we had to explain this project on Monday night, they -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I will not speak to people who are not in the House. I will not go there. There are rules of decorum that we respect, but I will say this: Of the seventy-five people who came out, not one person spoke about a paltry job. They were interested in the real jobs that this project would deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Point two: This deal has no processing guarantees. I submit humbly, Madam Speaker, that is not factual, an incorrect, totally opposite to the truth statement, and I will leave it at that. I could say more, but I would be rendered into the circumstance of having to spend more of my time apologizing, so I will not go there.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, we have rock-solid guarantees in this arrangement that we have struck on behalf of the people of the Province.

Madam Speaker, another statement that is made here says this - and this is information, now, supposedly coming from the Statement of Principles. It says this: This deal gives Inco the tax break that - I will use the word the Premier, although they used the word Grimes. Disrespectful, but - I will read it again: This deal gives Inco the tax break that the Premier said they would not get.

That is as far from the truth, Madam Speaker, as zero degrees is from 360 degrees. I do not know how far that is.

PREMIER GRIMES: It is the same place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: It is as far as zero degrees is from 359.5 degrees!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no, it is 180 degrees, the opposite end.

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I ask for protection from my colleagues who are trying in their own humble way to be helpful, but they are throwing me off my text and I do not want to be thrown off. I have something to say tonight in support of this project. Let me just say this: It is just not true. That sums it up.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, that, as opposed to giving Inco the tax break that we said we would not give them, we have imposed a level of tax burden by about 40 per cent higher than the original, the current Mining and Mineral Tax Act provides for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The mining tax under our negotiated deal moves from $140 million to $230 million in total. In addition to that, Madam Speaker, talking about tax breaks, we have not offered -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That's okay, Trevor - I mean, the hon. Member for the Straits & White Bay North, who is otherwise a fine fellow and I know him by his first name.

I say, Madam Speaker, that in addition to the issue of increasing the mining and mineral tax, we have not given them EDGE status, we have not given them HST tax breaks, we have not given then corporate tax breaks. Contrary to what the hon. member said tonight when he stood in his place, we have not given them preferential industrial hydro rates beyond what the paper mills are getting or beyond what the refinery is getting. We have an industrial rate for power in this Province and it is generally applicable to major industries regardless to what they are doing, and we give them no more and no less than we give other large industrial customers in this Province.

Madam Speaker, I point out these things because it shows, I believe, the level of inaccuracies in some of the statements, well-intended or otherwise. I am not going to impugn motives of trying to mislead the people, but I say the information that is going out is not correct.

Let me point out another circumstance. Last night when the hon. the Member, who is an hon. member, for The Straits & White Bay North spoke, he talked about the Raglan project. He said it is a $700 million investment up there, a mine, mill and concentrator, about the size of Voisey's Bay. He said they have about 400 jobs up there; 390 jobs. What he failed to say was that operation is only half the size and capacity of the one in Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: When we were pointing out that there were 800 jobs in the mine, mill and concentrator, once they go underground, we pointed out factual, solid information. So, when comparisons are made, I would beg that they be made on an honest and a factual and on a current basis, and on an accurate basis that gives the people of the Province an opportunity to make up their own mind. Because, Madam Speaker, if there is one thing that I have been consistent in saying, in going around this Province - and I have attended, I think, nine briefing sessions plus the announcement at the hotel - if there was one thing that I have said consistently - the hon. Member for Trinity North was in one of my sessions and can probably recall it - I have said at the conclusion of every speech I made: If there is one thing I want this audience to do tonight or this afternoon or this morning, it is this. I want you to take the Statement of Principles and I want you to give them, yourself, an independent, critical analysis. Do not necessarily take what I said. Do not necessarily take what has come forward in the literature at face value. We challenge you, I challenge you, to give this Statement of Principles, which is the final deal in terms of what will be in it, a critical analysis and come to your own judgement as to whether or not we have done a fair proposition on behalf of the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, we owe no less to the people of this Province than to challenge them to scrutinize, to examine, and to put and to hold our feet to the fire of the deal that we have struck. We are convinced, Madam Speaker, as twenty-seven people in this caucus, that we have done right and proper on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We believe, Madam Speaker, that, as a group of twenty-seven people in this caucus, we are no brighter nor are we any less diminished in our common sense and intelligence than any other twenty-seven people you might meet in any community in this Province. We believe that we are of the same level, on balance and on average, of any twenty-seven people in this Province and we are prepared to put our collective measure of judgement on this project to the test against anybody who wants to challenge us on any part of it.

Madam Speaker, is this deal perfect? Well, there is not very much on planet earth, where I live, that measures up to the standard of measurement that is called perfection. I am not sure that there is anything in mortal life or on mother earth that can measure up to a standard of measurement of perfection; but I will say this, Madam Speaker: Taken as a package, taking the forty-seven or forty-eight principle component parts of this deal and reading them and considering them together as a package and as a proposition, we have done, in our judgement, noble and we have done yeoman, we have done fair and we have done honourable, service to the people of this Province to bring forward these Statement of Principles for their consideration and for their acceptance. Madam Speaker, we proudly support what it is that we have signed off on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to some other parts of this Statement of Principles, but time is running out. The issue of the Innovation Centre at Memorial University, what is the Innovation Centre at Memorial University? It is a faculty that is being established there, a degree-granting institution that will put through fifty to sixty of our brightest and best students every year, year over year over year, thirty years, 1,500 highly-educated bachelors and masters and doctorate degrees coming out of that institution. It is something that the Inco people offered to us. We did not negotiate it. We did not demand it. It is not unlike the $15 million contribution that this company made to the Melville Hospital in Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - without knowing they would ever get a project. Without knowing if there ever would be a project, they gave freely that type of money.

Now, some people might be cynical. Some people might say: Oh, they have done that to garner your support. Oh, they have done that to get your favour. Well, Madam Speaker, I will let those who speculate on that vein to come to their own conclusion because we challenge people to be critical analyzers of what it is we have done.

I say, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of this Province, that we, as a government, will be remembered as a government of visionaries, as a government that is prepared to take bold initiatives, to take a leadership role and exercise our responsibilities honourably.

I would ask the people of the Province to consider what it is we are voting on tomorrow when we vote in this House on this particular project. What are we voting for, or against? I would remind all of us that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition set a fairly reasonable standard for all of us when he said: I would challenge everybody who sits in this House to go talk to their constituents and to come back with the advice and the best judgement that your constituents have given you. Madam Speaker, I submit that most of us on this side of the House, and many on that side of the House, have done that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He said: I pity the MHA who votes against his constituents.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, if he pities the MHA who votes against his constituents then he will have to deal with that statement himself, but the standard that he set is not a bad standard.

So, when we vote on this deal tomorrow in this House, let's consider what it is we are voting for or against. We are voting for, or against, 2,700 long-term, high-paying, professionally-skilled jobs for the next thirty years for the people of this Province. We are voting for, or we are voting against, a $2.9 billion injection of capital expenditure in this Province. We will vote tomorrow for, or against, a $11 billion injection into the GDP of this Province. We will vote for, or against, the only nickel refinery this side of Ontario. We will vote against one of the largest nickel developments in all of the world, voting for or against it in the interest or to the detriment of the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I submit that we have a lot to consider when we vote on this resolution. We will vote for or against the future well-being of the Aboriginal Nations of this Province. We will vote for the advancement of the Aboriginals of this Province or we will vote against the advancement of the Aboriginals in this Province. We will vote for the benefit of our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, or we will vote against the future of our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

I submit that we have an important decision to make when we rise in this House tomorrow to vote. Like others who have said the same thing, I will respect the vote that is cast by each member in this House, whether they vote yea or nay for this particular project, but I submit, Madam Speaker, that in my judgement, as humble as it is and as probably flawed as it may be at times, in my judgement, notwithstanding, the people of this Province, tonight as we sit here, fundamentally believe that, on balance, this is a good project, this is a fair project, this is a project that represents, in a balanced fashion, the best interests of the people of this Province. I believe, Madam Speaker, the people of this Province, in individual districts, that adds up to a cumulative effect of the whole Province, the people we represent, want us to support this Voisey's Bay deal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - so as to allow us, as a Province, to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I do not always agree with everything that I pick up and read, but I thought the comments of the President of the Board of Trade in St. John's - I use him because I happen to have known the individual for the last twenty or thirty years. He is a very honourable, a very sincere man, and, I think, a very insightful man on a very politically-balanced basis, might I say, who made the observation and it was carried in this piece of literature that I have in my hand. I will not refer to what it is, but I think most of you know. There is a lovely picture, I submit, on the front, a fine picture of a fine Premier who is a great leader, a man of vision, a man of substance, a man who does not swerve or be swayed by political considerations. In the meantime, I will get past the front page picture and I will get to what I was about to read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I could get hung up on his picture, and that is bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I have not had it home yet so I haven't decided where I am going to put it. I just picked it up today. I will think about that.

MR. SHELLEY: That's not for yourself, is it?

MR. MATTHEWS: It is, I say to the hon. Member from Baie Verte. I say this. The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Gary Reardon, made these comments, and I quote, "My first review of the documentation is positive. It appears to be a win-win situation. The government set a ...."-

MR. FITZGERALD: Read (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You do not want to hear it, I say to the hon. Member for Bonavista South, but, I say to him, you are going to hear it.

I will start again, for greater clarity and absolute certainty, so you will get the context of it all. "My first review of the documentation is positive. It appears to be a win-win situation. The government set a very high standard on what they wanted to achieve. It was obviously give-and-take on both sides and at the end of the day, they reached an agreement that works for both parties."

I thought that summed it up pretty good, Madam Speaker - Mr. Gary Reardon, the President of the St. John's Board of Trade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I though, Madam Speaker, that summed it up rather nicely.

Madam Speaker, I could quote independent industry analysts such as Terry Orson from Montreal, who wrote in The Telegram, and I quote again. The other day he said: This is a project that has skewed all of the risks toward Inco. The Province would be crazy not to accept this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know the man. I have never met the man. I have no knowledge of who he is, or anything of that nature, but I did read his comments.

I submit, Madam Speaker, and I make these points to make this submission, that independent, objective-minded, private-thinking, knowledgeable people in the financial and in the mining community, in the business community, in the town councils of our Province, in the legal community, that my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice will speak on, have made comments on this project and the comments have been probably 90 per cent to 95 per cent supportive of the Statement of Principles that we have developed and that we proudly submit by way of resolution for consideration of this Legislature.

This Statement of Principles - and every member, I believe, on the other side, really knows this - this Statement of Principles represents the deal that we have struck to move the Voisey's Bay project forward. This Statement of Principles represents a more than fair, a more than fair, return and set of benefits to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This project, of course, allows, on a business-case basis, for Inco to be able to move forward and do this project. Do they get a return on the $4.3 billion they have spent to get their hands on this deposit? Absolutely not! They get nothing out of that, and I say nothing that is inappropriate when I say that the financial analysts will indicate that they may have to take some remedies within their own organization in terms of addressing what they need to do about that huge payment for the asset.

I say, Madam Speaker, that fair is fair, and I say that a Newfoundlander, a Labradorian, a person of this Province who looks upon any deal, whether we do it or any other government of any other stripe, the people of this Province know a fair deal when they see it. The people of this Province know a good deal when they see it, and the people of this Province understand that when you sit at a negotiating table you do not sit down and say: Here is the deal. Sign it or I am out of here. That is not negotiation. That is ultimatum. It is not my way or the highway when you sit at a negotiating table.

Madam Speaker, the principles against which we negotiate are principles that say we want 100 per cent of every possible benefit in every possible project we address. That is why we sat with the people who are the proponents of the White Rose project and we said we want 100 per cent of all of the benefits. If you want to speak to Will Roache at Husky, you can ask him about the conversations we had in my boardroom when I said to him one morning: Mr. Roache, with great respect, turn off your tape, close the door, lay down your pencil, don't think about taking any notes; you only need to hear one thing from me here this morning. We are sitting here in this room - I am on this side of the table and you are there - and you need to understand that we want 100 per cent of every benefit in this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I further said this to him: We will hold ourselves to account, and the people of the Province will hold us to account, as to how much of that objective we achieve.

The result, Madam Speaker, was that we achieved a project that gives us between 80 and 85 per cent of every reasonable benefit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - fully double the benefits that we went into on the Terra Nova project.

Madam Speaker, we take a position of trying to hire and engage the best and brightest minds we can from the public service and from outside. That is why we sat down in a considered fashion and put together a position that we presented to the boundaries tribunal that stated clearly, that stated forcefully, but that laid out accurately, so that they would understand where we are coming from, what we thought would be fair in terms of a decision on the boundaries issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Our negotiations were (inaudible). Nothing wrong with (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

That is why we achieved almost 80 per cent of what we went looking for on that particular proposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say that, Madam Speaker, not so much to pass positive commentary on ourselves as legislators, because we give political direction, we lead by example, and we lead by policy decisions, but I say that to point out that we engage the best possible legal, the best possible industry analysts, the best possible financial people we can get to work for us, and we put them to work on our behalf and that is why we achieve results like we have achieved over the past twelve months on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I would not want to go beyond the scope of what a minister's responsibility would actually suggest that he should do. I am of a mind to say tonight that we have just concluded three very successful sets of negotiations that will move this Province forward in a manner and in a fashion that we really cannot fully yet comprehend the economic positive benefits that we will have.

I would suggest, if the Premier asks for advice, that collectively, as a caucus, we advise him that probably we should continue to work diligently, notwithstanding the success we have had, on behalf of the people of this Province, to do some more projects that will continue to advance the cause of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We, Madam Speaker, are into just over three years of a five-year mandate, and I submit that, as one minister sitting in this Cabinet on this side of the House, I believe we have more work to do yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I believe that there are yet deals to be done on behalf of the people of this Province in other projects that will continue to move our economy forward.

So clearly, Madam Speaker, I ask the people of this Province to consider this Statement of Principles that represents the final deal that has and will be done on behalf of this project, to consider the Statement of Principles and the resolution that we have laid down in this House on the basis of the record that we have shown in terms of activity and in terms of the record of success we have had on behalf of the people of the Province, and I would ask them to consider this, that we are no more or no less Newfoundlanders than the 540,000 people that live in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the interests of the people of this Province at heart. We have the best will and wishes of the people of this Province at heart. I would submit to the people of the Province, and the people on the other side of the House, that we will be taking a very serious decision tomorrow, whether we vote for or whether we vote against the advancement of the economy and the welfare and the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I think I have a minute left and I will leave that to whoever wants to come behind me, because the hon. Member for Kilbride suggested that he was anxious to speak. I say to the Member for Kilbride, he can have twenty-one minutes, a very gratuitous act I would say on my part, to give you the minute that I have left tomorrow, if the Speaker so chooses to allow you to have it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is indeed a pleasure to stand in my place today and fulfill my obligation and to do my duty as the Member for Kilbride.

I recall in 1969 I was six years old, and at the time if you were going through Harbour Grace to get to Carbonear, you had to go through a community called the River, but a causeway was built and the older people in the community said at the time, my dears, you are going to see it all when the causeway is built, and in the last three days in this House that is exactly what I have seen. I have seen it all from a group of people who have tried to convince the people of this Province that what they committed to, in 1998 and in 1999, is now what they delivered. Absolutely false, and I will demonstrate that to you and to the people of the Province tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: At a Liberal Caucus meeting in 1998 in the Minister of Environment's District, the District of Stephenville-Port au Port East, the Premier of the Province, one Brian Tobin, came out from that meeting - and the minister is smiling because he knows what I am saying is true. It was at that time that Inco had reneged, solidly reneged, on their commitment to build a traditional pyromet smelter in Argentia. The Premier of the Province said at the time, because his colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, one Mr. Chuck Furey, had raised the political flag a week ago to test the political wind on Hear and Now, that we must send out some ore for the Province if the project is going to proceed. What happened? The reaction was immediate, the response was violent. Not one ounce should be sent out of this Province. In August 1998, the Premier of the Province came forward and said, quote, unquote and unequivocally, that there will be no mining lease in this Province if one ounce of ore is going to leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Every one of those members - and we will go through each of you tonight - owes their political life in this Legislature to that very position.

In September, 1998, let me remind members - the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation does not want to be reminded, and I know all other members on the other side of the House do not want to be reminded, because it is the one thing that they have failed to talk about in this entire Voisey's Bay debate, what they promised, what they committed and what they failed to live up to. That is the one thing, all this week, that they have failed to talk about.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, fall sitting, 1998, four months before the Legislature closed and four and a half months before the 1999 election was called - here is what Mr. Furey said in response to me, at the time, as Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the company talked about a new technology as opposed to an old technology, the smelting and refining process. They talked about hydrometallurgy- first time that concept was introduced in the Province, the fall of 1998.

Now, what did the Premier say in response to the exact same question? He said: We do not want to enter into formal negotiations unless the bottom line of the Province is going to be met, and that is that the ore from the Labrador deposit will be all processed to a finished nickel product within this Province. That is what he said. I can see it now, I can see the Government House Leader and I can see the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Advanced Studies, the Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Labour, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Minister of Environment, all stand on their feet and say: Yes, Mr. Premier, because that is what we stand for in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what happened? In 1999 the election was called in this building. I recall walking down that hallway on the way to our caucus room and not five feet in front of me, not five feet, was then Premier Brian Tobin followed by Chuck Furey, followed by Senator George Furey. That night in January, Mr. Tobin, representing all of you, and all of you standing around him clapping for him and the position that you took, asked a question to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker: Who is it, Newfoundland and Labrador, that you want to finish negotiations on the Lower Churchill? Who is it, Newfoundland and Labrador, that you want to finish the negotiations on Voisey's Bay? Our position is clear, our position is consistent, our position is undeterred. There will not be an ounce of Labrador ore leave this Province to be processed elsewhere. That was the position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That was the position, Mr. Speaker, that every member in this House and, in particular, every member of the government owe there very existence to in the House. The Minister of Advanced Studies would know it even more acutely. Ten days into the election, when she was in trouble in her district, then Premier Brian Tobin, on his fifth visit at the time - he made seven - in her headquarters, made two announcements. He made two announcements at her headquarters in Gander. I say to my colleagues, bear with me.

The first announcement he made was that every existing member of the Cabinet would still be a member of the Cabinet if they won the government. More importantly, he said to David Brophy of KIXX Radio, when pressed on the issue: David, let me be clear. It cannot be clearer. There will be no mining lease, there will be no mine, unless all of the ore from Voisey's Bay is processed in this Province. That is the position of me and my government. What is their position today? What are the principles that they stand for?

The Minister of Mines and Energy just stood and said - and I will quote for him - the principles on which we negotiate, and stated that the Statement of Principles that we are debating tonight were those. Well, that is not the principles on which you got elected. The people in this Province know that, everybody knows that and, more importantly, while you will not admit it publically in this Legislature, each and every one of you also knows it. If there is still some doubt, because some people have liked to, sort of, split hairs - the Premier is very good at it - if there is any doubt about where you stood, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, let me refer him and all members and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to the debate that occurred after the election, in the fall legislative session of 1999 in this House, when we were close to a deal, when the deal that the Premier had negotiated, which has reincarnated itself into today, was the one that the other Premier, Premier Brian Tobin, had said no to. What was his position? I say to the Minister of Health: Do you recall standing when he answered this question? I recall you standing and clapping for him. How about you, the Government House Leader? What were your negotiating principles at the time? I recall you -

MR. LUSH: The same.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, they are not the same as they are now. They are completely different, and I am about to prove it to you.

I recall you standing and clapping for the Premier, and here is what he said. In response to the Member for St. John's East, who was the critic for mines and energy, when asked about Voisey's Bay ore leaving the Province, Premier Tobin said, "Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Province has not made a proposal to Inco...", because he would not go, he was waiting for them as you had suggested. He did not go up with his cap in hand like the Premier when he first got elected as Premier, to say let's get the old deal back on the rails. Here is what he said, "What I did say yesterday..." - and I think the record will show very clearly - "...is that the Province is asking for and expects to receive certainty, clarity, with respect to the issue of processing in the Province."

I ask the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair: Do you recall that position? I recall you standing up and clapping, slapping him on the back and saying: You are my Premier, that is what I support.

He goes on to say - here is where it is folks, here is the critical point that not even Premier Grimes, who has articulated that words are so important, that not even he can split this hair, not even he can square the round peg that he is trying to put in the hole right now. Here is what he said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you go on because you cannot stand to hear the truth, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Go ahead. We will see you later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is what Premier Tobin said: What we have said, what I and the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is now the Premier, have committed to Inco, "...is that even if a proposal is put forward which on the surface meets our requirements, beyond meeting our requirements on the surface, we need to be assured ..." - I can hear him now, Mr. Shake, Rattle and Roll himself - "... and satisfied; we need to have made certain the notion that any mine/ mill to be developed will also have with it full processing of concentrate in the Province ..." or there will be no mining licence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fall of 1999. I can read it again. My colleagues have asked me to read it again. Direct from Hansard, what I have said. Premier Brian Tobin - the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace looks over, shuddering down under his desk because he got elected on exactly the same principle. Your Premier, Brian Tobin: What I have said, what we have said, and what the Minister of Mines and Energy - it is very important, because the Minister of Mines and Energy who he is referring to happens to be the current Premier.

He said: "What we have said and have communicated to Inco is that even if a proposal is put forward which on the surface meets our requirements, beyond meeting our requirements on the surface, we need to be assured and satisfied; we need to have made certain the notion that any mine/mill to be developed will also have with it full processing of concentrate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador".... or there will be no mine and mill. That is what they stood for.

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me. They say if you are around long enough you will see it all. This week I have watched minister after minister, member after member, stand in this House and question and impugn the integrity of every member opposite. They have called into question our notion of what it is to be a true Newfoundlander and Labradorian. They have called into question our belief and what it means to be a participant, a good and solid citizen for the people of this Province. They have called into question the very thing that sets us apart from them. Mr. Speaker, it is about being consistent, it is about - and I put this forward honestly because it speaks for itself - it is about committing to something during an election or after an election and being committed to it, not only on Monday but also on Friday, not only in October of 1998 and 1999 and 2000 but also in 2001. We have not wavered in our belief that this project is a good one. It is a good one for Inco and it is a good one for the people of the Province, but it would not go ahead under the leadership of Danny Williams if one ounce of ore or concentrate was suggested to go to create jobs in Thompson, Manitoba -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - or to create jobs in Sudbury, Ontario. Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental difference.

I have listened all of this week and some of last - let me get to last week for a moment. I was personally insulted by a very expensive advertising campaign. I will say this - and prove to me if I am wrong, I say to members opposite - it was not a quarter of a million dollar advertising campaign, it was much more than that. The Premier of the Province, who two years ago was not going to send any ore or concentrate out of the Province for processing, now wants to send it out for processing. How dare he and the members of his government sign on to a media campaign to insult the rest of us, that they could actually stand up in their own shoe leather and tell us that we made those commitments and we have kept them. Absolute nonsense! The people of the Province are smarter than that, Mr. Speaker, and we on this side have much more faith in them than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to let people know, my colleague from Lewisporte, who is a good friend of mine, made some very strong points in the Legislature this morning. He said that there is danger in unanimity, that there are costs in being unanimous.

There is an old proverb that I was taught growing up, and it goes like this: That only a fool wants to hear the echo of his own voice in his own house. It underlines and underpins the role that we must play in this House, the role that we are obligated to play in this House. That is the role that we have committed to, that the people have chosen for us.

I tell you now, when we were in our caucus meeting, we said that whether it is five months or five years or fifty years, there will be nobody, absolutely nobody, look back and say that this caucus did not probe, did not prod, did not question, did not raise the concerns on behalf of the people. We have done that immensely, and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of my caucus members for doing the job that they were elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy said one other thing, that we believe, the twenty-seven of us - and he talked about the Statement of Principles. I want to deal with this quickly because I do not have much time left. How is it - words are so important, the Premier's words. I do not know what to believe from one day to the next, when he says something one day and says something else the next.

When this debate began, Mr. Speaker, he stood in this House and said: This is the final agreement. This is it. Yet, when you go through the document that he put his own signature to, it says clearly: The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties. This is what he signed on behalf of all of us. The parties will use their best efforts - I do not hear guarantee, the parties' guarantee - to finalize mutually acceptable definitive agreements. Then he has the nerve and the gall to say that is the final agreement, and will not put before this Chamber, so that all of us, and through all of us the people of the Province, can see exactly what they are going to negotiate behind the closed doors over the rest of the summer, because that is what we have asked for, and I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province deserve no less.

Finally, let me say this: I listened intently to much and I would like to comment on a lot of what other members have said, but I only have a minute or so left. When the Minister of Mines and Energy stood up a few moments ago and tried to chastise us and me, he said that if we vote against this deal, we are voting against the future of the children of our Province, we are voting against the future generations of our Province. Let me say this to you, sir: How dare you chastise me, in telling me that it is you who knows the best interests of my daughter, Olivia, who is nine and my son, Isaac, who is five. How dare you stand in your place and chastise me for putting what I believe are my principles, the same ones by the way, that I had in 1999, as I do today. How dare you chastise me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how dare this minister chastise me for looking out for the interests of my children. Let me tell him this and finish with this: They will be better off with their father's views and principles than the ones that you have, obviously, put up for sale from year to year and from month to month.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure tonight and a privilege to rise in this House and spend a few moments on a historic deal that our Cabinet and caucus, our caucus in particular that did such a great job, and this Minister of Mines and Energy who has spent a lot time, a lot of effort, and has done a great job with his officials, led by our Premier, to get this deal to the Table for us in this Province. I commend both of them for their leadership roles in achieving this deal. They have done a tremendous job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Everybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House, has the right to vote however they see fit, every person in this House, who has duly gotten elected by the people in their districts. They will decide that tomorrow or whenever we get around to it. This deal is a good deal for the people of our Province. Lets understand this right now. The only issue, the issue we wanted to achieve when we were trying to do these negotiations in the last year, as the Premier directed our Minister of Mines and Energy to achieve, it was not about in Labrador where we knew we could get a deal.

The only thing is, Mr. Speaker, we should understand something else. We got a better deal in Labrador than we thought we were going to get as far as I am concerned. We look at the IBA agreements that have been achieved by the Innu and Inuit. Those are major accomplishments by those Aboriginal peoples. They are excellent achievements, Mr. Speaker, that are going to help resolve issues that have gone on for decades. They are part of this deal, and our team and our people and our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and our members of our Labrador caucus worked to make that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: They were very instrumental in supporting the Aboriginal peoples of Labrador. Also, our Premier set up a Department of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs and we have a full-fledged office up there dedicated to the issues of Labrador. So it is no mystery that we have made some progress on land claims issues or on the issues of Voisey's Bay or other issues to come. There is no mystery to it at all. I commend our Labrador caucus for the dedicated work they have put in in the last year, and they have done it very well. This deal in Labrador is obviously very good. Again, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador - that is the name now. So if it is good in Labrador, it is good for the Island. It is supposed to be that way, Mr. Speaker. We believe it on this side of the House, I can tell you that, and we should all believe it in the Province. The opportunities that are going to present themselves now in Labrador are absolutely tremendous.

The other issue that we had to wrestle with in these negotiations for this deal, was achieving value-added, final nickel product being processed in this Province. That is what we wanted to achieve. Now, Mr. Speaker, we would not be in this House today if we did not achieve that goal. We have clearly achieved that goal, because this agreement and its Statement of Principles are clear as a bell to anybody who wants to read them. That is why, Mr. Speaker, there are no people in the streets right now marching because they know we have achieved it. They know it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have achieved guarantees for value-added, for the smelter at Argentia. The people of Argentia know it. The people of Placentia know it. They have read it, they can see it. They can call other lawyers if they want to but it is in the agreement, ironclad, and we have mining leases. We have a whole range of stop measures and legal measures to deal with it.

Somebody referenced here tonight, the Leader of the Opposition, talking about Churchill Falls. How can this be a Churchill Falls? We do not have and we did not have a trigger on Churchill Falls or a remedy on Churchill Falls, Mr. Speaker. If we had a remedy, we could have remedied the problem. We have that many remedies in this agreement, that is why we are confident of this agreement and this deal, and that is why it is a good deal for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have worked hard on getting these remedies. We have had the lawyers in our caucus rooms talking to us. When they thought they had everything done, we asked them more questions and in different ways to ensure that we had it right this time, because it is important that we get it right this time. We know the mandate that we have from the people, Mr. Speaker, and our Premier knows the mandate very well. He has reminded us of it all throughout the negotiations. He is the one that allowed this caucus, believe me, to have a total open mind about this and allowed us to have our say the way we wanted to, and I am very proud of that fact, very proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have this company tied up in that many different ways, legally with liabilities, Mr. Speaker, for the future, that they cannot get out of it. They are here to stay. Now, some people do not want to believe it. I am one, I would ask the question and I asked the questions early on about whether or not - can we trust them because they made a commitment four or five years ago? Well, things have changed and we have also changed too. We have also changed in a way that we are smarter, we know now how to do these agreements. We have learned our lessons of the past, but we have to shake off the ghosts, Mr. Speaker. We have to shake it off. Do we go running away from companies because of Churchill Falls of thirty-something years ago?

Mr. Speaker, the time has come when we have to have some confidence in ourselves. We do have confidence in ourselves, and we have confidence in our excellent bureaucrats that our Minister of Mines and Energy talked about tonight. They have done a great job of putting this deal together and through many, many months of hard work. So, we have seen a very positive, decent deal come together that people can understand. That is why people support the deal. It is not about anything else. The deal is a good one. It is a decent one. It offers billions of dollars worth of investment for the future of the Province. That is a decent deal. We have protection measures in place that we did not have on some other deals. They are in this one.

I welcome the debate, and I welcome Opposition critics and other people out there who may have some suggestions, Mr. Speaker. We have covered it off in this one here, very well. Again, we have done some recent arrangements when you look at what is happening with Husky Oil in the deal we just did recently. A very positive deal for Marystown Shipyard, for the Marystown area, for the people there, for this Province, for another oil field to be coming on with more procurement, more benefits. Again, we are getting it right, Mr. Speaker, we are getting it right. We have done it well.

On the deal we just did on the boundary decision, an excellent decision for us, but that was not because we were slack, Mr. Speaker. That was because our advisers in Mines and Energy, again, did a tremendous job of advising us in this government about which position to take. We took the right position and we were able to achieve major benefits for ourselves for the future. We are talking about the present but we are also talking about the future, Mr. Speaker. For example, on the Southwest Coast now and on the West Coast, we can look forward to maybe some benefits from offshore development because of a boundary decision that this government had the foresight to fight, to go after. That is important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: These things are important and these decisions have been important. They have all come in the last six months to a year, all because our officials and our politicians in this government have acted responsibly and that is what we should understand here tonight, and the people of the Province understand that too. They understand it very clearly. They understand that we have worked hard. They understand that we will also put that information out there and let people judge for themselves. We have done that again on this occasion. We have done it on all the other occasions in recent months to ensure that the people of the Province are able to see the progress that we have made.

When I look at the Statement of Principles that we have achieved, and the tie down that we have on this company for the future, then I look forward to seeing the opportunities that business people in this Province are going to have. They are going to have many opportunities of a development that was found in 1993, or in 2002. By the time they get started it will be next year. They will get some work done this year. Next year it will be a decade since this was found. Now that is not the reason that you do the deal, but I will tell you what, it is also decent timing that we have been able to achieve a decent deal for the people of the Province, and we are very pleased that we have been able to do that. It is a very solid agreement and we are looking forward to seeing the procurement that is going to occur here. We are looking forward to seeing the work that is going to be committed. We are looking forward to seeing the much needed development that we have to see.

There is one other issue that was raised that I want to also highlight. I think all people in this House actually, all the members share a similar view on this one, and that is on equalization. It is time - and I have been at the Premier a few times now saying - on equalization, and he has been carrying the banner on this along with our Minister of Finance. We have struck a Royal Commission for one reason, as far as I am concerned. I hope many people will now look at this Royal Commission when it starts up - and we get at the fiscal arrangements between Newfoundland and Labrador and Upper Canada. As we do this deal, and understand that this deal is a good deal for the people of this Province - it is an excellent deal - we have to get a better deal on our resource revenues that are floating back to Ottawa. That is the issue - that is a key issue - that we have to wrestle with. We must wrestle with it, we must deal with it, and we must deal with it in an aggressive fashion, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned. It is time we got at it very aggressively.

I think the Royal Commission that is going to go about public hearings is going to do a very, very good job us, for the people of this Province. It is going to allow the people of the Province, the people who want to get interested and get involved, the economists, anybody out there at all who has an interest, and there are many who have done a lot of work on this over the years, we are going to need their help coming up in the next few months to put together a case that I believe, and we believe on this side of the House, is so overwhelming that Ottawa will be embarrassed into doing the right thing. They should be embarrassed into doing the right thing, as far as I am concerned. It is time they stopped looking at Newfoundland and Labrador just like a piece of geography with seven MPs. We are more than seven MPs versus 100 or 120 in Ontario, or forty-five in British Columbia. We are more than seven MPs in the Ottawa bureaucracy. Our own MPs are up there fighting the battle, but we are going to have to put together the ammunition. We have to put it together. It is extremely important because, Mr. Speaker, just a change in a couple of phrases in the equalization formula can put this Province in a better fiscal position very shortly, and for all of the people of our Province that is very important. For all of the issues we are wrestling with, when it comes to developing the economy, health care and education, all the things that we are trying to do for our people, it is very important, Mr. Speaker. I say that is an issue that we must wrestle with.

This deal here is a very good deal for the people of the Province. It allows us to move forward in the right way. It allows us to see value-added, created, in this Province, that we wanted to see, and that I hope also, Mr. Speaker, we will see in the future - and we will see; it is guaranteed in this deal - more underground exploration. We are going to see, I think, a lot more exploration going on from the private sector companies in the Province. We are going to see that occur and that is going to stimulate even more development. We haven't even talked about more of the finds that are going to come out because of this new deal that is going to go ahead, and more money that is going to be spent by new companies that start looking at our place, because it is a decent place to do business. It is a decent place, and we are open for business, but we also know we can negotiate. We have confidence in ourselves, we have an ability to do so, and we have done so this time. They are locked-up guarantees that no one can argue. No one can argue about the guarantees. They can talk about some minor detail, but the major guarantees for the issues that we dealt with when it came to the concentrate and when it came to getting the value-added smelter facility, we have achieved. We are very confident that we have, and so are the people who advise us. Mr. Speaker, I say to you this: If this debate had occurred on Churchill Falls thirty years ago, we would not have had the same agreement maybe. Also, we have learned our lessons, as a matter of fact, as far as I am concerned.

This government is very confident of itself. It has done a good job of it and, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that we are standing up for our people in this Province. Everybody can peruse the deal today. We have the Internet. People are able to see it instantaneously, read it over, call and get advice from whoever. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the basis of what we were negotiating from, the stand we had, we have met that stand easily, Mr. Speaker. We have met it. I ask all people in this House of Assembly, and also the public of the Province, to look carefully at it, and also to look forward to the future in this Province because there is an exciting future. This government, in the last year, has helped create that exciting future and there is more to come. There is more to come, Mr. Speaker. There is more to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is more to come. I think, Mr. Speaker, some people thought that we were not going to get a deal. I think maybe that was what it was. I think there were some people who thought there was not going to be a deal. I say, that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate. This is going to happen. The people of the Province are going to benefit from this for the future, for a long time to come, and it is going to attract new opportunities. It is going to create new opportunities.

The other point is this: This is not a construction project. I have heard some people talking about this like it is a construction project. This is going to go on for decade after decade after decade. It is not a construction project. It is long-term, value-added jobs in this Province, that we have achieved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: They do not want to admit that, but that is the fact of the matter. We have secured the jobs for the future and we are also working on equalization with Ottawa. We are going to fix that and get at it. We are dealing with it, and we are going to get it done. We are going to convince people that we have long-term, value-added in this Province that people did not expect to achieve. Some people may be a bit shocked about that, Mr. Speaker, but that is unfortunate. Most people, the majority, the vast majority, are pleasantly surprised. That is why they support this agreement. They support it because they can read, they can see it, they can look at it, and they can understand it, Mr. Speaker. It is not that complicated.

As we go forward, Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to seeing the thousands of job opportunities, new opportunities for our people in the Province. Last year 211,000 people - a record number of people - employed in this Province in the last twenty-five or thirty years, without Husky Oil kicking in, without this deal, Mr. Speaker. Where are we going to be next year? Where are we going to be next year? We are going to be at another record level of employment, Mr. Speaker, another one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: You know, I know it is not the doom and gloom thing. This is the positive thing. This is what is happening. This is what is happening. Every Bachelor of Commerce student who is going to MUN down here, to that business school, has a new opportunity coming at him in the future. Every engineering student can look forward to a brighter future, and not because we sold the shop, Mr. Speaker; because we have value-added jobs for the future locked up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is why this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, sleeps easy, let me tell you, when it comes to this deal. We sleep easy because we know it is locked up, Mr. Speaker, and, like I said, there is more to come.

I thank you very much and I look forward to voting on this deal in this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 10:00 a.m.