April 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 28

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

galleries ten adults in the Skills for Success program, accompanied by their

teachers Mrs. Buckle and Ms. Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to welcome as well sixty Grade

VII students from St. Bon's, accompanied by their teachers and chaperons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National

Defence in Ottawa yesterday released the long-awaited Environmental Impact

Statement on military flight training in Labrador.

Over the coming months the EIS will be available for public

review. Part of that review will include a detailed assessment of the document

by an independent arm's length review panel which has been established by the

Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, and is known as FEARO. The chair

of the panel is Dr. A.T. Davidson, a former assistant deputy minister in Parks

Canada who was in charge of the national parks service for many years.

Following FEARO's initial review the EIS will form the basis

for public hearings which are expected to occur this coming fall.

The release of the EIS is a significant milestone in the

federal government's environmental review of the low-level flying project at

Goose Bay. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador welcomes news the

document has been completed and looks forward to the ensuing steps of the review

process which I expect, as I said, will conclude late this year or early next.

Members will recall the statement I made on behalf of the

government last December in which I reaffirmed our support for military flight

training activities in Labrador.

The government recognizes that low-level flight training is

an important part of the foundation for Labrador's sound economic development,

and that CFB-Goose Bay is an integral part of the economic, social and cultural

fabric of that area. As we've said time and time again we believe, on the basis

of the available evidence, that low-level flying is an environmentally sound way

to use a renewable natural resource to the economic benefit of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and that if done properly it is compatible with

legitimate aboriginal rights. The successful conclusion of the environmental

review process is crucial to ensuring that the Upper Lake Melville area and the

Labrador region as a whole continue to prosper from this activity.

The environmental review process provides an important

opportunity for those who support the project and those who oppose it to state

their views, interests and concerns.

The government intends to be an active participant in the

review process. We shall provide FEARO with an assessment of the EIS once a

comprehensive review of the document has been completed by our provincial

officials, and we shall be involved in the public review hearings appearing as

an intervenor.

While we encourage all interested individuals or groups to

participate in the review of the project, we believe that the debate must be

shaped by the facts. I ask those who feel compelled to oppose low-level flying,

for whatever reason, to do so with fact and evidence and not with fiction and

emotion.

Mr. Speaker, sustaining the economic, social and cultural

opportunities for all of the people of Labrador requires responsible review and

a commitment to balanced economic development with environmental protection.

It is therefore our continued hope that the EIS will be found

by the panel, to contain a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the impacts

of low-level flight training. Throughout the years that this environmental

review has been underway, and that's nearly eight or nine now, we have been

encouraged that scientific analysis has shown that any negative impacts which

may be associated with this activity can be addressed and alleviated.

It is important, Sir, to note that the environmental review

was initiated in 1986, eight years ago, as a result of the proposal to establish

a NATO Tactical Fighter Centre at Goose Bay. Had NATO selected Goose Bay as the

site for development, in fact as the House will recall, development was later

cancelled because it was not going ahead anywhere. Had NATO selected Goose Bay,

the base would have experienced a dramatic increase in military activity. When

their proposal was cancelled in 1990, the federal government could have

cancelled the environmental review process. The fact that they decided not to do

so and to proceed with the review demonstrates their commitment to ensuring that

military training in Labrador is carried out with due regard for public and

environmental concerns, including the legitimate concerns of aboriginal peoples

with this issue.

The Government, Mr. Speaker, are committed to working closely

with the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and other interested Labrador

communities and organizations which depend on this activity for their

livelihood. We shall assist them in whatever way we can in presenting their

views during the review hearings.

The coming months, Mr. Speaker, will be crucial to the future

of the Upper Lake Melville area, to the rest of Labrador and to all of the

Province. I ask therefore that all those who recognize the importance and

benefit of military training in Labrador join with us in the public hearing

process. It behooves us all to ensure that the process continues in a

responsible manner.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, are also very

pleased to see that this process is moving along in this particular fashion. We

have supported the training facility at Happy Valley-Goose Bay over the numbers

of years it has operated and are pleased to see that it is continuing; but, Mr.

Speaker, it is nothing to get excited about, I mean, all we have seen here is

that the Department of National Defence has released the EIS and that is going

through now and will be going on to the federal environmental assessment review,

Mr. Speaker, and will be holding public hearings.

We hope at the end of the process or we continue to be

supportive for the low level flight training in Happy Valley -Goose Bay and

grounds for further expansion. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that this can be expanded

into further economic activity built around that particular facility. We realize

the importance of this economic activity in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Labrador

and indeed the whole Province. But, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the

Province is going to take an active role in support of it but if the minister

really wanted to announce something today about his contribution to the economy

of Labrador in particular, Mr. Speaker, he should have stood in his place today

and announced that the provincial government are going to participate in funding

for the continuation of the Trans-Labrador Highway this year instead of allowing

the federal government to go ahead alone and participate and build the

Trans-Labrador Highway this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have leave to

address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given the hon. Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to point out that the hon. Member for Menihek, when he

spoke about this side of the House, certainly didn't include this hon. member in

the unmitigated support for low-level flying over the interior of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the continuation of an environmental assessment

process over a period of some seven, eight or nine years now while the continued

operation of low-level flying makes the whole process a farce, Mr. Speaker. Does

anybody realistically think that an environmental assessment - perhaps the

length of the environmental assessment process is designed to coincide with the

operational length of the planes that they are using so that by the time the

environmental assessment is finished the planes will be obsolete and they won't

need to do it anymore.

Mr. Speaker, the continued use of low-level flying over the

lands without dealing with the aboriginal concerns about low-level flying is, I

think, wrong. It interferes with the culture and lives of the aboriginal people

and while we support the continued operation of CFB Goose Bay we do not, as a

party, support low-level flying in the interior of Labrador over the opposition

of the aboriginal people. Now, Mr. Speaker, the environmental process has

provided at least a forum for discussion about this issue but it has not

provided any solution.

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Tourism and

Culture, I would like to inform hon. members that "Ours to Discover '94", an

exclusive trade show encompassing all elements of the tourism, hospitality and

outdoor recreation industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, will be held at

Memorial Stadium in St. John's from April 22-24, 1994. It begins today at 2:00

p.m.

This trade show, the first of its kind in the Province, will

consist of over eighty booths and will bring together an exciting mix of

products including demonstrations, new product displays, stage shows featuring

some of the Province's best musicians, and a broad range of vacation choices.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that tourism is one of the

fastest growing sectors of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. This show will

provide a link between the industry and the consumer, and an opportunity for the

industry to reach and influence the expanding `in-province' market.

Hosted by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and

Newfoundland Sportsman magazine, with support from the Department of Tourism

and Culture, this exhibition will allow the public to see and experience the

exciting variety of tourism and outdoor products available throughout our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to

inform hon. members that Destination Labrador, Labrador's marketing agency, has

been chosen by the American Economic Development Council to receive five awards

for its Awaken Your Heart and Soul promotional literature and video.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: It should be noted that this international

competition had over 1,000 entries from across North America. Destination

Labrador won two first place awards, two second, and one distinguishing it as

being in a class of its own.

Congratulations to Kathy Crotty, Destination Labrador's

Marketing Director, and her staff, as well as M-5 Advertising, who developed the

material. The organization will be officially honoured at an awards banquet

hosted by the American Economic Development Council on Monday, April 25, in

Chicago, and I think we should be very proud of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, first of all, to thank the minister for his

telephone call early this morning to inform me of his statement today. The `Ours

to Discover' trade show is another step in the right direction for the tourism

industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an opportunity for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians to discover our Province and to see first-hand the tourism

product that ranks with the best.

This trade show, as the minister has stated, is the first of

its kind in this Province, and I have no doubt that it will be expanded in the

years ahead, just as the tourism industry, itself has.

I am also very pleased to see that some of the Province's

best musicians will have the opportunity to show what they have to offer to the

market, and I wish all participants a successful weekend.

I also join with the minister, as I am sure all members of

the House do, in congratulating Destination Labrador on their awards from the

American Economic Development Council.

Last year, at the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador

convention in Gander, I watched a promotional video put forward by Destination

Labrador, and I thought it was one of the most moving pieces of tourism video

work I had ever seen. The tourism market is a global market, and I am sure that

the opening up of Labrador to the world will quickly add to the total tourism

product we have to offer.

To Kathy Crotty and M-5 Advertising, I say, congratulations

on a job well done, and to the minister I say I understand from yesterday's

evening news that you are not very busy these days, so I look forward to seeing

you at the Trade Show next weekend.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave given.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

House twenty-five students from Dorset Collegiate in the district of Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of

questions of the minister responsible for Hydro, the Minister of Mines and

Energy. I would like to ask him: Has he received the 1993 annual report for

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the 1993 annual report is not

yet published and I haven't received an official copy of it yet. When I do, I

think I have fifteen days to table it - I think that is the time requirement -

but it is not yet published.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I know when the minister must receive it and

when he must table it, but the question was, has he received a copy of the 1993

annual report? He says he has not received an official copy. Has he seen the

draft copy?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have received some

information on 1993 but at this stage I have not seen a report which covers the

1993 year.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I got the answer I wanted, I think, in the end. He has

received some information about Hydro's operation for 1993, he did say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, is there something wrong with the

gallery over there? I am trying to get some answers to questions. He did receive

some information respecting the 1993 operation of Newfoundland Hydro. Is that

correct?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I have been given some information on the

operations in 1993. For example, the annual profits from 1993 I've been made

aware of that as an example.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is precisely the information I wanted,

Mr. Speaker. This is a supplementary. Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the nattering nabobs of

negativity over there in the corner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Imagine that. Right off the top of my head too

this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, I want

to say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Because he has now said he has

received the information dealing with the profits for 1993, but it has not yet

been made public, he has not reported it to the House of Assembly, correct.

Last night on an open line program there was a gentleman

caller who called in and quoted the profits for Hydro for 1993. I would like to

ask the minister how would that individual have that kind of information? Has

he, the minister, or any of his colleagues, such as the Minister of Finance or

any other colleague, given that information to individual members of the public

without first it being known to the public generally?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I've used the 1993 profits of

Hydro numerous times in public speeches that I've given in several places around

the Province over the last couple of months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: No, I've used it in public speeches in

several places. That particular figure. Because I noted that other people,

particularly people who are out fighting against the privatization of Hydro, had

been using some outdated numbers on profits and were a bit mixed up and confused

about profits. So I said to the Hydro people: Tell me what your profits were in

1993 so I can clarify this confusion that is out there. It was made known to me

that the profits last year, 1993, were a total of $24.9 million, of which $11.2

million are the profits of CF(L)Co., Newfoundland's share, and $13.7 million are

the profits of the portion of Hydro that we are proposing to privatise. I've

said that numerous times in public presentations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he certainly hasn't said it in

the House of Assembly and he certainly hasn't said it in public appearances

where he debated the Member for Humber East on two occasions, never used those

numbers.

In any event, let me ask him this. Since he has so readily

that information on the profits and so on will he tell us now how much

Newfoundland Hydro has spent on privatization of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I will go back to the profits question

first, Mr. Speaker. Any time that I've been asked, any time that I've gone to a

public meeting about the profits of Hydro, I have told the profits of Hydro to

the public. Any time I've been asked. Nobody in this House of Assembly until

today has asked me about the profits of Hydro for 1993 until now, and I have

just given you the profits as for 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: As for the amount that Hydro has spent on

this exercise, of assessing, analyzing, proposed privatization, after

yesterday's questions from the hon. member to the Premier I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

DR. GIBBONS: Well, on that particular question that you

put yesterday, I spoke to the president of Hydro yesterday afternoon and asked

them to put these figures together for us. He is doing that. When he has those

figures together I will get them and I will table them in the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I would like

to ask the Deputy Premier if he can tell us what the government's intention is

now concerning Bill No. 1, the Hydro privatization bill? What is their

intention?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our position has not changed.

When our position changes, if it does, we will announce it and everybody will be

aware. It is still on the Order Paper. We are now debating Bill No. 2 which is

the companion bill to Bill No. 1. It is on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, so our

intention is still to proceed with Bill 1.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a specific question

with respect to Bill 1, Hydro privatization. Does the government intend to call

that bill next week?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the intentions

of the Government House Leader are, but certainly it is on the Order Paper and

we intend to call it at some point in time, yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary to the Government House

Leader.

Does the government intend to call the bill next week, Bill

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues suggested

I should have a word with the Minister of Finance to see what we are doing about

this.

A little more seriously, it is our plan to proceed with the

Electrical Power Control Act until the House has disposed of that. The sooner

the House disposes of that bill, and we are in the hands of the House of course,

then the sooner we can come to grips with the Privatization Act. We will not do

them simultaneously, obviously, as the hon. gentleman will appreciate, so we

want to get on with the Electrical Power Control Act.

While it is a companion piece of legislation, and while there

are sections in it that apply only to the privatization of Hydro, the greater

part of the act, by far, members will acknowledge, deals with situations that

will continue to exist whether Hydro is privatized or not.

With that said, we will deal with the Electrical Power

Control Act. Then we will deal with the Privatization Act, which is on the Order

Paper and remains there.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

A few days ago the Premier wrote the federal Minister of

Fisheries stating categorically, if you can listen to what the Premier said,

that the Province would not participate in the fishing industry renewal boards

unless the boards were given responsibility for not just reducing the processing

and harvesting capability, but as well they would have to determine and be

involved in joint management of the fishery of the future.

I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the

House whether or not the Premier has received a written or verbal response from

Mr. Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries, on this issue.

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to either

confirm or deny it. I can only say that when the initial announcement was made,

in fact when the Cashin task force was released, which outlined their views of

how the fishery of the future should evolve, and the establishment of a

fisheries renewal board, at that time the Province and I, in the House of

Assembly here, expressed some concerns as to the make up of that board - its

mandate. We thought it was too restrictive. It is a board that, as they envisage

it, would be only concerned with downsizing the industry, closing plants. We

felt that, as its name implies renewal, that it should have a broader mandate -

one that would include renewal.

We have made our position quite clear to the minister on many

occasions, the latest, of course, being the other day when the Premier wrote to

the minister to that effect. Now whether he has gotten a reply back, I can't

answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hear in the public media that the federal minister is

rather tired. I think they described him as `exhausted'. I hope he is not too

tired to respond to the Premier.

Anyway, since the minister now, the Province has 100 per cent

responsibility for the processing sector of our fishery, how does the minister

propose to deal with reducing capacity in the processing sector if there is no

industry renewal board for Newfoundland and Labrador? How does the minister

propose to do that, because in my view there has to be some co-ordination

between the harvesting and processing sector. So if indeed the Province does not

participate in the industry renewal boards, won't the Province and the federal

government still have to work together in co-ordinating a reduction in

harvesting and processing?

My first question is: If you don't participate in the

industry renewal board, you have 100 per cent responsibility and control of

processing. How do you propose to bring about the reduction in capacity?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is hypothetical because I

expect, on the basis of what I have heard, having talked to the minister

privately and having had meetings, I am optimistic that the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans will see things our way and will, in fact, agree to broaden

the mandate, the terms of reference, of the proposed renewal board to include

the concerns of the Province.

Let me tell the House that at the present time we have 213

fish plants in the Province, altogether. We have 153 groundfish plants, and that

would include small, feeder type operations. As you know, some years ago a

number of community stages were converted into small feeder filleting-type

operations. The number of groundfish plants licensed by the Province that have

freezing capacity - and these are the real plants that we have to concern

ourselves with - are ninety-two. We have ninety-two plants in the Province now

with freezing capability. We have decommissioned, in recent months, twenty-six

plants. These twenty-six plants represent a reduction in through-put of 1,000

metric tons of product every twenty-four hours. So the job of down-sizing, Mr.

Speaker, is happening, maybe not as fast as we would like to see it happen, but

it's happening. First of all, we expect that there will be a renewal board

established along the lines that we want, and as close as possible to meeting

our requirements with respect to joint-management. We expect that board's

mandate will be expanded or extended to include the aspirations of the Province,

and that being the case, then we will work together with the Federal Government

to bring about the eventual down-sizing of the industry.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer, but he didn't say how he

would deal with reducing the capacity if there are no industry renewal boards. I

just want to pursue the line of question with the minister. He has referred to

213 processing plants. Now, we all know that the mandate of the industry renewal

boards will be to reduce the processing capacity to a minimum of 50 per cent. I

say to the minister, it could go below that.

Now, I just want to ask the minister what his

interpretation

is on 50 per cent reduction in processing capacity. Does the minister see that,

as say, there will be approximately 100 plants left in the Province open at the

time? I'm sure he has put some thought into that. Has the Province done its own

estimation on the number of plants that will be left open with a 50 per cent

reduction? I'm sure the minister realizes that we could have thirty plants in

the Province that may have, in fact, 50 per cent of the processing capacity.

It's not necessarily half the plants. Thirty or forty of the larger plants can

certainly have 50 per cent of the capacity. So we could see 120 or 130 plants

closed or 150 plants closed. Have the minister's officials done any evaluation,

estimation and analysis on this to see how many plants will close with a 50 per

cent reduction in capacity?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, attempting to forecast how many

fish plants there will be in the Province in the year 2000, or indeed, how much

fish will be caught in the year 2000 is like trying to project, with any level

of accuracy, what the rainfall will be in that year, and that is a fact. Mr.

Speaker, it is virtually impossible for any person on this planet today, not

withstanding how we've advanced in science, it's virtually impossible to predict

precisely how much fish there will be in the water in the year 2000. It is

impossible. I don't think there is a man alive on this planet today who can make

that projection with any level of accuracy. We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the

fishery of the future will have to be much smaller. There will have to be a far

fewer number of people involved in it, a far fewer number of plants, and far

fewer fishermen and fishing boats.

MR. SIMMS: What's the answer to the question?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is no answer. There isn't

an answer - the hon. gentleman laughs. If he has any great insight into what's

going to happen - I can tell him, about the only thing that we can predict for

the year 2000 is that he will still be over there and we will still be over

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the hon. the Minister of Social Services. I

would like to ask the minister: Does the department have any building codes for

community homes in which young offenders are being placed and are those homes

inspected regularly for compliance with building code safety regulations? I am

particularly concerned with fire safety regulations. Do all homes have fire

alarms, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, etcetera? Are those homes equipped

with fire-rated gyproc?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: That is a matter with which I am not familiar.

I will undertake to find it out for the hon. member.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the

minister if open-custody community home parents receive any special training

before being assigned to care for young offenders? I am told that some community

home parents have been promised, for twenty-seven months now, that training will

be made available for them, only to have it cancelled right at the last moment

by the Department of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we are not up to scratch, maybe,

in that area as much as we should be. It is an area we are working on. We

realize that we don't give the training that is required, but the department is

undertaking to ensure that the young people who come into the care of these

people are afforded the maximum care that this Province can afford.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, some concerns were raised in

the House some time ago when the Department of Social Services looked at getting

away from group homes and putting young offenders in community homes, the fear

that the Department of Social Services would not be able to attend to their

needs like they would in visiting a group home situation. Would the minister

advise the House if social workers make regular visits to those homes, since I

am aware that some homes have gone as long as eight months without seeing a

social worker or having a call from his department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: If the hon. member is in possession of any

specific information the hon. member knows the procedure for that. He can call

and find out, but again, as I mentioned yesterday, in these rough economic times

when we get a lot of problems socially, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect,

with the tremendous demand on social workers, that from time to time they may

not be able to make all of the visits that are necessary. Under the

circumstances, they are providing yeoman service to the people of this Province,

but it wouldn't surprise me if, in a case or two, some home didn't get visited.

But I would certainly appreciate knowing about it. My department officials would

appreciate knowing if there are any specific cases so that we might be able to

attend to them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Over the past

few months, much debate on the privatization of Hydro has centred around the

effect it would have on our credit rating. Many have said that it would have

absolutely no effect on our credit rating and that it is not even considered by

the market when our financial situation is assessed. I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance, would he agree with this particular assessment, and if not,

does he have some information that would substantiate his position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is refreshing to find, from time to time we are reminded

that Question Period is available to both sides of the House and not just one

side. The implications in the question by the hon. the Member for Eagle River

were absolutely correct. Once a year, the four rating agencies, two Canadian and

two American, do a rating on the Province's debt. We have recently received

rating from one of these companies and the other three will come sometime in the

next month or so. The Canadian bond rating service, Mr. Speaker, pointed out

that in reaffirming our rating - and that is the good part of it - in

reaffirming our rating, not lowering it, they took into account the fact that

the privatization of Hydro was a positive effect, that it reduced debt from the

Province's books, it would allow the Province to not borrow for a period of time

and in light of that positive effort in privatization they reconfirmed our

ratings and that if in fact the privatization of Hydro did not proceed, they

would probably have to come back and reassess our ratings so, Mr. Speaker, we

have had that correspondence and that release from the first of the rating

agencies and we can only wait and see what the other three rating agencies have

to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. It

has been brought to my attention that there are PCBs stored on the Baie Verte

Peninsula; there are PCBs stored in drums at Rambler mines site and there are

PCBs stored at the Baie Verte mine itself. Could the minister inform the House

whether this is the case and if so, the amount of PCBs stored at these sites?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I would have to check on that, Mr. Speaker,

and I will get back to the member on that and I must assure him that I am

extremely agitated by this question as he loves to assess my emotional state

every time he asks a question; very agitated today by that question, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am sorry that the minister is agitated

but I thought her job over there is to answer questions that are brought forth

by the Opposition; it is really too bad that you are agitated. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, will the minister tell the House how long the sites have been in

existence and how frequently they have been inspected including when they were

last inspected and by whom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I shall get a full report

on the circumstances if the PCBs are indeed there and get back to him.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

Can the minister confirm to this House today, that eighty to

100 welders from Nova Scotia are coming into this Province to go to work at the

Newfoundland Dockyard, and if he can confirm that can he also explain to this

House and to the people of this Province why Newfoundland workers, welders in

particular, were not provided the opportunity for those jobs?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't confirm that at this point in time. The matter was

raised a couple of days ago by a constituent currently I believe living in

Conception Bay South, who phoned me and also by the hon. Member for Placentia

who brought the matter to my attention. It is being checked out, there is

someone now trying to get the answer for me since yesterday morning. It is clear

that the dockyard is going to have some work that requires a number of welders,

they are advertising through the public media for people to come forward and

apply for work on the job. They are welders who will need the CWB test to be

passed and to have that particular certification. The difficulty at this point

in time is that just about every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian who is a

welder and has that designation is already working, and there are other welders

in the Province who do not have that designation, who cannot go and do this job

because it requires a specific designation.

The effort that we are undertaking is to try to find a way

whereby those welders who do not have this particular designation can be tested

to see if in fact they can reach those qualifications and be certified as being

CWB attested and have that particular ticket and be then eligible to be hired at

the dockyard. That information is being gathered at this point in time and I

hope to have a more complete answer later in the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister now talks about a

CWB designation. CWB designation is ordered by the employer. The employer knew

full-well that these jobs would be coming up and why were not Newfoundlanders

provided the opportunity to write that test? It is a three to four-hour test, it

is not a difficult test, it is provided for all welders just to test their

practical experience. What is his department doing, if they are not monitoring

employment situations in this Province for Newfoundlanders?

Two days ago in the House, Mr. Speaker, the minister stood up

and couldn't confirm that Newfoundlanders were laid off from the Hibernia site.

Maybe we should rename his department to the Minister of Unemployment and Labour

Unrest, and not the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for the

Province. Can he explain why his officials and his department were not on top of

this situation and why eighty Newfoundland welders were not given the

opportunity to write that test, therefore having jobs in their own Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Usually when we tell that joke about the name of the

department we call it - the minister should be renamed the Minister of

Unemployment and No Labour Relations, we don't say `Labour unrest.' If we are

going to change the name we should try to agree on the same name.

The situation clearly, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would

know from his previous experiences in a past life, is that any time any group is

designated and sent forward - because these tests, even though they only take a

few hours to do, to see if you can be CWB certified, they are expensive, they

cost money. The workers themselves, welders in this case, are usually referred

either by the actual employer - referred by the employer for testing - or

referred by the appropriate union.

The difficulty that we have in this particular case is that

the employer itself - and this is what we are checking with the Dockyard as the

potential employer here - has not seen fit at this point to my knowledge as I

stand here this morning to refer welders without the designation who are coming

to them looking for work. They have not seen fit to refer them. They are looking

for people who already have the designation. Secondly, most of the welders who

are looking for the job now are not in a union, they are non-unionized welders,

and therefore the union doesn't see it as their role to refer non-unionized

welders.

There is a difficulty and at the end of the day it may in

fact be the case that some of these welders may come from outside the Province.

It is being checked on at this point in time. Again, it is always our number one

concern not only at Bull Arm but everywhere to try to make sure that we maximize

the employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That, Mr.

Speaker, is what we are doing in this case as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe

what I've just heard. Minister, there are eighty to a hundred people from

outside this Province who are coming in to take jobs away from Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who, if the minister and his officials had been on top of their

department, could have provided the opportunity for welders in this Province to

have that designation. In a Halifax paper two weekends ago Newfoundland Dockyard

advertised for eighty to a hundred welders.

I ask the minister again, will he ensure that if there are

twenty or thirty or forty positions left that welders, whether they are in a

union or not in a union - it doesn't matter, they are still welders in this

Province from this Province - will he ensure that his department will provide

the opportunity for welders in this Province to write their CWB designation and

therefore have a chance to have a job in their Province at the Newfoundland

Dockyard?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would answer as I

did before and just repeat to the hon. member that we are having the matter

looked into. Our priority and our concern is to try to maximize the opportunity

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to the training, though, and whether or not the

department or government should have ordered it, I would just like to point out

to all hon. members present that the same hon. member opposite is one who had

raised a concern, particularly in relation to Bull Arm, when people, when a lot

of training was done, some of the people their training didn't get them a job.

The same hon. member stood up to say: Why did you train all these people when

there was no job for them? In fact, that same question has been raised opposite.

If we had gone six months ago and gotten another hundred people tested and

certified for CWB and this job hadn't come up, the same situation would have

been used in the exact reverse. That is a tactic that this particular hon.

member opposite uses all the time. When the argument is convenient to him he

uses it: You should have done something. When we do something and there is no

immediate result he argues: What did you waste your time doing that for?

Our concern is to try to maximize the opportunities for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are aware of the situation. It is being

checked on at this point in time, and we will do everything possible to make

sure that the maximum number of qualified, certified Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians work at this particular job at the Dockyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations just indicated in his answer that this member, myself, the

Member for Kilbride, some time ago, dealing with training at the Hibernia site,

asked: Why do we train too many people?

I did not ask that question of the minister, and if he is so

convinced, table the evidence, table the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you, as Speaker of

the House, either to ask the minister to withdraw that statement or to table

where I asked those questions of him. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further comment on the point of

order?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think members should get

up in this House, as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations just did,

and accuse another member of saying something in the House when the minister

knows full well that was not the case and what he said was not the truth.

I think that minister should not get involved in that type of

debate in Question Period.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He should withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he should probably do the honourable

thing and withdraw it, when he knows what he said is not true, and if it is

true, there is one thing you can do - table the evidence.

It is something like the Member for Eagle River lecturing to

the House that we should be asking questions on fisheries, when his first

question in the House was on Hydro - that's what is taking place in this

Legislature.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I earlier indicated I didn't

see any need to say anything on the point of order raised by my friend, the

Member for Kilbride, but the gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West -

MR. TOBIN: Got you up again.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I (inaudible) say he has got me up

again.

What the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West has done

is breach the privileges of the House, and of my friend, the Member for

Exploits, in speaking to the point of order. I won't say my friend, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West knew what he was doing. I would never go that far, to

say he knows what he is doing, but what he did was accuse my friend, the Member

for Exploits of making a deliberate misstatement in the House.

So I will say to Your Honour that when you have dealt with

the point of order raised by my friend, the Member for Kilbride, and dealt with

it on such merits, if any, as it may have, we will then ask if Your Honour would

be good enough to address the point made by my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, who may or may not know what he is doing. We will let him speak

for that, as to whether he knows what he is doing or not, but my submission is

that at least inadvertently he breached the rules of the House, and we really

can't have it. All it does is turn the House into a bear pit or a beer garden,

and that doesn't serve the purpose of the House or the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: I will consider the point and make some

comments later.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table the report of the Government Services

Committee respecting Bill 59, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And

Safety Act".

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

Report received now.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further reports?

MS. VERGE: Where are the Western Memorial Regional

Hospital reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS. VERGE: The Western Memorial Regional Hospital reports

the Minister of Health (inaudible).

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 168 people

from the district of Bonavista South and from the district of Trinity North. It

is a petition, once again, speaking out on the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, those are people, like 80 per cent of other

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are speaking out and asking people on the

other side to do the honourable thing that they were elected to do, and to

represent them here in the House of Assembly and vote against this Hydro

privatization bill, Bill 1, which received much discussion here, and on which

much concern has been brought forward by many people in all of the Province.

This government, Mr. Speaker, on the opposite side of the House, continue to

turn their backs and say any who oppose it are misinformed, they are

fearmongering, they're not in tune with what's happening. We saw one group, Mr.

Speaker, come forward to speak in favour of it, and the Member for Eagle River

gets up this morning and does a charade here on the House to try to hoodwink the

people into believing - to put the publicity out there that they believe in

what's happening and it's a wonderful thing for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear about our own people being

able to go out and buy shares in the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Well,

I don't know how our people are going to go out and buy shares when - we heard

questions this morning asked by the Member of Kilbride of the Minister of

Employment and Labour - there were eighty jobs being put forward in a local

industry here in Newfoundland and the jobs being advertised in an Atlantic

newspaper published up in Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, that's the shame of what's

happening here in this Province today. We're talking about wonderful things for

our Newfoundland people, we're talking about the wonderful things that are going

to happen after we privatize Hydro. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there

will not be many people out there rushing forward - the people that I represent

will not be rushing forward to buy shares because, Mr. Speaker, most of them are

finding themselves in a situation where they're unable to put bread and butter

on the table to feed their families let alone go out and play the stock market.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

talks about the time we're taking in discussing this privatization bill, we

should be thinking about other issues, and I fully agree with him, Mr. Speaker.

I fully agree with him and I plead for the government to take this piece of

legislation off the table, listen to the people who have voiced their opinions,

listen to the negativity that's out there. Take it off the table and let's get

on with the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Trinity North - he's not in his

seat now but I wish he were - spoke out on a couple of areas. Here he is, right

here in another minister's seat. He got his picture in the paper the other day,

talking about the town of Bonavista being misinformed. They were misinformed,

Mr. Speaker, because they didn't agree with what the government was putting

forward. They were misinformed, the member said, but he was rapped on the

knuckles pretty soon afterwards by the members of council when they told him

that they were getting up and speaking on behalf of the residents of Bonavista,

the people who elected them, Mr. Speaker, and not out supporting their leader,

the Messiah of their party. When the members on this side stand up, they speak

for the residents, they speak for the people who elected them. They don't come

out and support their leader because they are looking for a plum that might be

offered them. What they did was what the Town of Bonavista did, and they should

be encouraged - every other community should be encouraged to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the other side starts up a

chain-saw every now and again over there and tries to make fun at the situation

on the Bonavista Peninsula, where people are being deprived of the opportunity

to cut firewood. Mr. Speaker, here's another example of things being taken from

people and the government not listening. First it was the ATVs, now it's the

cutting of firewood, Mr. Speaker - they'll have no other choice but to burn

electricity or oil because this government will take all the other heating

substitutes away from them. I suppose it will be more profits that will fall

into the hands of the new Hydro owners, people from outside of this Province and

in other countries, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly fully support this petition here today and I ask

all government members to pay attention to the people who are speaking out, pay

attention to their constituents, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm inspired to rise, by some of the comments of the previous

speaker who referred to there having been some accusations of misinformation and

so on. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that there indeed has been a

tremendous amount of misinformation about this very serious issue. Now, the

Leader of the Opposition can laugh at it all he wants but it's a very serious

issue. It's very serious from the point of view of the finances of this Province

and he can laugh all he wants - I know he spent several years laughing when he

was in government and that is what got us into the mess we are in now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the original presentation of

Bill No. 1, one of the things we indicated was that we felt this was a positive

move financially for this Province. Since that time there has been

misinformation spread by the Leader of the Opposition and by others concerning

that particular issue. They've said that it has no effect on the rating of the

Province, that the rating agencies don't even take it into account, that because

it is self-sustaining debt, it is not even considered, that we are totally wrong

when we say the sale of Hydro has an effect on the financial condition of the

Province and that the privatization as outlined by us would be viewed as

positive in the financial world. They've gone around this Province and tried to

convince the people of this Province that that is totally false.

Mr. Speaker, as government, we are in a very difficult

position on this issue, because nobody controls the rating agencies. All we can

say is how we feel it will be viewed. There is nothing hard and fast about that.

We've heard from the first of the rating agencies. They have made it quite clear

that the privatization as outlined is viewed as a positive, that getting rid of

the debt off the books of the Province is positive for the financial outlook of

this Province. They state that. They say that the fact that we would not have to

go the markets to borrow for some substantial period of time, depending on the

revenues, is a positive in the financial outlook of this Province - a positive,

which is exactly as we felt they would respond, and as we indicated in the

beginning.

The Opposition have made all kinds of hay about questioning

our logic and questioning that particular statement that we made. I would say

that the people who have egg on their faces today are frightened to death to

deal with this issue now. The Leader of the Opposition has egg on his face over

this issue. He has got up and made all kinds of financial pronouncements on

rating agencies and how rating agencies would look at the sale of Hydro. He has

done it time after time, all over this Province. He has done it on the media -

made all kinds of seemingly informed statements about it and he has hoodwinked a

lot of the people. All I can say is, this is the fist rating agency that has

rendered judgement on the Leader of the Opposition and he is found to be

lacking, he is found to be wrong, he is found to be going around this Province

not telling the truth to the people of this Province.

Some time over the next two months we will have our rating

dealt with by the other rating agencies. We don't control that - nobody controls

the rating agencies. In due course, as they do every year, they will either

downgrade us or upgrade us or reconfirm our current rating. They may not comment

on the Hydro issue, I don't know, but we will just simply have to wait and see.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that so far, the one report from

the rating agency has put the lie to everything that the Opposition have been

saying with regard to the financial stability and the financial future of this

Province.

MR. SIMMS: Good try, `Winst', (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is the truth, you don't like it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: It is the truth and you don't like it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise

in support of the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South and to

comment on some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance and other government members have

engaged in their own form of disinformation about this. They have gone about

this Province saying: We would like to be able to tell you what the cost and

benefits are but we can't because the Ontario Securities Commission won't let

us. That is a lot of poppycock. That is absolutely, totally untrue.

There are restrictions, Mr. Speaker, on what the government

can say when they are talking about issuing a share offering to the public. They

are not allowed to say what price they will be put out at. They can't say they

will be sold for $9.00 a share, or $9.40 a share. They are not allowed to say

that, Mr. Speaker, because that will distort the market. They are not allowed to

tell lies about how good a deal it is, to pump it up. They are not allowed to go

out and pump it up and say, we are going to offer these shares and people are

going to make a fortune on them. They are not allowed to say that to induce

investors to buy. But, Mr. Speaker, to say they are not allowed to talk about

the cost and benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the

people, is absolute, total, nonsense, the kind of information that Dr. Wade

Locke has produced in his objective economic analysis of the deal.

MS. COWAN: We expect this from you, `Jack', because you

are a socialist.

MR. FUREY: I expect honesty from government members when

they are in charge of the public purse, not the kind of nonsense we hear from

the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, if government were being honest about this they

would release whatever cost benefit analysis they may have, and whatever

information they have about the return to the government on a potential share

issue and its various scenarios. If we got $250 million, this is how it would

work out; if we got $300 million, this is how it would work out; if we got $350

million, this is how it would work out. There is absolutely nothing to prevent

the government from revealing that information to the public. We have at the

moment a reliable, objective, assessment of the Hydro proposal done by an

independent academic whose credentials are so impressive to the government that

the government has, itself, hired this individual on a number of occasions to do

economic studies, including the Minister of Mines and Energy who has hired this

individual as a consultant to do economic studies for them. We are not talking

about somebody who is on his own trying to promote certain ideas, but as a

service to the people of Newfoundland, and to the academic community, this

economist has used the assumptions based on the government information, and

produced a result which is shocking to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. The result of his study and analysis of government's figures, which

they made public, is that it will cost the ratepayers, the people who have to

pay for electricity to heat their homes, to heat their water, to have showers

and wash themselves, to wash their clothes, to cook their food, the ratepayers

of Newfoundland and Labrador will have to spend an additional $70-plus million

per year with benefits to the Newfoundlander taxpayer of something in the order

of $18 to $20 million. The cost benefit analysis that has been done shows that

the net cost to the economy of Newfoundland is going to be over and above

whatever benefits might accrue in the order of $50 million, perhaps $70 million

or perhaps more.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has not answered that

challenge. The government has not provided the information; they have not

provided the figures. The Minister of Finance gets up and talks about the lies,

the misinformation and disinformation that is coming from people who are opposed

to this deal, and at the same time, it hides behind some phoney notion of what

the Ontario Securities Commission might or might not say if they talk about the

true benefits or cost to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

That is three speakers on the petition, I believe. Is there a

further petition to be presented?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition and

in that way I will give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to speak to this,

and hopefully clarify the misrepresentations he just made to the House, because

there are certain words the minister just said, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot use

in this House, and I will not say them, but what the minister said was not true.

I remember, back a couple years ago, remembered very well,

when the minister and the Premier, I think it was around the time they brought

in the mini-Budget, some of the comments that you attributed to the same credit

agency that you are now trying to praise, that's what I say to the Minister of

Finance. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this is a bad deal for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and whether your buddies on Bay Street like

it or not, that's a different story.

What we have is the taxpayers of this Province and the credit

raters of this Province, the men and women who are slaving in this Province to

try to make ends meet, are the ones who are going to have to pay for you to sell

off Hydro to your friends. You talk about set-ups in this Legislature; you heard

the Minister of Finance get up that time and talk about the credit agency. This

morning the Member for Eagle River got up and had a question for the Minister of

Finance. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you the position I thought he was going to

take; I thought he was going to ask you, did you agree with spending money in

Quebec and not in Newfoundland, that's the question I thought he was going to

ask you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just wondering, is the hon. gentleman presenting a

petition? I am just looking for some information now, and if so, what is the

petition? I missed the beginning.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has missed a lot

of beginnings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The beginning of this petition that he missed

is from a group of people from Bonavista North. Now I didn't want to say it is

from Bonavista North but now that the Minister of Finance has forced me into

saying that I am presenting it on behalf of the people of Bonavista North, then

I have no other choice but to say it, Mr. Speaker. Two sheets, Mr. Speaker, from

people from Gambo and there is a signature on it from Greenspond, Mr. Speaker,

and it is against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, so I

hope that satisfies -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, listen here, Mr. Speaker, let the record

stand here that the twenty-six people from Bonavista North who signed this

petition are just as important as any other twenty-six people anywhere else in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister opposite, and

what we have here is a government that is trying to privatize Hydro so that they

can sell it to their buddies, that's what is happening and the set-ups we saw

this morning, the Member for Eagle River, who was trying to get back in the good

books of government, when it was exposed yesterday what he was doing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No he is not already in there, because

yesterday I heard someone saying to the Minister of Finance: is that true, when

it was raised about the Member for Eagle River going down to Quebec and renting

cars with taxpayers money when he could rent them in Labrador, two miles away

and even cheaper, fourteen dollars cheaper. That's what took him out of the good

books and I hope the Minister of Finance will put a halt to it, I say to the

member. He is the same member by the way, the Member for Eagle River is the same

member who is always preaching in this House about: how come you are not asking

questions on the fisheries, why always Hydro, why not the fisheries? Well he had

his opportunity this morning, Mr. Speaker, and what was his question on? Hydro.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Your question I say to the Member for Eagle

River will be whatever you are asked to ask by the ministers opposite. Whatever

you are told to ask, you will ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro is not

good for this Province. The minister talked, when he got up, about people

misleading. Well who has been more misleading on the Hydro issue than the

Premier of this Province? Who went on public television and apologized to the

people of this Province for not telling the truth? Who went on public television

throughout this province and said that I have informed my Cabinet and my caucus,

but I have asked them not to tell the real reasons to the people of this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member's time -

MR. TOBIN: Who misled, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Already?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've heard it all

this morning and it kind of characterizes this whole Hydro debate. First of all

we had the financial genius, the Leader of the Opposition, for the last couple

of months telling the people of this Province that the rating agencies don't

consider Hydro debt and wouldn't consider the privatization a positive. We get

the first of the four rating agencies reporting, pointing out to everybody all

across this country that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what he has

been talking about and has been misinforming the people of this Province.

Then we had the Leader of the NDP get up and say that in his

great financial genius he disputes what the Ontario Securities Commission is

saying and that he is taking them on now. He is saying that really the Ontario

Securities Commission doesn't know what it is saying. They don't know what they

are saying, and that we can ignore the Ontario Securities Commission and go

ahead and assume that they are going to allow us to go ahead with the sale of

Hydro even if we breach their regulations. Fortunately one of the news media in

this Province contacted the Ontario Securities Commission and contacted other

financial people in this country and they found out that what we were saying was

exactly right. Not what the financial genius of the Leader of the Opposition is

saying.

Then we had another financial genius, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, get up and in effect tell us to ignore the rating agencies,

ignore what they say. It doesn't matter what they say. Let's go ahead and

bankrupt the Province, let's go ahead and ignore the rating agencies. Don't

worry about getting our credit rating lowered, that doesn't matter.

It does matter, and it is crucially important for this

Province that if we do get our credit ratings lowered we are in a mess like we

have never seen before in the history of this Province. We will be shut out of

most of the pools of money that we have to access to do our capital works and to

support our programs. We will be shut out of that market. We will have a very

reduced market to go to to borrow and it will cost us more money to borrow.

There will probably be times, although I can't guarantee it, when we go to the

market and we can't get the money. That has happened before, it happened to New

Zealand. Everybody knows about that. It is crucially important, contrary to what

the Member for Burin - Placentia West says, that we maintain that credit rating.

These three instances are typical of the debate about Hydro.

There have been a lot of emotional things, certainly, but in terms of dealing

with the facts of the Hydro privatization this morning typifies what has

happened. As we go through the next few months and the next few years,

regardless of what happens here, it is going to be patently obvious to everybody

in this Province that at least the political people in this House of Assembly

are simply taking a position simply to oppose and ignoring the financial

stability and credibility of this Province. Totally ignoring it. One of the

reasons why we are in the mess is that in the past we've had the attitude that

we can go ahead and borrow and spend regardless. Continually expand services,

throw money away, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, and there is no limit to it.

That has been the attitude. The attitude has been that we can go and borrow

hunks of money today and make commitments today to be paid for ten years down

the road and some other government will pay for that somewhere, we don't have to

pay for it. Let's go and borrow our money. That has been the attitude that has

been in this Province for years.

Mr. Speaker, that attitude no longer exists. It comes to an

end. We must have sound financial management in this Province and one of the

tools for sound financial management is the privatization of Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this Province

interprets credit rating agencies whenever they want to and how they want to.

That is what they do. When the Canadian Bond Rating Service just about a year

ago commented and downgraded the rating I think in this Province - it is BBB

now, I believe, in this Province, by the Canadian Bond Rating Service.

Federally, when the Canadian Bond Rating Service gave a rating they fluffed it

off and said: It is not significant what the Canadian Bond Rating Service does.

The key ones are Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are coming.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are coming. Well, March 9 on CBC radio

- I listened and taped it and did a transcript of every single word we had done

a transcript, of what the person who sits on the committee of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Too bad you don't understand it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't interrupt you. The person, Steven

Defoe, who sits on the committee that rates this Province stated on March 9, he

stated and made reference to: Hydro is a sound corporation. If a corporation is

not sound there is a contingent liability on this Province. If Hydro is sound

there is no liability that is assessed against this Province in terms of our

credit rating, and he said that. Hydro has not in recent years presented a

burden to the Province. It has been able to meet its debt servicing costs and

for that reason we do not include it in the measure of tax supported debt. That

is public sector debt of the Province and other public sector entities in the

Province that do, or could need to be supported out of taxes raised in this

Province.

Now, Hydro's financial statement - and the minister did not

state in this House, but when you look at the 1993 financial statement it will

show that there was a profit of about $14 million made on the portion that the

government is trying to privatize, excluding the Upper Churchill. The year

before there was about $16 million profit on that portion. Hydro has not, since

last year, the year before, or the year before, since Standard and Poor's and

the other credit rating agencies have assessed this Province, its financial

position has not deteriorated. It is still a sound financial company. This

government brags about it being easy to sell because it is sound financially, so

how can a company that is sound financially, able easily to finance its own

debt, turn over a profit of $14 million, turn $10 million back to this Province

in guarantees on that debt, and be able to operate and meet all its

requirements, pay off debts as they go, Bay d'Espoir paid off in 1992, $170

million, how are they going to rate that as a liability on this Province?

How are they going to do it? The government could guarantee

every viable business in this Province, if they have a government guarantee that

is making money and profit out there, is no liability. The problem is when

government guarantees the debts of companies that are not profitable and that

may not be profitable in the future. Now, Hydro has a regulation built in, and

the Public Utilities Board has the authority, if the financial position of Hydro

becomes tenuous, or there is a problem, they can give a rate increase on the

rates to that company to be able to meet their expected financial demands and a

small rate of return meeting the requirements of this Province. That is not

going to pose a problem.

Now, this government has failed to discuss, it has failed to

acknowledge these statements back in March. They get one agency, a very small

rating service, the Canadian Bond Rating Service, when the two major ones having

rendered a decision, and when they render their decision and the person sits on

the committee in March had very positive things to state. Here is what he did

say in that statement. He said: depending on the tax concessions that government

gives to the new corporation. I will read it for you. The Minister of Finance

does not like to hear it. Here is what he stated. It would depend on the price

received initially, in other words that is viability. It would depend on

expectations of whether and how much of the corporate income tax Hydro would

pay, or whether there would be other levies assessed on Hydro that would

continue to generate income for this Province. Here is what he is saying. He is

stating that if we give concessions of taxes to these companies it will result

in less revenues coming into this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I have one minute to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that members

opposite wish to debate the Electrical Power Control Act and Hydro

privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am not saying that members on this side do

not want to. We are definitely anxious to debate it. We believe it is such good

legislation that it should be brought forward and debated at once. Accordingly,

I move pursuant to Standing Order 21 that the Orders of the Day now be read. The

Leader of the Opposition can now pick up his papers and leave, because he has no

more interest in the House than that, but I make the motion, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the hon. Government

House Leader that we now move into Orders of the Day. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 4, if you would, Mr. Speaker, the

Electrical Power Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate yesterday. Today I will recap by saying

that I find it extremely objectionable that the House is being required to

debate the Electrical Power Resources Act, as the bill is called. The Premier

indicated that there was a mistake in the printing, that the intended title was

the Electrical Power Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is an objectionable procedure, first of all

because the Premier who introduced the bill, the Premier in whose name this bill

stands, introduced it under false pretences. He spoke for about an hour at the

outset of debate on second reading, during the first week of March, and gave an

explanation for the bill. He answered questions put by the Leader of the

Opposition. Three weeks later he asked for free Province-wide television time

and, through NTV, startled the people of the Province by confessing that he had

given wrong information when introducing this bill.

The Premier indicated that he had concealed from Opposition

members of the House, and the general public, one of his real reasons for

advancing this legislation. He indicated that he had included the members of his

caucus and Cabinet in his conspiracy.

What he said is that one of his actual reasons for advancing

this Electrical Power Control Act is to break the Upper Churchill contract.

That's the big reason it is objectionable for us to be debating this bill the

way we are here this morning. The ethical procedure would require the Premier to

start again. If the Premier is intent on having some version of an electrical

power control act, let him take this tainted document off the order paper and

start afresh. When he introduces the revised bill, let him tell the truth and we

will proceed from the basis of the Premier's disclosure of his actual intention.

The second reason it's not fair for us to be debating this

measure is that several clauses and provisions of this bill assume that the

government will privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Premier told the

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, on Province-wide television on March 24,

that if in the end a majority of the citizens of the Province are opposed to

Hydro privatization he will withdraw the measure privatizing Hydro. The main

measure is Bill 1, but there are clauses of this Bill 2 dealing specifically

with and assuming the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has refused to hold public hearings

into either measure - either the Hydro Privatization Bill, Bill 1, or this

Electrical Power Control Act, Bill 2 - and that's an unacceptable departure from

the democratic process and from the public hearing process specifically, which

the administration now in office began.

The Premier has also declined to have a referendum or a

plebiscite on Hydro privatization, despite that fact that he did not get a

mandate - he and the Liberal party did not get a mandate from the people in the

election last spring - to give away or privatize Hydro. Again he concealed that

part of his agenda from the public. He had a secret agenda during last May's

election, during last spring's election campaign.

We now know that he was actively contemplating Hydro

privatization long before last spring and indeed the government and/or Hydro

incurred costs related to the privatization initiative but when the Premier was

asked pointedly about Hydro, last spring, he denied or avoided answering. He

concealed his intention to privatize Hydro from the voters last spring.

Privatizing Hydro is an irreversible act. If there's a change of government in

three years time or whenever the next election occurs, as I expect there will

be, and if Hydro is privatized by then, sadly a new government will not be able

to afford to buy back Hydro. It's very unlikely that a government would be able

to buy back Hydro. So what we do now is effectively irreversible. The

consequences will burden us for the rest of our lives and will be a liability on

future generations.

But, Mr. Speaker, on Province-wide live television on March

24, the Premier promised the people that if a majority of the population are

opposed to Hydro privatization that he would withdraw the legislation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, he did rule out a plebiscite, he refused to have public hearings but he

said that polling would be an acceptable way to measure public opinion. Since

then polls have been done by reputable, professional polling companies; Decima

Research and Market Quest, a division of M-5, the firm recognized by the

Minister of Tourism and Culture here this morning. Those polls both indicated

that over 80 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a position

on the question of Hydro privatization which is quite remarkable. The Decima

Research poll indicated that 87 per cent of the population are decided on the

question. Both polling firms found that over 79 per cent of the people decided,

are opposed to Hydro privatization. Now, Mr. Speaker, the government and Hydro

have spent a small fortune on propaganda to try to persuade the population that

selling Hydro is a good idea. For five, going on six weeks, there have been ads

running on the private radio stations. For the last two or three weeks there

have been full page newspaper ads.

During the last week of March, as I've indicated, the Premier

had time on the TV networks to give an address that reached the whole Province.

That same week he was a guest on open line radio programs reaching the whole

Province. So the government has had ample opportunity to put forward its case,

yet an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the Province do not buy the

government's case. People have rejected it. People are dead set against the

government's proposal to privatize Hydro. So the only honourable course for the

Premier to take is to keep his word, honour the pledge that he gave people on

March 24 and withdraw the Hydro privatization legislation, take Bill 1 off the

Order Paper and also take Bill 2 off the Order Paper because Bill 2 has clauses

that assume Hydro privatization and facilitate Hydro privatization.

Now, if the Premier wants to bring back a modified version of

an electrical power control act, by all means let him do that. I would still

call on the Premier to put that revised measure to a select committee of the

House for public hearings or to one of the Legislation review committees for

public hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now speaking on a motion made by the Leader

of the Opposition to delay further consideration of this bill by six months.

What I would really want to see, as I've said, is for the government to take

this bill off the Order Paper altogether along with withdrawing Bill No. 1. As

long as we are stuck with Bill No. 2 on the Order Paper and as long as the

government ignores public opposition then I would certainly support the motion

of the Leader of the Opposition to delay further consideration of this bill for

six months. The reason for the six month delay given by the Leader of the

Opposition I fully support, and that is to allow time for consideration of this

measure by the public through a public hearing process.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, who is perhaps the only

member of the Cabinet in on the Premier's full agenda relating to Hydro

privatization, said early in March when these two interrelated measures came

before us that they are the most important legislative initiatives since

Confederation. How then can the government deny a proper public hearing process?

If these measures are so important surely the public should have a chance to

examine them.

As I mentioned yesterday I attended Memorial University

economics professor Wade Locke's public briefing on his economic analysis of

Hydro privatization a couple of days ago. Professor Locke spent an hour and a

half explaining his analysis, indicating the approach that he took, saying that

he didn't have access, any more than members of the Opposition or the general

public have had access, to the government's actual calculations for Hydro

privatization. Professor Locke hasn't been able to get the government's figures

from them. What he has, and we have had, is a great deal of relevant data. We

have audited financial statements of Hydro, although we haven't been able to get

the most recent statements. We have the 1992 statements. We have statements of

Newfoundland Light and Power. We have records of the Public Utilities Board, the

regulatory agency. We have information about comparable electrical utilities and

regulatory agencies in other parts of Canada. Of course, we have the two bills.

Based on all of that information and Professor Locke's

considerable knowledge of economics, he constructed a model. He plugged in

different variables, underlining the fact that he hasn't been privy to

government's figures. His variables, I feel, are quite generous to the

government. He seems to make assumptions that are favourable to the government

case. What he came up with, his best estimate in other words, indicates a huge

annual, ongoing, perpetual economic loss to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador resulting from Hydro privatization.

There was no member of the government present at Professor

Locke's analysis, which I think is revealing. The Minister of Finance I think is

an individual who works hard and usually has a good understanding of what he has

advanced. The sad reality in this instance is that he was shut out of the

initial decision to privatise Hydro. It has been handled very much by the

Premier, solo. As I indicated before, I believe only the Minister of Justice is

in on the full scam. Obviously the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is

nominally the minister responsible for Hydro, has been shut out of the

deliberations. His ignorance has been obvious and is quite pathetic. Personally

I don't know how he can live with himself continuing in the job as minister. If

I were in his position I would have resigned a long time ago.

I believe that some members opposite have been searching

their consciences, but I think it's unfortunate that none of the members

opposite attended Professor Locke's presentation, and I would urge members

opposite, particularly the Minister of Finance, to have a private consultation

with Professor Locke, because the stakes are very high and it would be sad for

any one of the individuals opposite to end up as old men, in their seventies or

eighties, living their last years regretting a huge mistake which they were in a

position to avoid back in 1994.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker - I have just been given a note

that my time is about over - I would urge members opposite, while they have a

chance, to take individual responsibility for the future of Hydro. Each one of

the members opposite, at the end of the day, has the same vote as the Premier.

All the members on this side of the House are adamantly opposed to Hydro

privatization, and all it would take is nine members opposite - eight in

addition to the Member for Pleasantville - to defeat any legislative measures

put forward by the Premier to give away or privatize Hydro.

Privatizing Hydro will obviously result in huge electricity

rate increases for consumers, for householders and business people - much

greater increases, vastly greater increases, than would occur with continued

public ownership of Hydro. Mr. Speaker, any electricity cost increase for

businesses will have a multiplier effect, will be built into the cost of all

goods and services produced in the Province.

Secondly, privatization of Hydro will result in a much

greater outlay of Hydro revenue collected from rate payers for dividends, the

bulk of which will be paid outside the Province. Now the bond repayment goes out

of the Province now, but dividend payments go on forever,

whereas bonds have a

finite term. The Bay d'Espoir bonds were paid off a couple of years ago. Equity

obligations go on forever, and the rate of return on equity is always higher

than debt servicing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the third reason -

the third main reason -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Does the hon. member have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I am delighted to have a chance today to speak to this

amendment. Of course, I certainly don't want to speak against the amendment. We,

on this side of the House, are very supportive of getting the issue of the

electrical industry redesigned in this Province, and the privatization of Hydro

done, because it is the best thing for the people of the Province at this point

in time.

Before I do go on to talk about some of the substantial parts

of this bill, and the privatization, I would like to point out that I had a

couple of calls from Bill Vetter, the leader of the Power of the People in the

Province, and he asked me to correct something that I said in the House. I think

it was a few days ago, last Tuesday or something, when I got up and indicated

that the POP - the Power of the People group - had popped and had fizzled out

because of the fact that they couldn't get anybody to show up at the

demonstration last Monday.

Obviously I stood to be corrected on that because it wasn't

the POP who had organized that particular event, it was the Take Back The Power

group, Mr. Malone I guess is the leader of that group, so I want to say to the

leader of the POP, that it wasn't any malicious intent to try and say to him

that he couldn't put together a crowd of people to demonstrate against this

particular issue, but I guess that part of it, Mr. Speaker, does give rise to

some concern, because I don't know exactly where Mr. Vetter would be coming

from, I don't know why he would be so upset that he would not want to be

associated with the leader of the Take Back The Power group.

It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that, here we have one

group who is opposed to the privatization of Hydro, they have to try and get

support for their cause and we have another group, the leader of the other

group, Mr. Vetter, who has given, it seems, like all of his life to taking the

government on on this issue and opposing it, and when there is a chance to show

the government the opposition, all of a sudden he goes over in the corner and

shies away and says: please don't associate me with this other crowd, but the

common denominator is the one and the same, so I wonder why there is such a

family feud now on the opposition to this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. Why are

they fighting against each other? Is it all of a sudden that now Mr. Vetter has

recognized the battle is over, and really they have lost that particular issue,

is he agreeing now with the Leader of the Opposition and others that they

haven't the issue any more? It is gone, the people of the Province want the

government to get on with their job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, that could be too, that could be

too. Actually the Minister of Finance raises a good point. I think that what we

have on the go here now, is a fight to be the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Power struggle.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, a very big power struggle over there

now because it is certainly clear from a few days, that Mr. Malone seems to be

taking up the Leader of the Opposition and now for a few days before that it was

Mr. Vetter, now the Leader of the Opposition sits in here - Mr. Speaker, he went

out to his own community about seven blocks I suppose down from his own house

where fourteen of his relatives live, and he couldn't get any more than forty

people to come out against the opposition to Hydro, so I think they seized the

opportunity over there; they said: look, here we have the official Leader of the

Opposition who is going out into his own riding, he can't get forty people, so

maybe there is a real opportunity now for Mr. Malone, Codco is not on anymore,

so maybe it is an opportunity that I can get into politics and be the official

Leader of the Opposition. Maybe he can do that, Mr. Speaker.

Not to be outdone, the candidate for the National Party of

Canada, in the last election, not to be outdone, had gotten the bug of politics,

he had gotten it into his blood of public office, Mr. Vetter, had gotten into

his blood now that he would like to be in politics too, so I am not going to try

to give any glory to Mr. Malone because we know that he is going after the

Leader of the Opposition's job, I am going to make sure now that if there is a

demonstration by the Take Back The Power group, that we will do everything

possible to make sure that nobody turns up. Now then, the hidden agenda is

coming out now. We are now seeing what is at play here.

They are not concerned about whether this is in the best

interests of the people, they are concerned about what is in the best interest

of Mr. Vetter or Mr. Malone or Mr. Simms, that is what is the concern, the PC

Party opposite has now come, you know -well, really they are keeping abreast

with the increases in the interest rates. They are starting to come up now in

popularity similar to the increase in interest rates; about a quarter-of-a-point

a month, I suppose. Maybe in a good month they might rise a point but it is a

real opportunity being seized by the members who are involved in this particular

debate and it's certainly not lost on us here either, Mr. Speaker.

You know it was only about six or eight months ago when there

were all kinds of flashy pink buttons over on the other side. Oh yes, Kim -

pounding their chests for Kim, six or eight months or a little while ago and

there were the big flashy buttons on the go. Now they've changed the buttons -

six months ago they changed their buttons and then they put on the red button,

Mr. Speaker, `don't take my Hydro. Please don't sell my Hydro.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, today - oh, I caught him! Look, the Member for Ferryland, he noticed he

had the red button off and he got to put the red button back on, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, boy! Well if it wasn't for me he wouldn't have his button on again today,

Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can't help but notice it. I hope he

didn't tear his shirt that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

If the member is going to make statements he should be

accurate. What we've got here - if he calls that red then he should get his eyes

tested. Mr. Speaker, we'll wear buttons, any buttons that's in the best interest

of Newfoundland and Labrador and I'll ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he has

any of those thrifty car rental buttons that are operating in Newfoundland and

Labrador he can wear them too!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, in Quebec, not Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I know there was an ouch -

and I guess it must have came from the Member for Ferryland when he drove his

button in through his jacket that time when he was exposed again because over

there now, I mean except for the hon. Member for Ferryland who drove the button

in through his suit, there's not one other button over there now anymore.

They've taken off their buttons, they've cast that away and now, Mr. Speaker, I

guess they are going to go out to the streets again, they're going to go out

through the outports of Newfoundland again and try to find another cause,

they're going to try to find another parade now that they can come in front of,

Mr. Speaker, another parade that they're going to join and jump in front of and

try to get some salvation for their political party.

I'm sure that the Member for Burin - Placentia West is going

to be going out around the Province trying to find that parade. I know that he

will recollect the time that he took his Premier out to the Burin Peninsula, Mr.

Speaker. I know that he will reminisce about the time that he took the Premier

on the bus down to the Burin Peninsula and he found this big parade there, Mr.

Speaker, he found this big parade, this big horde of people all in the street,

and he said to the Premier: now, Mr. Premier, look what a welcoming committee we

have here now for you on the Burin Peninsula.

Oh yes, Mr. Tobin, yes my humble parliamentary assistant, yes

give me another cigar. Oh, I'm so happy that you would be able to arrange this

welcoming party for me, Mr. Tobin, but why are they carrying the guns? Oh, no

problem, Mr. Premier, you know that it's such an historic time for you to be

coming to the Burin Peninsula, that we arranged a twenty-one gun salute for you,

Sir. But, Mr. Tobin, why are they pointing them at me? Obviously, Mr. Speaker,

there had to be a quick turn around, a big U-turn on the Burin Peninsula and all

their back up through, Mr. Speaker.

So obviously when the Member for Burin - Placentia West

starts scouting rural Newfoundland again, trying to find that issue, he will

reminisce and he will say, that if I see a group of people I shouldn't act too

quickly as Chrtien used to say, our esteemed Leader and Prime Minister today,

he said: you know you don't jump to quick. If you jump too quick you could jump

into a fire. Mr. Speaker, what they have now seen is that the parade that they

jumped onto with the Hydro privatization deal has now turned into nothing more

than a family feud over there for who is to be the Leader of the Opposition.

They have now found, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this

Province have tremendous confidence in this government. They told us that we

wanted you to carry on with the business of government, to implement the

policies that are going to bring recovery and economic prosperity to this

Province, Mr. Speaker, and they called all kinds of people. They tried to elicit

all kinds of information and expertise to back up their support for this

campaign. They even went and said that they were going to go to the financial

markets and they were going to find out that this did not matter to the

financial markets. They were going to say that this did not matter to our credit

rating. We do not care, they were saying in the financial markets. Today, Mr.

Speaker, finally they've been exposed on that particular issue. Because today it

has now been shown that the marketplace out there, the bond rating agency, the

one in Canada - Canada Dominion Securities, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Dominion Bond Rating Services now, Mr.

Speaker, have come out and clearly, unequivocally, absolutely outlined its

concern and said that: If we do not have the privatization of Hydro we will have

to seriously consider downgrading the Province's credit rating. How clear do you

want it? They are saying that if you privatize Hydro - because it is a good deal

for the people of the Province - then they are certainly going to look upon this

as a very positive sign of fiscal responsibility. We are looking out.

What do we have now? What we have now again is the Opposition

has been exposed again. They have been shown to be for what they are. They are

now shown again for what they are. They had seventeen years over there where

they were spending like drunken sailors. They didn't care about the futures of

our children; they didn't care about the future of this Province. They went to

the trough and spent and spent, and they said: Who cares?

AN HON. MEMBER: Borrowed and spent.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Borrowed and spent. If we can't have it

in the cash we will go to the banks and get it and we will borrow and spend, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle

River can't be up here making such false accusations and saying that members on

this - it is very derogatory saying that members on this side spent like drunken

sailors. It is a terrible reflection on members here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a terrible reflection on sailors,

I would say to the member. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member for Eagle

River that even drunken sailors would know the boundaries of their district and

their Province, and they wouldn't stagger into the Province of Quebec to rent a

car at a higher price than he could get one in this Province, at taxpayers'

expense, I would say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, no point of order, Mr. Speaker. A

point of silliness, of foolishness, a point of absolute outrageous imagination

by the member opposite.

I should correct myself there, because I do believe he has a

valid point about me casting any innuendo on the sailors. I certainly would not

want to do that. But if I could be allowed to take that part of it away, I want

to as a matter of fact reinforce even more that whatever state they were in,

whether it was through those particular beverages or anything else, there is

absolutely no doubt about the record.

The record was one that is - in 1972, when this party gave up

the government of this Province after twenty-three years, there was a total

public debt on the books of this Province of $600 million. After seventeen years

in record growth, revenues increasing by 8 per cent to 10 per cent on average,

after record growth, after record revenue, and after leaving with $600 million

in the Province, they left after seventeen years with $5.4 billion to the people

of this Province, to the children of this Province, to the generations that are

yet to come. That is the record.

Whatever way you want to characterize it you certainly can do

so. The fact is that when we left the government in 1972 it was $600 million.

After we took back the government in 1989 it was over $5 billion. That was the

kind of record that they left to the people. That was their legacy. They did not

care about who had to pay. They did not care about us having to pay right now

$470 million a year interest we have to pay out of the taxpayers' money, the

people out there who are asking now to be paying the taxes.

Before we can touch our education, Mr. Speaker, before we can

take a dollar to spend on the very important health care facilities around this

Province, before we can take a dollar to try to keep those hospital beds open,

before we can take a dollar for the Minister of Social Services who has many

pressing needs for the people in this Province who through no fault of their own

are in need, before we can go to that Minister of Social Services and give him a

dollar, we have to take $515 million for the next fiscal year. Four hundred and

some odd last year, but for this year, before we can take a dollar for anybody

else, we have to take $515 million to pay the interest on the debt. The debt

that hon. crowd over there built up while we were experiencing record economic

growth in this Province, while we had tremendous influx of new revenues to this

Province and to that government.

Since we have come to power we have endured the worst

economic recession since the 1930s. We have seen a downturn in provincial

revenues. We have seen an even greater demand on our social services, on our

health care, on our education. We have seen all of that. Ever since that we have

- it is incumbent upon us to look at ways so that we can get the money that is

necessary to be able to keep these essential services going.

I must also report to this House that during the Easter break

I undertook to consult with my constituents and I went throughout the Coast of

Labrador and I held five public meetings at various locations along the Coast.

At those meetings I had a chance to answer any of the questions that the people

might have. I gave them lots of good news of course, because this government has

been doing tremendous things for the people on the Coast of Labrador. I gave

them tremendous news about the water and sewer projects that are going to be

going ahead. This year over $2 million in water and sewer is going to be spent

along the Coast of Labrador, absolutely.

We have a very good, solid agreement with the federal and

provincial governments in Labrador. There was an amendment recently by our

Minister of Fisheries, our Cabinet representative in Ottawa, an amendment which

gave us an extra $4.2 million for the Labrador Agreement for water and sewer.

Just another indication of the kind of cooperation, the kind of consideration,

that we are getting from Ottawa. We are joining in here, the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is joining in here in this Province, by giving

30 per cent of the dollars for that money for water and sewer on the Coast of

Labrador. I was happy to tell them about that particular funding.

I was happy to tell them about the new package that was going

to be announced by Mr. Tobin. I was happy to tell them that we are going to have

a five year program of renewal in the fishery, a five year program that will

give them income support. They are going to give them incentives to go out and

diversify within and outside the fishery.

I was happy to tell them that progress is being made on the

woods operation, the forestry potential. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture is going to be one of the most remembered ministers of forestry ever

from the point of view of Coastal Labrador. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture last year saw a training program put in place down there that kept

some thirty-odd people into the training of forest harvesting. Right now as we

speak there are some ten to fifteen new jobs in Port Hope Simpson as a result of

that training project, long-term, meaningful jobs, where we are now harvesting

the woods of Labrador for Abitibi-Price. We are now seeing another contract in

the offing.

I will say here today that we are going to see in the

Cartwright, Port Hope Simpson and Charlottetown areas of Labrador within the

next two to three years 200 to 300 jobs in the harvesting and processing of the

Labrador timber, good solid meaningful jobs for the people on the Coast of

Labrador.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, of course, is

another minister who is going to be long remembered on the Coast of Labrador.

There is no doubt about that. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

along with his colleague there, the Minister of Education is working now to get

established on the Northern Peninsula a laminated wood processing operation, and

we are eagerly waiting to see that that project is going ahead, because the

people on the Coast of Labrador want to be a part of that. They want to be able

to cut the wood, they want to be able to saw it into lumber, and they want to be

able to take it over to Roddickton so that we can laminate it, and for the first

time ever in this Province we will be exporting a finished lumber product from

the Coast of Labrador.

Now, that, Mr. Speaker, is very good news indeed, some 100

jobs on the Norther Peninsula, we are willing to share in Labrador. We are

looking to have 110 jobs in the Cartwright, Port Hope Simpson, Charlottown area

working with the local sawmillers, Mr. Speaker, it is a very good and very

promising piece of news for the people of Labrador.

The Minister of Development is spearheading that and I know

he is going to see it through to fruition, that he is going to see it

accomplished, and we are going to be able to go back. That is something that

should not be lost to the people of this Province, that right now on the Coast

of Labrador, from L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright we have, I believe, greater

promise than many other parts of this Province because of the work that is being

done by this government, and obviously their humble servant their member of the

House of Assembly.

We have been ahead of the game. We have recognized that the

Northern cod stock was leaving the Coast of Labrador. We recognized some four

years ago that the Northern cod stock was leaving 2J so we seized an opportunity

to diversify within the fishery, we seized an opportunity to go into Cartwright

and invest $750 million, along with $250,000 from the Labrador shrimp company,

and put a new modern crab processing plan in that community that now has over

100 people working there, more security than the people in Cartwright have known

for twenty-five years.

On the coast further up, in Mary's Harbour and St. Lewis we

have seen equal investments of public and private funding. We now see in the

Williams Harbour area 100 and some odd people getting good solid meaningful

employment from harvesting one resource, the scallop resource, that was never

used before. It was always there on the bottom and was never taken other than

for a bit of food harvest. Last year over 100 people in that area got solid

meaningful employment from going out there and taking advantage of that

resource. We are now, this year, looking at the community of Black Tickle that

is adjacent to the shrimp fishery. We are seeing that as a very promising

venture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Could I have a few minutes leave to clue

up?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Until the next time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, when I rose before to speak on

the other bill, Bill 1, one of the things I mentioned that was missing in Bill

1, and the same thing now in Bill 2, is the fact that there were no public

hearings. Now, one of the things that this particular administration did when

they came into power in 1989 was institute the committee system in the House of

Assembly, and as far as I am concerned it was long overdue. It was one - and I

underline one, of the things done by the administration opposite that, as far as

I am concerned, was a good move, an excellent move.

Mr. Speaker, to put something in form and to say you have

something on paper and doing it and carrying it out, the intent of what that

regulation is or whatever the legislation is, is another thing. When I look at

some of the pieces of legislation that have been sent to the committee over the

past five years, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important pieces of legislation in

the Province as far as I am concerned, all we have to do is look at our history

and we should learn from that, and that is Bill 1 especially, and Bill 2, to a

certain extent but especially Bill 1.

Why, Mr. Speaker, I asked before and I ask again today,

wasn't this piece of legislation sent to committee? Why didn't the people of the

Province have a chance to air their views and their concerns and have a chance

to express them to the committee structure? A committee was structured such that

they would be given an opportunity once that piece of legislation was sent to

the committee, they could hold hearings within the committee system because they

are masters of their own affairs and so on and they could make a decision within

committee whether they travelled around the Province or whether they just held

meetings here in the House of Assembly, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if this

particular piece of legislation had come to a committee in this House, that the

decision would have been to go out and travel around the Province and hear the

concerns of the people.

Give them a chance to express to committee members what their

concerns are and what they would like to have to say and document it, and bring

it back to the House of Assembly so that, in the committee report every member

of the House of Assembly would have access to the comments and so on made by

their constituents and then they would have an opportunity to get up and speak

on it. It is funny when you see in other jurisdictions around the country today

and around the world, committees in place, especially the federal system,

travelling all around the country. We had one here yesterday in the city on GST

and so on; travelling all around the country to listen to what people have to

say, but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the people are given absolutely no

opportunity to have anything to say on it.

If, even I suppose - certainly, I have said this before too,

as far as I am concerned democracy stops. We go into an election campaign, we

come out of it and we are all, in the campaign everybody is talking about, vote

for your choice; vote for someone who is going to bring your concerns to the

floor of the House of Assembly and express them on your behalf and so on; but

once the election is over and we come into the system we have, this

Parliamentary system, the Westminster system, then, as far as I am concerned,

Mr. Speaker, all democracy stops, because I am a firm believer that once a

government is formed, government members, backbenchers and opposition members

should be given the opportunity of a free vote on each and every piece of

legislation that comes to the floor of the House of Assembly, we should have the

opportunity to vote our conscience, and to vote mainly the way that our people,

the people who voted and put us here, we should be given an opportunity to

express their concerns and to vote on their behalf, and if an issue comes up

where, 65 per cent, 70 per cent, 75 per cent of the people in your district are

against something, why should I come in here and vote against their wishes after

they voted to put me here in a so called democratic system and a democratic

right?

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of

the things that the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River just

mentioned as it pertains to the provincial debt. Yes, we have a large deficit,

Mr. Speaker. I won't go into the details as to how that deficit was incurred,

but I will mention that the hon. member gets up and other hon. members opposite

talk about what happened in seventeen years. Mr. Speaker, we can go back to the

twenty-three years previous to that and we could look at probably a provincial

deficit of $500 million to $600 million come 1971-'72, but I say to you, and to

each and every person in this Province today, that there was no more serious

act, and there never will be, unless this piece of legislation goes through,

there will never be another act carried out like the Upper Churchill, the

Churchill Falls Agreement.

That is costing this Province in the vicinity of over $2

million every day, each and every day, and we are talking about provincial debt.

We are here talking about what happened in the previous seventeen years. Well I

say to the people in the gallery, and to the people of this Province today, that

they must have short memories. People associated with the Liberal party in this

Province today, and previous to this in the last twenty-three years, we are

paying the price, and a very, very dear price, for what has happened by a party

represented by people opposite today in this Province, and have the gall to

stand in this Legislature and talk about the previous seventeen years - have the

gall to stand, when you look at over $2 million a day going into the treasuries

of Hydro Quebec, and the people of Quebec, at the expense of the poorest

province in this country, and we are about to commit the same sin. We are about

to commit the same sin, only give it to a few different people in other parts of

this country and other parts of this Province today.

Big dollars - when I first looked into this, when I was on

the resource policy committee, and I asked what the income to Hydro Quebec from

Churchill Falls was, I was given a figure of $847 million. Then I was asked what

the Province got in that same year in those estimates - $21 million. Mr.

Speaker, any member opposite, or anybody associated with the Liberal party in

this Province today who has the gall to stand in their place, or anywhere in

this Province, and try to defend a scheme such as that!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No way. I know what I am talking about, and

if the minister wants to get up and rebut some of those figures and ask where

they are going... We paid a heavy price, and we are still paying a heavy price,

and it's obvious today, from this piece of legislation, that we are going to

continue to pay a heavy price for trying to keep Quebec in Canada. This is

nothing new. This goes back a long, long time. That is why we couldn't get a

grid across Quebec. What were the reasons? Who was in power, the federal

government at the time? We paid the price then. We paid the price yesterday, and

we are going to pay the price today, and we are going to pay the price tomorrow.

Never, never, was there a time in our history with regard to

what is happening in Quebec today, the possibility of separation. Is there any

federal government today? Whether it be Liberal, PC, or whatever the hell they

are up there, are they going to give any rights to Newfoundland Hydro or any

other, regardless of the government in this Province, to put a grid across

Quebec or to sell power outside of Quebec? No, they are not. If they never did

before, they are certainly not going to do it today, regardless of what the

membership of the Liberal party of Quebec is in the federal government today.

That will not be done. We paid a heavy, heavy price, and we are still going to

pay it.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the funds and the revenues that

are going into the coffers of Hydro Quebec, if you could only sit down with

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian on a one-to-one basis and go through this

particular piece of legislation, and then go through Bill 1, and then go through

the history of what has happened to this Province pertaining to Newfoundland

Hydro, then there wouldn't be any doubt in my mind that the vote today would be

98 per cent instead of 70 per cent.

Seventy per cent of the people in this Province are opposed

to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, of which Bill 2 definitely plays a

part in that particular piece of legislation - not a big part, but it does play

a part - and those 70 per cent, or 65 per cent, or 69 percent, or 75 per cent,

as far as I am concerned, should be given the right to voice their opinion in a

public manner such as the committee system. I am sure members opposite, sometime

over the next few weeks, will possibly see the light and give people an

opportunity to voice their opinion in that particular manner.

Mr. Speaker, under Bill 2, "Act To Regulate The Electrical

Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador," there are a certain number of

things in there that I would like to address with regards to what it would cost

the Province. I said previously that this particular piece of legislation, some

of it is good, some of the legislation in this Bill 1 has nothing wrong with it,

but there are parts of this particular piece of legislation that should be

highlighted and it should be let know to the people of the Province that it is

not only Bill 1 they should have concerns with. It is not only Bill 1 that is

going to cost the taxpayers of this Province X number of dollars, possibly $25

to $40 million a year in perpetuity as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and

when you look at inflation that will be increased each and every year from he