June 18, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 27


The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome all members to this special debate today.

Before proceeding, there are some House matters we want to get straightened out. I want to move the adoption of the following agreed-upon rule changes and procedures, just make sure that we have included everything and everybody knows the direction in which we are going. There are eight points here, Mr. Speaker, that I want to mention.

First, the resolution respecting Voisey's Bay will be debated for not more than three days, June 18, June 19 and June 20, 2002.

Number two, on these three days the House will sit from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., with one exception. We have had a minor glitch with the satellite, and booking the time for the satellite on Thursday, because of a problem that the television time, as was pointed out to us yesterday, is booked from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. So, we thought we would advance the time, because that is Question Period, and we would start the House at 2:30 p.m. and go until 5:30 p.m. Everything is fine on the other end. So, with that agreement, that is the only change. On Thursday, we will start at 2:30 p.m. as opposed to 2:00 p.m., and go to the 5:30 to give time for Question Period to be televised.

Number three, the three leaders will have one hour to speak, as will the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Opposition Mines and Energy critic. The Premier will have an additional twenty minutes when he speaks to close the debate. All other members will have twenty minutes to speak, and we would like for all members to follow these times. We have asked the Table to carry out a time-honoured tradition in this House to remind members when they are down to three or four minutes remaining in their speaking time so that will help them to clue up in time.

Number four, there will be a thirty-minute Oral Question Period each day from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. with the exception, of course, of the day that we mentioned, which will be Thursday, when the Question Period will start at 2:30 p.m. The only topic for Oral Question Period will be the Voisey's Bay Statement of Principles, and we ask your Honour to waive the Rule of Anticipation.

Number five, there will be no amendments to the resolution.

Number six, debate on the resolution will begin immediately after the adoption of the rules and the introduction of the resolution, and, apart from Oral Questions, will be the only business of the House during the three-day period.

Number seven, the notice requirement for the motion respecting the rules and for the resolution will be waived.

Number eight, when the debate has concluded, but in any event not later than 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, the Speaker will put the question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, these are the previously agreed-upon changes to the procedure that the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I have previously agreed upon. I hope that is put in the order in which we did it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Let me confirm, I suppose, what the Government House Leader said. During the last several days we have had, on any number of occasions, tried to put in place a system, a body of rules, to govern the following debate that will allow each and every member the opportunity to speak their views and certainly to allow the course of this very important, very critical and historic debate, to proceed along the lines where the public will have the opportunity to judge for themselves the merit and demerits of the proposal that is being put forward.

On a final point, let me just say that I want to affirm what the Government House Leader has said, in that this has been agreed upon. We certainly, on this side of the House, will live up to the commitments that we have made vis-à-vis the rules that we have put in place to govern this entire debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, these rules have been agreed upon by all of the three parties of the House and it has not been done without compromise, Mr. Speaker. We obviously would have liked more time for the public to have a chance to know more about the deal and the agreement, but that is part of the compromise and the government wanted this to be done this week.

We have agreed with the procedures as set forth by the Government House Leader to govern this debate and hopefully, through the debate, people will become much more informed than they are at present about the effects of the agreement and the consequences of the deal for this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed, then, that the rules of debate as put forward by the hon. Government House Leader be now adopted?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for this agreement and, in accordance with that agreement, Mr. Speaker, the item of business will be the debate on Voisey's Bay.

I call upon the Premier to introduce the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To begin this debate it is my pleasure to move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Energy, the following resolution:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the House of Assembly ratifies and endorses the Statement of Principles with respect to the development of the nickel deposit at Voisey's Bay in Labrador tabled by the Premier."

Mr. Speaker, as we begin this particular debate, I would like to take a minute first of all to congratulate and thank my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and his team. The group were asked to go off just over a year ago now. It took them some fifty-one weeks in this last negotiation, for he and the team, with the best legal advice, technical advice and financial advice that they could garner to support their efforts, not only from inside the Province but nationally and internationally renowned experts, because we wanted the best advice to build the best case for Newfoundland and Labrador. I do want to thank the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He will make reference to that, I think, in his own comments because I believe he is given up to an hour to address the Legislature in this special debate, as are the other two leaders of the parties and the Opposition critic for Mines and Energy, and I look forward to the involvement and engagement in the debate. I think he will outline further the nature of, and the personnel that were used in terms of putting together the best possible team that we could assemble to work out the best possible arrangements for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I will not go into detail with respect to the makeup of that team, but you will hear more about it in this debate.

To his credit, Mr. Speaker, along the way - because this was what they spent the vast majority of their time, after fifty-one weeks, and I do not know how he did it yet; he must be a remarkable man, I guess - he managed to take time out to find a way to have the White Rose Project proceed, because he was intimately involved in that particular project as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: No small feat, Mr. Speaker, in and of itself a $2.35 billion project that, by the way, was not debated here in this Legislature with respect to the principles, the final agreements, or anything of that nature - just to make that particular point, because that is not the norm at all. This is, in its own right, an extraordinary debate that we have all agreed to do by agreement, because there are no rules providing for this debate and no requirement that this debate, or any future debate - and I want to make that perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. This is being done by agreement of all parties because we want an opportunity to talk about this in detail. There are no provisions and no precedents in Newfoundland and Labrador for doing this kind of a debate with respect to major project agreements, but a government that I lead, which is the most open and the most accountable the Province has ever seen, is glad to engage in that kind of a debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I will not dwell on the White Rose Project, Mr. Speaker, other than to remind people that we doubled the benefits in the White Rose Project, the third offshore project, from what we did in Terra Nova. All of them have been seen to be great projects and are proceeding. The Conservative Government, led by Brian Peckford at the time, that did the Hibernia agreement, the offshore Accord and then, of course, the start of it was when the Liberals came into office with Premier Wells; but we acknowledge that the legwork with respect to Hibernia in starting that offshore oil sector, which is an important part of the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador - will be for the next thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years - the underpinnings of that were put together by the Conservative Administration.

I saw some clips yesterday in the media that showed Premier Peckford, Mr. Crosbie who was instrumental, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Mulroney; those people did the right thing. They gave us a foothold and a start into an offshore oil sector - which will become an offshore gas sector - which is contributing mightily to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, now, today and will into the future. They did the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that is a position we have arrived at again today with respect to Voisey's Bay. Actually, it is quite a privilege for us, for the members in this House, it really is a privilege for us to be afforded an opportunity, because it does not come along too often in a lifetime, to be involved in a very far-reaching long-lasting decision.

What happens with respect to the development of this project in Labrador, this mining project - we have had lots of mining projects in Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, and hopefully we will have lots into the future. This one has particular significance because of the size and the scope of it. We know today, as we stand here in this Legislature, that it will be a minimum of a thirty year project. That is what has been outlined. We know that the prospects are for it to go far beyond that in Labrador and much further beyond that again in Argentia with a processing plant. That is what we have before us today.

We have a project that we are about to hopefully ratify in this particular Legislature and then get started on, that will have economic impacts for individuals, communities, regions, the whole Province - re the provincial economy and the direct provincial Treasury - for the next thirty years, at a minimum. We don't get to make decisions like that every single day. We get to make lots of decisions that have an impact for a year or two, a week or two, a month or two, but just think of the scope and the size and the magnitude of this one and we realize why we are having a special debate, an extraordinary debate about this one, because it deserves it.

Now, let me set the record straight too, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning. You have never, and no one has ever heard me, as the leader of this government, say that this is the panacea, that this is the cure-all, that this is going to fix it all. Other leaders have used language like that and it has been proven not to be true. It has been repeated to us time and time again because there have been others that have been given to flights of rhetoric. Actually, when I first became the leader some of the press said I was dull and boring because I did not have those flights of rhetoric. I did not make those speeches to try to make people believe that something was, what it was not. I am a very direct, straightforward person, Mr. Speaker. This is not the cure-all for Newfoundland and Labrador, but I will tell you what it is, it is a very important step along the way. It is tremendously significant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this particular project, this particular issue, this mining development has drawn a lot of attention and consideration in the Province. From the discovery in 1993 to now, it has been nine years; nine pretty long years when a lot of other things have happened, a lot of other things have come and gone, but, this particular issue has dominated the political landscape in the Province for just about that whole nine-year period.

Mr. Speaker, in order to get to the point where we are today, where we are given an opportunity to debate the component parts of an arrangement that sees this project finally able to proceed, to maximize the benefits for the people of the Province, there are two essential ingredients that had to come together. I have said this about the White Rose Project; I have said it about the Terra Nova project before that; I have said it about the Hibernia project before that. I have said it about all the projects because I have been in the Cabinet, in a leadership position, Mr. Speaker, for all of those, every single one of them.

The things that have to come together, the two essential ingredients, there has to be a good business case. There has to be a good business case for the proponents coming forward who are going to invest the money; $2.35 billion, in the case of White Rose in the offshore; $2.9 billion this time. But, there has to be a good business case for the people of the Province too. There has to be a good business case for the proponents and for the people of the Province as the owners of the resource. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, every time, as well, when you have these major developments, there has to be a good, sound political case. An absolute, good, sound, political case where the people of the Province understand that the benefits are being maximized for them first and foremost because of the fact that it is their and our resource, first and foremost.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Statement of Principles outlines a project in which both of those have been achieved together at the same time. There is a good, solid business case for the proponent and for the people of the Province and there is a good, solid political case, and I will take sometime in the next little while - if I can in the time allotted to me - to walk through those particular issues. I believe it is important to walk through both of them, the business case and the political case, and to explain to the members of the Legislature, all of us, and to the people of the Province who are interested in this, why it is that today we are debating an issue that this caucus here, and this government that I lead, have a very, very high level of confidence in the provisions that have been negotiated to the point that we believe it is time to move forward, that we have the basic ingredients and we should proceed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is go through the components of the phased-in approach to the development and the project itself, to demonstrate how the concerns and various eventualities have been addressed, because there are concerns. We have concerns. We have always had concerns. There are issues that need to be addressed. They have been addressed, every single one of them, in this Statement of Principles and in this particular agreement that will then become legal at the end of September.

Then, Mr. Speaker, as well, I would like to go through the political history of this, the nine-year political history of the Voisey's Bay agreement and the project, and demonstrate how our mandate has been met; how, in fact, we made some commitments as to what we were going to try to achieve with respect to this mining project more so than any other mining projects in the past, and to demonstrate to the members of the Legislature and to the people of the Province how, in fact, we have kept and met those particular commitments to a tee. I would like to spend some time dealing with that this morning as well.

However, Mr. Speaker, before going any further with those two things - and those are the two things that I would like to spend my time on this morning - I think it is important to clear up any confusion or misunderstanding with respect to the relevance of this debate and what it is we are debating. Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with Inco as the proponent are over. There are no negotiations that are going to continue between now and the end of September. The negotiations are done. The deal in its respective components and its component part is laid out for the people of the Province and the members of this Legislature in the Statement of Principles. The project that is described in the Statement of Principles - and that I will walk through again this morning - will not change. This is the way it will actually occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what will happen between now and the end of September is much more likened and akin to a translation exercise than a translation. I have written to the Leader of the Opposition today, because he wrote me about this particular issue and I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding.

We are going to translate the Statement of Principles from its current English into a legal text. It might be considered to be translating from one language to another language, not going from English to French, which all of us understand, that you do not change the concept, you do not change the ideas, you just make sure it is understood in a different language. This translation is going to go from English to legal text or legalese. There will be, Mr. Speaker, no additions or deletions.

I have written to the local paper, The Telegram, because they wrote an editorial saying it is like a short story, it looks good in draft but you do not know what is going to be added, you do not know what is going to be deleted. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, is going to be added. Nothing is going to be deleted. This is the deal, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: In the spirit of openness and accountability and co-operation, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what else we have also committed to today, which is extraordinary in Newfoundland and Labrador, never been done before. When the final legal agreements, when that translation occurs - not any further negotiations, there is no more negotiation. When the translation is finished those translated documents will be made available to everybody in the Province who wants to see them, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, the time for debate is now. That is why we are here having this debate. If anyone wants to make any comments, anyone wants to raise any concerns, anyone has any questions and wants to get them addressed and get the facts on the table so that there is a better understanding of the Statement of Principles, now is the time to do it because that Statement of Principles is merely going to be translated into legal language. There will be no further negotiations with respect to what it will contain or not contain. It is what it is. It stands for what it stands for and it outlines for the people of the Province everything that will occur in this particular Province with respect to this particular development over the next thirty years, because that is what it is defined as now, a thirty year project. It is likely to go on long beyond that, but that is not defined because that will develop over time.

Mr. Speaker, we are glad to be here in this debate. We are glad to hear from all members, and we are glad to answer all questions and all concerns that are raised over the next couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated there are two things I would like to address. The business case; let me take a few minutes to address the business case. In mid-July of this year, provided there is a ratification in this Legislature, provided that the Aboriginal communities, through their own processes, respecting their own democratic processes that they have inside their own communities for their own people, provided their ratifications are successful on June 24, which is next Monday, I understand it; if those three ratifications occur then by mid-July, this year, work will begin at Voisey's Bay itself, in Northern Labrador. There will be 100 jobs or so, thereabout, the company will confirm that as they go in and start to do some infrastructure work. The nature of it is laid out, even described in the Statement of Principles. It says they are going to do some road work, they are going to do some work with the docks, they are going to do some land clearing and so on. They are going to get ready for a construction project next year. The Statement of Principles says exactly what is going to happen.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there is a commitment that by the middle of July or so, work will also begin at Argentia. The kind of work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I understand the numbers are small, probably thirty, forty, maybe less than fifty jobs at Argentia right away, and that is in discussion with the proponents, the developers themselves and the people of the area who are anxious to get started as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, it also lays out, in the Statement of Principles, it tells what it is they are going to do at Argentia. They are going to go down and acquire the land, do some demolitions, start doing some site preparation and so on, and there will be thirty, forty, maybe a maximum of fifty people. I do not know the exact numbers because I am not the developer. I am not the one spending the money. Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco are doing that; but, there will be people going to work in Argentia in the middle of July this year. Before March 31, in the next seven or eight months, before the end of March next year, Inco commits to spending $55 million in the Province, starting the work in Labrador, starting the work in Argentia, and starting the work, of course, on the Inco Innovation Centre here at Memorial University\, which is another terrific add-on to this particular project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, again let me make the point: Those are not ifs or what-ifs or maybes, those are things that will happen if the three ratification votes occur, and the third and final of those, the last two, will be next Monday, and ours will happen sometime on Thursday, I expect.

As well, Mr. Speaker, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company which is a subsidiary of Inco will open offices in the same time frame. They have an office here in St. John's, they will be opening offices in Argentia, they will be opening offices in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and they will be opening offices in Nain on the North Coast of Labrador. They will be doing procurement and supply information sessions to let business people and those who are in the business in Newfoundland and Labrador know how they can get in on the opportunities of actually procuring goods and services for use at these three different sites, and how they can supply what is needed in terms of equipment and workforce and so on at the sites. There will also be training and information and employment sessions conducted by the company, so that individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador will know best how they can train for the longer term jobs and who they would have to go and see to try to get in on the jobs that are going to start right away and be involved in the construction projects in the next three years or so.

Mr. Speaker, starting the middle of next year there will be a three-year construction project that will begin in Labrador. Seven hundred and ten million dollars will be spent on a mine and mill/concentrator in Labrador. It will take them three years to build it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, during that period of time the estimates are that 600 to 700 people a year will be working on a massive construction job on the North Coast of Labrador right at Voisey's Bay. There will be some $20 million spent on continuing exploration as well, because the company wants to continue to build and grow its proven reserves so that they can make sure they raise all the money they need in the marketplace to meet all their commitments in this Statement of Principles.

In Argentia, Mr. Speaker, next year, they will continue on with their site development, with the lay down areas that they need to receive things from Labrador and ship things to Labrador. All of that work will continue through next year. Beginning the middle of 2004, a construction project begins again in Argentia, $130 million demonstration plant the size of four football fields, which many people can envisage as rather significant, any other time a rather huge development. This time, by comparison, because of the magnitude of this project, a $130 million project is a small one. Mr. Speaker, if you think more recently in Newfoundland and Labrador, $130 million is about what was spent on the Janeway, the new Janeway. For those of you who saw that, that was a pretty massive construction project. That was not a small construction project, by any means, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The hospital expansion in Gander, which people from the central region would look at and realize is significant and fairly large, is only $70 million.

This project, the demonstration plant alone, is a $130 million construction project that will take a couple of years to build, from 2004 to the middle of 2006. There will be in excess of 100 people, and probably closer to 200, working on that construction project for that two-year period leading up to 2006.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we get to the middle of 2006; four years' time. At that point, for the next couple of years, there will be full operations in Labrador, the mine, the mill, and the concentrator will be fully operational. There will be 400 people working full time year round, day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, on into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The company, Mr. Speaker, will be basically spending then about $150 million a year paying these people and operating the operation in Labrador. The first shipment of concentrate, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of 2006, goes to Argentia. Until Argentia is ready to receive the first of the concentrate from Labrador, nothing leaves this Province, nothing whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, then, for a twenty-four to thirty month period, until the end of 2008 at the latest, there will be 200 people working full time at the plant in Argentia in a demonstration project and a test project that is trying to eliminate any probability that there might not be the full-scale plant - and I will deal with that a little bit later - built in Argentia. There will be 400 people working in Labrador and 200 people working in Argentia for the whole period, up to the end of 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We do acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, because we have been very up front and direct about all of this, that the remainder of the concentrate, what is not needed for testing in the plant and employing these 200 people in Argentia, what is not needed for that particular exercise will be shipped out to other Inco operations to help them raise some cash to meet the rest of their commitments that I will lay out right now, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: At this point - and you will get your chance to speak - I would prefer that I just get to the lay it out. I will not interrupt you; this is too important a debate. Everybody has their chance to say everything they want to say, uninterrupted, in their own time, during this particular debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, at points along the way, and this is one of them, the government, the negotiators and everybody else felt it was necessary to build in certain checkpoints, to make sure that the things that are laid out are actually going to happen, to make sure there are ways to see that they are going to be diligent and vigilant in the commitments that are made by the proponent, and we built in a couple of checkpoints around these issues. The first one was the one I mentioned: that absolutely nothing - absolutely nothing - leaves this Province unless the first lot goes to Argentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That means that the company itself has to be on time, on target, with the work that is done in Argentia. They have to have the construction projects finished. They have to have the 200 people trained up, who are going to work in the demonstration plant, and they have to be ready to receive the concentrate, or they are wasting their time mining in Labrador because there is nowhere to send anything, there is nowhere to raise any cash, there is nothing to do anything with, unless it goes into Argentia first.

Mr. Speaker, there were issues about wanting to prove this technology, to prove this hydromet technology, to make sure that it works, and the test period could have been very open ended, but we have an agreement that it will be no more than thirty months maximum. That will be the test period. There is an up side and a down side to that, because we really want it to work, and maybe we are shortchanging ourselves by: what if it happens in a thirty-first month, or a thirty-second month, that might prove the success? We agreed there is a risk in it on that side, but there is a time limit to it. They are 97 per cent or 98 per cent sure that it is going to work, and twenty-four to thirty months should give them a comfort period and a comfort zone in which to do the testing to the degree that it should be adequate. Then this checkpoint: then there is a decision made by the proponent after those thirty months, after the 200 people have worked diligently for thirty months to try to make sure that the 2 per cent or 3 per cent uncertainty is eliminated, then the company must make a decision at the end of 2008 as to which plant to build.

Now, let me say that again. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, whether or not to build a plant - because words are very important. I did say they must make a decision as to which plant they build, and that is an absolute fact, and that is a guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, at the end of 2008, a critical point in this path for this phased-in project, Inco then commit to and begin a three-year design engineering building of a $800 million permanent plant that creates 400 jobs on a permanent basis into the future, if the testing is successful, if the thirty-month test is successful. So that construction job itself, three years, employs about 1,000 people a year for three years to build the plant. Now the checkpoint is this. Notice it is always subject to whether or not the thirty-month test is successful. We acknowledge that. We understand that fully. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I know, understands that fully. It is not, though, a decision that is left just in the hands of Inco, because I guess it showed a healthy mistrust on our part that maybe they were just trying to do the test period and then they want to build something else; they do not want to build the real plant. So, to check that out, we put in a provision that says Inco itself must agree to submit the results of the test on a regular basis to government officials and, at the end of the test period, if they are suggesting that the test was unsuccessful, that is not good enough. Third-party experts in mining and in finance also look at all the results and they determine. It is like going to an outside arbitrator. It is not Inco's decision. It is not the government's decision. The third-party arbitrators, financial and mining experts, look at the results of the testing, and only if they agree that the test failed and that the plant will just not work do they then not have to build the full-scale $800 million plant. That is the checkpoint that is built in for the protection of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There is a further checkpoint, Mr. Speaker, and a fallback to the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is this: even if the third-party experts agree that, despite a $200 million effort, despite a thirty-month effort, despite 200 people working at it again, day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out, for thirty months, with all of that effort, if they cannot find a way to make it work, guess what the company has to do? They have to build a $670 million plant that employs 350 people and produces finished nickel. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are not qualifiers on that. There are no economic tests. There are no tests about process respecting the 600 - and the Leader of the Opposition is nodding his head and acknowledging that it is true, okay? - there are no qualifiers with respect to that, none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, there is an absolute guarantee that the worst-case scenario that can happen in Argentia is a $670 million plant, guaranteed, that employs 350 people and leaves a product, a product that leaves the plant, that is finished nickel, guaranteed. Now, that is the worst-case scenario that is described in this Statement of Principles and has to be put from English into legal text, not to be negotiated, not to be talked about, not to be argued about, but guaranteed that is the commitment that will be in legal language in the next couple of months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, the government, in wanting to be absolutely open and up front and totally accountable with respect to this, because it is essential and imperative that we be so, we admit, and we have told everybody in the Province from day one, that there is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent risk that the $200 million, 200 job, thirty-month test project, the research and development, might fail. There is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent risk that might not succeed, and that we might end up with only a $670 million plant that produces finished nickel for as long as it operates into the future, and employs 350 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: You will get your chance to speak and I look forward to hearing your comments in support of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, in other words, let me say it another way. Let me say it this way. I think this is very telling for members of the Legislature, very telling for our caucus, very telling for the people of the Province. Let me phrase it this way and see how this sounds to people, because this is real. There is a 2 per cent to 3 per cent chance that we will end up with a $670 million plant producing finished nickel and employing 350 people for thirty years, probably for fifty years, seventy years, eighty years, ninety years. Guess what? There is a 97 per cent or 98 per cent chance that we are going to have an $800 million plant employing 400 people that produces finished nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador for thirty years and maybe forty years, fifty years, seventy years. That is what is in this Statement of Principles. That is what Inco has committed to, and that is what the government has signed on to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Either way, Mr. Speaker, it is a finished nickel product that leaves Newfoundland and Labrador. It is only a matter of which plant gets built between 2008 and 2011.

I am sure that is why we are very interested in hearing the comments of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, because he did do the right thing. He consulted with his members. He has talked to them in detail. He was at the meeting that we held and I chatted with him personally and congratulated him in terms of his efforts to go out and talk, take the advice of his leader, and talk to the people and reflect their views. We look forward to his representation in the speeches over the next couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, then in 2008 to 2011 in the business case, let me recap it again. We will have a full operation in Labrador with 400 people working full-time in the mine and mill/concentrator; about $150 million a year being spent in Newfoundland and Labrador, employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will have a huge construction project in Argentia where somewhere between $670 and $800 million will be spent employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about 1,000 a year in a massive construction project. We will have some shipping out of concentrate occurring and some testing occurring, continuing in a plant in Argentia where these people are working and continuing to do some testing. Some more checkpoints, Mr. Speaker, because we wanted to make sure again that the proponent was going to be vigilant, diligent, and live to its commitments.

There are annual reviews agreed to, from 2008 to 2011. Again, with a healthy degree of suspicion in any negotiation, wanting to make sure our interests were protected, Mr. Speaker. We said: what happens if they commit to build a plant but then they just do not build it very fast? Maybe they will just say we are going to build it but not really start to build it until halfway through 2010, or something along those lines. So, we put in annual reviews that they have agreed to, Mr. Speaker, which show that at the end of 2009 and at the end of 2010 they have to submit to scrutiny to show that they are on target, on time, and that the plant will be ready by the end of 2011. Each time the problem for them, the difficulty for them, the sanction for them, is that they are at risk of losing their right to continue to export out of Newfoundland and Labrador if they are not true to their word, if they do not live to their commitments, if they do not stay on target, if they do not stay on schedule, if they do not stay on time, if they do not do what they are supposed to do in Argentia. Those are there and we are glad to have them there, just to make sure that we keep their feet to the fire and that we have them living to their commitments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, then 2011 to 2018, Labrador continues. There is underground exploration, some $75 million, another eighty-five or ninety jobs. Argentia will be operating at capacity. Then in the mid-2000s, 2016, 2017, 2018, the underground operation begins where the workforce doubles in Labrador from 400 to 800. Inco itself spends another $750 million, because when they go underground they have to build a bigger mill, a bigger concentrate because they have to deal with bigger volumes of ore in Labrador. From then on, into the mid-2030s, at a minimum, we will have 800 people working in Labrador; 350 at a minimum at Argentia, most likely 400; and, of course, before the mine ever closes down the concentrate return has to begin. With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, again, critical checkpoints for us, the first one being a guarantee of replacement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There is a full section on it in the Statement of Principles. The guarantee outlines that the replacement must begin before the mine ceases operation. It indicates, because we checked again - people came up with scenarios saying: maybe they will just send back a little bit each year so that they can say they are not in violation of their commitment; maybe they will only send back a few spoonfuls, to use a phrase; maybe they will send it back in dribs and drabs just so that they legally abide by their commitment. But, we said, that is not good enough. There is a commitment in the Statement of Principles that when they are sending it back, they must operate in Argentia at least 50 per cent capacity for the whole period of time or they will be in violation of their commitment and the other sanctions will kick in.

Mr. Speaker, there are rights of suspension under a thing called Force Majeure that I am sure we will hear lots about. These suspensions are limited by time in the Statement of Principles. They only suspend the right. They never, ever relieve Inco of any of their obligations. The business people and lawyers in this Legislature know this area full well and they understand exactly how it works. Even in the event of a processing related reason, where the replacement might be difficult to do - because the spectra has been raised that all the other countries around the world might bring in laws that we do which says: you cannot ship it out. Even if that happens, there is no escaping the obligation by Inco. If they cannot send it back, their obligation to do it is capped at three years, it is suspended for three years, and then the legally enforceable guarantees take place under that section in any event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this Force Majeure issue is a standard feature of business contracts. We have had it vetted by the best corporate lawyers in the Province and in the country, who structure these in every large business deal all over the country and they are put in place to protect our interest and to make sure that Inco lives to its commitments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, with respect to the guarantee, it is a full stand-alone section in the Statement of Principles. It is stated clearly and unequivocally in English and it will be translated into legally binding, legalese over the next few months.

Another checkpoint, Mr. Speaker - you can have all the guarantees you like in writing but what happens if they are not honoured? You can write a guarantee, you can say you are going to do it, you can guarantee you are going to do it, but what happens if circumstances arise that the guarantee is still not honoured? That is where we have the whole issue of: should there be a security? Should there be a trust fund? Should there be a deposit? What we chose to do, Mr. Speaker, we chose to follow the lead of the legal profession itself in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to a recently debated issue about claims on insurance funds; damage claims for people who are injured in accidents and so on, and who want to go to the court and try to maximize the benefit that they might get as a result of being injured.

The legal community in Newfoundland and Labrador came out and said because there was a proposal by the insurance industry, that there should be a cap on how much you can claim; but the number should be put in legislation, that you should fix what the benefits are or what the penalty is, what the remedy is for certain injuries. The legal community came out and said: No, the very best thing that any client could have is access to the courts where you can go in and argue for them, maximum damages, where you can argue for their (inaudible) loss to the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we took advice on that - yes, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I will listen to your speech when you - I hope you are standing up right after me to give your speech, I will gladly listen to you.

Mr. Speaker, we decided that is what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador; not to spend the time now trying to sort out what might happen in twenty years or thirty years or forty years, along the lines of a Churchill debate. Could you get a number today that would be considered small, tiny, insignificant, picayune in thirty years time because people did not have the right clauses or the right phrases and so on. We went through all of that debate over several months. We concluded - with the advice, again, of the top corporate lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Canada - that the best interests of the Province are served by being in the courts if a breach ever occurs, when it occurs, Mr. Speaker, not guessing now what it might be, but when it occurs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: If the Statement of Principles are read, the second paragraph of section 25, statement 25, indicates that fundamentally what has happened is that the Proponent acknowledges that if they do not honour their guarantee, they are guilty. They are absolutely, already pleading guilty. They are not saying we are going to argue that we do not owe you something. They acknowledge damage to the Province. They acknowledge a breach of the contract. They acknowledge damage to the economy of the Province. They understand, that they would not even try to object to going through the courts for one thing only, Mr. Speaker, and that is to have the courts decide, at that time in a current circumstance, in current values, in current dollars, knowing what happened, when it happened, what the size of the remedy is that is owed to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me conclude on the business case, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to spend the last ten or fifteen minutes that I have left talking about the political case. On the business case, our interests, the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are protected every single step of the way; every step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is a new royalty regime, a new tax regime that eliminates the ten year tax holiday that is currently on the books. Everybody has understood that Inco knew there would not be a ten year tax holiday. There is none. The new tax laws, which will be debated here in the fall, actually see the government, on behalf of the people, collecting $90 million more from Inco than the current laws that are on the books today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Corporate income taxes, Mr. Speaker, are going to be allocated so that the maximum tax will be collected here in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than collected in Manitoba or Ontario where this company also has operations. There are agreements and arrangements to do that. There are stipulations that training occur in the Province, that employment be maximized here, that engineering occur in the Province, that procurement occur in the Province, that the supply of goods and services to the whole of the project happen and be based right here in Newfoundland and Labrador to maximize the benefits for us all.

There are huge benefits in benefit agreements and Voisey's Bay chapter statements for the Aboriginal communities in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the business case is structured so that there is no reason why this company should fail. This company should succeed, and I am sure we will hear others on the other side stand up and say: I guess they will succeed. You are giving away the shop, or something of that nature, but this company should succeed because there is a good, solid business case for them, and our interests on the business side are protected as well every single step of the way. We are confident that we have maximized the opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and maximized the benefits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes on the political case. I think it is clear. I have checked around. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that I am the only person in this Legislature today who has been in the Cabinet in a leadership role ever since 1993. There are others here who were elected with me n 1989 who were in the caucus but not in the Cabinet. There were others here who have been elected since, and so on, but I believe that to be a fact. There are others who have been in the Cabinet here since 1994 and 1995 and 1996. I am the only person who has been right in the Cabinet, right in the leadership role in the Province, since the beginning of Voisey's Bay, since its discovery, so I have seen it up close from the very beginning. Let me take us through the chronology, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes.

Discovery in 1993, Mr. Chislett and Mr. Verbiski, a huge exploration bonanza in Labrador. There were huge benefits in Labrador and some in the Island back in 1993 and 1994, because when this happened exploration took off. By the way, there is a lot of money spent on exploration. There was a lot of money spent in Labrador. There was a lot of money spent on the Island. There was a lot of money spent in places like Springdale, in Central Newfoundland, where they stand to benefit greatly again because there is going to be renewed exploration and activity on the Island as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: In 1995, this government, a Liberal government led by Premier Wells at the time, changed the law to say that from now on, for deposits like this, you could not develop the deposit unless a finished product left the Province. We made that change right in this Legislature, in a Liberal government led by Premier Wells at the time.

In 1996, Inco promised to do all of it. They promised the world. We had the people in Argentia excited beyond belief - motorcades - the sun was going to shine because of the commitments made by Inco, and government sought a mandate in the 1996 election to make it happen as was described. Then, by the end of 1998, a very important step that many people want to ignore, very important in the political case, though, Mr. Speaker, they started to go through and they completed the Environmental Impact Statement in Labrador. The company was proposing a very aggressive mining operation and a very large plant in Argentia. The operation in Labrador was to be about 20,000 tons of ore a day. The plant in Argentia that they proposed in 1996 was going to produce 270,000 million pounds of nickel a year. That is what they were proposing and the whole project, the ovoid in the underground, was all going to done in about ten or twelve years. All of it. It was going to a very quick, very fast, in and out, very profitable operation, but the environmental impact approval slowed it all down. They only gave them approval for 6,000 tons a day at the mine, less than half, decreased by 70 per cent. As a result, in Argentia they could only build a plant that was 110,000 million pounds instead of 270,000 million pounds, and that is what happened as a result of the Environmental Impact Statement. Their permits for mining were less than half of what they had requested and on which they built their case for the plant in Argentia. As a result, Inco withdrew its commitment. They said: On this basis, if we can only build a 110,000 million pound plant, instead of one that is over two times as big, 270,000 million pounds, then we cannot commit to a plant in Argentia.

That is what happened in 1998. Inco, because of the results of the Environmental Impact Statement and the approval that they got, said: We cannot commit to a plant in Argentia because we cannot make it work when it is less than half the size of what we want to put through it. We will not be able to raise the money and make it work.

So, they withdrew their proposal. Then, of course, came an election in 1999 where the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, said: If that is your position, that you are not building a plant in Argentia, well, guess what? You will not get a single spoonful of ore out of Newfoundland and Labrador, because, no plant, no project.

That is the context in which the speech was made. Now others might want to make it differently, but those happen to be the facts. Those happen to be the facts, and anybody in the Province can trace the history of it. They can trace the chronology of it. Put it to a judge, Mr. Speaker, and let them trace it, and they will come up with that exact chronology and version of events.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, in early 2000, Minister Grimes - whoever that was - as the Mines and Energy Minister, was sent off to break the impasse, because the impasse was Inco saying: We can no longer afford to build any plant in Argentia - nothing - because we can only build one less than half of what we wanted to build.

The government was saying: On that basis, you will get nothing. There will be no project. You will never get a spoonful of ore from Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was a clear impasse and right away, early in 2000 - check the records, check the public dialogue, check the media reports, check Hansard for the House of Assembly - the minister of the day, which happens to be this same person right here, started talking very publicly about, let's use a new technology called hydromet. Let's maybe ship some out and get it back, and that way we can break the impasse and have a project.

Check the records. We are open to scrutiny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We want people to check the facts and not listen to spin, not listen to fabricated stories, not listen to contrived stories. Check the facts is all we ask, and the facts show exactly that.

This whole debate for the last three years, and three before that, has always been about getting a processing plant in Argentia that produces finished nickel. The mine, the mill and the concentrator could have happened any time in Labrador if the Aboriginals had agreed and if we had not changed the law in 1995. That could have happened any time. This has all been about a processing plant in Argentia that produces a finished nickel product in line with the 1995 law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the most recent set of negotiations when I was the minister, and when Premier Tobin stood where I am today. The last time we talked about the new technology, we talked about: Well, what happens about that 2 per cent or 3 per cent if it fails? The most Inco would commit to a couple of years ago was that, if the new technology failed, there was no commitment to build any kind of other plant. This time, what happens? If the new technology does not succeed despite the efforts, the $200 million, the 200 jobs, the thirty months of testing, they absolutely build a $670 million plant that produces finished nickel, employs 350 people, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is guaranteed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is huge step forward and there is no way anybody can twist the words in this Statement of Principles to suggest that is anything other than the fact. There is a guarantee of the second plant if the first one fails, no stipulations, no what ifs, no financial considerations, no nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The last time, Mr. Speaker, as well, there was a second sticking point, because we were talking very openly and publicly a long time ago. This is not new. A long time ago, three years ago now, we were talking about shipping it out and getting it back. We were looking for a guarantee that, if we did send some out, we were definitely guaranteed to get it back. Guess what we got the last time? People in this Assembly would know what it is. People who do union contracts all over the Province know what it is. The best we could achieve from Inco, as the proponent, was what is termed a best efforts clause. We will try our best to find it and send it back. Obviously not good enough.

What do we have this time, Mr. Speaker? We have a full section that guarantees the replacement of it - guarantees - not, we will try. We guarantee to send it back. Then there is a legally enforceable stipulation that says if they do not live up to the guarantee, we go to court. Guess what we get? We either get the concentrate sent back or we get the cash and we get lots of it, Mr. Speaker, and it will be determined at that point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me summarize the political case again, Mr. Speaker. This time around there is an absolute guarantee in the Statement of Principles, which will be translated into a legally binding document, that finished nickel will leave Argentia in a $670 million plant as a minimum. There is a 97 per cent and 98 per cent chance that a bigger $800 million, 400 job plant producing finished nickel will be built instead. There is a twenty-four to thirty month, 200 job, $200 million research and development testing program that is going to be done to eliminate the 2 per cent or 3 per cent risk to make sure that it is the $800 million plant instead of the $670 million plant. There is a guarantee of replacement - not best efforts, a guarantee - that is then enforceable in the court in current day values of that time with the only question to be determined by the court, not whether or not they broke the guarantee, not whether or not they breached the guarantee, not whether or not they did not meet their commitment, but how much they owe us. The only thing to be determined in the court is how much they owe us.

We understand that, they understand that, the corporate lawyers on both sides understand it completely and fully and agree with it, and they know that their job in the next couple of months is to put that in legalese, proper legal language, so that it is completely understood by every lawyer in the land and readily interpreted by any judge who might, at some point in the future, ever have to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, again let me say the job now is a translation job. There is no negotiation. There is nothing going to be added to this project. There are no components now in that are going to be taken out. What I have outlined is what is going to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador over the next thirty years. The commitments are made, they are agreed to, Mr. Speaker, and they are fully understood by everyone involved with Inco, everyone involved with the government. All of the lawyers who are involved on both sides fully understand the commitments that are made, what they lead to, and how they have now to be put into legal language.

Mr. Speaker, it is also great comfort that Inco has been acknowledging this publicly, on the airwaves, through advertisements, in full page ads, on the television, on the radio, and these things, by the way, as the lawyers would know, become admissible into a court if it is ever needed, that this is what the group not only wrote on a piece of paper but they told everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. They bragged about it. They went out and bought time on the radio stations, the television stations, in the newspapers, to tell the people of the Province, not in some back room somewhere, not hid away secretly. They went out and told everybody that this is what we are going to do, this is what we understand we have committed to, and this is what we must live up to or we face the penalties that will be imposed by the courts at the time.

Mr. Speaker, from now to September 30 it is agreed, that we put that in there so the lawyers will focus on the task at hand. Anything and everything that can be disclosed at that time, subject to our Freedom of Information rules, will be made available to everybody in the Province; because, again, the business people and the lawyers understand that there might be some certain commercial sensitivities in any contract with a major corporation that would not be available to their competitors and to the general public as normal process. That is standard procedure in every business deal, no matter how big or how small.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, with this: We made a commitment to a finished nickel product. We made it in 1995 by changing the law. We made it in 1996 in the election. We made it in 1999 in the election. It was said in different words at different times, but that was the commitment every time. And, guess what? We have made and met that commitment fully in this Statement of Principles. There is no doubt about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We now have to reverse roles and change roles for a period of time because we have to monitor what happens, we have to enforce it every step of the way, we have to hold their feet to the fire, we have to make sure that they live to their commitments, because if they succeed, of course, we all succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of the Province look forward to all of us succeeding together. There are great benefits directly: Labrador North, most of Labrador, Argentia, Placentia, here in St. John's, indirectly in places like Corner Brook, for example, where the mayor, the Chamber of Commerce and the development corporation are out saying they want to get in on some things in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased today to conclude with this last comment. I am very proud and pleased to conclude with this comment. I have the good fortune right now of leading a government and leading a caucus that has found a way, this time again - because we are now establishing quite a track record of doing it - to meet all the competing interests, found a way to look at the commitments that we have made, found a way to meet those commitments truly in the spirit and intent of the law of the land and what the people want, found a way to maximize the opportunities for the people of the Province, and found a way, one more time, to strike the balance in a very difficult and delicate issue, and to find a way, more importantly, to make it happen for the benefit of the people of the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Premier for his comments today. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity as, I guess, the first speaker of our caucus to be able to participate in this very important debate - a debate which is of huge significance to all living Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I might add, Mr. Speaker, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians yet to be born. Mr. Speaker, obviously the significance is quite substantial and to have, even as a Member of the House of Assembly, the opportunity to participate in a debate of this proportion is something which is obviously quite vital and important.

Mr. Speaker, I will have, perhaps, as the critic in Mines and Energy, more time allocated to me and in a moment I will attempt to go through, perhaps, maybe in some tedious detail, some of the particulars and details of the Statement of Principles. Because time allows me that opportunity, I will, in a matter of moments, go through this in some detail and point out, Mr. Speaker, what we feel, as an Opposition, is of extreme importance, and raise the questions and raise the concerns that we feel, as an Opposition, have to be raised at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to perhaps just touch on that point, if I may, and that is really the role of the Opposition and, in particular, the role, in this case, of the Official Opposition. The role is to clearly scrutinize and analyze and assess the document that we have before us. It is to ask, Mr. Speaker, probing questions. It is to seek answers and details on behalf of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is to put forward, from time to time, a position where this party, as the official Opposition, sees room for improvement. Mr. Speaker, that is what we will attempt to do throughout the next three days. I understand we have three long days, a total of twenty-four hours.

Members on this side of the House, during their allocated time, will raise the concerns of the their constituents and will put forward suggestions, Mr. Speaker, and ask questions that are so important, so vitally important, that they be asked at this critical time.

In my own case, Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity to spend a number of hours over the weekend going door to door in my own district of St. John's East, going to different streets and different neighbourhoods within the provincial District of St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that I have a full and solid endorsement to ask these questions, to probe the ministers, to probe caucus members, to probe the Premier, and to make suggestions when and where appropriate as to how we can improve, and hopefully find and seek answers to the questions that are being asked.

I feel quite comfortable and I have a clear conscious in saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am performing the role, as the Member for St. John's East, as the critic for Mines and Energy, and we will ask the questions that necessarily must be asked and we will hold government's feet to the fire to ensure that the people of the Province have a full and complete understanding as to what the details of this Statement of Principles are all about.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to perhaps spend the next maybe half an hour or so going through, in some detail, particular provisions and particular sections of the Statement of Principles, of course, which is the basis of our debate beginning today and for the next three days, ending with a free vote on Thursday evening, I believe. My colleagues in caucus, obviously, because they have less time, they too will perhaps select from the Statement of Principles certain areas where they would like to concentrate in their commentary and in their questioning. For example, I know the royalties issue is significant, the taxation issue, the environmental issue, and these issues will come up as various members have the opportunity to put forward their thoughts and the points of view of their constituents and the points of difference that they feel have to be brought to the attention, not only to members opposite, Mr. Speaker, but indeed in this particular forum, in the people's Chamber, we are conducting an exercise on behalf of all of the people of our great Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, if I may, with clause 2 or section 2 of the Statement of Principles. It is quite short and I will read it, "The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties. The parties will use their best efforts to finalize mutually acceptable definitive agreements....embodying the Statement of Principles as expeditiously as possible and in any event by September 30, 2002, subject to paragraph 47."

So it is quite clear from that particular section, which is a section early on in the entire document, that the Statement of Principles is not the final document and that it is not a legally enforceable document, and that the parties have to use merely their best efforts to finalize agreements that embody these principles as outlined. It is therefore possible, Mr. Speaker, that the final agreements will not necessarily mirror these principles.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not true.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The variance could be significant, and I say to the minister, this is an interpretation of the document and this is the role that we will perform, that, if there are shortcomings, if there are glitches or if there are interpretations that do not necessarily reflect what the intention of government is, we will bring those forward.

It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's commentary a few minutes ago, that already when we look at clause 2, it is clear that the Statement of Principles is not the final agreement and that the variance between what we are now debating and what ultimately will be the final agreement could be quite significant and substantial.

Also, I would like to point out that the Statement of Principles does not legally bind or obligate Inco or the government to anything that is in this document; so, from that point of view, it is wide open.

Clause 3, perhaps, only enhances the point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, where it states in clause 3 that, "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..., (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..., (d) the issuance of a mining lease from the Department of Mines and Energy...". So, again, these are just several examples as to how it is again necessary that these particular conditions be met, and the project will not proceed, Mr. Speaker, despite the Statement of Principles, unless these major conditions are met. Some of them, I might add, Mr. Speaker, are beyond the authority of either Inco or the Province. The project is contingent on Inco arranging suitable financing, to enable the project to be developed on a financially prudent basis. That throws everything wide open, I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, since the term proceed means both start and continue. This clause could be interpreted as subjecting the continuation of the project at any point to financially prudent conditions. This document, the statement, does not define who makes the determination if financing is suitable or what financially prudent means. So, we see here a clear example of conditions that still must be met, and wording, Mr. Speaker, that, to say the least, is wide open.

A brief comment on clause 4, Mr. Speaker. "Commencement of the Project will occur in 2002 with site mobilization work in Voisey's Bay, site preparation work at Argentia, and the commencement of the development of an Inco Innovation Centre in St. Johns." Work on the project, Mr. Speaker, could very well proceed before the final agreement has been written and signed and before certain of these conditions are, in fact, met. The question that has to be asked: In that eventuality, could the Province be held liable for damages that may be incurred because Inco moves ahead before the final agreement and side agreements are in place? There is a potential issue of liability in that particular eventuality.

Clause 5, Mr. Speaker - and I won't read it, it is somewhat lengthy - states, "The Proponent intends to construct an integrated mine and mill/concentrator processing plant at the Voisey's Bay site in Labrador that will process ore from the Voisey's Bay deposits...", et cetera. Clearly, the wording in section 5 is not the wording of a guarantee. It is the wording merely of an intention whereby the proponent - in this case, obviously, Inco - sets out its intention as to how the project is to proceed.

Clause 6, Mr. Speaker, the Inco Innovation Centre: I have to concur with the Premier, that this is a feature of this particular program, and this particular project, that is very important to our Province. The Inco Innovation Centre will obviously provide an opportunity for undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate students to embark on a study, and hopefully a career, in mining, dealing with research and mineral exploration, mining and metallurgical processing. A question that has to be asked, though, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Inco's plan to develop this information centre, is: Will the university centre be part of the team that researches the feasibility of hydromet technology on material from Voisey's Bay, and will both professors and students at the university centre have access to the findings of Inco's R and D efforts that, according to clause 14, are to be kept in confidence between the company and the government? We, on this side of the House, find that to be somewhat unusual, and perhaps inappropriate, that this type of information would be kept from public scrutiny, particularly if we have an Inco Innovation Centre that is designed and devised to welcome and embrace the study of this particular topic, that there would be the issue of confidentiality on any findings of any research.

Clause 7, Mr. Speaker, "The projected aggregate capital investment in these and related facilities is estimated to be $2.9 billion over the estimated 30-year life of the Project, including sustaining capital expenditures." Inco "...will prepare comprehensive bankable feasability studies and, based upon these studies, the Project capital and operating costs and schedule will be finalized."

In response to that section, our response to that particular provision is to say that Inco's total capital investment over thirty years is estimated to be less than $3 billion, and, because of the immense value of the ovoid in particular, it will recoup these investment much sooner than the thirty years, and that all of these capital costs, operating costs, and scheduled details in this document, are wholly contingent once again on comprehensive bankable feasibility studies that Inco itself will prepare. Inco obviously will make the decision and come to the conclusion as to how that is done, what is done, and when it is done, and the decision in the final agreement will be based upon their particular studies.

Clause 10 is a brief clause. I will read it briefly, Mr. Speaker. "The following undertakings by the Proponent, together with those of the Government, provide the framework for the proposed development of the Project." No one can know, after having read this, what the final agreement will look like, because it is clear from clause 2, as we indicated earlier, in addition to the conditions, some of which are statutory and must be met, that we have no idea - despite the good intentions and despite the undertakings of the proponent, exactly what a final agreement, a final contract, between both government, on behalf of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the proponent, Inco - what a final agreement will look like.

Perhaps one of the most troublesome clauses in the entire document, Mr. Speaker, is clause 11, and it is entitled Undertakings by the Proponent, where obviously Inco presents in this document exactly what its undertakings are and what its commitments are. I would like to read it. It is important, and I would like to add some commentary afterwards. "The Proponent is committed to developing the Project in a matter which provides full and fair benefits to the people of the Province; has a solid business footing; provides for a reasonable return to its shareholders; recognizes metals market conditions; can be reasonably and prudently financed and can be completed as intended. The Proponent will use it best efforts to obtain the required financing for the Project in a timely manner. Comprehensive bankable feasibility studies, as referred to above in paragraph 7, will be prepared which must reflect and successfully meet these objectives and the undertakings by the Proponent and the Government contained in the Statement of Principles. The Proponent's objective is to have a world-class efficient operation which will reflect appropriate employment levels, productivity requirements and other relevant factors."

Let's just, for a brief period of time, Mr. Speaker, assess the language of this critical clause, clause 11, Undertakings by the Proponent, just once again, listen to some of the descriptives and some of the modifiers that are used when attempting to explain to the people of the Province, by way of this document, exactly what these undertakings are.

We have such open-ended, vague and uncertain terminology as the following: full and fair benefits; solid business footing; reasonable return to shareholders; reasonably and prudently financed; again, we see the term best efforts; timely manner; reflect and successfully meet these objectives; world-class efficient operation; appropriate employment levels; other relevant factors. Who decides what conditions satisfy these descriptives and these adjectives, Mr. Speaker? It is wide open.

The terms of the final agreement are subject to Inco's return to shareholders, metal market conditions, and financing circumstances. Again, Inco in this particular case, in this critical example, whereby the proponent sets out its undertakings, Inco need only use its best efforts to secure financing in a timely manner. This clause is of concern. It clearly does not contain the certain language, the commitment, and an undertaking in the true sense. It is filled with vague descriptives. It is filled with uncertainties, and in our view, as an Opposition, does not provide the type of language that a document of this importance and this significance ought to on behalf of all of the people of our Province.

Clause 14, Mr. Speaker. "The Proponent will provide an annual confidential progress report to the Government on the results of its research and development efforts on hydrometallugical process..." I referred to this briefly earlier. Inco's progress report on its R & D efforts will be kept confidential between itself and the government. That, we find, also somewhat troublesome. It is the people of the Province, I would add, that ought to be able to judge for themselves whether hydromet process is working on Voisey's Bay ore. It is their ore. It is their resource. There is a lot at stake with respect to this particular project. How is it that information as critical and vital to the project as this, is being kept from the public?

The Premier alluded during his address, about an open and accountable government. Well, here is an opportunity for openness and accountability to shine and not to, once again, keep important critical information. I realize and appreciate the fact that it is important to the project, but it is equally important, more important, to the people of the Province that they are fully apprized of any developments that ultimately are so critical to the success of this particular project.

I am going to move ahead, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to clause 25. As I indicated, my colleagues will have an opportunity throughout the period of debate to refer to other clauses not necessarily mentioned at this time. It is the issue of the Guarantee of Concentrate Replacement. I know the Premier spent some time at this during his particular address. Obviously, this particular clause may be the clause that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are concerned about and have most questions concerning the replacement of any concentrate from outside the Province. A few comments.

Replacement nickel material, Mr. Speaker, does not have to be shipped back until the mine ends. Under Schedule A 2.(f), which is the Force Majeure clause that I will refer to briefly in a moment, Inco can wait until three years after the mine ends to get that replacement feed if supply and prices are a problem. Under the nickel (inaudible) refinery scenario, Argentia could be idle from 2011, when the facility has been constructed, until three years after the mine ends. It could be operating - as the Premier himself indicated and acknowledged - at as little as 50 per capacity even during the replacement feed phase.

Schedule A, which again is the Force Majeure definition, defines other open-ended conditions, Force Majeure conditions, including shortage of materials and labour disputes which let Inco delay its obligations without penalty. Again, as the Premier indicated - and it is in the second section of clause 25 of the Statement of Principles - there is no financial guarantee against default or bankruptcy. To cover the loss of a $3 billion resource, if Inco defaults, we have to sue to get compensation. Obviously, that is a right that any individual or any corporate entity or any association or anybody whatsoever would have, is the right to sue. It does not necessarily have to be spelled out.

The fact is is that if Inco acknowledges that a breach of contract on its part will result in substantial loss to the Province, then why not include, we would suggest, a term referring to liquidated damages, a clause referring to liquidated damages right in the agreement that will provide an agreed figure as to what the damages to the Province will be and have a significant proportion of this agreed figure secured by a bond of some sort with the remainder secured by other collateral of the proponent? This comment has to be made, that if the proponent, in this case Inco, is as absolutely certain as to the viability of its own future and its unswerving commitment to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it professes to be, then it should have no reservations about providing the Province with some form of security which is really what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want, and in this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, demand.

Briefly, just several other sections. Aboriginal Participation, section 29, obviously is an acknowledgment by which Inco indicates that both the LIA and the Innu Nation have asserted Aboriginal rights and title to the project area containing nickel, cobalt and copper deposits and that the proponent - again, Inco - has negotiated and will enter into IBAs, known as Impacts and Benefits Agreements, with both groups. The question we have is: Will these particular agreements be released publicly? Again, will the people of the Province have a full and complete understanding of the details and the particulars of what these Impacts and Benefits Agreements are all about? Obviously, they form part and parcel ultimately of the larger agreements where government must participate. So, why not, at this time, once these agreements become finalized, why not have the opportunity for the people of the Province to understand fully what is being negotiated between the proponent and our Aboriginal groups?

Project Employment; under section 30, Mr. Speaker. "The Proponent will implement a Project employment strategy that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures that individuals resident in the Province are given first consideration..." A few comments in response. Who writes the project employment strategy, and when? Will the government have a role in this negotiation? Will it be legally enforceable as part of the final mining lease agreement? Again, how do we assess and evaluate any of these project employment guidelines to ensure that it is consistent, Mr. Speaker, with mobility rights provisions as found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Mr. Speaker, we have a Force Majeure clause. It is referred to specifically in section 33 of the Statement of Principles, and there was also a specific definition section as found in Schedule A which, of course, is the appendix to this agreement. Under Schedule A, the criteria for Force Majeure are very broad.

First of all, just briefly, just to share with members of the House and the people of the Province exactly what we mean by Force Majeure, it is usually found, Mr. Speaker, in the law of contract to describe situations where one party to a contract can be legally excused from the performance of other obligations under the contract on either a temporary or permanent basis without fear of being found to be in breach of contract and suffer the consequent legal ramifications that flow from such a finding. Professor Waddams, in his well-known text, The Law of Contracts, indicated that, "Parties frequently anticipate, in more or less general terms, the occurrence of events that will make performance more onerous than expected, and commonly in written contracts a clause is included designed to protect a promisor against such occurrences." Theses clauses, clauses, usually drafted in unusual language, are often called Force Majeure and, for example, acts of God, restraint of princes, riots, strikes, civil war, and that type of archaic language. However, it is important that we look at the Force Majeure clause and we look at it, obviously, in conjunction with clause or section 25 of the Statement of Principles.

Under section (a) the criteria for Force Majeure are very broad and include the unavailability of cost-effective nickel material for import, shortages or problems with materials and supplies, and labour disputes, and many of these circumstances are far from extraordinary and could, Mr. Speaker, extensively delay aspects of the project.

A second comment in response to the Force Majeure provisions as they are found in the Statement of Principles: The unavailability of cost-effective replacement nickel could delay processing until three years after all mining ends, and clause 25 makes no attempt or no provision for the recovery of damages suffered by the Province as a consequence of this particular provision of Force Majeure, and all other Force Majeure conditions could delay aspects of the project indefinitely.

There is a particular point that I look forward to later on today if, in fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy is going to speak today. I am not sure but, if he is, I am particularly looking forward to his response to, or explanation of, what is found in section 35, namely Electrical Rates and Provision of Power. It is clear from this section, when we read clause 35, Mr. Speaker, that Inco will get the lowest industrial electrical rate in the Province and that Hydro will have to supply sufficient power to run the hydromet or some other commercial facility. The question has to be asked, obviously: How much power will Inco need? Where will this new source come from? Is it possible, because of the wording of this agreement, and in order to adhere to the commitments that government is giving to the proponent, that any increased costs will then have to be passed on to the consumers? They cannot pass the costs on to Inco alone because Inco will be given the lowest industrial electrical rate, as is already explained and illustrated in clause 35 of the Statement of Principles. Therefore, all consumers of electricity in the Province, Mr. Speaker, will subsidize Inco's power needs through higher electrical rates. It is a critical issue; it is a critical question. We are generally concerned as to what this means for the consumers of our Province and, in particular, Minister, I look forward to your commentary with respect to clause 35.

Exemption orders - we have to read these carefully - there are several exemption orders that are found under clauses 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Statement of Principles. Basically what they say in clause 37, Mr. Speaker, clause 37 is an exemption for the export of concentrate containing 355,000 tonnes of nickel until the year 2011.

Clause 38 is an exemption for the export of concentrate containing 85,000 tonnes of nickel, during the ramp up to commercial hydromet, if that process is chosen. That is 440,000 tonnes total, if commercial hydromet is chosen.

Clause 39, Mr. Speaker, is an exemption allowing Voisey's concentrate to be exported if Inco rejects commercial hydromet. Again, now, these are exemptions being given by the Province to the proponent.

The fourth exemption under clause 40 allows copper concentrate to be exported for the life of the project, without return.

Mr. Speaker, the final provision, before I continue in the debate on a few other issues, the final provision that I would like to identify in the actual Statement of Principles is clause 47, Approval by the House of Assembly of the Province.

We are proposing, Mr. Speaker, that the government ensure that the final development agreement - not this Statement of Principles, but the final development agreement - contain a ratification clause similar to clause 47 of the Statement of Principles subjecting the agreement to the ratification of all Members of the House of Assembly and stipulating that, if the House of Assembly fails to ratify the agreement, it will be void ab initio and that the government will not be liable to Inco for any loss, damage, cost or claim whatsoever resulting therefrom.

We make that proposal in good faith, Mr. Speaker. We feel it is essential and fundamental to this agreement that once an agreement is entered into, which presumably will be some time on or before September 30, 2002, that in view of the very loose wording, the uncertain and vague language, the fact that this document, according to its own wording, is not necessarily binding, and in view of the fact that conditions still have to be met that are well beyond and outside the control of this Legislature, we would submit that a final agreement be brought back to this Legislature and we go through a similar exercise to ensure that the benefits are truly there for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to ensure that their rights are protected at all costs. It is a proposal that we put forward and that we obviously would want to see government reconsider, despite the language being used by the Premier a little while ago.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few other comments in the few moments that I have left, other than specifically referring to the Statement of Principles. It is a word, or it is a theme, I guess, about relationships between government and big business. We have seen, perhaps, in the past, and we have, unfortunately, a very sad and unfortunate number of examples whereby coziness between big business and government does not work to the benefit of the people who are being represented by that government that has been duly elected to represent the best interests of these people. We see our examples of the sixties and we see the coziness of a predecessor of our present Premier, a coziness between a former Premier and one John Shaheen, a coziness between a former Premier and one John C. Doyle, and what has happened in the past. We have other examples. Governments often become too comfortable with and too cozy with the very proponent in large business that they are dealing with in putting forward a project, a megaproject, of this size.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give just a couple of examples to just illustrate the concern. There is presently ongoing in the Province of Ontario, a class-action case. It involves Inco, but interestingly, it also involves the provincial government in the Province of Ontario. It is a class-action case that was started in the City of Port Colborne in Ontario, approximately a year ago, where a $750 million lawsuit by way of class action, representing some 20,000 residents of the area of Port Colborne, Ontario, where an allegation was made that Inco and a number of other defendants, including, as one of the co-defendants, the provincial Government of Ontario, through its own Department of the Environment, had somehow mismanaged and failed to look after the health needs and the environmental needs of that particular region of the province.

Mr. Speaker, that particular case in not over. In fact, I understand it was only last week there was a certification hearing in the Supreme Court of Ontario to see whether or not a judge of that court would grant a certificate to allow the class action to proceed. I am not necessarily concerned about the procedural part of that. What is of interest, and why I want to use that as an illustration, is to show that the residents of that particular part of the Province of Ontario found it necessary in not only naming a corporate giant, but felt that it also had to name the provincial government for its failure to adequately monitor, adequately protect, adequately ensure that the interests of the people of that particular part of Ontario, that their interests were being protected.

I think it provides for us, although in another jurisdiction, an excellent example as to how governments must always be mindful that they are there to protect the interests of the people of the Province and not to, by virtue of the very deal that has been negotiated, and hopefully, from government's point of view, wants to be put forward; not put itself in a position that it cozies up to the very proponent that it is engaging in these high level negotiations with. It is an example that, I think, has to be kept in mind. I strongly encourage government to ensure that it look out to the interests of the electorate, and that must come first. Obviously, there have been failures in the past and the example of Port Colborne, Ontario, is one of them.

Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps another example, and it is a bit closer to home. It is an example whereby it is again imperative that government always ensure that the people of the Province are protected. I want to refer to the efforts of the Metis Nation in Labrador. As we all know, Inco has entered into significant benefit agreements with both the LIA and the Innu Nation, but there are a third group of individuals, totaling, according to their numbers, approximately 6,000 with some 5,500 of them living in Labrador and approximately 400 or 500 on the Island of Newfoundland. There are some 5,000 to 6,000 constituents of this Province who feel that they have been let down by their provincial government for its failure not to advocate on their behalf, to intervene on their behalf, to counsel on their behalf, to attempt to negotiate a solid benefits agreement with the proponent, with Inco, for the benefit of some 5,000 to 6,000 constituents of this Province.

It is an example, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to add the fact, that particular constituency, the Metis Nation of Labrador, have proposed to Inco, for example, a benefits package including: employment and training benefits, environmental monitoring, procurement and contracts, liaison, a workforce hosting arrangements. These types of features are similar to any other impacts or benefits agreements that I am sure the proponent has entered into with both the LIA and the Innu Nation. They have attempted to work out an arrangement with the proponent. So far, from what I understand, that has not been completed. But again, it provides an example - and this is my point - whereby a government can intervene on behalf of the electorate, on behalf of a segment of society that it truly represents, to ensure that their interests are being put forward and that their concerns are brought to the table with a major proponent to guarantee that their rights are protected. Again, it is an example of coziness. It is an example of where sometimes governments forget what this is all about and just fail to realize at all times that they are there for a particular reason first and foremost. As I say, this is a local example, but one that I believe illustrates the importance of that particular notion.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 1996 and I guess since that date, which is now - I was elected in February of 1996, so we are well into the seventh year, and I am into my seventh year. I guess there was hardly a day when the issue of Voisey's Bay was not mentioned in some way, shape or form in this Legislature; either it was mentioned during debate, or maybe there was a question for Question Period, maybe there was a ministerial statement or some announcement by government, but, of course, it was front and center, certainly since I have been an elected member of this House.

I followed the debate quite closely, Mr. Speaker, and there are a number of quotes that stand out in my mind. Several of these are very recent, but I guess it goes to show the mindset and where we really are. I think it is important for the people of the Province to understand that yes, government is putting forward its position but there is another position in terms of not necessarily what we are saying - because the people of the Province will have that opportunity to hear us throughout the next three days - but what perhaps Inco is saying and Inco is thinking. I would like to refer to an April news release of this year and a comment by Scott Hand to a special meeting of his shareholders in Toronto. There are two brief quotes, if I may. This is according to Scott Hand.

"Our operation at Thompson began in 1961. Thompson has also yielded massive and profitable nickel, although on a smaller scale than Sudbury. In spite of our extensive exploration program in recent years, this resource appears closer to depletion. To maintain production, we've been bringing in external feeds from Australia and we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador."

"The VBN feed will give us additional time to explore and find solutions for Thompson and to plan additional mine development in Ontario. We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come."

Mr. Speaker, another comment by a former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Inco, Mr. Michael Sopko. He makes a very brief statement, when in the longer description was talking about this particular project. He says, "...projects such as Voisey's Bay are godsends because of their extremely low production costs."

Mr. Speaker, a comment, "In March, Peter Jones, Inco's President and Chief Operating Officer, said the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is being "more flexible" than ever in negotiations over the development of Voisey's Bay. He said negotiations have moved from former Premier Brian Tobin's position where no concentrate could be shipped from Newfoundland and Labrador for processing, to how many kilotonnes of concentrate can be shipped out of Newfoundland and Labrador for processing under Roger Grimes."

"In fact, Mr. Jones summarized Inco's position quite nicely. He said, "Obviously we want to ship concentrate for as long as possible."

One of my favorite, and this is the final one that I will refer to. One of my favorite quotes, Mr. Speaker, is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Bill Comaskey, who is the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba. In referring to a pending deal - because obviously this was made prior to the Statement of Principles. In referring to that deal the Mayor of Thompson stated, "We do not see it as a threat to us whatsoever. As a matter of fact we see it as a benefit and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it obviously is a great benefit and it's a good opportunity for Canadians and we wouldn't mind sharing in that benefit."

Mr. Speaker, it is these sorts of commentaries that we hear from time to time which obviously we must be mindful of. They reflect from time to time a genuine concern that is shared by my colleagues on this side of the House, and it perhaps provides for us an opportunity to stay in focus as to where we are, what we are talking about, what the resource truly means to all of us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and what it ultimately will mean, not only for us here today, but as I began, Mr. Speaker, for those children yet unborn; those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians yet unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I still have a few minutes left, according to the time. Very often, Mr. Speaker - and the Premier made reference to it, the fact that, oh yes, we will hear during the next three days what happened in the 1960s and we will hear about the failure of the Upper Churchill agreement and so on. Well, I think it is important - and again, this is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are often skeptical and truly concerned about any major deal such as this. But, we do not have to go back to the 1960s, and we do not have to go back to thirty, forty, fifty years ago. We can go back to several years ago. I think that this is important, Mr. Speaker, so that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, can reflect upon, really, what can happen when things go wrong.

Now, obviously, what I am about to refer to does not have the vast significance of what we are talking about today. However, for people of this Province, particularly the people of the Burin Peninsula, it was of extreme importance. It cost this Province, and the people of this Province, one heck of a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about, obviously, the Marystown Shipyard. In January of 1997, Cabinet authorized the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to provide a clear mandate to the Board of Directors of the Marystown Shipyard Limited to pursue the divestiture of that Crown corporation under general direction from government.

In June of 1997, Mr. Speaker, the Province was informed that Friede Goldman International expressed interest in purchasing the facilities. In September of 1997, there was a Memorandum of Understanding signed between government and Friede Goldman and its affiliates. Some of the conditions in that memorandum included the following: To maintain a minimum of 1.2 million man hours per year for the calendar years, 1998, 1999, 2000 and in default, be required to pay government $10 million, $5 million and $5 million respectively, and to pay 50 per cent of any net after tax profits of the facilities to government relating to the year ending March, 1998.

In December of 1997, Mr. Speaker, there was an asset purchase agreement signed between government and its affiliates, and Friede Goldman and its affiliates. In January of 1998, there was a share purchase agreement signed between government and Friede Goldman for - and we all know the figure - $1.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, in April of the year 2001, as an Opposition, we called upon government to bring legislation to the House immediately when it reopens and to recover from Friede Goldman the assets of the shipyard and the Cow Head Fabrication Facility. On April 20, 2001, Mr. Speaker, there was a news release indicating that Friede Goldman Halter Incorporated, the parent company of Friede Goldman Newfoundland in Marystown, has filed for chapter eleven bankruptcy; a day after the company failed to secure a $100 million loan to pay a creditor.

In September of 2001, there are reports that another company was negotiating to buy the Marystown Shipyard. Just several months ago, in March of 2002, we issued a press release wondering simply why, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Province, that between $10 million and $20 million in penalties that the people of the Province were entitled to was not attempted to be recovered from that very company that had just sold the facility.

Mr. Speaker, this is a recent example of where, unfortunately, things had gone wrong. This is a very recent example of where it is only clear and obvious that, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have to be skeptical and we have to be truly concerned. We do not have to go back to the 1960s. We do not have to go back to those dark and difficult days when agreements were made that only we talk about forty and fifty years later, and that our children, our grandchildren and their children will remember for a long, long time in terms of what that period of time meant in our history in this Province. But, we have a recent example of when things are not done right, when agreements are not put into effect that are there ultimately to protect the concerns and the interests of every single person in the Province. When it is not done right, we ultimately suffer the consequences.

That is what this exercise is about and that is why we, as an Opposition, make absolutely no apologies for asking these questions, for making these comments, for reflecting the opinion of the constituents that we represent. We are carrying out a role that we take very seriously, and we do this on behalf of all of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add as well the fact - and this was interesting because, again, it perhaps goes to show that this is where the proponent is coming from and this is the mindset of Inco. Last week, almost simultaneous with the news conference of last week, in fact it was almost to the very hour, precisely one week ago, on June 11, there was a press release issued by Inco and there was also a Web cast. Just a couple of days ago, I was reviewed the Web cast and I found some wording at the very end of the Web cast that I did not pick up as I was reading the actual news release. I think it is important to share this with the people of the Province, to show, perhaps, how open-ended much of the language is, how conditional many of these provisions are, and exactly where Inco feels it stands as shown by clause 11 of the Statement of Principles, when it tries to describe its undertakings in language, to use an expression of my leader, that you could drive a truck through, but it is repeated, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the very concluding comments of the Web cast. I will just like to again refer to it. This is Inco's wording: This release contains forward-looking statements regarding the Voisey's Bay nickel/copper/cobalt project and Inco.

The next line is interesting: Actual results may differ materially from these statements, estimates and projections depending on - here are the qualifiers, and there are many of them, Mr. Speaker - such key factors as the timing of the receipt and terms of all necessary regulatory governmental and other approvals and arrangements for the Voisey's Bay project, demonstration plant results, the availability of financing on reasonable terms, cost of production, products to be produced, and production productivity and employment levels for the Voisey's Bay project, engineering and construction timetables and capital and operating costs for various parts or facilities of the Voisey's Bay project, the settlement of land claims with Aboriginal groups concerning the Voisey's Bay project, risks involved in mining, processing, exploration and research, and development activities relating to the Voisey's Bay project, the accuracy of reserve estimates and expenses related to the Voisey's Bay project, accounting adjustments, and the provincial tax regime for the Voisey's Bay project.

This is Inco's language, Mr. Speaker. This is found in the Web cast. Here are the conditions. Here are the uncertainties. This is why, as the Official Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat for one minute.

It is now 12:00 and I believe under the agreement we would be breaking at 12:00, but I understand the hon. member does have some time left. Is it agreed that we would hear the hon. member and then break for lunch?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) we would carry on with the hon. member's speech to its conclusion and we would then close.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. the Government House Leader. I will conclude momentarily.

Just to refer to what I had just read, obviously, Mr. Speaker, what is read here in terms of these qualifiers, and what is read here and what we read from this document, these conditions, this is why, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are concerned. This is why we are going to continue asking the questions, and this is why, unlike what the Premier may think in terms of who is going to vote how this coming Thursday, this is why, Mr. Speaker, we will put forward, ask the tough questions, hold government's feet to the fire to ensure that the interests of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian are protected. I will stand up here as an Opposition member and a member of the party that I represent, Mr. Speaker, and do that most proudly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This House now 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.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all hon. members of the House and the Chair, himself, for the privilege today of being in a position to ask these most crucial and critical and important questions to the future of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, my questions will be for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, Scott Hand of Inco issued a news release stating that - perhaps, Mr. Speaker I will redirect my question, if that would be satisfactory. My question will actually, in fact, be for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Scott Hand of Inco issued a news release stating that Inco and the government had agreed on a Statement of Principles. That release was issued on June 11, 2002. He indicated the uncertainty about such statements and estimates being accurate when he said, and I quote, "This release contains forward-looking statements regarding the Voisey's Bay nickel-copper-cobalt project and Inco. Actual results may differ materially from these statements, estimates and projections depending on such key factors as the timing of the receipt and terms of all necessary....approvals". I am shortcutting this a little bit. There is no attempt to omit, but in the essence of time, Mr. Speaker. As well, "...governmental and other approvals....the availability of financing on reasonable terms; costs of production, products to be produced, and production, productivity and employment levels for the Voisey's Bay project; engineering and construction timetables and capital and operating costs for various parts or facilities of the Voisey's Bay project...."

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: Does he agree with Mr. Hand, that the statements, estimates and projections contained in the Statement of Principles may differ materially from what actually happens?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can indicate is that, as I understand it, Mr. Hand - I believe his title is Chairman and CEO of a major national and international corporation - is always advised and is prudent as a CEO to do exactly that whenever they talk to the investment community and to their own shareholders and stakeholders about a project that is going to develop over the next thirty years, they never pretend, Mr. Speaker. It is not prudent to pretend that they know precisely exactly how much money they will make from any part of the project at any one point in time. They give estimates and then they give a disclaimer so that people could never, ever hold them to say: You said you were going to make $1 million, and then, if it turns out to be $2 million or $500,000, that the disclaimer is standard business practice to make sure that people do not try to hold them to those commitments but are given as a range so that people understand what the benefits are expected to be. This is standard business practice, nothing more or less than that, Mr. Speaker.

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 will ask the Premier again. Mr. Hand made the statement that there would be a material difference, there could possibly be a material difference in the Statement of Principles and the estimates and projections. I am asking the Premier to confirm whether he also agrees, whether he thinks that there could, in fact, be a material difference with respect to the statements that are in the Statement of Principles and the projections and estimates contained therein?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me give the same answer again. It is standard practice for the CEO and head of any major corporation to give the appropriate information to the investment community that they are hoping to arrange financing from and to their own stakeholders and shareholders with respect to what the prospects are for profit margins and those things. It is clear that there is nothing extraordinary about it, there is nothing out of the ordinary about it. It is routine, normal practice, especially when you have something of this magnitude that is going to go on for a thirty-year minimum and likely long beyond that. It is a standard, prudent practice for a CEO to make such statements.

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 heard the Premier, I think today or yesterday, indicate publicly that he was prepared to come in and he was looking forward to answering questions. Unfortunately, we are right back where we started back in the last session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this government is, in fact, spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to try and convince the people that it has kept all of its commitments to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people I have spoken to particularly take great exception to that. By using the exact wording in the Statement of Principles, not my own words, we will make it abundantly clear that government has not, in fact, met its commitments.

My question concerns the fact that today we are debating a meaningless document which, according to clause 2 of the document, is not intended to be and does not create any legally binding obligations. In fact, it states that the parties will use their best efforts, and their best efforts alone, to finalize binding agreements by September 30, 2002, if, and only if, both Inco and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador can mutually agree; that is, both agree.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: How can he tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I quote him this morning from his address at 10 o'clock this morning - that nothing will change, nothing will be added or deleted from this Statement of Principles, when the Statement of Principles itself talks about definitive and detailed binding agreements -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: - at a later date in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the people of the Province would be just as interested in finding out what it is that caused the Leader of the Opposition to change his position completely since May 15. Because in this Legislature on May 15, and I have a copy of the verbatim transcript of the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he makes two comments that are relevant, Mr. Speaker. The first one, and this is the Leader of the Opposition, "What is the point in bringing this deal before this House of Assembly after the deal is signed, after the deal is delivered, after the deal is final and binding and committed, to the people of the Newfoundland and Labrador?"

Continuing on, the same Leader of the Opposition just a month ago said this -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) looking for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for that. I am glad you reminded me. That is what you are looking for today. The Member for Bonavista South said they are looking for these final binding agreements.

The Leader of the Opposition, on May 15, said, and here are his words, "We are not asking this government to bring the deal itself before this Legislature. We want the framework of the deal, not when the deal is done."

Maybe he can describe what has changed about the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the Official Opposition in the thirty-one or thirty-two days since we committed to this debate back in May month, Mr. Speaker.

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 would like to remind the Premier that we have three days to deal with this, and three Question Periods of thirty minutes each. There is no time for this nonsense or foolishness. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know in my heart and soul that the Premier of this Province would certainly not intentionally mislead the people of this Province. However -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: To correct that matter that was raised by the Premier, I will read exactly what I said in Hansard on May 15, Mr. Speaker. My exact words were: "Let me make it very clear -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - that the framework of the deal includes all the terms of the deal. That is what we want to see in the House of Assembly." That is why we are going through this process, Premier; not a framework, all the terms.

Mr. Speaker, this project is estimated, by some, to be in the vicinity of $40 billion to $50 billion. I would ask the Premier: Is he telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we must vote on an eighteen page Statement of Principles that represents the full deal as he stated publicly on the airwaves of this Province, and again this morning, that nothing will be added or deleted because that, Mr. Speaker, is clearly incorrect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to deal with the question, as we will with all the questions that are asked over the next three days and all the comments that are made in the representations made by Members of the House of Assembly in their allotted time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important, as part of this debate in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the people to know that the Official Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition, completely changed their minds in thirty-one days. I believe that is a relevant part to the debate, Mr. Speaker. When you do look at the statement - because it was later in the same Question Period where he changed his mind - when I offered to debate the framework right away, they declined as an Opposition and said: We do not want the framework. Actually, let me make it very clear as he said, "...that the framework of the deal includes all the terms of the deal."

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is before the Legislature today. This Statement of Principles has all of the component parts of this particular deal contained in it; every single one, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech this morning; and I look forward to hearing the Leader of the Opposition in his hour some time soon. Every single one of the components of this deal, well beyond the framework, are in the Statement of Principles.

This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the elected members to have their say about what the component parts are, whether they make sense or do not make sense, or whether they would prefer to have had them some other way. We understand that fully and completely, but nothing will change between now and September because the negotiations, as I have stated before, are complete. They are finished. It is over. There will be a change from English to legal text and that is the only thing that will occur between now and September, Mr. Speaker.

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 take issue with the Premier's statement that all the terms of the deal are contained in the framework. I refer him to clause 3 of the Statement of Principles, "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... act, (b) the completion of an Environmental Management Agreement, (c) the completion of required aboriginal agreements, including Impacts and Benefits Agreements... land claims agreements or other interim arrangements, (d) the issuance of a mining lease...". As well, the corporate tax arrangements and the Industrial Employment Benefits Agreement. I ask the Premier: Are these agreements complete? Are they contained completely in the act? If not, why not? If they are, can we have them please, so that we can have all the terms of agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give the answer again. A clause like clause 3 is standard practice in these types of Statement of Principles, much as was done with respect to the Hibernia arrangements where a Statement of Principles was developed and then the lawyers were sent off to put it into proper legal language. The negotiations were concluded when the Statement of Principles was done, Mr. Speaker. The negotiators went home. The negotiators were finished. The negotiators retired and went on to other jobs. The lawyers then took over and put into legally binding language what was agreed to by the negotiators. In this case, the negotiators for Inco and negotiators for the government on behalf of the people of the Province.

All of the component parts that are listed in clause 3 are all required parts. Everyone of them is well in hand. Everyone one of them is in progress and it even states further, in the Statement of Principles, the basis on which they are to be concluded to maximize benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to change the legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the mining tax and royalty. All those things are in the Statement of Principles. All those things are highlighted. All those things - it is pointed out for the lawyers how they are to be finally written. Not that they go and debate whether they should be written or not. Not that they go and debate and negotiate how they should be written. Those directions are all given in the Statement of Principles. The negotiators are finished. All the component parts outlined are well in hand, well in progress and will take place in the proper amounts of time so that the permits can be given, the agreements can be signed.

We understand that the Aboriginal communities have to conduct their own votes, we are going to conduct our vote this week, and then everything will fall into place according to the schedule laid out in the Statement of Principles.

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, with all due respect to the hon. the Premier and to the Chair, these agreements are only referenced in this Statement of Principles. We do not have these very, very important agreements which set out our Aboriginal claims, which set out our corporate tax agreement, which set out our industrial benefits agreements, and which set out the employment benefits in this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Would he provide those agreements to us prior to the vote on Thursday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just let me take two by way of example. The environmental management agreements that are referenced are ones where there is no negotiation, no leeway. They are agreements that must be put in place respecting the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. The work has already been largely done. There is nothing that anybody can say. Well, let's ignore the law. It is done, everybody knows how it is going to be done. The people who are responsible for it are getting the permitting in place as we speak. There is nothing to table, Mr. Speaker.

As I said before, anything that is available in the public domain, as it becomes finalized on the way through and to September 30, anything that is available, will be made available to the people of the Province, anyone who wants it under the rules of the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Aboriginal agreements, the Aboriginal benefit agreements are private, absolutely private, negotiations between the company, Inco, and the Aboriginal communities. They are having their own discussion about it inside their own communities with their own people. They are having a vote on Monday coming. Mr. Speaker, it is not something that we were involved in negotiations in. It is not something that we have a right to even table. It is up to Peter Penashue, as the head of the Innu Nation, and up to William Barbour, as the President of the Labrador Inuit Association, to decide when they determine that agreements on Aboriginal issues should be made public to anyone other than their members.

Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of issues that are referenced. There are proper processes for each. I would suggest to you, in all fairness, that what we are dealing with here are issues that are really not relevant to this debate at all, but they are being raised to try to suggest that there are some contrived concerns rather than real or legitimate concerns that should be expressed.

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 again respectfully beg to differ with the Premier. These are matters of very, very grave concern and importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am still only dealing with the first page of the Statement of Principles. Paragraph 3 states that, in order for Inco to proceed, it must arrange suitable financing for development on a financially prudent basis.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: Would he not agree that the entire project is subject to suitable financing by Inco?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, of course, that goes without question or without saying. Any business person in any environment anywhere that proposes to go ahead and put in place a business deal, once they have the agreement from the people that they need, which is the government in this place, because they need a mining lease, they know the conditions now in which they can get a mining lease, then they go to the people who are going to finance it and convince them that it is a good enough business deal so that they get the money they need to invest. It is standard practice, Mr. Speaker. I do not even know why it would be the result of a question. I cannot understand why anyone would even think other than that. Of course they have to go and get the money, and everybody does understand.

I think what the Opposition has been suggesting out of the other side of their mouth, and they are raising this as a potential concern, I have seen a press release where the Leader of the Opposition is saying that we are giving them a $3 billion signing bonus. So, I don't expect they will have any trouble getting the money if that is the case.

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 am very pleased that the Premier has acknowledged that this entire project is suitable to financing. I would now ask the Premier to acknowledge that, if suitable financing is not obtained by Inco at any phase of this project, then does that mean that particular phase may never happen? That means the nickel matte refinery, that means the hydromet processing, that means the other facility referred to in the agreement, and that also means the complete underground exploration project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to see what is supposed to be a serious business-type of debate turning into a political one fairly early in the game. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because we do have the Leader of the Opposition, who has stated, erroneously by the way, without giving the full information, that we are about to give Inco a gift of some $3 billion. Mr. Speaker that is what he has stated and he left out the rest of the sentence which also shows that, at that point in time, they will have spent $3 billion in Newfoundland and Labrador. So it is convenient then, Mr. Speaker, to say that.

The fact of the matter is this: There are no conditions whatsoever that do not see a full-scale plant built in Argentia. Mr. Speaker, the point is this, and I spelled it out this morning had he listened to the representation. Maybe he was busy thinking about something else, because he did not see fit to speak to it yet. We will get to that later on. Mr. Speaker, had he listened, he would understand this. He would understand, as do all the people of the Province, that in 2008 - and I pointed out this morning the checkpoints and the balances that we put in to make sure they meet their commitments - in 2008, at the end of it, they will have taken about a billion dollars worth of nickel from Newfoundland and Labrador. They will have spent well over a billion dollars, and their right to do anything in Newfoundland and Labrador ceases absolutely unless they build at least the $670 million plant; and at that point, Mr. Speaker, we will have secured everything for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nobody today who would predict or expect, with this kind of an ovoid, with this kind of a rich project, that anybody is going to stop a project when they have invested a billion dollars, got back a billion dollars, still have 85 per cent or 90 per cent of a very rich ovoid staring them in the face, and that anybody is going to think that you are not going to be able to get financing for an $800 million plant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - when there is there is $10 billion, I believe I heard the Opposition Leader say, $10 billion worth of nickel left in the ground on the surface without even going underground.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to how we can speak out of both sides of our face to suggest that the government is giving this away, that the company is gong to be extremely rich and wealthy, that Mr. Hand got the better part of this deal, and, in the meantime, now raise the spectre that they are going to be bankrupt, that they will not be able to meet any of their commitments, that they are not going to have any money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask the Opposition: Which of those do you believe is going to happen? Are we going to make them very rich or are they going to go bankrupt? It cannot be both.

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, I am sure that five years ago, both Enron and Friede Goldman were able to obtain suitable financing whenever they wanted it.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the Premier again, and the Premier has acknowledged a very, very fundamental flaw in this agreement; that this agreement is subject to suitable financing. That means that at any stage of this project, any phase whatsoever can be dropped off or eliminated or cancelled, which I repeat, includes the hydromet facility, the nickel matte refinery, the other facility, or the underground exploration program. I ask the Premier: Does that not, in fact, mean that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not have the absolute ironclad guarantee that those facilities will, in fact, take place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do have the absolute guarantee that I have referred to, and suitable financing, as the Leader of the Opposition would know, because he, as many other people, have been in business for a long time and been successful at it, suitable financing is an ordinary and very standard phrase to put into any particular project. What we have done on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the assistance and help and guidance and advice of the very best corporate lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the very best corporate lawyers in Canada - as a matter of fact, one of them is the person who wrote the book on it, who actually teaches these things at the university; that is the caliber of the people we have, Mr. Speaker - they have indicated that what we have done is, we have protected the resource in Newfoundland and Labrador for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every single step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There can be no doubt about that. There can be no fear about that. There can be no concern about that, because there are so many provisions at every point along the way that return and protect the resource for Newfoundland and Labrador, that if Inco, for some strange reason, cannot meet its commitments, we have protected the resource for our people and we would have maximized our opportunities and our benefits in Newfoundland and Labrador right up to that point every single time. So there is no risk for the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: There is a guarantee that we are going to get the plant, and a guarantee that we can proceed with great confidence on that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

I listened with great interest this morning to his speech in this House on this important debate, and I did not hear throughout his entire speech one reference to the amount of money that his government and future Newfoundland and Labrador governments will receive from this deal. We heard about numbers of jobs and capital expenditure, some of which are dependent upon feasability studies. Is it because the Premier is ashamed of those numbers, that he cannot brag about them? Why is it that the Premier did not refer in any respect whatsoever to the benefits to the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador which are needed to provide the services on an ongoing basis to the people of this Province, whether in health care or education?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me assure the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, it was only due to lack of time. If I had another hour I could have bragged about some more great components of this particular deal but I ran short of time. In my concluding remarks, at the end of the debate, I will certainly raise that.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact, and I did mention that we are changing and committed to changing the royalty tax regime for mining projects on a generic basis; go forward in this Province so that we collect on royalties alone, in this particular project, $90 million more than the current law in the land. Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister has already provided information in Newfoundland and Labrador that shows that the provincial Treasury will accrue over a billion dollars directly to the Treasury, to the government itself. Never mind the $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year that thousands of families will have as income because of people working. Never mind the taxes into the communities where these people work and live. Never mind all the other benefits into the economy. Right direct to the Treasury, over the life of this project, there will be over a billion dollars to the Treasury, Mr. Speaker.

There were only so many things that I could outline this morning. We are delighted with the fiscal arrangements that are here, Mr. Speaker, and glad to speak about them at length any time in the future upon further questioning, because they are fair. They give us a return that is in the middle of the pack with respect to any regime anywhere in the western world. We do not overly tax the project nor do we under tax it to give it away for jobs. We have done away with the tax holiday that has been asked about before; put in a brand new tax regime that we will debate here in its entirety when we come back next fall.

Mr. Speaker, there is no shame about any part of this deal. This is a great deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would not want to be accused of this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: I would not want to be accused of suggesting that it is so rich to the Province that it is the panacea, that everything is cured and everything is fixed. I made that point, Mr. Speaker. We are very realistic about what we are doing here. This is very valuable and there is a huge contribution, not only to the people of the Province and to the communities but to the Treasury as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last figures that we had on this issue were tabled by Voisey's Bay nickel to the Environmental Assessment Panel in 1998. That showed the net benefits to this Province's treasury of $417 million over the life of the project, with $4.9 billion net benefit to the Government of Canada in Ottawa.

Will the Premier agree to table an updated version of that table showing exactly the breakdown of any benefits, net benefits, consequences of equalization payments, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Government of Canada similar to that table, so we can compare them, look at them and see what is left after equalization, see what is left after all of the things are taken into consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As everyone in the Province would know and everyone in this Legislature would know, we have not yet won the equalization debate. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it is recognized in the country that this government and this Premier has led the debate in Canada, to the point of getting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - unanimous consent of all premiers and territory leaders, most of them Conservative, some of them New Democratic - because there is only one other Liberal premier in the country. They agree that there should be changes to equalization because the equalization program, as it is now defined, does not treat provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, fairly. That is a completely different and completely separate debate from what accrues to the Treasury and to the people of this Province as a result of this project happening inside our boundaries. We have maximized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - the benefits, Mr. Speaker, that accrue to the people and to the Treasury through this arrangement as outlined in the Statement of Principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

We are now back to the debate on the Voisey's Bay resolution.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My voice is a little bit changed from what it normally is today, but I am certainly well enough to get up and take my twenty minutes in debate of this very important initiative that this government has finally come to completion with.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to premise my twenty minutes on the basis that when I entered politics in 1996 and joined this government, I made a commitment that I would work as hard as I could on behalf of the people that I represent in the Lake Melville District and also the people in Labrador. I also made a commitment that the decisions made would be in the best interest of Labrador. I also made a commitment that I would continue to do that as long as I was elected. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the decision that we made on this particular project is another one that is very beneficial to the people that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take twenty minutes just to do two parts. First of all, I want to start off by discussing a little bit of the benefits that this project will bring to my district. Then I will deal a little bit with the project itself and the benefits to the Aboriginal community, and that is from the department I represent.

Mr. Speaker, what this project means to my district - and if anybody was in Goose Bay last Tuesday, a week ago today, would have some understanding of the excitement that people had when we were up there. All parties together: the Aboriginals, the Innu, the Inuit, Inco, the provincial government, all sitting together inking an agreement, Mr. Speaker, that is going to bring huge benefits to my district.

Over the last number of years the economy in Happy Valley-Goose Bay has been very flat. We have been waiting for a project to come to stimulate the economy in the area. We have had many businesses come and go; businesses geared up, geared down. We had expectations that there would be a deal, then they would fade away. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has seen the business community last week in my area would certainly vouch to the fact that this is a very stimulating project for those businesses that have been waiting for so long to have this done.

The Voisey's Bay project is vital for the economy in the District of Lake Melville; both for the economic and social growth. It is going to create long-term development. It is also going to create long-term development for both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. Mr. Speaker, that is a very important piece of this particular deal. We have gone years and years and years where the Aboriginal community has wanted to get in on this and wanted to become a part of these developments but could never do it.

One of the things that we have to remember about this particular project - and I will speak more to the mine and mill/concentrator in terms of the benefits to my area. We should remember that this is going to be a fly-in, fly-out operation. It is not going to be a new village or a new community built in Voisey's Bay. This is going to be a fly-in and fly-out, because this is a long-term project. If we look out to the year 2010, we are talking about probably 800 workers flying in and out.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits to the Lake Melville District are going to come mainly from the mine and mill/concentrator project at Voisey's Bay. One of the main focuses of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area is that it is going to be a bedroom community. Just to expand on that for a moment, the procurement office is going to be set up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The environmental assessment office is going to be set up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. What does this mean? It means that there is going to be opportunities in the community and the surrounding area for support jobs. There are going to be business opportunities because we are only an hours flight from the mine site in Voisey's Bay. For the supply of goods and services to the operating mine site, it has to come through there. Also, there are other advantages to Happy Valley-Goose Bay; in the fact that the Voisey's Bay deal is going to certainly spur a lot more of the work that is required when you look for minerals in the earth, and that is exploration.

In 1995-1996, when Voisey's Bay was discovered, there was a big rush. It certainly caused a big jump in the economy in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We see that as another positive from this particular development. The community is going to grow. The community is going to expand. Over the new highway that we are building - also that we announced just a few short months ago - there will be a lot more goods and services travelling in over that.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of my district; my district stands to benefit extremely positively from this particular development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that the MP is 100 per cent behind this project; 100 per cent behind this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: I could also read a press release from the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, who is 110 per cent behind this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: There are a number of others I could read off as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are more benefits than just to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and I would like to turn my attention now a little bit to the project itself and the benefits that will come to the Aboriginal communities, which is a very important component to this particular project.

We all know that we are going to have a mine, mill and a concentrator built in Voisey's Bay. That requires a lot of construction. There is also going to be underground exploration and there will also be underground mining eventually.

Mr. Speaker, just from now until 2006 when the mine, mill and concentrator is up and operating, there is going to be $710 million spent on that development. When you look at that kind of an area, you know that it has to benefit extremely well the people who are adjacent to that particular project. There are also going to be between 400 and 800 people working up there, directly employed. That does not include all the service and support jobs that come with that. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of benefits that will certainly help in our region.

For many years, since I was elected in 1996, throughout regional and community meetings, the message was always the same: we need to resolve land claims and we need to resume developments in Labrador which would benefit all the people of Labrador, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, this particular government realized that we could do a lot more working together. I think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the cornerstones of this particular government is that we were able to all come together to see this development signed off. This, Mr. Speaker, is for the benefit of all people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal groups were for many years seeking access to provincial resources; because one thing we have to remember about the Aboriginal communities is that they want to become independent. They want to be able to, on their own, realize the benefits and improve the lifestyle in their communities, because they always have and currently have a dependency on governments to support them and they do not know what they are going to get from one day to the next. Mr. Speaker, that is a very important aspect of it.

Let me just read this, Mr. Speaker: The Labrador Innu and Inuit have long waited for economic prosperity. Today, we are proud to say together that their time has arrived.

Mr. Speaker, that is important. We are certainly proud that the Labrador Innu and Inuit are partners in this development and that they have a project which will benefit them greatly economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just economics. It is the social aspect of the communities that are going to improve as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Voisey's Bay project provides them with an opportunity to participate in a world-class development while preserving their own culture and their own rights. Mr. Speaker, that is important as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, my responsibly in terms of arriving at this deal, as the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, is to basically deal with the Aboriginal components that make up the deal, because they are partners. One of those, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that we do not have the final Land Claims Agreements in place so we had to enter into interim measures agreements under chapter seven of their land claims, which allowed us, as a government, and Inco, as a company, to proceed to the signing that we did last week.

Mr. Speaker, these agreements, both with the Innu and the Inuit, were arrived at in probably not a really substantial way, but it also provided them with an indication of what they would receive in royalties, and it would clarify what they are entitled to in terms of lands selection following the mine windup. They would be still entitled to fish and hunt in the area where it did not interfere with the working of the mine site. It also allowed them to enter IBAs, which the Premier referenced earlier on. Mr. Speaker, those agreements were negotiated by the provincial government and the Aboriginal groups to allow this project to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there was mention earlier of the Environmental Management Agreement. That is another agreement that is put in place to ensure that the project moves forward on a very regular basis and that this Environmental Management Committee was set up to identify any concerns that may arise. Even though it is only an advisory board, it is also a board that can deal with the technical aspects of the project. One of the areas they have to deal with is to avoid delays in terms of permitting and providing advice to the minister for the decisions in terms of the permits that are issued to the company. Mr. Speaker, the office for this particular board will likely be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is another benefit.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member for St. John's East this morning, there were IBAs negotiated by the Aboriginal groups and the company - and I think the Premier identified that very clearly - these are agreements between the company and the Aboriginal groups. We were not party to those negotiations. I understand, from talking to the leaders of those two organizations, that once the agreements are ratified on June 24, they will make a decision at that time whether or not they will release some of the information to the public or whether they will release any information to the public. They are not inclined to release the whole thing to the public because it is particular private agreements between the Aboriginal groups and the company.

Mr. Speaker, in the IBAs, just as an example of what are in the IBAs, it provides for education and training opportunities for the Aboriginals. It also provides employment objectives and opportunities for the Aboriginals; business opportunities for the Aboriginals, something totally new, something they were never involved in before. It also includes areas of environmental protection and, of course, there are financial benefits that accrue through these particular agreements.

Mr. Speaker, for the LIA, one of the very critical and important aspects of their IBA with the company was the fact of winter shipping, because, for anybody who does not understand the issues in that part of Labrador, that is a critical route for the hunters and the traditional way of life for the Inuit up in that area. So it is very critical that we have an agreement on how the winter shipping is going to proceed. That is a part of the IBA, so they will discuss that, Mr. Speaker.

As far as the Labrador Métis is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Métis Nation will be included in the adjacency principle which is a part of the process that is going to be handled by the company for workers in Labrador on the mine, mill and concentrator site. Mr. Speaker, there will be opportunities in training for the Labrador Métis. They currently receive Aboriginal funding through HRDC and they will be able to continue to receive that under these new programs that will be available because of this project. They will also have the second right for jobs at the site because of the adjacency principle that is in place through the environmental assessment process. So, Mr. Speaker, none of these people will be ignored. Mr. Speaker, all of these people will have an opportunity.

On the site itself, we have a number of other aspects as well. There is a lot of shipping that is going to be done. There will be opportunities for young people to train as mariners. Mr. Speaker, under the adjacency principle, the Labrador people will have an opportunity for training and for jobs and also for business opportunities because of the adjacency principle. That was included in both the discharge agreement and also the environmental assessment that was done on the project in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would also just like to take a minute on the Innovation Centre. This is going to be a huge opportunity for all of our young people who are coming along - not so much our age, we will not get into too many masters degrees and undergraduate degrees - but for our young people coming along, because we have to remember one thing, Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term project. This is not a project that is going to come today and go tomorrow. This is a project, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be here long after we are gone.

In the Argentia area, Mr. Speaker, it will probably go 100 years. I look at it from that perspective, Mr. Speaker, that this is a positive thing and not something that we have to find a whole lot of holes in, because this is the real thing, that there are going to be opportunities for our younger people.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to congratulate the negotiators: the Premier and Minister Matthews and their teams, who have done an excellent job in arriving at a really excellent project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate one minute in saying that I am going to vote yes for this project. I think it is time for us to move on and get it done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to stand today and say a few words on this so-called Voisey's Bay deal, Mr. Speaker. I say so-called Voisey's Bay deal, Mr. Speaker, because what we really have here - and the members on the other side of the House maybe do not want to hear this, because I understand it took the Premier day after day after day to convince these people on the other side of the House to support this deal. The real thing here, Mr. Speaker, thirteen hours, the real issue here is that this is a framework for negotiations.

We heard the critic for Mines and Energy up this morning for an hour responding to the Premier's address and he pointed out very many loopholes, Mr. Speaker, very many loopholes in this. He talked about the weak wording in this eighteen page document, the Statement of Principles only.

Mr. Speaker, when I read this document and studied this Statement of Principles, I realized then and there, immediately, why it took the Premier so long to convince the government members to go along with this deal. I mean, it was obvious.

We also saw, by the way, that the very same day that the big announcement was made, we saw the ads on television and heard them on radio immediately following the Premier's announcement on the deal itself. Prior to that, though, the day before and the day before that, and all that weekend, there is no deal, there is no deal. We are still working on it. Yet, these ads were prepared.

Madam Speaker, we saw this Administration spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to try and sell them on this deal. Now, those are their words. The Premier, himself, said: We have to go across this Province and sell this deal. Taking the taxpayers' dollars, hundreds of thousands that we know of, and taking out ads in the various papers, big ads, full-page ads like this here. Full-page ads, coloured ads, with the Premier's picture, of course, plastered all over the ads. If it is such a great deal, wouldn't this deal just sell itself? That is what I ask the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Shouldn't it sell itself?

This morning, I listened very attentively to the Premier's comments for one hour, and I want to say a few words on those comments. The Premier said that there is no requirement for this debate in the House of Assembly. Well, we are here, and we are glad we are here to a certain extent. I would happier, of course, Madam Speaker, if the real deal, the deal that could be done in a month, two, three months down the road, by the end of September, was brought back to the House of Assembly. I want to expand on that because, if there is no requirement to bring this Statement of Principles to the House of Assembly, why could he not bring the final deal to the House of Assembly for debate? Because he is saying that it is the exact same thing. It is only a matter of translation to legalese, his words, and there would be no difference.

We know, by reading the document, the Statement of Principles, that there are loopholes all through that. The Leader of the Opposition said that you could drive a truck through this document, the holes are that big, and I would have to agree with that. So, why not bring the final deal here to the House of Assembly for debate before it is signed, Madam Speaker?

The Premier talked about the nine-year history of Voisey's Bay, since 1993, Madam Speaker, and he talked about how his government kept and met commitments. When I saw the ad on television, and I saw them in the paper, meeting our commitments, I really had to laugh. I actually laughed at that statement because we know over the past number of years in two previous elections that this government campaigned on two major issues with respect to Voisey's Bay. One would be that there would no ore leaving the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, they can say what they want, they can twist it all they want on the other side of the House, Madam Speaker, but the fact is, they made those statements. The other one was, I think, that if they did not have a smelter, there would be no deal. The Premier was on his feet all morning, for an hour there this morning, and I never heard much talk about a smelter. None. That would be quite a few jobs, I would think, with a smelter.

Also, Madam Speaker, he was up talking about Voisey's Bay and no ore leaving the Province until the hydromet plant is up and built and completed, but he did not say that the mill in Labrador with the mine - with the mine there has to be a mill, but the mill would have to be constructed and it is basically coinciding, one with the other. So, really, no ore could leave until the hydromet plant and the mill was done anyway. Again, just twisting words to make it look good, that they put restrictions in and there are no restrictions at all by any stretch of the imagination.

He also talked about - let me see now - yes, here is a very important one. He said in 2008 that the proponent would have to make a decision of which plant to build in Argentia. A very important point, Madam Speaker. Would it be a hydromet plant or would it be a nickel matte plant? Well, if you read the document, the Statement of Principles, Madam Speaker, what plant is going to be built, if we get a plant at all, depends on the feasibility study and if it viable and whatever the case maybe. Again, an out for Inco, not for the people of the Province, an out for Inco.

What he did not say, and he is not preaching this too much, Madam Speaker, is that if they go with a nickel matte plant, what happens? If Inco decides to build a nickel matte plant in Argentia, what happens? The ore, all of the ore, will be going out of the Province for the duration and the life of that project. Madam Speaker, they never said that. He is not too quick to make that announcement here in the House of Assembly.

Those are some of the comments that I wanted to address with respect to the Premier's comments this morning here in the House of Assembly.

Madam Speaker, again we talk about the ad campaign that is on. I never saw the like of it. I have been in politics for nine years, since 1993. We had the education reform issue. I never saw such saturation for a government to try and sell their point of view in the media, television, radio and the print.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your ad campaign.

MR. J. BYRNE: I want to address that. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just asked how about my ad campaign. I will tell you what I did in my district. I notice that the minister had a public meeting, I think, last night or the night before. Sixty people showed up, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, with respect to that, I want to address that because I did a lot of consulting in my district, let me tell you. I went to Pouch Cove, I went to Torbay, I went to Flatrock, Bauline, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Airport Heights, and I consulted with the people. It was a lot more than sixty individuals. I received e-mails, I received phone calls, I received letters, and I can tell you right here and now, by me standing here, I can tell you what I am going to do. I will be voting no on this. The people who contacted me, who I consulted with, are dead set against this because we do not know what the deal is, the final deal. We do not know. The people on the other side may say we do know, but they do not know themselves.

With this Statement of Principles, what are we getting for sure? Of course, we know that Inco will develop an open pit mining operation, initially, which is the ovoid. They are going to mine the rich ovoid. That is the surface ore, basically, that is not that deep into the ground. That is what they are going to get, the rich ore, for the first five years and maybe longer. We know that. We know ore will be shipped to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba, for five years and possibly for the duration of the life of the mine itself, of the project, maybe for the life of that if certain conditions are not met.

I happened to phone into the Open Line the other morning, as every member on the opposite side has been doing to saturate and try and put their point of view out. There was a lady who phoned just before I called in. She said she had lived in Thompson, Manitoba. She was speaking to her friends up there and what she said was that the people in that area were so glad to get the Voisey's Bay ore, they were praying that they would get the Voisey's Bay ore, because if they did not get it they would become a ghost town. From my perspective, when we are shipping ore out of this Province we are not only shipping ore. We are shipping jobs out of this Province. It is something that that government committed to for two elections, that they would not ship ore out of this Province. They are not living up to that commitment by any stretch of the imagination. No matter what they say, or how they try and stand on their feet and twist the facts, it is not the fact.

Also, we know that an experimental hydromet facility will be built at Argentia with $150 million of the taxpayers' money. Here is Inco getting, upfront, a $3 billion gift, and they will be getting $150 million from the people, taxpayers' money. Fine! Fine to do that, but when you compare that, Madam Speaker, to the fact that this Province is going to get $500,000 a year - $500,000 a year! Worse than the Churchill Falls deal! - in royalties, it is pittance. This government talked about getting the best deal they could get. I have to question that, Madam Speaker.

Also, the way this government is going around trying to sell this deal: They know they are going to share now - they are telling the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that they are going to share the royalties with all the towns in the Province. Now, we have hundreds of towns and we have $500,000 in royalties that we are going to receive, so how much are the towns going to get, Madam Speaker?

We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs talking about $23 million in capital grants -

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if he wants to interject, he can get up. I will listen to him, but I would wonder why it took thirteen hours for the Premier to convince him to support it. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs that.

Madam Speaker, that is what we are going to get out of this project. Everything else the Premier talked about this morning is conditional. It is conditional on feasibility studies, if it is viable, all these factors, doors opening, (inaudible) for Inco. No (inaudible) in it for us, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker. I wonder: Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs want to comment on that?

Now, I heard the Premier in the media talking about the Opposition out there playing politics with this. Every time the Premier is on his feet all he is doing is playing politics, every time he opens his mouth. He couldn't resist this morning for an hour when he was at it. Even in Question Period today, when he was being asked questions by the Leader of the Opposition, he couldn't resist being political and not answering the questions.

Now, we, as an Opposition, have a job to do, Madam Speaker. We have a job to do. We have a job to analyze anything that comes before this House of Assembly, any legislation, any resolutions which we are debating here today, the Voisey's Bay resolution. We have a job to analyze it, to criticize it, to critique it, to make constructive criticism on it, and to make recommendations. Oftentimes, in the House of Assembly, Madam Speaker, the government does listen, every now and then. Maybe they should pay more attention to what we have to say on this side of the House, I say to you, Madam Speaker.

Now, the other point that we have to make is that, since I have been in this House of Assembly the Opposition has been so consistent on this issue with respect to our policy on Voisey's Bay. It was in our policy manual in the last election. This government said there would be no ore leave the Province. They said there would be no deal without a smelter. We said all along that we did not want ore to leave this Province, because if ore goes out of the Province jobs go with it, and we desperately need jobs. We need more than hundreds of jobs in this Province, we need thousands of jobs, Madam Speaker, thousands. Hundreds of jobs in this project. Hopefully, there will be hundreds of jobs. Hopefully!

Now, to my mind, Madam Speaker - and here is the crux of it - this boils down to priorities. This whole project boils down to priorities, and I mean priorities for Inco. At this point in time we have the ovoid, the rich ore in Voisey's Bay, and the President and the executives of Inco have stated that it is probably one of the richest projects in the world, the richest ore in the world. They are tickled pink with it, basically, Madam Speaker, but at this point in time the priority for Inco is Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba. The priority for Inco is to take our ore, ship it to Thompson and Sudbury at this point in time, and promise us that down the road they will send it back here in ten, twenty, thirty years down the road. When our ore is gone, all of a sudden Newfoundland and Labrador is going to become a priority for Inco. Who could honestly believe that, Madam Speaker? I certainly cannot. I have seen too many deals in the past. I have been around and I have seen and read about too many deals in the past where we lost our resources, consistently lost our resources.

You can mark it down, Madam Speaker, that we are going to lose this ore, and I will be shocked. I will be the first one to stand, if I am around at that point in time - I doubt I will be around if ore ever comes back to this Province. I doubt if we will ever see it. What they are saying to us now is that Newfoundland and Labrador thirty years down the road, forty years, fifty years, when our ore is gone, the rich ore is gone, that we will be a priority. Not likely, Madam Speaker.

Another point, and this is a very important point, about the underground mining. They are talking about, I think, in the year 2018 that they could start the underground mining. They are talking about, in 2018, that they are going to go underground with the mine itself. But, Madam Speaker, that again depends on a number of factors: if it is viable; feasible to do so; if the exploration proves out that they should do it at that point in time.

We have heard in this House of Assembly before where the Leader of the Opposition, the critic, the Opposition House Leader, talk about how this project, the Voisey's Bay deal and the mine itself, would be best done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If they combined the ovoid mining and the underground mining at the same time it would be best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not what we are seeing here, Madam Speaker. What we are seeing now is five years of ovoid mining being done, as I said, the rich ore close to the surface of the ground being taken out of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, shipped off to Sudbury, Ontario, shipped off to Thompson, Manitoba, where the people up there were praying to get it and they have it. They are going to get, Madam Speaker, and it could be for the duration of this whole project.

I read the Statement of Principles. I paid close attention to it. We had a discussion here within our caucus on this and I can honestly tell you, Madam Speaker, that I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, support this deal. As a matter of fact, I will go as far as this, if every member in this House of Assembly, including my side, were going to support this deal, I could not stand in this House of Assembly and support it. I would have to vote against it. Now, I do not expect that to happen, that there will be very many supporting it from this side of the House, I can guarantee you, Madam Speaker. Maybe by the end of the week, maybe some of the members on the other side of the House will actually see the pitfalls in this statement of agreement, actually see it and come to their senses, in my mind, and say: You know, they are right. There are too many loopholes, there are too many faults. This is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee at all.

Madam Speaker, I say this to you. The Premier talks about guarantees, and he confirmed it in the House today. He confirmed that the only guarantee we have - stood in his place and said it - that we have the right to sue. Now, no backup with respect to bonds or money put aside, or charging so much and putting it into an account and putting it away, and if you do not deliver - none of that, but we have the right to sue. That is our guarantee, Madam Speaker. It is like me saying to you, with respect to a guarantee, Madam Speaker, see me in ten years time and I will give you a million dollars. I will put it in writing. I will guarantee it, but I do not have anything to back it up. I may not be around in ten years time to give it to you. The circumstances may change. Anything at all could happen; anything.

We have the Premier openly admitting that we have the right to sue. That is our guarantee. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what was committed to by this Administration in two elections. It was not what was committed to by Premier Tobin when he was there, when he resigned. Then we had Mr. Tulk who was Premier, he did not commit to that. Now, as soon as this man, the present Premier took over as the leader of the party, he decided then that it was okay for ore to leave this Province.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker. I know my time is just about up. I want to say that I hope members on the other side of the House will listen to what we are saying here and maybe give due consideration to it and not be taken in and listen to the high-pressure tactics of the Premier and the ad campaigns and vote, hopefully, with the their conscience and with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am glad today to have an opportunity to speak in this debate here in the House because, there is no doubt about it, it is a defining moment for us, as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Country of Canada.

I just want to take a couple of moments at the beginning to address some of the things that the Member for Cape St. Francis across the way suggested. I want to say to him, nobody twisted my arm. What we did in a session was go down through the document, the Statement of Principles, and had it explained to us. We took the time to go down through, clause-by-clause, to make sure that we understood it. At the end of the day the Premier said to us: After seeing that you make up your own minds. Do you know what? That to me is very, very important. I think for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they realize that our leader, the leader on this side, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is a commoner. He is one of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: He comes from a family of fourteen people. I have heard him say many, many times, when he went to have supper or dinner he was the last person, one of the last of the seven to sit into the dinner and then he would help his mom to clean the dishes. That is why I believe, and that is why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that he is not going to sell us out, and neither would anybody on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I have children who work and I have grandchildren. Why would I do that? Why would I be a traitor to the people that I represent in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. I have no intention of doing that. I would resign first, as a matter of principle. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I had an anniversary dinner, along with the Member for Bellevue, in Point Leamington. It was thirty years since the first time I got elected for municipal politics. I have no intentions of trying to deceive the people at the town of Point Leamington and neither have I here in the House of Assembly. I will not do that. That is why, when I went back this weekend, when I went to Ramea, when I went to Harbour Breton and when I went to Hermitage, do you know what? They did not come out and flock all over me and say: Don't do it! We had a person, for example, in Ramea who has a daughter who is a pilot in Timmins, Ontario, has her captaincy. He said: Do the deal. My daughter would then be able to come home and hopefully be able to find a job with Labrador Airways or Provincial Airways, to fly into the Goose Bay area, because they will be needing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to come and do that.

When we were in Harbour Breton, we had a guy who was a construction worker: He said: Do the deal. It is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are the few things I wanted to say up front. Who loses here? It is not the Aboriginal community. We have heard my friend, the Member for Torngat Mountains, himself from Labrador, and we heard Peter Penashue - and I was impressed with him - a young person who is leading the Innu Nation in Labrador, very impressive the other day when we met. William Barbour, the same thing. Are they going to lose? Absolutely not. My colleague convinced not only me but our other colleagues here, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing a couple of years ago, to put $7 million to $8 million into new houses on the Coast of Labrador. In some of the communities, in Nain, I think it was, he said: We have up to twenty-two and twenty-four people living in two-bedroom houses and we wanted to change that.

This particular deal gives these people on the Northern Coast of Labrador an opportunity to define their own future, to be able to chart their own course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what this is about.

I heard Peter Penashue say: We are in a transition period, from where we were totally dependent on the land, to where we want to be able to go into an industry and chart our own course, to forge a relationship with businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What will that do? The Benefits Agreement that they have conducted with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company will enable them to do that, along with the people from the Inuit. It will also mean good things for the Metis in Labrador through the adjacency rule. It will do good for the people in Labrador who are not Aboriginal.

My colleague just spoke a few minutes ago about the municipality in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and where the Mayor of the town, John Hickey, supported it 110 per cent. I would say he did. He is going to see unprecedented growth in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I am sure my colleague from Labrador West, when he recognizes the impact that it would have on Wabush and Labrador City, will say the same thing. Not only that, but to the other communities around, Makkovik and Rigolet, and my colleague, Yvonne Jones, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on the southern part of Labrador, what a difference it would make. Not only from that point of view, but the boat itself that goes from the Northern Peninsula over to Labrador, I would say they would have to find a bigger one to carry materials and people back and forth. That is the type of thing we are looking at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: These people in Labrador are not going to lose. What about the people in Argentia? I used an example the other day: I have a granddaughter who is seven months old, and if God spares her life and she is allowed to live, at seventy-eight years of age, she will be a great-grandmother herself, and guess what? The plant in Argentia will still be operating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is the type of things we are looking at here, the long-term commitments. The people in Argentia will not lose, and neither will Placentia, and there are so many other things that I could go on and say about that.

What about the business community in Newfoundland and Labrador? Will they lose? Absolutely not. They see an opportunity for them to forge relationships with the Aboriginal communities, and with the mainland companies, to be able to have spinoffs. If we have 400 jobs in Labrador, look at the spinoff jobs that would come from it. We are looking at thousands. The same thing happens in Placentia and Argentia. If you have 200 people in the demonstration plant, if you have 400 people in the main plant, 600 people, think of the spinoffs. If it is three to one, it is 2,000 people. Why wouldn't we support it? Are the people in Argentia and Placentia going to lose? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. They are not going to lose. Neither one of the communities would lose.

To carry on a comment that my colleague from Cape St. Francis said a few months ago about the Federation of Municipalities, that we are going to give them back some of the royalties that we have gotten. That is not true. He did not understand it from the beginning and I told him he did not.

We met with the Federation of Municipalities, Randy Simms. He was a guy who came to me, and he was there again yesterday along with Craig Pollett and my own deputy. We have talked to the Premier and we have talked to the Minister of Finance. What we want to do is to go to Ottawa and say to them: Of the money that you are going to claw back, not our revenues, the money you are going to take back with equalization, free some of it up. Give us some of it. If it is $20 million, we can double the MOGs for every municipality in the Province. If it is $40 million, then we will triple it. That is what we are doing and we are hoping, in the very near future, to see the Minister of Finance, Mr. Manley, to make it happen. That is what it is about. That is what we are going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: If.

MR. LANGDON: That is exactly, if. But the thing is, you are not going to try?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No, it is not. I mean the whole idea, you tried to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: You have had your chance and I listened to you, so you have the opportunity to listen to others speak as well.

That is what it is all about and we are going to do that; and, do you know what? I believe we will succeed because only recently at the Canadian Federation of Municipalities meeting, the minister said: We want to forge a new relationship with the FCM. We want to do some things for the cities of Canada, and not only the cities; we want to do it for the small communities and the rural population.

What an opportunity now for them to, in a sense, come up to bat with it. That is why, over the next couple of days, we are going to be talking to our representative in the federal Cabinet and our MPs from all of the districts of Newfoundland and Labrador to get on board and to support us. We are very positive that will happen. It will not happen over night, but we will work at it and hopefully, if we can do that, we are in a win-win situation.

What about our young people, Mr. Speaker? Are they going to lose? Absolutely not! This is what this is about. This is about them. This is about the generation that is still in high school, that is still in elementary school, that is still in primary school, those that have not been born yet. That is what this is about. They will have an opportunity. My own two kids, my own two boys, went through university and became engineers, both involved in the oil industry. I have a daughter who went through university and did a nursing degree and did a masters degree at university. My youngest son did a masters in engineering. They never had an opportunity with an Innovation Centre to become geophysicists or to get a doctorate in geology in the state-of-the-art centre at Memorial University. This enables them to do it. This is what it is about. Let's hope that our young people who are at the Innovation Centre, at Memorial University, that they can go into Placentia and they can go into Voisey's Bay and they can be the leaders. They can be the people who are in the Innovative Centre. These are the people who can lead. These are the people who, in the jobs in Argentia, can make the $70,000 or even $100,000 per year. Isn't that what this is about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is the whole idea. This is what it is about, keeping our young people here and giving them an opportunity to do it. It is a ray of hope. I have two young people; two of mine are not working in the Province. They are outside of it, but they have gone by choice. That is their choice. That is the opportunity that we have. Probably, when we look at it, this is an opportunity for all of us, for every individual within the communities, to have a choice where our young people can not only be engineers - we have one of the best engineering school in the country. Our nursing school is renowned. Our business school has won all kinds of awards. We do not praise them enough. We do not do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Marine Institute.

MR. LANGDON: The Marine Institute, this is another group of people. When you look at it, one of the things of this deal is that the marine services are going to be Newfoundland manned. I have people in my district now who are working out of Whiffin Head on the boats - three weeks on and three weeks off. It is just as well for them to be in Harbour Breton as it is to be in Arnold's Cove, isn't it? To go back to Harbour Breton and they have their skidoos and they have their four-wheelers, and they live their lives in the community by choice. This is what this will do. This is what this will do for people in Voisey's Bay with the two weeks on and two weeks off. It is an opportunity for them and all our trades people.

When you think of the people in the district of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the iron workers in that district are world renowned. They are building skyscrapers in New York. They are world renowned for that. What an opportunity for them, some of these people. I am sure they would take advantage of it.

These are the types of things, Mr. Speaker, that I am really excited about here, as well as the other things, about our young people. One of the benefits of this particular agreement is that all the engineering is going to be done here. Do you know what I heard on the radio one day last week? Right now there are not enough young engineers to be able to fill all of the projects that are here in Newfoundland. Because, when we think about it, we are not even started up yet. We are only in the preliminary and planning stages for the White Rose in Madam Speaker's district, in Marystown, and for the Grand Bank area. Just think about what that will do. That will add hundreds and hundreds of jobs in local engineering. Voisey's Bay is the same thing. Hundreds and hundreds of our young people will be able to get good-paying jobs. These are not minimum salaries; these are good-paying jobs for young people who are trained, young people who are professionals, young people who will stay here because they can make a living for themselves, a standard of living that they will be proud of. That is why I want to be a part of it. I think it is absolutely great. I never, ever thought I would have the opportunity to stand in the House of Assembly and be a part of that, because we are a select group if you look at it.

I told the people in Harbour Breton the other night, I told them in Ramea, I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity to be here. They have done it four times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: When we look at this particular agreement, think of Placentia again. Think of the research and development. I could not believe it the other day when we brought the research and development here in the House. Everybody over there voted against it. Just think about what research and development can do for us. I hoped we had $1 billion for research and development. What do you think Ontario and Quebec have built their economies on, if not a lot of research and development?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bombardier.

MR. LANGDON: Bombardier, for example, a world-renowned company, if we only had a bit of what they had. One hundred and fifty million is a dip in the bucket compared to they had.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) might take it away from Quebec.

MR. LANGDON: Yes.

Now, we have the largest research and development project in all of Eastern Canada here, where we can again train our young people, through the university and the Innovation Centre, working with Inco. It is something that we can be very, very proud of.

Also, from a business point of view, Mr. Speaker, I am not a businessman. I do not have any grudges against anybody who is a businessman. I hope that if they make $1 million they make $1 billion. I am not one of these people who say you should not have it, or something is wrong because you achieved it. That is not my stand. It never has and never will be. In this particular situation, for them - Ralph and I met two guys today who were out working and we went and had lunch. They congratulated us. They said: We are looking for business for our little small business we started five years ago. We are looking to expand.

You know, the thing about it is, I think it was Ralph who said, to the question: When you went into business five years ago and you were given a 97 per cent chance to succeed, what would you have thought? He said: We were guaranteed success. We went into business and never had any of it.

This is what this deal gives to us for the $800 million in Placentia, 97 per cent. It is not the idea, when we look at the research and development plant for Argentia. It is not that they cannot do the ore. We know they can do that. What they are doing is tweaking it. They have been doing it for years. In Fort Saskatchewan they have been doing this type of stuff, but for different ore. We know that. So they have 200 bright individuals working for thirty months to be able to find 3 per cent to refine the system, that it will not work and if it doesn't, admit all of that? Six-hundred and seventy million is a backup for that particular project. I, for one, believe that they will find it. I believe that they will, and I will be very, very pleased if they do. Why will I be pleased if they do? Because here in Newfoundland and Labrador we will have a state-of-the-art facility in Placentia -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: - where we will have spent $200 million; and not only for Voisey' Bay, but when Oliver Langdon is not here and Oliver Langdon is not around here anymore. For my sons and their children, and their children's children - who knows? They might be some of the geophysicists or the geologists with a doctor's degree working at Placentia. I hope they will. If not, then somebody else's children. This is a great opportunity for us to move ahead and it is an opportune time to do it.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition say the other day: If I was the Premier of the Province I would leave it in the ground. I would not even bring it to the House. Now, just imagine! I just said who are the people who are going to be the losers out of that. They are not losers. I mentioned group after group after group who are winners because of this here. This is what this is about, we are winners.

When we look at things we look at the glass being half full and not half empty because we are eternal optimists and we believe that this is good for the Province. Sure, they can find - I am not a lawyer either but people will tell me: you put ten of them in a room and all ten of them will have a different idea. I believe that our Minister of Justice here, with the help that he has from people like John Green and Chalker, people from Atlantic Canada, and the best from Toronto, he is not going at this and taking chances. These are the best people we could find. They have concurred with us that this particular deal is a good deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: But, it also has to be a good deal for the company as well because we live in a capitalistic society. Why do you think Abitibi Price, why do you think Kruger, why do you think Bombardier, some of these companies are in business? Because they were able to move ahead with plans for their investors and so on, but yet at the same time, the people whom we represent to capitalize on the benefits so that we can improve our standard of living from what we got to what we will have.

I remember as a young fellow in Fortune Bay, when I grew I up, I asked my mom one day for a nickel - as I said in the House - and she said with tears in her eyes: I don't have one. But, do you know what? Because we have an opportunity here we are going to see that our children and their children will have a standard of living that we couldn't even dream about. That is what this is about, and I will support it because I believe that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I believe in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I believe in my colleagues who are sitting on this side of the House and some other people who have already indicated that they will support it. I will support it because I believe, deep down in my heart, it is a genuine good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; good for the company and at the end, it is a win-win situation for all of us, but especially for our children.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased and honoured, as some members have alluded to earlier today, to be able to stand in this House of Assembly, in the people's House in this Province, and talk on this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying this, there is nobody in this House who has a monopoly on being optimistic about a project such as Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Madam Speaker, I can tell you that I have been sitting here through three different elections, much like the member opposite. I do have the same feelings for our young people in this Province and what this could mean to this Province because I have sat through the three elections where former premiers stood in this House and during a campaign debate - we will go back to those at some other time, Madam Speaker. I will not put that in so much today as to focus on this particular issue.

I can tell you that it is a different view today and it is a different position today than what I saw in an election not so long ago. Not so long ago, Madam Speaker, I walked through an election campaign of a different premier and every single member in this House - and I do not say just one side or the opposite, Madam Speaker. I am talking about every single member in this House through standing ovations, through shaking hands with the then premier, Premier Tobin, because that cannot be forgotten. It cannot be forgotten the day that he stood in this House and during his campaign trail, in many districts that I remember, Madam Speaker, and talked about the one spoonful. That infamous one spoonful, and how lately, the premier of the day has stood on many different occasions and said in other words, it has been said in different words at different times, but we all remember it because many people have talked about politics and how it has been involved in this, Madam Speaker.

We all remember very well when we, as the Opposition - were we political then when we stood up and said to a Premier who stood in the Liberal Government, did we stand up then and oppose for the sake of opposing? No, Madam Speaker, we did not. We stood up because we heard what he had said. We heard his position. We heard the people in this Province because he had a lot more time to consult - and I will get to that in a second - and talk to the people and get the real feeling. Do you know why he had the time? Because it was an election. It was time to go around and lay it on the table. Premier Tobin of the day stood up and said not one spoonful - to standing ovations, to shaking hands. Everybody on both sides of the House, including myself, stood up and applauded him and shook his hand and said: you are right, that is the position so that we get the best deal possible. That was not so long ago.

We are not talking about history books. I am not going to go back to Churchill Falls, we could. I am not going to go back to Churchill Falls, it is in this history. It is current history. It is new history; just a few years ago. That is what it is, Madam Speaker. When we stood in this House member after member, every single party, every single member in this House, unanimously - I am sure it is recorded in Hansard - supported that particular position.

Now, Madam Speaker, I just want to allude for a couple of minutes - before I get into some of the points that I am going to raise, because there is so much there in an important debate that we have twenty minutes today. That is the format and that if fair enough, to make some points to some particular things in the Statement of Principles because it is not the real deal. It is exactly what it says: A Statement of Principles. That, in itself, is an issue.

But, the process - and I say this with all due respect to all members here on both sides of the House, and especially to rural members, not just rural members, but rural members who have a geography and a district mass, like myself - the Member for Bonavista I think about, with forty-four communities, long distance driving throughout his district. I do not know what his is exactly, but I can tell you what mine is. Thirty-three communities, eight hours of driving; seven to eight hours of driving within the district. I cannot run out from the House of Assembly - if we had those notions here today - to my district tonight and set up public meetings, walk around, decide and talk to a lot of people.

The first day, on Tuesday, when the announcement came down, of course all that night we sat as a caucus going through, finally, the agreement; finally going through the agreement. All the next day there were press conferences, there were meetings galore. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, in the middle of all that, I said I have to get back to my district. I left in the middle of the meetings we were having because I have to drive out. I do not have the luxury of being able to fly everytime I go back to my district. You use some but as you can see, it certainly evaporates throughout the year, so you do not have that luxury. I drove out to my district that evening, had some time to think about it. It is a seven hour drive to my district. As I was driving out - as a matter of fact, I had a constituent with me - I was trying to decide: what is the best way to consult? I was using my office and so on, I started to think about some public meetings. If you live in a district like mine, like the Member for Bonavista South, the minister who just spoke -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fortune-Cape la Hune.

MR. SHELLEY: Fortune-Cape la Hune. I am speaking on all our behalf here now, just on this process, that I had to go out and consult with my district on a Thursday. I had two days, Thursday and Friday. If you know my district like I do, you cannot say I am going to have a meeting in Kings Point and not have one in La Scie, Baie Verte and Little Bay Islands. You cannot say - I know the Member for Bay of Islands knows my district very well and so did the former premier, he was a part of that district. You just cannot do it. If I leave my house, get in a car, drive in and out each community, it is near eight hours of driving. Unless I was in a sprint mood and I was going throughout the night, there was no way to cover the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, I did not expect to cover all the district. But, then you have to decide on a process where you can really consult. Even if I could do that, then my next question - I am not like the Member for Virginia Waters who can leave here today, walk down to his district, walk around his district, call one public meeting and guess what, Madam Speaker? There were sixty or sixty-five people out to his meeting or whatever he named the other day. He can walk over to Holiday Inn and have a meeting. Well, I am sorry. This is a rural district. It is about time you started to understand a rural district. I know a rural district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: As far as the process goes - I hope you will not continue to interrupt. I have a short twenty minutes and I would like to make some points. You will get your chance to use your twenty.

Madam Speaker, the process was flawed right from the beginning, and it still is today. What people are asking me, and why there is suspicion out there, is simply this: The suspicion is that, after fifty-one weeks, or fifty-two weeks the Premier says, of heavy, intense negotiations - as a matter of fact, we can go further, six years of discussions on Voisey's Bay - many people say they are tired of it. Fifty-one weeks of negotiations, and we get two days to go to our districts and three days in the House of Assembly. Here is the kicker: We are not at the final deal. This is a Statement of Principles.

You put all of that together and you wonder why, over the last twenty-four to forty-eight hours, as a matter of fact, people are starting to ask a few more questions. Then people say: Oh, you are critical and you are probing. I say: That is exactly what our job is.

Thank God we have an Opposition, Madam Speaker. Even the former Premier said that. I think the Premier today would agree, you need opposition - would the Premier agree? - to ask questions, to probe and ask different questions and so on. Therefore, that is what we are here doing, but the process was flawed from the point of view of consultation and I want to make sure that point is driven home today. As a matter of fact, even if I could set up some meeting in my district, which I did, I attended some scheduled meetings, as I already had scheduled, and I asked them for some time at the end of their meetings. That is what I did. I also did some phone calls. Also, whenever someone called on a different issue, which the rural members get quite a few phone calls, twenty, thirty or forty a day sometimes, I would ask them, after they dealt with their issue of the day, if I could speak about Voisey's Bay. Those are some of the ways we used to consult.

I am just saying for all members, not either side, that some more time - we asked for one more week. One more week would have made a fair bit of difference and we could have done it. I did what the Premier did. For example, he had a scheduled meeting for Lewisporte - and I commend him for it. The member told me, there was a meeting in Lewisporte they had arranged anyway and they used that meeting to talk about, I assume, the issue they went to talk about; plus, he asked for some time to talk about Voisey's after. I did the same thing in my district, I say to the Premier. I went to a recreational (inaudible), and whatever it was, and asked for some time at the end of the meeting on Thursday and Friday to talk about it. I went to several communities, and was on the phone and did the things you could do. My 1-800 number was there. I could not even use the local paper because it does not come out until this Wednesday. These are the things that we had against us. I will even go further. I could not even use the Open Line because two-thirds of my district does not get the Open Line show any more, so the modes for communicating and so on were certainly limited to me. That was a problem, but I guess we will have to get by that. Now we have our time in the House for twenty minutes and three Question Periods to ask some questions. That is the process we are into. I want to make a comment on that.

Madam Speaker, I would like to now turn my attention to at least a few of the comments within the Statement of Principles. The one that I would always try to put in perspective, that is what I say about it, some people I have talked to in the last two days put this in perspective. What do we have here? We have an asset in our Province, a resource, that is worth in the range - now, there have been some numbers different out there but it is worth somewhere between $40 billion and $50 billion overall. The potential value of Voisey's Bay is somewhere between $40 billion and $50 billion. I believe, if I saw the right numbers from Inco, that somewhere near $13 billion to $14 billion, the ovoid is worth. So, we have a resource up there with an ovoid which is basically a surface ore, and we have the Eastern Deeps and the Western Deeps which is underground ore. The ovoid itself, which is the richest piece of real estate on the planet according to some officials with Inco, that is worth $13 billion to $14 billion.

Madam Speaker, I bring up this point for this reason: Some time ago I had the luxury, I guess you could say, of asking some questions to some officials and I asked them: How fast, how quickly, could you, if you had to mine the ovoid - forget the Eastern Deeps and Western Deeps for a second - the $13 billion resource of the ovoid? When I asked the question, some said anywhere from seven to twelve years. Some said, if you were really good at it and you really had to go at it hard, and you had the resources and the funding, you could get that resource of $13 billion of ore, the richest piece of real estate on the planet, mined in seven to ten years. That is a very important point to remember because, Madam Speaker, when you talk about mining and so on, you wonder where the best is, the cream of the resource. In this case, I think everybody would agree, the cream of this resource is the ovoid. When you start to go underground, if anybody knows about mining, that is when you talk about expenses and so on.

It just so happens, in my particular district, I have both those types of mining. I had the open pit Baie Verte asbestos mine. I saw that mine, that is closed now, and I saw the underground mine at Rambler. That is also closed now. Because, remember, anybody in the mining industry will tell you, and that is the key in this whole debate, the day that a mine opens, it begins to die. It does not come back. It is a resource. That is what happens in mining. The day we start to do this, Madam Speaker, is when it starts to die.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will make this point to the member who wants to keep talking while I am talking. I will make this point. When I looked at the jobs - because everybody looks at the jobs, and they should. I, like the minister, am very hopeful for jobs.

Every time you hear of one job created, you are excited about it. We are all happy about that. There are no losers, as far as that goes, Madam Speaker, but the point is, let's now put it in perspective. Every job counts, absolutely, but why not have more, why not have the most you can have? That is the question.

Here we are: Voisey's Bay, Madam Speaker, with $13 billion worth of ovoid, some $20 to $30 billion more in Eastern and Western Deeps, and really the only thing we are guaranteed is 200 jobs at Placentia in a test plant. I am delighted for the people of that community, I know what they feel like. I have depressed communities in my area too that feel that same way. As the minister said, if there is one job you are delighted. Two hundred jobs in the test plant. Good! Up at the mine site in Labrador - and I have seen mining towns, I am living in one - 400 jobs. Now, remember, they always give you the higher end. Four hundred jobs are what you get in the higher end. So, what is it really? Let's take them at their word, there are 400 jobs at the mine site. There were 650 jobs at the Baie Verte asbestos mine. To give you another comparison, there were 640 jobs at the La Scie fish plant.

When you look at a resource that is worth $40 billion to $50 billion and you look at the guarantee of jobs at the mine site - then, Madam Speaker, as you look through the Statement of Principles, you talk about the technology of Inco, which is a good thing. They are always progressing. They have the best technology in the world, the most cost-effective, cost-efficient. They use remote control diggers underground. I mean, they are at the top of the line when it comes to efficiency. That means less jobs. That is why there are only 400 jobs at the resource that we are talking about, Madam Speaker.

The perspective is this, because there is not a lot of time to talk about it, but on jobs, the panacea, the word that is used sometimes - it is not the panacea. I agree with the Premier when he says that. It is not the panacea. There are some jobs there, but for a resource worth this much, those many jobs - secondly, what do we talk about? Royalties, profits coming into your Province. What is it? Five hundred thousand dollars, according to our calculations, and it has not been disputed yet. A $40 billion to $50 billion resource, and as of now - the guarantees are going to have to be spoken to by the leader and by other people in debate. I haven't got time in my few minutes I have left. Right now, with a $50 billion resource, we have 600 jobs and practically no, I guess you could say, royalties; $500,000. I think it is less. I have to do some more calculations, but I think it is less. So, basically no royalties.

Yes, there are spinoffs. For people like in the mining industry in my district I hope there are some spinoffs. I hope there are. Until 2006 we are talking about a demonstration plant and we are talking about an open pit mine with 400 people working. Love every single one of those jobs, but what are the real benefits, what are the real spinoffs? What are we really going to get from a resource, an asset in this Province that is worth some $40 billion to $50 billion? That is what everybody has to ask. This is what I will finish with, Mr. Speaker, because I know there is not a lot of time left.

The position of this government on the election, on the mandate, was: Not one ounce of ore to leave. They can spin it all they like, but there is ore leaving. I don't care which way you spin it, the ore is leaving. What this government has to do - they are spending a lot of money doing it - they have to guarantee, with ironclad guarantees. That is what they have to convince the people of this Province that they are doing. So far, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, from looking at this Statement of Principles, I do not see the guarantees. I think it is the biggest issue of this, the fact that ore is leaving the Province, number one, against the mandate that they were elected on. Secondly, that the guarantees are not ironclad. They are not the ironclad guarantees that everybody expects them to be. And yes, I have to refer to this poll just for a second.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is true. On the Wednesday and Thursday following this announcement, if you were sitting home in your living room, or if any of us were sitting in our living room watching an hour-and-a-half press conference that talks of millions of person years, billions of dollars GDP - here it is again, the GDP. I heard all about the GDP before, in the Hibernia, and how much GDP was coming from that. It didn't put many jobs in Ming's Bight and Fleur de Lys or King's Point. The real fact, Mr. Speaker, is that ore is going to leave this Province. The guarantees are not ironclad. People in this Province sat and watched a press conference. Whether the Premier likes it or not, there was a panacea created by that very method of hundred of thousands of dollars by the government and by Inco, unprecedented. The company itself is now out advertising, trying to push this deal.

As the Member from Cape St. Francis said, if it is such a good deal, it will sell itself. You do not need to spend all that money. Save your money, if you think that is going to sell it. So, panacea was created by the approach taken with the advertising ads and so on; so much so that in a few of the communities that I went to during Thursday and Friday, people were actually saying again - just for a few minutes, though - that: My brother is coming back from Alberta; there is going to be a job there. Somebody else was saying that his father was up in Whitehorse and they were coming back. Then the lady who lived in Thompson, who is from Newfoundland, who lived in Thompson, talked about how they were celebrating.

I guess the Premier of Manitoba is saying, good. I guess the Premier of Ontario is saying, good. When they look at Thompson, Manitoba, and Sudbury, after all of these years of mining, and where the foundation of Inco lives - that is where Inco is founded. This is not where it started. Inco have told their employers and the people, their shareholders: Make no mistake about it, Sudbury and Thompson will be taken care of. That is our first priority.

That is what they said, Mr. Speaker. So, for people in this Province, whether the Premier wants to admit that the panacea was there or not, it was created; because, after an hour-and-a-half press conference, the ads on the television and on the radio, it was amazing that minute after minute - that day that I drove home, when the announcement was just done, every ten minutes, it was incredible. You are wondering why there was a panacea.

I only have a couple of minutes left, but I will say this: That poll that went in The Telegram, it might have been a mile wide but it was only an inch deep. Do you know why? Because, people in this Province are now starting to ask the critical questions. Who is guaranteeing? Are the government and Inco guaranteeing that this ore is coming back and all these jobs that they are talking about will be there? That there will be, in fact, more than 400 jobs at the mine site and will go beyond the hydrometallurgic plant? There will be 200 jobs there but there will be 400 down the road if this works and if this system works.

I ask the Premier this: When you talk about Plan B, if we go to a matte facility - and if anybody does not understand that yet, or has not read the entire document, basically, Mr. Speaker, when that is sent back to the Province, 80 per cent of the refining is done. Eighty per cent of the refining is done for such a facility. Therefore, where is the concentrate going? The concentrate is going to go to Thompson, Manitoba, ore is going to go to Thompson, Manitoba and Sudbury. What will happen - I say to the member that 80 per cent of the smelting is done in such a plant, if he will check out his information. The fact is that we could be sending concentrate out of this Province for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this - and I will wrap up in just one minute that I have left - we have a $40 billion to $50 billion asset, potential asset, in Labrador. As of today, we are guaranteed 400 jobs at the mine site, which they have to do. If they are going to get the ore, they have to mine it, so they have to do that.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I thought I had a minute left, Mr. Speaker, but I will finish with those comments.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure for me to rise today and make some comments and participate in this historic debate. The development of Voisey's Bay has, in many ways, been the most prominent political issue facing this Province since I have been elected, since 1999 for sure.

There are many aspects of the Voisey's Bay development which can be commented on, and some hon. members today have done so. In the time that is available for me today, I want to comment on a few of the aspects of the development and Statement of Principles that I feel are very important.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues I certainly want to bring up, and one is research and development. The other is employment and industrial benefits, if I have the opportunity. The question I have, that I must ask today, is: What is the Leader of the Opposition's position on research and development spending in relation to Voisey's Bay?

It is a question that begs to be asked. In the past, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that he is not in favour of federal research and development money being spent, and spent in a way to help Argentia, the people of Placentia and area. I referenced that when we talked about the Voisey's Bay project back in November. The Telegram stated clearly his comments on September 19, 2001, and an Opposition news release on September 18, 2002.

When the issue was debated in the House of Assembly through a private member's motion, which are put on the Order Paper, he did not speak on the motion, but, at the end of the day, he voted against the federal government spending more funds on research and development in this Province.

Mr Speaker, the reason I brought that motion up last November was that I wanted to try to help the people of Argentia. This government saw a need for research and development money to go down in the Placentia area to help the young people of that area realize there is a future there for them. I looked at children, my own children. I have a son and daughter who are at home trying to find a course in life for themselves, a career. I looked at my next door neighbour, Justin Legge, graduating from school this year, somebody who does not know what he is going to do with his future, but all of a sudden life takes on new meaning.

Once we have a vehicle in place, research and development going into a demonstration plant in Argentia, life takes on new meaning for everybody. It offers hope for our young people. We have the Gerry Rices, the Justin Legges. We have the Melissa O'Keefes, the Laurie Antles, those young people graduating from school this year, young people whose graduation I attended. They have hope. They have somewhere to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this issue about the Leader of the Opposition is important, because the Opposition and their position on research and development highlights the unreasonableness of their position.

Mr. Speaker, there is another development in relation to the research and development issue which members of this House and indeed everyone in the Province should be aware of. While travelling in the Placentia area a few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition claimed not to be against research and development funding. An article in the local newspaper, The Charter, on March 4, 2002, quotes the Leader of the Opposition responding to a question about his opposition to federal research and development funding by saying, and I quote him, I quote the article, "I come from an r and d background. That was what my company was all about. So there's nothing further from the truth in that kind of situation." That is The Charter quoting the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to ask: Have the PC Opposition changed their position on research and development? They clearly voted against a motion I brought to the House of Assembly on November 21, 2001. Or, is the Leader of the Opposition saying one thing in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's but doing another thing in the House of Assembly? Is he trying to play games with this issue? Is it politics?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I heard the Member for Trinity North the other night, saying he had no objection to it. Funny, how last November he stood against it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a bit more time talking about research and development because it is important, very, very important to this whole issue.

I know the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite are interested in what the federal Members of Parliament from this Province think about issues. I have heard them talk about it, reference it many times. The Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite have brought forward media reports related to what the Liberal Member of Parliament has said on a certain issue. With this in mind, I am sure members opposite will appreciate hearing what the PC Member of the House of Commons had to say on the Voisey's Bay issue on research and development earlier this year.

The headline goes: Hearn weighs in on Voisey's Bay issue, on the article which appeared in The Charter, the local newspaper in the Placentia area. He is quoting as saying: As to the issue of Inco's requesting at least $100 million for research and development, Mr. Hearn says he is for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The article goes on to give a quote from Mr. Hearn: Research and development money is just that. It is not money that can go into health care. It is not money we can take and put into our roads. If Inco does not get it for a research and development project in Newfoundland and Labrador, somebody else somewhere else in the country, or even outside the country, will get it. If some company can perhaps use it for a project in this Province to enhance employment opportunities, perhaps as a catalyst to get the project off the ground, then I have absolutely no problem with them doing so.

That is a quote from Mr. Hearn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear where the Member of Parliament for St. John's West stands on research and development.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Just be patient, I say to the Member for Bonavista South. I will say something in a few minutes that you can relate to as well as I have.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) yet.

MR. SWEENEY: There are certain levels we have to reach before we get there, I guess. I am getting down to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: He is a straight shooter. The Member for St. John's West is a straight shooter. He is very clear. There is no mistaking where he stands. I would say that is in stark contrast to his political cousins across the floor here. The Leader of the Opposition and the PC caucus here in this Province have been saying that we should have changes to the equalization formula. They are saying we should have changes before we can move ahead with this development.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that changes are needed to the equalization formula. Without those changes, the Province is in a difficult position. In fact, we have had a private member's motion from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on the subject which was passed in the House with all-party support, I might add. The Premier has also spoken on this issue and brought it to the forefront on the national agenda.

Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition is suggesting is that we should have tied this development to changes in equalization. Again, it is important to distinguish between the local PC Party and one of their federal members, because the article in The Charter, back on January 14 of this year, says, and I quote The Charter: Mr. Hearn also suggests that this issue of equalization payments is a red herring.

Mr. Speaker, I am not yet ready to endorse Mr. Hearn's candidacy in the next election, but I have to say that he makes sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is right sometimes.

MR. SWEENEY: A lot of the times, in these instances.

I think the Member of Parliament for St. John's West has it right. How right? Well, time will tell if he is willing to stand with his Newfoundland cousins on the other side here.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is clearly playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I have watched the events so far today and I have to say his game of politics is starting to catch up with him, and it is catching up with him now.

I have been asked about the Statement of Principles, and research and development is a very important factor. A very important factor! The research and development program will include the evaluation of chemical and mechanical equipment that will go into the design of the hydromet process. It will also define the circuit and determine the design parameters for the demonstration plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are well up on it.

MR. SWEENEY: I have done a little bit of research myself, yes.

Hydromet technology: I have also discovered hydromet technology is not new or experimental. Mr. Speaker, it does work. The components in the process are proven. However, what is new is the part that affects the Voisey's Bay ore. Inco was successful in finding the solution in Goro and I am confident they will be successful in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have assurances, as stated by the Premier earlier today, that even if the hydromet technology fails, if the experimental technology fails, we will still have a nickel matte plant in Argentia, that we will still have 350 jobs and an investment of $670 million. We will have finished nickel leave this Province. That is the guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: This is a very important part in our lives, a very, very important part in our lives, our careers and the future of our Province. We cannot sit here and wonder, will the sky fall, going around like Chicken Little saying, the sky is falling. We have to look at things based upon what has happened in other parts of the world, look at the process, look at the technology that is being used, give it a chance and let it work.

The hydro demonstration plant, at a cost of over $85 million, will be used to establish the commercial, the technical and the economic feasability of using hydromet technology for Voisey's Bay concentrate.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition, including the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, in whose district this demonstration plant will be built, voted against my private member's motion, something that I pointed out earlier, which is in contrast to his PC comrade, the Federal Member of Parliament for St. John's West's way of thinking on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, let's not forget about the Inco Innovation Centre that will be constructed at the old Thompson Student Centre at Memorial University. It will focus on education, on research and mineral exploration, mining and metallurgical mining techniques. It will also provide - very important - fifty to sixty student jobs a year, the students involved in Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate programs. It will cost $10 million to construct this centre and Inco will provide an annual endowment of $1 million over the next ten years. It is something that would not have occurred if this Statement of Principles wasn't completed between the government and Inco.

MR. NOEL: But he is still going to vote again.

MR. SWEENEY: Unbelievable! Certainly, I do not jump to that conclusion yet. I honestly do not believe the hon. member will vote against it. I think they will see the light by the end of the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier to the Member from Bonavista South that I, like he, started off our careers as tradespeople. I know what it is like to pack my clothes and throw my toolbox in the trunk of a car and go out and look for work. I know that feeling. I have friends who left for months on end, in different parts of North America looking for work. I have friends who came home and their small children did not know who they were, they were gone so long trying to provide a living for their family; tradespeople like Tom Crawford, Hans Sutton and Tom Swain, these people who have traveled North America for years and years on end trying to provide a living for their family. Now, finally, the opportunity strikes at home. They can stay closer to their families and provide the necessary living for them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the Voisey's Bay Statement of Principles realizes the importance of research and development - something we have no problem in supporting on this side of the House. We have done it before. The Opposition, however, has shown in the past that they are not supporters of research and development, a position that is even against one of their federal colleagues in Ottawa; I guess, a gentleman who realized that it is better to put politics aside and look at the betterment of his people.

Mr. Speaker, this deal will be historic and it will be beneficial for further research and development opportunities in this Province. Most importantly, it will be beneficial for our young people who deserve a future in the great place that we call home.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[The continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard No. 27A]


June 18, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 27A


[Continuation of Sitting]

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to start off, actually, explaining why we never had the time to get around to all of our district to get public meetings arranged and talk to people at public meetings, because I never had time to do that. I would just like to say that I did get a lot of input from the people in my district. I spent almost three days on the phone talking to probably hundreds of people, and travelling around as much as I could where groups of people were meeting, to talk with them and to consult with them. It seems like that was probably more effective than trying to arrange meetings in the district in different communities where I never really had the time to do that. It was really effective, I think.

I think the scope of the different opinions that I got was so diversified that it shed a light on the Voisey's Bay issue to me that probably I had never seen before. The comments that these people made reflect, I think, what most of the people in the Province are thinking and saying about the Voisey's Bay Statement of Principles, and how the government is portraying to be delivering a really good deal.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, through these many calls and meetings with people in ordinary places in which I met them, I have some of the comments that some of these people have made to me, and some of them are very surprising. I think that today a lot of people in this Province are more informed than we think, and they are smarter than we think. Sometimes governments take the public and the electorate for granted and think they don't understand what they are saying, but I say to the government and to the people of this Province that people do understand. They do understand a lot of the issues. They do understand a lot of the promises.

Some of the comments from people I have talked to, I will list them. A lot of people realize, and they have said it to me in their comments, they realize that this is not a final deal. This is a document, a Statement of Principles, which gives the Premier, if passed in this House, permission to sit down with Inco and come up with a final document that they will sign and present to this Province probably at a later time.

Having said that, I think the Premier has alluded today that maybe this is not going to happen before the end of the week. It seems, according to the Premier's comments, that this deal is already done, that everything is done except for the legal interpretation, probably a few T's crossed and a few I's dotted, but even that does not seem possible to be done because of what the Premier was saying today. The impression I got was that it is already done, completed, signed and delivered to his Cabinet.

If that is the case, then what are we doing here today? If this is already done, shouldn't we be looking at this binding document, this completed final document? Shouldn't we have that today, instead of a Statement of Principles which we are debating, which we know that the Liberal side of this House will be voting in favour of, and our vote is not going to make any difference in if it is going to pass or not?

We are here debating it to inform the people of this Province, to get our little twenty minutes of glory, to speak to the Province, to tell the people of the Province what our constituents are saying and how we feel, and probably some of us may even allude to how we are going to vote by the end of the week. I am going to leave that probably until the end of the week, even though I must say to this House that the comments we are getting are a lot in favour of voting against this deal - some of the comments that the people have made to me while talking to them on the phone and throughout the district.

In some other comments that people have made to me, they say: Why are we doing this deal with our money? It is hard to understand. What do you mean by our money?

Well, some of the people, particularly the business people, even though they may be in favour of getting this project up and running, because there is a misconception that everybody is going to get something out of it, if you look at this ore body in Labrador as being inventory, in business most people understand that your inventory is part of your business and your inventory is on your shelf. In our case, our inventory is still in the ground in Labrador. So, we look at that inventory as an asset of our business, which is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that ore in the ground in Labrador is the same as money in our pocket. So people are saying to me, and I have heard it several times: Why is the government trying to buy us in on this deal with our own money?

If you stop and think about it, it makes a lot of sense, when you know that the ore is going to leave this Province to produce a cash flow to do this project so it can come back and be done and then we would accept this project as a deal done with our own money. That is one comment that some of the people made.

Another comment that was pretty common with the people I spoke to - and we all said it and we all alluded to it in our speeches and everything else - why is the government changing in their concept and their stand on no ore leaving the Province? That would seem like one of the biggest points that people were making to me, that only a few short years ago the Liberal government said that no ore would leave this Province, not a spoonful. We are sick and tired to hearing it, I know that. Everybody says it is not the thing that we should be debating all the time because the Premier said that is not the case.

I think the people of this Province understand that it was the case. The people of this Province understood that no ore was going to leave this Province in 1996 and 1999 during the election. When they went out to vote for a government that was going to do the best deal for this Province, the people of this Province were asked: Who do you want to negotiate this deal? Do you want me to negotiate this deal? Do you want us, as a Liberal Party, to do that - the former Premier said - or do you want someone else to do the deal?

The point was, at that time, I guess, who do you trust? Do you trust us to do a good deal, or do you trust the Opposition to do a good deal?

The people made their choice and they elected a Liberal government to do that deal, but today these same people are saying: Well, we understood that no ore was going to leave this Province. Now this present government today are saying: Yes, all the ore could be leaving the Province. And, it is in this document that it says all - all- all the ore could be leaving this Province except for what is going to be used in the test plant in Agentia.

That is another comment that people were making to me, and one of the other biggest comments I was hearing from people throughout the district, and it included a lot of young people, they were saying: We are understanding that we are going to have a chance at jobs. Where can I send my application? A lot of these young people are not skilled young people and they have a misconception and a perception that there are going to be thousands and thousands of jobs for our young people. Even the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace just alluded to how pleased he is that all the young people are going to get jobs, and some of the other ministers alluded to it. They said it, and I heard ministers say it. I heard Minister Foote say it on Open Line, when she alluded to the fact that she was so pleased that a lot of young people in her district are going to get work.

I don't know, but from what I read in this document, a lot of the job figures in this are inflated. They are inflated to probably the maximum amount that it could be. We don't understand that the people of this Province know that not everybody is going to get a job. Not every company in this Province is going to benefit from the Voisey's Bay project.

People are starting to realize that. After last week's campaign, which was financed by the people of this Province and paid for by the taxpayers of this Province, they understand now. The reality has set in after a week of high campaigning, going around the Province, trying to sell this deal to the people of this Province.

People today, a week after, are starting to realize that this is not so. It is going to be of great benefit to the people of Labrador, of great benefit to the people of Argentia and Placentia area, of great benefit to people who supply helicopter services and parts and everything. Sure, there are lots of good benefits in it, and I understand that businesses today are looking forward to that. There is nothing wrong with that; I agree with that. I agree with a lot of the principles in here. It is going to produce a lot of jobs and a lot of money in a short period of time to the Province, and that is great, but the misconception and perception to our people and our young people is wrong. Even today, just today, I consulted with people.

I will read you a comment from a person in my district. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace said that we were playing politics. Well, if we are playing politics then we are doing it on behalf of the people who give us the information that we are trying to present to you today, to tell you how we see the general public of this Province are reacting to this Voisey's Bay deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: This fellow pretty well has his truck packed to move away. In what he sent in to me today - he is a fellow from Springdale, a fellow who was involved in mining for a lot of years - he said: The government is really pulling the wool over our eyes. Copper, cobalt, why can't it be smelted in this Province? We can do this in Baie Verte. Know that this is a scam. I left Inco, Thompson Lake, in 1993. Now I am heading back to Manitoba to go to work, to work with our ore in Manitoba.

Unbelievable. That is the crunch of what people are saying. It encourages us, as an Opposition, as people who are elected by the people, to point out the flaws in things that government do, to make sure that we do everything we can to encourage government, to force government to do the best for the people of this Province. He is encouraging us, as an Opposition, to push for a copper smelter in this Province.

There are some comments I am going to make on that later on, if I get time. I do have a list, a big list, of comments here and I want to get into that.

Some of the other comments that people have made to me, Mr. Speaker: the generator plant, they are not quite clear who pays for all this power that needs to be generated. I think it is somewhere around forty-five megawatts in Labrador, produced by a diesel generator. What fine print conditions are in there that make us responsible for the delivering of power to that plant in Labrador? Are there any? I don't know, because this document does not state clearly.

The cost of delivering power to the site in Argentia, how much will it be reduced under a commercial rate? How much will we have to subsidize that power?

Those are some of the comments that people made, but they make me wonder, too, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read the document?

MR. HUNTER: I read the document.

- there are so many things in this that are not quite clear. Our leader alluded to the fact that you could drive a Mack truck through it. You could probably drive four or five Mack trucks through this document. Until we see the final document, the document that is going to be the binding and legal document, then we don't know. Put it on my desk and let me read it. Then I can probably say if this Statement of Principles is actually the fact of the things that are going to be in our contract. Then I would understand, but right now I don't because I don't know the final document.

Mr. Speaker, another common comment that some people made was: If the hydromet process does work and we do perfect the process and it is working well, commercially viable and all of that, then what is going to stop other countries in this world, and other provinces and other suppliers of nickel concentrate or nickel ore, to say to Inco: Now that you have this process up and running, this process is working good, we are not willing to ship our ore to another province, to another part of the world, to be processed by this new process that you have going, that has proven to be commercially viable. We want, now, a hydromet plant built in - whether China, Australia, England, or wherever Inco can say they have any existing ore bodies that they can rely on to ship back in this Province in ten years, twenty years, or 100 years from now.

The thing is, if we do a good job in coming up with a hydromet process that works, then most places in this world are not going to let their concentrate and ore come back to this Province. I think that is something we have to think about when we are out trying to do a deal of such magnitude as this, with such a big company as Inco. We have to be sure.

The fact is, if we don't ship any ore out of this Province then we don't have to worry about any ore coming back and all the benefit - 100 per cent of the benefit - is for the people of this Province.

I only have five minutes left and I never even started to get into the document, and there is a lot in this document that I would like to speak on. I am going to try to get through it quickly because I am running out of time.

Mr. Speaker, section 37, Exemption Orders, I have been reading through that and trying to figure this out, in reading through other documents and comparing some of the things on it. It really bothers me, the opt-out clause that Inco has in this, so that they do not have to refine or smelt or do any other process in this Province, if they want to use the Exemption Orders.

In the beginning, we know that 355,000 tonnes of nickel is going to be shipped out of the Province and the Exemption Order expires upon the proponent reaching a volume limit set out by the Exemption Order.

Having said that, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, Inco can opt out of this if certain conditions exist. I will just read down through some of the things here. We know there has to be completion of a hydromet or other process by 2011, but if the proponent's failure to perform is by reason of one or more of the Force Majeures outlined in Schedule A then Inco does not have to do this. They can use this procedure within the contract, within the Principles to opt out of having to do anything with this process after. Even though they may have a refinery plant built, there is no guarantee they are going to refine or process nickel, 100 per cent, if they cannot find that ore body anywhere else in the world to come back in this Province after we use up the ovoid.

Some of these things are very, very frightening. I know that, yes, three years after the plant - if it is closing that they can use the Force Majeure clauses on that. Some of the things that scare me is in the wording, "The Proponent intends to construct an integrated mine and mill/concentrator...". I would like to see wording in there saying: The Proponent will construct or the Proponent has to construct; but it "intends". They may intend to do it but under these Force Majeure clauses they may not do in the other phases of the process - in what they are saying in this Statement of Principles - what they are going to do.

So these things are very scary when you know the company can opt out, down the road, on different phases of this project. We do not know what is going to happen in ten or twelve years from now. The thing is, we have to maximize the benefits right now within the next ten or fifteen years because if we do not, then this ore is going to be gone. It is a non-renewable resource. It is not a resource that will grow back after ten or twenty years, this resource is non-renewable. When the ovoid is gone, it is gone. This is the cream of the whole project, the cream of the find. If we allow for five or six years, from 2006-2011, for the ovoid to be shipped out and processed in Manitoba and Ontario then that ore is gone, and if we do not find a comparable body of ore of this structure to ship back in here under probably relax laws in other countries to allow that, than it is gone. It is not going to grow back. No matter what the intents are of Inco or any other company or the government, no matter what the intent is, it is not going to change that.

So we have to be very careful in saying: Yes, we will allow ore to leave the Province for all these years. Maybe it will be leaving for fifty years. Then when they get into the deeps who is to say then that these deposits are going to be viable because maybe they are not going to be viable? If they are not viable then they will opt out of the Force Majeure clause on that. They may come back in 100 years to take it but we cannot wait 100 years to do this full development.

The people are telling me in my district: We are not for ore or concentrate; and concentrate is ore only in a different percentage of nickel. If it is 90 per cent or 50 per cent or 20 per cent, it is still a nickel ore leaving this Province. People in this Province are not for any ore leaving this Province. They are not for it. They spoke loudly over the last couple of years. The majority of people that I talked to in the last two or three days have said: We are not for it. It is a scam. It is a sellout. But, I must say, a lot of people recognize - we are sick of hearing about the Voisey's Bay deal. We are glad that this is coming to closure now when we know that your vote is not going to make any difference. The government has already decided.

We know that this is coming to a closure, and we are glad. There are a lot of short-term jobs in a few years and we are glad about that. Some people are going to get jobs, some people are going to make money, and we are glad about that. But, having said that, a lot of people have said to me: Ray, it is a sellout though. It is something that in twenty years from now, and ten years from now, maybe twelve, that we are going to say to you, and say to this government: you made a mistake. You should not have done it. We should have encouraged Inco. We should have found a way to get this company to process 100 per cent of the ore in this Province. No ore, no jobs to be shipped to Manitoba or Sudbury.

I talked to dozens of young people who said they are still going to move away whether there is a Voisey's Bay deal or not. They still have to move away -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: - because they recognize that they are not going to get jobs related to Voisey's Bay ore development.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I know I never got into the details but twenty minutes is not very long. I hope my colleagues will express some of the common views that I am seeing in my district too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a privilege to stand in this House today and be able to speak to this historic project. February 1996, when I got elected to represent the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, Voisey's Bay was on the horizon at that time and every day since. I never thought that I would be able to stand in this House of Assembly today and comment on the project in detail.

Mr. Speaker, right off the bat I want to offer my congratulations to the Premier, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the entire negotiating team for their hard work in keeping our commitment to the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I heard the speaker before me, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and I could not believe one of the comments that he made. I could not believe the fact that he said the inventory, the ore at Voisey's Bay is considered to be inventory as a business person would look at inventory on the shelf. Let me say to the member opposite, that inventory on the shelf will do nothing for business it has to be moved to make money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: So, this is the first lesson in selling and running a business.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that this Administration has achieved its objectives on behalf of the people of our Province, and what they have achieved is a fair and an equitable deal for the development of Voisey's Bay.

It is my pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to advise members of this House and let them know what the Department of Labour will be doing on this massive project. The Department of Labour is committed to supporting and encouraging the development of effective partnerships between employers and employees to maximize our economic potential.

In keeping with the Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will issue a special project order. Under the Labour Relations Act, this special project order will ensure the construction of the mine and mill/concentrator at Voisey's Bay will progress with labour stability and productivity.

Under the Labour Relations Act, a special project is an undertaking with a construction phase of three years or longer for the development of a natural resource or establishment of a primary industry. Special project orders have been used in the past in this Province and they are used throughout Canada to promote and ensure labour stability. I might add that they have been used on projects that we are all familiar with here in this Province. They were used on the giant Hibernia platform as well as the Terra Nova project.

Mr. Speaker, during the 2001 spring session of the House I introduced changes to the Labour Relations Act that strengthened the legislation regulating special project orders. One of the goals in reviewing this special project legislation was to create a stable labour relations environment that would increase investor confidence and globally position our Province as a competitive location for major capital projects. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that changes were made in such a timely fashion last spring that we now have an opportunity to employ them on this current project.

These amendments were introduced following extensive consultation with key stakeholders involved in major capital projects, including construction trade unions and employers working on the Terra Nova project at Bull Arm. Special project orders insulate a major construction project from the regular collective bargaining cycle of the construction industry, thereby ensuring labour stability for the construction phase of that project. The labour agreement that will cover the Voisey's Bay Project will be for the duration of the construction phase of the project and will be separate. It will be apart from the normal collective bargaining cycle of the provincial collective agreement negotiated for the construction industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you some of the special issues of this special order project. A special project order for the Voisey's Bay Project will include: a no strike, no lockout provision. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members will agree it is in everyone's best interest that work progress as peacefully and productively on major capital projects that are intended to employ a large workforce for an extended period of time. I am sure the Member for Labrador West really understands this. He comes from a mining district and I am sure he understands the importance of labour peace, labour stability and safety. This will ensure the continuity of the workplace relationship.

Of course, the Member for Windsor-Springdale also comes from an area of the Province where mining has been prominent for the past fifty years, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Windsor-Springdale was in a public meeting on Saturday morning. The presenters were the Premier, Dr. Stu Gendron, and myself. There was a person there who stood up in the audience during question period afterwards and said how important it was to ensure that Springdale would have an opportunity to be involved in the Voisey's Bay Project. He wanted to seek out the Member for Windsor-Springdale and impart that information on the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I am hoping today that member has had that conversation and realizes the importance to Springdale of mining activity.

Mr. Speaker, before a special project order is declared for the Voisey's Bay Project the legislation requires that an employer's organization and a council of trade unions must be properly constituted. What that means is the criteria for these constitutions are designed to provide assurance that workplace relationships will contribute to labour stability and productivity for the life of the project. For example, both an employers organization and a council of trade unions will be required to have included in their constitutions a mechanism for reaching decisions that ensures a deadlock cannot occur, and a formula for ratification of a collective agreement by their members. In addition, a council of unions will be required to have a mechanism for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes among its members without the stoppage of work.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see the legislation provides a solid framework within which employers and employees can build strong, effective partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, when a labour agreement has been negotiated for the construction of the Voisey's Bay Project I anticipate that my department will receive a timely request to have the project declared a special project under the terms and the conditions of the Labour Relations Act. I want to give my assurance today that this request will be dealt with in a timely manner and a decision will be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my department will contribute to labour stability and productivity, not only throughout the life of the project but long after the construction phase is complete. The Department of Labour offers a range of facilitation and preventative mediation services designed to assist employers and employees in addressing labour issues that might arise. We are also available to assist parties in avoiding costly work stoppages.

Mr. Speaker, overseeing the collective agreement and the maintenance agreement on 76,000 person years of work is indeed a sizeable responsibility and I look forward to that. Another aspect of the Department of Labour's involvement will be occupational health and safety. Spring 2001, just a year ago, I think we were anticipating at that time that we may have this project and we do.

I also introduced comprehensive changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. At that time, we intended that these amendments would reinforce government's commitment to work with employers and employees to change the mindset and cooperatively build safe and healthy workplaces. Health and safety will be paramount on the Voisey's Bay Project, as on all other major projects at all workplaces throughout our Province. Several pieces of legislation will apply to the Voisey's Bay Project and these are: Occupational Health and Safety Act; the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations; the Occupational Health and Safety First Aid Regulations, and the Workplace Hazardous Materials and Information System Regulations.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that all major employers develop and implement a health and safety program. The health and safety legislation requires that Voisey's Bay Nickel Company submit details of their health and safety program for a review prior to startup in order to ensure that they, as the operator, have dedicated adequate resources and will implement appropriate systems to ensure the protection of all workers.

As with other major projects in the past, Occupational Health and Safety officers of the Department of Labour will be assigned to ensure that the construction and operational phases of the Voisey's Bay Project are conducted in a manner that places health and safety as priority number one. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that with the additional enforcement staff that we are hiring in the Department of Labour - we have hired thirteen extra health and safety inspectors this year, totalling $1.3 million which will double the workforce in Labrador. I commit to this today that, if required, we will add to that complement because safety is priority number one.

Mr. Speaker, this Province's legislation provides a sound and effective framework to encourage labour stability and productivity as well as excellent health and safety on the Voisey's Bay Project. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Labour has already demonstrated its ability to assist employers and employees in reaching these goals. I am equally confident that we can continue to provide this assistance throughout the life of this project.

I want to tell you a little bit about what the people said in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans because that is very important. That is the reason I am standing here today, because of the people of Grand Falls-Buchans.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we did have our public meeting on Saturday morning, well attended. When you consider that Grand Falls-Buchans is in the heart of cabin country, to get 150 people out on a Saturday morning is really big stuff. We had a great crowd and they thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. Good questions were asked. The type of questions that were asked were: How can we benefit, here in Grand Falls-Buchans, for activities that are going to take place in Voisey's Bay?

We explained to them - I did, and the Premier did - when you look at the fact that there is going to be a lot of revenue generated from the Voisey's Bay Project, we all know that the major involvement will be in Labrador and Argentia, but there are going to be a lot of revenues generated that will go directly into our public Treasury. When you think about royalties, retail sales tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax, they are some of the measures of revenue that we can expect to go directly into our provincial Treasury.

I heard in the media - I do not know if it was today or yesterday - how the oil industry has affected the City of St. John's. The oil industry alone accounts for 14 per cent of the economy of the City of St. John's.

MR. NOEL: Eight hundred million dollars (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Member for Virginia Waters says $800 million. That is the oil industry alone.

MR. NOEL: The mayor is very happy about that.

MS THISTLE: He tells me the mayor of the city is very happy about that. I know that not only the City of St. John's benefits, because I know that Mount Pearl benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Paradise.

MS THISTLE: And Paradise benefits. All of the Avalon benefits and we benefit as a whole, as a Province.

When we look at the fact that $11 billion will be generated throughout the life of the project, all of us here in this Province have a great opportunity to benefit from the revenues that will be coming forward.

You look at the fact that we have endorsements. We have endorsements from the business community, we have endorsements from the labour community, and, of course, as a government we are certainly wholeheartedly endorsing this project.

I heard an interviewer the other day on another media, a radio media, and they were saying that this is a good deal for our Province. You know, we have heard from legal experts, we have heard from financial experts, we have heard from mineral experts. This Province has employed the best of them and asked for their opinions. We have had the best of experts look at this whole project. What they are telling us is that it is a good deal for the company and it is a good deal for the Province.

I want to say that, you know, from my district where I represent Grand Falls-Buchans, there is mining activity. In fact, the whole of Central Newfoundland is abuzz right now with the gold prospecting, but, in my particular district, Grand Falls-Buchans, there is a mine about to come on stream in Duck Pond. They have considerable reserves of copper. We have already received a commitment from the Voisey's Bay Project, from Inco, that if there are sufficient copper reserves in this Province, they would certainly consider and commit to having their copper mined here in this Province. So, that will certainly strengthen any copper mines that are ready to start up in our Province.

We had an impression that was left out there, not only in Newfoundland but across the country, that Newfoundland and Labrador was not open for business because of, I guess, our hold on the Voisey's Bay Project, that there were stumbling blocks that we could not conquer up until this time. I think, with this Voisey's Bay Project going now, we are going to see a lot of new exploration. Exploration has been stymied in the past five years but we are going to see exploration open up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: People coming from mining communities, like the Member from Baie Verte and the Member from Windsor-Springdale, all over Central Newfoundland, know what mining can do to our Province. I think, also, that you are going to see junior mining companies like the one that I just mentioned in my particular district, in Grand Falls-Buchans. That will be of great assistance to junior mining companies obtaining financing in the future because that has been a stumbling block. But now with a project on the horizon like Voisey's Bay, that will open up and tell the rest of the country that Newfoundland and Labrador is open for business and we are interested, and we are going to see this project through.

I want to say to members here in this House: What an opportunity, as I stand before members in this House today, we have, six years later, after being elected in 1996. Most of the people who sit in this Legislature have been elected since 1996, or the majority of them, and talking about a project every day in this Legislature, and today being able to stand on your feet and see this project come to fruition, and what it can do for health, what it can do for education, what it can do for roads, what it can do for our young people, and what it can do for our seniors.

A week ago, I stood in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans and was able to present a cheque to the young people in our district to start a youth centre. Now, when you look at the revenue that is going to come in from the Voisey's Bay Project, how many more initiatives can we look after as a government to help the people of our Province because of more money flowing into the provincial Treasury? These are just some of the possibilities that will change the face of our Province for the future.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be associated with this project. I am pleased be a member of a government that has the foresight and the vision to see and to find a way to make this project possible. I urge all members in this House to give this project the utmost consideration. I have no hesitation, I will be voting for this project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise this afternoon to offer some comments relative to the proposed development. I note that my colleague, this morning, the Member for St. John's East, made the point to say that it is our role on this side to question, to raise the concerns, to express the different viewpoints, and this morning he did a commendable job in doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we on this side have some real questions about the current arrangement. We are not, per se, opposed to the development of Voisey's Bay by Inco or by any other mining company. We have some concerns about the agreement that has been reached in principle between this government and Inco. It is our job on this side to articulate those concerns so the public of this Province can see the total story.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday we had the official unveiling, I suppose, of the Statement of Principles. It was a very sad commentary in many ways because, on that morning, some members of the Opposition staff tried their best to get some advance copy but they were denied - our official staff who went down to the briefing session for certain public officials, were told: No, you are not allowed in.

That veil of secrecy was so unnecessary. It exemplified the respect that this government lacks in dealing with this House of Assembly. Consequently, we got our Statement of Principles, in fact, off the Internet. That is a very sad commentary when our officials, last Tuesday morning, were denied access on the very morning that the Premier, with other officials from Inco, would be at the hotel making the official announcement. That morning we were not given the consideration that is even given to members of the press. Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not fair, it is not reasonable, and it does not show the kind of respect that members of the government should have for the role that the Opposition, by its very nature, is supposed to play in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we know that last week a part of that big announcement meant that there was a huge propaganda machine set in motion. It is called a public relations campaign. The Premier said, at the time: I am prepared to spend not $250 - in one paper, it said - I will spend a million dollars if we have to.

The next day he corrected that and said, no, it is going to be $250,000 he was going to be prepared to spend to communicate the, I guess, information that the public of Newfoundland and Labrador needed to know. However, if you listen to the messages that were communicated, they start off with "Commitments Made" and "Commitments Kept". They were not information bulletins about the deal. They were information bulletins about the politics of the deal. There is a big difference between the two.

Mr. Speaker, when I learned that there was $250,000 and possibly a lot more being spent on this particular deal and its communication of it, I said to myself: A few weeks ago I sat in this House and listened to the Minister of Finance say that she did not have money to spend for various things in this Legislature and we had to be somewhat sensible. We talked about cutbacks in health.

Every day, as a critic here, I receive calls from people who have very, very important needs. They have needs in housing. We have waiting lists in our hospitals. We have a shortage of diagnostic care. We know that seniors struggle every day to make ends meet in this Province. Yet, when this deal is made, the minister is able to say, and the Premier is able to say: Yes, we can find $250,000 if we have to, of public money, and we can find $500,000 to communicate this message which turns out to be not a message so much about the details of the deal as the politics that the Premier wanted to make sure everybody knew about when he wanted to communicate that particular message about the agreement with Inco.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the principles a little later on in my few comments; however, I want to note as well that when we talk about Statement of Principles - I listened as well this morning to the Member for St. John's East as he talked about the history of when governments make statements and later on they change their minds. One of those statements occurred with Friede Goldman in Marystown. We all know that some years ago there were difficulties in Marystown. The government wanted to sell the shipyard. That was probably the right thing to do at that time. It had become financially viable on its own. In that particular process, however, you will recall there was a big assembly called in Marystown with the union, Local 20 of the shipyard and, of course, the Town of Marystown. They were told: We have a buyer for the shipyard.

When the Minister of Industry and the former Premier went down to Marystown, they told the people of Marystown: We have a deal and it is going to make commitments that are going to give you 1,200,000 person hours of work in Marystown over the next three years. They said they were going to invest in capital, that Friede Goldman would invest between $5 million and $10 million at Marystown. They said they would be expanding their business down in Marystown, from conversion retrofit to building of new offshore drilling rigs.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Marystown, particularly the workers in Marystown, Local 20, were asked: Do you approve of this? They said: Are you going to protect our capital assets? Will you protect our assets? They said: Oh yes, that is all part of the deal. Based on that, the union in Marystown said: yes, we will accept it. As a matter of fact, the Town of Marystown went and voted for it. Of course, then afterwards there was an agreement made between this government and Friede Goldman.

After the agreement was made and the letters were signed the union in Marystown tried to - the union at Local 20 at the shipyard - get a copy of that particular agreement. They were told: No, you can't have it. It is private information between one party, the government, and the corporation called Friede Goldman International. They tried for ages and years to get that agreement. They wondered why a government would not give them that agreement. They told us it is a Statement of Principles, surely there cannot be any difference between the Statement of Principles and the contact that is signed. They tried and they tried, and finally the Town of Marystown hired a lawyer and they said: we want you to find what the contract says between Friede Goldman and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly as it applies to the protection of our assets. What happened was, after some pushing and probing, finally the union got a copy of the contract. What was in the contract? Well, the contract did not include what the people of Marystown, at the union local, believed that it did include.

Mr. Speaker, this is where we have difficulty, because this government would not share the contract, the precise contract, with the workers who were affected most directly, or the town that was affected most directly. Here is the difficulty we have with a Statement of Principles and a final contract. In Marystown the Statement of Principles said one thing, but then the final contract was different from that completely.

Mr. Speaker, with that in mind I want to touch on some of the Statement of Principles we have to deal with today. I now want to go through clause by clause because statement 2 says, "The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties." Mr. Speaker, we know that this statement also says that the government and Inco are committed to their best efforts. One of the things we find throughout all this particular Statement of Principles between the government and Inco is all this language that is so imprecise. It is not precise language. It is: best efforts; make every effort to, and this sort of thing.

So, what we are saying here is that there is a potential. The Premier said this morning there would not be, but there is a potential for a variation to be between the Statement of Principles and the final contract that is signed. It says here, " The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties."

I was pleased this morning though to learn that the Premier has made a commitment. He said that he will table for all people in this Province the precise contract when it is signed. That, I think, is an improvement. At least in this case, it will not be like the people in Marystown. They will find found out years and years later -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) after it was signed.

MR. H. HODDER: I understood it would be before it is signed, but perhaps it will be after it is signed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I think so.

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my colleague for Ferryland, he probably is right. We will only see it after it is signed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to article 11, Undertakings By The Proponent. This particular article says, "The Proponent will use its best efforts to obtain the required financing for the Project in a timely manner."

In this particular article, it is the article with the most imprecise language in all of the articles because it uses imprecise words like; full and fair benefits; solid business footing; reasonable return to shareholders; reasonably and prudently financed; best efforts and timely manners. I could go on because this article is peppered with language that is so imprecise. This is why our leader says there is a lot of difficulty in the imprecise language and we have great concerns with it. The whole language here, as the leader said, you could drive a truck through it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to article 17. It talks about, "Construction of an open pit mine and mill/concentrator processing plant at Voisey's Bay..." This is an article which confirms that Voisey's Bay concentrate will be exported to Ontario and Manitoba for processing in defiance of the expressed will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the article that says your ore is going to be shipped out. This is the article where we have difficulty between what this former premier, Premier Tobin said, and what this government is now doing.

While, Mr. Speaker, we could talk about ore, concentrate and get all the different wordings, it means that our resource will be shipped out for some period of time. We have to ask ourselves a question. If this role were reversed do you really believe that the Government of Ontario or the Government of Manitoba would allow their resource, their ore, to be shipped from their province to here to finance a plant in this Province? The answer is: no, they would not do that; because most governments now are very protective of their resources. Former Premier Tobin was very aggressive and strong and said what I am sure he believed, which was that he would not have agreed to that particular proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on because my time is getting short. Article 35, this is the one that deals with the Electrical Rates and Provision of Power. It says, "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..." In other words, Inco will get the lowest industrial electrical rate in the Province. We have to ask ourselves: what will happen to have to find new sources of power? Are we going to get new power by having to do an upgrade on the Holyrood generation plant? Who will pay for that? Isn't it true that when we do the upgrade, if we do the upgrade on the hydro sources, that Inco will not pay for it? Inco will not pay for it because it will be a capital upgrade by Hydro which will then have to be paid for by all the taxpayers in the Province. Indirectly, if we have to upgrade our hydro system all the taxpayers will pay for the upgrade, but Inco will only pay the lowest rate of any of the industrial rates in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, then we come over to article 44. Article 44 talks about the Corporate Income Tax. It says, "The Government will provide that the rate of provincial corporate income tax applicable to the Proponent will be the lower of the "all provinces average" or the provincial income tax rate." In other words, our corporate income tax revenues from Inco will be tied to the rates established by all the other provinces. So, there are implications for us. When the rates change in other provinces then there are implications for Newfoundland and Labrador because we have given them that they will pay the lower of "all provinces average". Therefore, we are not in control. We do not stay in control of the corporate income tax rate that will be paid. In other words, if other provinces lower their rates so that "all provinces average" fall below our rate, then Inco gets the average and our income from Inco will drop accordingly.

Then we have clause 45. Number 45 talks about, "The Government will undertake to indemnify the Proponent for any double taxation resulting from an agreement regarding the allocation of gross revenue for purposes of Part IV of the Federal Income Tax Regulations." In other words, if there is double taxation with Ottawa, we will compensate Inco out of our own revenue. I will repeat that. If we are going to indemnify Inco for any double taxation resulting from an agreement regarding the allocation of gross revenue for purposes of the federal income tax rules - we are saying here, if there is double taxation with Ottawa we are going to compensate Inco out of our own revenue. Does that make sense? Of course, this is again a case of another potential tax break for Inco at the expense of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on article 46. Article 46 talks about the Mining Taxes. Mr. Speaker, there is great concern with this particular section because, again, we know that the Premier has said there is going to be $10 million that is going to come by way of taxation. The Deputy Minister of Finance has stated publicly that this will be subject to a 95 per cent clawback. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that the revenue to this Province will be about $500,000 or perhaps as little as $400,000 net revenues in a year. While we encourage the government to get changes to the federal clawback transfer payments, we commend them for that. As has been said by other provincial governments, there is need to change that. Until that changes, the revenue we are going to get from the royalties is going to be insignificant in terms of its potential to generate money to do extra things for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure that over the next several days my colleague, the Finance critic, will have more questions relative to this particular proposal as it relates to the taxation and royalties.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to comment that there is no guarantee here. If we knew that our ore was going to be taken away, if we accept that, and if we had some guarantee, some kind of a bonding arrangement, some kind of a way in which we could have funds put aside so that if the contract is not lived up to - well this particular Statement of Principles does not provide for any guarantee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with that said, I want to thank the people of my district who have communicated with me and I will be voting according to what they say on Thursday. Up to this point they are saying vote no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.

 


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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this evening I am proud to speak to the Voisey's Bay deal and project. I speak from three different perspectives, as the MHA for Gander District, as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and also as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

As the MHA for the District of Gander, I am excited about the development of the Voisey's Bay Project. Last week we witnessed the historic signing of a Statement of Principles to develop this enormous resource.

The two regions of the Province, Labrador and Argentia, will certainly reap enormous, incredible benefits from this deal. But, this is not to say that the rest of the Province will not benefit. Government made a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Voisey's Bay Project would be developed in a manner that maximizes the benefit for each and every citizen of this Province. These benefits have been maximized for everyone in our Province, including the people of Gander District and the people of Central Newfoundland area.

The Voisey's Bay Project will place Newfoundland and Labrador at the leading edge of research and development. Air operation and shipping companies will have a base of operations in the Province. I am sure, out at the College of the North Atlantic Campus in my own district in Gander, the aircraft maintenance engineers, for instance, will all know that there will be a lot more jobs for them when they graduate. Traditionally, many of them have had to leave the Province so that they would be able to get jobs in this field. Now, because of so much increased air activity, many of them will be able to stay in our Province. I am sure that Mr. Pat White, the owner of Gander Flight Training, will be very pleased that many of the pilots that he trains will be able to stay in our Province because there will be so much more opportunity because of the increased air service that will be needed for this project.

Engineering procurement and project management will take place in our Province. I know that many of the firms in my district are looking forward to Inco's procurement and business opportunity seminars that will be held in the upcoming weeks and months.

Speaking as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, I know that we have done the preparation of a skilled and qualified workforce capable of optimal participation in the Voisey's Bay Project. It has been a priority for government. Since the inception of this project in 1995, government has undertaken numerous activities to prepare the provincial labour force for employment in this project.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be given the opportunity to develop the skills to work at both Voisey's Bay and Argentia sites. Inco will develop training programs as necessary and in conjunction with the Province's educational institutions. We are very confident that both our private and public colleges and university will have adequate capacity to train for the jobs required for this important project.

In 1995, government was a member of the Voisey's Bay needs assessment subcommittee that was established to address education and training needs for this important project. In 1996, this group completed a training needs assessment, which recommended the establishment of a multi-party training planning committee. This committee was put in place to facilitate training to employment initiatives for the human resource needs of the mining industry in Northern Labrador. A lot of various groups were a part of this multi-party training committee. The College of the North Atlantic, the Labrador Innuit Association, both Innu Band Councils, HRDC, our own Department of Human Resources and Employment and, of course, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company.

The work of this committee has resulted in personal development plans, Madam Speaker, for more than 400 individuals who have, since that time, pursued a variety of training options including Adult Basic Education and training related to the occupations in the mining industry and any other economic activities that have occurred in Labrador since then. That training committee will be developed and renewed in the upcoming weeks to make sure that we continue to prepare as we have done for these 400 individuals.

The Voisey's Bay Environmental Impact Statement in 1997 reported there is a significant number of people in the Labrador workforce already who have appropriate training and qualifications to participate in this project. Further, with the exception of just a small number of positions that require extensive experience in the mining industry the existing education base, combined with, in some cases, further education and training, will enable the needs of this workforce that is needed for Voisey's Bay to be met by citizens who are already in Labrador.

In 1998, government, through the then Department of Education, commissioned a private consulting firm to complete a sectoral study to determine the training needs for the mining industry over the next ten years.

This is a very opportune time for us to have this work completed and it is all ready now for us, with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company and for our training institutions, both private and public, to plan for the next few years. Conclusions from this study were considered in the implementation of measures to prepare the provincial workforce to meet the needs of the local mining industry.

Just last year, in 2001, the College of the North Atlantic enhanced the mine related training with the opening of a mining technology centre at its Labrador West Campus in Labrador City in partnership with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Currently, we have 115 students who are enrolled in mining, engineering technician and mineral processing programs at this centre. In addition to responding to the training and upgrading needs of IOC, who have already started, as we all know, to recruit from these programs, this centre enhances the Province's capability to train individuals for careers in the mining industry.

At the Goose Bay campus of the College of the North Atlantic numerous appropriate programs have been offered in the past few years and continue to be offered in the appropriate trades programs with the capability to respond very capably and appropriate as necessary over the upcoming weeks and months.

Many students are calling my office now since last Tuesday asking: What types of workers will the Voisey's Bay Project require? What type of education will be required? How should I plan my future if I would like to be involved in Voisey's Bay? We tell them that programs like are being taught in Goose Bay for heavy equipment operation, heavy equipment repair, welding, industrial mechanic, millwright, sheet metal, and commercial cooking, in addition to numerous other programs in the business sector, are all very appropriate for our students now to be planning.

Since 1995 these two campuses have trained approximately 500 people in the skilled occupations related to the mine and mill operation that will be in Voisey's Bay. Some of these workers already have been getting experience. Some of them have been working for the last several years on the Sango Bay project and, of course, on the Labrador Highway project. They will be all ready. They have their education completed. They will have good valuable work experience and will be able to go directly to work on both the construction and the mine and mill operation at Voisey's Bay. Approximately 100 students have been trained in the eight learning centres along the Labrador Coast, mostly in the District of Torngat, and are ready to begin skills training; very appropriate timing.

The Provincial Apprenticeship Board has also worked with the College of the North Atlantic to ensure that the citizens of Labrador, especially in our Aboriginal communities, are aware of apprenticeship programs and to provide an exploration of additional supports that may be necessary for Aboriginal people to avail of these apprenticeship opportunities. We know that a lot of work will need to be done in the upcoming months and in the next year in this area. As a matter of fact, I have just been at an apprenticeship conference that was held in Vancouver, along with Skills Canada, just so that we could meet the appropriate people, especially people with experience in large projects like Voisey's Bay, who have worked with Aboriginal populations in the northern parts of our country very successfully. It is important that apprentices begin work at the construction stage of the project so that they can get adequate training and work experience to become qualified journey persons who can be hired for the long-term operational part of this project for the upcoming thirty years at least.

I would like to speak a little bit about the Inco Innovation Centre; $20 million that Inco have put into this important piece of their project. Ten million dollars will be used to upgrade and renew the old Thompson Student Centre, and then of course, they have committed $1 million a year for the next ten years following its opening to operate this centre. It will be developed and operated in conjunction with Memorial University. The centre will focus on education and research in mineral exploration, mining and metallurgical processing techniques. It will provide world-class education and research opportunities for both MUN and CONA students, which will be about fifty to sixty students a year; students who are in technology programs, bachelors, masters, and doctorate level programs. The centre will operate in conjunction with the university's engineering and earth sciences departments. It is targeted to be open by the year 2004.

The Member for St. John's East, the Mines and Energy Opposition critic, asked this morning: Will MUN be a part of the team that researches the hydromet process, and will MUN have access to the confidential information needed to do the research? The answer: Would we ever think that Inco would put $20 million into Memorial University and not expect anything in return? They want applied research to be done. That is the whole reason that they are putting such a major investment into our university. This research, of course, will depend on what Inco needs at the time in 2004 and what expertise MUN and CONA has. It will depend on what type of research projects Memorial are interested in and, of course, as I have said, what Inco will need.

As a matter of fact, for the hon. member's information, Inco is conducting research at Memorial University through C-CORE, already. They have been for the last number of years and they are doing it specifically in remote mining technology. C-CORE has played a key role that many people in this Province are not aware of in the advancement of mining technologies, particularly automated underground mining processes, which will be very important as we move into the second stage of operations at the mine and mill operation at Voisey's Bay when they go underground. They continue to do research that will, no doubt, be used on the Voisey's Bay Project. So, right now they are already working with C-CORE. We really look forward to the Inco Innovation Centre being opened because it will be so good for the young people and for Memorial University.

The fact that this research is being done in Newfoundland and Labrador will enhance our research and development capabilities and extend the economic life of the Voisey's Bay Project. We know that as this Inco Innovation Centre does its work and Voisey's Bay is completed, there will be many other projects around the world that this centre will be able to be used for. In particular, we know that Inco is one of the most important mining companies on the planet. They will be involved in a lot of other projects that this Innovation Centre will be able to be used for.

I would like to speak just for a few minutes about training funding. We will be spending significant money on training in conjunction with the federal government through the LMDA, through the Labour Market Development Agreement, in skills training. As a matter of fact, we know right now the minimum that will be spent is $8 million over the next four years. The federal government will continue funding to train Aboriginals through the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Agreement. Significant millions of dollars will be spent in that agreement also.

Furthermore, over the last week for instance, we have already started and heard from the federal government and we know that they will be making a significant additional investment in training for this project as special needs are identified. Inco will develop and implement training initiatives for all phases of the project in cooperation with the various levels of government, Aboriginal groups, labour organizations, suppliers, and training institutions all over our Province.

I would like to spend a brief moment now just talking about the women's employment plan and my role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Government, several years ago when the environmental assessment process was done, made the submission of an acceptable women's employment plan, a specific condition to the release of this project from further environmental assessment in August of 1999. As a matter of fact, what is written in the following release, the statement that I would just like to read briefly so that we will know the commitment that this government and Voisey's Bay has towards making sure that more women are employed in this project than we would usually see on our other major projects. It states, the Province accepts the principle which supports employment equity for women employed at the project. A women's employment plan with measurable goals will be negotiated with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company as part of the overall project benefits. The Province will direct VBNC to submit an acceptable women's employment plan with measurable goals.

I think the involvement of the women's organizations, community groups and educational institutions with government and Voisey's Bay Nickel will be important as this project moves forward to ensure a very proactive plan to train, recruit, retain and advance the women on this project, and that they will receive full and fair benefits from this project.

It is a great chance for all of our young people in this Province, but now it is up to us to encourage especially our young women who have not, I have to say, had a great track record in this Province of entering the non-traditional skilled trades. We know that across our country in the next five years we are going to have a big shortage of skilled trades, so we will need to have both our young men and our young women involved in training for all these opportunities that will be available through the development of this project.

Madam Speaker, earlier we were talking about guarantees. Guarantees for this project, I believe and I know, are ironclad, but I think we also have to know that because a processing plant is being built, either a hydromet facility or a nickel matte processing facility is being built in Argentia, that we will get a lot more than concentrate back than will ever be sent out.

I think the very fact that secondary processing is happening in Argentia means that, while the guarantees are important, we always need to know - we have learned from experience that we need ironclad guarantees - the most important part of that guarantee, to me, is the fact that a processing facility will be built in Argentia. Inco would not be building a processing plant in Argentia, or anywhere else in this country, unless they were very confident that they would have the product that they need for at least seventy-five to 100 years. You look around the world at all of their secondary processing plants and you realize that most of them are even built in places that do not even have any nickel, they do not even have a mine. The most important piece of this, to ensure that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren have employment, is the fact that this facility is going in Argentia. I hope that they continue to find a lot more nickel in Labrador, but in case there is only enough there for thirty years we have a facility that is going to be good for many, many years to come.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to say how supportive I am of this project, how proud I am to be a part of the government that, after six years of negotiating, have come to this historic agreement, and I look forward to Thursday, to the vote. I can guarantee you that I will be voting, very clearly, yes for this project.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to speak on this very significant resolution. This is probably one of the most significant debates that this House will have not only in this session but in many sessions to come, because this particular issue has such a far-reaching effect on so many people in this Province.

Before I make a couple of comments, I do want to thank the Minister of Mines and Energy for showing up in Trinity North last week, in Clarenville on Friday, with Mr. Gill from Voisey's Bay or Inco, and being able to provide an overview of government's sales pitch, their presentation, and their view on this particular, not deal, but this particular Statement of Principles. I must tell the minister that I do not necessarily share the view he had in Clarenville, that he would assume that his children and grandchildren in future would look at this deal as being a significant deal, and one where he made the right decisions and is making the right recommendations.

I can also suggest to the minister that I was not necessarily very encouraged by Mr. Gill when he said that he was a significant player in ensuring that the Bull Arm site was developed. When I drove by and looked out, there was a $500 million white elephant sitting out at Bull Arm not being used. It was supposed to be the major project that was going to deliver us and position us to be a world leader in doing offshore fabrication. After the Hibernia project, we have done a small project with Terra Nova and it has been dormant since then. That is another one of the things we need to be careful about when we debate this particular project, because that is a part of the legacy that this government is going to leave for the Province. Minister, we do not want this particular project to be viewed in that same light in five or ten years from now.

I do want to make a couple of comments, though, with respect to a couple of particular parts of the principles. It is kind of ironic that three short months ago the government spent about $500,000 for a consultant to write a report that outlined how we were going to get rid of 500 positions out of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and lay out a blueprint for removing many hundreds more in other hospitals and health boards around the Province. Here we are today, three months later, in about a $500,000 public relations campaign to tell the people of the Province how we are going to create another 700 or 800 jobs. So we probably spent $1 million in three months to demonstrate to the Province we have had a net gain of probably 100 positions. In the process, the profit margins of Inco have gotten healthier and the health status of the population, both the physical health and the mental health of the people, has gotten worse in the process.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to talk a little bit about, and that is the motivation here. We understand clearly that obviously government is highly motivated by trying to position themselves in a much more favourable light with the electorate in positioning themselves for the next election, given their showing in the polls in recent times.

I do not want at all to suggest that Inco is not being a great corporate citizen internationally. They are a big organization, and they did not get to be that big and that profitable without doing some things that are right, but I have to question the motivation. Last week, when we heard the announcement down at the Fairmont Hotel, Scott Hand had to leave to do a conference call by Web cast with his shareholders. I just want to read something that is in one of the overheads that he presented in that broadcast, where he says: Inco is commited to the principles that the project must provide major benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the Innu and Inuit communities and our employees in Ontario and Manitoba.

Why, Madam Speaker, would Scott Hand be so concerned about, and why should we in Newfoundland and Labrador be concerned about, the employees who work with Inco in Ontario and Manitoba? It is a Voisey's Bay resource. It is a resource of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to be concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The message we need to give Scott Hand is clear. Our primary concern is with Newfoundland and Labrador and not with Ontario and Manitoba. This resource is for their benefit and not other parts of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I just want to reflect for a moment on a couple of things. I want to tie a couple of things together here, Madam Speaker, because as I listened to the Premier this morning, and I listened to Mr. Gill last Friday, talking about the 97 per cent to 98 per cent chance that hydromet technology was going to work, I started to think for a moment about what that really means. If Inco, in fact, has said to us that we have now demonstrated and proven that hydromet technology works in Goro, we now are 97 per cent to 98 per cent sure it is going to work in Argentia, and at the same time, last week, I heard Mr. Gill talk about it was the technology of the future, it was the most environmentally friendly technology in the world today, it was where processing and smelting was going to go. If that is being said and that is, in fact, the case, I suppose, and I can only assume, that Inco will plan to dismantle the archaic facilities that are in Sudbury and Thompson. But, I do not think that is the case. I think very much that Inco is very much positioning itself to preserve the future of Thompson and Sudbury.

I just want to mention a couple of things, Madam Speaker, before I refer to a couple of particular principles. I want to refer to a press release that came out from Inco in June of 2000 where it talks about an expansion project in Sudbury. It says that the production and the exploration they just did extends production by another fifteen years. In 2019 Sudbury is going to be out of source.

A similar kind of release in February, 2000, identifies that in 2016 Thompson will be out of a source. They are going to be looking desperately to Voisey's Bay as the feed to ensure that Thompson and Sudbury continue to survive, which brings me to, I guess, a couple of provisions that are in this Statement of Principles.

I want to refer to principle 13, principle 21, and principle 22, I think it is, Madam Speaker. I want to pose a question, because these statements require comments but these statements also prompt many questions. If we start talking about, as we do in number 13, whether or not we are going to have a hydromet technology and a hydromet plant built in Argentia, it is going to depend on it being commercially, technically and economically feasible.

Then, when we get into principle number 21 we talk about it again, being technically and economically viable. When we get into principle 22, once again we talk about it as being - it says, "In the unlikely event that the Proponent's proposed hydrometallurgical process technology for Voisey's Bay....is not technologically or economically feasible...".

We pose this question: Let's assume that in 2008 Inco says: We have proven the technology. It technically works, but economically it does not fly. We cannot make a sound business case to proceed. Or, in the event of making it a commercial venture, let's assume that in 2008 Inco says, and the experts agree with them, that you can now export ore, export concentrate, from Voisey's Bay to Sudbury and Thompson much cheaper than you can send it to Argentia. Even though the technology is proven, technologically it is proven, economically it is not as feasible as it is to send it to Sudbury.

That is the exact same case, Madam Speaker, the exact same case, that we had at IOC back in 1998 when an expert opinion said it was more financially viable, it was much cheaper, to put a pellet plant in Quebec than it was in Labrador City. What happened? The pellet plant went to Quebec and the Premier of the day said: We cannot argue against that. It made good economic sense. We cannot force a business to put a pellet plant in Labrador City if, in fact, it is not going to make money and the business case shows that it is cheaper to do it somewhere else.

The way these principles are set up, Madam Speaker, it raises the question: Could we not find ourselves in that exact same position in 2008? Technologically it works; however, we cannot make an economic case for it. Then it does not happen. Then what happens?

AN HON. MEMBER: Guess what happens?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The minister has asked a question, then what happens? If the minister would be a little more patient, I will get to my answer to that question. Then what happens, of course, is that we then have Plan B. Plan B will then say that we are going to have a nickel matte process. The ore will continue to go to Sudbury and continue to go to Thompson and what we are going to be faced with is our Voisey's Bay ore doing exactly what Scott Hand said in his Web cast, which is, secure the future of Sudbury and Thompson, and after they have lived up to their obligation, if they in fact have to, if they live up to their obligation to return that ore, then once that ore is returned Argentia shuts down and that future of having a hydromet technology out in Argentia for 100 and 100-plus years, that has just become a dream.

In these principles there are no guarantees that is not going to happen. Technologically, because the Premier made the comment, as did Mr. Gill, they are 97 per cent and 98 per cent sure that technologically it will work, but they are not as sure that they can make an economic case for it and a sound financial, viable case for it. They have never made a comment about that. That is the question. Are they equally as committed and can say with as much confidence that we are not only 98 per cent sure it can work but we are 98 per cent sure economically it can work and we are 98 per cent sure that it will pass the test of the banking financial assessment? Can they give us that kind of commitment as well? Because there is nothing like that in here.

One of the other questions I have is some of the contradictions in information. I look particularly at - because this speaks to the very point we talk about - expectations, and elevating people's expectations beyond reality. I look at a presentation that is dated May, 2002, just several short months ago, when Scott Hand was making a presentation to the Merrill Lynch Metals, Mining and Steel Conference. It is dated May 16, 2002. I just want to read it for you Madam Speaker. In this presentation, he says: Assuming that we have a deal, we are looking at around $600 million for a mine, mill and hydromet process. He said in May, we are going to invest $600,000 in capital for the mine, mill and the processing, or the hydromet test site.

In the Statement of Principles, when we go through them, what we see is three different figures: $130 million for a demonstration plant, $710 million for a mine, mill and concentrator, and $20 million for phase one for underground exploration. Now we have $260 million more being stated as an investment in capital in the next little while than we had in May of 2000. I guess it begs the question: When, in fact, we were talking about May, the $600,000 figure - while we were talking to its industry experts who were looking at investing in this project, and we are trying to ensure that there is some confidence in the project, while now, when we are releasing the Statement of Principles, we are trying to (inaudible) this deal to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, trying to convince them that there is going to be a much more significant investment in the next couple of years than there actually will occur and that, in fact, we will have many more jobs than we anticipate.

There is another question, Madam Speaker, that I pose. We are proposing to build a demonstration plant at a cost of about $130 million. In Goro - and we are saying that we are going to have 200 people working in it. In this same process in Goro, recently, they built the same kind of hydromet technology. The plant was roughly an equivalent size. They only actually - not projected, actually - employed something less than half of 200. They employed less than 100 people in that demonstration plant, not the 200 that this document says that we are going to have. If they can do it there, why can't they do it here with less than 100? Is that 200 figure inflated to make this deal more palatable? That is the question. That is the question, Madam Speaker. That is one of the things we need to ask here.

The other thing, we heard the Premier this morning talking about the construction phase in the initial mill and concentrate plant down in Labrador where they talked about having 600 or 700 jobs. Scott Hand says, just last week on Thursday, there is only going to be about 500. Which is it? Are we going to have 600 or 700 or are we going to have 500? Who knows? Does the Premier know better than Scott Hand how many people they will have in that particular phase?

The other thing that begs a question in terms of expectations. This deal is trying to be sold on the basis of - because that is what we heard today. We have heard lots of things about jobs and capital investment. In fact, you can find that in Quebec, in Raglan, where they have a mine that operates with both an underground mine and an open pit mine, simultaneously. They have blended their mining process and are employing 470 people in total. We are talking about employing 400 people in an open pit process, initially. Are those figures exaggerated? That is the fundamental question. Where are the realistic expectations that people have of this particular project?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs today talking about what this was going to do for the Aboriginal community, what this was going to do for Goose Bay, what this was going to do for all of Labrador. I listened to him talk about what this might do for Argentia. It is difficult not to get excited for the people who live in those communities. We too would like to ensure that this project goes ahead, these communities experience that prosperity, these communities experience the growth, and every single person out there who anticipates finding a job actually finds it. What we want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, is that this particular Statement of Principles provides adequate protection to ensure that becomes a reality; and that is what we are talking about here, making sure that becomes a reality. The question we are asking is: Does this Statement of Principles here offer and provide adequate protection to ensure that people's expectations are actually met?

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace quoted me the other day on a radio program suggesting that I was not against research and development. No, we are not. I am not against, and our party is not against, research and development. Our party is not against developing Voisey's Bay. Our party is not against having prosperity out in Argentia. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we need to keep in mind is the resolution. I just want to remind the members of the House what the actual resolution is. The resolution that was made this morning says: BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly ratifies and endorses the Statement of Principles with respect to the development of the nickel deposit at Voisey's Bay in Labrador tabled by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we are not against development of the Voisey's Bay mine, we are not against having a refining process out in Argentia. What we are suggesting and what we are offering here, in posing some questions in and around whether or not this Statement of Principles does an adequate job in ensuring that those resources are developed for the full benefit of the people of this Province - that is what we are trying to say on this side of the House. We are not against development. We just want to make sure it is done and done right and the people of the Province are protected, and that resource is there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That resource is not there, as Scott Hand said, for the benefit of the people of Ontario and Manitoba. It is there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we want to make sure of, Mr. Speaker - in this debate today and for the next two days, we want to make sure that this resource is developed for the benefit of all Newfoundland and Labrador, it is going to provide the kind of -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

I am glad I had the opportunity to make these few comments. To suggest at all, that this party or this member is against development is a fallacy. In fact, just the contrary; we want to have this deal done right and we would like to see it before it is actually passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today, as the MHA for Topsail and as the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and, Mr. Speaker, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I think today is a very historic day in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am proud to be here to represent the people of Topsail District.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the Premier, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the negotiating team for putting together such a good, sound Statement of Principles that is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1989 as an executive assistant to a former minister. In 1996, I offered myself as a candidate in the District of Topsail for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, as you all know I was successful. Again in 1999, I was successful. In 1995, Mr. Speaker, before I ran, I think I was the first facilitator for the EDGE program that was brought here by this government to look at enticing businesses to start in this Province because we wanted to improve upon the economy. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working out of Atlantic Place where that division of mines and energy was situated, where they were doing, at the time, in 1995 - because we all know that Voisey's Bay was discovered in 1994 - they were doing cost benefit analysis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is pretty difficult for people opposite to stay quiet, but I have stayed pretty quiet here today and allowed them to speak., I would like for them to offer me the same courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, as a government, we were doing cost benefit analysis on Voisey's Bay, and that has been done right up through until now, 2002. We know what is there. We know what the value is. We know what the cost of development is and we know that we want to do it in the best interest of the people that we represent.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I got to know one the individuals there personally, a fellow by the name of Allister Taylor, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy right now, who has been on this project since 1995. He has followed this project from its discovery. He knows the ins and outs of this project, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Mr. Taylor is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. He lives here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. His children are here. The people on that negotiating team are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They live here in this Province. They work for the well-being and the betterment of the people of this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we are here, to do what is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: If you listen to some of the people opposite, the only honest people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not in government. Mr. Speaker, I take offence to that because we have a lot of dedicated, hard-working individuals in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - who have dedicated their lives to making the fortunes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians better.

It is quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, because we used the best minds available for advice on this particular project and they have said that this is a good, sound business deal. We have for days and weeks gone over these Statement of Principles. It was only the other day I talked to Dr. Clar Matchim, who is a Professor of Business at Memorial University. He said it is a good, sound deal. He is a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian. He lives here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: He teaches Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about business, Mr. Speaker, that is what he does. He is a doctor of business and he says, Mr. Speaker, that this is a good deal. Mr. Speaker, I too think this is a good deal and I have no problem standing in this House and supporting this deal.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, because in my former life as an Environment minister I had the pleasure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, can't resist. Your turn is coming, just wait.

I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of travelling to Fort Saskatchewan because I wanted to see for myself how the hydromet process worked. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, right here in this great country that we have a hydromet process that is working for fifty years. Think about it, Mr. Speaker, this process has been working for fifty years. The Leader of the Opposition, if he is interested and he thinks that he does not have all the information, the company's name is Corefco Cobalt Refining Company, Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I happened to pick up the other day some of the releases off the Tory Web site. Here is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say: So far hydromet has only been used experimentally on laterite ore which is found in lose gravel like material rather than in hard rock found in Voisey's Bay. The hydromet process is not yet proved technically or economically competitive anywhere. Now what hogwash, Mr. Speaker! What hogwash! Something that is already working - when the Leader of the Opposition was two years old it was already working in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. What hogwash to get on with. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he would have problems - the people of the Province wondering where he is coming from. That is his statement, Mr. Speaker, not mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Not mine, because we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, know the difference. We know the difference.

As I said in the beginning, we have used the best minds possible in this country to advise us on this particular deal. They tell us that it is a good deal. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no problem standing in this House supporting this proposal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it gets better. I picked up the paper today and what did it say? From a criminal lawyer, right here in St. John's, Newfoundland - a criminal lawyer not a corporate lawyer - Mr. Jerome Kennedy. What did he say? The headlines says, "Tentative deal not worth debating: defence lawyer."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall last fall when this minister brought into this House the Environmental Protection Act and the Water Resources Act, when this same lawyer got on the public airwaves and gave an independent opinion to the Tory caucus that we were contravening the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Just think about it. That is what he said, and that is what he said publicly. What happened? This spring, those same two acts went through this Legislature with that particular clause that he was talking about, unchanged.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: This same criminal lawyer is now in the public domain saying that this deal is not worth debating. Worse still, here is what he said: I want my children to have the right to choose whether or not they stay in this Province. I do not want them to have to leave because of another bad deal.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker. That is the same fellow who gave the advice to the Tory caucus last year about the Environmental Protection Act contravening the Chart of Rights and Freedoms. Now, does he think for one minute that the only person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who is going to do anything in interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is sitting over there? The people on this side of the House have just as much determination to do things right as anybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are prepared to do it.

I can understand that people have some fear. Who wouldn't, when you think back some thirty years? I was fourteen years old. There was a bad deal made on Churchill Falls, but both sides of the House voted for that. Everybody knows today that it was a bad deal, but I can tell you that this government is not prepared to live in the past. We are not going to do it because we need to move forward. We have more technology and more information available to us today than we ever had. So, why wouldn't we know what the right thing is to do?

I can understand the Leader of the Opposition over there now. He is not quite pleased because things are not going his way, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, this deal is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are prepared, on this side of the House -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing what is being said. Given the importance of the occasion, I would wish that we could all hear what the hon. member is saying. If the members could tone it down, please?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that they do get the best possible deal that can be gotten. I believe that this deal will be absolutely great for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will provide a multitude of opportunities for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we did not do that on our own. We did that by seeking advice, by finding a way. It was under the leadership of Premier Grimes that we found a way that all of us can stand up and be proud to say that we are prepared to move this Province forward; and we will do that, Mr. Speaker. We will do it because it is the right thing to do. As I said, the past is the past.

Myself and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs ran into a friend of mine that I hadn't seen for some twenty-five years. Five years ago this individual, with two other individuals, formed a company and went into business for themselves. I was curious today as to how they felt about going into business, so I said to them: When you went into business, did you have a 97 per cent chance of success? He said: Are you crazy? I said: No, I am asking you a question. In your estimation, when you started your business, did you have a 97 per cent chance of success? He said: No way, no way.

Mr. Speaker, unless there was an individual who was going into business and had a monopoly, I guess the averages were higher. It would be probably much higher. Think about it, Mr. Speaker. On this particular proposal, on this Statement of Principles, we have a 97 per cent chance of being successful, that we will have a hydromet plant in Argentia that will probably last 100 years. What is the Opposition all torn up about? The 3 per cent chance that we may not succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that anybody in this Province going into business, if they had a 3 per cent chance of not succeeding, we would have everybody in the business - everybody - because, I tell you, it is a great, great percentage to be going into, knowing full well that the hydromet process already works. It just has not been proven up on the ores in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied that we have done the right thing. As a government, we have not been sitting idly by on Voisey's Bay. As a department, we strongly believe that the Voisey's Bay project will have many positive impacts on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that these impacts will create numerous opportunities for our Province and for our people. I, along with my department, am interested in making sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are taking advantage of the employment opportunities that will result from Voisey's Bay. I am proud to say to the House today that my department is taking, and will continue to take, a key role towards the partners from other provincial departments and the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that we also established a committee in 1995, a Voisey's Bay Needs Assessment Sub-Committee. This group was established to address what would be the educational and training requirements for the Voisey's Bay workforce. One year later, Mr. Speaker, in 1996, this group completed a training needs assessment. This assessment in turn recommended a Multi-Party Training Plan Committee. This committee was established to facilitate training employment and represents bodies and organizations that will be the most directly involved as the employer, employees and educators: Voisey's Bay Nickel; Labrador Inuit Association, Sheshatshiu and Mushuau Band Council, Human Resources Development Canada and the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, this committee has worked (inaudible) personal development plan for some 400 individuals. Many of these people have pursued a wide variety of training options ranging from Adult Basic Education to training specifically related to the occupations in the mining and construction industry. They have been involved in conducting labour market research, Mr. Speaker. They have identified the opportunities in the job market that will be developed because of the Voisey's Bay project. They will make sure the positions within the labour markets are filled with trained and qualified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It will be part of our job to work with our other departments to ensure that education and training will be effectively matched and co-ordinated with this project's needs. It will also be part of our job to ensure a productive workforce, one that is the right mix of knowledge, skills and abilities which will capitalize on the Voisey's Bay opportunities.

The Voisey's Bay Environmental Impact Statement, 1997, reports that right now there are significant numbers of people in the Labrador workforce with the relevant training and qualifications to work at this project. Keep in mind I have already mentioned that we have already assisted over 400 individuals to complete personal development plans for the purpose of taking up employment. This was no accident, Mr. Speaker, this is no coincidence; this is a result of consistent vision, and the government's desire and determination to work towards it. Our overriding goal has always been to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be ready to take advantage of every opportunity possible whenever that opportunity arises.

Just last year, Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic, in partnership with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, enhanced its mining and related training with the opening of the Mining Technology Centre at the Lab West campus in Labrador City. There are now 125 students enrolled as mining engineering technicians and in the mineral processing program. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in my mind that the labour force of Newfoundland and Labrador, and most especially Labrador, will be ready, willing and able to work in what is clearly a world-class project.

This is in addition to the opportunities afforded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in Argentia. The hydromet plant, when it is completed, will be employing some 400 people for at least thirty years, after employing 1,000 people during construction. The operation's labour force will be involved in technological showcase, the most advanced nickel processing plant in the world.

The Statement of Principles, clause 27, says, in part, "This Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreement will include the Proponent's..." - by that we mean Inco and all subcontractors - "... polices which address principles of full and fair opportunity in procurement from companies in the Province as well as training and employment of residents of the Province."

Mr. Speaker, that sounds very clear to me, and to make sure that it is clear to Inco and all the subcontractors, to make sure that it happens, my department will be closely monitoring the company's efforts. One of my department's roles, in co-ordination with others, will be to monitor two specific areas of the Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The first consideration being training and employment and the second being the full and fair opportunities principle.

Mr. Speaker, not to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great please that I support this particular project.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to interrupt the Member for Topsail when he was speaking but I do want to correct a statement he made and that is concerning the concerns we had regrading the environment and the water protection act. I will say that there were amendments put forward to that act to address the concerns that we had. They were accepted in this House. They were passed in this House, regarding the search and seizure sections of that act. They were passed here and they satisfied our concerns. I am not sure if he was absent that day or if he was asleep in his seat but those concerns were addressed, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also raised another issue. That was about Port Saskatchewan. Before I get into that, I will say that the minister said that the hydromet facility is 97 per cent guaranteed to work; we are only taking a 3 per cent risk. Then he started talking about Port Saskatchewan. He addressed our leader and said that this process is already proven, right here in our great country, if I am paraphrasing him correctly, that this process has been proven right here in our own country; it is already 100 per cent proven. I am not sure if he is 97 per cent proven or 100 per cent, but if it is already 100 per cent proven in Port Saskatchewan, why is government trying to push a test facility down our throats? This process is already proven!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: At a cost of $130 million of taxpayers' money. If we are to understand the Member for Topsail, this process is proven. Why don't we just go straight to the processing stage, save $130 million of taxpayers' money and start processing the nickel right here in our Province? Because, according to the Member for Topsail, this process is proven. It is already proven. Now, Inco are telling us it is not proven, but the Premier's star minister, the Member for Topsail, is telling us this process is proven. Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to say: What is it? What is it? Because we are being told so many things.

On Friday, before the announcement was made, the Premier stood up and said: There is absolutely no deal. On Tuesday, he rolled out a promotional campaign trying to rollercoast everybody in the Province. I mean, those things are not done in twenty-four hours: the TV ads, the brochures, radio ads, newspaper ads, the big banner behind them down at the Fairmont. Those things were not done on Monday. Those things took a bit of planning. They took a bit of authorization and some approval by Cabinet. That deal was done. Yet, the minister told us on Friday, absolutely not. On Monday, still not done, we are still negotiating. He had a brochure in the mailboxes on Wednesday printed and all ready to roll. On Tuesday they were delivered. I received mine in the mail on Wednesday. So they must have been at the post office Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about ore leaving the Province to employ people in Manitoba, Ontario, and Sudbury. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment says this technology is already proven, but yet, government is satisfied to send out ore to employ people in Manitoba and Ontario. That ore should stay in this Province to employ people right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It should stay in this Province, and that is what most people in the Province are against, ore leaving the Province. I do not want to see ore leaving the Province. I had an independent poll conducted in my district on this issue and the people in my district do not want to see ore leave this Province either, I can tell you that. They do not want ore leaving this Province.

In 1996 the Liberal Party ran on the platform that ore would not leave the Province. We are now being told: A Commitment Made, A Commitment Kept. Yet, we are sending ore out of the Province. I am not sure if the Liberal propaganda is to try to convince people that what they said in 1996 was: we are going to lend Inco some ore, even though the Premier is very clearly quoted as saying, "Not one ounce, not one spoonful" is going to leave this Province. I believe the Premier had also said: If we let the ore go on the promise that a smelter will come later, later will never come. Yet, we are now being told by government that there was a commitment made, a commitment kept. People in this Province are not that naive. They are not that naive.

Mr. Speaker, we are being told that this ore is going to return to the Province in thirty or thirty-five years, if it returns at all, because my belief is that once that ore is shipped out of this Province it will never see the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador ever again. We will never see it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yet, we are being brainwashed by the Liberal Party, the government, that this is a commitment they made and a commitment they kept.

We are getting a whopping $9 million in royalties. That is what Inco is paying. There is a 95 per cent clawback. It was put perfectly by a cartoon in The Telegram by Kevin Tobin, where he had a picture of a loonie and it said: This is your share of the Inco deal. Do you know what? That is a fact. Our royalties in this Province are going to be approximately $1 per person, per year. Mr. Speaker, that is not what I would call a great deal. We are sending ore out of the Province to employ people in Manitoba and Ontario and we are going to get a dollar a year per person. Somebody said to me this weekend: What do you suppose I should do with my $1 a year? I said save it for ten years and buy a snack pack because that is about the size of it.

I heard somebody from Grand Falls on one of the Open Line shows the other day saying: There is a hotel chain going to open in Grand Falls. This is a great deal. It is going to spur the economy of Grand Falls. Well, if you took three people for the full thirty years they could all share a room on the royalties we are getting from this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are being told by government to trust Inco, that we have a guarantee that if they do not put a smelter there we can sue them, we can stop shipping ore out of the Province. We can sue them. Whoop-de-do! Mr. Speaker, we can sue them. We could also sue Friede Goldman. Did government do it? No. A $5 million a year penalty for not living up to their part of the bargain in supplying employment in Marystown, and what happened? Government did not sue them. In fact, government helped facilitate a deal between Friede Goldman and PKG, and Friede Goldman got to keep the $7 million for the sale. What kind of a deal is that? I will tell you what kind of deal it is, the same kind of deal we are seeing today with Inco, a deal where there is no ironclad guarantees. There is no protection for Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no protection for the people in this Province on ore leaving and coming back. There are no royalties for this Province.

If the hydromet does not work we are going to go into nickel matting; where most of the work is done probably in Sudbury and they send the product back here to be sheeted. Most of the work will be done in Sudbury or Manitoba with our ore that they have already taken. What kind of a deal are we trying to shove down the throats of the people in this Province? Because that is what government are doing. Every time you turn on the radio you hear Roger Grimes telling, trying to brainwash the people, trying to sell the people of this Province, using taxpayers' money, using the people's own money, trying to sell the people of this Province that this is a great deal. If it is such a great deal, why is it every time you turn on the radio or turn on the T.V. Roger Grimes is there trying to shove it down people's throats.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that when he is referring to Members of the House he ought to refer to them by their district or by the portfolio that they have.

MR. T. OSBORNE: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I meant to refer to him as the Premier and I referred to him by his name. I apologize to the House.

Mr. Speaker, every time we turn on the radio or turn on the T.V. we see the Premier spending taxpayers' money trying to convince taxpayers, trying to convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that this is a great deal. That this is a deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Exactly. I was just informed by one of my colleagues that the only thing the commercials don't say is: Vote Liberal. With the banner on back: A Better Tomorrow, Not one ounce, not one spoonful. That is the only thing that is not on those commercials. The only thing those commercials don't say.

Thinking about the deal, there is absolutely nothing in the Statement of Principles talking about environment. The only thing I see there on environment is on the very first page where they say: part of the principle conditions are that we are going have an Environmental Management Agreement. An Environmental Management Agreement, I do not think we have done a full environmental assessment of the hydromet process. I do not think that has been done. When you listen to people in Goro, they have some real concerns about hydromet and the environmental affects of it. When you talk to people up in Fort Colborne in Ontario and ask them what they think of Inco the day after Inco has pulled up their stakes and left, shut down the refinery there - go back and read the newspapers, a $750 million class-action lawsuit against Inco. Now I am not trying to tarnish Inco's reputation here. Let me be clear. What I am doing is saying very clearly that there are other jurisdictions, not only in Canada, but throughout the world that have concerns about how Inco treated the environment. In Fort Colborne, they shut down the refinery in 1994 or 1984 - I cannot remember - but the refinery is shut down now and there is a $750 million lawsuit against Inco for environmental damage in Fort Colborne. We have not even done a full environmental assessment of the hydromet facility, and government are here saying it is approved. It is going to go ahead.

What about an environmental trust fund? I do not see anything in the Statement of Principles here talking about an environmental trust fund. We have seen in this Province, with other industries right here at home, the Americans when they left, left their bases to be cleaned up by Newfoundlanders and by Canadians. We saw it in other industries, in mining industries in fact, where the mine is now closed, the operators are gone and Newfoundlanders are left with the clean up bill, the environmental clean up bill. I do not see anything in the Statement of Principles here talking about an environmental trust fund so that when the mine is closed and finished and Inco are gone, who is going to do the clean up? What guarantees do we have that the site will be re-mediated before they leave? There is nothing there.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is saying you cannot get a permit without a remediation plan. If Inco go bust, or if they just leave and they are still doing great, we are going to sue them like we sued Friede Goldman? We are going to sue them? There should be an environmental trust fund to ensure that this site is re-mediated to ensure that it is cleaned up before Inco leaves.

Mr. Speaker, what about a heritage fund? We see in Alberta that there is a heritage fund.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) on a point of order and interrupt my colleague, but this morning the Premier chastised one of our members for interrupting and said: You will have your opportunity, now listen intently. For the past seven minutes I have listened to the Premier of the Province interject, shout out a number of things to the Member for St. John's South, who has twenty minutes like every other member. I will ask him what he asked this morning, to allow the member to conclude his remarks. You will have your twenty minutes at the end of the process, Premier. I ask you for the same curiosity that you asked of others in this House this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see in Alberta a heritage fund. A heritage fund is put in place to ensure that if and when the oil industry is finished in Alberta, when and if there is no oil industry in Alberta, they have money in the bank. I see nothing here in the Statement of Principles about a heritage fund to look after tomorrow; to ensure that we are looked after in the event that Inco clue up earlier than thirty years. Even if they go thirty or forty years, to ensure that there is money in the bank for tomorrow because I tell you, $500,000 a year or $500,000 and some-odd a year just does not cut it with me.

Mr. Speaker, another issue is a bond on the ore that is leaving the Province. We are being promised that this is going to come back but there is no bond in place. There is no financial guarantee or financial burden placed on Inco should they decide not to send the ore back. There is nothing in the Statement of Principles talking about a tonnage fee, if the ore comes back we will repay the fee that they pay or a bond or an insurance. There are no guarantees for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It seems like most of the safeguards are put in place for Inco. Most of the insurance is put in place, not for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but for Inco. There are lots of off-ramps, lots of doors, lots of ways that Inco can get out of shipping ore back; lots of ways that Inco can get out of putting a processing facility in the Province; lots of ways that they can take the ovoid, the richest most valuable, most profitable ore body in Voisey's Bay without getting into the underground mining, the more expensive mining process. There are lots of guarantees for Inco. What about the guarantees for us? What about the guarantees for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Because what we are getting in royalties on this is a joke. To add insult to injury, we are sending ore out to Ontario and Manitoba, creating jobs there.

The sad reality is, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have waited so long for positive news on Voisey's Bay, they have waited so long, there is such a desperation in some areas of the Province for good news, that some people are willing to grasp at this. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The popular position may not be to say we are against this deal, but that is what I am saying. That is what I am saying because we are not getting very much in royalties; very, very little in royalties. We are getting very little in royalties and our ore is leaving the Province with very little ironclad guarantee that it is going to come back; very little guarantee, no ironclad guarantee, I should say.

The sad reality is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in my opinion, are being taken to the cleaners again. We are perhaps the wealthiest Province in all of Canada resource wise. We have the second smallest population in Canada and fiscally, Newfoundland and Labrador is the poorest Province in Canada. The Premier of this Province is about to make the same mistake that has been made time after time after time in this Province while we bend over and let the corporate world whip our backs and force us to take a deal by saying: that is all we are going to give, take it or leave it. This is the best you are going to get from us. Well do you know what? We should not let our ore leave this Province under any circumstances. They process it here or they do not get it at all. That is my feeling -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - and the people in my district have told me clearly, go in and fight for the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and that is what I am going to do. I am voting against this deal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: It makes to the government on how well the Province is run. Thank you very much for complimenting me on the improvements since I have become a member of Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we are participating in a very serious debate this week in this House of Assembly. I do not think it is being taken as seriously by many of us, including ourselves, as it should be because I think we believe the result is a foregone conclusion. People believe that this resolution is going to pass because it is going to be supported by the majority on this side of the House. I think that is the case, but nevertheless, it is a very serious debate.

What would happen if this resolution is defeated this week in the House? How will the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel should this resolution be defeated? It could well be defeated if the argument of the people on the other side of the House had its way over the next few days. If they come up with some good points that persuade us to change our positions that might well happen, but I do not think they are going to. I do not think they are going to because we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: That is the gentleman who was asking for - the Opposition House Leader was on his feet asking for silence so that his member could speak a few minutes ago. He is the one who is stirring the waters over there now. I would suggest that he follow his own advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, if this resolution were not to pass - people are saying that this resolution does not embody the details of the deal that is about to be made. If this resolution does not pass there will not be any details. We would say to Inco the Province is not satisfied with the negotiations we have had. We have to go back to the drawing board perhaps for another year, perhaps for another five years, perhaps for longer than that even.

So this is a very serious debate. This is a very serious debate for the thousands of people who are looking to get jobs as a result of this project proceeding. It is a very serious debate for the families in our Province. The consequences could be very negative for many people and for the Province as a whole.I don't think that is going to happen because I think what we have negotiated is an acceptable deal. It is not a perfect deal, Mr. Speaker. No deals are perfect. You can isolate different components of it and talk about how they could be improved. We can all do that. We have done that as a caucus ourselves, but we look at it as a package. This is an opportunity for our Province to say we want to go forward with this tremendous development, or to say no, we are going to stop it here and start over again.

Can you imagine the message that would send out about our Province, if that was the decision in this House on Thursday evening? I don't think it is going to be the decision because this deal makes too much sense, Mr. Speaker. When you look at upwards of 1,000 jobs that are going to be created over the next few years during the construction phase, when you look at upwards of 1,000 jobs that are going to be created, permanent jobs, for the next generation of Newfoundlanders - because this project is expected to last some twenty or twenty-five years - upwards of 1,000 jobs for most of that, and an additional 400 jobs in about fifteen years' time, perhaps, when the underground mining starts. Can you imagine the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are looking forward to the promise of these opportunities? I have gotten e-mails and I have gotten telephone calls and I have gotten notes from friends. I have gotten those communications from people saying: Please pass this deal. My family is looking forward to it. My kids are looking forward to the jobs. My kids want to come back home.

Now, everybody is not totally in favour. I have also gotten calls, communications, from people who said: I have some concerns about this. Everybody has concerns because it is not a perfect deal, but, Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have communicated with me have indicated their support for this deal, in keeping with the kind of polling that we have seen done.

I was interested to hear the Member for St. John's South say that he has done a poll in his district indicating that a majority of the respondents are against this deal. I challenge him, Mr. Speaker, to make that poll public, because I am confident that poll was not done by a legitimate polling organization. I cannot believe the people who are telling us they are talking to constituents and are being told by most of them that they are against this deal. That is not my experience, Mr. Speaker.

I had a public meeting in my district last night. We had some sixty people come out to the meeting, and the overwhelming majority of them felt that we should proceed with this deal. There were questions raised about it. People said that they would like to have a stronger guarantee. They would like not to have to ship ore out of the Province. They would like for things to move faster. They would like to have more royalties. They would like not to lose the benefits in equalization or clawbacks, and that sort of thing. We all feel the same way about that, but, in looking at it as a package, they have said: This deal is acceptable to us and I want you to go in and support it. That is what the overwhelming majority of people I speak to tell me.

Mr. Taylor, who the Member for Topsail spoke about earlier, he accompanied me at the meeting last night and he explained some of the details for the meeting. He got several ovations from the audience there last night. I think that is an indication of how people feel about this deal. Several people went to the microphone and complimented him on the deal that he negotiated on behalf of the Province. I am sure that many people who work for the public service are going to be pleased to hear that they are so well regarded by the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we could have started developing Voisey's Bay five years ago if we were willing to accept an inferior deal, if we were willing to have this mine developed in the same way other mines that have been developed in this Province operated, so that ore was simply concentrated and shipped out of the Province without any further processing. We were not willing to do that and we have stood firm for four or five years insisting on the right deal. We think that we have gotten to the right deal now, Mr. Speaker. We have presented it to the people of the Province, and we have made sure that they are properly informed about it. Members opposite criticized us for spending too much money and expending too much effort trying to ensure that people are informed, but I have to remind them that they were the ones who started an advertising campaign prior to the deal even being announced, telling people that this was going to be a bad deal, telling them that this government was going to give away this tremendous resource that the Province owns.

They said earlier in the day: If this was such a good deal, why did the government consider it necessary to spend money promoting it? Well, I ask them, Mr. Speaker: If this was such a bad deal, why did they need to spend money condemning it?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is our money that we raised ourselves, not taxpayers' dollars.

MR. NOEL: It is money that you could have put to the sort of good use you were advising us to put money to earlier today.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the magnitude of the impact this development is going to have on our Province, the increased business activity, aside from the jobs that are going to be directly created, the indirect jobs, the stimulation it is going to bring to mining exploration in our Province, the message it is going to send out about our Province - as a result of the project that we agreed to, Inco will be spending an average of $150 million a year investing in our mining industry compared to what is anticipated to be an investment in the mining industry without this development of some $34 million this year. That is almost five times as much annual investment for the next twenty years as a result of this development.

Once the project begins, and we begin shipping concentrate out of the Province, which is the same as we do with any mining operation in the Province today, we ship concentrate at best, one they begin shipping concentrate they will ship an average of some $500 million or $600 million a year, Mr. Speaker, compared with a total anticipated shipment for this year of some $800 million. So that is an indication of the kind of boost this is going to give to the provincial economy.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: How can we refuse to do the kind of deal that we have negotiated with this corporation? Mr. Speaker, I am one who has been prepared during my career in this House of Assembly to take positions against what people on my side have done, against what the government has done, when I thought there was a persuasive case for doing so. I don't believe that is the case this time, Mr. Speaker. I believe the persuasive case in this instance is to support this deal, and that is why I am prepared to do so.

I, too, regret that we are going to lose so many of the benefits as a result of the equalization clawback, Mr. Speaker. That is something that I personally have been working at since I have been a member of this House, and I have been working for since prior to becoming a member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: There is the gentleman who was asking for silence a few minutes ago, refusing to allow silence to the present speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first time I ran for political office in October, 1971, I proposed the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the consequences of Confederation for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has taken thirty years, Mr. Speaker, to see that materialize, thanks to this caucus and this Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - who have had the courage and the wisdom to set up a Royal Commission to undertake that.

I again presented a similar motion in this House of Assembly in March, 1993, calling for the establishment of a committee of the House to investigate the consequences of Confederation. We have all spoken to this issue and it is great to see the tremendous consensus we have in the Province to change this problem we have with the way Canada operates. We are going to continue making that case and over the years, Mr. Speaker, I hope that will result in increasing the benefits that we are going to receive as a result of this deal. I am confident that we can make some progress, but it will not be easy.

I would like to see more royalties collected by this Province, Mr. Speaker. The royalty tax is not as high as we would like it to be, but reality is, if we overprice ourselves on royalties we will not get the kind of exploration we need in this Province. We will not get the kind of investment. We have to have a royalty system that is comparable with other jurisdictions, and that is what we have, Mr. Speaker. We are going to get a comparable amount of royalties as a result of this deal.

Mr. Speaker, another reason I am prepared to support this deal is that it accomplishes practically everything we have set out to get over the past five or six years while this project has been discussed in the Province. We are getting full processing in the Province. We are getting jobs in the Province. We are getting the ore that is going to be sent out returned. We are getting a refinery in the Province, a hydrometallurgical processing plant, and, Mr. Speaker, we have the guarantees in place necessary to deliver on those. People raised fears about the possibility of Inco not getting the economic studies that they need in order to justify building the smelter and proceeding with this development or the technical feasibility studies, but we have all kinds of checks and balances, as the Premier indicated when he spoke today, in this agreement. If they do not deliver on their end of it, then they are not allowed to proceed with removing concentrate from our Province. We think that we have reasonable protection, Mr. Speaker, and we have had the best advice that is available in our Province and throughout the country on this. We are confident that what we are doing is right.

Mr. Speaker, my friend spoke earlier today about who would be the losers, and that is what I ask all members of the House to think about tonight. If we were to reject this deal, if we to say: No, Inco, we are not prepared to proceed at this time.... If we were to inflict on our people the possibility that this development that is going to create so much economic activity for the next generation - if we were going to say no, we are going to walk away from that, we know who the losers would be: the people that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile spoke about earlier today. Who would be the losers? The young people, the people who want to return to our Province, the families who want to stay together.

I ask members to keep that in mind when they are considering rejecting this proposition. I ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who I know has particular sympathies for these kinds of concerns, to appreciate the people who will pay the consequence if we decide, in this House, that this is not a perfect deal, that all of the different components of it could have some improvements, if, as a package, it is not a perfect deal, so we are going to reject it. I ask the Leader of the NDP to look at who we will be rejecting, who we will be saying no to, who we will be saying: Your future is not going to be as promising in this Province as it could be if this House was prepared to endorse this deal.

That is why this debate is so important tonight, Madam Speaker. If this resolution is not passed, if this House does not endorse this deal, then there will not be a detailed agreement. The project will not proceed and many people in our Province will be disheartened as a result and face a bleaker future as a result. I urge members to take that into account and encourage them to make this a unanimous resolution of this House of Assembly: that, while we may have different levels of concerns about the adequacy of this deal, as a package we believe it is acceptable and promising for the Province, and as a House of Assembly we unanimously endorse it.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am certainly privileged tonight to stand and say a few words in taking part in this very important debate that is happening here today and the next two days. I would like to say to people opposite and to the people who are watching out there in their homes, that, listening to the government members get up and speak, you would think that the people on this side were against this particular project. Madam Speaker, I can tell you right now that there is nobody here on this side of the House against this particular project. What we are against, Madam Speaker, is the deal to bring this particular project forward. There is nobody on this side of the House who will stand up and support a deal that will see ore or fish or anything else leave this Province unless we get full and fair value for the people who live in this Province. We have seen that happen far too often. We have seen that happen far too often

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Premier points as you put it forward. I remember when the Premier was the Minister of Labour. I remember this member talking about Hibernia at the time, and talking about the need to have other people working there, when we had people working at the Hibernia project who could not get a day off. People were working for twenty-five, thirty and forty days at a time, twelve hours a day, seven days a week. The Premier, who was the minister at the time, would say: What is the member talking about? We have 1,000 people working at Hibernia. What are you complaining about?

Mr. Speaker, this member, and the members on this side of the House, will continue to stand here and complain every day of the week until we see full employment for the people of this Province and full employment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and, where there is a job to be created, we should make sure that we step forward and receive that particular job so the benefits can go to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Every one of those members over there, except one, the Member for Port de Grave, stood behind the former Premier when he talked about not one spoonful of ore being allowed to leave this Province. They stood like sheep, followed him and said: We all support that. That is what we believe in because that is what can get us elected.

They stood like sheep. What a difference a day makes. What a difference thirty pieces of silver can bring, or, in this case, I suppose, thirty pieces of nickel, because that is what has happened. That is what has happened to the people on the other side of the House where they see them rise and rally behind the Premier to keep a position in government, or to go out and hopefully get some credit for being with the Premier because he was the one who wanted to sell this deal and bring it forward, at the people's expense, to carry on a great publicity campaign to convince people that it was a wonderful deal, being paid for by the taxpayers' dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. FITZGERALD: Shameful, and the calls I get from students who cannot get a job in the summertime, from a senior who - this Premier and this government have refused to index their pension, from a Premier and a government who have refused to go out and open hospital beds, but there is no limit to the money that those people can spend to carry on an advertising campaign to push a deal down somebody's throat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say that is a shame. It is shameful that the government would be able to go and access the people's money to go out and carry on Liberal propaganda, to go out and sell themselves and try to push this deal down the throats of people when they, themselves, have the ability to make up their own mind whether it is a good deal or not.

Mr. Speaker, when this deal was announced last Tuesday morning, I remember seeing the Premier and I remember seeing the Minister of Mines and Energy being interviewed Friday afternoon. The reporters were all over them, to ask if there was a deal. They both stood up and said there was no deal. If you are getting information that says there is a deal, then you are getting it from people I have not talked with and you are getting it from people I have not been involved in conversations or negotiations with.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Human Resources (inaudible) done for weeks (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Human Resources, my colleague informs me, said it was done for weeks, and the Minister of Human Resources and Employment is probably telling the truth. It was announced on Tuesday morning. There was no deal on Friday. Tuesday morning it was announced. Wednesday morning, everybody's mailboxes were filled with flashy advertising talking about what a wonderful deal it was. Banners all over the place. Banners on the Prince Philip Parkway here, Mr. Speaker.

I went to my district to consult and to talk to the people. I went into the council offices there.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did you have a public meeting?

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister of Finance, you have no worry about me including the public when I get up to speak here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Because I know, unlike you, I say to the minister, I consult 365 days a year and I am not dictated to by my leader to get up and say what you have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, you do not have to tell me how to consult my people.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am glad the Province is watching you on t.v. tonight.

MR. FITZGERALD: So am, I say to you, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday morning I was down to my district and I went into the hospital in Bonavista. This was the day that the big project was being unveiled. I can tell you, the people who approached me at the hospital in Bonavista did not approach me in talking about the Voisey's Bay deal or what it was going to do for them. What was on their minds at that particular time was: Not being able to get their summer holidays; being afraid to answer their phones in case they were being called in to work double shifts; their family members being admitted to the hospital and having to stay in emergency; and family members having to come in and stay with them all night. Those are the kind of things that concern those people.

Mr. Speaker, I got sidetracked. I was talking about the propaganda mission. I went into a couple of town council offices and there was a sign on the door saying: Council Hours - I forget what they were now, but I know that it was not the proper hours for the council to be open. I said: It is strange for you to be open today, this hour of the day; your hours are different. She said: No, we had a call from the government saying we have to keep our council offices open full-time. I said: For what? Because they sent us out their principles, their framework, and we have to keep our council offices open. They were willing to pay for them in case somebody came in looking for the framework proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I said to the town clerk: Gee, that is not a bad idea. I guess there are a lot of people coming by. She said: I have seen one person in two days. That is how many people came by who were interested. I have seen one person in two days.

I see the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs over there is not happy because I am saying those things. I guess it came from him to have the council offices open, I guess it came from him to pay the extra money, and I guess there was no problem with doing all of this because again it was the taxpayers' dollars. An endless pit! Spend, spend, spend, to carry out the government agenda!

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier this morning when he stood up talking about the wonderful things that were happening with this particular proposal. If you had listened to him, you would have heard the word ‘probably' about ten times. I just started copying it down a couple of times when the minister started talking about the project: would probably employ so many hundred people; would probably build the hydromet, nickel matte, the test plant; would probably process so many tons of ore; would probably last for thirty or one hundred years. All probables, nothing concrete, nothing for certain. There is only one thing that we all can take very little comfort in, there is one thing that we all know for certain, that we are going to see ore leave this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody thinks you are going to see ore leave this Province and return again, then you are dreaming. If you believe that, then you can believe that I will probably be the next Lieutenant Governor, because I can assure you that will not happen. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a project there that is worth something like $42 billion, a $42 billion project. We are going to realize less than $500,000 a year in royalties, less than $500,000 a year in royalties. The Leader of the Opposition correctly pointed out, less than one dollar per person per year in royalties.

The Premier talks about equalization payments. I have a real problem when I even hear the word equalization, I say to you Premier, because I feel that we are all equal. I think it is time for us to get away from some of those phrases that we use. One time we called the Unemployment Insurance System, UI. It was always unemployment, and they changed that to EI. One time, Mr. Speaker, they used to refer to the place you go if you had a problem with nervousness the asylum. Now they call it by the proper name, by the name of a hospital. I think it is about time that we got away from this equalization payments. I feel equal to everybody else in Canada. I think this Province is equal to every other province in Canada. Maybe it is about time that we changed the name of that.

I had an interesting call from a fellow who said: I continually hear the Premier, I continually hear people talking about transfer payments and royalties and the unfair treatment that we are getting from the rest of Canada, and it is always spoken about in the context that we only have seven members in the House of Commons, that we can never convince Ottawa to listen to our pleas and to listen to our needs, because we only have seven members and we are far out shadowed by, say, the Province of Ontario that has something like 101 Members of Parliament. He said: Maybe it is time, maybe now might have been the time when the Premier, instead of going up and sitting down with the Prime Minister and coming back as he did just a few short months ago, where we thought we had a better deal, where we would have been able to keep greater royalties and had our transfer payments increased - then all of a sudden the Prime Minister said he was wrong - maybe this would have been the time, since the Premier is going to give away something. We could not do this, but looking at the way the Premier is going - because our philosophy is that we give nothing away when it comes to ore being shipped out of this Province. We do not believe in doing that. We have said that from day one, we stuck with it and we believe it today, that we would never allow ore to leave this Province and bring it back on a promise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We would never allow that to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure they said it, but they went back on what they said and they are going to pay the price because they have to answer to the people for that.

If the Premier was of the mindset that he was going to allow ore to leave the Province, maybe it would have been time to get some of the people in the Province of Ontario, some of the MPs, since we are going to go and feed their nickel smelter, and maybe some of the people in the province of Manitoba because now we are going to feed their nickel smelter, onside to look at the deal that we are getting from our central government, maybe this might have been the time and the lever that we could have used in order to access that. But, we did not, we did not. It is probably another opportunity missed, I say to you, Premier. So this was brought to me in conversation, and it was interesting.

Madam Speaker, when you look at a project the size of this Inco project, when you look at what we are going to allow Inco to do - we are going to allow them to start a mine, we are going to allow them to build a test plant out in Argentia. I can be happy for the people in Argentia, I can be happy for the people in Labrador and I can be happy for the construction workers because I know how important jobs are. Most of the calls that I have had on this particular debate, before the debate started, were people wondering where they can apply for the job. That is natural, because people want to go to work. They want an opportunity to be able to go out and live in this Province. I understand that and I can relate to it because it is something that I have lived through myself.

Mr. Speaker, when you see what we are allowing to happen, and with the best scenario we are going to have a hydromet plant - that is the best scenario. If that happens, then I guess we will have so much ore go out and if that never comes back then we are going to be the loser in that and the benefits to the people who we would like to have employed and who would have probably been offered an opportunity to have worked, had we kept all the ore here.

Supposing that we do not build the hydromet plant, supposing that the test plant does not work, what are we going to do then? We are going to ship every pound of ore, every ounce of ore in the Voisey's Bay mine, out of this Province; every ounce, every pound, ever spoonful. There will not be one ounce, one spoonful processed, smelted here in this Province; not one spoonful. Mr. Speaker, the member shakes his head and says it is not true. It is true. It is true.

Now, Mr. Speaker, who can stand here today and say they are representing their constituents and say they are representing people in this Province and say that they are representing the people that elected them, if they are going to allow every ounce, every spoonful, every pound of ore to be shipped from this Province to Manitoba and Ontario, providing jobs and benefits in two other provinces, when we see our own people here suffering from probably 47 per cent or 50 per cent unemployment and in some communities, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent and 90 per cent unemployment? That is the shame of it.

Now, we are told that we are going to see some partially processed ore come back and be turned into nickel matte. Nickel matte is another facility that we are going to build providing the test plant does not work. So, now we have a situation where we are taking our ore, our iron ore, that belongs to the people of this Province - not the Premier's iron ore or Roger Fitzgerald's. It belongs to the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nickel ore.

MR. FITZGERALD: Nickel ore.

Going to take nickel ore, ship it from this Province and ship it up to Manitoba and up to Sudbury to be processed to 70 or 80 per cent of the finished product and brought back to Newfoundland to be completed. Just think about what you are saying, boys. Here Inco has got a plant in Sudbury and another plant in Thompson, Manitoba, where they are only going to do 75 per cent of their nickel ore to a finished product. So, they are going to get to a place here where they are going to shut that conveyor belt off, close that piece of machinery down, lay off those people, because: We are not allowed to do that here anymore now, we have to ship this to Newfoundland. We are going to load this aboard a boat again. It already came from Newfoundland. Now we are going to load it aboard another ore carrier, we are going to bring it back to Argentia and put it through our nickel matte plant here to complete the process. I say to members opposite, if you believe that is going to happen, then you believe in Santa Claus as well, because I can assure you that this will not happen to the full and fair benefits to the people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, jobs are important. No doubt, no argument, about that. I can understand the construction unions being happy when they hear that there is going to be a mine built, when they hear that there is going to be a concentrator built down in Voisey's Bay, when they hear there is going to be a test facility built, because that is what they do, they build things. They are construction works. I can understand them being happy. They are going to make some money. What is going to happen after it is built? Where are the guarantees for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, one person opposite, the Member for Port de Grave, was saying the other night that he didn't care if they shipped all the ore out and brought nothing back. He said he didn't mind if they shipped all the ore out and brought nothing back as long as we get a few jobs. That is not the way I look at things, Mr. Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that is time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am happy to take part in this debate here this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise and take part in this debate tonight, on a very important issue that affects Labrador and the Island portion of the Province and affects a lot of people who live here.

I want to point out, Madam Speaker, as the minister is well aware, I think the Premier is well aware and certainly the other members for Labrador, that in Labrador West this week and last week the deal on Voisey's Bay has been overshadowed by the Public Utilities Board decision on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's application to increase our rates to the tune of 250 per cent. I want to say that upfront, that Voisey's Bay is not the only issue that is alive and well in the area that I represent. There are other issues. Albeit this one is important, but the other one is equally important, if not more, to the people who live in my district.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I now would like to turn my comments to the issue at hand, and that is Voisey's Bay. I would like to point out, as most Members of the House are aware, that Labrador West exists solely because of the mining industry and, during the past twenty years, since 1982, we certainly have had our shares of ups and downs with the markets for iron ore fluctuating as they have been in the past twenty years. There has not been much growth for young people in Labrador over the past twenty years. There have not been many opportunities in the mining industry for them to find jobs because, with the exception of a brief period of time during the late 1980s, Madam Speaker, very few people have been hired to work at the traditional jobs in the mining industry. So our young people are unemployed, and they are forced to leave the area. Some of them stick around in the hopes that they may get on or go to school, but eventually they will all have to leave if something does not happen that will provide them with the opportunities to work and live in the area of this Province where they want to so badly. So we need new opportunities, Madam Speaker. Our population, like other communities around this Province, is declining at an alarming rate, particularly, as I said earlier, among our young people.

I would like to begin again, Madam Speaker, and just say something that I have said many times in the past and many other people in Labrador have said as well, that we were not happy at all when the decision was made to put the smelter outside of Labrador. We in Labrador believe that smelter rightfully belongs within the boundaries of Labrador where the ore body is located. We feel as strongly about that today as we did when the Voisey's Bay deal was announced, but the reality, Madam Speaker, is that did not happen. A decision was made that that smelter go to Argentia and that is something that, at this stage of the game, I am very much afraid we have to live with.

I will say to the Premier, to this House and to the people of the Province, that the people in Labrador are sick and tired of being treated as a gigantic warehouse that is used to benefit other people. I shutter to think, Madam Speaker, what would happen if the mine itself could be physically moved and placed somewhere else. I would be very much afraid if the mine would even remain in Labrador if it was possible for that to happen.

We look at Churchill Falls. Look at the infamous deal that we are stuck with there. If we look at the fishery along the coast, where the fish was not processed in Labrador, if we look at the iron ore that has gone to Point Noire and Sept Isles, if we look at the forestry and the paper mill that was built in Stephenville, using the forests of Labrador - I believe, Madam Speaker, if that paper mill at that time had been built in Labrador, it would probably be operating today and we would also have a very healthy lumber industry as well.

I would like to say that, Madam Speaker, because I think it is important that it be said. Some people seem to have a problem trying to recognize the fact that people want to live in Labrador; that they want to make their homes there. That is wrong, because all the people I know who spent any time in Labrador, even if they have left, certainly recall the time that they spent there as some of the best years of their lives. Many of us who stayed there and raised our families certainly think it is the greatest place in the world to live.

I heard today, Madam Speaker, there were some discussions - I heard it on the radio and the talk shows and discussions in other places - that say that decisions by MHAs should be made in the best interests of the Province rather than their own constituents or their own area. I take exception to that, I disagree wholeheartedly, because first and foremost, the people you have a responsibility to, in my opinion, in this House of Assembly are the people that you represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It is not always clear, Madam Speaker, exactly how to get a handle on that, but you have to go with your gut feeling and you have to realize that when you do act on their behalf you are not doing something that is going to hurt them, that you are doing something to try and help the region that you represent. I have since I have been elected, and I will continue to represent the people of Labrador West and to represent their views to this House not the views of this House to them. That, I think, is very important for anyone who holds elected office to do.

I have indicated publicly, Madam Speaker, that I will be voting for this project to proceed when the vote comes before this House and I am not ashamed to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I am not ashamed to say that, Madam Speaker, even though I am not jumping up and down in the streets or singing and dancing in the streets. I do believe benefits will flow to the people in Labrador and the people that I represent in my part of Labrador. So, on that basis, Madam Speaker, I will be supporting the deal moving forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It is not going to be the be-all and end-all, it not going to answer all the problems that we are faced with, but I am hoping, Madam Speaker, that to a large degree it will add stability, it will provide new opportunities and it will increase the business volume in Labrador West, not only in the mining industry itself but in the supply industry, in the training industry and all these other things that go with mining that will help Labrador West and improve the situation that is there now and make it a broader interest community, rather than be dependent just upon the two mines that are there now, even though they did provide and are providing good livelihoods for the people who work there either directly or indirectly.

That is not to say, Madam Speaker, that we do not have any concerns about what is happening with the other part of this deal when it comes to the smelter and the ore out and ore back. Indeed we do. We are concerned about that. I think, from my perspective in looking after the area that I am elected to represent, the tangible benefits that can flow to Labrador - and I think we all agree on this - will come from the mine and mill/concentrator. This is where the tangible benefits will come to the people of Labrador. That is, again, why I rise and say that I am supporting this deal.

According to Voisey's Bay Nickel, Labrador has been carved up into different regions, Madam Speaker, and Labrador West, the Happy Valley- Goose Bay area, the South Coast Straits and the North Coast will all have some benefits from this project; employment benefits, business ventures, training ventures, the whole gamut. It is spread around and I think it is up to us, incumbent upon us - because these are not our words, these are the words of Voisey's Bay Nickel, of Inco, not to me, not to just the people in this House, but to the people of Labrador in public forums and other places, where they have stated publically and guaranteed that this will happen. Time will tell. The only test for something like this is time, but we are hopeful that because of the statements made, because of the commitments that are given, then all Labrador West and all of Labrador will benefit to some degree from this project moving forward.

I think in Labrador West, if I recall the figures correctly, it is 18 per cent of the employment opportunities associated with Voisey's and 22 per cent or 23 per cent of the economic benefit in terms of procurement and other associated opportunities as a result of the mine being developed. In addition to that, Madam Speaker, Labrador West will be one of the fly in, fly out centres for the operation. That is very important, because the people who obtain employment in the mines will be flown back and forth to Wabush in my area, to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and to Cartwright on the South Coast. These are important things that will provide benefits. Again, I want to emphasize, it is not going to take care of all the problems and it is not going to provide employment for everyone, but if we get our share of what is supposed to happen when this project goes ahead then we will receive more than by this project not moving forward. I cannot help but go along with anything that is going to provide better opportunities for people in the communities where I live.

During the past few days, Madam Speaker, I have talked with quite a few people in Labrador West, including the MP, Lawrence O'Brien, both mayors, union people, the population in general and the business community, and all are cautiously optimistic the same as I am myself. I am not here tonight making commitments on behalf of Inco. What I am doing is relating the commitments that Inco has already made to the people in Labrador. They have done that, as I have said, publicly. It is widespread, it is general knowledge throughout the communities, and I guess it is up to people like myself, like the MP for Labrador, the mayors and others, to make sure that these commitments that were given are lived up to. I would think that when this project goes ahead, Madam Speaker, people will be keeping a very close eye on what is happening and will be insisting on guarding the principles that have been outlined by Inco to make sure that they, indeed, live up to the commitments that they gave.

When I look at this situation, Madam Speaker, when I look at the people who need jobs in my area - and I know a lot of them, almost all of them, practically, on a first name basis and I can put faces to the people who are looking forward to getting employment opportunities.

I want to comment on something that was said on NTV tonight when Geoff Stirling made the comment that, anybody who votes for this deal should be tried for abuse of public office, or something like that. It is fine for Geoff Stirling to sit in his armchair, up in his own media station, to get his message out, but I could not help thinking whether or not the unemployed welder, or the unemployed heavy equipment operator, has the same view of life looking from the same direction as the Geoff Stirlings of the world have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: The training opportunities that can be provided, Madam Speaker - the Labrador West Campus of the College of the North Atlantic is in a prime position to deliver a lot of the educational needs that are going to be required for any mining operation. We have been living with mining for over forty years. We know the mining industry, we know what it needs and we are able to deliver what is required. The suppliers in the area: Again, very knowledgeable about the mining industry, very much apprized to take advantage of the opportunities that will come from the Voisey's Bay development in partnership with other people across Labrador and other groups across Labrador. They can make that happen, they can make a big difference, and every job directly created by Inco in the mines, either through construction or in the operation, will always, Madam Speaker, add to jobs in the service sector and in the supply industries.

There is a multiplier affect and, again, I do not want to overemphasize this. You know, it is not, as I said, the be-all and end-all, but it is going to provide a certain level of stability that is required in Labrador today, because with the shrinking population, with our young people leaving, we cannot tolerate that any longer. Something has to give to give people hope, to get people to stay in the communities and be able to live in the communities with their friends and neighbors that they grew up with. That is very important for any community, to be able to maintain that continuity as the people get older and young people are moving into the workforce.

When I hear people talk about - and I heard a couple of speakers tonight mention the depletion fund or the heritage fund. Well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that over the last twenty-odd years I have had many occasions to talk about and present briefs and resolutions to both the Tories when they were in power and the Liberals when they were in power on setting up such a fund. That has not happened to date and I have been doing that for over twenty years with both parties who have been in government in this Province. Not a degree of success was met and that resolution came forward to both governments, I would say from my memory, at least twenty times that I can recall, but action was never taken on it.

The other thing that I would like to point out to the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy is that consideration be given to another project in Labrador with Inco, because right now this project is going to run on diesel power which is quite expensive. We have a problem with hydro on the coast with the rural deficit in Labrador, and it makes sense to me and to people who I have talked to, that running a power line to provide the energy needs to this project and then extending that power line up and down the coast is probably not an idea that is crazy. It probably has a lot of merit. Given the right study, given the right attention, that could be done. The project itself would create a tremendous amount of employment in addition to Voisey's Bay, Madam Speaker, and it would also take care of the power needs. Rather than depending on diesel for the next 100 years, the people of the coast would have hydro power that is developed and produced in Labrador serving their energy needs in the communities that they live in.

Madame Speaker, I would suspect that any deal that is put together on Voisey's Bay, a project of that magnitude, a project that has gotten the scrutiny that has received over the past number of years since it has been discovered, will always have loopholes that you can drive a Mack truck through, so to speak. If you are talking the mining industry, you are probably talking (inaudible) rather than Macks or Ukes. I do not believe that there is any deal that can be put together that could not be criticized, that could not be picked apart, because when you get into a project of this size and you have all the legal framework and you have all the lawyers working at it from each side, there are bound to be areas of contention where people say: If I were doing it, I would have done it this way. So, I do not think that is a big area for me to focus my attention on because that is the reality of life. That will always be the case in any deal that is put together by any two parties, that other people will say: I would do it differently.

Finally, Madam Speaker, speaker after speaker have stated here in this House since debate began, and in the media prior to the House opening, that they are happy for the people in Labrador and for the people in Argentia, and I appreciate that. I can see where they are coming from because if they are happy for us in Labrador then what better indication could there be that people in Labrador should accept this deal and get the benefits that go along with it. So, that is why I do not have any hesitation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: My time is running, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

That is why I do not have any hesitation in saying that I support the deal, because the only alternative to not supporting the deal is that the project does not move forward. All of the things that I am hopeful for that will happen in Labrador, including my district, will not be able to proceed if this project does not move forward. So I am looking at the benefits that can be gained.

The only concern that I do have, Madam Speaker, is whether or not the Voisey's Bay Project, because of all the attention that it has gotten over the past number of months and years, whether or not it can meet the expectations of the people of the Province in terms of what their image is, of what it is supposed to deliver. I think that is a concern. I think there is a real hype out there that this project may be the answer to all of our problems, and it is not going to be. It is but another part of the puzzle that we have to work and try and get up and running and get the maximum benefits of.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this this evening. I look forward and I am cautiously optimistic. I am not overzealous about this, I am not shouting and saying that it is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, but I am certainly cautiously optimistic that the benefits from this development will help the people that I represent and help people in Labrador in general.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a great privilege this evening to be able to stand in this House of Assembly and say a few words on this particular agreement or Statement of Principles that will lead to an eventual agreement on the Voisey's Bay Project.

Madam Speaker, I will say very clearly upfront that I support this agreement. I do support the Statement of Principles. I have absolutely no equivocation on any of the points that I have read in the document. I will be supporting it fully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Why, might you ask, would I want to support an agreement such as the Voisey's Bay Project? After all, Madam Speaker, my district is on the West Coast, Corner Brook. Certainly, from everything that we have heard, the major employment opportunities, the major work will be done on the Labrador Coast and in Labrador and in Argentia. As a matter of fact, there are those who have said - members opposite - that Corner Brook will gain absolutely nothing from this agreement. Madam Speaker, I will speak to that a little bit later when I get to the benefits portion of my little speech. I just want to outline to you why I support this agreement. I will just dismiss one other myth, as was suggested by some members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, that we were, perhaps, strong-armed into agreeing to this agreement. What twaddle, Madam Speaker! To think that any one of us on this side could be strong-armed by anyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I take great offense to that and I take great exception to the suggestion that any Member of this House of Assembly could be strong-armed by anyone into doing something that they didn't want to do. No, Madam Speaker, I have read the agreement, know what it contains, and I know what my preconditions to the agreement were before this thing started.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I can't say the same for some of the members opposite. Today, we have sat in our places and I have waited and I have listened for the members opposite to tell me what it is they want to say and why they are against it. I have not heard anything discernible from the Opposition thus far, to tell me why they are opposing this particular agreement.

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have listened to members opposite calling in on the open lines - not to mention any member - who have almost apologized for having to object to this agreement, because it is their job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. MERCER: Not very far from you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Apologize?

MR. MERCER: Almost had to apologize for doing their job, as the Opposition. Those members who made those statements will know to whom I speak, and I don't need to mention their names.

Madam Speaker, I am still waiting for the members opposite to tell me why they are objecting to this particular agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, I am sure the members opposite like to listen to themselves talking, but perhaps if certain members would like to listen to what I have to say.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would appreciate it if the members on both sides of the House would keep their voices down and give the member an opportunity to be heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Obviously, the Opposition House Leader doesn't want to listen to what I have to say, and perhaps I don't want to have to listen to what he has to say.

Madam Speaker, when I first looked at this Voisey's Bay deal - and I have said this openly, publicly, many times in the past - the one absolute precondition I had for supporting any Voisey's Bay agreement was that there would be a processing facility located somewhere within this Province, whether it was Argentia, Corner Brook, Voisey's Bay or Goose Bay. It really didn't make much difference to me, but there had to be a processing facility located somewhere in the Province to take the nickel concentrate out of Voisey's Bay and to process it into a finished product. To me that was an absolute precondition.

The reason for that, Madam Speaker, was rather simple. Everything that I have been told, and even this agreement now tells me again, that this Voisey's Bay deposit, as we know it today, will have a life of about thirty years. In thirty years, the miners can go home, pack up their tools, the job is done, we have taken all that Voisey's Bay had to offer, and everything is finished. No, Madam Speaker, I wanted to see a processing facility located somewhere in this Province, a facility which all my research tells me has a life of anywhere from seventy-five to 100 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, if you look at the agreement, clause 24, it says: Inco's objective is to operate a hydromet processing facility for the Voisey's Bay nickel concentrate and hydrometallurgical nickel matte processing facility or some other facility beyond the life of the eventual Voisey's Bay mining operation.

For the first time in our history, Madam Speaker, we have a commitment to build a facility at Argentia, in this particular case, that will extend the thirty-year life of the Voisey's Bay project out to seventy-five to 100 years. Madam Speaker, for far too long in this Province we have been hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is now time that we get the full benefit from our resources and I believe that is what this agreement does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, recently I had occasion to listen to the opens lines, which I do from time to time, and I heard a gentleman who was present during the Churchill Falls, the infamous Churchill Falls, debate, a member of this particular Legislature, speak and to say yes, he certainly voted for the Churchill Falls project. He was in full agreement with it. But, Madam Speaker, the gentleman said that he had never read the agreement. He did not even find a copy of the agreement until after he left public office. This member can say he has read what the Statement of Principles says. He understands them, and he will vote accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: For any member of this House, past or present, who has said that they have voted on something as important, in this case, as the Churchill Falls project, and to admit, so many years later, that they never read it, says a lot more about that individual than the agreement could ever say itself.

Madam Speaker, I just want to speak about the commitments of the proponents - in this case, Inco - to build a processing facility in Argentia. Sometimes, I think I am caught in a bit of a time warp. I listen to the radio and I hear members opposite. I heard the Member for Humber West, the Leader of the Opposition, say that there are no commitments in this agreement for a processing facility at Argentia. I get extremely confused when I hear that kind of language, because, if you read the agreement, section 21 is very clear. The proponent - Inco - is committed to processing the Voisey's Bay nickel concentrate in the Province. Yet, we have members opposite saying that there will not be a processing facility at Argentia. That is wrong. Maybe I am missing something, or maybe I have lost my ability to read or my ability to comprehend what I read, but this is very clear to me. Inco is committed to processing the Voisey's Bay concentrate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, that particular clause goes on to say that Inco will establish a large scale R and D project at Argentia, a large facility that will employ approximately 200 people, cost approximately $200 million to construct and to operate, to test and to try and make sure that the hydromet process works and that they can take the process from a nickel concentrate to a finished nickel product.

Madam Speaker, as you have heard many times today in this hon. House, the company has said that they are some 97 per cent sure. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, they have said many times on the public airwaves that each of the individual component parts of the process, they have done and they do work. The challenge is going to be to string them all together and that, at the end of the day, you can take it from a concentrate to a finished nickel product.

Madam Speaker, on the point that Inco is saying that they are going to do some research, some R and D, I find it rather interesting that the members opposite, when we voted on this same resolution so many weeks and months ago, as mentioned by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, a private member's resolution on the very issue of R and D funding from the federal government to do this R and D at Argentia, what do the members opposite do? They voted against it. They voted against it, I suspect, largely because someone on the other side misspoke and then it became too difficult to backtrack.

Madam Speaker, even the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's voted against the motion - voted against the motion, Madam Speaker - an area of the Province which would get the most direct benefits from this R and D project. Madam Speaker, I wonder just who is strong-arming who in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, if one looks at the agreement, as well, Inco has said, that in the event that they cannot tweak the process that will allow concentrate to go to a finished nickel product, they have made a commitment. It says here in clause 22, in the unlikely event that Inco's proposed hydromet process for the Voisey's Bay concentrate is not technologically or economically feasible, Inco will construct a commercial hydromet nickel matte processing facility or other facility at Argentia. So, again, I ask the question: Am I misreading what this document says, or are others on the other side playing fast and loose with the words when they get on the public airwaves and say to the people of this Province that this agreement does not provide for a processing facility in Argentia? Something is not adding up, at least in this member's mind, or maybe someone has done a really good snow job on me in this particular agreement. I don't think so.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say, as well, that on the issue of the concentrate, the export of concentrate, like my colleague from Port de Grave, I have said in the past, publicly and on the public airwaves, that if it took three, four or five years of export of concentrate out of this Province, never to return, and if in return for that, Madam Speaker, we got a processing facility in Argentia, I would be able to support the agreement. I would be able to support that. So, I make no apology for that, Madam Speaker.

Again, this agreement is provided in clause 25, and I invite anyone who has a copy of this to read it. Members opposite say that there is no guarantee that concentrate leaving this Province will ever return. Again, my eyes are deceiving me or someone is again playing fast and loose with words.

Section 25, in bold print, the clause refers to: Guarantee of Concentrate Replacement, and it says, "...the Proponent guarantees that it will..." - and it goes on to say, commence shipping of the concentrate back to the Province, and it specifies the time in which it will do that. The words are there. It will guarantee.

Madam Speaker, the only weak argument that I have been hearing all day from members opposite about this particular argument, and how it is not legally binding and none of the clauses really work, is if you look at clause 2. Clause 2 in the agreement is a clause which states - I don't know how members opposite read it, but I read it quite differently. It says, "The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights...." Of course it doesn't. It is a Statement of Principles. It is a document which will be used by those who are versed in the law to be able to translate this into a legally binding agreement. To state that clause 2 is not legally binding and therefore that obligates or takes out of play clauses 21, 22, 23 and all the rest of them is sheer poppycock. It is nonsense. Yet, this is the type of argument that we are hearing thus far from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we know what we are dealing with. We have here a very clear Statement of Principles. We have a clear undertaking by Inco and by the Province that there will be a processing facility at Argentia. The only thing that has to be resolved is, what type. In any event, at the end of the day there will be a finished nickel product leaving this Province.

There are many other things that I would like to say and many that I had wanted to say, but I am advised that I only have five minutes left.

There are a couple of points I want to make regarding the whole issue of why we are here this week. We are here because members opposite have said to us that they have valuable information that they were to share with us to be able to strengthen this agreement. Mr. Speaker, so far today I have not heard a great deal of wisdom that will improve this agreement in any amount whatsoever.

The only thing that I have heard so far is that one of the big loopholes thus far is that Inco will have to raise the money to be able to do this project. What a revelation! The last time I bought a house, I had to sign a document to say that purchase was conditional upon my being able to arrange a mortgage. Whoop-de-do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: If that is the only thing we have found so far in being in this House, I hope tomorrow and the next day will prove more fruitful.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points. We just heard the Member for Labrador West indicate that he is going to support the agreement, breaking ranks with his leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty per cent of the caucus.

MR. MERCER: In other words, 50 per cent of the NDP caucus is now going to vote with the government for this particular resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, it also seems to me that there is at least one other member in the PC caucus who may, in fact, have to give some serious thought to breaking rank with the caucus and voting for the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, thus far, from everything that I have heard, the constituents of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's are saying to him: We want the work, we want the jobs, we want the project. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's will obviously get up in his place and do the honourable thing and vote for the resolution. I fully expect him to that, Mr. Speaker.

He can play cute. He can stand in his place and support the resolution, a resolution which his leader disagrees with, and then turn around and say: I agree with this even though my leader does not. Because his leader, Mr. Speaker, has said that if and when he becomes Premier, which is somewhere next to never, but anyway, when and if he becomes Premier, he will review the agreement. I presume, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to review the agreement, he is going to make changes.

So, Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, you can play cute. You either support this and you do it openly, and you do it by - you can't stay in your seat. You have to support the agreement. You have to leave your caucus if, in fact, you support it. You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: There is time for every man and woman in this Chamber to stand up and be counted, and that includes the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take pleasure tonight in being able to stand in my place here and speak for twenty minutes on the Statement of Principles as brought forward by the Premier, government and Inco on the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel find.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the Statement of Principles I would just like to take a couple of seconds and correct a statement that was made by the Member for Humber East. In his statement a few minutes ago he spoke about how a former member of this House, Tom Hickey, in a radio commentary - probably about two months ago, I expect is when it was because I sat in the parking lot of this building and listened to the same commentary, where Mr. Hickey in talking to Bill Rowe on Open Line commented on the Churchill Falls deal. While the Member for Humber East says that Mr. Hickey said that he did not read the deal and he did read this deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I am mentioning the man's name. He was the Member for St. John's East Extern, as I understand it. Mr. Speaker, what he did say that morning, as I sat and listened to it, is that he did not see the deal. He did not read the deal because there wasn't a deal to be debated. Premier Smallwood of the day brought forward enacting legislation that this House debated and voted on. As he said, if you stood against enacting legislation you were foolish. Of course everybody wanted to see Churchill Falls developed, just as we want to see Voisey's Bay developed, Mr. Speaker. This is not about not developing or developing, this is about developing and getting the maximum benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time on a number of occasions to read over the Statement of Principles and some of the other information that can be easily accessed; statements by Inco representatives over the past number of months and years; statements that were made by government members over the past number of months and years.

Mr. Speaker, you have to ask questions about this Statement of Principles. First of all, there are a lot of people in the Province or certainly members opposite would like to portray an image of a deal that is final here, would like to suggest to the people that this is the final - not the final document, but the final document will reflect what is in this Statement of Principles.

As was pointed out by a number of my colleagues earlier today, in section 2 it certainly says that that is not the case. As we heard from a representative of Inco, Mr. Scott Hand I believe it was, he said that there could be significant material differences in this document and the final document, Mr. Speaker. I will read section 2 again, because it is worthy of repeating. "The Statement of Principles is not intended to and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations between the parties. The parties will use their best efforts to finalize mutually acceptable definitive agreements (the "Binding Agreements") embodying the Statement of Principles as expeditiously as possible..." and so on.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the final deal, and what is in this will not necessarily be reflected in the final deal. However, Mr. Speaker, even if what is in the Statement of Principles is reflected in the final binding contract between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco, there are still many reasons for concern.

The first one, Mr. Speaker, that I will primarily deal with tonight - because you only have twenty minutes, so you can't go all over the place in this - is the Argentia operation and what may or may not happen in Argentia. This is key to long-term development, thirty, forty and one hundred years as the government talks about. Mr. Speaker, the government says that there will be either a full-scale hydrometallurgical processing facility at Argentia or a nickel matte refinery at Argentia.

Mr. Speaker, section 21 says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I advise the Minister of Finance not to clap yet, because I am not finished.

Section 21: I am going to proceed now to tell you why it is not right. Section 21, Mr. Speaker, says, "The Proponent is committed to processing the Voisey's Bay nickel/copper/cobalt concentrate in the Province and to maximizing long-term benefits for the people of the Province. Consequently, the Proponent will use its best efforts..." Best efforts again. Where have we heard that before? "...to develop a technically and economically viable hydrometallurgical process technology."

As my colleague here, the Member for St. John's South, said earlier tonight, yes, they could demonstrate that it is technically viable, but what if it is not economically viable? What if the cost of this process is too high for it to be economically viable and for Inco to make money at this? Then, of course, there will not be a hydrometallurgical processing facility at Argentia. So, what happens then? As the member pointed out, as government points out, there is Plan B. Plan B is a nickel matte refinery. What is a nickel matte refinery? A nickel matte refinery is a facility that takes concentrate that has gone to Thompson or Sudbury for smelting that is now 80 per cent processed and then is put aboard a ship again, brought back to Newfoundland, brought back to Argentia, and put through -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Eighty percent processed, Mr. Speaker, and then it will be put through a refinery to be finished as a pure nickle product. Every single piece of Voisey's Bay nickel will, under that scenario, end up in Thompson and Sudbury for processing, before it might come back to Newfoundland, every single pound, every single ounce.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves, is that really something that we can expect to happen? I used an analogy the other day with a number of people that I talked to on this and on open lines and various other venues that I have been in. I will use an analogy: it is like taking fish off the Coast of Labrador, hauling the gut out of it, which by the way takes about 17 per cent of the weight out of it, which is roughly the same as the milling process will do, knock about 15 per cent of the rock off it, ship it up to Ontario for processing, then bring it back to Newfoundland to package it before it is shipped off to market. Now, Mr. Speaker, would we expect that to happen in the fishing industry and be economically viable? No, I suggest we would not, and I suggest that Inco will certainly find a way of demonstrating that that is not economically or technically feasible. I know that the Minister of Mines and Energy will say that it is definitely going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, if we refer back to section 3, I believe it is - I am not sure what section it is now to be honest with you. I thought I had it highlighted, I am sure I do, if I could just see it. Anyway, it says that all of the parts of this deal, all of the parts of the Statement of Principles, all of the parts of the development from the mine and mill/concentrator in Labrador to the final nickel matte refinery in Argentia are subject to feasibility studies. Section 23 is where it is, Mr. Speaker. "By no later than December 31, 2008, the Proponent will provide the Government with its decision as to whether it will..." be a hydrometallurgical plant or a nickel matte refinery. That is what they will have to do in 2008. "This decision will be supported by a feasibility study that will include the technical and economic evaluations that are the basis for the Proponent's decision."

Mr. Speaker, it is there in black and white, three or four different times, in this Statement of Principles, that even the nickel matte refinery is subject to economic and technical feasibility studies.

PREMIER GRIMES: Not true.

MR. TAYLOR: It is so.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that is not true, and I welcome when somebody on that side - because I have said it on a number of occasions now and I have yet to see or hear anybody from the government side stand up and correct that. Mr. Speaker, maybe some time in the future, instead of going on with the rhetoric, they can deal with what is specifically stated in this and tell us exactly what it means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there are some other developments throughout the world, and certainly not very far away from us, that we can use as comparisons, and they have been alluded to here earlier tonight. There are some other developments around that are somewhat similar to Voisey's Bay.

Raglan, Quebec, not too far away from us, is a similar type deposit - a copper/cobalt/nickel deposit in Northern Quebec - where Falconbridge is developing a mine, has developed a mine. It has been operational, as I understand it, since 1998.

Mr. Speaker, what did the people do there? What did the Quebec government do? What did they negotiate there with probably, as I understand it, about one-quarter of the known reserves that we have identified in Labrador, and probably one-tenth of what we could expect to find in Voisey's Bay?

Well, the Quebec government negotiated with Falconbridge an open-pit mine and an underground mine running concurrently. Why, Mr. Speaker, hasn't our government negotiated the same type of thing?

MR. E. BYRNE: That was their position at one time.

MR. TAYLOR: That was their position at one time, because we were always concerned about the possibility of ovoid high-grading, and under the present projections for mining that Inco and the government have agreed to, we can expect that the ovoid will be mined out by 2018. Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that there will be underground mining before that - highly unlikely that there will be underground mining before that. The exploration program is not supposed to start in earnest until 2011, and maybe in 2014 we might see some underground mining.

Why, Mr. Speaker, didn't the government insist that the exploration program start in 2002 on the underground reserves? Why didn't they start on 2002 and work to 2006 and start the mine mill/concentrator ready to take underground ore and surface ore at the same time and have a blended mixture?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what we have here and what we must reiterate in this, what we have seen in my evaluation of this Statement of Principles, is that we do not have the guarantees that the government talks about and Inco talks about. We do not have any rock solid guarantees, ironclad guarantees, or nickel-plated guarantees that the ore that comes out of Voisey's Bay will come back to this Province for final processing. Mr. Speaker, we do not, anywhere in this document, have any commitment that there will be full processing of the technology, full processing of the reserves of the ore and concentrate. Even if the nickel matte facility is built here - even if, and I have some doubts about that. If it does happen, then every bit of Voisey's Bay ore will have to be shipped out of this Province for smelting.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have the guarantees. We do not have the jobs. We do not have the jobs that were committed. In 1996, Mr. Speaker, 3,000 jobs was the figure that was floated around when the smelter was on wheels. What do we have today, Mr. Speaker? A paltry 600 jobs is what we are expected to see from this in the short-term; a paltry 600 jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: I say, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, that when you compare 600 jobs to 3,000 that were promised five, six years ago, then it is paltry, and a miserable deal at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite talk about looking at this as a package. Well, when we look at this as a package, as I just said, we see 600 jobs and those numbers certainly seem to be inflated.

As I spoke of just recently, Raglan, where they have an underground mine and a surface mine operational right now, they have 470 jobs. Inco is projecting and the government says that there will be 400 people working at a surface mine in Voisey's Bay. Mr. Speaker, how come? There are 470 working underground and on the surface in Raglan and there is going to be only 400? Mr. Speaker, the number is obviously inflated.

Then Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Goro hydrometallurgy test facility, a facility roughly the same size as the one that is expected to be built in Argentia. How many jobs do we have there? To our knowledge, seventy-five. Seventy-five jobs, Mr. Speaker, not the 200 that the government and Inco say that we will see in Argentia. Again, Mr. Speaker, is that number inflated? That is the question that needs to be answered. Is 200 the actual number, or is it seventy-five in Goro, in a similar facility of similar size? Is that the number, Mr. Speaker? That is the question that I would like to have answered.

Mr. Speaker, that is the jobs. We have no guarantees that we are going to see full processing in this Province. We have no guarantee. We do not have the jobs that were promised to us back in 1996, when 3,000 was being thrown around.

Mr. Speaker, another thing that we do not have are the taxation and royalty benefits from a development of this size. What we have is something where we will, at best - and I know that the equalization is a separate issue, but when you look at the total package then you have to throw it in there. The government insists on looking at the total package, so we will look at the total package. At best, we will realize $500,000 in net royalty benefits to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what about corporate income tax? I have heard the Premier say that there are other revenue sources for the Province, there are other revenue streams, taxation forms. Mr. Speaker, the corporate income tax is not a major source of revenue for this Province. The Province took in $55 million last year, and estimates $58 million in 2002. It collects twice as much from lotteries, twice as much from liquor sales, and 50 per cent more from tobacco tax. Mr. Speaker, that is what we get in corporate tax in this Province. That is what we get, and even on the corporate tax there is a clause that, in case there is double taxation somewhere along the way, Inco could get up to $2 million a year in tax credits. Mr. Speaker, what are we going to get out of this? Those are the concerns that I have, and those are the concerns that have been relayed to me over the past week.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that I have encouraged the people I have talked to throughout the Province to do, to get the deal and look at it themselves. Forget the rhetoric and the propaganda campaign that is being pursued now by the government and by Inco. Take the time and read the deal for themselves. Read the Statement of Principles and also insist that, at the end of the day, the final binding contract that is negotiated by the government and Inco, as finalized by September 30, 2002, that deal is subject to the ratification of this Legislature and brought to this House, before the people of this Province, before we have another deal hung around the necks of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say this. I understand, as I heard the Member for Labrador West a few minutes ago talking about how he had to support the deal because all they expected to get since the mine and mill/concentrator, since the smelter was said to go in Argentia, all they expected to get was the mine and mill/concentrator. The people of Labrador are getting exactly what they were told they were going to get. Unfortunately, that is all they were told they were going to get.

I will say one thing, 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. Because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if Inco had said the smelter was going to go in Labrador we would not be having this debate in this House today. Unfortunately, they made a strategic move that has split this Province again, split the people of Newfoundland and the people of Labrador on a fundamental issue because of this. Mr. Speaker, that is what is fundamentally wrong here. Unfortunately, we have people who need work. We have high unemployment. We have high out-migration and people need even the 600 jobs that are being promised here; that are being promised not committed to.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of reservations about this deal, about this Statement of Principles. We cannot sit back and just allow a Statement of Principles that begs so many questions, so many fundamental questions, that lack so many guarantees, that leaves us open to so much in the way of uncertainty that protects Inco's interests far more adequately than it protects the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot sit back and not question this deal, and not raise these concerns because to do that would be irresponsible and would let down the people of Newfoundland and Labrador once again on a huge resource development of this Province just as we have seen happen in past years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10:00 a.m.