December 10, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 50

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, the Chair would like to

welcome to the gallery eighty-five Grades VIII and IX students from St. Peter's

Elementary School in Upper Island Cove, in the District of Port de Grave. They

are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Calvin Peddle, Mr. Howie Lundrigan, Mr.

Robert Bishop, Mr. Aiden Drover, and Ms Barb Patey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker,

recently there has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, the ad hoc Northern Nursing Crisis

Committee and government over the issue of recruitment and retention of nurses

in Labrador. Today, I would like to clearly state government's position on

this matter for all members present and for the general public.

While we appreciate the concerns that have been put forward by the ad hoc

Northern Nursing Crisis Committee, government has a responsibility to deal with

the members of a collective bargaining unit in an appropriate manner. This

manner is to deal with the officially certified bargaining agent for nurses in

the Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union is the officially certified

bargaining agent for nurses in this Province. I am calling on the Newfoundland

and Labrador Nurses' Union to recognize its responsibility to its members as

the officially certified bargaining agent for nurses, and to formally meet with

the government officials to discuss the concerns of their Labrador members.

Effective immediately, government officials are willing to meet with

representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union to work

toward a resolution of concerns put forward by the Labrador nurses.

If the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union is not prepared to

officially meet with government to discuss these issues, government can only

assume that the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union has abandoned their

right to represent nurses in Labrador. We urge the Newfoundland and Labrador

Nurses' Union to act immediately to address the outstanding concerns of their

members.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I cannot believe what I have just heard and what I am reading. Last year, the

government treated nurses very unfairly. They bargained in bad faith with them.

Now they are attempting again to divide the nurses of this Province, divide

Labrador nurses from the rest of the Province. Then the minister, in her last

statement, says: We have to assume that the nurses, if they do not come back to

the table, have abandoned their right to represent nurses in Labrador.

Nurses in this Province do not want to be lectured by this minister or this

government. Nurses will not forget how they were treated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: They will not forget how they were abandoned by this

government. They want to be treated fairly, with respect, with dignity, and with

a focus on patient care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is (inaudible) that government is continuing to attack the nurses' union

of this Province, and trying to blame them for the things that are not adequate

in the nursing profession. I noticed, even in the Ministerial Statement, it

says: Effective immediately, government is willing to meet with representatives.

Does that mean that they were not before? There is a letter here that has

gone to the President of Treasury Board, from the nurses' union, saying that

they are willing to meet at any meeting organized and lend their support to the

request for a timely response to their proposals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: I would suggest

the President of the Treasury Board call upon the nurses' union and sit down

and meet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce in the House today,

additional funding for some innovative employment programs that come under my

department.

Following a mid-year review of employment programs, an additional $300,000

has been approved for the Linkages Program. This program offers valuable work

with youth, to give them experience as they prepare to make the transition from

the classroom to the labour market. This brings to community based projects for

this youth-oriented program a total of $1.1 million for this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This funding comes as good news for anyone who works with the

Linkages Program, because ultimately this means more resources and more

opportunities for our youth.

Linkages is designed to help youth age eighteen to twenty-four who are

finding it difficult to make the transition into the labour market. Through the

program, the Department of Human Resources and Employment provides funding to

community agencies to provide up to twenty-six weeks of career-related

employment. Youth also take

part in regular career planning workshops and earn a

completion bonus towards the cost of post-secondary tuition and books.

Many of our youth are faced with the challenge of securing a first-time job

with little professional experience. Linkages provides youth with work

experience as they continue to develop and plan their career paths.

Youth measures from this government, including the Linkages Program, have

assisted 2,520 youth over the past year and it is anticipated that we will

assist a further 2,724 new clients in this new year to gain work and training

experience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Youth employment is a priority for this government. We

recognize that youth face unique challenges as they prepare to move from the

academic world to our labour market. Linkages is a great initiative that assists

youth in overcoming these challenges.

Since its inception in 1998, Linkages itself has helped over 400 youth in the

Province. Its program's success and innovation have been nationally recognized

by Human Resource Development Canada and the National Volunteer Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight some additional funding for two

other employment programs. My department allocated approximately $300,000 for

the Graduate Employment and the Employment Generation programs, which translates

into about 110 long-term jobs for our Province.

The department's Graduate Program, which is designed to help new graduates

find work in their field of study, receives an additional $175,000, bringing the

total for this year to $1.725 million.

The Employment Generation Program, which creates new long-term employment

opportunities, will be funded at a total for this year of $1.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the additional support for Graduate, Employment Generation and

Linkages Programs demonstrates our commitment to strengthening our labour market

and increasing opportunities for people in this Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see some funding put into the Linkages Program. I say to

the minister, in the youth programs in general we have the highest youth

unemployment rate in the country. People coming out of our systems, our

colleges, universities, Graduate Employment and other Employment Generation

programs, many of them are having to find work in other provinces across this

country.

Anything that can be done to enhance their opportunities to get unemployment

here is welcome. It is unfortunate that many of the jobs they enter into are low

wage jobs. We have to look at providing opportunities for our youth.

Unfortunately, it is the youth of this Province that we are missing out on, that

we are not devoting enough attention to.

The minister made reference to $300,000 and an additional 110 long-term jobs.

If you look at that ratio, that is about $2,800 put into a job. I hope they are

not just a short-term one year thing and then it is dead-ended. I think it is

important that we continue to look at allocating higher amounts of resources to

ensure that the youth here are able to stay on a job. Not for a short term to

fulfill the requirements of the program, but even look a little further to see

if further assistance - I know there is a phase out period - can be provided to

encourage employers to hold on to these people after the end of this program, or

even some other contribution of a percentage level that will do that.

Because the youth here have been neglected. The opportunities have not been

as great. They have come out of colleges with high debt and they are having to

seek jobs in other provinces to enable them to retire the debt. Their choices

are limited here in this Province. Certainly I'm delighted to see some extra

funding put in here, and I hope it will continue and it will be earmarked to

even a higher level in the next budget.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that youth unemployment is a priority for its government.

If that is the case, how is it that we have a 25 per cent unemployment rate? We

have tuition costs in this Province that have doubled and tripled in the last

ten years. We have young people unable to get an education to be able to get a

good job because of the costs of education, the costs of tuition and the debt

associated with it is so high.

Mr. Speaker. if that is how well they perform in the areas of high priority,

I would hate to see the areas of low priority for this government. Certain

people are being helped through this Linkages Program, there is no doubt about

that, but we do not need pilot programs. What we need are full programs that are

going to provide full opportunities for all of our young people to get a decent

education and get good jobs so that they can have a future for themselves.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the Christmas season, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will

soon be traveling into the woods in search of their Christmas tree. It is

fitting therefore that I address the regulations involved in this festive

tradition.

I ask that it be noted that it is illegal to cut any tree within 102 meters

of the centre line of any highway or to cut trees in any forest improvement or

preservation area, such as a plantation, thinning, No Cutting areas or

provincial and national parks.

In the interest of conservation I urge people to decide upon their tree

before cutting it, as it is also illegal, not to mention wasteful, to cut trees

down and leave them in the forest.

Selling Christmas trees is also a seasonal industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Vendors who plan on cutting trees to sell require a commercial cutting

permit. These can be obtained from any Forestry office throughout the Province.

Another seasonal industry, which is growing by leaps and bounds, is the

Christmas wreath industry which provides employment on several levels from

harvesting tree tips to wreath tying and the final marketing of the product.

Newfoundland and Labrador is in an ideal place for a Christmas wreath industry.

There is an abundance of balsam fir which is the species of choice for wreath

making and many facilities available for production of the wreaths.

Last year, two pilot projects at Clarenville and Victoria Cove produced

10,000 Christmas wreaths and employed or trained approximately eighty people.

These results have been very promising. Operators -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Victoria Cove and Clarenville.

Operators were able to train wreath tyers, establish local markets, and gain

entry into lucrative export markets. This year the number of wreaths

manufactured locally has more than doubled, with approximately 25,000 wreaths

produced. The majority of these wreaths are exported to the United States, and

there are wreaths available at local retail markets. I encourage the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to hang a locally grown wreath in their homes this

Christmas season. Not only will you have a beautiful Christmas decoration but

you will also be supporting local industry and jobs.

In closing, as people begin their hunt for that perfect Christmas tree, I ask

that they observe the rules and also that they use care and common sense while

in the woods and make this a safe and happy Christmas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: It must be

the minister's turn to read a ministerial statement because all this is is a

recital of rules and regulations that are already in existence.

I can relate to some of the things that the minister refers to here. Mr.

Speaker, I grew up in a family of five boys and come Christmastime the five of

us would go in and we would cut five Christmas trees. We would bring them out

and somebody would stand in the window and they would either go like this or

they would go like that, and back in the woods you would go again, and you would

bring out another five Christmas trees. When you were finished you had a pile of

trees that high. You would pick out one and probably my grandmother would be the

one who would cut it.

I can relate to what the minister is saying here. I think people have become

more conscious of what they are doing now to the forest, but the shame of it is

when we look at the number of trees that are imported into this Province, when

you look at the trees that are coming in from Nova Scotia. It does provide some

economic activity at a time of the year when money is important and when people

would like to have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a few dollars in their pocket. We are not paying enough

attention and not placing enough emphasis on having those trees grown right in

our Province and having our own local people provide that market. That is where

the minister has to pay his attention. Maybe this time next year he can stand in

his place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and tell us how many new Christmas tree growers are in

this Province so that we can stand and give him the clapping hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is the intention of the government, through ministerial statements,

to promote what is already in place, but I also encourage it. Because there is a

lot of wastage at this time of the year in our forests by people cutting trees

and bringing them home, not satisfied, and carrying them back. In some parts of

Labrador, we have to drill the trees and stick limbs in to make the tree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: I have done that before, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the

minister that I congratulate the minister on encouraging people of the Province

to support their local industries by buying local crafts. I support the minister

and commend him on that. Maybe other ministers in this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - can take an example from his leadership and support the

local industries themselves.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House

of Assembly to recognize a very important event in the history of human rights.

Today, December 10, marks fifty-one years since the first signing of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United

Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a

common standard for all people of all nations.

The Human Rights Code, which is law in Newfoundland and Labrador, is integral

to our present and future accomplishments as a government, a Province, and as a

people. This code protects individuals from discrimination and harassment and

promotes equality of opportunity. It applies to provincial government

departments and agencies and private businesses. The code ensures that all

individuals are not victims of discrimination because of their race, religion,

religious creed, sex, marital status, physical disability, mental disability,

political opinion, colour, or ethnic, national or social origin and sexual

orientation.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador strongly believes in the Human

Rights Code and approaches all government initiatives on the code's standards.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources and Employment is currently

redesigning its income support and employment programs. The main purpose of this

redesign is to provide easier access to our services and programs for the entire

population of Newfoundland and Labrador. These numerous programs and their

specific details ensure all clients have equal opportunity to reach their social

and economic potential.

In an effort to address potential discrimination in the labour force, many of

the department's programs are specifically designed for individuals who may

face unique challenges or stereotyping in our employment market. These programs

teach clients and their employers that all individuals have a valuable

contribution to make to our labour force and should always be given the

opportunity to do so.

Some of these specific client initiatives include programs for individuals

who have experienced challenges due to disability, gender, or lack of financial

resources. I am proud to say that the department's programs and services

reflect the diversity of our clients. Ultimately, thanks to our valuable

partnerships with local communities, work done in the department promotes a

diverse labour market based on equality.

I would like everyone to join me today in recognizing the fifty-first

anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I

believe that the true success of our Province rests in the acknowledgment that

every individual is a valuable human resource. It is this recognition and

acceptance of diversity that will ensure the next century is filled with

opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; opportunities that

are realized through collaborative effort and mutual respect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important day, as we mark the fifty-first year of the signing of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. I have a copy

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before me. The first paragraph of

the

preamble, I think, is very telling.

It states,

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal

and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of

freedom, justice and peace in the world..., so it is certainly important that

we commemorate and remember the declaration at all times.

It is also interesting to note that Canada is a refugee accepting country and

the definition of refugee is founded by the definition of refugee as determined

by the United Nations where it states, not only in dealing with discrimination

but in dealing with persecution, that a person who may be persecuted in his or

her country of origin for reasons such as: religion, race, nationality, social

group or political opinion, may indeed be found to be a UN convention refugee as

determined by that definition and, upon a hearing before the Immigration Refugee

Board, may be determined to be allowed to stay in this country because of

persecution.

It is an important day to commemorate, and it is important to remember that

both discrimination and persecution of all kinds, of any kind, is unacceptable

in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

fifty-one years ago, and our own Human Rights Code, but it is also a time where

we should examine whether we are not, in fact, in our own Human Rights Code,

discriminating against those people who have complaints on the basis of human

rights. We provide, in the Human Rights Code, for a six-month limitation period

to bring an action,

whereas in the ordinary courts, for any other kind of

action, you have up to two years. This is an example where we have special rules

for human rights which we should not have. This ought to be changed.

We also have to recognize that human rights go beyond the anti-discrimination

rights and look at the whole of a person's life. Poor and hungry children are

an affront to human rights. The fact that women earn far less than men -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and that the majority of people with disabilities live in

poverty, all of these things are human rights issues and we should work to

address them as quickly as we possibly can.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education.

Minister, since the elimination of the provincial grants program in 1993,

post-secondary students in this Province have fallen deeper and deeper into

unmanageable, unacceptable, amounts of debt. The elimination of this program

coupled with, until recently, steadily increasing tuition costs, has seen

student debt loads triple in size. Minister, will you bring forth any measures

in this sitting to address this critical problem?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the debt loads of our students of the

post-secondary institutions and we see it as a serious problem, which is

precisely why this government last year put addition funding into the

post-secondary budget to enable a two-year tuition freeze at both public

institutions, Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.

We recognize that this is a serious problem for our students, but I want to

say again that the tuition rates at our university are among the lowest in our

country. We are doing what we can, as a government, to ensure that our students

will get a quality education, bearing in mind that there is a cost to that but

again working hard to try and address that cost.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, how can this government boast about a tuition freeze as if it were the

be-all and end-all of the student financial problems when students and former

students are faced with heavy debts, high interest rates, threatened credit

ratings, and having to leave this Province to earn income enough to pay their

debts? Again, Minister, I say to you that the tuition fees freeze, the

scholarships, are fine; but, really, when are you going to address the student

debt?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member would have us

do. Clearly we are looking at the high cost of tuition, and again putting it in

prospective that we are among the lowest in the country. We have instituted a

tuition freeze for two years at our public college and at our university. We are

working with the federal government in terms of trying to harmonize the student

loans so that it will be much more cost-effective for our student population.

There is a cost to education. If you look at the university itself, this

government in fact pays for 73 per cent of the cost of providing a university

education in this Province. Having said that, clearly we are on top of it in

terms of making sure that we put a fair dollar back into our public system, that

we have frozen tuition for this year and next year. We have seen the

scholarships available to our student population increase. In fact, this

government has matched, dollar for dollar, the $25 million the university has

raised, a percentage of which will go towards scholarships.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been acting very progressively in terms of

dealing with issues around post-secondary education and student debt.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a key word there was public; but I remind you that there are

post-secondary students in this Province who attend private colleges in order to

get the courses that they wish to take. How is it, Minister, that these private

college students qualify for neither loan remission, scholarships, nor tuition

freezes? When is the minister going to address this blatant discrimination?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, with

all due respect to the hon. member opposite, he obviously isn't aware that

students at private colleges can access student aid, that they are eligible for

scholarships, that in fact they are able to avail of programs just as students

at public institutions are. We are doing everything we can to try and address

the issue of student debt and we will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, I referred

to loan remission, not student aid. Are the private college students,

post-secondary, eligible for loan remission, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to our students, student that have

difficulty in terms of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no!

MS FOOTE: Students that are having difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in terms of

repaying their debt, we look at them on a case by case basis, and we do

everything we can to ensure that they are eligible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour regarding the

workers compensation act. Minister, the RNCA are again asking government to

consider changing the legislation regarding the amount of benefits officers can

receive if injured on the job. At present, they are given 80 per cent of their

salary. Minister, this puts officers in an awkward predicament as they have to

consider, when in a dangerous situation, not only their obligation to do their

duty, but also their family and the financial burden their family would face

should they be injured on the job. Will you change the legislation, minister, to

allow RNC officers who are often put in dangerous situations to collect full

benefits if injured while in the line of duty?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our legislation that we have in this Province does not allow us to single out

different classes of people to pay different rates to. I have met with the RNC

on a number of occasions and have outlined that to them, and we are no different

than any other province across the country. Once you start singling out classes

of people, as I said, to pay different rates to, then that becomes a situation

where you are showing favouritism to one group of workers over the other. That

is not in the works and we have no plans to change the legislation to deal with

that.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

There are other police forces, I say to the minister, in Canada that offer

higher and full benefits. The RNCA are now considering suing private homeowners

for loss of income should they be injured while responding to a call on private

property. What message is being sent to private citizens who may face lawsuits

because government refuse to change legislation to allow RNC officers who are

injured in the line of duty from collecting full benefits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be the first to recognize the work that is done by the RNC as good

work. I also recognize the work that is done by the nurses of the Province. I

understand the work that is done by the teachers of the Province. Last year when

we undertook the review of the workers' commission report that was done, we

increased the benefit for all workers across the whole spectrum of the workers.

The RNC, like nurses, like everybody else, get the maximum amount that is being

paid under the workers' commission and the legislation

that we have in place. We are not treating the workers any differently than

anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: A final

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

The RNCA are being treated differently because most other professionals can

refuse to put themselves in a position of danger. The RNC are not able to do

that. In fact, when other professionals are put in danger they often call the

RNC to step in to protect them. Shouldn't government make provisions to fully

protect the police officers who are obligated to put themselves in danger to

protect professionals and private citizens in this Province? I ask the minister

again: Is he going to change the legis lation to allow full

benefits to members of the RNC who are injured in the line of duty?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, as I have said before to the hon. member, that we treat all

workers covered under the workers' commission the same right across the board.

We have no particular intentions at this time to change the legislation.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, there

has been a great deal of concern expressed by inshore fisherman that the

allocation of crab stock in the offshore will have a negative effect on their

ability to catch this particular species. I ask the minister if he has any fear

that this concern might be real.

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

MR. EFFORD: I'm going to

have to ask the hon. member to repeat the question. I did not get the first part

of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: My question to the minister was this. Minister, there has

been a great deal of concern expressed by small boat inshore fisherman that the

allocation of offshore crab will have a negative effect on their ability to

catch this particular species inshore. I ask the minister if those concerns are

real and if he has any fear.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Choose (

a) or (b).

MR. EFFORD: I should say A or B, because I do not understand the

question. Fisherman fishing outside the 200-mile limit or the offshore crab

quota, how is that going to have an impact on small boat fisherman inside 20

miles when they have the total allocation inside there?

There is lots of place in the market for crab. There is lots of processing

capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador for all crab being caught, as long as

it is good quality. So I do not know how it is going to have a negative impact

on small boat fisherman.

What the small boat fisherman would like to have is greater quotas, but if

you give greater quotas, or greater ITQs, to individual fisherman, now that you

have 5,000 fisherman you would have a greater demand on resource and then you

are asking for trouble like we did with the cod. If you are asking the question,

does the crab inside the 20 miles crawl outside 200 or 300 miles?, the answer is

no, they do not.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister should be a scientist instead of the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because I say to the minister that I have

not heard a scientist confirm that particular statement yet. The real concerns

are out there and the concerns are brought before the Fisheries Resource

Conservation Council on an annual basis.

I say to the minister that there were some concerns expressed by him that the

quality of crab that was caught offshore outside of the 200-mile limit may be

negatively affected because of the inability of small boats to go and harvest

this particular species and land it at the ports designated.

I ask the minister if the quality of crab has been along the lines of the

same high quality of crab that was landed when the boats took

part in the

regular fishery this year, or if his concerns are justified.

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

MR. EFFORD: My concerns are justified and my concerns have been

corrected. My concerns have been implemented by the market, by the industry, by

the fisherman, by the trucking companies, by everybody. There is a problem with

catching crab outside the 200-mile limit in the 3NO division in the fall of the

year. This was an exploratory experimental quota. The temperatures of water out

there in September and October is about 10 degrees higher than it would be in

the spring. What we will do now is when we get the allocation for next year we

will catch that quota in the spring. On top of that, they are now putting RSW

systems on their boats so they can bring all the crab in alive.

In answer to the first part of your question, no, I am not a scientist, but

what I did two weeks ago was sit down with the total science community,

including Dr. George Rose here at Memorial University, all the scientists from

DFO, and we went over that very concern that the small boat fisherman are

asking. It is not a problem. Crab do not crawl 300 miles.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker,

the minister indicated he had concerns about the quality of crab being landed.

In answer to the last question he confirmed there have been problems with

quality. Just a couple of days ago I was talking to a fisherman from the

minister's district who informed me that the inspections being carried out on

this particular landing now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - are

completely different from what was done this summer. The fisherman went on to

state that he was after coming to St. John's, having open-heart surgery, and

he did not get the going over inspection that his crab got by being landed

(inaudible). So I say to the minister, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He need not have a

preamble. I ask the

hon. member to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister: Has he stepped up and beefed up

his quality inspection program just to prove that those small boat fishermen,

the under sixty-five foot sector, are not capable of landing a good quality

product like he had fears of in the beginning?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning I said, when I left the

House of Assembly, it must be silly Friday morning. Now I am sure it is.

In 1995, we put 24 million pounds of bad crab cooked in this Province into

the Japanese market, when we got $2.50 per pound. The next year we got

eighty-five cents a pound. I said when I was appointed minister I was committed

to turning this industry around and putting a top quality product into the

marketplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We have

accomplished that, Mr. Speaker, and whether this fisherman from Port de Grave

told you that or not, I don't care. I don't care! The one thing I am not

going to do, whether he is a constituent of mine or not, he or she is not going

to put dead crab into the marketplace! We have now reached $1 billion in export

value this year because we are doing it right!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That was the

trouble with ministers in the past. They gave in to political pressures because

someone said: If you don't do that, I won't vote for you. Well, you know

what they can do with their votes, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

My questions are to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am

filling in for the critic for that department who is away on a medical

appointment.

The residents of Harbour Deep have lost faith in the mechanical integrity of

their ferry, the Lady Rosella Regina B . Last Friday there was a near

tragedy at sea. People have a long litany of complaints and delays and

frustrations with this ferry. This morning this ferry continues to be chained to

the wharf at Harbour Deep and the residents, in the interest of concern for the

safety of their children and themselves, refuse to let the ferry leave port.

What steps has the minister taken in the last twenty-four hours to resolve this

problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm well aware of the situation in Harbour Deep. The ferry - when I left to

come to the House around 8:50 a.m. - is still chained to the dock in Harbour

Deep. I have been in consultation with the Users Committee last night and again

this morning. They are supposed to meet at 10:00 a.m. to see if they can make up

their minds whether to release it or not. Other than that, all the reports that

I have, everything from the owners, from the captain, and from everybody else

that had anything to do with tha t ferry, is that it is

seaworthy. The reason it did not sail yesterday was because of the weather. It

is entirely up to the people whether to let the ferry go or not. We did not

chain it on. The Users Committee chained it on.

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

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

This past summer the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation called the

Gulf ferry boats cattle boats. He wanted newer and he wanted improved ferry

service on the Gulf. Yet the people in Harbour Deep, and even some of the crew,

I say to the minister, have expressed grave concerns about the seaworthiness of

the Lady Rosella Regina B . I want to ask the minister: Will he today go

to Harbour Deep and address these concerns directly with the people? Will he

this morning give the order to offer the residents of Harbour Deep, who have

great concerns about the seaworthiness, the opportunity to leave that community,

particularly in the case of the students who are there, by helicopter so we can

give the alternate transportation that is normally available in cases of

emergency?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to find out that the hon. member

opposite has finally found out where Harbour Deep is.

There is no question about the seaworthiness of the boat. Whenever anything

happens in Harbour Deep or anywhere else around this Province with regards to

ferry services, I put a helicopter in there and put a plane.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that in your district?

MR. WOODFORD: It is in my district, but that does not make any marine

service in the area exempt from mechanical failure. Every report that I have

says that ferry is seaworthy. If I get a report today, tomorrow, or any day

saying that it is not, I will do what I have done every other time, and that is

put an air service in there. Other than that, up until today, up until when I

came to the House, it is seaworthy. There will not be an air service going in

there today unless the boat is not released.

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

Valley.

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

The minister's lack of positive action here has to stem from determination

to degrade that ferry service to Harbour Deep. Is this a way, I ask the

minister, that he is putting pressure on the 16 per cent that do not want to

resettle to change their minds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I say, is this the way to offer very poor ferry service

and people having to protest to get the minimum standards met in the

seaworthiness of that particular ferry? Is that your real motive, minister? Are

you trying to force resettlement by the back door (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Shelley

was smart enough not to ask that question. He wouldn't embarrass himself to

ask it. (Inaudible) stupid enough (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member has asked the question now. He should give an opportunity to

the minister to answer.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said yesterday in this House that that vessel has been operating there now

for three-and-a-half years. It had twenty-six days of down time in

three-and-a-half years. Eleven of those were the changing of an engine a couple

of years ago. Seven months on this year's run since she went out she has had

five-and-a-half days downtime. I can only go on all the reports that have been

given to me by my officials and by people in the area. For the hon. member to

say that I am deliberately going down and doi ng something

with an engine or doing something with the safety of that vessel to jeopardize

some people in Harbour Deep -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. WOODFORD: That is what you said! That is what you said! Doing that in

order to use the sixteen per cent out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I am a member (inaudible) is lower than the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: That is what the hon. member said. I will not do that to

the people of Harbour Deep, but I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what I did do that was never

done before this year. I went down and met with the people in February, and I

told them: You put it to a vote. You get 100 per cent agreement to come out of

Harbour Deep and I will support you. I did not go down and tell them that I

might support them. I told them up front. They knew where I stood. They knew

then. They know where I stand today. They will know where I stand tomorrow,

unlike some hon. gentlemen across the way who told them three or four years ago:

We will help you move. I did not do that. They know where I stand, and it is the

same thing with the vessel. When the vessel there is down and there is something

mechanically wrong with it, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot do a thing

about it.

Now, if there is any other emergency service needed, those people will get it

just like anywhere else in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, I say to you this morning that people of all walks of life are looking

forward to this New Year's celebration marking the millennium. The

celebrations are so important in the provincial government's view that it

extended operating hours for bars in the Province. Minister, will your

government now consider also amending the Shops Closing Act so that retail

workers do not have to work on Sunday, January 2, for the year 2000,

only because it is a special weekend for each and every one of us and it would

allow families to be together?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year we brought in legislation on the Shops Closing Act. We have gone

through that, and I have no intention of changing that particular law right now,

but I will take it under advisement and get back to the member in due time.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, as well this morning I would like to ask you this. If the Province

is not willing to amend the Shops Closing Act for Sunday, January 2, could we

have the Premier of our Province consider writing to the business community, and

to the different boards of trade, asking them to consider the festive season

surrounding this very special weekend, and to close for that day out of respect

for retail workers?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said to the member a few moments ago that right now we have right now no

intention of doing it, but I will take it under advisement and get back to the

House on that particular matter.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There have been major problems with recruitment and retention of pharmacists in

hospitals in our Province. This has led to a staff shortage and unacceptable

staff turnover rates.

For the past several years in St. John's alone there has been never a time

when there has been a fully trained complement of pharmacists in our hospitals.

There have been numerous pharmacist vacancies across this Province. Many have

been advertised, and for some, not even one applicant has applied. I ask the

minister: What is being done to address this serious shortage of hospital

pharmacists?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as with all other areas of the health care

system, this government has been making extensive efforts to try and recruit,

and in many cases retain, the professionals it needs to run the system.

Government, through the Minister of Health and Community Services, has paid

close attention to all areas of the health care system. It has undertaken major

efforts to recruit in the area of specialists, nurses, doctors and, I am sure,

in the area of pharmacists as well. Government will continue to exercise every

effort it can to work with the boards and to try and accommodate their needs for

various specialists, and it will continue those efforts in this area as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The current starting salary for a pharmacist here is $34,000, and after seven

years it peeks at $43,000. In Nova Scotia it runs from $41,000 to $50,000, in

Prince Edward Island from $46,600 to $51,000. The retail sector in this Province

has a starting salary of $42,000, it runs as high as $55,000, and is up to

$70,000 in certain areas outside the urban parts of our Province. I ask the

minister: How can you expect to fill vacancies, reduce staff workloads and

stress, when you pay starting pharmacists anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 less

than they would receive in the retail sector, or even if they went to Prince

Edward Island and Nova Scotia?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, financing, and certainly salaries in relation to

financing, continues to be an issue for the health care system. This government

has invested significantly in our health care system. As we know, over the past

year, government has invested millions of dollars, over $14 million, for

example, in the health care system to address nurse workload issues. We have

invested over $32 million to address physicians and their needs. We have

invested significantly in the capital needs as well of our health care system.

There is a limit, there is a constraint, and that is the overall finances that

are available to the Province.

Approximately one-third of the full budget of this Province is used in the

area of the health care system. We will continue to provide resources at a

capacity that we can afford. This is something that we will continue to struggle

with and it is an issue for all provinces across this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

There is time for one quick supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pharmacists who are about to graduate this year are even being recruited this

fall for the United States, offering $70,000 U.S. There was a similar problem, I

say to the minister, at the cancer clinic with respect to the recruitment and

retention of radiation therapists and medical physicists. These groups were

recently reviewed, and justifiably so. I am not sure if the minister is aware -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact now, I inform the minister that there

is supposed to be a review going on with hospital pharmacists. I want to ask the

minister: Will she ensure that this growing and very severe problem we are

having with hospital pharmacists is resolved by paying a competitive salary like

is being done in some other medical specialists areas?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I

will ensure that the opposite member's concerns are brought to the attention

of the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with

section 32.4 of the Auditor General's Act, I hereby

table the Report of the Audit of the Office of the Auditor General for the

fiscal year April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move on, so that there is no delay in

passing out the bill as soon as it is printed, I am going to call first reading

on Motion 5, Bill 52.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City of

Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment

Act, carried. (Bill 52)

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I

could get the attention of the Minister of Mines and Energy - and get some of

those people away from him - I understand that it is possible, maybe, that the

minister may not be around the early part of next week so I am going to call

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act,

1994 And The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 51)

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power

Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 51)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few brief comments, for the record, with respect to

the bill that is before the House, Bill 51. It is a significant piece of

legislation. As has been discussed in the Legislature before, sometimes a bill

is very thick and there are a lot of words but it may be a lot of housekeeping.

This one is one of the fundamentals that has been debated in Newfoundland and

Labrador certainly since 1994.

Again yesterday, in preparing for this particular bill, I read a Ministerial

Statement that gave a history of the background of the electrical industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The context is important for the debate on this

particular bill. Upon until the 1960s there really had been private sector

operation of electrical utilities in Newfoundland and Labrador and the

fundamental of it, to paraphrase - historians could find some flaw in what I am

saying, but, by general rule - electrical utilitie s

decided to provide electric energy only in areas where there was a big enough

population to make it pay. As a result, the larger centers of Newfoundland and

Labrador, from the late 1800s, the early 1900s to the 1960s, the larger centers

like St. John's and surrounding areas - like Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook

- had electricity. Many of the smaller centers, though, of Newfoundland and

Labrador, did not have electricity; so there was a public policy issue that was

taken and dealt with during the late 1950s and early

1960s, concurred by everybody in the Province - there was no debate to the

contrary in the Legislature or elsewhere - that, as a matter of public policy,

the government should be involved in making sure that electricity was available

in every community in Newfoundland and Labrador if at all possible.

One of the instruments - and this is where we will have to admit that we

learned from the people of the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and I know that the Opposition Parties will probably both

take some measure of credit for convincing the Legislature and the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I am trying, in

my own quiet way, just to suggest why I supported a certain view at one point

and I am supporting another view today; maybe practicing for life after politics

where I might try to go to law school or something and learn to argue three or

four sides of the one issue. Most times there are only two, in most people's

minds, but practiced and learned lawyers can find several different arguments to

support on the one issue.

In the contextual piece, as I continue to recognize a change in direction

here in response to the wishes of the people of the Province, through the 1960s,

and using largely the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as the instrument of

public policy, the government and Hydro itself, together, decided upon which

kind of generation projects needed to be approved so that we could extend

electrical energy to all of the regions in Newfoundland and Labrador. There were

river developments, there were diesel operations put in place, and other

operations, so that we could have the point where we are today, where just about

every single community in the Province has access to electric energy.

There are some places now where people are moving, where they have moved out

of communities and a group of livyers have congregated in groups of twenty,

thirty families or more, where they are still paying for poles to go into areas

and so on and it is not a part of the public grid in Newfoundland and Labrador,

but the real shift was in the 1960s. The real shift was in that period in the

1960s. When we got to the period of 1994, the government of that day, the

Administration of Premier Wells that I was a part of, brought forward the whole

notion that maybe the time was right in Newfoundland and Labrador to privatize

Hydro and to use the revenues that could be garnered from the sale of Hydro into

the private sector to meet some of the public policy needs of the government by

converting the assets to cash.

It was clear, and I readily acknowledge, that the people of the Province and

the Opposition Parties did convince the government that while that may have been

a policy issue that was seriously contemplated, that it was not one that the

people of the Province wanted to proceed with. In the meantime -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point

of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to point out to the Minister of Mines and

Energy, who is up there speaking his heart out, like he so often does, to look

at the support he has behind him in his benches.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to note that we do not have a quorum here at the

moment for carrying on the government business of the day.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The quorum is now present.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister for Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize that today I am probably much like my tie here, if you can hear

it, a little bit off key, a little bit out of tune. That is probably why the

members vacated me when I was speaking, because I wasn't up to my normal form.

So we will see how it happens.

The point again that I was making was that in the debate that actually was

the pivotal debate in the Province in 1994, the government had promoted for

several weeks the notion that privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

was the right policy direction for the Province. The Opposition parties, the

public generally and even some of our own members, indicated that they did not

think that it was in the best interest of the Province at the time, and that

Hydro itself, as it is known in Newfoundland and Labrador - Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, but everybody refers to it as Hydro - the public utility, should

stay in the hands of the people; that it was actually an asset to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and that it should continue in its position of being

able to be used as an instrument of public policy; and that at points in time

the government, with Hydro, should be able to decide upon priorities that are

deemed at any particular point to be necessary and in the best interest of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was a debate that was going on in the Legislature, as all members will

recall. It was actually at second reading. The debate was suspended, a vote was

not taken and privatization did not occur. However, in preparing for

privatization - because admittedly that was the government's agenda and plan

of the day - there were amendments made to two particular acts that actually

provided for a circumstance where we would operate in a privatized hydro

environment. The two acts that were changed were th e

Electrical Power Control Act and also the Public Utilities Act.

The effect of it was this. The changes in the Electrical Power Control Act

basically structured Hydro not as a public utility any more, but considered it

to be a commercial entity, whereby the overriding concern was that Hydro was

instructed, under the Electrical Power Control Act, to take decisions that would

reflect in the best possible bottom line as if it was a private company. That is

the tenor of the Electrical Power Control Act today with respect to references

to our public hydro.

There was even a more critical change made to the Public Utilities Act which

stated, in preparing the way for privatization, that because Hydro was going to

be privatized the only way - and we have had an experience with this already,

members will recall - a new hydro development or a new electric generation

development of any kind could be considered in the Province to add energy

components to the electrical grid of Newfoundland and Labrador would be that

there would have to be a call for proposals. The Public Utilities Board was

instructed to only permit the lowest cost option to come on stream, because it

was considered to be a private environment, a private sector operation, and

therefore profitability and lowest cost were to be the only considerations. That

is the important point.

The legislation today says in both acts that the only thing that is allowed

to be considered is that any new electricity coming on line must have been

judged by the Public Utilities Board to be the cheapest electricity. I think

everybody has understood, through the 1960s right up to the 1990s, that some of

the electricity that we are providing in isolated communities with diesel is not

the cheapest electricity, and would never be in place if the only thing allowed

was to bring on the cheapest electricity. In the context of privatization, which

was the debate, the legislation that is in existence today assumes that we

operate as if we are in a private environment. So those two pieces of

legislation read exactly that way. I am sure the examination of it by the

Opposition parties would concur.

Just to give an example, most recently, in anticipation of a potential

smelter and refinery at Argentia, we knew we were going to need an extra 200

megawatts of energy. The electrical grid for the Province only had surplus

capacity of in the range of 30 to 40 megawatts. In preparation for what Inco had

announced it was going to do in Argentia four years ago, under the current

legislation we had a call for proposals. Because we could not go out and say:

You go and build 200 megawatts, no matter what the cost. The legislation

absolutely required that the only way Hydro or anybody else could consider

bringing on new sources of electricity was to go to the PUB and prove that it

was the least cost power, the lowest cost. That is the only thing allowed to be

considered under the present legislation.

I think that the House and the representatives here, and the people of the

Province, understand that there are circumstances and there will be

circumstances where we will need electric energy - it will have to be generated

because we do not have it available at the present time - sometime in the next

decade or longer, while we are waiting for an in-feed from Labrador. If the only

way you can bring it on is to go through a proposal where it has to be lowest

cost, then there may be circumstances whereby a development that needs to occur

because it is in the best interest of the Province, either for continued social

development or continued economic development, that we need to be able to

consider something, even though it might be marginally a little higher in cost

than some other options that could occur that would not fulfill the immediate

need but would provide energy to the grid but not necessarily fulfil an

immediate need.

We have circumstances, for example - and I suggest that these are potential

examples for the exemption clause that is being anticipated here - where we have

industrial users, such as the paper mills, which have indicated to the

government that they would like to secure their own operations by having

co-generation plants available on their own property, utilizing waste materials

and other things, but that the cost of it compared to other developments might

be a few pennies higher than some other river project somewhere else in the

Province. It does not give the government even an opportunity to consider the

combined effect of securing an industry and providing energy. Because right now

the act says you can only consider it if it goes through the PUB and if it is

judged after full examination to be absolutely the lowest cost.

The solution to that is to provide an exemption, understanding that, as a

result of the energy policy review that is ongoing and at a partial stage of

completion, we may go with some other amendments that may be required to one or

both of these acts, depending upon the outcome of that review, which will be

fully debated and made known in the Province and so on. Currently we do know one

thing. Even in advance of the completion of the energy policy review, we do know

- and it reaffirms - that this government is not contemplating privatization. It

is not on the agenda in any way, shape or form. The legislation today

contemplates and restricts any kind of development to a privatized environment.

It contemplated that and that is why the changes were made.

I will listen to the proceedings in the debate with interest to try to answer

any particular questions or concerns that may be raised, but I just wanted to

put in terms of that context. We are requesting passage of these couple of

exemption clauses to the two necessary pieces of legislation so that the

government can go back to the pre-privatization debate and let Hydro run itself

the way the people of the Province want it to be run, and the way we understand

that the Opposition parties asked us to leave Hydro, so that it could be an

instrument of public policy in the Province and could be used for other than a

privatized commercial environment which both acts restrict it to today.

I hope those few comments have been instructive and helpful in terms of

framing the debate, and look forward to participating further in the debate and

answering any concerns that might be raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They were as equally constructive as they were in 1994, but the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am really impressed by the minister, with his humble but

apologetic flip-flopping here today. I must say, I am really impressed.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) any Hansard quotes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry,

it has already been done and I don't wish to belabour it here today. I won't

belabour it. Anybody who wants to read Hansard, it is there for the record. It

is humorous to sit here, I not only found it so informative, provocative,

hardhitting; it was a complete, other end of the spectrum there we heard here

from the very same minister, the very same people, just five years ago. What

wonders time will do to people's minds, or what different leaders will do to

people's minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) five years ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: He sure was; and, I might add, there were others silly

enough to speak, not only him. Bill Wood, I think it was at the time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Older and wiser (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure. Older.

He made an interesting point with the low cost. I was listening on the radio

this morning as I was coming in, talking about low cost, and the Premier

indicating now that this transmission line, I think, with the offshore gas, may

have undermined their position with the feds. Now that is a good reason to put

forth but, because their position was never on, the feds were never bought into

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was never on.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly, the feds never bought into it.

How do you justify - if you work on a point system in the U.S., exchange of

using a point system, saying: Well, it should be worth $2 million for us to

bring down to reach the Kyoto limits that they anticipated meeting, which they

can meet - Newfoundland giving its contributory share - that should be worth a

few pennies in the coffers here to be able to do that exchange.

I attended an environmental conference in the U.S. and they looked at

companies, what they do there in purchasing their points - the Environmental

Protection Agency. There were some very interesting discussions, I might add,

and it has implications. It is a whole universal problem. It is a major thing

for Canada and the U.S. in dealing with this, but the low cost of natural gas

and the abundance of it there, they burnt off probably more than they should.

They are certainly up to the limits, and who knows

how much more is being burnt off there, but when you are looking at a low cost

thing, it is hard to compete with natural gas. Let's be realistic on it.

Anyway, I don't want to get too far off on a tangent and away from this

particular issue. I will keep it brief. I will have a comment in Committee. I

just wanted to add a few particular points. It is really interesting to see a

completely diverse position. I just say: What took you so long? What took you

five years to get it in and do something that we said you should have never done

in the beginning? Anybody who was in the House at the time know very well, they

all know very well - with Bill 1,

An Act To Amend the

Electrical Power Control Act; and Bill 2 - the privatize Hydro act, whatever the

official name is - we had some very interesting, very lengthy discussions that

dominated Question Period and dominated discussion here in the House.

It brought a new meaning to the word closure. Four times in the history of

our Province, before 1989, we had closure, and twenty-seven times in 1989 we had

closure. They brought a new meaning to the word closure in the history of this

Province. That is what some of those actions did; forcing it down the throats of

the people. I am delighted that the people of this Province said: We are not

taking it any longer.

I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he knows what I am

talking about. It was a very sensitive issue to the people of this Province, and

I admire him for standing up on something that was fundamental.

Hydro has put more money in the coffers of this Province, $70 million - tens

and tens of millions every year. It is a cash cow for the Treasury of this

Province to get us through tough times. That is what happened in the last two or

three years. Just look at the financial records. Look at the contribution to

this Province and this utility. Who wouldn't want to buy Hydro? Who would not

want to buy it? The sad part, why should we give it to Bay Street and eastern

townships and everybody else and we will have the measly 2 per cent or 3 per

cent, the same way it has gone with most companies out there now? All major

companies out there now are owned by other parts of Canada. Take FPI; they are

probably 94 per cent owned outside. Look at Aliant now, Newtel previously,

Fortis. Let's face it, the big investment companies, (inaudible) in

particular, are in there; (inaudible) some of the major ones representing

employees in Quebec. They are all over the place. They are on the market and

they are ow ned outside. Keeping something owned here by

the Province, there is nothing wrong with it. It is positive, and we are

delighted that the minister has seen the light. We are delighted he has moved

forward. The question we ask, as my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne said,

is: What took you so long?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy this morning talking about the

ability to change his stripes in a short period of time. It reminded me of the

who one morning appeared before the Court of Appeal arguing a case and a

particular point of law on behalf of his client. The case was over that morning,

but that afternoon he had the misfortune of representing another client who

happened to be on the other side of the very same issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The judges of

the Court of Appeal said to Mr. Denning: Weren't you here this morning, saying

the very opposite of what you are saying now? Later, Lord Denning said: Yes, my

lord, but I was wrong.

That is the position the Minister of Mines and Energy finds himself in today.

I have to acknowledge that he is prepared to admit that, in fact, he and his

government were wrong to try to privatize that great public asset, Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro

Humility is one of his long suits, I say. I know he is hardly ever upset. He

is usually very humble. It took the Member for Windsor-Springdale to put him off

his oats the other day and cause him to totally lose it.

I want to get to the issue of the importance of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro and , I guess, some concerns as to what exactly, the effect of this bill

is and why, why is this being brought in today? Why today? Does it have anything

to do with the visit to Newfoundland of the Premier of Quebec? Do we need to

have this in place? Does he need to have this in place for some particular

reason that he is not telling us? I know some of the examples that he has given,

and some of them I share.

One of the things he said yesterday was that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

was required by legislation to operate on a commercial basis for its

shareholder, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the approach

government took to try and get the utility in shape for privatization.

One of the negative consequences of that - and I use it, I suppose, as an

analogy as to what, for example, Newfoundland Power did with the issue of

demand-side management. Demand-side management is a utility undertaking efforts

to reduce the consumption of power by consumers, conservation measures. For

example, I represented a consumers association before the Public Utilities Board

a number of years ago and presented a very strong case for the Public Utilities

Board ordering Newfoundland Power to undertake a program of demand-side

management. What that would do is reduce the demand for new energy sources and

reduce the cost of additional energy resources, because that would be in the

long-term best interest of consumers.

Well, the Public Utilities Board did not go along with that. They were not

prepared to order them to do it, but they ordered them to conduct some studies.

Throughout the next few years, indeed, Newfoundland Power did some studies and,

in fact, instituted some programs. One of them was for an energy efficient

showerhead. An energy efficient showerhead will reduce the flow of hot water

when you are having a shower, and when, perhaps, 50,000 people at the same time

in the morning are having a shower. This reduces the demand for electricity and

reduces what is called peek demand. So you do not have to have the same energy

capacity in place in order to provide power for the same number of people - a

very salutary effect. Not only that, this $5 or $6 item would save consumer $20

or $30 or $40 a year.

That program was put into effect by Newfoundland Power; one of the effects, I

should say, of my efforts, I think, of trying to convince the Public Utilities

Board to get Newfoundland Power to engage in demand-side management.

The next time I was at the Public Utilities Board, as a MHA, on a more recent

hearing, I had occasion to look at the reports on the effects of the studies of

demand-side management. Lo and behold, all the reports as to how effective it

was, how the useful it was, and how it actually worked, were there; and then was

a notation that they had discontinued this program of providing free energy

efficient showerheads. They discontinued this program because it was reducing

sales of electricity. In other words, it was more important to Newfoundland

Power to sell electricity to consumers than it was to conserve electricity

through demand-side management and through other practices.

That is something that is clearly not in the public interest. I would expect

that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, operating a utility in the public interest

and with public policy and public advantage in mind, would be required to, or

should be required to, or could be required to, engage in a policy of

demand-side management because it would have the effect of keeping electricity

costs down over the long term, because each new source of energy is always far

more expensive than the ones that are in place. It is called the marginal cost.

The marginal cost of new energy sources is always very, very high, and the

longer you can postpone that by demand-side management or other practices, you

can in fact save money for consumers and save money for the economy.

That runs contrary, obviously, to the principles under which a company like

Newfoundland Power operates, because their major interest, and perhaps only

interest aside from their other corporate responsibilities or whatever else

might be contained in their mission statement in terms of safety and

reliability, their major interest is to provide a return to the shareholders. In

this case the shareholder was Fortis. The one shareholder of Newfoundland Power

was Fortis, and their obligation was to provide that shareholder with a rate of

return. That is very different from a public utility that has public policies as

it guidelines.

I would hope that when the government, and the minister, is conducting the

overall energy review that he is talking about, that the end result of that will

be a revised and revamped legislation affecting Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

which spells out in some detail the principles around which we hope to see

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro operate and conduct its activities. In fact, I

would think that we should try to enforce certain kinds of policies on even the

private utilities when the public interest requires that to happen.

The privatization of Hydro issue was one which caused a lot of concern in

this Province, a lot of discussion and debate. The thrust that I took during

this debate, on behalf of my Party, was that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

ought to be the engine of the Newfoundland economy in the same way that

Hydro-Quebec had been the engine of the economy of Quebec. Not only the engine

of the economy, but also a stable, if you will, of engineers, experts, people

with construction knowledge and ability and technique, acting in the public

interest, a whole group of people with the synergy, I think is the word, that

comes with having a whole group of talented, professional people working

together to make the economy work and to make the Province work for the people

of the Province.

That has had spinoffs in Quebec. It has had spinoffs with groups like

SNC-Lavalin, with other engineering groups that have had, as a result, played a

significant role in power projects around the world, including China and other

places. It is something that helped to build the infrastructure, the engineering

infrastructure and ability of the people of Quebec to be involved in other

projects. That could have effects here, in the ship building industry, in the

offshore industry, in having a pool of talent available to engage in public

projects and private projects that would be of great benefit to the people of

this Province.

The public policies - and I know the minister has brought in this legislation

that really just transfers to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to

exempt projects or exempt a public utility from the application of the act when,

in their opinion, in the opinion of the Cabinet, it is in the best interest of

the Province. That is an awfully broad statement.

We heard, in the last month, the ministers - the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, the Premier - say almost little else, for example, about the NEOS bid:

We will approve this bid and we will change legislation if we think it is in the

best interests of the Province. That is a pretty broad category of exclusion,

whatever the government of the day, at any particular day, thinks is in the best

interests of the Province.

I believe that type of legislation and that type of exemption power from

important legislation given to Cabinet is too broad a power not to be spelled

out. I am wondering - I know the Minister of Mines and Energy has said that they

are conducting a review and they are hoping to have more comprehensive

legislation in the spring, perhaps, so why are we bringing in this now? What

particular project does the minister have in mind that he wants to exempt or

give a comfort letter to the development? What is he up to, Mr. Speaker?

Does part of the negotiations, for example, with Inco require this

legislation? I know he can put out a smoke screen by talking about how he does

the flip-flop, and be humble and everything else, but tell us the truth. What is

this really for? Is there something in the negotiations with Inco, for example,

that requires letting the Cabinet have this power so they can do the deal? Is

that one of the reasons? We have not been told. That is what I want to know. Why

is it being done now? Is it part of the Inco negotiations? Are we going to have

this as another opportunity to sweeten the deal, for example? Is that part of

the rationale for this? Is this another opportunity for government to be able to

negotiate with Inco without consulting the people of the Province through this

Legislature? I think I am on to something here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Listening to the way the members opposite are responding, I

think I am on to something here. Is this another part of an attempt by the

Minister of Mines and Energy to do this deal without consulting the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, without bring it back to this House? He said the

other day, if we can do it without changing legislation we will, but here we

are, we are having legislation changed. Is this enabling legislation, Mr.

Speaker, for the Inco deal? Tell us. Tell us the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: On one hand you are congratulating (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I congratulated him on one thing, on the major change in

policy of this government affirming the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

as an instrument of public policy. Now I am trying to get him to tell us: What

is that public policy that he wants his government to enact without consulting

the people of the Province, by saying whatever the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council thinks is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador? That is not something that is easily defined. It c overs

a multitude of sins to say whatever, in the opinion of the Cabinet, is in the

best interests of the Province. Sure, wasn't it the Cabinet that did the tri

city deal because they thought it was in the best interests of the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tri city? Trans City.

MR. HARRIS: Trans City. I was thinking of the three Liberals who owned

it. I am sorry. When I said tri, I was thinking of the three prominent Liberals

who owned it. I am sorry, I want to say to the Member for Bellevue, my mistake.

I admit I made a mistake.

Oh, there was a fourth; there was a fourth Liberal. There was a fourth

Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government

House Leader says there was a fourth, an unknown, and he knows who it was and I

don't. Well, I guess that's the way it is when the Cabinet takes it upon

itself the power to decide what is in the best interest of the Province and does

not tell anybody. In fact, we may not even find out what is in the best interest

of the Province until somebody takes them to court and we will find out what a

schemozzle they have made of acting in the best interest of the Province.

MR. BARRETT: Are all the members of your caucus going to go home for

Christmas?

MR. HARRIS: My caucus will be home for Christmas, I say to the Member for

Bellevue. My Caucus will be home for Christmas, in good time.

MR. TULK: Ah, you looked

around, didn't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Making sure he was there.

MR. HARRIS: At least I don't

have to look very far and I don't have a lot to worry about behind my back. It

is a lot different than members in the front benches over there. I don't have

anybody behind my back. He is by my side, I say to the members opposite. He is

by my side. He is with me all the way.

The legislation, or at least the minister's policy statement, enunciates -

the minister's policy statement at least announces a change in direction of

government policy, and I am assuming that is not just the current policy. It is

not just the policy of the day, and it will be different again tomorrow or

Monday or next week. I am assuming that this will be the policy of this

government until it is no longer the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will acknowledge that it was a government of a different Premier that

wanted to privatize Hydro. The government of the mentor of the Government House

Leader - the mentor of the Government House Leader was in the previous

leadership, and it was his government that wanted to privatize Hydro. I will

acknowledge that this is a different government. Some of the names have been

changed to protect the innocent, or the guilty, as the case may be. I

acknowledge that the Minister of Mines and Energy made many speeches in this

House in support of the previous government and the previous government

position; and I will not quote them either. He has already acknowledged defeat

and thrown himself at the mercy of public opinion on that point. We will have to

see where the chips fall in the leadership race, whether or not his credibility

has suffered as the result of his flip-flop on the Hydro position.

It is an important public policy direction that the minister has announced

here, and I support that direction; however, I do not support the withholding to

Cabinet without public consultation or knowledge, the kind of power that is

being given here.

When there was a move to develop the small hydro sites, the small hydro sites

required a change in amendment to the Public Utilities Act to allow for them to

happen, and in a manner of government policy they were going to encourage the

development of small hydro sites. They even encouraged the development of a

small hydro site on a river that they had signed an agreement with the

having to pay more than $1 million to the person who was working assiduously to

try and develop this river, even though his government had signed an agreement

they would never interfere with that watershed and interfere with that salmon

river.

Those are the kinds of things that Cabinet does when it has all this power

without public scrutiny, and I don't think we should be very happy to pass

over power to a government with the kind of record that we have seen in them

determining what they think is in the public interest.

I mentioned the debate over NEOS for the last month, and all we would hear

from the government was: Well, we will do it if it is in the public interest.

Well, what does that mean? What does that mean, the people of Harbour Breton

wonder, the people of Marystown wonder, the people of Triton wonder, the people

of Bonavista wonder. What does that mean? No one would say. No one would say

what the government thought the public interest was or was not. For too long a

time there was no comment as to even what method would be used to evaluate the

proposal to determine whether it was in the public interest. The people spoke,

and I have to acknowledge that the government listened on that particular

occasion and they had very little choice.

This is the type of thing that we will not know. We will not know what

private exemptions Cabinet might decide some Thursday morning to give to some

company. We will not know, perhaps, for years down the road. We will not know,

perhaps, for a long time who these exemptions are given to and what the real

reasons for giving these exemptions are.

While I support the change in policy, I cannot support giving the Cabinet all

of this power. I want to ask the minister: Why does he want this power now? If

we are coming here in the spring with a whole new regime, with comprehensive

changes to the Public Utilities Act and the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro 1975

Act to provide the new electrical regime, why do we need to pass this now? If

the minister can answer that question, perhaps I could be convinced to provide

support for this legislation; but for now, with just the barefaced exemption

power given to Cabinet for whatever they think is in the public interest, I

think it lacks the degree of certainty and particularity that is required for

support in this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I am pleased to rise and speak for a few moments to this bill, and I want to

preface it by saying to members opposite: Words are indeed very important in

this Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - very, very important. I am going to explain why, and how

important they actually are.

The Minister of Mines and Energy last week got up, or a couple of Fridays

ago, in response to questions from the critic, the Member for St. John's East,

and talked about a course that he did in university, and talked about how that

course taught about how important it is, the language, the use of it, and words

are important.

Earlier this week, he said: Words are important, and at some point, for

historical reference, that when somebody is looking at this particular issue -

he was talking about Inco at that time - that people will be able, for the

record, to say for themselves and see for themselves exactly what was said and

who said it so we can see what is correct.

Mr. Speaker, let's take that logic, let's take his advice, and let's

apply it back to 1994. In 1994, the amount of debate that took place was

probably one of the biggest issues in my time in the House in terms of publicly

debated issues, hotly debated issues, legislative sessions going on all night,

the introduction of closure motions on pieces of legislation that would limit

the time of the Official Opposition to debate; but what was more important

during that debate is who said what. Not only who said what, but how many times

did they say it? It wasn't as if, in response to a question or one question,

it was here or there; but, how many times did this minister stand in his place,

in response to questions, more importantly, in response to debate.

I remember the time I was his critic. He was the Minister of Employment and

Labour, and I was his critic. We stood up in the House. We had our ducks in a

row, if I could use that expression, on the privatization of Hydro, who was

saying what; our position clearly outlined, clearly articulated. I went out and

dug up some of our old caucus notes, I say to my colleagues here, on the

electrical power resources act, which was Bill 2 at the time, 1994, and the

Electrical Power Control Act. I remember mak ing

at least a dozen speeches, maybe even more, on this particular issue, on The

Electrical Power Control Act in this Legislature. I remember the minister well

at that time standing up, standing in his place - now, let's keep in mind that

words are very important, very, very important - in response to things that I

had said.

Here are some of the things that I said back then. Number one: In our view,

there was no good public policy reason to privatize Hydro because there would be

no technology transfer that would take place as a result of it. Number two: The

amount of jobs that would be created would be zero - nil. As a matter of fact,

it was clearly demonstrated at the time that it would have a negative impact.

In response that the issue that the former Premier raised that this was

somewhat of a white albatross - the Taj Mahal term was used, for example -

around our Province and the ability of it to borrow. Not true. As a matter of

fact, Hydro Corporation - and the minister knows that, he knew it then but he

did not say it. I am going to get to what he said. The debt issue that was

raised, that this is an albatross around the Province, that it is inhibiting our

ability to borrow, it is inhibiting our ability up in credit rating standings,

all not true. The converse is true.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation makes a significant contribution

to the local economy. Not only that, when bond ratings like Standard and Poor's

and Moody's and the bond rating agencies look at the Province's assets,

Hydro is a jewel. It is probably the Crown jewel. These are some of the things

that we talked about then. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, at least publicly, from what I can determine from

what he said. He at least made a dozen speeches in this House. For a little

project over the weekend, what I am going to do for him - because I know he

would like me to do it - I am going to get Hansard researched for him on all the

discussions that went on publicly in the House. I am going to highlight for him

what his view was, and refresh his memory.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I ask you a question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: If the person says something and believes something

different, what does that make him?

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no idea, Jack.

Anyway, that is what I am going to do the weekend. I am going to research

that for him. I understand that he might not be here on Monday, so when he comes

back either Tuesday or Wednesday I am going to have a little binder on his desk

for him, highlighted.

Here are some of the things he said, and I remember them well. This was just

a standard move. It was not a big deal. This was going to make sure that the

Province was in sound fiscal and financial order.

Secondly, he talked about, at that time, that this was a good initiative on

behalf of the government. It was an initiative that was timely. The Cabinet

stands behind the Premier - at the time he was a member of the Cabinet - and

that this was going to be done for good -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) public meeting and supported it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, well

there is no doubt about that. That was when your poor old colleague, the former

Member for St. John's South - when there was a public meeting down in the

Holiday Inn. I remember that meeting as well. That was an interesting meeting.

He was not at the same one you were at.

This was what he said, there was no good public policy reason to do what they

did.

Mr. Speaker, the real story that has never come out - it has come out, but at

some point when somebody is doing some research on it - maybe it will be some

member in this House writing a book some day on it - when they go to see how

much taxpayers' money was spent by the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten million.

MR. E. BYRNE: More than that.

- and by Hydro on the failed privatization initiative, and how many Orders in

Council that this minister right now, standing up and bringing in a piece of

legislation that we called for five years ago, that we did not support, to bring

it back to where it was, the money that government spent. He was a member of the

Cabinet -

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I ask you a question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: In the couple of years following that, did the government

use Hydro to get money (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am going to get to that. I am going to tell you how

much. Not only am I going to tell you that they did it; I am going to tell you

how much and how often and how much they are making off it. I will get to that

in a moment.

How much money did the Cabinet of the day spend in the failed privatization

initiative? The Cabinet, by the way, that minister was a part of. About $13

million - the Rothschilds of England, of Britain, of the Commonwealth. The

Rothschilds were hired to consult.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the Government House Leader in on this?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, he was not here then. He was sitting up -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in the nosebleed section.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important issue, some $12 million or $13 million

dollars. We do not expect anyone over there to know about that because on a $3

billion budget, it is only a few million dollars. What odds? Who cares? It is

only a few million dollars. They cannot be expected to know everything about

everything. I understand that. That is their own statement. Words are extremely

important.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro themselves spent about $7 million to

privatize Newfoundland Hydro. The government spent about $6,500,000 to $7

million. Combined, it was about $13 million. That is my understanding. Thirteen

million dollars was spent, and part and parcel of the strategy in spending that

money was the introduction of the Electrical Power Control Act which today, five

years later, the same minister, who supported it, is now bringing in legislation

to bring it back to status quo. That is what is happening. There is no more to

it than that.

It would be an oxymoron to suggest that we would not even support this

legislation. We called for it five years ago. We said there was no need to even

introduce it five years. I guess the view and strategy is that if you leave it

long enough the public may not remember it. It is only now that they have the

nerve, five years later, to come back and do it, but the public are not that

stupid, I say to the minister. If you listened this morning to what is happening

in Corner Brook over the condominiums that have been built, and you hear what

people are talking about, when you and your government made commitments to

people and now have completely reversed, you would know people are not that

stupid in this Province any more.

I can say to the minister in all honesty, and he knows as well, Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro contributes directly significant amounts of money to the

provincial budget. In time when the economy has slowed down, it has been a well

thought out strategy where Hydro has been able to kick in, and kick-start in

some areas, providing needed revenues, needed jobs in areas: for example, more

maintenance. The money, directly, that comes into this government, we are

talking hundreds of millions of dollars, di rect

cash, that has come from Hydro in the last three years. Not only that, but this

government also makes money on Hydro's debt, because government has to

guarantee Hydro's debt. They make, I think, it is a 2 per cent fee -

MR. SULLIVAN: It was 1 per cent. It usually (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It was 1 per

cent and it went to 2 per cent, I believe. Isn't that right? Is it 2 per cent

now?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still 1 per cent (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is still 1 per cent, is it? Yes. I have to be careful

because words are extremely important. We have to be clear. I did a course at

university called Oral Communications. We were taught that when you stand up to

speak make sure you state what you want to say clearly, directly, so people

understand clearly and directly what you want them to hear you say. Words are

extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did very well actually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are here at this

point introducing and talking about this piece of legislation. The irony is not

lost upon me. It is unbelievable, when you think about it. I look across the

House, for example, and I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I have

said this on four or five different occasions. About four weeks ago when I was

speaking to the Chamber of Commerce in Corner Brook, I was asked about a number

of issues in terms of the question sort of answer -

AN HON. MEMBER: All nineteen people

MR. E. BYRNE: No, there were twenty-nine. It was a regular membership

meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: There were a couple of good Liberals there.

I recall in this House that it was about 9:00 one night, and you could have

heard a pin drop when the Member for Virginia Waters at the time stood to his

seat, and said that while he is a member of government he could not support his

own government in terms of the privatization of Hydro. I'm not trying to

politicize or be partisan with this at all. I want to be clear with that to the

minister, I want to be very direct. At the time it was one of the best speeches

that I've heard in this Legislature. I say that honestly and I've said it on

a number of occasions before. The truth of it was that it was - the place was

blocked, the galleries were blocked. It was about 9:10 p.m.- because it took

courage and backbone to do it.

I used to sit right where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne sits. That

is where I was sitting then. All the Caucus were here. There were sixteen of us

then. We could not believe it. There was silence. Anyway, the point was that

somebody there had the courage to do it. I see the Minister of Education today,

who was the public relations or communications director for government and

handling it. I see the Minister of Environment and Labour, for example, who was

not a minister then, but in the Cabinet

shuffle that happened, when he got in, prior to that, the four new Liberal dogs

that spoke - and I don't mean that in any negative sense - that supported the

former premier's approach to this heavily, they were the current Minister of

Environment and Labour, the former Minister of Social Services -

MR. J. BYRNE: Who's that?

MR. E. BYRNE: She was a new

member in 1993, up on her feet all the time supporting this initiative. There

was also the former Member for St. George's area who is now - this Buds for

you, I think, we used to say to him, right? He was a member and then appointed

to Cabinet. Who was the fourth person that went into Cabinet that time?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it was not the Government House Leader. A rumor in the

Goulds, in the farming community, was that he was going to be appointed as the

agriculture minister. That was the rumour then. There was one more who went in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tom Murphy.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the

Member for St. John's South. Those were four people who went into the Cabinet,

and what was interesting about it was that as backbenchers and private members

those were the four strongest in their approach, at the time, in supporting the

sale of Hydro. I guess they got their rewards. There were four. They were the

four, stronger than anybody else at the time, in terms of privatization of

Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation today -

MR. TULK: I don't know how

a young man like you (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have been around politics a long time. In elected

politics I guess about seven, but involved a lot longer than that. I will say to

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: What did he say about it? I would like to know.

MR. E. BYRNE: He didn't

say anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. I am

getting to that. I am glad you asked, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis,

because I am coming to that. Today's Government House Leader did not say

anything about the debate at the time. He did not say a word. He sat then where

now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is sitting.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) hon. gentleman I did say a few things but I was too

far away to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He did not say

anything for the record on Hansard, that I can assure you. I will double check

that, but there was no speech in this House by that member in support of Hydro

because it was not there, was it? You cannot find what is not there, Mr.

Speaker. Isn't that right? It isn't what he did not say in this House that

is really important, it is what did he say at the caucus table. Now, that is

what is important, but that is another story for another day.

I want to talk about the bill itself. We support this piece of legislation.

We see that it is putting back, I guess from a legislative point of view, a

legal point of view, back to where Hydro actually was. This legislation that we

are debating now would have put Hydro - if left it there, it was the first step

in the privatization process.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ed, (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, can't

say that, Jack. They won't do that. Five for five. Can't say that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) this legislation allow them to privatize it

without going to the Public Utilities Board (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't see

them doing it. I don't see them having the backbone to do that, Jack. What do

you think? I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I just do not see

that happening.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to speak on this particular piece of

legislation. I will say to the minister who is introducing it that, when you get

back Tuesday, I will have for you that little bit of research that I will do

this weekend for you, reminding you of how important words actually are, so that

when we close debate - at least when we get into clause-by-clause debate - it is

not a very big piece of legislation, but we will have the opportunity again to

quote directly for the minister how important words are historically in this

Legislature.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments on Bill 51. Unfortunately, I missed the

introductory comments of the minister this morning. I was involved in an appeal

that I had to attend to in the adjacent building and I missed, I am sure, what

were very enlightening comments as the minister introduced this particular

legislation.

What I will simply indicate is that there are some implications, I would say

to the members of this House, and there are some points of view that I am sure

would want to be made, perhaps not at this particular time during debate on

second reading, but certainly as we enter into the Committee stage.

I would say, in view of the fact that we are essentially only talking about

two or three sections, that we would have significant opportunity, one would

think, to enter into meaningful debate upon some implications perhaps that may

not be as apparent, I say to the hon. minister, and that it would give an

opportunity upon review of the introductory comments that were made earlier this

morning by the hon. minister to perhaps express some concerns and make some

observations when the opportunity arises during the debate in Committee.

I would simply say that I will reserve my comments for that opportunity which

obviously will come during clause-by-clause debate in the next coming days;

however, I would say that there is a reason why this legislation is being

introduced at this particular time, just days before the adjournment of this

House prior to the Christmas recess. There is a reason, and a few days will now

allow us to find out perhaps why this legislation is being entered into, or

being distributed at this time, so that the opportunity may be given to members

to participate in this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Opposition critic, the Member for St. John's East who

just spoke, I am sure that the members of the Official Opposition and the New

Democratic Party will take further time to look at the amendments and discuss

them further at the Committee stage and look forward to participating at that

point.

I can, though, with respect to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, the

Leader of the New Democratic Party, indicate that the information that we have

is that there would be no need to generate any additional electricity in

Newfoundland and Labrador for the hydrometallurgic process that Inco is

considering discussing with us. My understanding of it is that the electrical

requirements for a plant of that nature would be in the range of thirty-five to

forty megawatts, which Newfoundland and Labrador Hyd ro

indicate to us are already available within the grid at this point, and

particularly for the foreseeable future where the construction might occur. So,

it is not an issue that is in any way related to Voisey's Bay; however, Mr.

Speaker - and I would be quite forthright in indicating to the Legislature that

Hydro itself, which I believe everybody in this House now acknowledges would

like to have as a real public utility, have indicated that they do have some

concerns.

They understand that an in-feed is being negotiated as a possible long-term

solution with respect to having electrical energy from Labrador available on the

island, but if that does come to fruition we are talking about ten or twelve

years out, if at all, and they have indicted to the government that there will

be a need for some additional generation to cover their intervening period. They

are not exactly sure of the timelines yet, but they have given notification that

they will be requiring and requesting some new generation sources for the Island

before 2012 certainly, and that the process that is available to us now, as we

have all just witnessed when we talked about it before, is that if any project

is to be considered then a call for proposals has to go forward and a whole host

of private entrepreneurs, as happened the last time, would come forward and say:

I think I can produce the least cost energy.

I don't mind mentioning this as well. There are other projects such as

Granite Canal, which is in the same watershed as the Bay d'Espoir, that Hydro

could develop quite readily. In an assessment that was done in the last call for

proposals, my recollection is that it was rated as number one, even with the

Public Utilities Board's scrutiny in terms of lowest costs, and the idea would

be that if it is needed to go forward on a timely basis, that they just go ahead

and proceed with that rather than have to go through a

call for proposals again.

Those notions are there, and that is the kind of thing that we are

contemplating with respect to this, as well as the one I mentioned in my opening

remarks and introduction, that we have had inquiries from current industrial

users, like our paper mills and so on, who could further secure their own

operation, reduce their own costs by having low-cost energy available to them

for their own needs - much as is done in Grand Falls-Windsor now where they

supply almost all of their own needs - and then they could sell any excess power

back into the grid, so you would meet two needs. You would have environmental

concerns of using bark and other types of things to generate electricity at site

and combine more than one public interest, even though the cost as examined by

the Public Utilities Board might be a little, tiny bit higher than the Granite

Canal, for example. Those are the issues that drive this particular initiative

at this time, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, and again I look forward to

answering questions in more detail at the Committee stage, I do, at this point,

admit to having some fuzzy recollections of the 1994 debate, and - understanding

that words are somewhat important - if he is busy at other tasks over the

weekend and doesn't have time to research Hansard, I will be quite happy to

relieve him of that obligation that he has made to the House, if he is so

inclined.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we do acknowledge and we do learn and we do listen to

the people, even though in some instances we might be a little bit of a slow

learner, as we are in this case - it might takes us four or five years - but we

appreciate the spirit of the debate and look forward to more detailed

examination at Committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to move and pleased to move second reading

of the bill.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994

And The Public Utilities Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 51)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

21, Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act.

I believe the debate was adjourned by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on behalf of all

members I would like to welcome to the public galleries fifty Grade IX students

from Roncalli Central High in Avondale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: These students are from the districts of Harbour

Main-Whitbourne and Conception Bay South. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Phil Griffiths and Mr. Keith McCarthy.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to continue briefly on the debate on Bill 30,

An Act To

Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act. This is an important piece of

legislation, and even more important is the whole possibility or plan for the

protection of special wilderness and special ecological areas in the Province.

The fact of the matter is that government's policy in this area, while having

been described as having been one of good intentions, has been one, in fact, of

absolute failure.

Now, while we have students here in the gallery, I will tell them the results

of a report card done on the activities of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Government by the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Newfoundland and Labrador got a

grade of D+, not very high on its activities in this Province in protecting

areas of important ecological significance and in protecting wildlife areas. Not

a very good grade, I say to the government, and something that has to be

improved upon.

When you look at the conservation of lands in Canada, our Province has under

protection of one form or another, less than 2 per cent of the land mass, 1.8

per cent. That is very, very low compared to other provinces such as Alberta,

which has protected 9.8 per cent; British Columbia, which has protected 11.2 per

cent; the Yukon, which has 9 per cent of its land mass protected; Ontario, which

has 8.8 per cent of its land mass protected. We are way behind in a stated goal

to reach a special 10 per cent of our land mass being protected by the year

I want to quote from the then Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in

November of 1999. The current Minister of Mines and Energy, who just spoke,

said, in November of 1999: In establishing a network of protected areas by the

year 2000, government will ensure that areas representative of Newfoundland and

Labrador's nineteen natural regions are available for future generations to

enjoy. That is what was said in 1995, and we are nowhere near the establishment

and the protection of the nineteen uni que natural regions

being protected by the year 2000.

The year 2000 is almost upon us. The year 2000 will be here in a matter of

days, and we don't have these nineteen natural areas protected. In fact, we

are not even halfway there. We are not even partway there. So what kind of

commitment does this government really have to protecting our habitat, to

protecting natural species, to making sure that we have areas of our Province

that are protected for many, many years to come, for future generations, for our

children and our children's children and thei r children?

Protected because we need to make sure that the habitat for animals is

protected, the habitat for wildlife and all species, not just endangered

species, although we have a number of them in our Province as well: the pine

marten, the wolverine, the harlequin duck in Labrador, the peregrine falcon, all

of which are threatened in one form or another by loss of habitat, by

development, by pollution, and by other activities. The piping plover is another

bird that is in danger, endangered by a l oss

of habitat. These are just some examples of what is happening and what will

continue to happen if we don't protect our wildlife and our wilderness. The

failure of government to meet this obligation is a serious omission and a

serious fault against the environment.

Government is full of good intentions. I can take you back to Premier Clyde

Wells in September of 1993: Our goal remains the creation of a network of parks,

ecological reserves and other protected areas to preserve the diversity of

Canada's wildlife and wilderness for future generations.

That was Premier Wells in 1993. What did this government do? They started

selling off parks. They started selling off provincial parks, turning them into

recreation grounds run by private individuals, instead of continuing to protect

them.

We had the then Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who is now the

current Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, talking about - Premier

Brian Tobin, November, 1997: The completion of a network of parks, ecological

reserves and other protected lands and waters by the year 2000 is an admirable

goal and one which can be achieved through continued cooperation and

partnership; November of 1997, three years ago. Three years ago he talked about

the completion of a network of parks and ecologic al

reserves. Where are we? D+; that's the report card of this government when

they make a commitment by the year 2000 to have a comprehensive network to

protect our ecological resources, our wilderness areas and our parks. We have

1.8 per cent of our land mass protected when the goal was 10 per cent, and we

are nowhere near there with only days to go by the end of the year.

There are things that can be accomplished even by June of the year 2000. If

we are going to try and do something in the year 2000, if not by the year 2000,

then we can accomplish something. The new goal has been set and has been urged

upon government by the Protected Areas Association, by the World Wildlife Fund

Canada, as part of its endangered spaces program. The World Wildlife Fund Canada

launched an endangered spaces campaign in 1989. The idea was that by the year

2000 there would be a network of protected areas throughout all of Canada, and

Newfoundland is way behind in meeting reasonable goals that were set ten years

ago.

I think it is a shame that we have not done more to protect areas. The Little

Grand Lake announcement was made just a couple of weeks ago. There is no

question about that. That was a good announcement, but it was long overdue. It

has been hotly debated for the last six years. The people trying to preserve the

Little Grand Lake area on the West Coast of the Province have spent twenty-five

years fighting to protect this wilderness