April 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

public galleries three groups of individuals involved in the Improving Our Odds

courses. The first two are from the Districts of Trinity - Bay de Verde and

Bellevue, one comprising twenty-two people with their instructors, John Cumby

and George Brown. The second, a group of forty people with their instructors Roy

Moores, Kay Swain, Rosalind Dawe and Ross Tricket, and the third group is a

delegation of thirty people from the District of Grand Bank, again, from the

Improving Our Odds course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Terra Nova have

leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave. The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer sincere congratulations to Susan Capps,

Nancy Creighton and Dorothy W. Riach who are recipients of the first ever, Women

of Distinction Awards which were presented last evening at a banquet hosted by

the St. John's YMCA and YWCA. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you send a

congratulatory letter to each recipient on behalf of the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assure Your Honour and members opposite that all the

members of the Official Opposition heartily concur with the Member for Terra

Nova in asking Your Honour to send congratulatory messages to the three women

who were honoured last night at the first annual St. John's YWCA Women of

Distinction Banquet. We would certainly want to be associated with praise of

those three women's outstanding contribution to the people of our Province.

Also, I suggest, Your Honour, that you send a congratulatory message to the St.

John's YWCA for having so successfully initiated this project destined to become

a yearly event to honour Women of Distinction in our Province.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we in the ministry would

certainly like to be associated with this and I would add only two points. My

friend from Humber East I think spoke of the YW. My understanding is it is now

the YM-YWCA, or perhaps the YW-YMCA. I had dinner Tuesday night with the

national president, Mrs. Godsoe, an old friend of mine from Halifax. We have

here in St. John's, as in many places throughout Canada right now, a joint YM-YW

- or perhaps it is YW-YM, I'm not sure.

Secondly, I can report to the House that with respect to

these statements the House Leaders have met. The best we've been able to do at

this stage is agree to meet again. So until we can find a better procedure we

are here, but I still maintain the position, or the government does, that we

should try to find a better way. My friend for Grand Bank and I, when we are not

writing doggerel limericks about each other, are putting our heads together. We

will see what we can come up.

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" and I would like to

take this opportunity to welcome the young women seated in our gallery who have

participated in this project. "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" has been promoted

by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women as a simple project

which has the potential to greatly influence the lives of our young women.

This day is designed to focus on the needs of young girls

aged nine to fifteens years old. Recent studies are finding that adolescence

takes a greater toll on the self-esteem of girls than on boys. There are many

reasons why young girls need this day, and we have outlined some of the recent

research studies in a backgrounder which I have attached to this statement.

Today, however, I have decided to focus on celebrating, rather than justifying,

"Take Your Daughter to Work Day." Our workplace is brightened today by the

presence of these young girls. They help us recall the enthusiasm of that "first

day on the job." When they grow up we must continue to ensure that every

opportunity possible is available to them. Nothing less than the future of our

world depends on their contribution. As government we must ensure that doors are

still opened for young women: doors to power, doors to wealth, doors to

opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, 1994 is the International Year

of the Family, and a major initiative is creating family friendly workplaces.

What better time to share our work experiences with our daughters. Perhaps those

members who were unable to participate today may take their daughters in for a

visit on International Family Day, May 15. Ask your daughter if she would like

to visit and then mark it on your calendar. Taking a young girl to work provides

us with a way to support girls and to begin to redress the inequities in their

lives. It tells them that we think they are important. "Take Your Daughter to

Work Day" provides a wonderful opportunity to have "our daughters" seen and

celebrated for the value they add and will add to our society as our future

engineers, mothers, and politicians.

I would like to commend all those persons who have taken time

today to show there girls the great variety of exciting career opportunities

that are available to them. By participating in this event, you have helped to

broaden a girl's horizon and enrich all our lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for her statement, and also for her

leadership in promoting "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Members may not be aware, but this is a program that was initiated by

the Ms Foundation in the United States, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the

Status of Women has been promoting it in Canada. It is good to see it introduced

in our Province with the minister's leadership. I hope it continues and will

become even more important in the years ahead.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I

would like to extend a warm welcome to the girls and young women who are in the

galleries today, and to assure them that we need them. We need lots more women

filling these seats. We only have three women out of the fifty-two members in

the House of Assembly right now and that is not properly reflective of women's

share of the total population, and as a consequence, our government doesn't

function as well as it should. Our House of Assembly doesn't perform as well as

it could.

We need you, I say to the girls and women, and please think

about politics as a future career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of

recent new developments in the educational reform process.

On April 15, Premier Wells and I met with church leaders to

discuss some concerns they had with Adjusting the Course . As a result of

that meeting, government decided to make some modifications to Adjusting the

Course .

Those modifications were documented and forwarded to the

church leaders on Tuesday, April 26, for their review and consideration. As a

courtesy to church leaders, we decided not to make the modifications public

until they had a chance to respond to us.

However, in recent days, some media claim to have obtained

some of the information. I say, `claimed to', Mr. Speaker, because of the

announcement that was made last night on some of the media, which did indeed

show a knowledge of the proposal put forth. By no means do they have a total

knowledge of what they are. So, in the interest of the public, and in the

interest of the House, it seems appropriate for me to table the modified

proposal.

They concerned the composition of the school boards, the

denominational education committees on the boards, the process to determine

which schools should remain or become uni- denominational, it ensures that the

system will truly be a denominational system - will be an interdenominational

system.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say it looks like some of the changes proposed by

the minister may be significant enough, hopefully, to get the churches back to

the table. It seems as if they might be willing. I am sure they will be back to

seek clarification, particularly in relation to the criteria for determining

uni-denominational schools, item number 3 in particular.

As you look through it - I have only had it for a minute or

two - but the viability criteria issue, where there doesn't appear to be any

problem of cost or duplication, where there is only one school in one community,

why the requirement or consent of 90 per cent of parents of children might be

required. That means 11 per cent could, in fact, make a school a public school,

or whatever the word is you want to use.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: If I could just briefly make a comment, I am

sure they will be back to seek clarification on those matters. These are the

most significant changes in the criteria, and clearly the government is now

proposing more denominational boards than they had originally proposed, which is

a good thing; it is something we suggested.

Finally, let me just say, I said publicly, if the government

were to get a third party involved in this, throw out the Minister of Education

and the Minister of Justice, then they would have a better chance to get an

agreement. I am glad they took my advice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that

the rules of the House, going back to his time in the Chair, if memory serves

me, provide that in response to the Ministerial Statement one may only have

one-half the time taken by the minister. That is not a rule that we made; it is

a rule of the House that has been there for some time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gets up and then asks for

leave, is granted leave, and then proceeds to use that to abuse the privileges

of the House by trying to cheapen the debate.

My point of order is simply to tell him that from now on he

will not get leave for anything beyond that which he is allowed by the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: To the minister's point of order, if the

minister prefers to use that kind of approach in the House of Assembly -

dictatorial approach, childish and silly kind of condemnation - then that is

okay, because two can play this game and it will be tit for tat, and I can

assure him, the tat is over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the point of order, the Government House Leader is correct

in that the member replying on the other side has half the time that the

minister does, but in this case the hon. Leader of the Opposition had leave and

was entitled to continue.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations in the absence of the Premier. At the press

conference last week, Brian Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries, estimated

that about $1.4 billion of the $1.9 billion to fund TAGS over the next five

years will be spent here in this Province. Now, in the absence of the Premier, I

ask the minister, can he tell us how much of that $1.4 billion will be paid out

in actual direct income support to fishermen and plant workers? How much of that

amount then - say it's $700 million for direct income support - how much of that

amount then will actually be spent on work there - the environmental projects,

employment bonuses, the portable wage subsidies and so on? Will he give us that

breakdown?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Such a breakdown is not possible to give at this point in

time. The only information is that - I think the latest numbers that have been

in use are that 77 per cent of the fishing activity that is covered by the

compensation arrangement is in Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore 77 per cent

of the money is expected to be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador. How much of

it will be spent on actual compensation to individuals will depend upon how many

people in Newfoundland and Labrador or any of the other Atlantic Provinces and

Quebec - the Quebec shore - qualify under the new eligibility criteria and it is

impossible to predict any numbers. There are some estimates that have been made

but all of those can only be confirmed after the individuals who will start

receiving information in the mail directly, everyone that's currently in receipt

of compensation, will go through a requalifying period. It's expected - just in

a ball park figure - that because 77 per cent and most people are saying

approximately 80 per cent, rounding it off, of the activity is in Newfoundland

and Labrador in this whole region, then it is expected that 77 or 80 per cent of

the money will be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what the minister is talking

about. I already told him - the minister said 80 per cent, $1.4 billion, I know

all that. What I asked him is, surely they must have done some - how do they

know how much to put in the program if they didn't know how much was there for

each individual component? There's about $300 million there for the IRBs, for

example. My question for the minister - I repeat it because obviously he didn't

understand the question - $1.4 billion is what Mr. Tobin said will be spent here

in Newfoundland. Now $300 million or whatever for the IRBs, there's going to be

millions for administering some of the programs, there's going to be millions

for training and so on. My question to him was twofold, simple: How much of that

$1.4 billion will be paid in direct income support to the fishermen and plant

workers? How much of that amount then, whatever that amount is, say it is $700

million, will actually be spent on the workfare programs? The environmental

green projects, the bonuses that are going to be paid, the portable wage

subsidies and that kind of thing. Answers to those questions the minister must

have at his disposal.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again it is not a matter of

anyone not understanding the question, or maybe not even a matter of the members

opposite not understanding the answer. The reality is - and I think everybody

understands the reality - it is impossible for any person, whether it be the

federal Minister of DFO, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, the Premier,

anybody else involved in it, any of the officials, to answer your question today

by saying: X number of millions of dollars will be paid out in compensation in

bi-weekly cheques that individuals in the fishery who are now in receipt of some

other form of compensation will receive.

How much money will be spent will depend upon how many people

qualify and for what period of time. It is impossible to give an answer to that

question. If the question were to be: Have some projections been made, have some

people speculated as to how much they think might be spent, sure, those numbers

have already been made public. There is nothing added to that debate by me

reaffirming it, because they are guesses, they are estimates. But if you ask the

question: How many million dollars are going to be paid out on a bi-weekly basis

to people in receipt of compensation in Newfoundland and Labrador under the TAGS

program, it is absolutely impossible today for anybody in Canada to answer that

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: You have no idea how much will be spent out of

that $1.4 billion to be given directly to the fishermen and plant workers in

income support. That is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, I will move on. The minister would be aware, and

remember as we all do, of course, that the first draft of the famed NCARP about

two years ago, when it was announced by John Crosbie, proposed a similar

workfare component. At that time both this government and the fishermen's union

rejected that idea because it was going to force fishermen and plant workers

into unfair competition with other workers in other sectors for all the scarce

jobs that there are. I'm sure the minister must recall that. Therefore, it is

important to ask him this question. How come this government now supports

workfare for fishermen and plant workers? Shouldn't that concern, expressed two

years ago, be even stronger today than it was then? There are less jobs to go

around and there are more people unemployed, Mr. Speaker, for those other

workers in other sectors of society who are not in the fishery.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate again

the question because it provides an opportunity to clarify the situation.

It is not a matter of using the phrase "workfare" at all. In

the discussions that have involved the federal government, the provincial

government, FFAW and FANL, it has been clear that one of the things that may

very well be a part of this program, once the re-qualification exercise has gone

through, which will take most of this summer - it is expected to take some

ninety days after May 15 or so for people to be determined whether or not they

are in the program after the end of this calendar year. That is the first

exercise.

One of the things that has been discussed openly and clearly

with everyone is that those who are determined to be eligible for anywhere from

two full years up to five years, once that determination is done, one of the

things that will be asked of these people is to commit - because they are going

to be deemed to be able to receive compensation, two questions will be asked.

Will they in fact commit, and can we find a meaningful way to have these people

commit to some kind of combination of training and provision of worker service

in return for the receipt of the compensation.

That issue is still under discussion. The FFAW has made its

position perfectly clear. It doesn't object to the concept. The workers

themselves, the actual fish harvesters and the fish plant workers have said they

don't as a rule object to the concept, as long as it is meaningful. They would

like for most of it to be related to the fishery, to marine related types of

work, if at all possible. Those are the discussions that are going on now. Is it

going to be possible in Newfoundland and Labrador to find fishery, marine

related meaningful work to have these people do in exchange for the receipt of

compensation for anywhere from two full years to five full years?

Those discussions are continuing. The concept is that

somewhere between four, five or six months of work in a year if it is

meaningful, combined with the rest of the year in some kind of directed,

meaningful training, would keep the people who are in receipt of the

compensation active, keep them involved while they are waiting, many of them,

for an opportunity to go to the fishery or to exit the fishery to some other

work opportunity.

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

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what you've got to do to try to

get a direct answer from the minister. That has nothing to do with the question.

The question is the concern that exists out there among the many, many people

who are desperate for jobs in this Province, who aren't involved in the fishery;

and won't the workfare program that he just described so capably, actually

affect all of those people, making it more difficult for them to find job

opportunities because of the workfare program? That was what my question was

about, and how did he feel about that. Was he concerned about that? Because the

people who phone our offices tell us that they are concerned they will be shut

out of any job opportunities because of the program, and they will have nowhere

to go but to face the welfare lines.

Let me ask the minister this question: Can the minister give

assurances to all those other people that their opportunities for jobs won't be

affected by these workfare programs funded by TAGS? Can he give some assurances

to the people?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the related issue that we have also been dealing

with. As a matter of fact, I have dealt with that particular aspect of it in

private and personal meetings with Mr. Axworthy because it is of some concern,

there is no question.

There are two things that everyone should understand. Any of

the work related effort that goes into making sure that people who are in the

compensation package of the new TAGS program, as it is called, any of that work

will be work that would not otherwise be done, and that should be made clear to

everybody. That will be work that would not otherwise be done, and would not

otherwise be available to anyone else in Newfoundland and Labrador anyway.

Everyone should understand that clearly.

This is going to be an effort to try and give the people who

are in receipt of the compensation an opportunity to stay meaningfully active,

but it is not going to take away from job opportunities for the rest of the 20

per cent unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador who also desperately need work.

We sought two particular clarifications before the program

was even announced, and we were assured first of all that any efforts relating

to employment arising because of this compensation program over the next five

years would not displace any current workers, and particularly because a lot of

this stuff is done on a seasonal basis, that any seasonal operators in

Newfoundland and Labrador who have regular workers, regular seasonal employees

that they call back annually, that they would not be denied their annual call

back in exchange for an employer, the government or anyone else, accepting

people who are in receipt of compensation in their stead.

So those clarifications have been sought and given, and any

work opportunities that are related to receipt of compensation under this

program will not, in any way, diminish any opportunities that there are for the

rest of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are not in this position.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

I am wondering if the minister has been monitoring the

fishery observer program - observers on our domestic and foreign vessels inside

of the 200-mile limit. I am wondering if the minister has been monitoring that

situation, because from news media reports there is a serious situation that has

arisen in Nova Scotia where a Quebec company has taken over the contract and now

the experienced, seasoned observers are out of the system and inexperienced,

unseasoned workers are acting as observers on the boats. Has the minister been

observing this situation, and does he have any concerns for the Newfoundland

observers?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have been observing it.

I would prefer to take the question as notice and maybe later on this afternoon

provide the member with copies of correspondence and any other relevant material

relating to it.

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

House Leader.

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

thank the minister for that.

While the minister is getting ready to respond, would he as

well check and see, because I have heard reports that within the last

twenty-four to forty-eight hours there have been fishing vessels sail from

Newfoundland ports without observers, and I am wondering, while the minister is

at it, if he could check into that as well, because if we are going to have a

fishery in the future, then conservation must be the key word, regeneration of

our stocks must be the key word, or all the billions of dollars that have been

spent, or will be spent on the new TAGS program, will be all for naught if we

don't have a revived fishery. So could the minister undertake to get that

information for me as well?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I can tell him

now that I share his concern with respect to the observer program, and we have

complained on numerous occasions that maybe it's not strong enough and I will

certainly get the information for the hon. member, maybe later on this

afternoon.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to follow up with the minister on an issue that was

raised last night in the Budget Estimates Committee for the Department of

Fisheries.

At that time we were trying to focus the minister and get

some answers on the 50 per cent reduction in the processing sector of closure of

plants, which plants will stay open, which will close, and the minister made

some reference that they will probably have to identify which plants will reopen

which, in essence, is identifying which plants will stay closed. Of course, we

may be looking at five to ten years before our stocks regenerate and people get

back working in the processing plants. Could the minister inform the House and

the people what program the Provincial Government will undertake to mothball and

maintain the processing facilities so that they are in working condition when

the fish stocks rebuild?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee

meeting last night we did have a very interesting discussion on the business of

down-sizing or rebuilding the processing sector. Some reference was made to the

need for regional balance and the hon. gentleman expressed some concern that we

were now talking about regional balance, but I should remind him by the way,

that in this discussion paper that was put out almost a year ago, recommendation

No. 24 talks about the need for regional balance in the processing sector; but,

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the plants, all plants in the Province that depend

on groundfish for their survival are closed, with a few exceptions.

Some are doing Russian cod, we have a plant in Arnold's Cove,

Fishery Products International has a plant in Fortune; I believe there is a

plant in Triton, Green Bay and in Winterton, Trinity Bay now processing Barents

Sea cod. Apart from that, just about all of the other groundfish plants are

closed, so the question arises, I suppose, at the end of the day, of putting in

place a mechanism whereby we find ways and means of getting those plants

re-opened. And given the fact that the moratorium is in place now and will be,

it is predicted, for another five or six, or maybe longer years, then it is

going to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, to say when these plants will re-open and,

in fact, given the fact that it will depend almost entirely on precisely to what

extent the fish stocks rebuild, then it is not difficult to understand why it is

almost impossible to determine which plants will be in operation in the year

Getting back to his question about mothballing, Mr. Speaker,

there isn't any program in place at the present time on the part of the

Provincial Government for mothballing plants. I am not able to tell the hon.

gentleman if there will be such a program, that is something that will have to

be decided at some future date. That's the sort of thing that would probably be

decided or looked at by the New Fisheries Renewal Board, if and when that is

established and providing the terms of reference of that board, are such that

the Province can go along with it. It is something that I expect will be looked

at but, at this point in time, there isn't a program in place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question pertaining to Tourism and Culture.

I understand the acting minister is out of the Province on

business, but the Premier has been aware of this in a letter, so I will direct

it to, I guess, whoever is the acting, acting Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Now, the tour boat operation in this Province is a rapidly

growing business, and at present there is no system of licensing for tour boat

operators in the Province and there is a successful business operating in my

district. Now, many other businesses related to tourism require a government

license or approval in order to operate. I ask the minister, will this

government look at putting in place a system whereby there will be a licensing

for tour boat operators in this Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am, I guess the senior

survivor as it were, on this side at this point. I have no personal knowledge of

the matter; what I can do and will do gladly is to undertake on behalf of my

colleague, the minister who is out of the Province at present, my colleague, the

acting minister, the Member for St. Barbe, to have an answer prepared and we

will give it here in the House as quickly as we can. We shall look at the issue.

What the result of that would be I cannot say, but I will certainly undertake

that.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the season rapidly approaching this year, and in order

to set in place a proper standard of professionalism among tour boat operators

it is imperative that government establish certain minimum standards of safety

for tour boat operators. At present there are none.

Now, in British Columbia when the White Water Rafting

business started to increase there was influx of fly-by-nighters which resulted

in many deaths, a catastrophe there, and lawsuits involved because it was not

regulated in any way for safety.

Now, I ask the minister: Would he undertake to put in place

an acceptable safety standard for the operation of tour boats?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon.

gentleman has apparently let his enthusiasm carry him away. It is not within the

constitutional powers of this Legislature to regulate boats operating in the

areas of which he speaks. These are regulated by the Canada Department of the

Ministry of Transport, called the Canadian Coastguard which is a division of

Transport Canada, in my understanding. I don't claim any particular knowledge or

expertise in this matter.

My understanding is that all boats, including specifically in

this context, boats which carry passengers, including tour boats, are regulated

by the Canadian Coastguard, or by CSI, the Canada Steamship Inspection Service.

My understanding is that the Canada Shipping Act, which is the federal

legislation which governs this, is considered to be among the most advanced in

the world, and furthermore, the regulatory scheme administered by CSI, and by

the Coastguard, is, in my understanding, complete, comprehensive, and meets the

need.

Now, with all that said, I will still undertake, as I said,

to find out from those with some detailed knowledge of this matter - and I claim

none - where we are. What I will say to my friend again, is that I think I have

some knowledge of the constitutional parameters of this Legislature, and we

cannot, we just simply cannot legislate validly. We can legislate. Sure, we can

also make rules about the South African elections, if we want, one has no more

validity than the other, but we cannot legislate - with this

Section 91 and

Section 92 of the Constitutional Act, address the issue.

Now, my friend can make what points he wants, scaremongering,

fearmongering, and raising those apprehensions, but what I say to him is he

should better take his concerns where they properly belong.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I really appreciate the expert legal advice from the

minister. These boats meet the Coastguard standards, and have met standards in

order to operate. Tour boat operators in this Province have been approaching and

lobbying the provincial department to set standards for embarking and

disembarking, on ground safety that relates to the operation, to enhance the

professionalism of tourism on safety requiring someone with a first aid

certificate, the proper first aid equipment that falls outside jurisdiction on

the ocean. These are the types of things I am talking about, Mr. Minister. They

are things that are under provincial control, and they are operating in two

parks here in this Province.

Now, I ask him a final question. At present there are no

requirements for those operations to have comprehensive liability insurance,

none. I ask the minister, will he undertake to ensure that there are minimum

comprehensive liability insurance standards set for the operation of tour boat

operators in this Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is no way I can answer

that question, even assuming the premise is correct. And I don't know if it is

correct, but I have no reason to doubt it. The hon. gentleman claims expertise

in a number of areas, I don't. I have some knowledge of the law but even that, I

acknowledge to him, readily, is quite limited. What I will say is we will have a

look at it and, in due course, if we believe that action should be taken, we

will come here to the House and ask the House to enact the legislation that will

be needed to require a liability insurance scheme.

I should add, though, lest he leave a misimpression, and my

hon. friend inadvertently often leaves misimpressions, that whether or not

insurance is required, and I know not, it does not speak to the liability of the

operator. An operator of a boat who is judged to be negligent will be liable to

any person who has suffered damages as a consequence of that negligence. I would

therefore say that any prudent tour boat operator would effect liability

insurance to guard against his/her or its potential exposure should there be

negligence causing harm and which lead -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman really wants an answer

to his question, he will do me the courtesy I did him and not interrupt me

rudely or otherwise. He is at an expert at interrupting people rudely in the

House, so is his friend, the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman asked

a question and I shall try to answer it. I will do him the courtesy of thinking

that he is expressing his views honestly and straightforwardly because he

believes in this. In that case, let me again say that any prudent tour boat

operator, in my judgement, will be well-advised to effect insurance against the

contingency, because the liability is there, assuming the legal requirements are

met, whether or not there's a requirement for insurance. On the insurance issue,

all I can say is we will have a look at it and as soon as we can, we will

address the matter in a policy statement. I'll leave it at that. That's all I

can say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Fisheries.

In a recent news story it was noted that over the past two

years some twenty-odd fish plants in the Province did not have their license

renewed. The reason given by the minister when questioned by the media on the

criteria for not renewing the license was that if a plant were inactive for a

period of two years the license was not renewed. Over the past few days we have

had some problems in my district in the community of St. Bride's with regard to

the fish plant and the sale of fish. Most of this has come because of the

concern that the people there have, Mr. Minister, for the future of the fish

plant. I would like to ask the minister: Will the same criteria that was used

over the past two years be carried into the future with regard to which fish

plants stay open in the Province and which fish plants are closed?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there's a policy in place now

and has been for quite some time, that licenses that are idle two years or

longer, prior to the date of the first moratorium, are automatically cancelled.

Now, in recent days, there have been a lot of letters sent out to a number of

fish plants advising them that their licenses have been cancelled. These are

licenses that were for different species, for example, squid, herring, mackerel

and a number of other species that have not been active for two years. They have

been cancelled, and there are a number of plants in the Province, I believe

twenty-six altogether that have lost their licenses by virtue of that

regulation. Obviously, the plant in St. Bride's is an operating plant, so as

long as it's operating that rule will not apply but if it's idle for two years,

unless there are extenuating circumstances, then the licenses will be retrieved.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

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

minister the following: If the plant over the next couple of years has to close,

say, for three or four years due to the cod moratorium, would I be correct in

saying that there would be a possibility that that plant would not lose its

license - that you would look at extenuating circumstances because of the

moratorium and not the fact that it would be closed for maybe four years, who

knows?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear when I

explained, licenses that are idle two years pre-dating the first moratorium

which was imposed in 1991, so plants that were idle prior to that time had no

activity in groundfish, for example, their licenses have been retrieved.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Over the past couple of days I've

held several meetings with plant workers and a concern that some of those plant

workers have is that if they decide to do a training course outside the fishery

for the next couple of years - whether it's a one year training course, two, or

whatever the case may be - that when the fish do come back or when the industry

starts again, because they trained outside of the fishery they will not be

allowed to go back into the fishery if they cannot find a job in the course that

they have trained for. In a nutshell, if a person decides to train outside the

fishery, will that person be signing away the opportunity to work in the

industry in the future?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, people who again go through the

eligibility criteria and are deemed to be eligible for continuing compensation

for a minimum of two years beyond May 16, one of the options that will be

presented to them will be to select certain training options.

The training options would be clearly to look at programs

that might make them more suitable for work in the professional new fishery of

the future, or that they themselves might have made a judgement that there may

be very limited opportunities for them in the area or community of the Province

in which they live, and that in their best interest maybe they had best look at

a training option for some other opportunity outside the fishery altogether.

That will be their individual choice to make, as I understand it.

I'm not aware that there is any particular regulation or rule

that will require them to sign to say that: If I train to be something other

than a professional fisherperson or a plant worker that I will never again be

allowed to enter the fishery. How many people will go back into the fishery will

largely be determined by the size and the extent of the fishery that re-opens

based upon the new health of the restored stock.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Mines and Energy. I would like to ask the minister: When the

Premier and the government decided to privatize Hydro, what were their

assumptions about interest rates and the rate of exchange between the Canadian

dollar and the foreign currencies in which part of the Hydro debt is

denominated? Have the recent increase in interest rates and the slide in the

value of the Canadian dollar resulted in a change in the government's position

on Hydro privatization, or led to an alteration of their timetable for doing the

dirty deed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Talking about dirty deeds, why don't you

declare your conflict of interest?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should (inaudible) conflict of

interest.

MR. TOBIN: Who said that over there? Murphy, you?

MR. MURPHY: No.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that we made any

particular assumptions on interest rates. Our advisors were telling us that the

optimum time to go to the market to get the maximum value for our assets, for

our equity in the Hydro, would be when interest rates are at their lowest. That

is when you get the maximum value. We have clearly said ourselves publicly in

the last few weeks that as interest rates climb then our return would likely

decrease and lessen. We would want to do the privatization when it is optimum.

As everybody also knows, in the last few days interest rates

have been receding again. We are watching what is happening in the market. We

are going to continue to watch what is happening in the market, and we would

like to be ready to do the privatization when it is going to be best for the

government and the Province, when we would get the maximum number of dollars for

what we own in this particular enterprise. We would do it then. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I have the pleasure of presenting a petition of 156

Pasadena schoolchildren.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having great difficult hearing the hon. member, who is

to my immediate right. If members want to converse, could they please take it

outside the Chamber?

I recognize the hon. member again.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Pasadena schoolchildren, who are petitioning the House of

Assembly, have written as follows:

`We, the children of the Pasadena Academy, protest the

destroying of our land to build a highway through our town, destroying our

everyday activities.

We ask you to think about we children and our needs. Some of

our needs are to have fun and be safe. You will also be destroying some of our

town's good farm land.

We ask you to please build the highway, but around our town

and not through it. Thank you.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition of 156 students of Pasadena

Academy was sent to me by Jennifer Hillier, an eleven-year-old, Grade V student.

Jennifer sent me a covering letter, which I would like to read to hon. members

of the House. Jennifer wrote:

`My name is Jennifer I. Hillier. I am eleven years of age. I

am writing this letter on behalf of the children of the Pasadena Academy School.

The Principal of my school, Mr. Butt, permitted myself to pass around a petition

for the children who are against government laying the four-lane highway through

our transmission line which runs through the middle of our town. You will be

taking away some farmland and homes that people live in right now. We protest

against the route of where the four-lane highway will be put. This will affect

our lives forever.

We, the children, protest against our everyday activities

being destroyed. Some of the activities are: skiing, skidooing, sliding,

walking, talking, running, fishing, and many, many more. Please build the

highway around our town and not through it.

The adults have already sent a petition with over 1,600 names

on it to Clyde Wells, but I would like you to present our petition. Thank you

very much for your help!!!!'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: `Sincerely yours, Jennifer I. Hillier.'

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend Jennifer and the other

children at Pasadena Academy for their initiative in trying to preserve the

natural beauty and the excellent quality of community life in Pasadena.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly concur with the children.

Building a four-lane divided superhighway in a trench through the middle of

Pasadena, along the transmission line, as the current minister proposed, would

lead to a quite unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into Pasadena life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, for the hon. member and for the minister's benefit, I

think he is having difficulty hearing the hon. member, as I am, so if members

could keep their conversations down, please.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are used to

getting report cards from their teachers at Pasadena Academy. If the Pasadena

Academy teachers could give a report card for the minister, they would write:

Johnny can do better.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to reading you Jennifer Hillier's

letter, I would like to read to hon. members a letter written by a wise, older

person in Pasadena, a businessman whose name is Karl H. Diemer. Mr. Diemer

wrote:

`Once upon a time there was a lovely valley adorned on one

side by a beach and a tranquil lake, and on the other side by tree-covered

hills. People settled here and lived in harmony with nature. They cared for

their surroundings and houses. They planted trees and flowers to further

beautify their town. The soil was fertile and the people grew delicious

strawberries and other fruits. On the meadows in the summer, cows were grazing

and drank the clean water from the brook. The inhabitants were friendly and

lived in harmony in their community, but one day outsiders came. They were the

mean trolls from St. John's. They wanted to build a four-lane speedway - an ugly

four-lane speedway, a noisy four-lane speedway, a four-lane speedway that would

divide the town. The outsiders would cut down the trees, they would dig dirt

tunnels, create artificial hills, put up high fences that would divide the

community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: These mean people would create scars all over

the beautiful valley.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to finish

her -

MS. VERGE: The people of Corner Brook did not watch the

trolls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: The people of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MS. VERGE: No leave? Such a good letter! Well, I'll have

to complete reading the letter at another time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand and

support the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber

East. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't want to see the

hon. minister's report cards - Johnny's report cards, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I would have to say in

support of the petition is this: back in 1989-1990 when the former minister, Mr.

Gilbert, met with the town council in Pasadena and the residents, to talk about

the re-routing of the Trans-Canada Highway - the new four-lane highway, I should

say, because re-routing wasn't talked about at that time - there was a decision

reached that this particular piece of road would go around Pasadena in what they

call the southern bypass route. Now, that agreement was between the town council

at that time and the government of the day - the same gentlemen who were there

in 1989 are there today, have been for the last five years. The only difference

is that the ministers have changed.

Mr. Speaker, the department at that time knew full well about

the travelling distance. There's no difference in the length of a kilometre,

there's no difference in the length of a mile or the distance in it, the footage

in it, the meters, the centimetres or anything else. It's the same today as it

was back in 1989. The concern of the people at that time was that they should go

with the southern bypass route. The same concern is there today, the same

concern is expressed today, only in this case there were two public meetings

held and the majority of the people said without hesitation, they wanted the

southern bypass route.

One of the other things that was agreed on back in 1989, Mr.

Speaker, was this - very, very important - that the Town's plan, the municipal

plan in Pasadena, was done in such a way that it would accommodate a southern

bypass route. In order for the minister and his department to go with what they

consider the transmission line route now, that particular

section or the

particular plan at Pasadena would have to be changed. Now, there are only two

ways - one way really, that a municipal plan should be changed in the Province

and that is, when it's up for review - a plan is usually up for review after

five years - there is one other way, and that is if a municipality wanted to

make an amendment to a municipal plan before the review was up; those are the

only two ways. In doing that, a municipality would have to have public hearings,

the public would have a chance to voice their opinions to the changes, the

amendments or the review of the plan and they would be given the opportunity to

do so.

There is only one other way that can be done, and that is, if

the government of the day could unilaterally change the municipal plan in the

municipality, but they would have to have the same - and it meets the same

criteria as a municipality. That is, they would have to have public hearings on

this particular issue. They can't just go to Cabinet and the minister can't just

sign a document saying, we're going to change the municipal plan in Pasadena,

period. They can't do it. The same rules and regulations apply to a minister of

a government department, regardless of that department - in order to do it, they

would have to have public hearings and so on to give the general population a

chance to have some input.

So I say to the minister that he needs deliberation on this

particular subject. He said that he has heard pretty well - to sum it up, that

he's had enough and he would take to Cabinet the concerns raised by the people

of Pasadena, and Cabinet would make a final decision on it.

Well, I would submit to the minister today, Mr. Speaker, that

his decision should be to go with the southern by-pass route, especially these

days, especially going down through the Humber Valley. If there was ever a time

to put a southern by-pass route, it is now. I say to the minister that in his

deliberations he should take that into consideration, and make sure we don't do

what we did last year with respect to the entrance to Corner Brook.

If there was ever - I never saw it in this Province before,

where we built the hill to put a road on it. We usually build hills for ski

slopes and so on, but the first time ever I saw it, we built the hill, one of

the largest in the country, next to Kelly's in Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the minister, take the people's

considerations under advisement and do what they want to have done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Time is up, time is up!

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not up. Mr. Speaker, this has been

an issue put forth through the political manipulation of the Member for Humber

East, so much so that she has all of the people of Pasadena stirred up, and now

she went into the school yard trying to stir up the children, trying to get them

frightened - fear-mongering about a

section of highway that is going to go

through Pasadena. It is absolutely unbelievable that a member would stoop to

such a low that she would go in and give the schoolchildren the wrong

information on what is going to happen in Pasadena.

I've had just about everybody in this Province upset with me

at one time or another - the adults. Now, the hon. member is going to go down

and get all the schoolchildren upset.

MS. VERGE: They are doing it on their own.

MR. EFFORD: No, they are not doing it on their own. The

hon. member knows full well the emotions of the children and the people of

Pasadena whom she has so politically stirred up over the last few months.

The Member for Humber Valley made a good point about the

hills and the valley, the steep incline of the road going around Corner Brook

and the trouble that has caused - there was no other alternative route around

Corner Brook - to the traffic and the trucks travelling that road. If I were to

agree to build a southern by-pass road it would be - and even much worse, the

hills and valleys on that road. The engineers have studied it, looked at it -

the grades, the inclines, the hills and valleys, would be ridiculous. I am not

prepared, as minister of this department, to put that road through the southern

by-pass route, the horseshoe turn coming around Pasadena, and for someone to ask

after that road was built: What crazy individual signed his name to that

document to build that piece of road? I am not prepared, as minister, to do

that.

I am, as well as the people of Pasadena, concerned about the

road going through Pasadena. I have listened and understand all of their

concerns. They have some legitimate concerns, concerns that will be addressed in

the construction of that road. The four-lane superhighway that she talks about

is ugly? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Beauty is in the eye of the

beholder. You may call it ugly; somebody else may call it beautiful. I don't see

anything wrong with the Trans-Canada leading out over St. John's. Some people

may call that ugly; that is up to the individual. When we build that highway

through Pasadena, we will give every consideration to the schoolchildren - the

noise, the landscaping, the sound barrier, every option. Everything that has

been discussed will be taken into consideration.

When that highway is built along the transmission line, I

suspect the Pasadena people are going to look at the hon. member - if she is

still the hon. member then - and ask: What were you talking about? This is a

beautiful highway. It is serving the town of Pasadena, all the people of

Newfoundland, and we are quite satisfied with it.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of

several hundred people from the communities of Little St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence

and Lawn. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

district of Grand Bank, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cease

their efforts to dismantle denominational education and the right to

denominational schools be maintained, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray

that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to take such action as quickly as possible.'

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been taken up in the

last while. There is a great deal of concern on the Burin Peninsula and

particularly in that area of my district about the educational reform that is

being proposed by the provincial government, consequently the people wanted

their concerns and their views expressed to the government in the House of

Assembly and which I am pleased to do for them today.

Now I was pleased I must say, to hear the minister's remarks

today following on the heels of the new stories last night, that there seems to

have been some progress made between government and the churches; that's indeed

encouraging and I just hope that that progress continues. As the Leader of the

Opposition said today, this progress was made by the former minister, Dr.

Warren, and I believe a gentleman by the name of Mr. Browne.

We have said for a number of months here, that if there was

ever going to be a resolution between the church leaders and the government,

that the Minister of Education would have to be put on the sidelines because he

is so inflammatory; because just as it seems that progress was being made, the

minister would go to the media and make a remark and then things would go

backward again, so we are very, very pleased that at least some progress has

been made in this particular area, so I wanted to stand in my place today and

present this petition on behalf of the several hundred constituents of my

district, from Little St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence and Lawn and I want to

conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I full-heartedly, full-heartedly support

the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the

petition presented by my colleague the Member for Grand Bank, and as he stated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you go outside boys and have a cup

of coffee?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when they are finished - if you

want, I will take my seat and when the government members are finished having

their chat, I will be recognized if that's what Your Honour so wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to remind hon. members that if they want to have

private conversations they should go outside the Chamber. I also remind hon.

members that the Chair has ruled many, many times that it is unparliamentary to

turn backs to the Chair, and the Chair is going to start to enforce the rules of

the House and for the next hour or so, I may have to embarrass hon. members, but

those are the rules of the House and they will be enforced.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I want to stand and support the petition -

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

The Chair doesn't like to make a ruling and then immediately

afterwards hon. members do the same thing.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to some of the members

opposite that this is a very serious request signed by hundreds of people from

the Burin Peninsula communities of Lawn, St. Lawrence and Little St. Lawrence.

They were sincere when they requested my colleague from Grand Bank to present a

petition asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to cease in their

efforts to dismantle denominational education, and the rights of the

denominational schools be maintained, and we take it very seriously on this side

of the House.

We take it very seriously, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the

House, the rights of people to have their petitions heard, and I am sure that my

colleague from Port au Port and other places are interested in what the petition

has to say. I support the petition, I was delighted to hear, as everybody else

was, from the minister today that there have been some efforts, there has been

some work done by the government and I think it is very important as well, that

we recognize the contribution of the former Minister of Education, Dr. Warren.

Dr. Warren, who came back to government as I understand it

and said: listen, let us get some sense in this business, you are dealing with

the churches, all denominations, and said to the present minister, I think you

know this has to be addressed and I want to today, recognize the contribution of

the former Minister of Education. It is obvious that he is more of a conciliator

than the present minister who knows nothing except bullish tactics in trying to

bring things about. So thanks to the efforts of the former Minister of

Education, Mr. Speaker, the points raised by the Opposition Leader and by other

people in the Province, that government has begun to realize that we have to

start talking; we have to negotiate in order to get things done in this

Province. You just can't move ahead bullish like the Minister of Education has

been trying to do, and resulting from these efforts, the churches and the

government are now talking.

Hopefully, the matter, Mr. Speaker, will be resolved to the

satisfaction of the churches and the government. I think that is very important

for all of us, and I really believe and hope that is what we will see as a

result of the consultation that has now been started. It was good news today

that the Minister of Education brought to this House, and to hear the various

church leaders - I believe some of them have already met - they are going to be

meeting and talking with government again, is extremely important.

Let me say in conclusion that the people of Lawn, St.

Lawrence and Little St. Lawrence who asked the member for the Burin Peninsula to

bring this forward in the House, that I certainly feel a responsibility to speak

to the petition and make sure that the wishes of these people are heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My friend and colleague, the Minister of Education, is in the

lobby participating in the experience that we call a scrum, so let me say a word

or two with respect to this petition on behalf of the ministry.

I am first to endorse the remarks of my friend from Burin -

Placentia West about the need for a little silence in the House. I have been

known, on occasion, to request silence, as did he and, like him, on occasion I

have been known, perhaps, to interject in part of debate, but I would say to my

friend that he ought to be careful to set an example. He, as much as anybody in

this House, is noted for rude and intemperate interruptions on occasion, and I

can only say to him that perhaps today he saw how very unsettling these can be.

They don't deflect one from one's remarks. They simply lower the decorum of the

House, and he will acknowledge that at times in the enthusiasm of presenting his

cause he has been tempted into this.

Let me say as well that I and my colleagues are the very

first to acknowledge the role played by Dennis Browne, a well-known lawyer here

in the city, and Dr. Warren, an old friend of mine going back thirty years, and

a former colleague of mine in this House and in other ventures, but I would say

to my hon. friend from Burin - Placentia West that he ought not to try to use

this as an excuse for cheap partisan shots, as he did.

The door has been open with the churches, and there has been

a great deal of communication all along through various channels of one sort or

another. Dr. Warren and Mr. Browne, I think, have helped constructively, but so

have a great number of other people. With that said, Mr. Speaker, let me come to

the substance of the petition.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have no intention

of dismantling the denominational system. It's not in any of our proposals to do

that. In fact, to the contrary, we wish to maintain and to strengthen the

denominational system, but to reform it. The proposals we put forward in

Adjusting the Course,

Part I , and Adjusting the Course,

Part II , and

now the modifications that were tabled in the House earlier today by my

colleague, in our view, are designed to achieve that.

The gentlemen who speak for the churches, the leaders of the

churches, the seven denominations with educational rights in this Province, have

expressed concerns with these proposals. I think it is fair to say they have not

accepted the ones we put forward hitherto. We will see what happens with these

modifications.

I don't want to get into the details of what we said, because

it is difficult to negotiate in public, but let me say specifically, and as

clearly as we can, we do not wish to dismantle the denominational education

system, and that we wish to maintain the right to denominational schools as the

prayer of this petition requests. We do wish to change the system, to make it an

interdenominational system with uni-denominational schools in appropriate

circumstances. We wish to do that because we believe that is in the best

interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly the young

people who look to the educational system for their education.

We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that while the churches

have educational rights, and while the government has responsibilities as well

as rights, and the churches have responsibilities too, in the long run the one

interest we must take seriously in dealing with educational matters is the

interest of the children, the young people. That is what education is about.

That is what is driving the reforms we brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: So I would hope that the men and the women

in the District of Grand Bank who signed this petition, or those who signed in

behalf of others, as is the case with many of these signatures - I look through

them, and I don't object to that; that's common enough - but that the men and

women who did that get this message. I hope the message goes back to them that

we are driven by a desire to improve the system for the benefit of the children

and so, I believe, are the leaders of the churches. There is no question of

that. We may differ on the means to reach our goal, but we have a common goal.

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

please call Motions 5 and 6. Those are a couple of first readings, and then we

will go on to the debate on the Electrical Power Control Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act,," carried. (Bill No. 15)

On motion, Bill No. 15 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works,

Services And Transportation Act." carried. (Bill No. 16)

On motion, Bill No. 16 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 4, the Electrical Power Control Act,

second reading. I believe my friend for St. John's East Extern had the floor

when the debate adjourned Tuesday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment to the bill?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the six-month hoist amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: We are still on the amendment. Okay.

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

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

On Tuesday evening when I adjourned the debate I was speaking

on accessing the Upper Churchill power. The point I was making is that the

Premier had stated that he would not like to have this situation discussed in

the House, with respect to using this bill to access the Upper Churchill power.

I thought that was a bit late when the Premier himself came on Province-wide TV

and made the announcement, and the real secret agenda for Bill 1 and Bill 2

going through the House together was that it could be used to access the Upper

Churchill power. Basically, what I thought he was trying to do was muzzle the

Opposition like he muzzled the members on the government side.

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

over these past couple of months with respect with to this issue on the

privatization of Hydro. They are mostly being held by members of the Opposition

but there have been some meetings held by government members. I remember one in

particular by the hon. Member for Pleasantville which the Member for St. John's

North attended, and now the Member for St. John's North has a request from 279

people, I believe, to have a public meeting, and I believe he is going to have a

public meeting. I say to the hon. Member for St. John's North that I wish him

luck in that he has some better answers, and full answers, for the people than

he had when they questioned him at his meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a comment on the

amount of public money that has been spent on trying to convince the public that

their views are wrong. We have tens of thousands of dollars being spent, maybe

hundreds of thousands of dollars, on radio clips and newspaper ads with respect

to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. If you sit down and read those

newspaper ads closely, my personal view is that there is some misleading

information in those ads. I do not know if it is intentional or not, but I do

not think they tell the whole truth.

enterprises and how they should not be involved in commercial enterprises. I

agree to some extent with that train of thought, but the problem is that

government is saying that there is nothing changing here. There is nothing

changing if Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, only government's involvement in

the financing and operations of the new Hydro. Personally, I do not believe that

Hydro can be compared to an ordinary commercial enterprise because it is a

public utility and it would be a monopoly. There would be basically no

competition there. They sell the power now to Newfoundland Power and the new

Hydro would have complete control over a monopoly, which would be -

I wouldn't say, Mr. Speaker, that privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro is the same as the privatization of Newfoundland Farm

Products or Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. While I agree that

those two ventures could be quite successful, seeing the facts and figures down

the road, maybe we could possibly agree to that. It is a completely different

situation then with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The Premier and the government say there is nothing changing.

I think there will be some major changes in that we will have the loss of

ownership of the hydro production in this Province, and also we would have the

loss of the control of our future, possibly with respect to an economic machine

to stimulate the economy. The Province of Quebec uses hydro to do that.

Subsections 23(1) and (4) give power to the Public Utilities

Board to approve ownership of 20 per cent of the shares in an electrical

utility. I believe that this is certainly one step in paving the way for a

merger between Newfoundland Power and Hydro today, which was the Premier's first

objective as we well know from what went on last fall. I would have to ask the

question: Why? Why is the Premier so intent on having this merger?

I'm wondering if anybody watched - I think it is on Thursday

nights, Friday nights, with the CBC news, there is a guy on that called "Sammy

Ludlow," and he starts off with: "I was wondering there the other day...." I

have to say, I was wondering too about the privatization of Hydro and this

merger that is quite possibly coming down the road. Is it payback time? That has

been covered enough in this Legislature and in public, what is going on. I've

been asked a number of times by the public, people coming up to me and asking:

What is going on here? Why is he so intent on privatizing Hydro? Is it payback

time?

I answer: I honestly don't know that and I can't have the

answer to that because we have never been informed of what went on a few years

ago when the Premier left private industry and came into government and his

salary was subsidized. We still don't know who paid that. I'm sincerely hoping

that this is not the case that it is payback time.

I believe there are a number of other sections in the bill

that pave the way for a merger down the road of Newfoundland Power and Hydro. Of

course the first one would be where the bill instructs the Public Utilities

Board to base rates on three criteria. The first one of course is the cost to

Hydro, second would be the maintenance of credit worthiness, and of course the

profits for shareholders. Another one to help pave the way would be the

section

that directs the Public Utilities Board to phase out the rural subsidies to

industrial customers by 1999. We all realize the reasons for this, because it

certainly would cushion the impact of privatization on the general public in the

beginning, but the end result would be that it would be a major factor in

increasing the cost to the general public in consuming electricity.

A

section of the act that I really don't understand and I

really believe it is a very peculiar

section to have in the act, and that is the

section that refers to the transfer of responsibility of the essential employees

from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board. Especially when

you look at the fact that the Labour Relations Board are the people who have the

expertise for a number of years now to deal with labour relations and the

dealing with essential employees,

whereas the Public Utilities Board are not - I

personally don't believe have the experience to deal with such issues. I have to

ask the question: Why is that, I wonder? Is it because then Newfoundland Power,

which has a lot of experience dealing with the Public Utilities Board and

getting rate increases whenever need be, that maybe they could influence the

Board more so than the Labour Relations Board when it comes to the appointment

of essential employees? Just a question to throw out there, some food for

thought.

Another

section that I believe would help pave the way of

course would be the refund for the federal tax paid by utilities rebated to the

Province under PUITTA. That is another major concern of mine in this situation.

I believe the only true facts and figures that are being put

forward in this issue are being put forward by those opposed to the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. I might be a bit biased in making that

statement, of course, and I could be considered to be biased. The reason I say

that is because the most figures I see are the figures that are being put

forward by those opposed. We don't see any figures coming out from the

government or government members other then the $25 million a year that would be

supposedly saved if we privatize Hydro.

The Premier has publicly stated that those people opposed to

Hydro are basing their opposition on hysteria, emotion and are led by

misinformation. Well, if the general public is indeed getting misinformation,

maybe it's about time for the government to come out and give the proper

information. I believe the government and the Premier are directly insulting the

intelligence of the general public out there and saying that they don't

understand the situation. The public know what they want and as far as I'm

concerned, from what the polls have shown and from the people I have talked to,

they do not want privatization. They want the sections taken out with respect to

privatization, in particular in Bill 2. Maybe we could proceed with Bill 2 -

it's possibly a good thing for the Province. Again, as I said before, we're

dealing with a motherhood issue here, with Bill 2, if we could access the Upper

Churchill power.

We have some experience in this situation, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to trying to access the Upper Churchill power, of course. Back in the

1970s and again in 1980 we had two attempts made; partial access strategy, which

was unsuccessful, of course, as we know now, and the Reversion Act of 1980,

which was unsuccessful. We had the Supreme Court ruling, seven against that act

as being a legitimate or a legal act and they ruled in favour of Quebec. I don't

know why the Premier would think now that he could convince four out of seven

judges to change their minds. I believe that this act now, really, Mr. Speaker,

is trying to access the Upper Churchill through the back door. Again, as I said,

I think we can go ahead without Bill No. 1 and we could get some support for

that if you would exclude the sections related to the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro.

I have listened to the debate, Mr. Speaker, over the months,

from the members opposite, speaking on the privatization of Hydro and now on

Bill 2, and there have been very few of them actually speaking in favour of

privatization. We have the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Eagle

River who have been very verbal on this issue over the past little while. I'm

getting sick and tired of hearing the word `Sprung' thrown across the House, and

`seventeen years of mismanagement', Mr. Speaker. When you look at the previous

administration who were in power for seventeen years, at least they tried

things. They tried to accomplish things, they did create jobs and they did have

the guts to try something, some new ideas - they opened hospital beds versus

closing hospital beds. They supplied dollars for infrastructure for the

municipalities around this Province and they created jobs. As far as I can see,

this administration has yet to create any jobs in this Province of a worthwhile

nature. As I said, this administration has a very poor record for creating jobs

in this Province.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to what this

government has accomplished over the past five years. From my perspective, after

five years of administration this government has created havoc in the Province.

We see many Newfoundlanders worse off - I realize and I understand that there

are outside factors affecting this Province and its economy, but I don't see the

government actually doing anything to boost the spirits or increase the morale

of the people of this Province. Since they came in, all I've seen is cutbacks

and hardship. I don't see any possibilities of jobs for the near future.

This administration basically supports the resettlement

program of Mr. Brian Tobin, who announced it, last week or the week before - I

don't see him standing up for Newfoundland. We have had previous Premiers who

were very emotional and forceful in their ideas when protecting Newfoundlanders.

We now have a Premier in this Province who, for some strange reason or other,

always seems to think of something - of fairness and balance in his mind, now,

mind you, Mr. Speaker, not in the minds of the people of this Province. What's

happening in this Province, I don't see in it any fairness and balance? He's

promoting this scheme that's been put forward last week by the federal Minister

of Fisheries as being positive for this Province when we all know - and we've

heard the Member for Ferryland expand on it and explain what's going to happen

in the near future here in Newfoundland with respect to the fishery. This

Administration also is taking, lying down, a cut of $1.3 billion in U.I.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have many more comments to make, Mr.

Speaker, but I will get back to them in due course.

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

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

I rise today to support the motion put forward for a

six-month hoist on Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, and I say to

the Member for Fogo that if he had any backbone himself, notwithstanding what

has taken place in this Legislature over the last year with the story and the

spinning of webs, the spinning of lies, in terms of the Hydro privatization,

then he, too, should stand and call for a six-month hoist for public inquiries.

Now, let me enlighten the Member for Fogo, or maybe remind

him of what has taken place on the story of Bill No. 1, the Privatization Act of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources

Act, and why we need a six-month hoist, and why we need public hearings on this

very, very important issue.

Last year, upon being elected to this House of Assembly, a

question was asked then of the Minister of Mines and Energy, and was asked

directly to the Premier: Did the government, at that time, have any intention

whatsoever of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? The response was: No,

not at this time.

The question was asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not true, I say to the Government

House Leader.

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

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman hasn't been in the House

very long, but he is a bright young fellow. He has been here long enough and he

is bright enough to know he cannot accuse another member of telling lies or of

making statements that are not true.

The fact remains that the statement the Premier made was

true. Whether the hon. gentleman believes that or not is his problem. What I

will say to him is that he cannot, in the House, make the kind of statement he

just made. And just let him possess his soul - if I may finish my point of order

- for a moment. There is a very good reason for that. My hon. friend, who, as I

said, is a very bright young man, and by osmosis as well as by his own

intellect, is well imbued with parliamentary tradition, would realize and

acknowledge there is a very good reason for that rule. That is one of the basic

rules of the House. That is why I take the trouble to stand and interrupt him,

and if he wants another minute to finish his remarks, we will gladly give him

the extra minute to compensate him for the minute I have taken.

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

to the point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, the Government House

Leader stood up and made the comment that what the Premier said at the time was

true. Now, if the Government House Leader had been listening, I wasn't referring

to the statement made by the Premier in the Legislature, I was referring to a

statement made by the Minister of Mines and Energy.

However, to the point of order, the Government House Leader

has reminded me very well that I cannot, at any time, say that a member's

statement in this House was untrue, but I do have my suspicion that statements

were misleading and fraudulent, although I can't confirm that. May I go on?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question of that.

Should I continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, I assume, is withdrawing

the remark?

MR. E. BYRNE: I withdraw the remark saying that it was

untrue, but I will say this, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. member has to withdraw it

without conditions.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have withdrawn the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: There are no conditions, either you withdraw

it or you don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have withdrawn the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before, at

that time when the Opposition asked the government, were they involved, or had

any intention of privatizing Hydro, the government said: `No, not at this time.'

Now, I have my suspicions that that statement was somewhat misleading, but let

us move on.

October 1 was a very important date in this ongoing saga of

the privatization of Hydro and the Electrical Power Resources Act, because at

that time, the Premier publicly announced that the government was intending to

merge Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with Newfoundland Power.

The basis for his reasoning at that time, and the logic

behind the Premier's argument, and the logic behind the government's argument,

was that it made no sense to have two companies in this Province delivering

electricity to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that streamlining these

companies, merging these companies, would make better sense economically for the

people of this Province, and it would make better sense to the entire electrical

industry, and the management of that industry. But from October 1, to the end of

December, we saw what happened. The people of the Province spoke loud and clear,

Mr. Speaker.

They did not want Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro merged with

Newfoundland Power or any other company. The Premier at that time said that a

committee, a Premier's committee had recommended three options to the Premier:

Merger was the first option with Newfoundland Power, secondly was privatization

on a stand-alone basis and the committee he said, recommended as the third

option and not the most viable alternative, to leave Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro as it was.

Upon probing the Premier, at that time, Mr. Speaker, we

discovered that it really was not a committee of the House, it was a committee

of three or four business people whom the Premier had called in for an informal

chat, maybe over tea and crumpets, we are not sure, but there was no formal

process for this committee to be established. There was no formal report

presented to the Premier; there was no formal report on privatizing Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro presented to the Cabinet of the day. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

there was no formal recommendation emanating from that committee because it was

not a committee at all. It was a group of supporters of the Premier who came in

and advised the Premier on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. SULLIVAN: Hand-picked.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hand-picked, no question. There was no

committee, no Parliamentary or Legislative Committee set up, so the spin of

information that the government had tried to put on merging Newfoundland Power

with Newfoundland Hydro failed, and failed miserably. In the new sitting of the

House, Mr. Speaker, in the March sitting, we discovered early, that the

privatization of Hydro was going to proceed on a stand-alone basis. Now, the

reason for this, a new spin of information - first, the Premier said that merger

would be best, but he backtracked on that; then, privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro on a stand-alone basis.

Now, here is where the plot thickens, and here is where this

story about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and the government's own

secret and private agenda really, really started to come to light. The Premier,

in announcing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, said that

for many, many reasons, sound and good judgement reasons, it would be in the

best interest of the people of this Province to sell Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro and open it up to any private investor, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

alike, Mr. Speaker, he said, would be able to buy shares in the new company.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of that debate, the merits

of selling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the government failed and to this

day, Mr. Speaker, have failed to demonstrate some very important principles.

They have failed to demonstrate that there would be new investment coming into

this Province as a result of this sale, they have failed to demonstrate that and

in fact, Mr. Speaker, investment dollars that would normally be in this economy

would flow outside, with new investors. They have failed to show that there will

be new technology brought into this Province or any technology transfer into

this Province as a result of privatization; they have failed to demonstrate that

there will be an increase in jobs whatsoever as a result of the privatization

sale, because there will not be any increase in jobs as a result of

privatization.

But forced by the members opposite and in particular, the

Leader of the Opposition, in asking demanding questions and demanding answers,

correct answers to what was taking place, the truth started to unfold, and the

government really got into trouble on the privatization issue, Mr. Speaker, when

the Member for Humber East, tabled in this House, Cabinet documents outlining

why, in 1992, the government walked away from a deal on the Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. E. BYRNE: She tabled those documents in the House.

DR. GIBBONS: We hadn't reached the deal.

MR. E. BYRNE: She tabled those documents there, why the

government had instructed Newfoundland Hydro to pursue certain objectives in

reaching a deal on the Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, because the Premier would not let you

reach that deal, minister, I say to you. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's when the

government got into trouble, that's when the jig was up as the saying goes,

that's when really the truth started to come out. Shortly thereafter, the

Premier appears on provincial television and indicates to the people of this

Province that he had urged members of his caucus and, indeed, urged members of

his Cabinet, not to talk about the real reason for the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he said. The real reason, Mr. Speaker, is

contained in Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act. That is what the

Premier indicated to the people of this Province on provincial T.V.

He said that shrouded in the Electrical Power Resources Act

was the possibility, he indicated - he said, in his legal opinion, it was a

possibility that this could take place. The "this" that he was talking about was

the recall of power from Upper Churchill. Questioned in the House on numerous

occasions on that very issue, dating back as far as last September, October,

when the House opened for the fall, the Premier denied flatly that that was the

reason for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. But we smoked

him out! That is what happened. We smoked the government out to come clean and

tell the truth to the people of this Province as to why they were pursuing the

privatization initiative that was not then, that is not now, and will not be

tomorrow, in the best interest of the people of this Province, either

economically as ratepayers, or economically as taxpayers. It will benefit a

minority and a few in society, but I will deal with that point a little later

on.

Following the Premier's address to the Province where he had

told the people that he had urged his caucus and his Cabinet to remain mum,

don't say a word about the Electrical Power Resources Act and its real intent,

the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Part appeared

on provincial television, along with the Premier, in debating the merits of

privatization. And yet again, an interesting revelation came to light in that

debate. The Premier, who, two nights earlier - just two nights before, had

admitted to urging and keeping his Cabinet and caucus mum on the real reasons

for privatizing Hydro, admitted again that he really didn't need to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to have a legal shot at recalling power from the

Upper Churchill.

The question remains, why has the government not pursued a

six-month hoist? Why will they not support this motion put forward by the Leader

of the Opposition? Why have they not, themselves, called public hearings on this

very important issue?

I would suspect that hindsight has told the government many

things. That maybe, on October 1, 1993 if they had come forward in an honest

way, in a straightforward way, with the people of this Province and laid on the

table the real reasons for privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for

getting out of Crown corporations such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and

consulted widely in this Province through a public hearing process, as they have

done on other issues, then they may be looking today at the possibility of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro being privatized. They did not do that.

They wonder why - as they sit in their seats, as they sit

around the Cabinet table, as they talk to their own constituents - they wonder

why people are upset, why people are angry. From day one, the real story on

Hydro was not given to the people of this Province. Members opposite, excluding

the Cabinet, have had ample opportunity to stand up in this House and to let

this Legislature and thus, the people of the Province, know where they

personally stand. They did not; they could not, because the Premier would not

let them. That is what I say, Mr. Speaker.

Where does that leave us today in all the debate? Where does

that leave the people of this Province? The motion that we are debating today is

a motion to, for six months, put a hoist on this piece of legislation - for six

months that would give the government the opportunity to explain more clearly,

to define their objectives and explain them fully to the people of the Province.

I doubt we are going to see it. The Premier has said on many, many occasions

that he is convinced that once the people of this Province have the truth and

the real story, then that will expose us on this side of the House for being

fraudulent and misleading. That is what he has said. He said it to me.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked. Yes I have, every aspect of Bill

No. 2. But we are not debating Bill No. 2 here today, I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, we are debating a six-month hoist on the bill.

And once the discussion comes up for debate on Bill No. 2 I will stand here and

debate Bill No. 2 with him at any time.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated, as I've just said,

that once the people of the Province find out how wrong the Opposition have

been, how fraudulent we have been, how irresponsible we have been on this side

of the House, he has said here, how much egg we will have on our faces. Some

time ago, I stood here and, when we were debating a petition, I asked the

Premier, if he was so convinced that we had been fraudulent with the facts and

figures and arguments that we have put forward to the people of this Province,

then why does he not hold public hearings and expose us for the frauds that he

accuses us of being? He cannot do so because in doing so he may expose himself,

his Cabinet, and his government for what they have been. They have not, during

this whole debate, given the full story to the people of this Province. Why?

That brings us to the question of why.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe a word you are saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no doubt, minister, that you don't

believe a word I'm saying, but what are you against so many? is the question I

ask you. What is one voice against so many of the people out there who are

opposing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

The question is this: Why has not the Premier provided the

opportunity for people to have public input from the business community into the

privatization initiative? Why has he not given people in this Province, everyday

rank and file citizens, the taxpayers, the ratepayers of this Province, why has

he not given them an opportunity to voice their concerns in a meaningful and

constructive manner? Because he knows, Mr. Speaker, he knows deep down, he has

to know, that the people are not behind him or his government in privatizing

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What other reason could there be? This story

has gone on for almost one full year, but people are becoming angrier and

angrier at the Premier and his government because of the way in which they have

handled it and because they have failed to listen to the people of this

Province.

As a new member, Mr. Speaker, I've stood in this House, and

I've sat in this House and listened to some remarkable comments made by

supposedly hon. men. I have heard people called foolish, bull-headed. The

Government House Leader called us all a bunch of dogs over here, one day - I

couldn't believe it - all because we have a different point of view; that we

dare speak up, that we dare challenge the Premier on something that he knows is

wrong, when he knows the people of this Province are behind this side of the

House on the issue; because we dare be so arrogant and we dare speak up on

behalf of our constituents in this Legislature. That is the problem.

I have heard hon. members in this House refer to people and

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador as being out of whack, not represented, or

not representative, of a certain point of view. They really have no support.

What right do they have challenging me? Greg Malone has been stripped down.

Cyril Abery has been stripped down by this government. Is that, I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, the sign of a government that is confident in the legislation that it

puts forward, in that it has to detract and amount to personal attacks upon

members opposite and people in the Province, everyday citizens who have

exercised their democratic right of speaking out? Is that the type of government

that really believes what it is putting forward in this House for debate is in

the best interest of the people of the Province? Not in this member's opinion,

Mr. Speaker.

Now let us get to some really, really comical aspects of this

whole debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say comical ones?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, some comical aspects of this debate.

The Member for St. John's North stood up in this House and

talked about the Lloyd Matthew's poll, the M-25 poll he said, Mr. Speaker. When

questioned on it he said the M-25 poll was a poll he conducted amongst his own

constituents. He called up and said, Hello, I am Lloyd Matthews, the Member for

St. John's North. I am in favour of Hydro, how about you? Hardly a significant

poll, Mr. Speaker. For the member to say in doing that, that twenty-one out of

twenty-five people agreed with privatization, and that he had no need for a

public meeting, none whatsoever, but he is having one now, Mr. Speaker, and I

will tell you why. Three constituents of his went door to door and got 279

people to sign a petition, or letter of intent, calling upon their member to

hold a public meeting on privatization - shamed into it, Mr. Speaker.

If members on this side of the House, in dealing with this

whole public debate had sat down and did nothing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

would be privatized today and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be far less

better off as a result of it.

We announced early in the going what we would do to try to

get the message out. Early in the going members on this side began holding

public meetings in their own constituencies, in their own districts and began to

get a feeling of what was happening, a real grass roots feeling from their

constituents. Questions were put directly at the meeting I held in my district.

How do you feel about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? It

is too bad that some government members were not there, and some ministers were

not there, because they would have found out clearly that the people in my

district were in tune with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and the

government's arguments.

They knew full-well that they were not in favour because

government's arguments on this issue do not hold water, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: What time is the meeting in St. John's North?

MR. E. BYRNE: A good question. My colleague for Humber

East just asked if I knew when the Member for St. John's North was holding his

meeting. I suspect it is sometime this week or next week. He told our colleague

for St. John's East Extern that he was welcome to come down but he was not

allowed to say anything. What kind of public meeting is that, when you invite

people, ask them to sit down and say nothing? What kind of public meeting is

that?

The Member for Humber East held two public meetings on the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, one back in the fall and one

in the winter. The people from her district spoke loud and clear. The Member for

Bay Verte held a public meeting so his constituents could have the opportunity

to have their say and to have their input noted. The Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes held a public meeting for the same reasons. The Leader of the Opposition

held a public meeting. The Member for Ferryland held a public meeting. The

Member for St. John's East Extern held a public meeting. The point of this is

simple, that the opportunity was provided for people living in certain districts

to have a say, to voice their concern, and for their members to bring back their

concerns to this House, which we have done.

Mr. Speaker, there are members opposite who cannot stand in

this House today and say they have done that. There are members in this

Legislature, opposite, who know full-well that privatization is not in the best

interest of the people of this Province, but they have not stood their ground

and said that, with the exception of one. The Member for Pleasantville held a

public meeting. He listened to his constituents and he bought back their views

to this House. He was the only member opposite who had the courage and the

foresight, Mr. Speaker, to stand up against this privatization initiative. The

reasons he outlined in a nutshell said, he did not believe there was any good

public policy reason to proceed on this initiative, thus far, without holding

public hearings.

Why is the government so intent on not holding a formal

public hearing process? I sat on a Select Committee of the House dealing with

public accountancy that provided for public hearings on whether or not the

Public Accountancy Act should be changed. Should CGAs be allowed to provide

audited services? While that issue is very important, the government

demonstrated an ability - a small ability - but they did demonstrate that they

have the capacity to provide public hearings on an issue, but on an issue that

is so large, on an issue where we will be selling a Crown corporation owned by

the Province, owned by the people in this Province, they refuse to hold public

hearings, it is beyond me.

They wonder why people are upset. Oh, it's only a few people

here and there. It's only those people who call into Open Lines who really have

no say, and don't know what they are saying. That was said in this hon. House.

They dismiss everything so easily, I say to my colleagues here, so flippantly,

that it means nothing, but mark it down, the attitude, the arrogance will come

home to roost. It will come home to roost, and that attitude and that arrogance

will display itself, or the people's attitude toward that arrogance will display

itself after the next election.

I look forward to that, I say to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations, and maybe some day he will be my critic in the House, or a

critic of somebody opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't he back.

MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe not. That's true, maybe not, but I

guess he will be pensionable then. He's got his severance.

MS. VERGE: The Member for Pleasantville will be there.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Pleasantville will be

elected, because the constituents in his district know that they can talk to

their member and that he will listen.

Let us get back to the six-month hoist. Poll after poll has

indicated the clear understanding of what people in this Province are thinking

about, what their feelings are on this issue. Any poll that has been done

clearly adds up to almost 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the people against the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the government knows that.

Any government worth its salt, polls all the time. They know that. Cabinet knows

that, but they have developed a bunker mentality. It's us against the rest of

the Province. They have stopped working hand in hand and cooperatively.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like John Diefenbaker said, `Poles are

for dogs'.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, my, Mr. Speaker. `Poles are for dogs',

a quote from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who is quoting

John Diefenbaker. He should know. John Diefenbaker stopped listening to the

people of Canada, and look what happened to him after one election.

I can say this, that government should take heed and save

their own political hide. Hold public hearings on this issue for six months.

Delay the privatization initiative for six months. Hold public hearings, I say

to the Government House Leader, but they will not. I know they won't. They are

convinced.

They have passed the point of return, and do you know why?

The Minister of Finance tabled it here recently. Treasury Board spent $1.4

million, that we know of, on the privatization initiative; $580,000 for the

Rothschild group of companies; $708,000 for Cassels and Blake, a Bay Street law

firm in Toronto, to provide them advice on the privatization initiative. At the

same time, hospital beds are closing down in this Province, the educational

system is in chaos, and yet when asked in this House, the minister and the

Premier could not answer.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said that the amount of

money spent on the Hydro privatization initiative thus far was so small that it

would be even trivial to discuss it. $1.4 million, according to my math, and the

math that I was taught going to school, is nothing to laugh about, and it

certainly isn't trivial.

I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations: Ask

that to the 16,000 people who won't get UI this year because of the UI changes.

Ask that to them. Ask that to the 8,000 or 10,000 people more this year who will

end up on social assistance. Is $1.4 million trivial to them? How about the

Family Resource Centre, funding cut from special needs in the classroom, teacher

lay-offs, $1.4 million trivial to that group? Be serious, I say to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, be serious. Stand up and speak your mind. Do

not be intimidated by a Premier or a Cabinet. You'll have no hope, I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, no hope of sitting in that chair if

you don't stand up now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Justice is quite exuberant, enthusiastic and

energetic today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Maybe before the hon. member starts I can announce the

questions for the Late Show so that I won't have to interrupt him once he gets

into his speech.

The first question is to the hon. Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations concerning eligibility criteria for the new TAGS program and

that's from the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The Employment and

Labour Relations Minister concerning the CWB testing requirements and the hon.

Member for Kilbride. The hon. Minister of Fisheries concerning fisheries

observers on domestic and foreign vessels and that's from the hon. Member for

Grand Bank.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just beginning and I appreciate Your Honour's interruption to update the

ministers particularly and the Late Show questions for the day.

As I was about to say, the Minister of Justice is quite

exuberant, enthusiastic and lively today. He's the only person -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a poem?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A poem? Maybe later on. There may be a

poem about Hydro. Maybe a Hydro poem not poll, poem. Yes, poem and he's the only

member since we started up on February 28 who speaks more when he's not

recognized then the member who's recognized when he's on his feet speaking, I

say to the Minister of Justice. I don't know what's happened today to him, it's

uncharacteristic.

MR. ROBERTS: I got to go make a phone call -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He keeps speaking again, Mr. Speaker,

just continually interrupting, trying to deflect and distract.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes he is terrible with interruptions.

Yes, he has a lot to say, Mr. Speaker. Yes but he says nothing, I say to the

Member for Fogo, has a lot to say but really says nothing when you analyze what

he says, the Minister of Justice.

But I want to have a few remarks, Mr. Speaker. We're debating

today the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on the day that

- second reading of this piece of legislation introduced here, second reading of

Bill 2,

an Act to Regulate the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, quite an appropriate

amendment, that the debate on this piece of legislation would be delayed for six

months, quite commonly referred to as the six month hoist amendment. The reason

the Leader of the Opposition did that was because we felt on this side that the

people of the Province should be given an opportunity for input into the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They needed an opportunity to

be better educated on the issue, not that they weren't educated but to become

better educated on the issue of the privatization, such a very important issue.

Of course our real reason for moving the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, was to enable the government to go out and about the various regions

and communities of this Province to hold public hearings which we felt were

certainly fundamental to the whole process of the privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. We thought that those people out and about our Province who

are interested in this issue should be given the opportunity to go to a public

hearing in their community or in their region to do two things; one was to get

further information on the implications of the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and as well to express their concerns about the implications of

what they thought were the positives of privatization or what were the negatives

of privatization of a Crown corporation which the people of this Province own

outright. Now that's the reason that we introduced the amendment. We still feel

very convinced that it was a most reasonable, logical, sensible amendment and we

still think the government should have passed the amendment. They should have

accepted the amendment because when you look at what's happened, we've been

almost a month now, pretty close to a month, without the privatization bill

being called.

The Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice, acting

under the direction of the Premier, has not seen fit to call the Hydro bill for

weeks. The reason for that is quite obvious, that the government knows full well

- the Premier and the government knows full well that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are deadly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. So why won't the government, the Premier particularly, be

reasonable? Have public hearings out and about the Province and if at the end of

the day because of information flowing from the government, from the Opposition,

from Power of the People, from the union at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If

after all this information flow both ways then at the end of the day the people

of the Province say: The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is in

our best interest, well then we will stand in our places here as well and

seriously consider. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, the opposition to the

privatization is overwhelming, and the government knows that, and that is why

they have not proceeded with the piece of legislation.

Of course, we are all waiting for the day when the Premier

will meet his commitment that he made on public television before all the people

of the Province on that infamous Thursday night when he told the people of the

Province, after being pressured by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Member

for St. John's East, the Leader of the New Democratic Party - the Premier almost

totally caved in - but what he said that night was that: If, in the final

analysis, there is overwhelming public opinion against the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I will not proceed with the legislation.

MS. VERGE: He said if there was a majority against it.

(Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If there was a majority against it. That

is what he said, yes. Which we now know it is an overwhelming majority opposed

to. So it is incumbent upon the Premier - and I think that is the box the

Premier finds himself in. The Premier has to do one of two things.

Firstly, he must withdraw the legislation because it has been

proven time and time again now that people are deadly opposed to it. The other

thing he said was that: If this privatization effort fails because of the way

that I've handled the situation and put forward the proposal, if it has failed

as a result of my bungling of the situation, then he said he would consider

resigning. That is what the Premier told the people of the Province on two

television appearances. Tuesday night on NTV Province-wide television, and

Thursday night on the CBC debate.

That is what the Premier of this - and that is the

predicament he finds himself in. Because he said that not in the Legislature

with just us or with ten or twelve people in the gallery, he said that to

everybody in the Province, and there was quite a big viewing audience on both

those nights. He finds himself in one predicament. I think if the Premier was

smart he would stand up and admit he is wrong. He would stand up and say to

people: Yes, people, you are opposed, I respect your rights, I've handled this

very badly, I'm going to withdraw the legislation and I'm going to call a press

conference and announce my resignation. That is what the Premier would do. That

is the only way that the Premier can keep his word to the people of the

Province, Mr. Speaker.

Then of course there are others opposite who - we know the

Member for Pleasantville has made it very clear. He was decisive, after

considering all the facts, the Member for Pleasantville. He considered the

facts. He wasn't led by the Premier or others applying pressure. He went and he

met with his constituents, held a public meeting, perused all of the information

that was available, and made his decision, I say. A very good decision. A

decision shared and an opinion shared by 80 per cent of the people in this

Province.

There are others opposite who've had their weak moments,

members opposite, other members, who have had their weak moments. We've heard

Mr. Neary say there were five or six members opposite who had called him and

talk to them. Members have denied that. Members opposite know who talked to Mr.

Neary. Sure, the Member for Fogo knows some of those who talked to Mr. Neary.

I'm sure he does.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Fogo, I say. He knows

some of the people who talked to Mr. Neary, I say to the Member for Fogo. He

knows. He knows some of them.

MR. TULK: I know all of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He knows all of them. He hasn't told us

whether or not he was one of them.

MR. TULK: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You weren't?

MR. TULK: Not about this issue, no.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not about this issue. I wonder if the

Member for Fogo would tell us if this issue happened to come up. I wonder if the

Member for Fogo would be willing to share that information with the House. Did

he and Mr. Neary discuss it at all? Did it come up?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure about

the Member for Fogo, I somehow think he is one of them, but I will leave it at

that, I don't want to push it, I don't want to embarrass the Member for Fogo -

that's not my intent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are a few comments that I want to

make about Bill 2, and I don't know if members opposite will understand this or

not, what I am about to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am talking about the bill now. I

just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is much in Bill 2 that we can support.

We can support the general thrust and principle of the legislation.

MR. TULK: You can?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We can.

MR. TULK: Good.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there are parts of this that we

have no problem supporting, I say to the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: We are part-way there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are part-way there, that's true, like

anything; it is like the government now, on the issue of privatization, is

part-way there; they now know that the people are deadly opposed, they're

part-way there. The only thing we need them to do now to complete it, to be all

the way there, is to withdraw the legislation.

MR. TULK: Did they (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe, maybe. That's up to the

government, I say to the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, it's up to the government. The

allocation of power, Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of that, we don't

have any great problem. The management of power during emergencies, we can see

the reason for that. I can see the reason for that, why that would be necessary

at times, perhaps we will never have to use it; perhaps that provision of the

bill, the

Part III, perhaps it will never have to be used. We hope it doesn't,

for all reasons, emergencies and so on.

MS. VERGE: Is the Member for St. John's South in charge

over there?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope so. I say to the Member for

Humber East, I am not going to say what I think or feel about the Member for St.

John's South, I am not going to get into that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unparliamentary?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No. I am not getting into that. All I am

going to say is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: He is making a very, very good speech and I ask

Your Honour to keep the members on the opposite side quiet, so I can hear him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. member, the Chair is

having difficulty at times hearing the member speak, and because of the

conversation by other members, I ask hon. members to afford the courtesy to the

hon. the Member for Grand Bank, so that all can hear him.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say

I appreciate that. I don't mind a bit of banter, as a matter of fact, I enjoy

it. I enjoy a little bit of interaction with members opposite, I think it shows

a bit of life.

But I was