April 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Dicks): Order, please!

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

House of Assembly Her Excellency, Maxine Eleanor Roberts the High Commissioner

for Jamaica.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the House of

Assembly forty students from the Career Academy in Spaniard's Bay together with

their instructors David Dawe and Wade Smith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended the press conference

held by Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Tobin where they announced the new Atlantic Ground

Fish Strategy, called TAGS. I would say at the outset, it's probably a very good

name to have on it, TAGS, because I think he's tagging thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, and then he's going to let them

go from the compensation programs.

Now at that press conference we were told that 30,000 people

now get benefits from NCARP and AGAP, 77 per cent or 23,000 of them are from

Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Tobin said at the end of the five years there

would be some 6700 left on compensation programs in Atlantic Canada. So if we

keep 77 per cent of them it will mean that in this Province we will see

approximately 5500 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the fifth year of the

program receiving benefits from the compensation program. I'd like to ask the

Premier, does he and his government support this? Does he agree that the ground

fish industry in this Province should be shrunk to approximately 5500 fishermen

and fish plant workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't support the hon. member's

interpretation of it. I've reviewed this in some considerable detail with Mr.

Tobin and if we were paying the bill and footing the bill entirely, we might

well design it somewhat differently. I can only accept and support the

proposition that's now being put forward by the federal government in the

circumstances. The government of the Province has reviewed it and given a

qualified or conditional approval to the federal government and explained to

them the concerns that we have. There were half a dozen caveats, as I recall

them, that we noted for the federal government. One of which is that during the

first six months or so there would be a period that would permit an adequate

level of consultation with those affected and appropriate adjustment, that we

would put in place a Fisheries Renewal Board that would provide for the ongoing

management and direction of the fishery, not simply preside over the down-sizing

of the existing facilities, that if in the future year or two years down the

road an assessment proves that their projections were not realistic, there would

have to be adjustments to the program that would reflect the reality, and that

there would be an appropriate assessment a couple of years or so down the road.

Those are some of the key areas, there were some other conditions as well but we

express general approval subject to those qualifications.

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

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

Yes, what a difference we see in the Premier since October.

No matter what the previous federal government and the federal minister Mr.

Crosbie did, it was never enough for this Province and now the Premier basically

says he supports a reduction of fishermen and fish plant workers down to 5,500.

Now Mr. Tobin said this morning that he has worked very

closely with the provincial government in this matter so the Premier obviously

knows the details. Cabinet has been briefed in the last week or so and the

caucus - details certainly were not mentioned by Mr. Tobin this morning because

he was very evasive.

Over the next five years, approximately 18,000 fishermen and

plant workers in this Province will be cut adrift from the program. The plan is

to phase them out between now and 1998. Can the Premier inform the House and

consequently the people of the Province, how many people will be dropped from

the program in each of the four years leading up to 1998, because in my view and

in my analysis, it looks like it will be between an average of 3,000 to 4,000

people per year? Can the Premier confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have

all of the details so I shouldn't be too critical of his characterization of the

proposal. The proposal also contemplates two other aspects, one of which is a

Fisheries Renewal Board which will provide for the renewal and ongoing

development and management of the fishery in this Province. A renewal board to

be operated jointly by the federal and provincial governments, and that's what I

just talked about. It would have a mandate to manage, to manage forward the

fishery, not simply a mandate to manage the downsizing of the present harvesting

and processing facility. That is the specific condition which the Province put

forward.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I disagree with the hon. member.

That's not what Mr. Tobin told me as late as yesterday, so -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I disagree. Now Mr. Tobin knows the

basis on which the Province expressed its approval and that's one of them. A

second basis is that there be implemented an economic diversification program to

deal with and provide alternate employment opportunities for those who will come

out of the fishery compensation program, and who may well come out of the

fishery itself if it doesn't recover to a level that is sufficient to enable

their continuing involvement in it. That's part of the condition on which the

Province expressed approval for the federal approach.

I have also had the Prime Minister and Mr. Mass confirm that

they are approaching this from three specific points of view: One, the interim

compensation for a period of up to five years; secondly, the fishery renewal;

and thirdly, economic diversification in the Province that is necessary to deal

with the consequence of this problem. So the Province's expression of approval

is on those express circumstances, express conditions.

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

House Leader.

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

I can appreciate the Premier wasn't at the press conference

this morning, but the Minister of Fisheries was certainly there, and Mr. Tobin

made it categorically clear that the industry renewal boards would have a

specific mandate to reduce the processing capacity in the Atlantic region by 50

per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I heard it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but that's what he said the mandate

was. Anyway, let me carry on.

About half the money in the new TAGS program will be spent on

green projects, or make-work projects, hopefully to improve environment and fish

habitat and so on. Fishermen and plant workers will be employed, Mr. Axworthy

said this morning, for twenty-six weeks, and will then be eligible for UI with a

top-up from the TAGS program.

I would like to ask the Premier: What will happen to these

people when they run out of UI and they can't find another job? Will they be

able to go back on the TAGS program, or will they simply be dropped then? Does

the Premier have that information?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The people who will get work on what

they call the green projects, make-work. They are going to put them to work for

twenty-six weeks; then they are going on UI, Mr. Axworthy said this morning. The

question is: Once they exhaust UI, will they then go back on the TAGS program or

will they be dropped?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the

representation that the hon. member made with respect to the mandate of the

Fishing Industry Renewal Board.

Yes, it will be part of the mandate of the Fishing Industry

Renewal Board to manage whatever downsizing is necessary to ensure that we are

left with an effective and efficient fishery, but that is only part of the

mandate. Its mandate will be to provide for future renewal of the fishery.

This is not a fishery downsizing board; this is a fisheries

renewal board, and renewal and downsizing are two quite different things. Its

mandate includes downsizing, that is quite true, but it also includes forward

renewal as well.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal with respect to the compensation

for individuals who engage in full-time or part-time work activity is that they

will be able to do that and go back on the program afterwards. They will be able

to do that - go back on the program afterwards. If there is a job opportunity

and somebody takes the job and works for six months, a year, or eighteen months,

and loses the job, that doesn't deprive him forever of the alternative of having

to rely on the assistance, assuming he still continues to qualify, he still

meets the requirements. He would meet the requirements on the same basis as if

he stayed on the program on full-time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would like to ask the Premier if he

knows - and it raised a big question in my mind this morning, when I heard the

announcement that fishermen and plant workers are going to have to reapply for

benefits under the new program. It seemed to me that DFO certainly has a data

base on every person who has received benefits under NCARP or AGAP, and why

would they now have to reapply? I would like to ask the Premier, are there any

new eligibility criteria that will eliminate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of

people up front from the program when they apply very soon? Does he know how

many people won't even qualify for tags in the next few months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are none that I'm aware of that

would disqualify people immediately. What the minister explained to me the other

day was that all of those presently in receipt of it would continue to receive

it at least until the end of this calendar year. Then there are some, he says,

who really ought not to have been qualified to receive it in the first instance.

They have the information on that. I don't have the detail but this is what he

tells me - I've no doubt he is giving me accurate information. They would fall

off within that six-month period.

At least everybody who is receiving it now would continue to

receive it until the end of this year. Then those who don't meet the

qualifications as outlined would not continue beyond the end of this year. I

don't know what that number would be. I heard an estimate that I thought it was

as many as 3,000 - does that sound right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Three or four thousand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-eight hundred.

PREMIER WELLS: Twenty-right hundred to 3,000. I thought

3,000 was the number that I had heard, but I don't know with certainty. What Mr.

Tobin also told me - and what few people particularly in the rest of Canada

realize - is that when the NCARP was put in place, they did it with such

swiftness and such lack of detailed attention that they sent thousands of

cheques out to people who had no basis for qualifying at all. What people don't

realize in this country is that some 4,000 people sent the cheques back and said

they weren't qualified to receive it. That is a far cry from being characterized

as greedy, grabbing people who want to grab every cent they can. They sent

cheques out to some 4,000 people, Mr. Tobin told me, who promptly sent the

cheques back and said they weren't qualified to receive it. But I've no doubt

others may well have kept it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can identify with what the Premier

said about people returning cheques because I know a number who came to my home

and asked what they should do with them and I advised them to send them back. I

can name them, which I won't do here.

Now that the Federal Government have announced its plan, I

guess, its framework, as of today, would the Premier consider tabling proposals

that the Province put forward on this program? Would he consider tabling them so

that we can see really what this Province proposed by way of compensation for

the 23,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Would he undertake to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we participated with the

Federal Government in discussions in developing jointly a program since about

March 10. We were not involved prior to the 10 March, or had very little

involvement, but since about March 10 there has been a detailed almost daily

involvement with the two governments developing this approach. I would consider

it to be inappropriate for the government of the Province to now put forward its

bargaining negotiating proposals. No government would ever deal with us again in

the future if we did that, and I do not think it is the appropriate thing to do

at all.

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. Has he seen the analysis done by the federal Department of Human

Resources and Labour in relation to the impact on the Province of the UI cuts

announced recently in the Federal Government Budget? Will he confirm today in

the House that the department estimates that Newfoundland and Labrador will lose

$262 million per year in annual income from U.I. as a result of these changes or

cuts?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not in a position to be able to confirm the last numbers

that the hon. member mentioned. The last report that I dealt with from the

federal human resources development people were preliminary estimates and they

informed our office and the department that they would do further work on those

particular numbers. They have been consulting with officials in the department

and I am not in possession yet of any final numbers they have come to. They are

still preliminary estimates and I have taken the position that there was no

position from which to react until they had more definitive figures than were

presented the last time I saw them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the table the

document today then, if the minister doesn't have it - U.I. data from the

Department of Human Resources and Labour, population data from Statistics

Canada, which confirms clearly that $262 million of annual income will be taken

out of this Province as a result of the U.I. changes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Province, with just over 2 per cent of

the population of Canada, of the country, will bear 11 per cent of the cuts to

UI. In other words, the per capita impact of the UI cuts will be five times

greater in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador than anywhere else in

Canada, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that fair and equitable, and

have you protested, or your government protested, this gross indecency that has

been caused to the people of this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out in

answer to the first question, the preliminary estimates done by the federal

Department of Human Resources and Development, which is now a very large, new

department that covers unemployment insurance as well as many of the other

social programs, had done their preliminary estimates based on a number of

assumptions and also assuming that there might be some behavioural changes that

would occur as a result of the necessary changes in the unemployment insurance

system.

I on behalf of this particular government, and no one that I

know of on behalf of this particular government, has protested in the fashion

that the hon. member suggests to be appropriate. Because we have acknowledged

and have understood for some time that the one thing that the federal government

had to do, and must do, is to make sure, just like we had to make similar

decisions in this Province with respect to workers' compensation, the pension

plans and other programs, that people in Newfoundland and Labrador rely so

heavily upon unemployment insurance and will continue to do so for some time,

that it is in the best interest of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that

they make decisions to guarantee the long term viability and sustainability of

the unemployment insurance program.

These first steps were announced in the Budget this year. We

are left with the challenge as I've outlined in the House before of finding out

between us, together in a joint fashion if we can, how we can fill the new gaps

that have been left. Because everybody recognises, and we've addressed these

issues in this Legislature before, that there are some new income maintenance

gaps that have been created by the unemployment insurance changes. Letting the

unemployment insurance system go further into financial trouble is not in the

best interest of anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, or anybody in the country

for that matter.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying in the

House today that people in this Province should bear their share of

responsibility disproportionately to the rest of Canada and all Canadians? Is

that what you've confirmed here today? Two hundred and sixty-two million dollars

is more than one-third of all UI that comes into this Province, I say to the

minister. It is nearly three times as much as the total employment income paid

out at the Hibernia site. Has the government, or will he, as the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, commission to examine the impact on the

provincial economy of this huge loss in income? How many jobs will be lost in

spin-off because there will be $262 million dropped in consumer spending? How

much revenue will the Province lose directly and indirectly as a result of these

cuts?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I point out again to

the hon. member opposite that, again, preliminary information on those kinds of

impacts have already been presented to ourselves and also to officials in the

Department of Finance and Treasury Board. They've done some preliminary

estimates as to what impact that would have on the economy in the Province, and

the finances of the government, let alone the finances of the individuals who

will receive less as a result of those unemployment changes.

As I've pointed out again in answer to the last question, the

problem that we've been addressing since then with the federal government is not

to protest. Because they did something that they felt right across the country

had to be done to preserve the financial integrity of the unemployment insurance

system that we rely upon. We want that to happen. We want to make sure that

stays in place in a viable, sustainable way for the long-term.

What we are trying to do in the short-term, Mr. Speaker, as

I've pointed out in this Legislature before, is to find meaningful, realistic

ways to meet the challenge of adjusting to those new family and personal income

gaps that have been left as a result of the changes in unemployment insurance

with no other companion programs yet put in place.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems passing

strange that the reduction in unemployment insurance pay outs to this Province,

if you divide it out over a five year period, you will find it equals exactly

the amount of money that has been put forward this morning by the new NCARP or

the new fisheries strategy program. There is no new money coming into this

Province whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister of Social Services. Since the federal cuts to UI will have a major

impact on the number of people on social assistance, let me ask the minister if

he has seen the estimated impact on social assistance prepared by the federal

Department of Human Resources and Development? Does he know that the federal

department estimates there will be 3,005 new social assistance cases in this

Province as a result of the UI changes, and do his own estimates confirm those

numbers?

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

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware that certain

decisions by the federal government will have certain implications for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but we're optimistic as well that certain other

economic plans are going to cause some upswing in the economy and even though

these figures are speculative at the moment we're hoping - not being as

pessimistic, Mr. Speaker, as hon. gentlemen opposite, who would wish that

there's no improvement in the economy - wishing, hoping and praying for

improvements in the economy, this side of the House is wishing, praying,

assisting and doing things that are going to help the economy increase and grow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers are horrendous. According to the

federal Department of Human Resources over 16,350 people would no longer qualify

for UI. Another 13,700 will get less UI because of the reduced benefits and the

shortened claim period. That's over 30,000 people in this Province who will be

directly affected by the UI cuts. One-fifth of the total in all of Canada, Mr.

Speaker, and 10 per cent of those will end up on social assistance for the first

time. Has the minister estimated the impact of the shortened UI claim period on

existing social assistance cases? Does he agree with the federal department that

2,575 people, who now qualify for both UI and for social assistance, will have

to stay on social assistance for at least an additional two months each year

because of the shortened UI claim period?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: We're facing the economic realities, Mr.

Speaker, which we much face. We're also hoping, as I've said in my previous

answer, that the economy is going to improve and the economy is going to grow

but on the basis of the figures which the hon. gentleman uses, the Department of

Social Services is gearing itself accordingly and we are hopeful that our own

programs as well in the area of employment generation are going to help offset

some of the negative impacts of which the hon. gentleman speaks but, Mr.

Speaker, we live in a real world, we live in a real economic world and this

government will do the appropriate thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister

if he has estimated how much the change in UI will cost the Province in

additional payouts for social assistance? Is he demanding from the federal

government help in this particular area?

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

MR. LUSH: The answer to the first question is yes, Mr.

Speaker. With respect to the second question, the federal government, they're

always there to help but, Mr. Speaker, we're also going to initiate our own

initiatives and try to help ourselves.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Education. Some time ago the Minister of Education notified the various school

boards in the Province the number of teaching and administrative positions that

they can retain for the 1994-95 school year. Some boards have said publicly that

the cuts to their staff are two to three times what they had expected. How many

teaching positions, I ask the minister, administrative positions, in total will

be eliminated at the end of the current school year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get the exact

figure but I think it's 191. We're taking two coordinators from each board so

that would be fifty-four coordinators and the remainder are teachers but I'll

confirm that exactly with the hon. member after question period.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if that

includes reductions as a consequence of the 2 per cent savings clause or is that

the number that just results from the normal decline in student enrollments?

Also, Mr. Speaker, school boards, particularly those in rural Newfoundland, are

facing an impossible dilemma. They can't make the cuts that the government is

asking without eliminating programs. I'm sure the minister is monitoring that

situation and I'd ask him to confirm it. Does he have any idea as to what kinds

of programs the various school boards in rural Newfoundland are eliminating?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the 2 per cent

clause there are an additional 362 teachers in the system this year, now.

Government has given an interim allocation to school boards, which will be about

190 less than it would have been this year, considering the 2 per cent rule.

As for the impact that is having on the programs in the

schools, the hon. member must realize, especially this hon. member who taught in

Mount Pearl, where this is not a single teacher on hold-back, and he knows just

how difficult it is for his board and his school to offer the program. What we

are saying to the rest of the Province now is that they, like the other parts of

the Province where there is increasing enrollment, will have to try to live with

the student/teacher allocation the same as everyone else.

Now notwithstanding that, there are special provisions under

the small schools act which makes extra teachers available for small schools,

but they are done for totally different reasons. The 2 per cent clause was

actually a clause in the teachers' contract.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister

say that he is initiating procedures of the small schools policy. I am sure that

all the school boards of rural Newfoundland would be happy to hear that;

however, we are told that various school boards are cutting out programs like

music, art, physical education, and guidance services and all of these are

important.

We are very concerned that in such times as we are facing

today, with the difficulties that we face in various communities, that

government would be knowledgeable of the procedures in place by school boards to

drop guidance services. Children and young people are facing personal and many

family problems, and I ask the minister if he would look at the situation,

particularly the guidance services cuts that school boards are doing, and would

he take measures to ensure that in times when we have problems with disruptive

students in the school, serious economic problems in our communities, that he

would take measures to ensure that guidance services is not one of the programs

that gets cuts.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring very closely

what is happening in the school system in this Province. We have to make sure

that no matter where a child attends school in this Province he has an equal

right to have the best possible education that he or she can have. That is being

done; however, we also have the responsibility of spending the few dollars this

Province has in a way which is reasonable and sensible.

The reality is that as a result of the 2 per cent rule some

boards in this Province have in excess of forty-odd teachers on hold-back, over

and above what they would normally be entitled to under the normal teacher

allocation distribution. We have to make sure that we don't waste any money. The

money that we have has to be spent properly and wisely, and that is exactly what

we are doing.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

The recent announcement this morning by the federal Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans on the Atlantic groundfish strategy stated that

recipients will be encouraged to start their own businesses and will be offered

financial assistance along with entrepreneurial training and technical support.

Now I ask the minister: How is it possible to start a

business in the tourism industry when your department has a policy that does not

permit recipients of NCARP and other such benefits to avail of any departmental

approval?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member

earlier, I received his fax this morning dealing with the specific case that he

outlined to me, and we will deal with that shortly.

When he talks about this particular industry and its growth,

I should point out to him that we have seen one of the strongest growths in this

sector, in Canada, in the last number of years. The businesses now are at

something approaching 1,400 businesses in the tourism industry, and it has grown

by 24 per cent between 1990 and 1993, so I think there is some room for further

growth.

One of the things we have to be careful about is saturation,

because if you have a stampeding out of one industry into another, you are only

going to find yourself wrecking that other industry, so we have to be careful

issuing our licences for bed and breakfasts, for country inns, for tour boat

operators, and these kinds of things, and it has to be done very carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not talking about competing business, I am talking about

business where there is no competition in that area for this type of business,

and a letter from one of your directors to a constituent indicated: they want to

guard against negative, competitive impact to existing operations and fishery

related subsidization like bounties or NCARP wages et cetera, they were

referring to, so in an industry that is not competing with any other local

industry within a fair distance, even 100 kilometres distance, will the minister

lift that restriction now or discuss with his department officials to enable

people who are in the fishery to work in a co-operative manner to be able to

have these phased out in the business that they desire to enter?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the hon. member is

saying, but equally, I have had representation from others of his constituents

who are very concerned and who have spent a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, gearing

up for the tourism industry; they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on

vessels and preparing them for tourism operations right in his own district, so

I hear conflicting points of view. I hear from one group of his constituents:

don't allow anybody else to enter. I hear from the hon. member that he has other

constituents who now want to enter. It is a very delicate balance. We can't

saturate the marketplace with respect to boat tour operators; we can't expect

every fisherman to convert his boat and go out and become tour boat operators,

that just wouldn't work, it would saturate the marketplace.

In the particular case that the hon. member is talking about,

it is clearly away from that group of constituents who are currently operating.

It's an exciting proposal; it is talking about diving to look at wrecks and that

kind of thing and bringing in tourists from around the world. We will look at it

on its own merit and if in fact there is no competition factor, I can't see why

fisheries and the archaeological people in historic resources and indeed tourism

wouldn't license something like that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

Extern.

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

Today, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of

people in my district, and outside my district, some from St. John's and Mount

Pearl. The petition reads: `To the Newfoundland House of Assembly. We, the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves

of the right to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly in the

certain assurance that the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit:

WHEREAS we, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, seek

to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; and

WHEREAS the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not

been proven to be in the best interests of the citizens of the Province; and

WHEREAS the production of electricity is an essential service

for the people of the Province and should be controlled by the people;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

to privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and to ensure that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, and as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, last fall there was a lot of talk about the

merger of Fortis with Newfoundland Hydro and today we are talking about the

privatization of Hydro on a stand-alone basis. I personally believe that the end

result will be the same. The reason given for the privatization of Hydro is that

it would be more efficient, a more efficient supply of power, yet the Premier

has stated that there would be an increase in rates other than would normally

happen if Hydro were not privatized. Last year when there was a lot of talk

about the Fortis merger, it was public opinion that stopped it. At least, a lot

of people thought that the privatization of Hydro would be stopped, but

obviously it was not. The Premier decides to go full steam ahead even though

five polls now show that 80 per cent of the decided vote are opposed to the

privatization of Hydro. Now, we see that the government is actually grasping at

straws to try to obtain support for the privatization of Hydro. We have RBC

Dominion Securities coming out in support, a group of people who are going to

make approximately upwards of $20 to $30 million on the deal. Why wouldn't they

support such a project? We have Mr. Kellogg from Merrill Lynch coming down and

speaking in favour of the privatization of Hydro. I think we have heard enough

from mainlanders coming and telling us what is best for Newfoundlanders. It is

about time to listen to Newfoundlanders themselves, 80 per cent against. With

respect to Mr. Kellogg's script, I think it had to be written by the Premier and

passed over, then read word for word.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of public meetings held

by several of the Opposition members, and also some of the government members.

The Member for St. John's South had one in his district, and I had one last

week, in Torbay, actually, April 14, and over 100 people attended that public

meeting. Let me tell you the people were very, very upset because of what is

going on in this Province today. Not one person out of 100 spoke in favour of

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The Premier went on Province-wide TV to

tell us the real truth about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Then he

told us it was to gain access to Churchill power. He basically told his members

opposite to keep quiet and not say anything along that line, to keep it a big

secret. We were maintaining for months that there was a secret agenda but we

were told there was no such thing. He basically muzzled the members opposite. In

the Leaders' debate two nights later he came out and told us the real truth, the

real, real truth this time, that the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro was not

necessary to gain access to the Upper Churchill power. This is the statement he

made, a contradictory statement in one sentence: `This legislation has nothing

to do with accessing the Upper Churchill power, but if, down the road,

Newfoundlanders need access to the Upper Churchill power, then we can use this

to access the power.' Now, that is a contradiction in one sentence. The Premier

also stated that if the majority of the people of Newfoundland opposed the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro he would resign. Now, as always, in any

statement the Premier makes, or any policy, he always leaves a back door open

for himself, and he qualified that statement by saying, if it could be proven.

That is his legal tendency coming out again in that statement - `if it can be

proven, well, then I would resign.' That would be a hard thing to prove, I would

imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't expect him to. Now, we have a

prominent citizen from St. John's opposing the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro - Mr. Jim Halley, who is a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead.

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

There is a prominent citizen now who comes out opposing the

privatization of Hydro, Mr. Jim Halley. He has come concerns with respect to the

shares leaving the Province, as we've already stated in the past, money leaving

the Province, as we all know is happening now from the Upper Churchill deal.

Here is an issue that is not getting a lot of debate but I think needs to be

brought forward. Mr. Halley mentioned this. He is talking about if Quebec leaves

the country, and that is a very real possibility. You know, if Quebec does

decide to leave, we would have Hydro in Newfoundland being controlled by a

foreign country.

Now, in Ottawa in the House of Commons, the Official

Opposition are the Bloc Quebecois. Fifty-odd seats, I believe they have. Their

sole objective is to destroy this country. Actually, the citizens of the country

are paying them to destroy the country. I don't know where else it could happen

other than in Canada. My personal belief is that - I don't know if there is a

law on the books where people can be charged with treason in this day and age,

but as far as I'm concerned, those people should certainly be charged with

treason. Here they are, their sole objective being to destroy this country, and

here we are, falling right into their hands now with this deal with the

privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Line them up against the wall.

MR. J. BYRNE: Line them up, whatever. You said that, not

me, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

It has been stated - not by me, certainly - that the Premier

rules like a dictator. That may be okay if the government members on the

opposite side there like that or accept that as a reality, but I personally

don't accept it. Mr. Halley says that lawyers oppose the privatization of Hydro.

Many lawyers out in private industry oppose the privatization of Hydro but they

are afraid to come out and say that because they are afraid they would be on the

Premier's blacklist. I would say that it is very frightening if the Premier's

power can reach out to the general public that far. It is time for the people of

this Province to have some concern on that issue.

I believe that not all the members opposite are in favour of

the privatization of Hydro, they cannot be. I believe the Member for St. John's

South honestly believes that the privatization of Hydro should go ahead. He

stated it a year or two ago - sobeit. He is probably the only member opposite

who really does believe that. I remember the Minister of Mines and Energy was on

the Open Line show trying to defend the privatization of Hydro. It was a

half-hearted effort and he was trying to defend something he didn't really

believe in. That is what came across.

I'm not going to say too much more. All I would say to the

members opposite, and to those people who are on the brink of changing their

minds, that I think the people of this Province would certainly appreciate it if

you had the guts, the gumption and the courage of your convictions to stand up

and be counted and vote this privatization of Hydro down. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to rise in support of this petition. The signatories

of the petition are among the 80 per cent of the Newfoundland and Labrador

population opposed to the government's Hydro privatization proposal.

Those people, as well as the others in the population, heard

the Premier say on Province-wide TV that he would not proceed with Hydro

privatization if, in the end, a majority of the population are opposed to it.

Now, shortly after the Premier made that pledge, and he made it repeatedly and

clearly on CBC television, live Province-wide television, polls were done, one

by Decima Research, showing 87 per cent of the population decided, 79.-something

against privatization. The other by M 5 Market Quest for Take Back The Power,

the citizens group, showing 80 per cent of the population decided and again 79

per cent opposed.

Now, the Premier wouldn't accept those poll findings saying

that people have been misinformed because of a few trouble-makers who have been

spreading falsehoods; people are hysterical and the Premier set about

re-educating the population. Since then, the publicly-funded ad campaign has

intensified; we have been seeing full-page newspaper ads and since the

re-education program has been running along, I have had the occasion to speak to

two business groups in the Province on the subject of Hydro privatization.

Last week, the Corner Brook Chamber of Commerce had a program

on Hydro privatization; last night the Baccalieu Trail Chamber of Commerce had a

similar program. Now, in each case, the group of business people had the

Minister of Mines and Energy speak for twenty minutes or so giving the

government line on Hydro privatization, and I spoke for an equivalent length of

time giving an Opposition perspective.

The Corner Brook Chamber, I am sorry to report, took an

executive position in support of privatization but it was obvious at the meeting

that many of their members do not share the position of the board. The Baccalieu

Trail Chamber of Commerce which, recently was given the top award of all

Chambers in the Province by the provincial umbrella group, took a much more

enlightened approach after hearing the minister and me. At the end of the

evening the Baccalieu Trail Chamber of Commerce, with leading business people

from Port de Grave, Harbour Grace, Carbonear, Trinity - Bay de Verde and

Bellevue districts, all Liberal districts, had a secret ballot vote and, do you

know what? Sixty-two per cent voted against privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the business people along the

Baccalieu Trail in Conception Bay North and Trinity South, are shrewd people and

they know that privatizing Hydro is going to drive up electricity rates way more

than they would rise otherwise. Those business people realize that through

privatization, the Hydro profit - and, of course, there would be more of it -

ordered by the PUB would mostly go outside the Province, and they are also

cognizant of the fact that, divesting itself of Hydro, the government would be

without the expertise and the financial strength necessary to develop the Lower

Churchill and protect our interest in the Upper Churchill to benefit the

government and the people of this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, the government may

as well give up now.

The Premier may as well admit that this is the end, and in

the end, an overwhelming majority of the population of the Province, even the

business people in the district of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, do not agree with the government; they are against the

privatization of Hydro. It doesn't make any sense; as a business proposition

it's crazy, so the government might as well give up and withdraw the legislation

now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tear up the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few

words on this issue. I did undertake when I left this House a couple of weeks

ago to go to my riding in Labrador - and I thought it was interesting what the

Member for St. John's East ... I'm sorry, Humber East, that's pretty close to

the Member for St. John's East ... had to say about how 80 per cent of the

people out there now are up in arms. Now 80 per cent are really ranting and

roaring about the Hydro issue, Mr. Speaker. Now, I wonder where they are, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder where they are.

Yesterday, as a matter of fact, I awoke to this big

announcement on the radio that, the leader of the POP was going to have a big

rally, was going to block Confederation Building, going to probably have to shut

down Prince Philip Drive, and probably have to close the university, because the

people were so upset about this Hydro issue that they were going to come and

mass on Confederation Building yesterday. We saw exactly what happened in that

particular process. About fifty or so people showed up to register their

dogmatic opposition to this issue - pure dogma, Mr. Speaker. They had a couple -

I suppose two new faces there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: They were in for tourist information I

was informed - I stand to be corrected.

Today, we read in the Clarenville Packet , by the

Member for Bonavista South, and I quote: MHA Roger Fitzgerald says the issue -

this issue of not being able to cut some wood - is of a bigger concern than

Hydro ever was on the Bonavista Peninsula.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where is it? Has he talked to his leader

lately? Has he talked to Humber East lately, and said: Come on now, get real. We

can't go out and cut wood on the Bonavista Peninsula, and that's a much bigger

issue than it is where we are going to take up hours and hours of time in the

House of Assembly, we are going to close down Prince Philip Drive, we are going

to wipe out all kinds of debate on other issues, so we can finally get at this

particular issue.

Now, when I was in my riding, I had five public meetings

throughout the Coast of Labrador, in an area where we are depending on

diesel-generated power. Yes, in a number of the meetings I did have the issue

raised, and it was raised in this fashion:

The members of the community that were there said: Well, we

would like to know why you're supporting the privatization of Hydro. I promptly

insisted that it was the right thing for the Province to do at this particular

time. That was about two or three minutes. Then for the other three hours that

we were there at those public meetings, we talked about the future of the

fishery in this Province and on the Coast of Labrador, and I submit it is about

time that the members opposite get their priorities right and talk about their

communities, talk about the rebuilding of that great resource that we came here

for 400 years ago, and if they do that then maybe they will be recognized as a

credible alternative. Maybe they will be seen to be doing something in the best

interest of this Province, because right now you are chasing another loser, as

you've chased it over the last number of years.

We have seen POP popping itself out of the woods. We have

seen the Fitzgeralds' all fizzled out on the Bonavista Peninsula, so we now have

a situation that's very clear. The people out there are telling us to go and do

our job, implement our policies. That's why they sent us here.

They tell me on the Coast of Labrador - I have no doubt they

are telling the members in every part of this Province - to do exactly what we

were sent here to do, and I have no doubt that when that deed is done, when the

bill is passed through this House, that the people will say: It's about time

that we got some debate on the real issues of the Province today. The fishery of

the future is what is concerning this Province, and I look forward to debating

these people on these particular issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I had to. I was forced to rise to submit

to that tormenting member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No leave? Don't want to hear any more?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can only tell him I have more, and I

will be back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

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

today on behalf of a group of people from the district of Terra Nova who are

opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland Light and Power.

I don't think it's necessary for me to get into the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro. Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Probably I should read it, Mr. Speaker. It is

against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Eagle River getting up

and speaking to the petition, and I was surprised because I thought the member

would never stand in this House again to speak. He crawled in through the back

door and got up to speak about Hydro. He was afraid to attack the real issue and

the real problem in this Province and that is, Mr. Speaker, the cloak and dagger

that we've seen persist since October of last year and come to reality today

upon the attack of the fish plant workers and fisherpersons in this Province.

He talked about the Member for Bonavista South referring to

the wood-cutting problem. Well, if that's not associated with Hydro, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what is. There's something very interesting happening in

this Province; the first thing the government did was bring in the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What did they do then, Mr. Speaker? Just

think about it. They brought in the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, number one. Secondly, they brought in regulations where people couldn't

use all-terrain vehicles anymore. So, Mr. Speaker, you got your Hydro, you got

your all-terrain vehicles and now you can't haul your wood out. So when there

were ways of getting around that, what did they do? They brought in legislation

- the minister is going to bring it before this House - basically denying the

rights of people in rural Newfoundland to cut wood, because if you got eight

days -

MR. FLIGHT: No legislation (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, regulation - but I say to the minister,

that you're giving people in this Province eight days - the working person in

this Province has eight days to cut and haul out of the woods his six cords of

wood to do him for a year. So now, Mr. Speaker, they can't haul out the wood on

their bikes, there's no wood to get. So it's all the more reason to burn -

MR. MURPHY: That's not (inaudible), you're driving

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish you could drive him out of

here.

I say to the Member for St. John's South that if I was in

here with less than 50 per cent support from my constituents, like he is, I'd be

ashamed to stand up and speak anyway.

Getting back to the issue, they have taken the rights away

from Newfoundlanders to jig a fish, to cut wood, to go in the woods on their

bikes and now, Mr. Speaker, now what are they going to do? They are going to

eliminate everyone who depended upon the fishery, cutting back to 5,500 people

in five years time.

And the Member for Eagle River hasn't got the courage -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pussycat!

MR. TOBIN: - Mr. Speaker, he's a cat, he's a pussycat -

to stand up in this House and defend the rights of his constituents because when

you talk about Hydro and the fact of what it's going to cost the people of this

Province to run their homes now that they can't burn wood; and when you look at

the fact that the minister today announced that he will be eliminating at least,

he said, at least, 50 per cent capacity in the fishery, well, that 50 per cent

of the processing will far exceed 50 per cent of the plants because the larger

plants will gobble up all of the smaller ones. Every plant that will be

eliminated in this Province will eliminate a community in this Province and make

no mistake about it. So we are looking at, in this Province, at least 100

communities with no fish plant in the next few years - in the next few months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No? Well, I say to you, why don't you get up

and tell us? I can tell him one thing, I'll never be shut up by promises like

you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I've been forced to rise at

such a vicious attack on me as that. I have to rise because, as the member has

pointed out - he said, `you got your Hydro, you got your ATV's,' I couldn't help

but remember the time that he took the former Premier down on the Burin road; he

went down and had the big welcoming committee lined up. And the Premier turned

to him, and said, `Mr. Tobin, why do they have those guns?'

MR. FLIGHT: No, he said `Glenn'.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, `Glenn, why do they have those guns?'

Oh, Mr. Premier, before you (inaudible) have a cigarette. But, Mr. Premier, they

are the twenty-one gun salute that we got for you. But he said: Glenn, why are

they pointing them at me?

So, Mr. Speaker, yes, we have the Hydro, we have the ATVs,

but I would submit that he is the one who got what he wasn't expecting that time

when he went down to Burin - Placentia.

MR. FLIGHT: `(Inaudible) get back on the bus, get back on

the bus!'

MR. DUMARESQUE: `Get back on the bus, Mr. Premier, we've

got to get this show on the road.' So they had to turn around, obviously, Mr.

Speaker.

We are very serious about this issue over here because we

know that the private sector of this Province has to be re-energized - for

seventeen years, the members opposite did everything possible to kill the

private sector in this Province, by raising all the taxes on the corporate tax

rate, by raising the small business tax, they did everything possible to try to

stymie and kill the private sector - so we want to be able to do that.

We know right now that there is no need for a government to

be delivering electricity in this Province. We want to give it back to the

private sector. When I have answered this question many times in my riding, and

I know other hon. members have, and I tell people, because they ask: Why are we

selling Hydro? When I say to them that for thirty-four years since we had Hydro

we have not had one red cent of profit from Hydro. The people of this Province,

the government of this Province, for thirty-four years have not had one red cent

of profit from Hydro. People say to me: Why wouldn't you sell it? Those are the

facts of the matter.

Then they say: `Well, the rates are going to go right through

the roof.' And I say, `Well, that is not accurate either, because if you take

Newfoundland Light and Power that has been a private company distributing 90 per

cent of the electricity in this Province for one hundred years - a private

company in the electrical business for one hundred years - and they have not had

any more increases in their rates than Newfoundland Hydro has. As a matter of

fact, the Public Utilities Board, a number of times, has turned to Newfoundland

Light and Power and said: `No, you cannot have that increase that you are asking

for.'

We have seen the private sector involved in the electricity

industry of this Province. We have seen the role of the Public Utilities Board

in protecting consumers. We know that those rates are not going to increase.

That, I think, is what people are saying out there. If the rates are not going

to increase there is no public policy to be served by having government involved

in the electrical business. And if we haven't received one cent of profit from

this company for thirty-four years, then, obviously we are in a very severe

financial situation where we have unbelievable demands on the Minister of

Health, unbelievable demands on the Minister of Education, unbelievable demands

on the Minister of Social Services. All members of government are feeling the

real need out there for government to be there to deliver those things to people

who through no fault of their own are not able to get that extra money that they

need.

So it is incumbent upon a responsible government, given that

there is no public policy purpose to be served, given that we will not get one

red cent of profit from Hydro forever, bearing in mind we never got one red cent

for thirty-four years, and bearing in mind obviously that the rates will not

increase any more than they've increased in the past. We can only look to

Newfoundland Light and Power. They've been there, a private sector company in

the electrical business, for one hundred years, they have not gotten any

different treatment.

I would submit that once the people are submitted to these

facts that they will quickly come to the realization: You are doing what is

responsible, you are doing what we asked you to do, that is why we threw out the

Tories five years ago, that is why we put you there, and that is why we

re-elected you again last year. I submit that it is for those kinds of reasons,

those kinds of policies, that we will be once again be re-elected when we have

to go to the people to ask for their confidence and their judgement in the

not-too-distant future, if the hon. the Premier decides to go that way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is getting kind of painful listening

to the pussy-cat for Eagle River, the real pussy-cat he has turned into.

Yesterday he was referring to one of his colleagues as a

neutered cat but as of today we know who the real neutered cat is in the Liberal

caucus. After such an astounding announcement today by the federal Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Axworthy, the great fighter, the great defender of the

people's resources and the people's rights, the Member for Eagle River, is

balled up in a cocoon, as Mr. Tobin was talking about someone else this morning

- the protection of a cocoon. Now, that is where the hon. member is gone.

I want to support the petition presented by the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: So ably presented.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So ably presented by my colleague, the

Member for Burin - Placentia West - as ably presented, by the way, I want to say

to the Member for Eagle River, as he guided the Premier's bus down the Burin

Peninsula. Because I was there to witness the end result of that voyage down the

Burin Peninsula.

MR. TOBIN: We elected Joe Price.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that event won the federal riding

of Burin -St. George's for Joe Price.

MR. TOBIN: Organized by the Fishermen's Union.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Fishermen's Union organized it;

it backfired in their faces, and put Mr. Price over the top in the federal

election. That is what happened there, I say to the Member for Eagle River, just

for a piece of history that he might not know about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the petition. As everyone

knows, we are adamantly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, and I only wish that the Member for Eagle River and others

opposite would sing the same tune in the House of Assembly as they sing behind

the closed doors of the caucus room. I only with they wouldn't speak out of both

sides of their mouth because when they are behind the closed doors of the caucus

room, and you are going up the hall way to our caucus room, at certain points in

time, you can hear the loud voices, and the loud debate, and the loud arguments,

coming through the walls. And if you put the glass up to the wall you can tell

who is shouting and bawling, and arguing, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

Yet he comes in the House of Assembly and defends the very policies he opposes

in caucus.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not true!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, I say to the Member for Eagle

River, it certainly is true, and he knows it is true. That is why I call him the

pussy-cat of the Liberal caucus, the neutered cat of the Liberal caucus, the

neutered tom-cat of the Liberal caucus, I say to the member - that's what he has

become, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't matter, if you're neutered,

you're neutered.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you are. It doesn't matter if

you're a tom-cat or not. As a matter of fact, I suppose if you're neutered you

probably shouldn't be called a cat.

MR. MURPHY: When you're fixed, you're fixed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you are, and I say to the Member

for St. John's South, who says, `When you're fixed, you're fixed,' I think that

is where the government is on this privatization issue. I think you're fixed,

because there is no way, no matter what you do on this issue, you are going to

convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that it is in their best interest. It

is not in their best interest. The Member for Eagle River sounded somewhat like

the Premier, because I have listened to the Premier this past couple of weeks in

his great public debates, where he made a complete fool of himself, and

solidified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians against him totally.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the people. Eighty per cent of the

people tell him that. He said, `But the people will change once they are told

the full story.' Now, he has been six to eight months trying to tell the full

story. Well, I say to the Premier and the Member for Eagle River that it is

about time you told the people the full story.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They are changing fast.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, I say to the Member for Eagle

River, they are changing fast.

MR. DUMARESQUE: People are (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, down in the member's area there is

no doubt that what he said is correct, that people are very, very concerned

about the change. The Member for Trinity North points at his chest and says it

is just as big an issue in his district. It was so big in Terra Nova that the

member brought in a petition of 3,300 names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he said he (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The minister said he consulted with the two of

them before (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was recognized

to speak but I am getting a little confused now as to really whose microphone is

on. I am being shouted down.

Mr. Speaker, no matter what tactics the government undertakes

in the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, people are becoming

more and more solidified against it, I say to the Member for Eagle River. People

are entrenched and dug in on the issue. It doesn't matter what the Premier or

the government does; it's just bad for them now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really appreciate the fact that members on that side don't

like to hear the real truth, they have been so long living and preaching

falsehoods.

Actually, I am presenting a petition on behalf of residents

of Conception Bay South, opposing the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

`WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.'

Now the Member for Eagle River -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many names?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty-two.

The Member for Eagle River stood up and talked about what

they are doing for business in this Province. I would like to tell the member

that in 1989, the corporate business tax collected by this Province was $70-some

million. Today, in this Budget, there is $41,400,000 budgeted for corporate

income tax, and $72,500,000 budgeted - almost $114 million taken out of

businesses in this Province, mostly with a payroll tax. Is that the message that

you are going to send out that you are open for business in this Province?

This government has told the people that privatizing Hydro

was going to send such a positive signal to the financial community. In other

words, it is going to send a very, very, negative signal to the consumers of

electricity in this Province and to the taxpayers in this Province.

This government hasn't, in spite of 1989 - in five years they

are going to renew the economy. The Economic Recovery Commission is going to put

this economy back on track.

We are going to see, with this Hydro privatization which, I

am beginning to wonder now if we will ever see it. I am sure they will do the

hon. thing and probably withdraw it, but if they are so naive and don't listen

to the wishes of the people in this Province -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You just have to look around.

Today, on the front page of The Evening Telegram : `79

per cent opposed' - the Premier doesn't believe it. He doesn't believe these

polls. And the Member for Eagle River should be in mourning today, when he is

looking at a fishery that is going to come collapsing down around our ears, and

already has, and we are going to dump people out without income -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, and the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations today couldn't acknowledge that $262 million is

going to come out of the provincial economy on unemployment insurance this year,

and if you took the $1.9 billion announced by Mr. Tobin this morning, of which

1.3 will come to this Province, based on the number of people involved, of which

over five years it averages to $260 million, in one stroke of the pen in the

budget in February, the federal budget, we are losing $262 million, and believe

it, before this year ends you will be hearing other changes from the Federal

Government, how they are further going to strip from people, the benefits and

income to this Province. What are you going to ask them to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not hope. I certainly do not hope.

Now that the Minister of Social Services wants to be a part

of this, he stood in the House this past year and stated, after he took over his

new department, that he figured his budget would be overspent. He said everybody

knew it. Well, when the budget was presented last year on social services, we

said, it's unrealistic with a closed fishery in this Province. With less people

employed, you are going to be spending more.

There was an over expenditure of $16 million last year in

social services, and we said it was underestimated, and you said, you were

right. You stated today in this House, when asked in Question Period, your

budget this year for social services is understated again, and we state that in

the House now, and the true story will be told next spring when we look at the

estimates in the budget again. Then we will see who is right again.

The federal Human Resources Department has indicated about

3,000 extra people. The Minister of Finance stated here in this House in

Question Period that the impact of the unemployment insurance cuts in this

Province, he stated in Question Period, will have an impact, $15 million, maybe

$20 million maximum impact on this Province. Now they are scrambling to review

their figures again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you state?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, on your revenues. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, on your revenues, that is what I

intended. If I mistook I'm sorry. I'm saying the effect it is going to have on

your Budget item, your line in your Budget, on revenues, and I indicate that the

effect of that is going to be greater.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Because it is going to affect other revenue

areas.

By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, call Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have

a few words on this supposedly non-existent Budget. This is one of the first

budgets I've seen, certainly in the history that I've been associated with

government which goes back twenty years I guess, that the budget itself as a

speech, as a function of government and parliament, is relatively speaking a

non-event.

This particular Budget, the individual little details - tax

increases, policy, program cuts, et cetera - have been greatly overshadowed by

the economic reality, I guess, that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is

facing. Certainly overshadowed by the ongoing problems in our fishing industry

and as well, in recent times, certainly overshadowed by the matters with regard

to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I was curious to note today that in responding to some

questions in Question Period, and generally relating to the upshot of the

announcement today with regard to the fisheries and the federal government's

participation in fisheries, the Minister of Social Services said, and I wrote it

down, that they are wishing, hoping and praying. I guess it is safe to say that

even though a lot of people mightn't yet realise it, but I think this is

probably going to be a significant day in Newfoundland history, and to some

extent a turning point for our people, certainly those who live in many of the

rural fishing areas of the Province. A lot of people are today wishing, hoping

and praying.

The federal ministers, Tobin and Axworthy, at a news

conference this morning that was carried on television pretty well live, one

thing I found significant about their statements as presented to the public at

large through the media, was that they were very general and very vague. The

written notes that were given out in the press kit contained a few more details,

certainly much more than the ministers indicated to the mass media in their news

conference, so a lot of people out there involved in the fishery, or associated

with it one way or the other, really didn't get the full impact of what was

really announced today.

CBC radio has an extensive series of interviews on all

through the lunch period with individuals and groups involved in the fishery

Province-wide. The one consistent thread that ran throughout the interviews was

a general confusion as to just exactly what was going on, what if anything had

been announced, and what lay in store for individuals who currently derive their

livelihood in one fashion or another through the NCARP, the federal fisheries

program. As of today they are uncertain as to what certainly, if not their

immediate, their short- to medium-term future, is going to be.

The federal minister has indicated that people are going to

be on some form of compensation certainly for the remainder of this calendar

year but they were less than specific certainly in their televised address to

the Province which is what most people got to see. They were certainly less than

specific as to what people could expect. They were told basically what their

weekly pay rate would be but apart from that about all they know is that they'll

all get an application form in the mail some time over the next few weeks, not

knowing exactly what is on the application form, what criteria are listed, what

questions will be asked and they'll have to fill that out and get that in to the

federal people, I think, by the end of June. After that, Mr. Speaker, comes the

job of chipping away at the list of people who submitted applications. No doubt,

once the applications are received there will be a number, probably a few

thousand or more, who will immediately or certainly at the end of this calendar

year be ejected from the federal compensation program.

The hon. the Premier mentioned in Question Period that the

federal government had already ejected a number of people over the last couple

of years from the compensation program and that a number of people had refused

assistance under the program because they felt they didn't qualify. I might also

indicate for the Premier's benefit, that mid-way through - I guess it was the

last year or so - there was a significant review of people on the existing

compensation program and I think in the order of 4,000 or 5,000 were ejected at

that particular time. So the numbers have diminished over the last year or so

and I would think, before this calendar year is out, there will be another few

thousand at least. If you listen to the projections of involvement in the

fishery that are floating around in federal circles, we're talking about 5,000

or 6,000 people at the most, in the fishery by the time this five year program

is over.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's fine to talk of this in a theoretical

framework and so on but if you're talking about taking 15,000 plus people out of

an industry in which most of them have spent their entire working lives and

moving them out into something else - it's one thing to say that, Mr. Speaker,

it's another thing for it to mean something real - and certainly in the words of

the Minister of Social Services - mean something hopeful or optimistic.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I think there was a deliberate attempt on

the part of federal ministers, Axworthy and Tobin, and on the part of the

Premier to keep the people confused, in the dark, keep the entire picture with

regard to the fishery, somewhat foggy, somewhat hazy and somewhat diffused. We

all saw what happened on television some years ago when Mr. Crosbie made his

initial announcement. There was a large rush of people to break in the door of

the news conference and so on. I am sure federal authorities had no wish to see

such a panic take place again, such an uproar to take place. So the tone and

tenor of the news conference, the delivery of the statements, the description of

the upcoming five year program, were all deliberately vague, somewhat positive

but vaguely positive.

People were, to some extent, either pleased - because they

didn't hear much in the way of a negative statement - or somewhat bemused and

confused. It certainly did not contribute to an atmosphere which would set off

panic, anger or any kind of explosion. I sort of wonder, Mr. Speaker - even if

we are talking about throwing 15,000 people out of the fishing industry - if

there will be an explosion because of the way this program is deliberately

designed. We'll see a situation not unlike that which faces many people in my

district relating to the forest industry, Mr. Speaker. It's easy to chip away an

industry, to down-size it, if you do it in bits and pieces.

There has been a significant decrease in forestry employment

in the District of Green Bay since I first got involved with politics back in

the fall of 1974. At that time approximately 1,000 people in Green Bay were

employed directly in the forest industry, mostly as pulpwood cutters and

contractors for either the Grand Falls mill or the Corner Brook mill. Today I'm

certain there's probably less than 500 involved and that down-sizing occurred

over time, it occurred contractor by contractor or contract by contract over a

period of time, over years, and the bottom line simply is that eliminating fifty

jobs in a given season in the forestry in Green Bay for instance, did not become

a matter of public spectacle, a matter of considerable public debate because the

way the loggers were spread out, you eliminated two or three jobs in this

community, a dozen more in a larger community, in a district with twenty-odd

communities like Green Bay, it was no problem to eliminate forty or fifty

forestry jobs, at the impact diffused over a large number of communities and

subsequently it became very difficult for there to develop a unified sense of

outrage or concern, and as a result the forest industry declined gradually bit

by bit; it went out with a moan or a groan rather than with a shout of anger or

a cry of defiance.

The fishing industry until now, by virtue of relatively large

plants usually with a few hundred to several hundred people employed, had an

easy rallying point, especially among the plant workers. A decision to close a

given plant was something where you impacted on a local union organization,

several hundred people were involved and it wasn't difficult to motivate people,

to mobilise them and to get them to speak out. With the fishery for the most

part in a state of shutdown, Mr. Speaker, with the general announcement having

been made vague and fuzzy, and I would submit deliberately so, with the

connivance of the provincial government which has gone along with this approach,

said very little in the way of criticism itself, is trying to hang its hat on a

possible role in the management of the fishery in the future.

The potential for outrage or uproar has all but been

eliminated, Mr. Speaker, and what we will see over the next five years is the

federal government operating outside the ambience of large industrial plants, of

which fish plants are, with large conglomerations of people, dealing with people

through the post office and by telephone basically in their own living room,

individually for the most part or certainly in small groups and what you will

see is a slow and deliberate dismantling of the fishing industry without many

champions coming forward to state their case.

I remember the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

during his brief hiatus from Cabinet a year or two ago, quickly, as a government

backbencher, found a group of fishery people in need of a spokesperson, someone

to carry the flag on their behalf. In the minister's particular case, he

indicated he was fulfilling a role that had been abdicated by the fishermen's

union, and he took their case to the forefront, but that sort of thing will

obviously not happen in the new fishery, Mr. Speaker. It will be done quietly

behind the scenes, individually or in small groups and slowly but surely, in

bits and pieces the fishery that we have known, and probably, Mr. Speaker, not

only families but communities that we have known will be somewhat gently

dismantled and at the end of five or ten years, the face of rural Newfoundland

as we know it today will be changed forever.

Now the last time, Mr. Speaker, there was a major move in

that direction, the Liberals were in power. Mr. Smallwood was the Premier and

there was a deliberate and publicly announced program to resettle people from

outlying communities into larger growth centres, and that policy was embraced by

some, fought by others but certainly carried out by the government of the day,

and I think it had a profound effect on a generation of Newfoundlanders, and we

all have to look upon the word resettlement in rather negative terms somewhat

like the way we look upon the words Churchill Falls.

One wonders, Mr. Speaker, if, after the federal government

does its thing with the assistance or at least the silence of the current

provincial government, how long it will take for it to finally strike home to

the body politic and to our society as a whole, that we have undergone another

large transformation not unlike the resettlement program of the '60s. Probably

the major difference being in that the resettlement will probably not take place

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but more likely people on this

Island will be moving to another island on the West Coast of the Canadian

mainland, namely Vancouver Island. The harsh reality of the Canadian reality

today, Mr. Speaker, is that the only place that is hiring at the moment is

British Columbia.

I can foresee over the next five to six years an out

migration of literally tens of thousands of people having to leave rural

Newfoundland because there is no future for them in the fishery, and their

choice for staying home is simply if you are lucky enough to have gotten early

retirement under the fisheries program or if you are willing to stay home and go

on welfare, those are going to be the alternatives.

The hon. the Premier mentioned in his remarks during Question

Period that his government's support of the federal initiative was dependent on

economic diversification. Mr. Speaker, I've been in this Assembly for five years

and I was a political employee of the Crown for some fifteen years, and heaven

knows in that particular twenty year span I've heard the word "diversification"

many times. Many governments, many ministers, many individuals, civil servants,

et cetera, have dedicated their lives to bringing about such changes. So far the

results have been somewhat less than spectacular. This current Administration

under Premier Wells has restructured government's lending institutions, its

business support agencies, et cetera, under the umbrella of the Economic

Recovery Commission and through the instrument of Enterprise Newfoundland, with

the avowed goal of diversifying the Newfoundland economy, creating sufficient

new jobs to bring home every mother's son.

Obviously reality stares us in the face. That particular

initiative with regard to economic diversification has for the most part failed.

There are of course individual instances where things have worked out

positively, but for the most part there has been no broad and general positive

impact on the body politic. Economic diversification, while a laudable goal, has

not yet to date succeeded in this particular Province, certainly not to the

extent where it can take up the slack among the Province's many thousand

unemployed. The Premier bases his somewhat quiet support of the current federal

initiative on the fact that a federal commitment to economic diversification -

which is a motherhood statement, and what federal government of any political

stripe would not be committed to that? - and on another federal commitment of

some sort of joint management in the fishery.

Of course, either the Premier is being deliberately evasive

or the great salesman himself was deliberately sold by Mr. Axworthy and Mr.

Tobin on a bill of goods that simply was not available to this Province.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: She is gone, boy, she is gone.

MR. HEWLETT: She is gone, boy, she is gone. That is true,

Mr. Matthews, she is gone. The Premier of the Province believing the federal

minister, in presumably private or caucus meetings, on certain assurances with

regard to an ongoing significant role in the fishery of the future.

Whereas the

literature produced today arising from the federal press conference, and I

gather also subsequent to questioning from some of the media, makes it very

clear that the fishery boards outlined for the various provinces involved in the

Atlantic fishery are strictly boards to be involved with the down sizing of the

Atlantic fishery, the cutting in half of the number of fish plants in the

Province. The minister went out of his way to indicate to the media - and

certainly there is no indication in the press literature of any attempt or any

intention on the part of the federal government to significantly divest itself

of fisheries jurisdiction to some sort of fisheries board, and share

jurisdiction over that board with the provincial government.

Either the Premier was being deliberately evasive, Mr.

Speaker, or the Premier, who himself considers himself to be somewhat of a

salesman, was himself sold a bill of goods by the federal people. In due course

all of us in the Province and certainly the government, certainly the Minister

of Finance of this government, will reap the results of what has happened today.

What has happened today is in line with the recent changes in

UI that the federal government has brought down. Along with changes that will

also come down the pike in due course.

The bottom line is that federal support programs for the

unemployed, the underemployed, in this Province are significantly reduced, and

will continue to be reduced significantly over the next few years. That will no

doubt lead to a corresponding drop in provincial government revenues, and a

general drop in economic activity in the Province, because you can't take

hundreds of millions of dollars out of a small and fragile economy like this one

without negative effects basically trickling through to all aspects of this

economy and society, and no doubt not only will individuals feel the pinch, but

a cash-strapped government that we have here will feel the pinch as well.

Mr. Speaker, maybe that is all this government has left to

do. Not having the political courage to stand against their federal cousins,

they resort to, in the words of the Minister of Social Services, wishing, hoping

and praying. Well, there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador today

wishing, hoping and praying, and I have a feeling that their prayers will not

come through; that while confused at the moment, over time they will, as I said,

individually or in small groups, be told the full impact of the announcement

today, and for a lot of people it will mean a choice. If they are lucky enough

to seek early retirement, to take that, but for the most part they may get a

couple of years of training at it, but sooner or later they are either going to

have to resort to welfare or resort to mobility grants, to move to the mainland

of Canada to see if they can find employment there, because neither through the

efforts of the federal government, nor have I seen any real evidence of results

from the efforts of this provincial government to diversify the economy.

Therefore, when the fishery programs that individuals are on exhaust themselves,

whether that be two, three or four years hence, people will be faced with the

unhappy fact that they can either survive here on retirement or welfare, or move

away.

Certainly the provincial government here has been content, in

the words of the hon. Premier, to manage decline, to cut back and try and trim

the budget of government to be themselves into a constant downsizing spiral, and

in that regard, I suppose, they are just reflective of what their federal

brothers have laid upon the Province today.

It is strange that we have a so-called Liberal government in

this Province, of which by any even vaguest definition of the word `liberal' is

certainly not liberal. We have such a laissez-faire, hands-off, let her slide

kind of attitude, when we see in our sister province, just across the waves in

New Brunswick, a totally different type of Liberal Premier, totally at odds in

his view of his role as Premier, in the person of Mr. McKenna, compared to

Premier Wells.

Maclean's Magazine recently had a cover story on the

Premier of New Brunswick, and they referred to Mr. McKenna, Frank McKenna, as

`Fast Frank'. There is only one thing that Premier Wells has been fast with in

his five years in office, and that is with the budget axe, and with smooth talk

and words. When it comes to results, when it comes to putting your shoulder to

the wheel, really trying to diversify the economy of this Province, really

directing the government's heart and soul towards not only creating an

atmosphere for jobs but actually chasing down jobs, really doing something

practical about it, this government has been a dismal failure.

For ten years I worked for the Peckford administration, and

with the possible exception of the failed Sprung venture, the record in terms of

pursuing economic development, economic diversification, was an ongoing one, a

persistent one, one that was a top priority with the government.

Here we have a government that has a tendency to let things

slide in terms of economic development. It has set up an academic in charge of a

recovery commission that spends several million dollars a year to turn out

lovely books and studies, but does little practical stuff. It restyled and

retooled government's financing and lending agencies in terms of Enterprise

Newfoundland, but the bottom line on that is that all you've got is a restyled

and retooled lending agency with no real new policy direction, no real new

impetus, certainly no real significant leadership from the eighth floor in terms

of economic development.

Where we have seen a degree of leadership from the eighth

floor of late has been not directed at diversifying the economy, but taking an

already healthy piece of our economy and changing its nature and function. An

attempt on the part of the government to privatize a well run, nationally

respected Crown corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in some sort of

blind headlong attempt to privatize this company for reasons that are about as

fuzzy and unclear as some of the details today of the federal program on the

fishery that was announced.

Most people who I've spoken to with regard to the Hydro

issue, their question from the very beginning, and their question is now, and

still is: Why? Why is the government about this business? The Premier offered

one reason, that it was necessary to pursue a legal goal of his. Through

legislative changes in this Assembly it would enhance his ability to pursue the

goal of overturning the Upper Churchill contract and getting our just desserts

with regard to that particular contract, which was signed in the 1960s based on

the Smallwood government turning over the water rights of the Upper Churchill

River to the BRINCO corporation and all the resulting grief that has brought the

Province. At the same time, historic documents from the time that the Premier

was working for Newfoundland Power, and other statements he has made since, he

has made it clear that it is not absolutely necessary that Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro be privatized in order to pursue a legal route to achieving some

justice on the Upper Churchill contract.

If that is not absolutely necessary then why are we doing it?

Are we doing it for the $200 or $300 million that the government hopes to raise

in terms of a quick sale of Hydro? That would seem to be somewhat short sighted.

There is a long-term benefit of some $20-odd million in the servicing of the

debt that we wouldn't have to worry about, but other economists have shown that

in exchange for that $20-odd million on the positive side, the real costs

associated with the privatization of Hydro rests somewhere between $50 million

and $100 million. If you look at it in straight economic terms on the basis of

pure arithmetic we are certainly in the tens of millions of dollars on the

negative side of the column with regard to the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Apart from a short-term easing of the deficit situation there is

no long-term positivity for the Province in the selling of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

There not being a background legal reason for doing it, there

being no significant economic or financial reason from the point of view of the

Province's finances certainly in the long-term for doing it, the other

speculation that is left to one is one really that is not worthy of the Premier

or the ministers on the front benches opposite, or the Liberal caucus and the

Liberal Party. That is to say that there are interests in this Province, people

with large financial holdings, people elsewhere in the country who are friends

with the Administration or have influence with the Administration, who would

dearly love to see the shares of a monopoly like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

go on the stock market. These are shares that I think are given a guaranteed

rate of return by the Public Utilities Board of some 13 per cent or 14 per cent.

Certainly one of the soundest investments available to people in this country.

If this is the reason the Province is going about selling

Hydro, that is nothing short of shameful. Because we are turning over a resource

- in terms of dams, transmission lines, waterways, channels, and various other

works - that are worth I suppose, in replacement cost, in the billions. And we

are going to turn that over for a couple of hundred million, and at the same

time in association with this legislation we are going to give the power to the

Minister of Finance to give away, at his own judgement, the remaining water

rights left in the Province, so that presumably a newly privatized Hydro

corporation would not only make money for its shareholders based on the existing

hydro electric facilities already developed in this Province, but would have a

chance to reap some sort of bonanza for those shareholders in the development of

the Lower Churchill river.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw what was done in terms of the

bonanza for shareholders in the development of the Upper Churchill river system

and surely to God the people and the government of Newfoundland have seen enough

of what that particular thing brought us. Indeed the Premier indicated that one

of his motivations for selling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was to reverse

the fortunes of the Upper Churchill contract, yet in the legislation he puts

before the House he lays open the possibility of a privatized Hydro, developing

the Lower Churchill, getting water rights quietly from the Minister of Finance,

and obviously this would be somewhat of a gold mine for the investors in such a

scheme,

whereas we in this particular party, and I think the majority of the

people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, expect that if the Lower Churchill river

is developed it will be for the benefit of the body politic as a whole, for the

benefit of the ordinary citizens of the Province and not for the benefit of an

elite few who might be able to buy shares in a newly privatized corporation.

I think my time is up, Mr Speaker. I thank you and no doubt

we will have time to reflect again on the five years of failure of the Wells

administration.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on Budget

1994. We are allowed to speak, I think, for half an hour on it but I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no trouble if someone wanted to speak for a

few hours on this particular Budget, although it is one of the shortest Budgets.

I think it is something like twelve minutes, one of the shortest Budgets in the

history of the Province. The shortest read Budget I should say, but when it

comes to content, and when it comes to what is hidden in the Budget, Mr.

Speaker, that says a lot more. The Minister of Finance is the great Houdini, I

tell you. To get up and give a twelve or fifteen speech and to be able to cover

up so much in a document as small as this, I can guarantee you, the minister

does not have to worry about finding a job when he leaves politics. Mr. Speaker,

he will be into one within twenty-four hours.

Usually when you get half an hour to speak on the Budget

debate you try to speak about as much as possible pertaining to your district

and I would be remiss this evening if I did not do that for a portion of the

half hour I have. Pertaining to the Budget and pertaining to a sector of the

economy, a part of the economy in the District of Humber Valley we are - I hear

members opposite and members on this side of the House talk about

diversification, and it is a great thing, no question. It has been talked about,

I suppose, for hundreds and thousands of years really. It is nothing new. There

is nothing secret about it. It is just a matter of putting things into place,

and we have a district, the District of Humber Valley, that is one of the most

diversified districts in the Province when it comes to industry. Usually a

bigger centre like Corner Brook, for instance, has the mill, but if the mill

goes out of Corner Brook, Corner Brook is pretty well dead because of such a

large sector of one part of the economy based in that particular sector, and

that is the pulp and paper industry in Corner Brook.

In the District of Humber Valley we have forestry. We have a

great forestry industry as it pertains to pulpwood development. We are lucky

enough to have a fairly sizeable sawmill industry, which is the way to go in the

wood's industry today, because, like I said before, the pulp and paper mills in

the Province will only take x number of cords of wood anyway, whether it is

50,000 cords, 300,000 cords or whatever, that's it; once it's cut or wherever

it's cut there is no more, that's all they are taking for that particular year.

In the sawmill industry, you can pretty well in this

Province, cut forever and a day, Mr. Speaker, and there is a market for it;

that's the deceiving thing in this Province today about our forestry industry.

There is a market for each and every log that comes out of the forest in this

Province today, that is sawed and planed or kiln-dried or what have you, there

is a market for it and that's where there is a chance and an opportunity for new

jobs in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, in that particular district we

have forestry, we have agriculture, we have a bit of mining and the potential

for a lot more. My colleague is just back, Mr. Speaker, from a couple of weeks

holidays and is a little bit idle. We have mining with the potential for a lot

more and if anybody looked at the report that the Minister of Mines and Energy

tabled this week in the House under the mineral act as it pertains to mineral

licences and leases issued by his department this year, you can look through and

see what's happening in the district as it pertains to the potential for mining

and furthermore for the extension of leases especially as it pertains to the

marble development in the Goose Arm.

The Tiera Marble Corporation in Goose Arm has been working

for some time now to try to get that particular industry off the ground, and

from my understanding and from my knowledge of it is that, they have markets for

the marble, but now we are in the process of doing an environmental assessment

which is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, but the only question that I have on that

is: why now, after so many years do we get to the stage whereby we need an

environmental assessment, I cannot understand it for the life of me. If I had to

run a business in a way like that where you go and try to do something for three

or four years and then all of a sudden - you know from day one that you need an

environment assessment or at least, put it out and see if it is needed, but now,

after all those years of development in there, all of a sudden the department

calls for an environmental assessment and that's going to take another year,

probably eighteen months,

whereas this particular project, if approved, could be

off the ground in no time.

It would be a benefit for, not only the region, not only for

the local area but for the whole region and the Province as a whole because it

would mean another export market out of the Province not only out of the

Province but, Mr. Speaker, out of the country.

As it pertains to gold development, the Glover Island part of

the Province looks real promising for gold development. In fact, the developers

or the exploration people will be back there again this year exploring on Glover

Island and it looks like if something is found this summer, then there is a

possibility of some mining taking place in that particular area, as well as the

Baie Verte Peninsula.

In the Budget, Mr. Speaker, there are certain sections as I

said before that he didn't read out. I would like to allude to a few of those

particular areas and sections, and remind the minister and his Cabinet

colleagues that some of those areas that will come out in the very near future

are going to be detrimental to businesses in the Province, as it was in the

previous five years and it will be in the ensuing year, that's for sure. If

those things were sent out right after Budget time and people were made aware of

it, then there is a possibility that some of the problems with this could be

averted.

One of the areas, and I just had a phone call the other day

that gasoline, marked exempt gasoline, is supposed to be replaced by a rebate

system.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good idea.

MR. WOODFORD: Now if it's a good idea - we hear the

member opposite saying it's a good idea. If there is abuse in the system why

don't we police it? Why don't we do something about it? If we're so sure of the

abuse - this is how we're going to do it. Now it seems like no matter what kind

of a system you have, Mr. Speaker, you go back - a funny thing about it, you go

back to the last few years now when the hon. Member for Eagle River talks about

abuse. You go back a few years ago - and I'm sure he doesn't agree with this

first one that I'm going to mention, you can't jig a cod today. Now above all

times of the year, you can't go in and ice fish. Above all times of the year -

the best time of the year for ski-dooing, the best time to try to get in the

country to some ponds and so on. Now granted, that's one of the reasons - people

were abusing - but not only that time of the year, I could go out - and I

mentioned it, I'm on record as saying it here - that they used to go out in Cat

Arm and bring garbage bags out in the summertime, garbage bags filled with

trout.

Now that is, I said it here, I'm on record as saying it, it's

terrible but what do we do if a person is taking too many trout? If a person is

taking too much cod? The person now - you can't even use a trike for god's sake,

a quad or a motorcycle. You soon won't be able to use anything. If this is the

case, Mr. Speaker, what have we got rules and regulations for? Why do we have

fines for speeding? Why do we have fines for bringing someone to court with

regards to trout or anything else? A Newfoundlander and Labradorian today can't

do anything -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well there you go. I mean there is no

question there. There's no question that there's a problem with it but then

again you have to look at the source. Where are the people buying it? The people

who are selling that particular product know full well, Mr. Speaker, not only in

that particular area but in my area and other areas around the Province, they

know full well who they're selling it to, they know full well.

If a young person today goes into the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation to buy a bottle of liquor or anything like that, he can't buy it or

she can't buy it unless she shows a certificate, an ID or something. It seems to

be whenever there's a problem with regards to collection of taxes, especially -

we just saw the Minister of Finance implement something now as it pertains to

tobacco tax and so on. The first thing to do is collect the tax up front and

then after the fact, after the businesses are hurting, small business people

around the Province today are hurting then - and it's too late to do something

about it then because a lot of those small businesses, Mr. Speaker, and small

business people are using that for the five, ten, fifteen days or whatever it is

to try to make their business more efficient because they can't get to first

base with regards to the banking system in this Province.

The minister's department is going to have to let the small

business person around this Province know if there's going to be a tax rebate. I

had a call the other day from an individual, a farmer out my way who went and

bought a piece of machinery. Now the person selling the piece of machinery

contacted the Department of Finance and they couldn't tell him whether he had to

pay the tax up front and claim a rebate after or whether it was still tax exempt

as it always has been. So what he had to do was charge the taxes on it, it was a

$35,000 or $40,000 piece of equipment, so right away - that's a lot of money to

take $5,000 or $6,000 out of the pocket of a small business person, who's not

expecting to have to pay it, then pay it up front and then at the end of the

year claim a rebate.

How many business people in this Province today -unless

they're the Irving's of the world or something like that - can possibly carry

that kind of an expense? They can't do it and this is the kind of thing - little

things but things that hurt and there's no trouble to know because you get the

phone calls. It's not something that's going to become an emotional issue or

something because it pertains to a certain sector of the economy and that's it.

It stays there whether it's a fisherperson or whether it's a farmer, a logger or

whatever, they haven't got the means to blow everything up and haven't got the

backing to lobby government and so on, so they go to their member; they ask a

few questions, and unless the minister responsible is receptive to it, then

there is nothing going to be done about it - absolutely nothing.

So I say to the Minister of Finance that that should be

looked at, and if there are any other taxes there that are sort of hidden, let

the individuals know, and not let them be hidden all of a sudden with bills such

as that.

Mr. Speaker, another area, as I mentioned earlier, that the

minister didn't mention in the budget - didn't read out in the budget, I should

say; it is mentioned in other parts of the budget, in those little captions that

are there - education initiatives.

The minister brought in the so-called Adjusting the Course ,

and one of the things that I always said, the government, no matter what

department or what minister is responsible, they can bring in all the rules and

regulations they like; there is someone out there who has to carry them out and

police them. The education system is one of the most important areas in this

Province today that is in for restructuring. It is in under the so-called

Adjusting the Course and so on, and no matter what the minister brings down,

if the morale is not there, and if the teacher in the classroom is not in a

position to carry out whatever is dictated to them by the school boards, under

Adjusting the Course or anything else, then the student is going to

suffer.

I have never seen, in all my years in politics, and some

nineteen years now in municipal and provincial politics, the morale in the

school system today among teachers, I have never seen it so low - never - and if

the minister and the government and the administration think that they are going

to bring in new policies, and try to implement them, and try to expect those

same teachers, the same people, to implement those policies to make it better

for the student in this Province today, then I don't see it happening. It is sad

to say that, but I don't think you are going to see it happening, unless there

is a change - and there could be, and let's hope there is - in the thinking

process and in the attitude that is among members opposite as it pertains to

unions in the Province today, and especially the teachers.

The election last spring was called, we will say, condemning

the teachers and so on. Who was going to run the Province - the Premier, his

administration, or the teachers, or other public servants in the Province? So we

could have a mess on our hands the next month or so as it pertains to unions in

the Province as a whole - namely CUPE, NAPE, the nurses' union and the teachers'

union, but there is another example of bringing in different government policies

and trying to get someone to implement them.

When I talked to some people the other day on that, the

analogy that I used was that you can put out and put up all the speed signs, and

all the signs you like with regard to speeding, whether ninety or 100 kilometres

an hour, and you can ask the policeman to carry it out and enforce the rules and

regulations, but if a policeman goes out on the road tonight, he doesn't have to

stop a car. He doesn't have to stop one. If you are going 110 or 120 or 150, he

can let them all go if he wishes.

The Minister of Finance wouldn't want him to let them all go.

They want to try to fine them as much as possible because when I look into some

of the monies collected last year under fines in the Province, the Minister of

Transportation is doing a wonderful job for the Minister of Finance. He should

be his most favourite person over there because, I will tell you, he is doing

the job under those inspectors with the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. You go back the last two years and see what they are collecting

under fines and so on, fines and forfeitures. I remember going back, I think it

was two years ago, and it was $4,000,000.00. This year they went from $9,195,000

to $9,445,000; but I think last year was the big jump, some $6 million, and I

would say that is on the backs of the truckers, another bunch of small business

people trying to make a living. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay knows full

well what I'm talking about, and some other members opposite. The Member for

Stephenville should know. The Member for the Strait of Belle Isle should know,

because of the trucks coming up from Roddickton and so on, how they are getting

nailed on the scales there just outside of Deer Lake.

The irony in it all, Mr. Speaker, is this - it is funny -

that when five or six sticks of wood come off a truck, in some cases, when the

driver comes back that night there is nothing on the side of the road. Where

does it go? Yet he is fined two and three and five and six - I had one trucker

in one day fined $1,800 three times. When you leave, say for instance, Cormack,

or when you leave Hampden, with a load of wood, one load of wood you pick up is

a load of green wood probably just cut just that day. He gets down on the

scales; he is a ton underweight, so what? Another one, probably the wood was cut

six months ago, it is dried out, he gets down on the scales, he is three or four

tons underweight. Then he might take the same load of wood down the next day and

there might be slush on the road and pick up two or three tons of slush. When he

gets on the scales there is nothing allowed for.

What chance has a small business person got? and he is only

making a living as it is. He is not making a living really, he is only scraping

an existence. He is existing and not living. This is where they are nailing them

left, right and centre, and I think it is totally wrong. The minister has got to

bring in some new rules and regulations as it pertains to the load on those - I

don't think it was ever done. It was recommended here a couple of years ago

before the minister - I can't blame him for it, because it was before he got

into it, and it was probably never brought up since -the measured load for the

tractor trailers, for the wood trucks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) approach to doing that.

(Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, because I understand that the

companies have some concerns, too, because of the price of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) truck.

MR. WOODFORD: And the truckers. Because of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, but I tell you, if the minister does

that, along with one of the other things that I say - I mean, you have to call a

spade a spade. On the private truckers, the tandems, we've had problems for

years with the tandems. And, I mean, it has come to the House. They've come to

me, they've come to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Now, the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not talking about spades, I mean, he

is neutered, according to -

MR. WOODFORD: Seventy percent. The minister tells me now

that he has a 70/30 regulation in place, and that, to me, is fair enough. Some

other places have 80/20, some have 90/10, but if you can get 70/30 in the

Province today, especially with the tandems and so on, I think that should be

very good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-fifty.

MR. WOODFORD: Now, the Minister of Finance, 50/50 - he

wants to create another problem, he wants to create a real good one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, fairness and balance. We don't want to

see that. Anyway, those are very serious questions, both of them, but especially

the wood truck one. They are getting skinned left, right and centre. Now,

granted, you have - like the fellow on the road who is speeding, you have them

out there trying to beat the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, trying to beat the system.

But if you come in with those rules and regulations, that measured load, I tell

you, then that's it. They can't - because most of the wood today, as the

minister knows full well, Kruger wants it fresh anyway. So you know pretty well

the weight. And with Abitibi it's the same thing. Abitibi wants it as fresh as a

daisy now if they can get it. They don't want any wood left on the ground, they

don't want any wood stored and stockpiled. In order to keep the good fibre and

the good quality of the timber, they want it hauled to the mill as green as

possible, as the Minister of Forestry knows as well. They don't want it stored

and they don't want it left around the ground to be sogged out and so on.

If the minister can come in with something like that, that

would help. The Minister of Forestry wasn't here when I brought up the thing

about the wood trucks. He said there is a possibility of an agreement that may

soon come to fruition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, a measured load for the wood trucks in

the Province, because that is a real problem.

MR. FLIGHT: They should do it, `Rick'.

MR. WOODFORD: Sure they should do it. We brought it up

for years.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is not here now, but

when you look at another area that last year went from $32,500,000 for licences,

vehicle licence and driver's licence in this Province, last year it went up $12

million - $12 million based on last year's increase alone, which was minimum.

So, when you look at what's going to happen this year, with the price of

licensing of vehicles gone, I think it is from $85 to $120, and then the

personal licence is gone up $5 a year, not for the term, then there is no

trouble to see what is going to happen with regard to the collection of taxes

there. There is going to be another $8 million or $10 million collected there

this year.

Another area that I never got an answer on - I asked the

minister. Certainly I should wait until he comes in, I suppose, and see if he

can answer that particular question.

But, Mr. Speaker, another area - and I thought I would bring

this up because it pertains to the district. I mentioned how important forestry

was to the district of Humber Valley and the whole West Coast of the Province.

In the Stephenville area, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, and the Bonavista Peninsula

there is an awful lot of timber and so on. We look at the West Coast of the

Province, and we look at Labrador as a great potential resource, and it is, no

question, if we could only get it up. If we only had a means to get it up, some

cheap way to get that wood up here, there is no question, we would have a - you

know, for the paper mills I am talking about, but for the saw mill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't we put a mill down there?

MR. WOODFORD: No, to put a mill down there, it would be a

job to get - but we could put a sawmill down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Not in Labrador West, no, probably not, but

that is another area for potential development, and it has been talked about for

years but absolutely nothing done about it.

Abitibi-Price is going to have a real problem in another few

years. All the reports show that within six or seven years Abitibi-Price could

be out of wood, could be out of timber, and the government now, through the

Department of Forestry, the Premier announced there a couple of weeks ago, that

they are going to buy back 1.6 million acres of freehold land from Kruger, half

this year now, I think, and half next year, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pay for half this year, yes, so I am hoping

now that will be done fairly quickly because I have a real problem in the Deer

Lake area, Hampton area, with regard to pieces of property that are owned by

Kruger, just little patches - a patch here, then you go for a few hundred

meters, another patch. It is unreal, when you look at the community plan and the

town plan and see how Kruger still owns some property right in the center of the

municipality of Deer Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: It shouldn't be allowed.

MR. WOODFORD: No, it shouldn't be allowed, and I am a

firm believer, I said it here before - what I am about to say now I said before

here in the House as well, that as far as I am concerned, Kruger and Abitibi, or

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and Abitibi, shouldn't own one stick or one piece of

land in this Province today. They shouldn't own one piece.

If I have to go to the Minister of Forestry and ask him for a

permit to cut, whether its ten cords of wood or 10,000 board feet of lumber, why

couldn't and why shouldn't Abitibi-Price or Kruger have to do the same thing?

Now, I can understand what the arguments are going to be with

regard to ownership, access and banks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Security.

MR. WOODFORD: Security, the same old thing. Then again, I

know that it is going to take a lot to try to change the attitude, and maybe in

the opportune time for that, if something ever happened to a mill in this

Province, God forbid -

AN HON. MEMBER: It can't be (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the opportunity (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right - no question there, but

then again it is like everything else. It was a time