The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

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

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the leader designate of our Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Danny Williams, to the gallery of the House of Assembly today.

Mr. Williams became our Party's leader designate on January 31, and will be officially installed as our Party's fifteenth leader since Confederation on Saturday, April 7, at Memorial Stadium. He brings a tremendous breath and depth of experience to the leadership of our Party. Right across the Province there was a buzz of excitement and anticipation as people sense they are witnessing a historic moment, I say to my members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed, a pivotal moment not only for our Party but for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I go on to say that I look forward, as all members do on this side, -

MR. J. BYRNE: And that side.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, we will see about that, I say to my colleague. I look forward to a time in the very near future -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I look forward to a time in the very near future when Mr. Williams will take his seat amongst the members on this side, among the group of forty-eight, first as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and then, at some time not too distant in the future, the ninth Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to recognize the achievement today of a hockey team from Bonavista, the Peewee A hockey team, that traveled to compete in provincial hockey with just twelve players. In fact, they were the only twelve players who could lace up their skates in Bonavista, who were old enough to play in this particular league. They went over on the West Coast this past weekend and won the provincial championship, with just eleven players.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I think there was a statement made that says it all. Bonavista Minor Hockey Association President, Mr. Len Bragg, said, "It's a big accomplishment for our association. It's a big win for a small team."

That is exactly what happened. Eleven people, eleven skaters, including a goalie they had to borrow from my colleague's District of Whitbourne, went over, took part in the competition, won the provincial championship, and returned home as champions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not surprised, because there are a lot of champions from the Town of Bonavista, and they have always been represented by a champion in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the reaching of a milestone by a couple in my district. Andrew and Tamer Canning of Roddickton celebrated their sixtieth wedding anniversary on March 17. Mr. Canning is eighty- three years old, and Mrs. Canning is seventy-nine. I would like to ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Canning on their sixtieth wedding anniversary, and hope they enjoy many more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on the successful fish price negotiations which have recently been completed between fish harvesters and fish processors in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the Task Force on Fish and Crab Price Settlement Mechanisms was appointed to investigate price setting in the fishing industry. Prior to that time, there had been a number of disruptions in the fishing industry, resulting in an inconsistent supply to the market place and a lower quality product.

The Task Force's report was presented to government on January 15,1998, and the chief recommendation was to implement a three-phase interest-based approach to negotiations on a pilot project basis.

Mr. Speaker, following the success of the pilot project between 1998 and 2000, a new fish price settlement mechanism for collective bargaining was devised for the fishing industry.

Referred to as the Final Offer Selection model, this process was designed by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Labour and industry stakeholders, including the Fish Food and Allied Workers and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. All stakeholders agreed to implement this process on a permanent basis, and in June 2000, the Fish Industry Collective Bargaining Act was legislated into effect.

I would like to take this opportunity as well, Mr. Speaker, to thank my colleague from Port de Grave and my colleague who used to be the Minister of Labour - the previous Minister of Labour.

This process has proven to be effective, efficient, and an equitable way in which to determine fish prices. Since the introduction of this process, all fisheries have started on time.

So far this year prices have been successfully negotiated for crab, shrimp and cod for the 2001 season. Crab prices were negotiated using a price to market formula, and will be in place for the remainder of the season. Shrimp prices were negotiated for the period from April to June, and an arbitrator set prices for cod for the same period.

Prices for other species to be negotiated this year include capelin, herring, mackerel, lumpfish, squid and some groundfish species. These negotiations will begin in early April.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been pleased to work with the FFAW and FANL in developing and implementing this process which serves to benefit and enhance the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the FFAW and FANL, and certainly our former Fisheries Minister, should be commended for moving down this road toward straightening up our Collective Bargaining Act and putting a process in place that gets us away from the strikes and deals with the industry in a more orderly manner.

I can remember the days - in one of my previous lives, I guess - where we had lots of controversy in industry at this time of the year. In trying to set prices we always ended up with delays in the season; so they are to be commended.

I say to the minister, this time is no time to be resting on the laurels of the former minister, the FFAW and FANL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I think the time is now to identify what he is planning on doing in the next while, as minister of this department. As long as there is lump roe going to Europe in plastic barrels with a little bit of salt thrown in it; as long as there is shrimp coming in from the offshore, industrial shrimp, 20 per cent of it, approximately, 16 million to 17 million pounds, enough to run a shrimp plant like the one in St. Anthony for about half a year; as long as that is coming in and going on to Europe with the tariff regime that is in place in Europe right now that prohibits us from buying it; as long as there is crab going from Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. TAYLOR: As long as there is crab going to China to be further processed en route to Japan, I would suggest that the minister stop talking about what has happened in the past and deal with what he is going to do in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister refers, of course, to the process whereby instead of having to stop harvesting and stop putting our product to the market before a price is negotiated - the Final Offer Selection Process, which has proven to work. It was the initiative of the parties, the fishermen's union, the FFAW and FANL, with the cooperation of the former Minister of Fisheries. We moved in tentative steps, not imposed by government but with the parties cooperation, and it has proven to be successful to date to the point that this year a negotiated price for crab was reached rather than have to go the Final Offer Selection Process as last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I think it is a satisfactory process that has proven to be working for the fishermen and the plant operators in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I rise today to inform hon. members, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that tomorrow, March 22 is World Water Day. The United Nations adopted a resolution in 1993 to declare this date as World Water Day as a way to advocate and promote awareness about the importance and value of clean and safe water for the environment and for public health.

The theme for this year's Water Day is "Water and Health". Water and health are intertwined in many ways and it is important to address the increasing need for clean and safe water to protect both human health and the environment. World Water Day focuses attention on the need to address the problems related to drinking water supply and increases awareness about the importance of conservation, preservation, and protection of water resources.

Mr. Speaker, to improve the quality of drinking water and to provide education and training to the operators of water supply systems, the Water Resources Management Division of my department is hosting a workshop in Gander on March 26 and 27.

The theme of this workshop is "Clean and Safe Drinking Water". Drinking water experts from around the country have been invited to speak at the workshop, and early registration indicates that we will have a high level of participation.

My department is working hard with municipalities and other stakeholders to protect our water supplies. I want to acknowledge the efforts and cooperation that municipalities extend to my department in protecting and improving the quality of our Province's drinking water. I ask that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians reflect on the fact that the responsibility of protecting our drinking water supplies is a responsibility borne by all.

Mr. Speaker, all living things depend on water. Without water there would be no rivers, lakes, forests, fish, wilderness, wildlife, plants or people. All of us need clean water to survive, and it is important for all of us to work together to protect and conserve this precious gift of nature.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for his first statement and for receiving a copy of the statement. It is an important issue, and there is no doubt that the conference that is being held in Gander will discuss some very important issues, but I say to the minister, there is more than just a conference needed. There is more than just talk needed. We have over 200 communities in this Province with boil orders in place. You go to communities in this Province and go to their hotels, they have signs posted saying you cannot brush your teeth with their water. What message does that send to tourists? You are right, without water we would not have rivers but this Province is spewing raw sewage into our rivers, into our streams, and that is still happening in this Province. Third World conditions, I say to the minister.

We have incinerators that are just upwind of drinking water supplies, of freshwater supplies of rivers and streams in this Province. So, we need more than just talk, Mr. Minister. We need action, and it is time for action. The time for action is now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was wondering first whether or not this was written by Dan Quayle when he says: without water there would be no rivers or lakes.

The minister should do more than call upon the residents of this Province to take further action and be responsible. I think the minister could very well take initiative to lead the Province by addressing a lot of the problems that are out there now concerning our water supplies, concerning the raw sewage that is going into the bays affecting the aquaculture in the Province and leading to lots of other health risks for the people who are around the Province. I think the minister could lead by example, by addressing a lot of the problems that are being experienced right now in the Province, rather than asking the people of the Province to take the responsibility for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I rise today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to inform my hon. colleagues of the release of a new brochure and handbook designed with this very goal in mind.

This booklet called, Celebrating Diversity, Respecting Differences, was produced by the Women's Policy Office in consultation with a committee of community groups and individuals with expertise in diversity. It is a handbook which addresses discrimination based on race, ability, age, gender, sexual orientation and class. The publication compliments the work of the Provincial Strategy Against Violence and the current Violence Prevention Initiative.

The primary purpose of this project is to education and inform individuals about attitudes and stereotypes which can lead to discrimination and violence against particular groups. The handbook also encourages all of us to take responsibility for our own biases and to work toward change. It proposes general solutions which might be of use to individuals, community groups and social action agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this handbook can be used by the public at large, but will also be useful for public employees, women's groups, and post-secondary students to stimulate discussion on the issue of discrimination and to inspire serious and critical thought about day-to-day attitudes which may be considered discriminatory.

Celebrating Diversity, Respecting Differences is an important tool in the fight against discrimination in our Province and as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I am proud of the work done to bring this project to fruition. Discrimination is a serious problem and I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that this Province is committed to ensuring a future based on the principles of true equality for all.

As a minister and as a woman, I am proud to celebrate a day where we can all look forward to a more equitable future and recognize our contribution toward that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the Women's Policy Office for managing the development and production of this document, and I would like to offer thanks to the many community groups and individuals who participated in its production. I hope it has a positive and long-lasting influence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement in advance. I would also like to congratulate the Women's Policy Office and the committee who produced this handbook.

I would like to refer to a couple of key phrases in the minister's statement, "... take responsibility for our own biases and to work toward change." and, "... a future based on the principles of true equality for all." I suggest, Minister, that you look no farther than the policies of your own government that keep 72 per cent of our children in poverty. That is the highest in the country. We have the lowest minimum wage. Our seniors live in poverty. Household poverty has increased. Aboriginal people and the disabled live in poverty. Minister, I suggest that as long as this government's policies prevail that the day when we can look forward to an equitable future for all will remain an illusion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend the Women's Policy Office for this document which should prove useful in helping to eliminate stereotypical thinking. When the minister says that discrimination is a serious problem and that all of her colleagues are committed to ensure a future based on true equality, why is she not standing in her House and moving that the changes to the provincial Human Rights Code be made to have source of income as a prohibited ground of discrimination, instead of having a document here where people are urged to lobby government to change the provincial Human Rights Code, which it does on page 16? If this government was committed to the kind of equality that is documented in this book, we would be hearing about changes in the Human Rights Code and not about public relations efforts that are being made through this very useful process, but let us hear about changes to our Human Rights Code too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Premier stood to his feet and made a statement that the commitment and the platform on which he and every member on that side of the House was elected on was to maximize benefits, vis-à-vis Voisey's Bay, or for the people of the Province. He went on to indicate yesterday that was the commitment in the Red Book, but he neglected to point out that the real commitment - which we have pointed out here day over day since this Legislature has been opened to him - the real issue, the real mandate that this government received was not to ship any ore, any unprocessed ore, any nickel concentrate out of the Province.

Premier, my question to you is this: How can you stand day after day in this House and try to make something out of nothing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to further articulate the view with respect to this very important issue. I can assure everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that Liberals, in the last election, did not run on a negative platform. We ran on a positive platform to do something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to Voisey's Bay, we ran on a platform that said: We will find a way to have nickel leave Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not campaign from a negative point of view. We campaigned from a positive point of view that we would find a way to have nickel leave Newfoundland and Labrador or there would not be an arrangement with respect to Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: One day he is here, the next day he is there, the other day he is here, it depends on what day you ask this, supposedly, straight answer, real solution Premier.

Let me ask him this, last Thursday you went outside this Legislature and you indicated to the people of the Province, through the media, that whether or not the business they are in suggests that every single rock that comes out of Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a different issue. Yet, in the Liberal Party Red Book it says Inco proposes to take the ore in Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed. That is unacceptable.

Premier, stand up and provide a straight answer. What is your position on Voisey's Bay ore? Are you going to let any of it be shipped out or none of it be shipped out? Be consistent with the position of you, your former boss and your entire party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess a question can be asked many different ways and the answer is the same answer, basically. We did not campaign from a negative point of view in 1996 or 1999. In both elections, by the way, the Voisey's Bay topic was a matter of public discussion within the Province. Both times we campaigned on a basis of positive action of things that we would try to do for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our objective then - we will debate it more fully in the private member's motion today - as it is now, is to try to find a way to maximize the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by making sure that there is full processing of the ore body in Labrador, in Newfoundland and Labrador, into nickel for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be shipped out of the Province as nickel.

Mr. Speaker, that is our objective. It was then, it is now, and most people in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am suggesting to you, would hope that the Minister of Mines and Energy has some success in finding a way to accomplish that rather than finding a way not to have it proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what we are about, Mr. Speaker, positive action if we can accomplish it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is just not factual. At the Liberal Annual Convention in 1999, Brian Tobin, who spoke for all of you and everyone of you to a person, were the first crowd on your feet leading the cheers at the annual convention in the Liberal Party when he said this: we are not interested in talking about a Voisey's Bay development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask him if his position is the same as what his former Premier was, that they are not interested in doing a Voisey's Bay development that sees any nickel concentrate leave this Province unless, and it must be this, that every single ounce of ore and nickel to be processed in this Province must be processed to a finished state before it leaves it? Is that your position, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the objective of this Liberal government. It always has been, and is today. Now, let me just point this out, in 1998, 1999 leading up to the election, the position of Inco had changed very drastically and dramatically because the same -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is a serious matter. We should treat it seriously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: The same company, Mr. Speaker, that had come here and announced its plans for Argentia had turned around a year or so later and said: We are interested in developing the project at Voisey's Bay but only if there is a mine and a mill in Labrador and no processing whatsoever in Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the context that led up to the election of 1999, and the Liberals ran on a platform that said: Elect us and we will find a way to make sure that if there is going to be a development in Voisey's Bay, the nickel ore that is in Voisey's Bay will be turned into a nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: All of it is the objective. It was then, it is now, and I challenge anyone to suggest how that has changed with respect to the position of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it has not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I will take up the challenge that he just laid down. In the last several days he has tried to convince and twist that we are somehow not getting it straight, that he is providing the answers.

I will like to ask him this question: If what you say is true, than how is it that the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the present Member of Humber West, was on the radio this morning saying that if we ship ore out - well, if it involves shipping ore out I think that is contrary to what we said back in 1999 in terms of the mandate. How do you jive your position in shipping ore out - which you clearly did, people know it. You cannot fool everybody, Premier. People understand it. They know what you said. How do you jive that last Thursday with the position of the former Minister of Mines and Energy saying: That is not we got elected on?

MR. SULLIVAN: He can't fool anybody, that is the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure you again, as I did yesterday, I do not think the people of the Province are naive and stupid, as you characterized them yesterday, and I am not trying to fool anybody. We are trying to make sure - because this is a serious issue. The point of the matter that we are getting to in these questions is this: The government, with the Premier of the day, took the stance in trying to reach our objective which is to have all of that ore changed into nickel in the Province. He characterized the hopes and dreams of Newfoundlanders by saying, against the company: we are doing nothing here. He put up a position saying we are doing it all here and not one spoonful will leave. We took that positioning to the negotiation. It failed. It got us no deal. We are thirteen months later and there is no development. So that proposition, that every single scrap from the very first day has to be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, gets you no development. Now, the objective is to get it all done here.

Now let me ask a question, as I normally would, and using nickel as the example: If I were to lend you a nickel today and you were to give me back a nickel tomorrow, do I still have my nickel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This morning the Member for Port de Grave - if we think that this is somehow a big joke, Premier, it is not. You have changed your position. You do not have the courage, the intestinal fortitude, to stand in front of the people of the Province and tell them you have changed it. You are trying to convince people that what you have said as Premier is consistent with what Liberals have always said. It is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him this question: Has he taken the time to sit down with the Member for Port de Grave, who said this morning: I would like to have the opportunity to sit down and talk to the Premier about his position. I did not clearly understand in Question Period today what his position was, but I would like to talk to him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to point out quite clearly, this is a very serious issue in the Province. The only person trying to be a little bit mischievous about it, and trying to manipulate the truth, is the Leader of the Opposition.

I will state again, Mr. Speaker, the facts clearly show that the objective of the Liberals who ran in the election in both 1996 and 1999 was to find a way and to stand on a platform that said: we will not give a mining lease unless we find a way to have the ore changed into nickel in the Province.

Now, that was our objective. Lots of speeches have been made, lots of speeches will be made, but we will not be deterred from our objective to achieve something positive and beneficial for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, by finding a way rather than not finding a way to have nickel made in Newfoundland and Labrador, and have the equivalent of everything that is in Labrador turned into nickel in this Province over time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what we are committed to, Mr. Speaker, and we will find a way to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, three days ago in this House, I borrowed a page from this Premier's book and I said to every member in this House: Our research is done. We know what every member said and, before this setting is over, each and every one of you are going to have to stand and answer what your position is. I will begin that today.

I would like to ask the Member for Humber West: Do you support the position of the Premier? Do you support ore leaving this Province in any form, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the tactic, actually, that he did borrow from me during a debate here a year or so ago, and I appreciate it being used in the proper forum. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that he can ask a question of any one of the government at any particular point in time. The tradition and history of every Parliament is that ministers or their designates answer for the government. Any minister or designate -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: If you want to ask the questions, it is fair game to ask any member at any point in time, in open and free debate, and I am sure you will. Go ahead and do so - and everybody in the Liberal Party - because, remember this, and it is a good reminder, everybody in the Liberal Party understands that the advantage and the benefit of being a Liberal is that this is a Party that can encompass different points of view and still rally to do what is best for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because we do not believe that it has to be unanimous. We believe that if the majority of the people support a proposition, that is what runs a democratic society. We do not rule with an iron fist or suggest that anyone who has a differing view on any matter at any point in time is, in any way, less entitled to be a Liberal or participate in our caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Premier has his cheering section all wrapped up today, and in fine tune. I tell you, it is a lot different than what it was this last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not everybody.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not everybody, no. There are a couple over there not cheering, I say to members.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. I read a story recently in the print media in which the minister of all things to all the people, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, was asked about Friede Goldman using the shipyard and fabrication facility at Marystown in Cow Head as collateral for a $10 million line of credit to build offshore vessels at its facilities in the United States. I say to the minister, that is some return on the dollar; but I will come back to that issue on another day.

During the interview, the minister said there are a couple of things in the works for Marystown shipyard. I ask the minister if he was referring to the proposal to build two vessels in Marystown to service the offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we are working continuously with the two members from the Burin Peninsula, the Minister of Education and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, incessantly, night and day. We are working to try and get some activity underway in the Marystown shipyard. There have been discussions with various people, and with the union who are in the gallery today. I think we have met with them twice in the past day to try and ensure that the shipyard at Marystown becomes more productive than it has been in the last while.

I am not at liberty at this point to say what negotiations are ongoing because I think - and I think the member would want me to take this responsible attitude - to discuss openly and publicly where certain projects are or might be, might endanger what we are trying to do.

I say to the hon. gentleman, as soon as we have concluded negotiations, or anywhere near negotiations, or as soon as we are in a position to say publicly what we are up to here, where we will not endanger those negotiations and will not endanger future work at the Marystown shipyard, I will be certainly pleased, happy, and overjoyed to tell the hon. gentleman exactly what we are trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I would like, for the record, to say that we on this side of the House of Assembly as well would like to see something happen in Marystown as well as in other areas, but we have to be responsible and ask questions about what is happening.

Minister, it is standard practice in this industry for shipyard owners to finance new vessel construction. That leads me to this question: Will Friede Goldman use its own credit to finance work at Marystown, or will the government participate in the financing, either through loan guarantees, grants, deferral or cancellation of the $10 million to $15 million Friede Goldman already owes the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? If government is going to provide financial services for the construction of vessels in Marystown, I say to the minister, why did we give it away in the first place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman, as I said to him before, and I recognize his right to ask the question, and he should, I also would hope that he would recognize that when you are in certain kinds of negotiations you cannot say everything that you might want to say publicly, because you might endanger the livelihoods of certain people.

Let me just say to him that the government of the Province will do what it believes is fiscally responsible in terms of trying to get work in Marystown; and, of course, if there is a net gain to the economy, then we would look very seriously at trying to help Marystown and the people of Marystown develop their economy and get work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, let me say to the hon. gentleman: The Member for Bonavista North asked a very serious question and I gave him a very serious answer, and the kind of comment that he is making is not becoming of him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. When the Atlantic Co-operative Alliance acquired IPL a year ago, we understood that the company had agreed to maintain and expand production of Country Ribbon brand poultry products in Newfoundland. Now we hear that ACA is about to produce part of the Country Ribbon product line in Nova Scotia and lay off workers in Newfoundland.

Minister, does the government have any enforceable guarantee from ACA that the production of chicken products under the Country Ribbon brand will not be transferred out of this Province?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the dispute that the hon. member is talking about, production going outside the Province, is between a private company and the union workers that are there today. Having said that, there is a five-year agreement there. There are compliance levels that the company must meet, and it is incumbent upon me, as minister, and this government, to make sure that we monitor that situation so that the compliance levels are met with the agreement that was signed approximately a year ago.

Those compliance levels as of today are met. They must meet 75 per cent of pre-sales levels; that has been met. Approximately 261 man years, that was the agreement; they have over 400 people working there today. Secondly, they keep up the quotas. The quotas are kept up. In fact, this year there will be a 4 per cent increase in production. So those compliance levels are being met. I have a meeting this evening with the unions to try to explain to them and tell them where we stand on this. We have to remember that the government got out of the chicken business and the broiler business a year ago, and we are staying out. We have put $4.5 million to $5 million, over the last number of years, hundreds of millions of dollars over the last number of years, into the broiler industry. This problem today is between the union and a private company; and I underline, a private company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers invested over $200 million in Newfoundland Farm Products and its successor IPL, which ACA picked up for little or nothing. This looks like another Friede Goldman deal all over again.

I ask the minister today: Is this government capable of negotiating any deal that returns real benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not a bad investment

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is right; my colleague said it is not a bad investment and not a bad return. For the amount of dollars that have been put into the broiler business over the years in this Province, and the amount of monies that have gone into other commodity groups in the Province into agriculture - we have 400 jobs. Remember, the agreement called for 261 man years. That was it! Not only that, but all they have to do is maintain 75 per cent of that.

The business is sold, it is out of our hands, and we will monitor it. Like I said, it is incumbent upon me to make sure that they comply, and to make sure that they go with value-added wherever they can. In this case, there are going to twelve full-time employees laid off, there will be thirty-four part-time employees because of the fact that they are getting out of their non-profitable items such as breaded chicken and so on. That is the reason for it. Other than that, they will maintain their levels there, they will maintain the 75 per cent level, they will maintain their investment that they had to put in that, which is promised at $3 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Two million dollars is in already, $1 million to go in this year. So, Mr. Speaker, they are doing what they are supposed to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I guess if I need to understand that agreement more, I will ask you this question then: Will you table in the House any agreement that was entered into with respect to the transfer of IPL assets to Atlantic Co-operative Alliance? Will you table those agreements so that I can have a first-hand look at what you propose for this industry, for the employees of this industry? Minister, will you table those agreements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the agreements, with the intent of doing just that. If there is nothing there - like I said, it is a private company - to stop that from being done, I will certainly be glad to do it.

Those are the three or four main components in that agreement. That was made public at the time by the previous minister. Anybody who wanted to ask questions on it, that was all public knowledge. If there is anything there to stop it, well.... I will have a look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: If there is nothing in the agreement that says otherwise, I will certainly do it.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question also is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and it is along the same lines, concerning ACA. The former Minister of Agrifoods said last year, one year ago last week, in a press release, that they have agreed to write off $13 million of an outstanding debt. In return, ACA has provided a firm commitment to grow our poultry industry. Mr. Minister, I ask you: Where is that commitment today?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there was approximately $11.5 million written off at the time. There was also another line of credit of approximately $5 million that was paid by the company, including a $1 million loan guarantee to the provincial government.

Like I said, in the agreement, this is public knowledge. All that agreement says is that company would have (inaudible) 75 per cent of pre-sale level, which was 261 people. That was public knowledge; the hon. member knows that. It is up to 400 people. If hon. members look a little further, they cannot produce beyond what the quota levels are. They produced approximately 8.6 million birds last year in that facility. The quota for this Province is approximately 9 million. With the 4 per cent increase this year, they will reach the 9 million mark.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WOODFORD: They cannot produce over that in any case, because that is an allocation from the federal government and the chicken marketing agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, what we are talking about here is not necessarily the production; it is the processing of that production, and it is our understanding that processing is taking place outside this Province at the expense of workers in the Province. I ask the minister: Are these commitments that were made by ACA one year ago as valid today as they were back then?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said from the outset that we would make sure that all the compliance levels are met. If this company wants to sell chicken outside the Province, if they want to sell it to Russia, if they want to sell it to Bangladesh, if they want to sell it anywhere in the world, they can sell it as long as they meet the compliance levels that were set out in the agreement, and as long as they operate within that particular quota.

As I have said, there are 400 jobs at that facility and it is incumbent upon me, as minister, to make sure they put everything through there in a value-added fashion as can be done. We will continue to do that and we will continue to impress upon the company that this must be done, and nothing be done outside the Province.

As far as I am concerned today, there is nothing being done outside the Province with regards to secondary processing on this particular chicken quota - as of today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The minister knows the Northern shrimp advisory meeting is taking place tomorrow, and when the P.E.I. allocation was made last summer, the previous minister suggested there would be riots in the street. Now we are faced with a possible 20 per cent increase in the shrimp quota this year. It is possible. We have plants, fishermen, sitting idle. Areas of this Province have the highest unemployment rate in the country. My question to the minister is: What has the minister done? What contact has he made with the federal minister? What message did he give to Minister Dhaliwal on how any increase in shrimp quotas should be allocated this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question. I think that the member opposite knows the position that this government holds on this, and it was vocalized well last year by my predecessor. Our position has not changed. I have written the federal minister, telling him our opinion on this matter. The Premier met with the Prime Minister last week and addressed this issue, and I will be addressing it with the minister at the Boston Seafood Show and again next Friday in a First Ministers Meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess that is what is causing me concern, that the Premier has spoken with the Primer Minister on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: The minister knows that shrimp entering the European Union from Canada is subject to an import tariff that prevents our industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: The minister knows that shrimp entering the European Union from Canada is subject to an import tariff, that prevents our industry from gaining access to this vast market. What steps has the minister taken to get the federal government to negotiate with the European Union on this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member knows, talks have been ongoing with the federal government with regard to the tariff on shrimp going into the EU, and we can only hope that the EU will reduce this tariff to allow more of our shrimp to go in there at an even price.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of several hundred home support and personal care home workers in this Province. Last fall, before Christmas, I presented a similar petition, and these have come in since. I mentioned at the time that it was accepted to present, they are petitioning the hon. House of Assembly and the House of Commons. Of course, the same ones will not be sent on to the House of Commons. We are presenting them on behalf of these workers.

Some of the words of these workers are: Persons in this field are responsible for the care of people with various medical conditions. The duties carried out by these valuable workers are stressful and demanding in nature.

I think most people realize that home support workers today get $5.84 an hour, $7.01 for personal care - that is usually only a couple of hours a day - but personal care attendants, with a couple of days orientation in nursing homes, can go in and work for $12.44 an hour, and these people are working for $5.84. So they are paid more than double to deal with seniors - people in homes - and some of them are at the same level of care. There are people in their homes today, and many of them are at the same level of care as people in a nursing home, and they are paid more than double in salary.

The Shallow Report came down and was tabled just this past year - the former minister, the current Premier in the House - and it addresses fairly well and lays out what is needed. There has to be a significant move in the Budget tomorrow to be able to close the gap, which is $5.84 as opposed to $12.44, and that is immense.

I am sure everybody in this House knows somebody related to them, or in their community, who has to go into those homes. People cannot even get out of bed. They even have to take them in wheelchairs and feed some of these people for $5.84 an hour. I think it is disgraceful, in this modern day, to have people do that when people can walk inside a nursing home and get $12.44 an hour.

These people here, I have met with them on many occasions. I had a public meeting with some of these people last fall, and the petitions have been coming in fairly steady. I gave a commitment to present them in the House here. I know the minister has indicated already that there will be movement, there will be funds allocated in this Budget. I just hope it makes a significant step in closing the gap there and allowing these people a decent level of income.

The people working at those jobs are getting below the poverty line. Some of these are the single wage earners in the family. They cannot afford to have transportation, and they have to walk. I know people who have to walk a mile-and-a-half to go to work and go into these homes, and get back home again sometimes late at night in very adverse conditions. They cannot afford to have transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly hope their voice is going to be heard. Tomorrow, I hope the increase is going to be significant; it is not going to be nominal and just passed out there in closing this particular gap.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: There was a motion that I would like to pass, just to expedite our debate next week. I am just asking members to pass Motion 5, which is the setting up of the Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will revert to petitions. I recognize that the hon. the Member for Labrador West was standing, but I had recognized the hon. Government House Leader before. He stood on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: What I was asking the House was if I could go back to Motions and call Motion 5, which is to move that the Committees named yesterday be set up.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly we do not have a problem in dealing with that after petitions, or whenever it is convenient. I think it would be more appropriate that the petitions be finished on the agenda first.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise and present a petition on behalf of a number of people in Labrador West, home care workers. The petition is:

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth:

WHEREAS personal home care and home support workers need wage increases, workers compensation and other employee related benefits; and

WHEREAS money was set aside in provincial budgets in the past to ensure the coverage of workers compensation benefits and salary increases;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to fully implement wage increases, workers compensation and other benefits, to live up to their commitment to personal care and home support workers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Premier say that home care workers is one of the areas that he intends to address. Home care workers across the Province were very pleased with that statement. We are hopeful that tomorrow, Budget Day, the results of what he intends to do will become fully exposed and known to people across the Province, and we are hopeful that it will not be just a pittance increase, and that the increase will reflect in many ways the work that home care workers provide in this Province, the many hours of work, the demanding nature of their job, the incidents in which they can hurt themselves.

I say to the Premier that it is more than just a matter of wage increases. These workers are working in a very high area of exposure to risk. They are lifting patients who are, many times, much more than their own weight, and while doing so can easily become injured on the job. It is very important that as workers - and very few workers in this Province who are not covered under an insurance type program. I know that the review committee on workers compensation that was just held recommended that this be paid attention to.

I say to the Premier and to Cabinet that on Budget Day tomorrow we are not only looking forward to substantial wage increases for home care workers in the Province but also that they would be covered under the workers compensation or an insurance type program that will protect them if they should happen to be injured in carrying out their duties.

Thank you

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just wondering if members opposite would allow us to go back to Motion 5, which is to move that the following committees be composed of the following members, that were read into the record yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we put the motion at this time, Motion 5, which is a motion giving the composition of the Government Services Committee, the Resource Committee and the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It now being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I call on the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes with respect to this resolution, and I invite members on both sides to participate in this resolution this afternoon.

This issue is fundamental to the very mandate that has been received by members opposite, and of course it has in a very real way certainly been the topic of discussion in this Legislature for the past number of days and the past couple of weeks.

I think it is important if we put perhaps in context some of what has been said and some of the questions and some of the answers that have been given by the hon. Premier over the past few days, and also put in context perhaps some of the details and some of the particulars that were found in the 1999 Liberal Red Book. Of course, that particular document presenting itself as the basis and the foundation that the Liberal Party put forward as its message and what it would offer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the past number of days, through very effective, I would suggest, and exemplary questioning by the Leader of the Opposition, points were raised and answers were given by the hon. Premier which of course have led to only confusion, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer to some of the points and in particular some of the quotes. Again, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to them on a number of occasions.

Last week the hon. Premier, in response to questioning on this issue, indicated that: I appreciate the opportunity to give an answer in the Legislature because I have answered that question probably 10,000 times elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to listen. I believe the people of the Province have listened to the answer. The short answer is this: Because I will try to give short answers. There is no change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to today, none.

Again, this particular quote was referred to today and on previous occasions by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, and is directly on point in terms of the issue that is being raised in this resolution as to whether or not this government has a mandate to govern and to lead the people of the Province with respect to this very important and vital issue. It refers to a comment that was made by the former Premier, the leader of the governing party in 1999 during the election campaign, when the Premier had indicated publicly: It is our policy to have all of the ore processed in this Province, but beyond that we are not even prepared to discuss any alternatives or any options with Inco, or with anybody else, until first of all Inco formally moves away from the position that they took early on this year. Last year, in fact, when they said that their position was for a project that would see a mine and mill in Labrador and the ore shipped entirely out of the Province. That, I would suggest, is the basis which formulated the mandate that was given to the government as it was obviously one of the main issues in addition to, of course, the issue with respect to the development of Lower Churchill. This issue on Inco's role, and government's response to Inco's role and what agreement would be entered into, if any, forms significantly and fundamentally the basis of the mandate that was given to members opposite.

Last week, in response to questioning by members on this side of the House, outside the House the Premier indicated - again, I will use a direct quote: We believe full processing. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that the equivalent of a total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will be changed into nickel in this Province, and whether or not the business that they are in suggests that every single rock that comes out of Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is a different issue. They might actually be bringing some of the ore that is mined in Sudbury to Newfoundland, and we will have an equivalent in terms of tonnage and volume. That is the whole notion we are talking about with full processing, and over the life of the project we expect to be able to accomplish that.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that response last week is a significant and wholesale change from what was sold to the people of the Province during the election campaign. Not only as Mr. Premier indicated earlier, I would suggest, not only in the 1999 campaign, but going back even to the 1996 campaign. The Premier has indicated that his position meets every detail of the mandate that his government sought and received in 1999, but the record does not support that claim.

I would like to refer to two specific quotes that were found in the Liberal Red Book of 1999, that document which forms the basis and foundation, as I have indicated earlier, of a campaign which was successful for members opposite. There are forty-eight seats in this Legislature and as a result of that campaign, there were thirty-two members who were elected. That is two-thirds of the House, a significant majority.

The people of the Province accepted the offer that was put forward by what was proposed by members opposite. There was an offer proposed. The offer was the campaign. It was the details that were spelled out in the Red Book. There was an offer presented to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador accepted that offer but, unfortunately, the terms and conditions pursuant to that contract, as it were, had been breached. Therefore, it raises the question and the question has to be asked: Do the members opposite have the mandate to governor in terms of the fact there has been a breach of those conditions which form the basis and foundation of that offer, and acceptance that was provided and witnessed in the general election of 1999?

The two specific examples that I base that comment on - again, they are very brief quotes. They come directly out of the Red Book. Government called a provincial election in 1999 seeking a specific mandate to - and I quote: "...maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our province that there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built in our province." Secondly, this also is a direct quote: "INCO proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed. That is not acceptable."

That is what was put forward and presented to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. That is what the people of the Province accepted in their analysis of a proposal and the offer that was put forward. As I have indicated, it certainly seems to us, on this side of the House, and I would suggest perhaps the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are witnessing this whole debate during the past number of weeks, what they are witnessing now is a breech of that agreement, a breech of that contract which was put forward, offered and eventually accepted in terms of a very significant majority that members opposite received.

Mr. Speaker, it comes to a question, I would submit, of trust and confidence by the people of this Province in its government at the present time, in view of the shift and in view of the change, the very radical change, that appears to be taking place. I can only use that language because I can only analyze what the Premier, himself, has said. I can only go by what he has said outside the Legislature. I often say to myself that the Premier speaks in riddles. He is Roger the riddler. I can never understand if he is coming or going. He is all over the map, I say. Certainly, the words that he used last week are a clear indication that there has been a meaningful, significant and substantial shift in what was presented to the people of the Province two years ago.

It is an issue, I would suggest, of propriety. I will go further and say it is perhaps an issue of honour. That is why today we are proud, on this side of the House, to present this resolution and offer to the members of this House, and indeed the people of the entire Province, the notion that this government does not have a mandate to govern in view of its shift and its fundamental change of position on this very important, public policy issue which was offered to the people of the Province, accepted by the people of the Province, but now clearly members opposite, led by their Premier, clearly the terms and conditions of that offer and acceptance are now in breech. We now say to the people of the Province that this government no longer has a mandate to govern and to continue on this particular footing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER(Mercer): The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to take a few minutes again to enter into this more detailed debate. The issue that we have actually been debating in the Legislature for several days now through the vehicle of Question Period. It is unfortunate really, as I see it, with an issue that has such potential to be of such benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador. That an Opposition, so hungry and thirsty for political power, would want to try to manipulate what is happening, and try to bring in disrespect and question; and doubt an issue for which there is no disrespect, no question and no doubt. The idea that they would lower themselves to try and desperately suggest that something has changed here is really a little bit sad in an issue that is as important as this.

It is always important in political debates, probably more so important sometimes, what they decide not to say as it is what they do say. The hon. member who just spoke said a lot of things that were accurate, a lot of things that were true, and a lot of things that reflect the record, but he conveniently left out the contextual pieces. Particularly, when he talked about a statement in the 1999 Red Book that did say, and he did quote it correctly: "INCO proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed." The Liberals said: "That is not acceptable." What he forgot to say, Mr. Speaker, was the whole context leading up to that, which we talked about in Question Period today, was that Inco's position, publicly articulated and announced in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time, is that they intended to take every single ounce, every single rock that came out of the ground in Labrador, and have it turned into nickel somewhere else, and that their stated intention was to have zero, absolutely zero, processing occur in Newfoundland and Labrador. A very convenient omission, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, a very convenient omission to our friend who is a lawyer as well as a member of the Legislature, to present a case to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to forget the very underpinnings of the statement that was debated very hotly and very openly in Newfoundland and Labrador during the election.

There is nobody in this House on different sides in this debate. We are all of the one voice, and that is what is sad about the fact that they are trying to suggest there is a problem. We are all of the one voice because, guess what? Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike during the election in 1999, a couple of years ago, the opposition parties, both of them, and the new leader who was recognized here today for the Progressive Conservative Party, who I hope will come into this Chamber at some point in time and ask questions like the Leader of the Opposition is doing today, they are now saying that they agree fully with the statement of the Liberal candidates and the Liberal government in 1999, that it is unacceptable to take ore out of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was then and it is now, and I am glad to see that they finally agree 100 per cent with our position, because that was our position then and it is today; so there is no disagreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: They are trying to fabricate a disagreement where there is none. The fact of the matter is this: We did not campaign on a statement. There is one statement that said what is not acceptable, but we did not campaign on the basis of being negative and things that we would not do. We campaigned from a positive platform that said: Here are the things that we would see happening in Newfoundland and Labrador in another term of office with us as the government and with us as the Administration. What we said were the things that we would do, not the things we would not do. It was stated as a matter of fact that now everybody is acknowledging that everybody agrees with, that it is not acceptable. It was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now to deal with a proposition from Inco that says we will do zero processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is the basis on which that statement was put in this platform. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows it. Everybody sitting in those seats on that side of the Legislature knows it. Everybody sitting in these seats knows it, because the whole context was a company that says, "We have changed our minds. We are not going to do what we said in 1996. We are going to take all of the resource outside of Newfoundland and Labrador for processing", and the government's answer and the Liberal candidate's answer was, "This is not acceptable."

What was acceptable is in the red words and the red letters in the Red Book. What was acceptable was - and let me read it into the record so that Hansard will show what the record says accurately and clearly what was acceptable. The positive platform that the Liberal candidates ran on was: The Liberal government, with a new mandate, will maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our Province, that there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and a refinery are built in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what is acceptable to Liberals. That is what is acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; because, as the hon. member pointed out, they voted for it. They sent two-thirds of the seats of this Legislature back to the government side because they agreed with a group that said we will maintain a firm position that makes sure there will be no mine unless a smelter and a refinery are built in our Province.

Our Minister of Mines and Energy, sitting in this seat instead of his own seat, is now off on a mission that I would expect - I know, Mr. Speaker, as a business man in the Province, that the Leader of the PC Party, who is not yet a member of this Legislature, I know he, as a business person, understands the components of a good deal and understands the basis on which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see full and maximum benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. He understands because he is interested. He is interested enough to run for the position as leader of the Party. He may even be interested enough, some time, to run for a seat in the Legislature. He might even, as an aside, because the record needs to be clear on this too, he might be so commited to being the Leader of the Opposition, which he is going to be for quite a long time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - that he will commit, just as he has suggested that his business successes put him in a position where he does not need the salary as a Premier, that he would do it for nothing, well, let him also state that he will stand and sit as the Leader of the Opposition for free, because that is where he is going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He cannot give away this salary, because he is not going to stand here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: If he would be willing to give it away if he were ever to get here, let him state that he is willing to give it away if he ever goes over there, because right now he shows no interest in coming into the Legislature whatsoever.

In any event, what we ran on was the whole issue of having ore processed into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot take a positive statement and a platform from the Liberals and try to word it into a devious, mischievous motion in the Legislature to say: Whereas the current Administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment that Voisey's Bay nickel ore would not be shipped from the Province.

We did not talk about what we would not do with this; we talked about what we would do. We would have it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would have full processing, and we would have all of it, over time, turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rather than get on with the nonsense that we are debating here today, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would really take pride in the fact that the Opposition, as the leader said the other day in one of his finer moments, in the years that I have seen him here: We will be reasonable and responsible as an Opposition.

Well, a reasonable and responsible Opposition in my view, in this particular case, would be suggesting that if a government said that we want to have all of it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if a government has one of its minister going off into a negotiation with the only stated objective of having all of it turned into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, why wouldn't the Opposition say: Good, we wish you well, because that will give maximum benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that will achieve something that all of us want, and that we know that everybody wants.

Just out of interest, because from time to time members opposite take great pride in polls and so on, the unscientific poll from The Telegram, with no information and with all the confusion that the Opposition tries to spread with respect to this issue, that if I lend you my nickel today and you will give me back my nickel tomorrow, will I still have my full nickel? Of course, the answer is yes. Will I still have the full benefits of that nickel? Absolutely, I will. That is what will happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. With no more explanation than that, 57 per cent of the respondents, with no explanation, no deal, no nothing, said it makes sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is the sensible thing to do, Mr. Speaker, because they are not tied up into political rhetoric. They are more concerned about a government that will knuckle down to the task of trying to strike a good deal, of trying to make sure that the commitments that were make in 1996 and in 1999 were met.

Let's go back to 1996: The new Liberal government will take every step necessary by government to development and gain full benefits from the Voisey's Bay mine, including the construction of a smelter and other ore processing facilities in the Province.

Now, there is only one thing that happened after that. That was said in 1996 when Inco itself was saying, "We will do it", and this government said, "We will hold them to it". Between that book and this book, Inco turned around and said: We have changed our minds. We will have none of it. We are not doing any of it. We are processing zero.

Then the government rightfully said: Processing zero is not acceptable. What would we do about it? We would hold firm for an arrangement that would make sure that the finished product leaves Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that some members of the Opposition today, rather than carry on with this kind of frivolous motion, would stand up and wish the government well, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: - in accomplishing a deal that is beneficial for everyone in the Province, that gets maximum benefits. In any event, certainly we will encourage our members to treat it in a manner that it deserves, which is to vote against it and give it very little notice and attention, because we are about the serious business of trying to do a deal that is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and not about trying to play silly, childish, petty, political games with an issue that is extremely important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It brings new meaning to the song title: Are you diggin' ‘em Dillon.

Premier, I take exception to the remarks you talk about of this being a frivolous motion, because it is not. If there is anybody who has added confusion to this debate about where your government stands it is you, and you alone, Sir. No question about it.

Editorials across this Province, which I will get into in a moment, one in particular: "The right Grimes for the times? In his first pubic address since becoming premier, Mr. Grimes broached the issue of Voisey's Bay at a recent gathering in Gander." Gander is a significant point in terms of this issue, and I will get to that in a second. "And like his pronouncements on Inco and the nickel deposit during the Liberal leadership race, Mr. Grimes raised more questions than he answered." That is the sentiment, that is the sense, and that is what you have left in your wake since you became Premier on this issue. Is there any wonder?

In 1999, for example, we talked about what you wanted a mandate on. You weren't the who travelled around the Province up against Brian Tobin, I was. You weren't the guy that Brian Tobin called the election on the backs and said: Who is it, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that you wish to negotiate on Voisey's Bay? You are not the person that opened up the Member for Gander's headquarters during the election when, I might add, you raised your head publicly, and the issue and the publicity said: Minister of Mines and Energy, Roger Grimes, has raised the specter of ore leaving this Province. That was not the impression or the commitment given by Premier Brian Tobin at Sandra Kelly's headquarters opening during the election of 1999, when he said: not a spoonful, not an ounce of unprocessed ore will leave this Province. You can wriggle, you can move and you can try to deceive the people of the Province into believing that your position has not changed, but it has.

Let's go to May 19, 1999, in this Legislature, when the question was asked directly. If he is fond of quotes I will give it to him. When I asked the question to Premier Tobin: "Is government still fully committed to 100 per cent of the ore being mined, refined and processed in this Province? Yes or no?" Premier Tobin, and I am almost gulping when I say this, gave a straighter answer than you did, when he said: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. When I asked you that same question three days ago in this House, was that the answer I got? No, it was not. Was it the answer given to the people of the Province in the media scrum? No, it was not, when you broached the idea of equivalent amount going out. What is even more interesting, Mr. Premier, is that when you made that statement, members of your own caucus and Cabinet, after I came in and broached that subject in my reply to the Throne Speech, when I said that you opened up the door to give ore away, ten minutes ago out in that Legislature, members of your own Cabinet, sir, were surprised by that statement out there.

We see today the former Minister of Mines and Energy, who held onto this file and negotiated on behalf of the Province on this file, said that if one ounce of ore, or if any ore is to leave this Province, this is different than the mandate that we received and contrary to the mandate that we received in 1999. Every member in this place will have an opportunity to either vote against this or vote for it, but I will assure you right now - and I will serve notice on each and every one of you, as I did in the Throne Speech, that before this spring session is over, if you are not on your feet telling me what your position is then you will answer to the people in your own districts. I will phone and make sure that you do because this is a very, very important issue.

Mr. Grimes, has been so eager to point about how frivolous, hungry and thirsty we are for power on this side of the House. If you have accused us of being hungry for the truth, and if your statements mean that we are hungry to ensure that what you say, and all of you said to get yourselves elected, that you do not move in a different direction, well then you bet your bottom dollar, sir, we are hungry because we will hold your feet to the fire on this issue!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He likes to talk about the context on which things are entered into and how this government ran a campaign on what they would do; not what they would not do. Mr. Speaker, there is no member on this side of the House who understands that statement better.

During the election of 1999 they pounded the daylights out of us, or tried to, on our tax policy. Six months later they implemented it! They did not say they were going to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: When it came to the Office of the Ombudsman, we could not afford it. It was not the right thing to do. Six months later, or in this Throne Speech, what did they do? They did it.

In this Legislature this government and that member in particular, when he was Minister of Mines and Energy, criticized us for our position on NUGS - Non-Utility Generators System - on private rivers; that this government was moving in a position, and what did they do? Six months later they implemented it. So, I understand clearly. The people on this side and the people in this Province understand clearly what you campaigned on, and that is the very reason and essence for this motion today.

I will go back to the Throne Speech, because it is important in the reply, that you and your government received a mandate. There are fourteen or fifteen of you over there who owe your very existence into this Legislature because of that. Fourteen or fifteen members on that side of the House owe their very political existence - and they know what I am saying is true - to the fact that Brian Tobin wrapped himself in the flag and sold the people of the Province a slate of goods, and you have inherited that. If you move beyond it, you may say what you want to say in here, you may get the loud applause from the cheerleaders on the opposite side but the people of the Province are ahead of you. They understand what you are about. They understand what the 1999 election was about. If you want an opportunity to go ahead and sign a deal, you may have every legal right to continue what you are doing, but if a deal is etched or inked in stone, or you attempt to ink it in stone before you bring it before this Legislature or the people of the Province, you will have much more to account for then you even can imagine, I say, Mr. Premier.

The last thing I want to bring up, with respect to this issue - I am not going to get into quotes. There are so many of them. Maybe I should provide them all to hon. members. The entire chronology from 1992 to present, every statement, every press release, every issue, every question, every answer provided by every member, and every question by every member in this House, including you. What was most telling, in the first Question Period of this week, the first opportunity we had to go after this Premier on this issue. Do you know what his response was? And Hansard will bear it out. He said: If you look at the record closely, and if the people of the Province look at the record closely, I never said that there would be every ounce. I have never made that statement. In other words, the former Premier, and my former boss who appointed me, may have said it but I did not. That does not give you the political right to make a deal based upon what you said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You were part of a team, you were elected as part of a team, and we will hold you to the commitments that you have made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is clear - forget about us for a minute. Let's assume that the place we live in is so partisan that you would expect the Opposition to move in this direction, you would expect to hear from us. If I were Jane or John Q Public today, I would be sitting in the gallery like people are here right now, saying: boy, what a debate that is taking place today. The Opposition were after the government in a private members' motion. Government were defending its position. Let's assume that that is the way it should operate here. Let's step out of that box for a moment. Let's add some real indications of where you are headed and where you were headed. Over the last several months, for the first time since 1996, members in this House and the general public got a firsthand view of your stewardship over Mines and Energy. Through the Liberal Leadership Convention - and these are not my words. This issue is important. These are your colleagues words. In the live leadership debate the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the Member for Humber West, said: Oh, come on Roger, you want to ship ore out of the Province; on live TV. The Member for Port de Grave said: Brian Tobin's language was strong but John Efford's was stronger.

Today we are provided with yet more examples of the uncertainty and concern within the rank and file of your own caucus. While everyone clapped and cheered for you today, you were looking this way, we were looking that way. Not every desk had hands clapping on it, I say to you Premier. Not everybody, because there is legitimate and bonafide concern about the position that you have personally carved out, that your Cabinet colleagues know you have carved out, the position that you brought to the Table, which was rejected by Cabinet.

You talked in the House the other day - and this is very, very important - when you stood up and said: The present Minister of Mines and Energy, I hope he has more success than I did. I hope he can overcome the obstacles that were in my way. In my view, that was a very telling statement too because he knows, at least to this point, that his chances of success of implementing a deal to see ore go out of this Province are more likely to happen right now because some obstacles are out of your way, and you have eliminated some of them yourself. Number one, that no one had control over, former Premier Brian Tobin returns to federal politics. Two, current Premier wins the leadership race. Three, the obstacles that were at the table to you, and the deal that you wanted to sign back in November 1999, were the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Fisheries, and the former Premier of the Province. Those were the obstacles that you could not overcome, Premier. I will say this to you, that you have a bigger one. That your obstacles are bigger than that. Your obstacles, sir, are the people of the Province where you, if you sign this deal, intend to move in that direction without seeking a new mandate on this issue then the people of the Province are the obstacle for you. God forbid, that if we do move in that direction, my only fear - and the reason for this particular private members' resolution, the reason for the questions in Question Period, the reason why we will continue to press on this important issue is simply this: my fear is that you will go ahead and do it anyway, and the rest of us and generations after us will have to live with that very mistake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today to say I am extremely surprised as I read the resolution from the Member for St. John's East. I am surprised for two reasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there are two things that really surprised me on this motion. With all due respect to the member - and we heard it alluded to earlier that the speaker being a lawyer - I am very surprised that when a motion makes reference to some form or some previous document, or some statement made by some hon. member, it is surprising that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - the wording of the motion does not resemble the wording in which it has been referenced.

Mr. Speaker, I will just read the first part of that resolution where it talks about: "...the current administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment...". It goes on to say what that commitment was and it does not bear any resemblance to what the actual commitment was. I suggest to the member that if you are going to make a motion that makes some reference to a position and an earlier commitment, then I refer him to - and it has been constantly referred to in this House this week -

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Were you part of the Liberal team in 1999 that got elected? Was your name on the ballot, Sir, yes or no? No, it was not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I was successful in a by-election in April of last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I was not there in 1999, but I was successful last year in April in a by-election.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the hon. member opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could we give the member the courtesy of listening to what he has to say, please?

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

As I was saying to the hon. member, when he makes reference to an earlier document in a resolution, it is important that he not just paraphrase or create his own wording. He needs to make reference directly to the document.

I remind the hon. member and members opposite, as has been done numerous times this week in the House, and last week, of the exact wording in which this Party ran in a general election in 1999. Let me just read it one more time. This is directly from the Red Book, "The Liberal government with a new mandate will maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our province that there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built in our province." That is exactly what the Red Book said, and that is the position.

That is not reflected in here, and that surprises me. The second thing that surprises me is how extremely anxious - because in the second part of the resolution the hon. member makes reference to a need for a general election. What really surprises me is how anxious this Party is and the Opposition is to get to the polls.

When I go back to that 1999 election - and I refer to a press release from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dated January 18. Let me repeat and just read from that press release for you - which really surprises me that they would be anxious to get to a general election - where he says: An Ed Byrne PC government will not walk away from a job half done.

At that time, he was criticizing our government for calling an election. He was suggesting that a government should not walk away from a mandate when the job is only half done. That was dated January 18, 1999, when he is saying that government should not walk away from a job half done. Now his colleague wants us to have an early general election.

Just to add a little more weight to that argument, he goes on to say: Why a government would call an election barely half way through - he questions why a government would call a by-election half way through its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, this Opposition wants to have an early election. I think the real answer to why this Opposition Party wants a general election - I can take it directly from a quote from the leader of federal PC Party when he says, and this is dated just prior to the last federal election. The leader of the federal PC Party is suggesting that the election that the Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, is expected to call is unnecessary. This is what is important. He goes on to say: And it puts party politics ahead of public interest.

I think Mr. Clarke has captured the essence of what is taking place in this Legislature now, because what is starting to happen is that party politics is starting to take precedent and a higher priority in the minds of the Opposition Party, over and above the best interests of the public. I think that is what we are seeing in this motion.

I think the people of this Province are not ready and do not want to have another general election. They have given this government a mandate in 1999, and we are going to work through that mandate. We are going to stay in this position and fulfil the mandate that was given us.

One of the Robinson-Blackmore papers just recently speculated about what might happen if there were another general election in 2001, and they suggest, in addition to the by-elections and the referendums that were held, if we were to have another general election, this Province will have spent in excess of $8 million in six years on elections, totally unnecessary expenditure, but that is the kind of thing the members opposite are trying to force this Province into.

We just do not need that kind of rhetoric and politics being played, and it is not in the best interest of the Province.

MR. MANNING: When we are into the next one, John Efford won't be helping you.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I ask the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - I am glad you let me know you are still in the House and still alive over there.

One of the things you really need to ask yourself, because we just recently heard your new leader comment about how there is no sense of urgency. We should not be rushing into negotiations on Voisey's Bay. We should not be making the attempt to have a negotiation.

I ask the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's: What is it that the people down in his district are saying? What are they telling you? What are the people of Placentia & St. Mary's telling you?

I can totally understand where the Leader of the Opposition may want to play politics with this. He is leaving the position. I can understand where the incoming leader may want to play politics with this because he is not here yet, but I truly do not understand why the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would want to let himself be hung out to dry by his Party. That is the thing that amazes me, Mr. Speaker. I really do not understand that at all.

The other day when I was responding to the Speech from the Throne, I commented that all the hon. members in this House needed to be accountable to the people who elected them. I think it is time for the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to be accountable to the people who elected him. I challenge the hon. member.

I look at a weekly newspaper that covers his district. I just want to read this. This is coming out of a weekly publication that services the area covered by the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He goes on to say, and is quoted as saying: The major topic that Mr. Manning is looking forward to is debate on this Voisey's Bay negotiations and their impact on the Placentia area and the Province as a whole.

Then he goes on to say - this is why I am surprised that he would have his hon. colleague introduce a motion like this, because he goes on to say: I am delighted - the hon. member was delighted - that Mr. Grimes and Mr. Matthews are back at the negotiating table.

They are delighted; they want us to be negotiating. He goes on to say: I have always said that if we are not talking, we are not even making a small step forward.

MR. MANNING: If that is all you have, sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No, that is not all I have. That is the point. Listen to the rest that I have. He goes on to say: Then let's have a good, fair discussion on it, and I have no qualms if there is a deal laid on the table that is a good deal for the people of the Province, that is a good deal for the people here in Placentia.

Mr. Speaker, when I read this, what the hon. member says is, if it is a good deal for the Province then I will endorse it. The hon. member did not say what his colleague had said in his motion. The member said, if it is a good deal for the Province then I will endorse it. Now, his hon. colleague wants us to endorse a motion that says a very specific kind of a deal, okay?

One of things I think we need to ask ourselves in this debate is, what is the real agenda for the Opposition here? They are not interested in having a negotiated deal on Voisey's Bay. They are more interested in participating in partisan politics and trying to make a major issue of this to their own political end. I think it is time, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - and we will ask his communities. The area Chamber of Commerce down there says: Let's get on with it. Let's get a deal. Let's have negotiations.

You have, up in Labrador, the Chambers of Commerce and the town councils saying: We need to have a deal. That is what we are moving forward with, negotiating a solid deal.

Yesterday, we had a lesson from the hon. Member for Ferryland. The hon. Member for Ferryland yesterday was giving us a lecture on negotiations 101.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The hon. Member for Ferryland yesterday was telling us, with respect to the public sector negotiations, we cannot be negotiating in public.

Now, one of the fundamental things here is that we need to understand that we are, as a Province, in a set of negotiations with Inco. I think it is about time that the Opposition recognize that in any set of negotiations you start out with an objective. Let me read again an excerpt from the Speech from the Throne last week, and I quote, "My Government sees opportunity in the development of the resources at Voisey's Bay. We have the confidence to move forward and will resume negotiations. We are not afraid to reach a deal because no deal will be signed that cannot be clearly explained and defended. My Government has one basic objective for the negotiations." - and that is critical, and it is something that we need to keep in mind - "Any deal must provide maximum benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. This includes a processing facility which can serve as the foundation for an industry which will extend beyond the life of the mine."

Now, I think the hon. member on the opposite side and the hon. members on the opposite side need to understand that this Province is in a position of negotiation, and it is irresponsible of the members opposite to be trying to scuttle a negotiation process for a major deal in this Province that has major implications for every single resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is really irresponsible for that to continue.

I cannot endorse the motion put forward by the hon. member. I think it is irresponsible to be seeing that we are looking at, or suggesting that we should be talking about a new election. It is irresponsible to be suggesting that this government is not proceeding in the best interests of the Province. As outlined in the Speech from the Throne, we have one major objective: to have an agreement that is in the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Opposition House Leader - our motion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate today on the motion of the Member for St. John's East. I don't think I will need the full fifteen minutes, because it is really a very simple proposition, a straightforward proposition that has to do with the expectations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The question becomes: Where do those expectations come from? Because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have developed a series of expectations about Voisey's Bay.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to the opportunity, and I don't mind the opportunity for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to speak on it. Allowed within the time frame, we certainly support it, but we did move a resolution by the Opposition and we agreed on a formula whereby every so many sessions the New Democratic Party would get an opportunity to present theirs. We would certainly consent within the time frame. We intended to put up other speakers, and I think he should give consideration, with leave, to be able to have an opportunity to speak on it, because they were given a certain number of periods of time for their resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is not an Opposition day, and the other Wednesdays are not government days. They are Private Members' Days. The tradition of this House is to use them as Opposition days and to move Opposition motions, but they are not Opposition days and they are not government days. That is in the Orders of the House of Commons. The Orders of this House is to have Private Members' Day and any private member can move a motion in this House any day at all, and anybody can rise to speak on it any day at all. The tradition, as Your Honour well knows, is that you go from one side of the House to the other and recognize speakers who wish to speak.

The point of order of the Opposition House Leader is merely taking up time that other members might want to use in debating this resolution. I think that point of order is not well taken at all, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to be very brief. I will not take up as much time as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi did in doing that, and using up time. There was a precedence that had been established when a resolution is presented here in the House, and there is an agreed ratio in which the member can present it there. I was standing to be recognized on the resolution and we would like an opportunity - it has been done as a precedent before, in which we were permitted to have an appropriate number of speakers on our resolution within the time frame. If you want to extend that to allow, I have no problem with him speaking, but we should not be denied the opportunity to have our number of speakers required on the resolution.

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

MR. LUSH: I was not aware that there were any rules or Standing Orders relevant to the hon. member speaking in the House on a resolution. I was aware that we had something with the presentation of a resolution, which is a different thing. This is the hon. member speaking within a resolution. I was not aware that we had done anything on that.

In the meantime, if the hon. member is concerned, we will certainly concede from our time, concede to the member our time here, and the hon. member can have his time. Okay?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take into consideration the matter raised by the Opposition House Leader. The Chair is following the practice of alternating discussion on a private member's resolution and does recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, there was lots of discussion in a Select Committee of this House on the nature of the rules having to do with private members' business. In fact, there was a suggestion that we should extend private members' business the same way the House has been extended from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and that we would have room for two private members' resolutions per day so that more private members would have an opportunity to present their individual - not their party's views, but their individual - views to the House.

We have the Member for St. John's East presenting his motion, a motion that I am rising to support, I say to the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) change your mind, now.

MR. HARRIS: I am tempted to reconsider my support, but the motion is so straightforward and so compelling that I cannot do that on something that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The new minister misconstrues the position. This is a private members' motion. The fact that the Opposition House Leader wants to try to turn it into an Opposition motion is up to him, but it is not; it does not change the character of the motion. The motion is a private members' motion and I intend to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, I ran as a leader in the last provincial election, and the one before that. I want to say that I know what elections are all about and I know what happens in the electorate. As I said before I was interrupted by the Opposition House Leader, there are expectations created and developed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador about resource development. The person singularly most responsible for expectations about the Voisey's Bay mineral development is the former Premier Brian Tobin. He did that in two elections.

MR. SHELLEY: The smelter on wheels was first.

MR. HARRIS: The first election, as the Member for Baie Verte has said, where he tried to defeat the Member for Baie Verte by having a smelter in Baie Verte. They wanted to defeat the member for - they actually succeeded in defeating the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's by suggesting that the smelter might go in Placentia.

MR. SHELLEY: The smelter on wheels.

MR. HARRIS: The smelter on wheels, it is being referred to.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a political issue for at least two general elections. The public of this Province has been told, in no uncertain terms, that what they are entitled to is a smelter and refinery and full processing of ore.

The Premier stands in this House today and starts to talk about that being an unrealistic negotiating position. He is now talking about that being an unrealistic negotiating position, and that therefore he should not go to Inco and suggest that is not the position; that the position of this government is that the only deal possible is one that is consistent with the impression, the promise and the commitment given to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by Brian Tobin when he ran as Premier and for Premier in February of 1999.

Mr. Speaker, that was a very extensive and expensive campaign. It was a million dollar campaign run by the former Premier. We saw helicopters flying all over the Province. We saw buses traversing the Island - two, as a matter of fact. We only found out afterwards that it was $45,000 worth of helicopter time donated by one company and two buses donated by another company that provided that opportunity for the Premier to buzz around the Province.

The message that he gave, and the expectation that he created in this Province, was very, very clear: that he wanted to be the one to sit down and negotiate with Inco. He wanted to be the one to sit down nd negotiate with Lucien Bouchard. Now Lucien Bouchard is gone and Brian Tobin is gone, but Inco is still there, and the commitment that was sought by the Liberal Party, with Brian Tobin at the helm, was a commitment to sit down and negotiate with Inco on the basis that there would not be ore leaving this Province without being transformed into a finished nickel product. That was the clear commitment; that was the clear expectation that the people of this Province had.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier wants to negotiate a tentative deal with Inco, if he wants to say, "This is the best deal I have." If he can stand out on the steps, as he did one time before, and say, "I have done my best; I have gotten the best that I can" - he can do it with tears, if he wants, or he can do it with pride, and say, "I have done the best I can for Newfoundland and Labrador." If the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this deal, here is an opportunity; support it and vote for it.

There are a lot of questions here. It is not just a one-dimensional question. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been focusing on this issue and this commitment, but there are a lot of other issues too. It is not just what level of processing there is going to be. It is going to be: What are the royalties? What are the benefits? How many jobs are involved? Is the principal beneficiary of this resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador going to be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people, or is it going to be the Treasury of Canada? That is an important question that has to be answered.

It may not be that all of these questions can be solved in the time that this government wants to negotiate a deal; but if they do, and when they do, and when they are ready, and when they say, "We think this is a good deal, we think it is the best deal, we think it is a deal that is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador," then, Mr. Speaker, this resolution offers them an opportunity to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide whether they want that deal, and not have the kind of debate, the kind of discussion and the kind of weaseling of words that we have heard in the last few days; the kind of "words are important" statement on the one hand and, on the other hand, using double meanings, using inaccurate meanings, using vague meanings standing for things that mean nothing.

We can take you back to former Premier Clyde Wells. What was his slogan? Fairness and balance. Then we heard Brian Tobin. Fairness and Balance, the watch words of the Wells' Administration. What did it mean? Nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing.

Then we had Premier Tobin, full and fair benefits, another statement with no content. Now, what do we have from this Premier? Full processing. What does it mean? Well, we will tell you what it means some time down the road.

It is like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. These words mean exactly what I decide they mean. This is what we have had from this Administration, from the current Premier, from the previous Premier, and from the one prior to that. Full processing means just as much and just as little as full and fair benefits or as fairness and balance. They have no content. This Premier cannot say that those are the words that are going to define their mandate. Their mandate was very clear. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know what their mandate was, and they know what Premier Tobin convinced them of back in 1999. They know that the kind of thing that this current Premier is talking about is not what they voted for and were asked to support and did support in February of 1999.

This resolution is pretty straightforward. It allows the government and the Premier to say we are going to sit down with Inco. We are the government. We have the legal right to sit down and negotiate a deal. But do they have the right, after having negotiated what they think is the best deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to saddle us with that agreement? Do they have the moral and political right to saddle us with that agreement without asking the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what they think?

The traditional way of asking the people of a Province what they think about a significant, perhaps the most significant, action this government might take, is to have an election and to seek a mandate for a deal that the people of this Province have a lot of expectations created about. Those expectations were created by the people who sit opposite, Mr. Speaker, by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador in the election of 1999. If they are going to change that, then they have to ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether the deal that they might negotiate is going to be one that is acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it contains the elements that the Premier is talking about, whether it contains other elements, whether the arrangements for equalization payments or royalties or all of that are acceptable to the people of this Province, because we are the ones who are going to have to live with that deal for this generation and the next generation. We are talking here about a resource that is not renewable. Once it is gone, it is gone. This is something that deserves a fuller debate, not necessarily in this House although that is an important part of it, but also to be tested by a general election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will keep my comments fairly brief. We do have other speakers who wish to speak here. There are just a few little points that I want to make. I think the resolution itself is very straightforward. It says: "WHEREAS the current administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment that Voisey's Bay nickel ore would not be shipped from the Province for processing elsewhere; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must not sign any agreement involving the shipping of Voisey's Bay nickel ore from this Province for processing elsewhere unless it first obtains a mandate for such an arrangement from the people of the Province in a general election."

I want to refer to just a couple -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just reading a resolution we have every right to present.

Premier Tobin, in 1999, just after the election stated it. There are two particular statements here that puts it in perspective. Former Premier Tobin said: It is our policy to have all of the ore processed in the Province. That is the policy. That is what we are referring to in this resolution. He said: beyond the policy to have all of the ore - all means 100 per cent. That is what all means. If it said most of it, some of it, part of it - he said all of it. If the Member for Twillingate & Fogo does not understand what all means he should go back and do a course in the English language, because all means everything. It went on to say: but beyond that we are not prepared -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrote a book on it actually (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You should read all of it if you wrote a book on it. I say, you should read all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You probably paid for it as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: I probably did. All that tax money I have been paying, I probably did, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It said: beyond that we are not prepared to discuss any alternatives or options with Inco or with anybody else till, first of all, Inco formally moves away from the position that they took earlier in the year and so on. That is the statement by the Premier articulating the mandate they had in 1999.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they can talk all they like because the written word speaks for itself.

Here is what the current Premier said back on March 16. If this is the same as what Premier Tobin said was their mandate, well, I will go back and do a course in understanding the meaning of words. Here is what Premier Grimes said: We believe full processing. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that the equivalent of that total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will be changed into nickel. That is what he said, the equivalent amount; and whether or not the business that we are in suggests that every single rock goes out for processing, is a different issue.

The Premier stated on March 15 in the Legislature in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition - we have two statements. One saying all of the ore for processing is the policy of the Liberal Party. That was their mandate in 1999, and we have the Premier of the Province today stating that there is no commitment that we cannot send ore out and try and get the equivalent back. That is what he said. Also, he indicated in response to a question in the House on March 15: "I appreciate the opportunity to give an answer in the Legislature because I have answered that question probably 10,000 times elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to listen to the answer. I believe people of the Province have listened to the answer. The short answer is this..." and he went on to say, "There is no change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to today." If anybody reads what the Premier said, all of the ore sent out of Province - reads Premier Grimes' statement and thinks there is no difference of opinion, I can say they are out to lunch.

I just want to make one other comment on this whole thing, that the Premier has done irrefutable damage to us in negotiating.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is speaking next if you will keep quiet and listen. Give him an opportunity. He is not going to be like some people when we debate on hot issues in this House. I saw them scampering out the door before the vote. They crawled out the door on education and other issues before the vote. Did you stand up in 1999 at the Liberal Convention and applaud the Premier when he said: all of the ore is going to be processed here? You sure did, and I could say in your caucus today the riot act was read. We stood in this House yesterday and there was no support for the Premier. There wasn't a tapping of desks. There was no clapping of hands, and today the riot act was read.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is kind of excited. There you go, look!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, could we have protection from that yapper over there? He is under a lot of pressure. I was out in Twillingate a couple of weeks ago, and he is under a lot of pressure. I am hearing it out there everywhere. If he doesn't get the plant opened in Twillingate, I am being told, he is history! He is gone! The Minister of Fisheries is going to be doing everything in his power, whether it is, guarantees from the taxpayers in the Province, whatever it is, he is history! Well, the hospital in Fogo; they changed so often I do not know where he is on that issue. When he is in Seldom he does not support it in Fogo. When he is in Fogo he does not support it in the middle of the island. When he is not on the island at all, he doesn't know what he is doing. That is his stance!

AN HON. MEMBER: The only thing you know about Fogo Island is the chicken you bought there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. He does not know the difference in chicken and Chinese food! He has to get it straight!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't you go to a Chinese restaurant and ask for Mary Brown's chicken because you are going to be in deep trouble, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he doesn't know. He has a major problem. He is the new lapdog over there now to replace these other people here to set up their attack.

I will try to get back to the issue here. These interruptions, these planned diversions from that caucus lecture this morning - I have to get support in this Legislature. There was no applause yesterday for the Premier. We have to have a new vigorous bunch of people. I could almost visualize it. They are all smiling. They know I am telling the truth. Even my friend is smiling. She knows I am telling the truth. Yesterday there were a few taps on the desk. Earlier today there were a few people clapping, but the bookends were not clapping. There were other people who were not clapping today.

I was going to make a final point, but I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The point I was going to make in closing is that the Premier of this Province has commited a very serious blunder, a very serious negotiating blunder. Do you think the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would put a figure in the Budget tomorrow and say: We are going to pay out $90 million to public sector unions? No, because it tips your hand of what you have in the budget. You have to go through negotiations. You play hardball.

The Premier of this Province said to Inco basically, that we are in the market to allow ore to go out of this Province. He tipped his negotiating hand. He committed a very grave error in negotiations. When you sit across the negotiation table, if you blink first or tip your hand, you have a major problem. The Premier of this Province committed a very serious problem. Whether he committed it deliberately, or because the deal he struck earlier got vetoed, not by the Premier, but by the poll he ran which told him that people are not going to tolerate the shipping of ore out of this Province. He can maneuver all he like but he has damaged his ability to negotiate a fair deal on behalf of this Province. He has damaged goods at the negotiating table. He is taking along the Minister of Mines and Energy with him, who did not make a statement yet, that is damaged goods. Maybe he will cut himself loose and let the Mines and Energy minister go forward without him - who has done a lot of damage. That in itself, still cannot repair the damage because when the Premier of the Province, the person who whipped the caucus in line today, the Premier of the Province tips his hand and commits a grave error. Maybe the book is written on Voisey's Bay. Maybe the chapter is written. Maybe the conclusion is written. The Premier is responsible for writing that chapter, a chapter that may not be in the best interest of this Province.

We, on this side of the House, want to see employment in this Province. We want to see employment at a mine and mill site. We want to see it at a smelter site. We want to employ people in the Province. Royalties on our resources only gets us twenty cents on a dollar. There is more to mining royalties - jobs. We were promised hundreds and thousands of jobs - would have benefitted. We are not opposed to modern technology. We welcome modern technology, but not at the expense of the people in this Province who have seen too many giveaways over the years. People have had it up to here with giveaways in this Province. They want somebody who is capable of negotiating a tough deal, the best deal we can get for this Province. The person to do it is not sitting in the Premier's chair. He has tipped his hand. Wherever he is, he is not in the position and has defeated - he has thrown in the towel. Where is he? He might be preparing another lecture to give you next week. That is where he might be now. He might be up writing those words right now. You got a good one today, and I hope we do not pay the price in this Province because the Premier has been inept in dealing with this issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had intended to rise in the debate and have a few words, in any event, but because the hon. Government House Leader expressed some disappointment or made the observation that I had not been up yet in the debate, I thought probably I would do it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Opposition House Leader. It is difficult over on this side of the House sometimes to decipher and understand what is actually trying to be articulated over there because when the hon. the Member for Ferryland gets up, the excitement, the exuberance, the passion, the fire, the vim, the vigor and the level of volume that he brings to debate really sometimes distracts from the substance and content of what he is trying to say. However, in all of that, we try to listen carefully. Believe it or not, there are times, however few, when the hon. the Member for Ferryland does make some sense and does have some substance to what he is saying. As a matter of fact, I would commend him on many occasions.

I remember when he was my critic in the health portfolio - I would have to say, while he did not make much progress in terms of his agenda while I was the minister and he was a critic, he gave it his best shot. Day after day he got on his feet and ragged out, roared, bawled and hollered. I really appreciated it because, at that point, I was serving my first term in the House. I had won the district of St. John's North by 800 votes. As a result of the roasting, supposedly, that the hon. the Member for Ferryland gave me as a critic at that time, when the next election was called I increased that margin by 50 per cent, to 1,200 votes.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. I was not the critic prior to the 1996 election. I became critic after the 1996 election, so your 800 vote was not there when I was critic. I became the critic afterwards.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Obviously then the increase was in anticipation of him becoming critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: It is interesting that one could do so well in that district given the fact that I do have, with great respect, some friends there who are suspect when it comes to going to the polling booth in terms of the way they might vote. The hon. the Member for Ferryland is a constituent of my district. Thankfully, I believe he goes to Ferryland to vote on voting day, and that sort of offsets the vote that I give myself on that particular occasion.

I cannot say for sure, I cannot attest to it with grate finality or great definitiveness, how the hon. the Member for St. John's West voted, but I am satisfied to believe that when she went into the polling both in St. John's West, she voted for herself, but when her good family went to the polling booth in St. John's North, that they thought long and hard as to where they would put their support. It is the little details in life that sort of tell a big story. As I look over at my good constituent from Viking Road, St. John's North, today -

AN HON. MEMBER: Terra Nova Road.

MR. MATTHEWS: Terra Nova Road, I am sorry. No, no, not Terra Nova Road - Viking.

MS S. OSBORNE: Terra Nova.

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't believe it is Terra Nova. I don't think you know where you live!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I don't think she knows where she lives. You must have moved, I say. Oh, no, you do live on Terra Nova Road. That is right. I was thinking of somebody else. I was thinking of a family that lives on Viking Road.

In any event, it is the smallest details, the minor details, that give it away. When I look over today and see my constituent dressed in bright red, it does my heart good to know that above it all, beneath it all, when it is all said and done, she has an affinity for the favorite color of the Party on this side of the House. It looks good on the hon. member, I would say. It looks very, very good.

I don't want to take a lot of time in debate today, but I want to say this for the record, just in the event there be any misunderstanding about the point of whether or not there was a deal already concluded on Voisey's Bay. There is no deal as we speak with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay, Inco project. The fact of the matter is, as the Premier has said on previous occasions, we have to start essentially from a new slate; we have to start from a new starting position; we have to start from today and go forward with the hope and aspiration on behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do a deal that will be the right deal for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak.

The one thing that is apparent, the one thing that is clear to me as I have listened to the hon. members on the other side of the House rise in this debate, is that they are operating, they are fixated on a position, they have themselves in a circumstance of total paralysis. They have themselves in a state of total paralysis with respect to their position on Voisey's Bay.

The one thing that the hon. members on that side of the House fear more than a bad deal is, they fear that we are going to do a good deal. The prospect of us, on behalf of the people, doing a good deal gives the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the heebie-jeebies; because if there is one thing they do not want to see, it is us doing a successful negotiation on behalf of the people of the Province that would see the development of Voisey's Bay to the benefit of the people of the Province for many, many years to come.

We will know a good deal when we negotiate one. We understand the aspirations, we understand the expectations, we understand the wishes of the people of the Province. Some have suggested that we are moving too quickly in terms of trying to negotiate an arrangement to develop Voisey's Bay. I would say to the hon. members on the other side of the House, it has now been about six or seven years since the issue has been before the people of the Province. Five ministers later, four Premiers later, and because we have been prepared to hold to our fundamental position of full processing and full benefits for the people of the Province, there still is not a deal concluded on Voisey's Bay.

The fact of the matter is that there is a fundamental position that we hold to in all of the discussions that we will hold with respect to Voisey's Bay. That fundamental position is this: we will seek to achieve a deal that will see Voisey's Bay develop on a basis that will bring the maximum level of benefits to the people of this Province for their good and for the benefit of giving better governance to them. It is no change, I say to the hon. the Member for Kilbride. I say again that our fundamental position is to bring forward a deal that will achieve maximum benefits for the people of the Province; and the cornerstone, the fundamental part of that principle, is to ensure that we have a finished nickel product leaving the Province once we have achieved - hopefully we have achieved - processing capacity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will not enter into a negotiation on the basis of doing anything that is inappropriate in terms of the principles that we have run on or the expectations of the people of the Province. I am sure the hon. members on the other side of the House understand that any deal that we will conclude will have to reflect both a good business deal, a good commercial arrangement, something we will be proud of being able to take to the people and that the people of the Province on a political basis will be able to support as well.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No Jack, that was in anticipation of what you are going to say when you get up.

I would simply say this: If the members on the other side of the House truly had the interests of the people of this Province at heart, they would be as opposed to trying to divert attention from the real issue and the solid principles that we have put forward and against which we will negotiate, instead of trying to divert from that, they would be standing in their place in the House of Assembly and applauding the government for the willingness to be prepared to try again to do a deal on behalf of the people of the Province. The easiest thing for us to do would be to sit on our hands and say we will not try again, say we will not try to negotiate a deal for fear that it will not work again; but we were elected in 1999 to lead, to give good governance, to move forward on the basis that we want to do what is best for the people of the Province, and the hon. members on the other side of the House and indeed on all sides of the House can be fully assured that when we bring forward a proposition, when we bring forward a deal that we have concluded on the Voisey's Bay and Inco file, that it will be a deal that will reflect the principles of the platform that we ran on. It will reflect the principles that have been put forward by the Premier many, many times in the last week, and it will reflect a deal that the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Premier?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Premier. There is only one Premier, I say to the hon. member. There are a lot of wannabe's, but there is only one Premier.

We have every confidence that the deal that we will bring forward will be one that will be supportable and acceptable to the people of the Province and will conform to the principles of the platform that we ran on. Otherwise, we will not bring forward a deal at the conclusion of our discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and say a few words on what I believe and what my Party believes to be a very important resolution that we have put before us. I would just like to say that this resolution comes from the point that we have on this side of the House. Over the past several weeks, over the past several months, we have been doing our best, through the Leader of the Opposition in Question Period or in other ways, to make sure that there is the best deal possible, and the best deal for the people of this Province is put on the table.

I would like to refer, if I could, to the Member for Trinity North who was so quick to be on his feet today to take my comments out of a local paper. I want to say to the Member for Trinity North, whether I am standing on the lower road in Cuslett, whether I am standing on the beach road in Placentia, whether I am standing on the wharf in St. Mary's, or I am standing on the floor of the House of Assembly, what I say there, I say here,100 per cent!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, I was brought up in a family where I got a lot of advice from two great parents. One of the pieces of advice my father gave me a long time ago was: Fabian, there is nothing - nothing - as important as your word.

Madam Speaker, I gave my word to the people of Placentia & St. Mary's that I would stand in the House of Assembly and protect their interests, raise their issues and concerns, question the government when I thought they were not doing the right thing, on behalf of these people, and speak out when I believed in something that was against what the government was putting forward.

I ran in the 1996 election and I lost that election. I lost it because Brian Tobin came back from Ottawa and Brian Tobin laid to the people of this Province the following comment: It is our policy that all of the ore be processed in this Province.

Now, we can stand here today and we can twist it, we can turn it, we can colour it, we can do what we like with it, but they are his words!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: They are not my words, they are his words!

In The Charter, the local Robinson-Blackmore paper that the Member for Trinity North was so quick to bring to the Legislature - I would say, just in passing, that he should bring a copy of the Packet to the Legislature, too, on what John Efford did for him in the by-election, but this is too important an issue to get back to that today.

Number one, the comment I made in the Robinson-Blackmore paper was that the Voisey's Bay deal was a priority for me, and I believe the Voisey's Bay deal is a priority for everybody in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I believe the Voisey's Bay deal is a priority for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province, and I stand by my word on that.

Number two, I was delighted to see Minister Mathews and Inco back at the table. I think once again that we are all delighted to see them back at the table; because I believe then, as I believe now, that if we are not talking, we are not moving forward. Yes, go back to the table. I have no problem with that. I will support a good deal for the people of this Province, as I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will support a good deal for the people of this Province, but we have to go back to the words of Premier Brian Tobin of the day. He was elected in 1996 and again in 1999 on a couple of stands, and I want the opportunity to put forward those today.

The number one stand was that a full processing facility be put in this Province, that 100 per cent of the ore be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, these are not my words. These are not words of the PC Party. These are the words of the Premier of the day, and some people on that side would not be in the House only for he uttered those very words. Let's be fair here. Let's put the cards on the table as we see them. Let's be fair here. Some people on that side of the House would not be here only for Brian Tobin uttered those very words. This private members' resolution says that we do not want the government to sign a deal that would see ore shipped out of this Province.

You can negotiate a deal, I say to the Premier and the minster, you can prepare a deal, and you can agree on a deal, but I think we all understand that based on the words of the former Premier, based on the policy that the Liberal government has put forward here in the past six years, you do not - and I repeat, you do not - have a mandate to sign a deal.

That is what this issue is about today. issue is about today. You do not have a mandate to sign a deal. We ask, and the people of the Province are asking - I went out and held a public meeting in my district on the Voisey's Bay issue. I say to the members on the other side, there were a lot of them who did not hold them on Hydro, if my memory serves me correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: A lot of you did not have the guts to hold a meeting in your districts on Newfoundland Hydro. There are a lot of you did not have the guts to hold a meeting in your districts on the education issue. I held public meetings in my district on Newfoundland Hydro. I held public meetings in my district on the education issue. I held public meetings in my district when they changed ATV regulations because it affected a lot of people's concerns in the district.

I went out and sought and received what the people of my district wanted me to stand up here and say. I got the advice from the people in my district and I say that is a lesson that members on the opposite side should learn. The people of my district are saying this about Voisey's Bay, and I ask the Member for Bellevue if he would open his ears and just listen. The people in my district are saying this about Voisey's Bay: Yes, we want a deal. Everybody does, but we don't want it sold down the drain. We do not want a deal at any cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The people in my district are saying, I say to the Member for Bellevue and to the Premier who I know is attentively listening: Show us the details. Show us the deal. Lay it before the people of this Province. If you believe in it, and if the people on that side of the House believe that you have the best deal that can be had for the people of this Province, put it to a vote in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we heard the Premier say - and I do not believe for a minute that anybody in this House does not want a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't believe it for a minute, and while I do have some differences with people on the other side of the House, I do not believe that anybody in this House is here and not have the interest of the people of this Province at heart. That is on both sides.

We hear comments like full processing. People are saying: What exactly does that mean? When will we be told what full processing is, in detail? Not just a blanket statement, we have full processing. What is the detail?

I met with Voisey's Bay and they talked about alternative jobs. What we have to remember is that in 1998 - and the Premier touched on it today - Inco scraped the traditional style smelter refinery and they opted for a hydrometallurgy process. That process has not been proven. Is Inco asking us to sign a deal and give them the rights to a process that has not been proven? Are they going to say to us that it is going to take two years to prove it? That it is going to take four years? Will the Premier and the minister be able to stand up in the House and say: Boys, we will have it proved in five years, guaranteed 100 per cent? We will have it proved in ten years, guarantee,100 per cent. What I am asking is: What happens if that process does not work? Therefore, we have to have alternative jobs, whatever the case may be, Inco has put forward. I say we have to know a lot of detail. We have to know what is being put on the table here, Madam Speaker. We have to know. I am not satisfied to have their word. After spending several years in this House I am not satisfied to have the word of some of the members opposite.

We have the Premier who went up to the Prime Minister's office last week and stood here in the House the next day concerning equalization payments. What he took from that meeting, what he understood from that meeting, was totally different than what the members of the Prime Minister's staff understood from that meeting. So I am asking the Premier today what he understands as full processing, what he understands as a full meal deal for the people of this Province? Why does he not lay it out in front of us? I am not saying that every little detail of the agreement has to be put forward. What I am saying is that the people of this Province, the people of Placentia & St. Mary's district are not willing to sign it away without knowing the details, without knowing the facts, without knowing what is put on the paper, Madam Speaker. What the Premier took from his meeting, and understood from his meeting with the Prime Minister's office concerning equalization was totally different from what the people in the Prime Minister's staff said. Therefore, Madam Speaker, my concern is that we cannot just take their word. We have to have facts. We have to have figures. We have to have it on the table.

The people of Placentia & St. Mary's have been on a roller coaster ride for the past number of years. They are on a roller coaster ride for the past several years because of what was announced back a few years ago. They believed then, at that time, that there was something coming forward. What they are saying now is: We have learned a lesson. The people in my district are telling me: We have learned a lesson, that we are not going to jump. We are going to wait and see the details. We are going to question the process. We are going to question the deeds. We are going to lay the concerns and the issues of the people forward. Then we are going to see - if it is a good deal for the Province we will agree with it; if it is not, we won't. The people on the other side of the House, in some cases, are trying to put forward a concern that: we put it out, we sell it, and we do a deal at all costs. That is not going to work.

I do not want one-third of the ore in Labrador processed in Argentia. I do not want two-thirds of the ore in Labrador processed in Placentia. I want 100 per cent of the ore from Labrador processed in Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I want three-thirds of the ore from Labrador processed in Placentia, and I want this government to put it on the table. I want this government to have the backbone to lay the deal on the table to the people of this Province. If I believe in something I have no problem going to the people with it. When I decided to run for Member of the House of Assembly I believed that I could contribute something to the people of my district. I believed that I could bring their concerns and their issues forward. If this government is so confident that this deal is the best deal that they can get for the people of the Province, I say bring it forward, put it to the people for a vote and we will see where it goes, but allow the people to have a say in it.

I am going to clue up with a few remarks, Madam Speaker. We can turn it and we can twist it anyway we like. Members opposite now are in damage control. I understand that. That is part of government's duty to be in damage control. The Premier, I would say, is one person that is in full damage control. As I said, we can't cut it, we can't slice it, we can't change it. What Brian Tobin brought into the election of 1996 is the same thing he brought into the election in 1999. The reason he didn't stick around is because he had put himself into a corner.

What I am saying to the people of this Province, what I am saying to this House of Assembly today is that the people of Placentia & St. Mary's want to see the deal. The people of Placentia & St. Mary's are not willing to sell away everything. They are not willing to give Inco a blank cheque. They are not willing to give this government a blank cheque and I, as the representative for the people of Placentia & St. Mary's, am not willing to do that either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East now concludes the debate.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I will now take this opportunity to conclude debate. Is there anyone over here speaking?

I appreciate the commentary this afternoon made by members on both sides of the House. The very passionate views that were made, in particular, by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and what he had to say was significant, important and a very important part of this debate. This is not a frivolous issue or an insignificant issue that has been suggested by members opposite. This is a vital issue as it relates to the future of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thought the Member for Quidi Vidi put it well when he talked about the issue of expectation and what the people of this Province, in fact, expect from a government, who obviously had made a commitment to the people of this Province during an election campaign approximately two-and-a-half years ago. What they now expect and anticipate is that their government, their representatives in the House of Assembly who sit on the government side, and in particular, the Cabinet led by its Premier, to in fact represent them in accordance with what was represented to them during a particular election campaign. This issue is vital. It is important. It is one of the most significant policy issues facing the people of this Province. Therefore, I say, that members on both sides of the House, when they stand today in their places and when they vote on this important resolution, they keep in mind what it means to the people of this Province when their resources have to leave this jurisdiction for elsewhere. We have seen what has happened with respect to the Upper Churchill. We have seen what has happened with respect to the mismanagement of a fishery. We saw what happened in Labrador West when we had product leave this jurisdiction for Sept-Iles, Quebec when the people in that particular district said to the government candidate: we are not going to take it anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In fact, an opposition member was in fact elected to represent the people of Labrador West. This is not a frivolous issue. It is a very serious one. This resolution has been put forward so the people of the Province can have a greater understanding that what was represented to them some twenty-six or twenty-seven months ago and what has now been put forward in this so-called doctrine of equivalency, are two different things.

I say to the Minister of Environment, the water has changed on the beans. We are talking two different scenarios, two different sets of circumstances. We now ask, and I ask for members on both sides to seriously reflect upon the importance and the seriousness of this particular resolution. We now look forward to the actual count. Again, I thank all member for their participation in this very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Aye'

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Nay'

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution defeated. Division, call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the resolution, please rise.

CLERK: The Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Mr. Walsh; Mr. Mercer; Ms Hodder; Ms Jones; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes seventeen, the nays twenty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.