November

25, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

visitor's gallery, forty Level I, II and III students from Discovery Collegiate

in Bonavista, accompanied by their teachers, Gordon Broderick and Stephanie

Matchim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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 Mines

and Energy.

The government has done its best over the past couple of

months to characterize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a burden to the people

of this Province, an albatross around our necks, but the reality is very

different. The Premier's announcement on October 1, that Hydro was up for sale

sparked the interest of international investors who regarded Hydro as one of the

best energy properties anywhere in this world.

I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he has

received a letter or letters, intended to communicate to him: one, Hydro's

highly favourable reputation among energy investors worldwide; and two, that if

the sale of Hydro were open to competitive proposals, the government would be

surprised at the attractive offers it might get?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever said that Hydro

is a burden. No one has ever said that, and I would be the last one to say it.

Hydro is a great corporation, and there is no question that the national

community and the international community like bonds related to Hydro. Letters

from anyone? I don't recall receiving one myself, but I will get to your final

point, competitive proposals. We are not interested in asking any company, no

matter how big, no matter where, to come in and buy and control Hydro. We are

not going to do that. We are going to maintain a control of Hydro so that people

are going to own the shares in Hydro, we are going to have appropriate

limitations on who can buy shares, nobody is going to be allowed to buy, I

believe the Premier said yesterday or the day before, any more than 15 per cent

in a block, there will be controls on the voting of shares, there will be

controls on how many shares can be owned outside of Canada and outside of

Newfoundland, all of this, to make sure that we don't give any big international

company control of our Hydro.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister hasn't answered my question at all. We heard the

Premier on NTV suggest that the Province would get anywhere from, he said, maybe

$230 million, $240 million to $300 million from a merger with Fortis. Now, have

you made any attempt to follow up on the interest shown by international

investors, in this world-class property, to get a better fix on the real market

value of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: The real value of Hydro, Mr. Speaker, is

going to be determined by the people who buy shares in the stock market and that

is how we are going to get the biggest bonus on the equity that we own in Hydro.

That is where we are going to get it and that is what we are advised.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I gather he did

not. The answer will be no. He didn't check to see the competitive value. He

didn't admit that he might have a letter or letters to that effect. I ask him,

has he made any attempt to find out if the big international investors who find

Hydro so attractive, might be willing to invest in other jobs creating economic

development in Newfoundland and Labrador just to get their hands on this prime

energy property?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I think I said in my first

answer that I gave that we are not interested in giving control of Hydro to some

big international investors. We are interested in maintaining some control of

this particular thing in Newfoundland and Labrador and there will be appropriate

controls on the sale or shares to ensure that no big international investor is

going to be telling us what we can do with Hydro.

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

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

answers are not very forthcoming, I say to the Minister of Energy, and it is

about time that the minister, the Premier and the government started to deal

truthfully with the issue, as we have portrayed, over the next number of days.

I want to ask a question of the Government House Leader, the

Minister of Justice. Last night, CBC Television revealed that the minister holds

substantial interest in NEWTEL, a company that has expressed an interest to

government, that has been involved in the purchase of -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could we ask the buffoon

from Fogo to be quiet, please?

- Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, Mr. Speaker.

This follows revelations of last week on the Minister of Justice, where now,

everyone in the Province knows the interest that he has held in Fortis. Both

interests are shown in the minister's Conflict of Interest Statements and, as I

understand it, both holdings are now administered in a blind trust. Now whether

it is two, I am not sure. I know for sure his Fortis holdings are.

Could the minister inform the House of what date he formally

set up the trust which now manages for sure his Fortis investments, and maybe

his NewTel investments? Could he inform us of that date?

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

MR. ROBERTS: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, but let me first

say that the CBC did not reveal anything about my holdings of NEWTEL shares. I

revealed it in no less than three separate filings, one within a month of my

entering Cabinet, as required by the legislation then in effect; the second at

the start of this year, as required by the legislation then in effect - both of

those are public documents, available to any member of the public who wishes to

go to see them - and thirdly, in the filing which I, in common with other

members of this House, made with the commissioner, of member's interest by, I

believe, if memory serves me, the end of August. The commissioner subsequently

made a public disclosure, and he did the same with me, I have no doubt, as he

did with other members of the Cabinet, and he will do with other members of the

House, which is, he consulted with me; he showed me what he proposed to make

public, and then he made public a document after that.

He has not yet possibly got to the hon. gentleman from Grand

Bank, but he will, and the same process will be applied. This is in accordance

with the new legislation, which is the most advanced and the strictest in the

country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the filing which the commissioner made

public, he revealed that my shares were placed in a blind trust earlier this

month. I do not remember the exact date. I can get it if the hon. gentleman

really needs it, but it was at some point early in November.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say why this was done, because I

don't want my hon. friend to think there was any attempt to hide anything; in

fact, to the contrary. Unless one is going to play the politics of envy and

ignorance, and say that nobody who has ever managed to put aside some money in a

savings plan, which is what an RRSP is, unless one is going to play that game of

envy or ignorance, then one acknowledges that people have interests, and the

whole scheme of our disclosure legislation, which is very complete and, I

submit, very effective, one discloses these interests and they are then made

public by the commissioner as he, in his own independent judgement, deems

necessary.

Before I filed with the commissioner at the end of August, I

could very easily have placed these arrangements in a blind trust. I would then

not have been required to disclose anything to the commissioner except the

existence of the blind trust and the documents relating to that. He then would

never have known what went in the blind trust. I decided, quite consciously, and

I would do it again and do it gladly, because I am quite convinced I was right,

then and now, not to do that, to make my disclosure to the commissioner in full

of what I owned. In fact what I did was I simply took the statement from the

broker who handles the RRSP, and the statement from the broker who handles my

modest savings account downtown and I attached copies of them to my disclosure

statement. I make no apology for that. The hon. gentlemen opposite snicker. They

seem to feel anybody who has managed to accumulate some savings should somehow

be ashamed. I am not. I have worked damned hard for what I have and I make no

apology to anybody for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I held shares in NewTel and I

do not know whether they are still in the blind trust or not. I know they were

put in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. ROBERTS: I told hon. members, early in November. I do

not remember the exact date.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, my hon. friend did not ask the

question. Let me answer him very clearly. The blind trust was set up on a day

and everything went into it on that day, everything. In fact in my previous

filings I broke down my holdings into the ones in the RRSP and the ones in what

I call a savings account, and in each case the commissioner has done the same

thing. He has done them down. Now, the hon. gentleman may have a supplementary

and I am only too happy to answer questions. Not only do I believe I have done

nothing wrong but I believe I have acted properly and consistently both with the

spirit and the letter of the law, and I say that here and outside very proudly.

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

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

I want to say to the minister that the legislation might be

the most advanced in the world but if the minister does not conform to the

regulations and the legislation, and the Premier does not enforce his ministers

to abide by it, it is not worth two cents, I say to the minister. That is the

case we have here. The legislation is no good without enforcement. Now, I think

the minister has basically answered the question but I will ask him specifically

and to the point. The blind trust was set up after the minister met with the

conflict of interest commissioner to review his conflict of interest

declarations. Is that in essence what the minister has told us today? You put it

in blind trust after you met with the conflict of interest commissioner.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am asking this minister and not the

hopeful minister. I want to ask the Minister of Justice. He said it was early

November.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could I have protection

from the Member for Fogo?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Continue on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister said he put his holdings in

blind trust in early November, November 4, 5 or 6. I would suspect it was

probably November 5. Does he remember the date he met with the conflict of

interest commissioner? Could he tell us that? Was the blind trust set up after

he met with the commissioner?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for Ferryland

comes out with these little comments like: come clean. I would no more take

advice on public ethics from gentlemen opposite than I would take advice on

temperance from a group of drunks.

Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question without these

childish interjections, these little mutterings, come clean. I will stack my

conduct against the hon. gentleman for Ferryland's any time, anywhere, any

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any reference in

my earlier answer to meetings with the commissioner because my hon. friend did

not ask about them. I do not recollect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I agree, and I'll try to answer it now. I do

not recollect when I met with the commissioner. I assume he has a record. I may

have a record of it. What I will say - and this may answer his concern - is that

placing of my assets in a blind trust had nothing at all to do with the

commissioner. It was neither his suggestion nor did I seek his approval. It grew

out of an arrangement I made with the Premier when I entered the Cabinet, which

he and I did in an exchange of letters. My hon. friend for Grand Bank looks

perplexed. Let me answer him. I have nothing to hide. To the contrary.

It was agreed when I came into the Cabinet I would freeze my

RRSP until the new conflict of interest legislation was up and running. That did

not come about until the end of August, whenever it was. That's the date we made

our filings, all of us. I assume the hon. gentleman did. I know I did, and I

believe he did. I accept that he did. I have already said why I chose not to set

the blind trust up at some point after the adoption of the legislation but

before it came in. I could very easily, Mr. Speaker, and very lawfully have

adopted a course of practice that would have prevented the people of this

Province knowing that I had in a blind trust assets, holdings, in such companies

as Fortis and NEWTEL.

I make no apology for that. I say now and I say again - I've

said before and I'll say again, and again - that any Newfoundlander, any

Labradorian, who's got a bit of money that he or she wishes to invest, in my

judgement, would do well to consider buying shares in either Fortis or NEWTEL. I

am not flogging shares, but I believe both are good, solid, well run companies

that invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, that develop assets here, develop

resources here, and any Newfoundlander and any Labradorian would be well advised

to consider it. I had investments in them; I do not know if I do now, I asked my

trustee to sell the Fortis shares, I assume he will but I do not know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you have any.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if they were in the trust as of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Government House Leader to answer the

question and not to editorialize on it.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman asks such expansive questions I am tempted

to give expansive answers.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Very straightforward and simple

questions, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. ROBERTS: Very simple answers.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, they were not, anyway - it is not

that the minister has holdings or investments or money, that is not the problem,

Mr. Speaker, that is not the problem. The problem is that the minister has been

in conflict of interest for months as a Cabinet Minister who sat in on

discussions, negotiations pertaining to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro and Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. That is the problem. I do

not begrudge the minister having money, I wish I had as much as he has. The

problem is you have been in a direct conflict of interest for months and you

have admitted to the Legislature today that the blind trust was not set up until

November 4 or 5, which you have confirmed. You have been in a conflict of

interest for months and I want to ask the minister: Why have you participated in

discussions, Cabinet discussions, participated in Cabinet decisions for months

with the Hydro/Fortis merger, and the interest of Newtel to purchase

Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, why has the minister continued to

do that, why has he flown in face of the very conflict of interest act

legislation that he piloted through this House just a few months ago, why has he

flown in the face of that, I ask the minister?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, did my hon. friend ask with

respect to both NLCS and Hydro or just NLCS?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Both.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, let me deal with both. We will deal

with NCLS first, but before I do that, let me point out to my hon. friend what

the act says,

section 33, sub-section( 1): A member who has reasonable grounds

to believe that he or she would be furthering a private interest, by

participating in a consideration of a matter that is before the House or the

Cabinet or a committee of either shall, if present at the meeting considering

the matter disclose the general nature of the conflict and withdraw from the

meeting. That is what the act says, 33 (1).

Now let us talk about NCLS first, because it is the simpler

of the two. There has been no activity by Cabinet or any of its committees in

which I took part, in which I took part, which, amounts to providing reasonable

grounds to believe that I would be furthering a private interest. Now in the

case of NLCS, all that there has been - and I ask my friend, the Minister of

Finance to correct me if I am wrong - is a request for proposals; a number of

proposals have been received and are being examined by the minister and his

officials. There has been no decision of any sort other than a decision to call

proposals.

I suppose it is no secret that among the respondents is a

group that includes Newtel, but that does not amount, I am advised, to anything

like a reasonable ground to believe that he or she will be furthering a private

interest.

Now, let us talk about Fortis. There was before the Cabinet a

proposal - the Premier had announced in his speech at the Board of Trade and

other places - by Fortis Inc. to buy the down stream assets I guess we could

call them, or actually the distribution assets and the transmission lines below

69kv and the diesel regions and the transmission assets.

I, and the record is quite clear - my friend is smirking over

there but let me tell him that this Premier and this minister and this

government, this Premier and this minister and this government, take these

matters seriously. I am not paranoid, Mr. Speaker, but I am hearing slime and

sludge slither across the floor of this House and I am dealing with it.

Every time the matter of the Fortis purchase offer came

before the Cabinet or any committee, I excused myself. There is no reason to

hide that. That is proper and when the final decision was taken, was made by

Cabinet, at that time I was then able to participate in other discussions. I did

participate in those discussions, no problem, no reason, because all we have

done is bring forward a proposition to enter into discussions. There has been no

decision which would provide reasonable grounds to believe that I would be

furthering a private interest. That is all, there is no mystery about it,

nothing to be hidden, nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be the least bit

recalcitrant about. That is all because my hon. friend opposite does not seem to

understand. He is hoping and believing - maybe it reflects the milieu in which

he functioned before when he and his colleagues where over here. Maybe it does,

I do not know that but maybe it does. What I am saying is that I am hearing this

kind of slime slithering around. I am glad my friend asked the question because

at least I finally had an opportunity to answer it head on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It sounds to me like the minister is trying to convince

himself. He is going on so long that he is trying to convince himself that he

has done nothing wrong. It is not me he has to convince. I think he has done

something wrong. I am convinced he has done something wrong. It is the people of

the Province he has to convince he has done nothing wrong, not me. They have

grave concerns about this. I say to the minister it was only Friday that he said

he was going to continue to be involved in discussions and negotiations

pertaining to Fortis and the purchase of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and on

Monday he tells us he is going to get rid of his shares because the Premier

directed him to do so. How can you listen to a minister who fluctuates so much

in a span of forty-eight hours?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister:

Can he tell us how many times he excused himself from the Cabinet discussions as

they pertained to the Fortis/Hydro merger? How many times he excused himself

from that? Was it many times or was it once, twice or does he remember? Were

there many discussions about Hydro and Fortis that he excused himself from or

could he tell us when they were?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the full answer will be

whenever it was necessary and appropriate to do it. I do not remember the number

but I want to make one other thing clear too. I said on Friday to one of the

news media - part of what I said was reported and that is fair enough - that I

saw no reason to step aside from continued discussions about the Fortis matter,

I did not and I do not. If the Premier had asked me to of course I would but

there was no need to and I did not. The Premier did not direct me to sell my

Fortis shares, one, I can't sell them, I can only ask the trustee and I have

done that but secondly, he and I had talked about this months ago. I could

hardly do anything with the shares once we began discussions because then it

would look like I had insider knowledge and here I am selling a bunch of shares

- that would look terrific. That would really look terrific. In fact, the one

thing we did do in the Cabinet, is from the moment the matter became a proposal

that was being looked at seriously, the Premier said: all of those in the

circle, ministers and officials are neither to buy nor sell shares. None of my

colleagues did and if any of them did he or she would be in a great deal of

difficulty with the Premier and rightly so. So my answer to the hon. gentleman's

question is, whenever it was necessary, I did so.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister,

because he has alluded to it a couple of times, that he made an undertaking with

the Premier that he was going to do what he now says he has done. I believe that

was around February of 1992, that the minister came into the Cabinet as Minister

of Justice, the Attorney General of the Province. Why did it take until November

4 or 5 of 1993, for the minister to do what he says he has now done? Why since

February of 1992, until November of 1993, did it take so long for the minister

to do this?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I will be glad to answer that, Mr. Speaker.

I have already answered it in so many words but let me answer it clear on. In

the first place it was agreed that until the new Conflict Of Interest Act was up

and running that I would simply abide by the old act and that is what I did. The

old act made no provision for blind trusts or anything else. In fact it left the

Premier in the invidious position of having to decide on conflicts of interest

and our Premier found that to be very wrong. In fact he said: I will make no

exceptions to it. That was discussed here in the House on a number of occasions,

his concerns with that.

Once the new act came into effect, which was as of June 1, I

think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If my hon. friend does not want the answer,

I will not give it to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did not mean to interrupt.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

Now, Mr. Speaker, once the new act came into effect, which

was June 1 - was it June 1 or the end; it does not matter - whenever it was

proclaimed, I then was in a position where I either could have made some moves

which would have put the blind trust in place and effectively concealed from the

commissioner what was in that blind trust, or I could have done as I chose to

do, and that is not put the blind trust in, not only until I had made my

disclosure to the commissioner, but until I knew that he was prepared to go

ahead and make things public. There is no secret about that. Does the hon.

gentleman think I was trying some chicanery? If so, he should at least do me the

credit of assuming I could be more chicanery-like than that.

That is the answer. There is no more mystery to it than that.

The agreement was there until the act was up and running, and when the act was

up and running, I couldn't get rid of the Fortis shares, because by that stage

discussions had begun, at least within the circle of the ministry, and I was

privy to those. I am Attorney General. It may irk the hon. gentleman, but I am.

I have some responsibilities to the government as that; I have a duty. Secondly,

I did not want anybody ever to say: You only set up the blind trust to hide

things from the commissioner and thereby hide them from public disclosure; to

the contrary. I do not like seeing my personal affairs spread about. I have had

it before in this House, and I guess I will have to put up with it now, but I

make no apologies for my conduct. I believe I have acted rightly and properly.

I helped to draft this act. I am very proud of it, and I will

damn well live with every word of it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I once had dreams of being rich, but after today I am not so

sure I want to be.

Mr. Speaker, in the financial statement presented by the

Minister of Finance on Tuesday, he estimated social assistance expenditures

would be $7.9 million net over budget. Since social assistance is cost shared

50\50 with the federal government, I assume therefore that the `net' the

Minister of Finance referred to is the province's share.

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

minister if he would confirm that, and can he also confirm that the total

expenditures on social assistance this year will exceed the budget estimates by

$15.8 million?

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

MR. LUSH: I am not aware of how the Minister of Finance

makes his calculations, whether indeed he just does it on the provincial share,

or whether he does it on the combined. That question is better directed to the

Minister of Finance, but in respect to the latter part of the hon. member's

question, as to whether the $15.9 million, or the figure he mentions, is

projection for the end of the year, we have not made these projections. The

projections of the social assistance is related to the case-load, and the

case-load sort of fluctuates. If the case-load remains the same as it is now, we

are expecting an over expenditure along the lines mentioned by the Minister of

Finance.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that `net'

means our share. When I see something `net' on my pay cheque, it is what I own.

Net is mine, so I would assume that is what the minister was referring to when

he said the `net cost', referring to the provincial cost.

The cost of social assistance allowances will go up to about

$191 million from the $175 million estimated in the budget for this year - an

expenditure over budget of approximately 10 per cent. What is the increase in

the number of people on social assistance that caused this increase today?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it comes as any

surprise to anybody, although the member seems rather astounded. No one else is

astounded at the increase. We are living in troubled times. We are living in

times when people are unemployed. We are living in some difficult times, and

nobody is surprised. A large part of the problem is caused by the unavailability

of employment. That is why the problem is caused. That shouldn't cause anybody

any great degree of astonishment. The same thing is happening right throughout

the country.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has time for one short

supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the Province spent

$113 million on social assistance. Just four years later expenditures are up by

nearly 70 per cent. These alarming figures expose an even more alarming social

problem: growing poverty, growing misery, and growing despair in our Province.

All we hear from this government are plans to cut out jobs and add even more to

the welfare rolls. When will the minister and his colleagues in Cabinet do

something to create jobs and return some glimmer of hope to the people out there

in this Province, I ask the minister.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the job of the Department of

Social Services is to provide the basic necessities of people who, through no

fault of their own, are required to seek the assistance of the Department of

Social Services, and we do that, and we do it as well as we can, in accordance

with the fiscal ability of the Province to pay. I will say to the hon. member,

this year this Department spent $18 million in job creation, creating somewhere

around 6,000 jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Resource Committee have considered Bill 27, "An Act To

Amend The Forestry Act", and recommend its passage, without amendment, through

the remaining stages in the House. Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Orders of the Day, Order No. 6 was inadvertently put in

the wrong place, so I would like to re-do that order, and ask permission of the

House to simply remove it from that

section of the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker.

Consequently, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve

itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to

the Income Tax Act.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of

St. John's Loan Act, 1978".

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we carry on with the

Throne Speech debate, please - Order No. 1?

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

adjourned debate the last day, so we will allow him to continue.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate the other day, and I would just like to

finish off on a couple of points, actually, more local. I did it in general

terms the other day, but just to finish a couple of things. Although I didn't

bring up much about the Hydro deal, I still have a question I will just throw

out there, a concern of mine that I was wondering about, namely, the 70 per cent

of shares that was mentioned that would be left open to the public. I wonder if

that means the Newfoundland public, or is it the Canadian public? In other

words, can these shares be sold to anybody - 70 per cent of the shares?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier said that 70 per cent of the

shares would be made available to the public, as I understood it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro's portion.

MR. SHELLEY: Hydro's portion, 70 per cent of shares. Now,

the 70 per cent that are available - are they available to just Newfoundlanders

who would buy them up, the affluent Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just draw to the members' attention that I cannot hear the

hon. member. I am having difficulty with both sides of the House.

MR. SHELLEY: I just throw it out, out of concern. The

Premier said that 70 per cent of Hydro's shares would be left open to the public

for Newfoundlanders to buy up, but does it also mean it is open for Canadians to

buy up? In other words, could 60 per cent of that 70 per cent go to people in

Quebec or Ontario who want to buy those shares up? I wonder where the files

would go. Or can these shares go international so, theoretically, 70 per cent of

those shares could be bought up by Quebec, Ontario, or anywhere?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I (inaudible) concern on it. Also,

these five so-called experts - as far as business is concerned, they are

probably some of the most intelligent men you can come up with. The Premier said

they are the five best he could come up with. In a business-like sense, they

probably are, but I am just wondering if they are thinking about what is best

for Newfoundlander when they make these decisions. As far as Hydro goes, I think

there are a lot more questions to be brought up, especially the 70 per cent

shares. Where are they going and who is going to own them?

I just have a couple of minutes left so I would like to bring

up a couple of points on the local front. I have a few words for the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture now that he is in the House. Just before we adjourned

for the summer I brought up some serious points and I was hoping the minister

would take those points seriously, but from the answer I got back and the

comments I got during the Summer as I travelled around, nobody found it very

funny that trees don't swim. They were concerned with the environmental

disasters that are happening in our forests right now, and they are concerned

that every time we turn around we hear nothing about loggers. They are still

part of a big industry out there and their concerns are not being met. They have

had problems in the forest industry that is going on,that we have to be more in

touch with. We have to get in touch with exactly what is happening in our

forests now. I say to the minister that I will be bringing up more questions on

exactly the environmental impact that is going on in our forest industry now,

and how we are going to be dealing with it over the next few years, before we -

I will use the analogy again - come up five years from now and some Minister of

Forestry will have to stand and say we have a moratorium in the forestry. That

is exactly what will happen unless we get this under control.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) moratorium (inaudible) right now.

MR. SHELLEY: A complete moratorium, to me, is a closedown

of the forestry, which I can see coming if we don't get our act together in the

forestry industry. I think the minister, if he were willing to admit it, and all

the major people involved in the forestry, would agree with me, that unless we

get our act together in the forest industry, we will have a minister stand in

this House - and we won't be able to blame it on the foreigners, and we won't be

able to blame it on the federal government, we will only be able to blame it on

ourselves. Because it is Newfoundland's industry. We have to control it, not

anybody else.

I have only a short time, but I wanted to get a couple of

points in on the tourism industry. We talked about this a few times. I can tell

you that in my district I think untapped tourism is probably the understatement

of the decade down there. We have a beautiful district that has seen nothing

yet. I have talked to the Minister of Tourism a few times and made a proposal to

him.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: A suggestion, proposal, whatever you want to

call it. I'm sure the Minister of Forestry, if he will listen for a couple of

minutes, will understand what I am saying.

We live eighty-three kilometres off the main highway. People

drive by there - I checked with some tourists this summer just out of curiosity

- to find out that the tourists would just drive by there because they saw one

small brown sign at the Baie Verte Junction that said: The Dorset Eskimo Site,

83 kilometres. What kind of promotion is that of tourism? We need at these

junctions, where there are communities off the beaten path, to have some kind of

chalets, some kind of information booths there to show people what are out on

those peninsulas.

I think it is a good suggestion. I think it is a suggestion

that when I next meet with the minister, I will push for again. The tourism

industry - things like the Dorset Eskimo Site on the Baie Verte Peninsula - this

summer it was almost an embarrassment. We had a family from Ontario who had come

down to see that site. It was in such bad shape that one of the children fell

off a wooden built footpath that goes down there and I had to go down and

apologize for its being in such bad shape. They drove eighty-three kilometres to

see this Dorset Eskimo Site and it was just a total embarrassment.

Those types of things are the things that bring tourists to

this Province and this is why we should make sure that we look into having the

greatest potential we can for tourism in this Province. I do believe it is still

Province-wide an untapped resource that we can improve on a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will conclude with that. I am sure

that in the next few days I will be standing again and have a chance to have my

say here in the House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to

have the opportunity to rise again in this House to speak on behalf of the

constituents of the great District of Port au Port. May I, in line with my

predecessors, just take this opportunity to welcome back hon. members to the

House after our summer recess, and to say on a very personal note that I am

indeed pleased to see that my very good friend for Placentia is showing his

usual resilience and endurance. I am very pleased to see him back in the House

representing the District of Placentia. I am sure, I for one, would not

underestimate his tenacity, and, indeed, would not be surprised that he will, as

he says, be around for some time to come.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Port au Port, as everyone is

very much aware, is certainly an area that has many serious and pressing needs.

Indeed, as I have had occasion many times to state, we have not, in fact, known

prosperity since the days of the American base in Stephenville, going back to

the mid-sixties. Since then it certainly has been an uphill struggle trying to

provide for the good people of the Port au Port District, trying to provide for

their many needs on a daily basis.

I am very pleased and, indeed, honoured, to have the

opportunity now to represent them in this House. Hopefully, with the assistance

of my colleagues, and the support of the hon. members opposite, during the

course of my tenure here, hopefully, we will be able to see improvements to the

District of Port au Port, as indeed, to the whole of the Province.

For the information of the hon. members of the House, I am

sure all of you are aware that the District of Port au Port is a bilingual

district. It is the only district on the Island portion of the Province that can

lay claim to that title and, indeed, it is the only district in the Province

that can lay claim to having an indigenous francophone population. These are

people who can trace their ancestry here in Newfoundland going back the last 400

to 500 years - a district `O c'est possible de parler dans les deux langues

officiels de notre pays'.

I think it is very important to recognize that in the

District of Port au Port we do have a significant francophone population, a

large group of people whose first language is French, and during my course in

this House I would hope, and have already taken steps from my own office, to

make sure that the services of government, and, indeed, of my office, are made

available to these people in their two official languages.

The people of Port au Port - in particular the francophones -

have had a serious struggle, and a longsuffering struggle, in trying to preserve

their language and culture, and I am very pleased to note the kind of progress

that they have been able to make. In fact, now, in Port au Port, French, first

language education is available to the francophone population of my district.

Great efforts have been made in terms of providing first-class educational

facilities where the children of the francophone constituents of Port au Port

are able to receive instruction in French, first language.

Also, the current ongoing development whereby the road link

between the communities of Cape St. George and La Grande Terre, the two major

francophone communities, will certainly prove to be a very strong cultural and

educational link. It will assist these francophone communities in continuing

their struggle to preserve their language and culture and, in a very practical

sense, will make it much easier to continue to service their needs in terms of

education, in that it will be possible, and it will reduce, in terms of travel

time, from sixty-five or seventy kilometres down to sixteen. So it will,

beginning next year, be possible to travel by car between these two communities

and make it possible to share the educational facilities which presently exist.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make note of these, because I think

it is significant. It is a significant development, and it is also, I think,

significant that the hon. members of this House be, indeed, aware that there

does exist, on the West Coast of this Province, what is very often and certainly

historically has been considered to be a very remote part of this Province.

Indeed, if you live in Port au Port, as I have for all of my life, it is

sometimes very easy to believe, that to the rest of this Province, areas like

Port au Port do not exist. It is very easy for someone living in Port au Port,

and struggling and trying to get by, to recognize that the overpass syndrome, as

it is very often referred to, is very much in existence, and I am sure that is

something that hon. members, regardless of which side of the House they sit, can

relate to if they do, in fact, represent districts in the rural areas of this

Province.

One of the things that has been referenced since this House

has re-adjourned is the Emergency Response Program which was initiated by this

government. I would, as well, like to say that it certainly falls short of what

I would like to see. As a matter of fact, I indicated to the hon. member, when

the amount of $6 million was announced, that I would save him a lot of trouble

by taking that full $6 million and very easily spending it in my district in

short order; however, as is now very well-known and documented, I got nowhere

with that argument. But I must say, and I make no apologies, we were able to

convince the member to recognize the great needs of the District of Port au

Port, and to try to provide us with a level of funding that could, at least in

the short term, try to assist the difficulties that we were experiencing out

there. So with the money that was allocated we were able to provide some very

important and necessary short-term employment.

I recognize, as do all hon. members, that providing for

short-term employment is not the answer. We have to accept that, but in the

meantime, I think we must recognize, as well, that while working towards the

long term, and getting into this long-term planning, we cannot forget, or lose

sight of the short-term needs.

Also, as I am sure each hon. member who had occasion to be

successful in securing funding from this emergency response program can relate

to, the needs are so great. I know, in my own instance, I think of one case

where the development association were interviewing people for forty jobs. They

had about 450 applications. I don't know how many they interviewed, but they had

forty jobs to give out and the other 410 people called me. I'm sure each of you

were in a similar situation. I remember thinking and saying aloud to someone who

was there with me at the time, that next time around if the minister comes to me

and says, "I have money to give you for Port au Port," I may be tempted to say,

"Mr. Minister, regrettably, I must decline."

However, seriously, I think we have to recognize that for the

benefit of those who were successful in securing these jobs, even just providing

the minimum wage, these people are still very grateful. Because we have so many

people out there right now who just have not been able to find anything. The

traditional sources of employment - I know from my own district - have dried up.

Traditionally people from the Port au Port area have been accustomed to

travelling to Ontario and to Nova Scotia and securing work in the fishery and

light manufacturing industries and, as we are all too aware, many of these have

dried up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes. Right now, as the hon. member mentions,

the interesting thing - and some of you may be aware that back in the spring

there was a - the media picked up on this and there was some discussion. As a

matter of fact, there is a program on Country Canada this Sunday, at 1:30 p.m. -

I will make a plug for the program now to make you aware - that is going to

focus on that very situation - they do focus on the District of Port au Port -

whereby PEI has become a destination for people from that area.

Right now, many of my constituents leave in the spring of the

year to find employment in the fishery or agriculture in the Province of PEI,

which is very surprising. It certainly was very surprising to me when I found

out, because from the figures that I have seen from Statistics Canada, there is

not a great difference in the unemployment figures for PEI and Newfoundland.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people from my district and from elsewhere in the

Province who go to PEI to work, are very often filling jobs that the locals in

the great Province of PEI are either not prepared to fill or maybe they don't

want to work the long hours, because they are there with their families. Many of

the people from my district who go there are prepared to work for long hours.

Since many of them are away from their families, they have nothing else to do,

so they are willing to work seven days a week, fourteen or fifteen hours a day.

That is why they are able to secure this source of employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes, they are, as the hon. member mentions. As

a matter of fact, Newfoundlanders from my district and, indeed, throughout this

great Province, have, as they have always had, a tremendous reputation, whatever

the line of work they do. Employers, when they have had Newfoundlanders in their

employ, are very anxious to bring them back.

Of course, we all know, as well, especially drawing on the

rural Newfoundland tradition, the family networks that we have, if one person

finds employment in one area, in short order, the rest of the family, and a

little step beyond that, much of the community, follows suit and fills in behind

them, availing of the employment opportunities that are available to them there.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would not want this hon. House to

believe that the District of Port au Port does not, indeed, have much promise,

that the District of Port au Port cannot see a day when we will again be able to

arise above the difficulties that we have now, and that we will not be able to

participate in a brighter future. There are many things ongoing. The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay mentioned, from his district, the importance

of tourism. I firmly believe that tourism throughout this Province is an

industry that has tremendous potential. It is an industry that we are just now

coming to recognize. We haven't even come close to scratching the surface as to

what this industry can represent in terms of the GPP for this Province.

In Port au Port, in fact, we will be, and are at the present

time, drawing very heavily on the French fact in our area, and the fact that we

are a bilingual district. We are drawing very heavily on that in trying to

attract to our area, in particular, francophones from elsewhere in this country

and, indeed, francophones from outside this country. To this point in time we

have been very successful. But we are not restricting it to francophones,

because obviously, we feel that Canadians and people from all walks will find

much that would be of interest to them in the District of Port au Port.

The road link which I previously referenced will, Mr.

Speaker, certainly be an important part of developing this infrastructure for

tourism and certainly, in time, some of the other developments that we have seen

during this summer. One of the big drawbacks in the District of Port au Port, in

terms of developing a tourism industry, was a lack of accommodations. We have

been promoting, for some time, the idea of the bed and breakfast, but the bed

and breakfast concept to most people, especially in my district, is somewhat -

well, it looks like I threw Hansard for a loop. They ask, `Could you please give

us in writing the french sentence you used.' They might as well get in step,

because they are going to be getting a few of those before I finish my term here

in the House.

MR. ROBERTS: French is an official language in this

House.

MR. SMITH: I recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, in terms of tourism, as I said, it

has tremendous potential, but beyond that, the District of Port au Port has many

other things, as well, that it can and, indeed, is presently building a future

on.

Agriculture was one time a significant industry in Port au

Port. Back in my days as a young boy growing up on the Port au Port Peninsula,

as it was in much of rural Newfoundland, just about every family was

self-sufficient. Just about every family was involved in raising animals and

growing their own vegetables and with that, plus their effort in the fishery,

they were able to get by. And I would suggest to this hon. House that they are

able to get by. As much as we talk about the hard times in which we live, I can

certainly remember - and I am sure that our parents and grandparents must find

it a bit amusing when they hear us talking about the hard times in which we

live, when they think back and hark back to what they had to endure many, many

years ago.

So, I think, in terms of agriculture, there are

opportunities. We presently have one individual in our area who has, for the

last number of years, been working at developing a turkey farm. The hon. the

Member for Humber Valley would certainly be familiar with this, as would my

colleague from St. George's, who is not here right now. But this kind of

industry has potential because there is a ready market there for it and it will

provide much needed employment in an area where employment is needed.

Also, we are very interested and are actively promoting the

idea of sheep ranching or farming, because in Port au Port there is tremendous

potential. There is much land right now that is lying idle that can be used and

we are very interested in seeing that that land is used. Much of it is marginal

but certainly would be quite suitable for pasture land. It is interesting that

it is well accepted and documented that the lamb from areas like Port au Port,

where these animals graze near the seashore - and it is explained to me that

because of the salt on the grass or whatever they feed on, does give the meat a

particular texture and does make it particularly popular. I do know and I can

certainly state with certainty, that lamb that is produced in Port au Port is in

great demand. As a matter of fact, right now we can't keep up with the demand.

The supply doesn't keep up with the demand.

So there are opportunities there. We are hoping to be able to

build on these and to ensure that, down the road, agriculture does become an

important part of economic development in our area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that on par with New Zealand lamb?

MR. SMITH: Yes. I think it would be much better, but

obviously, I think the difficulty - it really bothers me, as a resident of the

area, that if you go to a supermarket now to buy lamb, the chances are the lamb

that you are going to buy is from New Zealand. It is not something produced

locally and I think that is a shame when it is something we can do here in this

Province. We certainly do have the land base to do it and those who do produce

it, produce a superior product, there is no question about it. So I think there

is room there for improvement and it is an effort in Port au Port that we

certainly are intent on improving upon.

In the fishery - we are all too aware of the difficulties

with the fishery. This hon. House would be, I am sure, very interested in

knowing that a surprising anomaly in the District of Port au Port this past

summer, is that we had the best ground fishery that we have had in the last ten

years. When everything else was virtually closed down - as a matter of fact, the

suggestion was that the fishery should be closed completely - in the District of

Port au Port, we had an exceptional ground fishery. Now, that may have been, as

I said, a one-time thing and next year, may be gone again. The suggestion is

that last year the winter fishery down on the Southwest Coast did not have the

same effort as it normally has. Of course, it is the same body of fish that

migrates up around the shore and because the effort was not that great on the

Southwest Coast, we were probably the beneficiaries on our end and we did have

an improved fishery during the spring.

Also, related to the fishery, Port au Port is taking the lead

in terms of a scallop aquaculture. We are and have been developing for some time

in the District of Port au Port, the science of aquaculture, a project that

started out, intended to restore the stocks of the Port au Port Bay, have

developed over a course of ten years into a full-fledged aquaculture project,

whereby now, a product is being grown for market, and the hon. members of this

House would be interested in knowing, as well, that the product that is being

marketed is a non-traditional product, in that it is promoting the sale of

scallop on the half-shell.

Most of us, when we talk about scallop, we think about the

abductor mussel. What is being promoted in the Port au Port area, is a product

that would be sold and served on the half-shell, much as most of us are

accustomed to having mussel, and I can assure the hon. members of this House and

you, Mr. Speaker, that any of you who have had an opportunity to sample this

product will vouch for it, that it is, indeed, a superior product. This was a

project which was developed by the Port au Port Economic Development

Association. The development association is now in the process of divesting

itself of that project and it is being turned over to a co-operative comprised

of thirteen members who are now prepared to take it to the stage where it will

become a commercial venture.

This hon. House might be interested in knowing, as well, that

during this past summer, there has been a great deal of activity in the District

of Port au Port, related to oil exploration. You may be aware that there has

been a long history of the presence of oil in Port au Port, and over the course

of the years, a number of companies, from time to time, have shown interest and

have come in and drilled exploratory wells, but unfortunately, to this time,

they have met with limited success. The efforts during this past summer were

very encouraging; right now it is just exploratory in the sense that it is

seismic work and these are people who are in right now trying to determine

whether or not the potential is there with a view to trying, to hopefully, down

the road, possibly next spring and summer, see this activity going to the level

where wells will be drilled in Port au Port. And I guess we all live in hope.

Certainly, it would be of tremendous benefit, not only to the District of Port

au Port, but to the whole of this Province if a major oil find on land could be

found in the District of Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, I referenced in my remarks, the work of the Port

au Port Economic Development Association, and leading from that, if I might for

a few minutes speak on the efforts of the rural development associations in this

Province generally.

Some members of this House, certainly, some members opposite,

would be well aware of my own involvement in the rural development movement over

the years. I have been involved in community development for about twenty years,

and sixteen or seventeen of those were with the rural development associations

and my own development association in Port au Port. Also, I had the privilege

for five years, to be President of the provincial body; and I must report to

this House, and I can say with absolute certainty, that the work of the

development associations in this Province, the true measure and worth of the

development associations of this Province have not been realized, the many

things that have been accomplished in rural Newfoundland.

Much of the infrastructure that now exists there undoubtedly

would not have been there had it not been for the presence of these development

associations. Hon. members should be aware, and we should never lose sight of as

well - I hear many people putting forward the argument that right now in rural

Newfoundland we have layers and layers of bureaucracy that have been created and

put in place by so many government agencies, but we must never lose sight of the

fact that development associations, right now, are the only agencies operating

in rural Newfoundland that are directly a product of the people. They weren't an

idea of government. These grew up spontaneously and anyone who has had a history

of involvement with the rural development associations will know that the

earliest history of these associations is linked quite closely with the efforts

at resettlement. And basically this is the way that the people in rural

Newfoundland stood up against those who wanted to once and for all rid itself of

the problems of rural Newfoundland by completely resettling all these

communities. Organizing themselves into these organizations, they took as their

primary challenge back then, to try to stop the efforts to resettle rural

Newfoundland and to try to work to ensure that there can be a future for people

living in rural areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we must never lose sight of that. That challenge

is still there, but I think it is important for this House to recognize the

tremendous work that has been done by these development associations, and I am

sure they will continue to work extremely hard on behalf of the people of rural

Newfoundland. Dealing with the crises that confront us now, which are not unlike

those we have had to deal with over the years, certainly we will continue to

battle on and I feel that in the final analysis, if we are to achieve success in

rural Newfoundland, it is very important, albeit it may be a redefined role,

that there must be an ongoing role for development associations in the rural

areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, we have heard much mentioned,

as well, about education and the importance of education. As a person whose

background is in the education system, having worked for twenty-seven years as

an educator, I can speak, I think, with some authority from a very practical

sense as to some of the difficulties that confront us with regard to delivery of

education in this Province. I think we are hearing an awful lot of debate these

days, both in this House and outside, with regard to the problems of the

education system in this Province. Indeed, we have a Royal Commission report

that has pointed out for us where these needs are and have given us a direction

as to how we should proceed to address and to deal with these difficulties that

have been identified.

Yesterday, in this House, we had some reference to an initial

report or response from the churches as to working towards a revamp system of

education, and very shortly, we will have tabled in this House an initial

response from government with regard to how we feel we should proceed in this

matter.

I think for the ordinary person out there who has children in

the education system the bottom line is that parents want to be assured that the

quality and calibre of education available to their children is second to none.

They want to feel and believe that the education their children are receiving,

whether they live in Lourdes on the Port au Port Peninsula, whether they live in

Placentia, or whether they live here in St. John's, the calibre of education is

such that they can feel competent and confident that the children graduating

from this school system will be able to go out and compete with other young men

and women of the same calibre anywhere from this country and, indeed, anywhere

in this world. To do any less than this, Mr. Speaker, would on our part be a

pure fallacy, and we would be negligent, because we cannot deny the reality that

we live in a global economy and the graduates from our school system here in

Newfoundland have to go out and compete with graduates from school systems

throughout this world.

We have demonstrated in the past that we can certainly do it

and I feel quite confident that once we have concluded deliberations and have

made the changes and adjustments that will be required to our educational

system, we will continue to build on that. I, for one, am completely confident

that the graduates of our school systems here in Newfoundland will be able to

stack up against those from any school in this country, any school or school

system in this world.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we heard reference from hon.

members in this House on at least one or two occasions, referring to the fact

that what is all too prevalent in this Province, in particular, right now is

that we seem to be very adept at putting people down. For years, working as a

volunteer in this Province, and working with government agencies, all too often

I saw instances where people came forward with genuine, sincere ideas and

thoughts, only to be completely blown out of the water. I have seen this happen

at the bureaucracy level within government and I have seen it happen at the

local level. I have to concur with the hon. member opposite who was referencing

it earlier this week, that this is something that must change. Somehow, we have

to change that mind-set.

Somehow, we have to recognize and value the worth that other

people have, the value of their ideas and their thoughts, and work together to

try to build a better future. I am sure that wisdom is certainly not limited to

myself or members on this side of the House or on the other side of the House,

and I don't think anyone here would say that we cannot accept and receive advice

from outside of this Chamber on different matters that will maybe, in the final

analysis, put us on the right course.

Hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I think the important thing is

that we recognize that this is the reality and that we recognize it is incumbent

on us, as the people who have been elected by the good people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to represent them and to give them leadership, in

this instance, to provide that leadership.

Also, I think in doing that, we must also assist our people

in once again coming to the realization that government does not have all the

answers - they must believe in themselves. A lot of this confidence has been

lost and I think it has to be restored. However, as hon. members of this House,

with all of the resources within this Province that are available to us that we

can draw on, I am firmly convinced that working together there can be a future

for Newfoundland and we can certainly make a difference. Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: A sincere speech.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with my colleague for Humber Valley, the speech was

very sincere, with very enlightening comments, and I compliment the Member for

Port au Port. I am quite sure it was very much intended for a very positive

purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I read through the Throne Speech and I wish I

could be as optimistic and as positive about some of the statements in the

Throne Speech here and the government's record on their past performance as it

pertains to what they are advocating in the Throne Speech.

I was very much annoyed by page 1: `The building blocks for a

revitalized education system are being put in place, and our health care system

is being restructured to make it more cost-effective and efficient in serving

the needs of our people.'

A revitalized education system. We have had a continuous

struggle with people in the education system, with the participants and with the

stakeholders in the system, to deal with this government on a very co-operative

and positive basis. There have been directives and demands, not consultation.

This government promised last year that they would eliminate school tax -

actually, back in 1989. They did get around to it last year and they promised to

eliminate it on the grounds that they would provide equalization payments. The

minister said here in the House that he wanted to see the elimination of school

tax so that people in rural parts of this Province could have the same

opportunities in education as people in urban parts of this Province.

Last year, they lived up to the first part of their bargain

and eliminated school tax, and equalization payments were withdrawn. Eleven

million dollars in the Budget was withdrawn. There were no funds given for

equalization - zero funds for the first time since it was instituted back seven

years ago.

On top of equalization, boards last year were hit with 1 per

cent and 3 per cent cutbacks. In addition, they gouged millions of dollars they

had collected in school tax and deducted that from grants and operation grants

to school boards. With reference to tuition and education costs, in four years

tuition costs have increased by 50 per cent, and this year alone doubled in

certain instances. Certain costs are up 150 per cent in certain areas in the

past four years.

Promises to give students in different parts of this Province

equal access to a university education, and being able to attend in their own

geographical areas, expanding Grenfell College, expanding campuses across the

Province - none of these promises have been fulfilled.

The government is now attempting to put in place a health

care system, to restructure it so that it is more cost-efficient and effective.

Government has spent considerable time drawing lines and maps across the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has drawn seventeen economic zones. It

has drawn seven community health boards. It has drawn lines for hospital boards.

It has drawn lines for school board. It has drawn electoral boundaries and -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to draw the line somewhere.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you have to draw the line somewhere, you

should draw it where it is going to have the best effect and most positive

contribution to the people in the Province.

Talking about drawing electoral boundary lines in the

Province, dealing with forty, after thirty-one meetings, on the thirty-second

meeting out of forty meetings being held by the electoral boundaries commission,

this government, the minister, made a presentation indicating that a more

suitable number would be forty-four to forty-six. After thirty-two meetings, and

a budget of almost a quarter-of-a-million dollars of taxpayers money, to set a

new direction and a new number.

Legislation was introduced in this House, and supported and

voted on, and endorsed by all government members, and to come back when the

mandate of the commission is almost complete, and say: We are going to give you

a new mandate now. We are going to increase the time and set the taxpayers back

another $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 by changing the ground rules in midstream.

It is very inappropriate for a minister in Cabinet to come

out with a directive to an independent electoral boundaries commission when they

were set a mandate here by the House of Assembly. It is the House of Assembly

that they report to, and the Cabinet changed the rules outside the House of

Assembly.

Health care - the Dobbin Report was released back in February

of 1993 to deal with a restructuring and addressing the need to deal with health

care in this Province. I agree with the need to address and utilize any possible

inefficiencies and turn them into efficiencies in the system, but I was very

dismayed when I read the Dobbin Report and it does not address how efficiency is

going to be achieved in administration anywhere in this Province. It does not

address how we are going to improve the level of health care service in this

Province. They are not addressed in this report.

What has been done, they have sat down and drawn up lines

where it is most suitable, geographically, to draw them, and if that works well,

fine; we will all benefit. If it does not work well, we will not benefit; but we

have not received one specific reason or rationale for doing what is recommended

in this report. That is completely lacking. If you are going to reorganize a

business, reorganize government departments, reorganize hospitals in this

Province, it is important to do it on a rational, cost-effective and improved

service basis, and that has not been done in this report.

Now if the government has a report that shows how it is going

to be done more efficiently, they should table it in the House and they should

make it public, so we hope the best decisions are going to be made for the

benefit of people all over this Province.

It is incumbent upon government, upon the Minister of Health,

to ensure that there is a rationale, region by region, in this Province, to show

why so many hospitals or so many nursing homes, or so many homes for the elderly

should be there. It has not been released. If it is there I would very much like

to see it. I may very well agree with it if I could see it, but it is not there

and there is no rationalization in the Dobbin Report, and they are basing the

recommendations on a Dobbin Report that does not have the factual information to

back up the recommendations.

All over this Province we are in a crisis in health care, if

not in this country, and probably in the world, and where we have a crisis it is

important to address it in a very efficient manner. Every day you can pick up a

newspaper and I have almost voluminous reports of newspaper clippings that

addresses health care in almost every single region of this Province. The

General Hospital for example has cut back $2 million, seventy beds are closing.

There are twenty-five less positions there just over the first half of this year

alone. The Central Newfoundland for example had to cut back $1 million, twenty

beds and nursing units closed. We have extended summer and Christmas breaks for

another nursing bed unit. In Harbour Breton they are limited, they cannot

increase it beyond fourteen. We look at Western Memorial Hospital, they had

cutbacks of $1.2 million. They cut back the day service to the hospital there.

People could come in and avail of a specific service without being hospitalized,

one of the cheapest and most efficient types of service. St. Clare's Mercy

Hospital; budget restraints of $1 million, twenty beds closed, nine in general

surgery, eight in psychiatry, three in orthopaedic's closed down at St. Clare's

Mercy Hospital here in St. John's. All parts of the reorganized most effective

and efficient type of health care system that they are going to produce.

We have, I guess to top it off, in Forteau a million dollar

facility built in the fall of 1992. A facility built in the fall of 1992 that

they could not open. They spent a million dollars to put it there and cannot

open it because they were given $100,000 to operate it when it needs $250,000 to

operate - $150,000 more dollars would have permitted to operate the facility. So

it lies idle, just sitting there for the past year. The minister said, the

Minister of Health, here is what he said about the facility in Forteau, that

they spent $1 million to put it there and did not give them a budget to be able

to operate it, so it stays closed. He said: they will have to watch their budget

up there. I guess they will be able to open it fairly late in the calendar year.

That is what we have in mind. They build it in 1992 and they have it in their

minds to open it in the fall of 1993. He said it is the same thing we have in

mind for other long-term care facilities, build them a year or two before you

are going to use them. That is very efficient expenditure of public money - and

other facilities around just dilapidated and needing repairs. That is not very

constructive planning and organization. In fact, he said that if everything goes

as planned we should be able to get it opened this fall but you never know what

is going to happen those days. You never can tell about anything he said. So

these are very positive, very enlightening comments for the people in Forteau

who are sitting and looking at a facility there for the past year.

We are seeing facilities built in this Province with no

furnishings. They could not put furnishings in it - they were given $100,000 and

they needed $250,000. That also stands out - other facilities in this Province

too and this is very serious business. We have facilities that were built in

this Province under a tender that was given to the highest bidder, that incurred

extreme capital costs, millions above the lower bidder, in Port Saunders, Burgeo

and St. Lawrence. There are millions of dollars that could have been saved in

the capital cost of these buildings which could have been used by the people in

Port Saunders. There is an $8 million building in Port Saunders today, ready

since June, that they cannot open and operate the twenty long-term care beds

because they have no operational money. It is here in print, the minister backs

up all of these with quotes - definitely true, guaranteed true. It is there in

the ministers own statement. It has been ready since June, the minister will

confirm it. It has been ready since June and they cannot operate it because they

do not have the funding. It said they have a few beds being used there in the

acute care. They have twenty long-term beds that cannot be used. It has no

money. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I got that from the

minister's press release. I would assume that it is probably as accurate as the

previous ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has been opened since June you said.

MR. SULLIVAN: It said it is ready since June but there is

no money to open it.

We have St. Lawrence - down in St. Lawrence we have forty

beds -that's the new facilities that we are building in St. Lawrence, Burgeo and

Port Saunders where the highest bidder received the bids - I have about 200

articles from newspapers, I will table all of these -

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the statements.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the press release.

MR. SULLIVAN: Table this press release? Sure, I will do

that after, I will get copies of the release. In St. Lawrence, there are forty

beds, there are twenty-two beds in Burgeo, three areas where millions of

dollars, $3 million extra to higher bidders I believe, when they could have used

only $150,000 and would have enabled the people in Forteau to operate the

hospital, would have enabled the people in St. Lawrence to utilize forty beds,

the twenty-two beds in Burgeo and would have been able to utilize in Port

Saunders the twenty long-term care beds that people are waiting for in that

area, that they cannot utilize. I think that is a travesty and an insult to the

people there to give them the expectation of putting a facility there and have

to look at the facility as really a symbol or a monument to our health care

system that has been ignored and money is not being put for the operation of

these buildings.

Just recently the minister went out - that is in a press

release too - and turned the sod at a $6-million Placentia Cottage Hospital and

I hope for the people in Placentia that that will not be another $6-million

facility like all the other recent ones that have been built on capital

expenditure and sit there and you cannot utilize them. If you are going to build

six or eight hospitals and not use them, why not build three and use them, or

build four; do not reach beyond your grasp. That is not very progressive

planning and very efficient use of public money.

There are also preliminary plans now for a 40-bed interfaith

home in St. Anthony; another preliminary plan when all over the Province, in

every region, there are hospitals they cannot open and beds they cannot use. It

is a disgrace and an insult really to the people in these areas. We have seen

reductions of staff in every single hospital in areas across this Province; we

have seen tremendous reductions. We have seen clinics cut back or closed; we

have seen cottage hospitals reduced to clinic status; we have seen examples in

Grand Bank where a woman had to wait for extended periods of time to be able to

be transported to Burin and unfortunately she died in the process.

We have seen waiting lists for surgery, on heart surgery that

has gone to unacceptable proportions. We have seen the situation in this

Province rise to levels whereby every surgery done now is almost emergency

surgery. We have waiting lists of 115 people for heart surgery; we have seen

doctors performing heart surgeries under more demanding situations because every

case is critical; we have seen the staff at these hospitals under greater

stress; we have seen the whole system being subjected to intense stress and more

stress upon the individual and a greater threat to that person's life because

when he gets around to having heart surgery, he is so critical they have to

perform the operation today or tomorrow or that person may not be alive next

week. That is a sad situation, when, what the government should be doing, and

what they should have been doing one year ago when the October crisis arose and

government finally admitted it and put in emergency funding of $636,500, the

waiting list went down to fifty to sixty and that is important when you have a

waiting list of fifty to sixty you are getting cases that are not extreme

emergencies at least, some cases are not, but by getting a list up to 115 you

are dealing with immediate emergency cases.

There is less pressure, there is less staff requirements for

convalescing for a patient who is not an emergency but a routine heart surgery

bypass operation. The recovery time is shorter, the hospital stay is shorter and

you can put more people through a medical system when you perform the operations

when it is not in an emergency situation. They have to wake up and realize that

it is difficult to put a dollar value on a human life. There are people out on

the waiting list who are being told that six or eight, three weeks, but three

weeks come and it is four because emergency cases go in and they are dealt with;

every week they assess the cases and they are pushed back and it takes two weeks

to become number twelve, and probably another three weeks to become number ten

and probably never get to number two or one, unless you have a heart attack or

there is some other complication which arises and they have to do something

about it and those are the realities of what is happening in our health care

system today.

We've seen in other specialities - and that's not just in

heart surgery - we've seen other specialities where doctors have stopped taking

waiting lists months in advance because the waiting lists are so unmanageable

they can't even accommodate waiting lists any more. We are seeing other non-life

threatening areas becoming very severe because of a long wait to see a

specialist. It has gone to very severe proportions by the time an appointment is

given with a specialist.

We're seeing all this happening, all this is happening today,

when the demands for hospital beds and for health care are increasing today in

our society. They are increasing in our society and our systems, efficient, and

well-planned use of our resources to cope with that, have created a crisis

situation. We have adopted a crisis by management response to what is happening

in the Province.

Would you start a business and build your facility two years

before you're going to use it, or one year, and carry the interest charges for

two years? It would be very poor management and you wouldn't be in business very

long. That's what this government is doing with health care facilities

construction in this Province. They are cutting them off from operational funds

and putting structures there to say: we've put the facilities out there. How do

you raise public money for health care.

This is happening when the Liberal health policy states, and

I quote it: Liberal health policy dictates that as long as demand exists

hospital beds must be kept open, institutions must not be understaffed, and

compassion must always take precedence over business administration. We've seen

more hospital beds closed in this Province in the past few years than in all the

previous history of this Province. We've seen, during periods of our growth, an

increase in hospital beds. We were promised more beds back in 1989 and we were

promised improved access to health care facilities.

The statement, the Liberal health policy, goes on to say: If

we cannot adequately care for the sick, the disabled and the aged among us, we

have failed as a society and we can take cold comfort in cutting costs and

improving balance sheets. A Liberal government will recognize the problems which

have been created and will alleviate them. Alleviate them, they have compounded

it!

It says: Financial priority must be given to health care

along with education. Professional personnel must receive the support necessary

to encourage them to stay in this Province and improve our quality of care, and

for Liberals people come before projects.

Well, we have monuments of projects out there standing now,

not staffed, with no funds to operate, and people are not coming before

projects. Projects are coming before people. That's a very sad commentary today,

when everybody values immensely health today and people are more conscious about

health care today than ever before in our lives.

That's the same Premier who stated on September 3, when asked

about Quebec looking at user fees, he said: they may in the end prove to be

right. Wells said. If they are, I believe we will all have to resort to user

fees in order to protect the health care system from being overwhelmed by

burgeoning costs. I say, if that's the last resort, then he should look at. It's

not the last resort. We are not efficiently managing the dollars that are in the

health care system today. Clean up our own act first and do something about it,

and then address other areas that need to be addressed.

We have looked at - today, in the health care field, we are

moving in the direction of a community based health for our people. The most

effective types of organizations are those which are linked to the grass roots,

and people can have a say in the direction that they're going. I had the

privilege to chair a very innovative project in primary health care that was

conducted in Ferryland District, and a similar one in Denmark. The last year it

was filled by someone else when I resigned to enter the political arena. I had

an opportunity to witness first-hand, with the endorsement from this government

and from the federal government, and the World Health organization, the

opportunity to see people in communities get together with all the organizations

and sit on a community health care board that was looking at what is best for

the people. To improve the lifestyles and the health of individuals, increases

in physical activities occurred, walks by seniors, more clinics for people,

lifestyle clinics. We saw a tremendous change in attitudes by people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I couldn't go, I had to work. I couldn't

get any days off, the Department of Education wouldn't give me leave. I could

have gone but the minister was not very generous to me at all. I would like to

have participated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure who it was. Anyway, overall

the project showed something. I have great fears with the community boards. I

cautioned the minister and I said to him when it was debated in the estimates. I

showed up and passed on some concerns. I have great fears that this community

health board that has been just instituted in the St. John's region and covers

from St. Shotts, the Trepassey area, and right in here around the greater metro

St. John's area, that it may neglect to look at the direction that community

health care boards should be going in the future, utilizing the people in each

community. We have large boards now that are covering, in this area, probably

150,000 people.

The chances for communities to become pro-active in smaller

boards that are operating at no cost to government, volunteer people giving of

their time, sitting down with health care professionals and discussing what is

best for the people themselves, setting up clinics in the area, setting up

promotionals in the area, to show how people can better take care of their own

health. I think we could lose this very much with a high degree of

institutionalization and very large and expanded boards. We have to be moving

today where health care is going to be brought down deeper into the community

level and not brought up at a higher institutional level. There are two reasons

why, number one, the people should have a say in the future and the health

opportunities that are there, and, number two, it is very cost efficient because

it is done by volunteers and it is not costing the taxpayers of this Province

any money. I have great fears here and I am not very convinced that is the

direction it is moving.

Overall, here in the Throne Speech there are numerous areas

that are very disturbing. It says: significant reforms to preserve and

strengthen parliamentary democracy in this Province and to assure that

government is held accountable in this House for the proper discharge of its

duties that have already been implemented. Well, I have not seen parliamentary

democracy in the short while I have been here. Maybe it existed beforehand, I do

not know, or maybe it is going to come in the future. I have seen, in this

House, bullying tactics. I have seen people and government not accepting court

decisions. I have seen the Auditor General report to the House of Assembly and

the courts supporting it. You brought in the Memorial University Act that

changed it so it does not have to report to this House. Is that parliamentary

democracy? That is a regressive step in democracy in this Province, and I say it

is time the government woke up and let the people have a say.

All across this Province, hospital boards, school boards -

universities in Ontario and other places in this country are accountable to the

elected representatives in their respective Houses in their province but we are

exempt here - academic freedom. Is the University of Toronto exempt from

academic freedom, Western University, and all other universities across Canada?

No, they are accountable to the people of the Province that fund these

universities and fund the health care and educational institutions of the

province, and it should be accountable here to the House of Assembly and not

report directly to the Department of Education. It is not right and it should

not be done. If that is parliamentary democracy you are talking about, I call it

dictatorship and we are going in the wrong direction.

We have seen the court's rule on a mine in Hope Brook that

took government to task for administration on retail sales tax and the courts

upheld the ruling of the mine, that they were due a refund and they should not

have been paying tax on this specific piece of equipment, so what did the

government do? Oh, that is one decision the courts made. The court is only right

when it agrees with the government. It brought in amendments to the Tax

Administration Act and they changed them, made them retroactive for twenty

years, that they could not get back their several hundred thousand dollars. I

think the company went anyway so it was all academic by that time, but the

principle at stake is not accepting the court's ruling. When it only applies and

agrees with us will we accept it, and if it does not we will go out and change

it. That is not parliamentary democracy at all. I think that is insulting and

downgrading. We have seen parliamentary democracy at its finest. We have seen

this government negotiate collective agreements and sign them with the

respective unions, and then we see them come back with Bills 16 and 17 and tear

up collective agreements. That is not parliamentary democracy. It's not worth

the paper the Throne Speech is written on to be talking about improving

parliamentary democracy, our health care system and our education system. Where

are we in our education system? We're back in the early 1900s now, that's where

we are with the latest proposal, and we're probably going to go back into the

1800s. We're going in the wrong direction with improving and changing in

education.

We have arrived at that stage not because it was the

intention of the major stakeholders to do that, but because this government had

failed to deal up front and build up a trust and respect with the interested

people and the stakeholders in that. They've gone into a protectionist position

now and have backtracked because they don't trust what government is doing. They

have great fears: We are going to hang on and we're going to protect what rights

we had given to us in 1949 and we're not going to bend from it. That seems to be

where we're to today. That is really a very sad commentary for the future of

education.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tell the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to get a new tank for Ramea for their truck.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes. I hear there were problems there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. He was going on about how concerned

he was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How concerned he was. No wonder he was

concerned. I heard there were inspections done around that time. I'm not sure. I

heard a rumour on the street that something wasn't working, only 70 per cent

efficient, equipment. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So that's fairly accurate. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stood up today in response to a

question, he said -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No he didn't, not today.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, today, to the Member for Bonavista

South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who, me?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, sorry, the Minister of Social Services.

Pardon me. Sorry. He said he's not surprised, increase in social services. The

Budget showed $15 million less budgeted than they spent last year, going to

spend $15 million less. Here it's gone up an enormous amount higher. I would be

the most surprised one there if I was told that it's $16 million out of whack

and you budgeted to spend $15 million less. At $30 million on $170 million out,

that would be - I would be the most surprised person here.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave.

It is such a good speech.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. I will just be very

brief. I won't abuse the privilege you've given me.

Overall I feel we have numerous inefficiencies. There are

numerous other items in the Throne Speech I would have loved to get an

opportunity to comment on, but I would say mostly concerned - my responsibility

with health care. I ask the Minister of Health to seriously look at developing a

plan for the future. Not an immediate response or a crisis management, a plan to

look at the cost effectiveness from a capital and from an operational point of

view, and to ensure that the dollars we have at our disposal are used properly,

number one, and number two, any savings that do occur might be in the

administration of certain boards around the Province - especially St. John's

where there are many boards, it would be reasonable to think there could be

savings in administration there - that it gets directed back to reduce waiting

lists, to enable hospital beds to stay open, to open up facilities across the

Province that are now closed, multi-million dollar buildings. In the tens of

millions of dollars they're out there now. Get these operational. Give the

people a service there. Don't gouge the dollars out of health care and spend it

somewhere else. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for the District of

Terra Nova I would like to take this opportunity to first of all say how pleased

I am to be back in the hon. House of Assembly. It's good to listen to and

participate in some great debates. No doubt some of these debates will be more

serious than others, but I'm sure there's certainly a need for comic relief on

certain occasions.

Since the House adjourned five months ago we on this side of

the House have much to celebrate. In October the great Liberal tide swept across

Newfoundland. It commenced here, swept across Canada, swept the Tories out of

power, and nearly swept them out of existence. However, I must admit that I do

feel a sense of sadness for some of the great members of the PC Party who did

work for the good of this country. There were a few.

Unfortunately, that Party was led by a man who was hell-bent

and determined on leading us down the garden path and into self-destruction, and

he certainly proved that when, in the very few days left in his reign, he went

across the world on a good-bye mission, at a cost of nearly half a million

dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was worth it.

MS. YOUNG: Worth it? Just think of how many poor families

could have been fed on half a million dollars in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then they get up and talk about

unemployment.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, indeed; you get up there and talk about

unemployment. That money could have gone into creating jobs - jobs that people

could have benefitted from.

That is just one example. Meanwhile, the many studies on

violence against women continue. That issue was studied to death. There were

very few dollars put into addressing that problem. Studies are necessary, but

studying something to death proves nothing. Meanwhile, family violence

continues, and children continue to live in fear, and they carry that burden on

their shoulders. They carry that into the classroom with them. They carry it

into their play, and into their interaction with their peers and their

playmates.

Add to that violence they are exposed to through the media.

How can these children expect to grow into caring adults? It is beyond me to

understand how that will ever happen, and children are the people who will

suffer most from the state of affairs that we were thrust into when the federal

Liberals inflicted a deficit upon us, and that will affect programs that our

government wishes to implement in this Province, and indeed across the country.

The Bloc leader tried in vain to get an answer from the PC

leader just how much the deficit actually was, but she was not talking, and now

we know why. She, too, added to that deficit. She carried out an excellent

campaign, even before the election was called, but she did not fool Canadians.

We saw what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: That is right.

Even with the deficit, I am pleased that we now have a leader

and a government in Ottawa which cares about the people - all people - not just

the business community.

Had the federal dollars been managed by responsible people at

the federal level after the last recession, we would have money in reserve to

help us through this recession, but oh, no, it was spend, spend, spend.

People became too reliant on government, and I must say that

it is now refreshing to see communities drawing their resources and people

together to improve their lives. Baie Verte is an example of such an initiative.

In my own district we were faced with the problem of

repairing a community wharf. We had a few dollars for labour, but there were no

dollars to buy materials. The development association held a community meeting,

and people had to decide whether or not to spend a few dollars to remove the

wharf, because the few dollars was not enough to repair it. I am pleased to say

that the residents of the small community of Brooklyn agreed to provide the

materials to repair the wharf. Even though it wasn't a major project, it was

another success story. In a time when dollars are scarce, we must be creative.

In this Province we also saw waste and mismanagement at the

hands of the PC government. One hon. member from across the floor said: We

should not reflect on the past. And with their past, I can see his reluctance to

have it reflected upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Right on! That was the Opposition House Leader.

MS. YOUNG: Yes.

However, I feel that in order to move forward into the future

we must understand our past. I remember the Sprung fiasco. I remember that one

well because there was a huge sum of money that went into that project, and

government officials nearly gagged when they had to defend it.

I, along with a few others, felt that there was a need to

confront government, and we did. At least thirty-two questions were raised at a

public forum at that time, and only several questions were answered by the

minister. We felt that our traditional agricultural industry could have

benefitted from these big bucks. We were waved aside by the government of the

day. However, I still maintain that these dollars should have been used to

stimulate growth in the family farm operations.

MR. TULK: What government was that?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, that was a Tory.

MR. TULK: Which one? Peckford's?

MS. YOUNG: Peckford's, yes. Also, to commence secondary

processing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: We'll get to that. Jobs could have been

created and no doubt we could have even exported some of our products. Yes

indeed, we must look to the past to see our failures and successes and learn

from them.

Agriculture has great potential because people have to eat

and Newfoundland produce is second to none. Our cooler climate actually enhance

the flavour of our vegetables, and I must point out that we are nowhere near to

self-sufficiency in that area. If the GATT negotiations lead to the eradication

of supply management, we will see who the survivors are. I am in favour of

supply management if all farmers are placed on a level playing field. I know too

well that was not the case in the Newfoundland dairy industry, thanks to the

illustrious Milk Marketing Board. There are other commodities that can and

should expand, such as sheep production, turkeys, greenhouses - and by that I

mean family-owned greenhouse operations and not the mega-white elephants.

We have moved into an age of technology. Farmers must

continue to keep pace with the rest of the world in the advances of new

technology in the farming industry. Farmers must be good managers and they must

be competitive, but also government must be good managers as well.

In this Province we are fortunate to have a government that

cares about the rural areas of our Province and therefore Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador has been created. These offices extend beyond the city

limits of St. John's. We have access to these agencies in our rural areas. They

work closely with our rural development associations. They lend expertise which

in other circumstances would be otherwise inaccessible to the people of rural

Newfoundland. Since being elected I've had the opportunity to learn more about

the Economic Recovery Commission and I am pleased with what I have learned.

Again, expertise and assistance are available to all Newfoundlanders through

that Commission.

In the District of Terra Nova we are working towards

stimulating the economy through tourism. The tourism association on the Eastport

Peninsula is an industry driven association. I am excited about that move. We

had the first ever cruise ship dock in Terra Nova National Park and the

passengers were pleased with the tours organized for them. In Cannings Cove the

residents, with a mere $2,400 from the Emergency Response Program, are

developing a lookout. Every meeting I attend, the development of the tourism

industry is the prime concern of the people. They see the potential. We are at

the gateway of the Bonavista Peninsula and we are preparing for the year 1997.

Festivals in my district are alive and well, and thanks to

our Department of Tourism they are being supported. This is a beautiful District

and we surround the ocean, and can certainly develop our tourism industry around

that theme. We can capitalize on the Terra Nova National Park and we are indeed

doing that. It is just a matter of getting our act together, and I plan to be

part of that act all the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: I am delighted the hon. Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations allocated dollars for my district under the Emergency

Response Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: I cannot comment on that one - and a number of

excellent projects have been the beneficiaries of these dollars.

People are excited to be working on the salmon enhancement

programme in the Terra Nova area, and this will also be a boost to the tourism

industry.

The hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture approved three

projects under the Emergency Response Program, and this provided much needed

employment. Under these projects we can be certain of a viable future for the

forestry industry.

We have a number of aquaculture projects in the district and

I am pleased with the prospects of a bright future in that direction.

I am also pleased that there has been a great interest in

creating new business, and I would encourage anybody who has an idea to come

forward and let's explore it. Believe you me, there are lots of ideas, and some

of these ideas will blossom into successful business ventures. We will work

together to prove this.

I have three development associations in the district, and I

have made myself accessible to them, and they are taking advantage of that

people like myself, and I am committed to working with them.

In the field of education, I can say that I was really

excited when my former principal called me and asked me if I would read the

speeches that her Grade VI students had written. They were leadership speeches -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

minute, please.

MS. YOUNG: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to bring to hon. members'

attention that today is Thursday; it is four o'clock, and normally we would have

questions for the Late Show presented to the House at this time; however, there

are no questions for the Late Show this afternoon, and at 4:30 we will not be

putting the adjournment motion; we will continue on with the debate.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Well, I hope I don't have to provide the Late

Show.

As I was saying, I was called upon by my former principal to

read the leadership speeches that her students had written in the Grade VI

class, and they were all striving to become the Premier of the classroom. When I

read these speeches I was very impressed. It is surprising how much these young

people actually know about what is happening in our Province, and that is one of

the positive things that I can attribute to the media.

Through this exercise these young people learned about

democracy, a lot more than they would ever learn through a text book. This is

the sort of initiative that I am pleased that teachers bring into the

classrooms.

Our educational system will go through changes as we strive

to keep pace with the changing world, and our government is committed to the

future, and I know that there are many dedicated teachers who look forward to

these changes and will ensure that our youth reach their full potential.

The forestry industry has been undergoing changes to ensure

that the industry is maintained for future generations and this has been an

industry which contributed greatly to the District of Terra Nova. There are a

number of constituents who were affected by the Northern Cod Moratorium but they

are hopeful that they will once again be involved in a northern cod fishery. The

many town councils and local service districts in the District of Terra Nova

have been in touch with me, and thanks to the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, we have made great strides in a few short months. As well,

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation took a tour through the

District of Terra Nova with me last summer. I am sure that he is very well aware

of the problems that are surfacing in our district and he is prepared to work

with me in that direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most definitely, are you a Liberal?

MS. YOUNG: I think so.

In my district there are six homes which offer service to the

seniors of our area. I have personally visited each of these facilities and it

is wonderful to see our seniors are being adequately cared for in pleasant

surroundings.

The economy is a concern of each and every one of us but we

do have the ability to survive in this Province. I look forward to working with

my colleagues and we will try to ensure that our Province and our country

continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise our families. The

responsibility that we as politicians have taken upon ourselves is a serious

responsibility and I am sure each and every one of us will work together and we

will share that responsibility both provincially and federally. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate,

the Address in Reply, Mr. Speaker. The opportunity to speak after five months of

the House being closed. I just want to say a few brief comments about some of

the things that have occurred in my district.

I would like to first of all talk about the Emergency

Employment Programme and the inadequacy of the amount of funding that was

allocated to the particular districts that I represent in Menihek. The people of

Menihek have made a tremendous contribution over the last thirty-five years to

the general economy of this Province and when in their time of need, such as

now, when the mines are going through a slowdown in employment levels, Mr.

Speaker, and to see the response that was given by this particular

administration is disgraceful. A $50,000 allotment emergency employment funding

was completely inadequate. It certainly did not represent any equality of

fairness, Mr. Speaker, in the sense of what the high unemployment levels are in

Western Labrador. It certainly did not represent any fairness in the sense of

recognition of the contribution that these people have made to the general

economy of this Province and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) people blame it on the

member.

MR. A. SNOW: Well that is quite possible and that may

have occurred in your case but in this particular case they are blaming the

government of the day. Now maybe in your district they blame the member for -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, on May 3 people sent a

message to this House that -

MR. ROBERTS: The member himself told me that if there had

been another week in the campaign he would have been history.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was not another

week in the campaign and if there had been two weeks left in the campaign, the

hon. Member for Naskaupi may have been history.

MR. ROBERTS: I would have doubled the majority I got

which was increased over the by-election.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WOODFORD: It is still history. It is still history.

MR. A. SNOW: But the people have spoken and -

MR. ROBERTS: Notwithstanding the hon. members pledge to

get Bill Rompkey - Bill got the highest majority ever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Naskaupi

made reference to a comment that I allegedly made about getting Bill Rompkey.

There was never any such remark made by me.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course, there was.

MR. A. SNOW: There was not. There never was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, there never was any remark made by me

with regard to getting Bill Rompkey or anybody else. I did go out and campaign

for the person who was representing the Progressive Conservative Party and I

campaigned with that individual, helped organize his campaign -

MR. ROBERTS: That is why he did so badly.

MR. A. SNOW: Well maybe, maybe that is one of the reasons

why we lost but we did lose, there was no getting anybody. I did not enter

politics to get anybody and I have not participated in politics to get anybody,

I merely represent people, and I think if more of us did that type of thing,

this would be a lot better place to represent people and do the job we were

elected to do.

The people in my district are very concerned about an issue

today that over the last couple of weeks has become very topical, as are people

throughout this Province, and that is about the so called sale or merger or

whatever is occurring with the Crown corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. They are concerned for several reasons as are the people in the Province,

and I would like to, first of all, thank and congratulate the people who are

organizing in a non-partisan way, to create more debate and to be more objective

about the sale or the merger of the Crown corporation, and I want to thank the

people, Cyril Abery, Bill Vetters, Susan Dyer and Steve Neary for organizing

these public meetings to be held around the Province, the Power of the People

Organization, is a very important organization at this particular time in the

history of this Province. It is very important.

I only wish that public discussion had taken place during the

debate or the lack of debate, at that time when the Upper Churchill was

developed. If public discussion had taken place then to what is taking place

today, we never would have had the problem that has developed over the last

numbers of years with the Churchill Falls development project, because there is

nothing wrong with public debate. The problem that occurred with the Lower

Churchill, I have often said, was that the deal was done, signed, sealed and

delivered on a make work program idea. A concept of let us create some

employment now because we have finished the construction of the Trans-Labrador

Highway, let us get on to building something new, let us just earth move, there

are no mines to open now so what we will do is just build this, because

basically a hydro development is an earth-moving project, similar to mining or

road building, because that is what is mainly done in a hydro development

project, in the actual construction. So if there had been a public discussion

surrounding the development of the Churchill Falls Hydro project, and that

particular day I believe that it would have been done under a different concept.

They would have undoubtedly used a different concept. I would have hoped they

would have used the concept that was used with the development of Hydro-Quebec.

In Hydro-Quebec, the concept of hydro development was done in

concert and to use as a lever for economic development in the province, to

attract industry to the province; that is what they did in Hydro-Quebec. For the

last thirty years they have been attracting industry and over the last ten years

they have been attracting the aluminum industry and there are thousands of jobs,

tens of thousands of jobs created in Quebec today because of that tool, the use

of that Crown corporation, it has a public policy function for that province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had used our Crown corporation in

that fashion, I think it would have been beneficial economically and socially

for this Province as was the Crown corporation in Quebec a benefit to their

development. So I want to thank again, and place it on record that I sincerely

thank these people who are creating the public debate, these non-partisan

individuals who came forward. I remember back when the Upper Churchill deal was

talked about, you had to whisper if you were against it and these people have

had to undergo personal attacks even by the Premier of this Province. They have

had to withstand personal attacks on their integrity because they happen to have

a different opinion. Well, I commend them for standing up to it, pushing ahead,

and creating more public discussion about this very important subject, the sale

or merger, or giving away, of this tremendous resource that we now control

within this Province, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, in his speech to the St. John's Board of Trade,

talked about the merits of the private sector. He leaves you with the idea that

the private sector has the answer to a lot of the problems. Undoubtedly, I would

agree that it can answer some of the problems that face the general economy in

this whole country and just not in this Province. In fact, it should be, and can

be, the engine of recovery for this country and the Province. Mr. Speaker, what

we have to be cognizant of is that there also is a role for a Crown corporation

to play in our economy.

This government's policy, and the Premiers, government wants

to avoid providing services where they can be provided by the private sector so

he uses this as a basis of selling the Crown corporation, Newfoundland Hydro.

Because the private sector can do it he is going to sell it to the private

sector. He is going to sell this company that the people of this Province have

developed over the last number of years. I disagree with it, the people in my

district disagree with it, or at least the people I have spoken with. People

have stopped me in the street, stopped me in the mall, and stopped me at the

airport, to discuss this particular matter. I have had several hundred people

say to me: something smells here, Alec. What is happening does not seem right. I

have only had one individual say to me that it should be sold. Only one

individual, Mr. Speaker, suggested to me that it should be sold.

Mr. Speaker, I say I disagree with the sale or the merger of

this particular Crown corporation, Newfoundland Hydro, because I do not see

where it is a benefit to the people of this Province.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs will allow me to speak I will explain it, then

after he will be permitted to speak and he can rebut what I am saying.

I believe that the Crown corporation has a place and it

should be kept as it is. Yes, we can do things with it. We can use it as a tool

for development, as is done in other provinces, Mr. Speaker, because while the

private sector can be the engine of recovery we have to remember that what

drives the private sector is profit. Profit drives the private sector. It is not

an obscene word either. We had the Minister of Justice talk today about what

profit does. It is not a dirty word. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

It is what drives the private sector, but competition is the discipline. In this

particular case there will be no competition. It will be driven by profit. You

say you are going to protect the people by the Public Utilities Board. I do not

think it will be protected. I do not believe that the Public Utilities Board can

protect the people in this case. I have not seen the proposed legislation on how

they are going to do it so the profit will be the purpose of this new private

company, NewCo, we will call it, this NewCo, Mr. Speaker. I did not put the name

on it. The Minister of Justice put the name NewCo on it, Mr. Speaker. Anyway we

will call it NewCo now. NewCo, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe will have the

people's interest at heart. I honestly believe they will not. When I say the

people I mean the people of this Province, the people who consume the product

that this NewCo will be selling, electricity.

They will not be concerned about the consumer in a sense of

just - not of his welfare, or of how they can develop the industries in this

Province; they will be concerned about how much profit they can derive from

their investment. Mr. Speaker, that is the way the present legislation is

written, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, some people, such as the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, just mentioned about there only

being a $10 million receipt of cash, or payment that is paid, from Newfoundland

Hydro to the government. They receive $10 million from Newfoundland Hydro as a

fee, and this is what they get back on this so-called $1 billion guaranteed

debt, and it is not a good return. What they fail to see - what they fail to

recognize - is that the people of this Province receive a return.

The Premier mentioned yesterday that the problem with

Newfoundland Hydro in the present setup is that Newfoundland Hydro has a billion

dollar debt that is guaranteed by the government, and the government only gets a

$10 million receipt of cash. What he fails to see is that the people of the

Province receive a benefit.

MR. WOODFORD: What would your light bills be?

MR. A. SNOW: Now what will the light bills be when NewCo

has to go out and earn a return on their investment? The Premier suggests that

it is probably only going to be increased by 1 per cent per year in the next

five or ten years. Then he says it might go down after that. Well, Mr. Speaker,

if he feels so strongly about that, before this sale goes through, what he

should do is make that legislation that it should only increa