November

22, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 19

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to begin by asking some questions on the Hydro

privatization issue. I know that will come as a shock and surprise to members

opposite, but in view of the fact that we have not had the House open for seven

months I think it is important that we press this important issue and hold the

government accountable.

I would like to begin by asking the Minister of Mines and

Energy a question. Prior to the last election in May, the Minister of Mines and

Energy consistently led this House and the public and the press to believe that

the idea of privatizing Hydro had been dropped because it was not in the best

interest of the people. Even after the election, Mr. Speaker, the minister

continued to mislead the House. He told me on May 26 in this Legislature that

there was nothing further that he could say or add to what had already been said

before the election. Now we know that the government has been actively pursuing

this idea since Fortis presented a second offer back some time in 1992.

I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy first of all:

Why did the minister continue to mislead this House right up to the end of the

last session, in late May or early June, only a few months ago, when he knew

differently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Virtually everything -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Virtually everything the Leader of the

Opposition just said has been totally incorrect. Let me start out with his

opening statement about not having opened the House for seven months. The House

last sat on June 17, five months ago. Everything else he said has been equally

wrong. Everything else he said has had no more foundation than that.

The minister made a statement in this House in answer to a

question from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Fortis proposal to

buy a portion of the Hydro assets. The answer the minister gave the Leader of

the Opposition at that time is as accurate today as it was then. It was not an

acceptable proposition and there was no reason to proceed with it on that basis.

It had nothing to do, in general, with privatization of Hydro, which arose at a

later date.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

That is absolute nonsense -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: - and the Premier knows it is nonsense. Now I

asked a question of the Minister of Mines and Energy. I can understand why the

Premier would want to try to save the Minister of Mines and Energy from putting

his foot in his mouth - but I am asking the Minister of Mines and Energy the

same question - I want to ask him this: Since he told us late last spring that

in fact nothing was going on, gave that impression to everybody in the Province,

can he tell me now what committee he was referring to when he was interviewed by

CJYQ Radio on October 8th and said: we had a committee in the early part of the

summer or late spring. We had this other committee look at the options and give

us some advice on the options? Will he tell the House what committee he was

referring to and when it was appointed?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes gladly, Mr. Speaker. It was in June that

we appointed a task force of outside experts to -

MR. SIMMS: When?

DR. GIBBONS: I am not sure of the exact day but it was in

June that we appointed a task force of outside experts to look at the

desirability, or otherwise, of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and

the most appropriate manner in which to proceed if privatization was to be

pursued. It was in June that we put that committee in place and it was later on

in the summer that that committee reported to us.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us or get

for us before the day is over, the date in June that he is referring to when

this committee was established or put in place and who were the people who made

up the committee?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I will check into that.

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

MR. SIMMS: He will check on it - will he get it? Does he

know who was on the committee?

DR. GIBBONS: Oh yes.

MR. SIMMS: Well what are you going to check on? Can the

minister tell us what he is going to check on?

DR. GIBBONS: You asked me for the date. I said I will

check on that date after Question Period is over today. The people who are on

the committee?....this was made public some days ago.

MR. SIMMS: Well could he tell it in the House? Could he

tell us in the House who they are? We did not all hear it, we were listening to

the coverage of the Liberal Convention.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am talking about something he said last May.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, I am referring to that particular

committee and I have no problem, I can say who is on the committee and they were

put on the committee in June. There are five experts on that committee, the

former Chairman of Hydro, Victor Young, the former Executive Vice-President of

Hydro, John Henderson, the former President of Newfoundland Power, David

Templeton, the former Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, Gordon McDonald,

and the former, I believe Executive Vice-President of Hydro and presently

Executive Director of the Canadian Electrical Association, Wallace Reid.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. All this done at

a time when everybody was being given the impression that nothing was happening.

Now, the minister is not the only one who has misled this Province and misled

the people on this issue. I want to ask some other questions of the Premier. On

March 29 of this year in this Legislature, a week before he called a general

election, the Premier told the Member for St. John's East that rumours about

privatization were pure speculation and said: I am not prepared to engage in

discussion on the matter. Bearing that in mind, I want to ask the Premier

exactly when did the government, or Hydro, whoever it was, retain ScotiaMcLeod,

as he told us last week, and RBC Dominion Securities to advise him, the

government, or Hydro, whoever it was, on the privatization issue? When did the

financial advisors make their recommendations to the government, and will he

table the recommendations and the report of those advisors in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were several questions so I am just

making notes so that I will not forget them. The minister has not misled this

House and I have not misled this House. As far as I know every single thing the

minister has said with respect to this and every single thing that I have said

with respect to it is absolutely accurate. The government did not retain

ScotiaMcLeod or RBC Dominion Securities. The sequent of events as I recall it is

something like this. The precise timing I do not remember but I have it pretty

well approximately correct. I think that originally Fortis had suggested back in

1989 they wanted to buy the small assets, the small distribution area, what used

to be called the PDD area. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said in

his official news statement that Fortis were not interested in the smaller ones,

that was what their proposal was, so he was wrong about that, too. That was back

in 1989, and again sometime in 1992, I do not remember now when, they

essentially made a similar proposal again, dress it up a little differently,

slightly different payment terms - we didn't do anything with it immediately, we

just let it sit there, essentially; then, the Minister of Finance made his

statement in the House in December, 1992, indicating that the government was

going to look at privatization of all commercial-type activities that government

carried on. I recall some questions being asked in the House at the time, early

spring, as to whether that included Hydro, and I said very clearly that it

included everything, all commercial types. The government, then, after the

Minister of Finance made his statement in early December of 1992, asked the

Hydro Board to do an assessment of the Newfoundland Power proposal for us.

They did a preliminary check on it and came back and

recommended to us that they do a broader assessment, that they not confine it to

just Fortis' proposal. They recommended that they do an assessment of the status

quo, an assessment of the Fortis proposal, an assessment of privatization of

Hydro on a stand-alone basis, and an assessment of privatization of a

corporation that would be created if Hydro and Fortis were first merged. That

was Hydro's recommendation to us, and they asked us for approval to hire the

necessary expertise to do that.

We said fine, that sounds good, so they put in place a

committee of their board and they did the assessment. They hired RBC Dominion

Securities.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) for god's sake.

PREMIER WELLS: No, the government hired them.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) when did the government or Hydro

retain - stop playing with words.

PREMIER WELLS: So, they, that is, Hydro, hired RBC

Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcleod. I don't recall when they brought their

recommendation in to us, it was fairly early on, but we weren't prepared to

proceed and accept their recommendation. They made a recommendation as to how to

go about it; they told us very clearly the status quo was viable, you don't have

to privatize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

PREMIER WELLS: They told us, you don't have to do it, but

it may be in the best -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: All I said was, it is not essential to do

it. It may be in the best interest of the Province to privatize, and if it is -

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you go down and (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I am answering the several questions that

were asked, and I will get to them, I will get to all that.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the (inaudible) question was only

about twenty seconds.

PREMIER WELLS: There were five questions and I would like

to answer. So, Mr. Speaker, after we got their recommendations, that if the

government were going to privatize, it would be best to seek to merge, not sell

Hydro to Fortis, as the Opposition and others have misrepresented to the people

of this Province, but to merge the two companies and then have the government,

the owners of the shares, sell the shares to the public, whoever wanted to buy

them.

We weren't prepared to simply act on those recommendations,

act to privatize. So we asked five people in whose judgement we had complete

confidence, people who were no longer in any manner connected with Hydro or

electrical matters in the Province. The minister just named the five people -

very able, very experienced, very dedicated and competent Newfoundlanders. We

asked them to do an assessment. They did an assessment, and the majority of them

clearly recommended that we should privatize. All of them recommended that if

there is to be privatization it should be first through a merger with Fortis,

and then privatize the merged corporation that would come out of it. It was

their recommendation, that that was in the best interests of the people of this

Province. They urged us to act in the best interests of the people of the

Province, and we have, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, finally, for the first time, the

Premier has admitted to this House that, in fact, all of this was going on well

before the time the questions were being asked of him and his minister in early

June and late May. This has been going on for all kinds of time, months and

months before. He has already admitted it here in the House today.

The other thing he has finally admitted - he has become a

master at playing these word games with the public and with the House. He has

shown it again here today. Finally, for the first time, he has now admitted

that, in fact, the so-called financial advisors did not recommend privatization,

even though interviews that the Premier himself has given outside the House,

outside the Board of Trade speech, gave the impression and implied clearly that,

in fact: We are doing this because of the recommendations of the advisors to

privatize. In fact, I've seen it in The Evening Telegram on the weekend

in two stories, where the reporters are caught up in it.

Now, I want to ask the Premier this question: Isn't it true

that, in fact, the advisors, these financial advisors to whom he referred in his

speech, basically and essentially said to the Premier: Hydro, itself, on its

own, at the status quo level is quite viable, but if you are hell-bent and

determined on privatizing Hydro, then the best alternative, or the best way to

go, would be one or the other; stand alone or merge.

Now what I want to ask the Premier is this question: Why is

the government hell-bent on privatizing Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were several wrong statements that I

must again correct.

When the Leader of the Opposition asked about rumours of

privatization, they were rumours and nothing more. The government made its

decision some time in July or August. I will have to check the records. It was

probably August. We made the decision to accept the recommendations in August,

Mr. Speaker, not before, so anything else was rumours and speculation and we

were absolutely accurate in saying so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the statement with

respect to privatization was somehow a statement that this group said to us: you

do not have to privatize, but if you are hell-bent on privatizing, do it this

way. That is utterly false too, Mr. Speaker. That is not so.

The recommendation from the Committee of the Board of

Directors and their advisors of Hydro - what is that? They were reminded to look

at four alternatives: The Fortis proposal; retaining the status quo; privatizing

on a stand alone basis; or privatizing after first merger with Fortis. They came

back and said to us: We recommend against proceeding with the Fortis proposal.

We advise you that the status quo is viable. We advise you that you can

successfully privatize either on a stand alone basis, or after merging with

Fortis, but we would strongly recommend that you first seek to merge with Fortis

because it would be in the best interest of the people of this Province for you

to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is because it wasn't a full

recommendation to privatize, because it came back as a recommendation; the

status quo was viable. Now we realize - just listen now, Mr. Speaker, and you

will see the importance and significance of this, if the hon. members opposite

will just listen. It was because of that - the recommendation was that the

status quo is viable. They did not recommend that we keep the status quo. Nor

did they recommend that they privatize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. members will listen, I will

give them the full story. If not, I will just go to the media and give it to the

media directly. Then they will be complaining that I am speaking outside the

House instead of in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now if they would just listen, Mr.

Speaker, I will give them the full story.

This was the recommendation we had from the board: The status

quo is viable; you can privatize successfully, either by doing it on a stand

alone or first merging with Fortis.

MR. HEWLETT: If you want.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, there is no question about that, but

they did not recommend against privatization. So, Mr. Speaker, the government

took this position: Are they in - are they, the Hydro Board of Directors, in the

position to really recommend objectively whether we should or we should not

privatize? Perhaps they were not, so we went to five outsiders, and I told each

one of those that I was coming -

MR. SULLIVAN: You did not get the answer you wanted.

PREMIER WELLS: When they don't get the answers they want,

they try to shout in a bunch of bunk, I know the technique, Mr. Speaker. It was

because of that, and I told each of the five advisors at the time: Here is the

advice we got. I want to be satisfied that if we do privatize, it is the right

thing to do for the people of this Province. If it isn't, we don't want to do

it, so we are going to ask you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We are going to ask you, five very

competent, experienced, intelligent, able, objective, business people who have

no axe to grind on this - they are all independent, no axe to grind on this - we

are going to ask you to give us the best judgement you can. So we asked Wallace

Reid, the Executive Director of the Canadian Electrical Association, one of the

individuals who built Hydro in the first place, and we asked the other four

people who were named, and they gave us good, sound advice and, Mr. Speaker, in

the best interest of the people of this Province we accepted their advice and

proceeded in accordance with it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what is really interesting is that the Premier

never did answer the question I asked him at the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he did.

MR. SIMMS: No he did not answer the question that I asked

him. Hopefully one day he will.

Will he table the report and the recommendations of this

group of people, these advisors? Will he table that? He can answer that when he

gets up to answer the next question.

Do any of these experienced, intelligent, capable

Newfoundlanders that he described to the House here this afternoon, is the

Premier aware whether any of those people are shareholders in Fortis or Fortis

Incorporated, or any of their subsidiaries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't table the report for

one simple reason. The report was verbal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Listen now. If the hon. members will

listen. RBC Dominion Securities, ScotiaMcLeod, they did a full detailed

financial assessment of the whole thing. Did a detailed financial assessment of

the whole thing. Hydro Committee of the Board of Directors, they did a thorough

assessment and did a written report for government. Hydro Board of Directors did

a written report for government which laid out a negotiating strategy, a

recommended approach and so on. So no such thing could ever be tabled except it

would cause great injury to the people of this Province, and we've no desire to

do that.

I then took all of these written reports, I took the

financial assessment of the RBC Dominion and ScotiaMcLeod, and, Mr. Speaker, I

gave it to the five people and said: Do this assessment. Bring your own advice

and competence to bear on it and come and meet with the Planning and Priorities

Committee and give us advice as to how is the best way for government to proceed

in relation to this matter.

They came and sat down at a meeting and gave us their

unqualified advice, each one of them, verbally, in the room at the time. I have

great confidence in their advice, no reason to lack any confidence. I have no

knowledge whether any one of them owns a single share of Fortis or whether they

hold a thousand shares or ten thousand shares. I've no basis for judgement.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr, Speaker, I say to the Premier, I'm afraid

he's already gone too far and is already causing problems for the people of this

Province, most of whom who are vastly or greatly unimpressed with the Premier's

approach.

He does say he gave this report to these five people that he

appointed. If he gave it to them, why won't he give it to the people who are

duly elected in this House to represent the people of the Province?

While I'm on my feet, let me ask him another question, a

different slant. Does he know, or can he tell the House, if ScotiaMcLeod, RBC

Dominions Securities, or any other investment advisor or dealer, has been

engaged as the government's lead financial advisor in these merger talks with

Fortis, and for the sale of government shares after the merger, if it should

occur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, why

not make all this advice and these recommendations, information, public. It's

very simple. If the hon. member owned a business and he was going to negotiate

with me over a two-or three-month period, or to try and negotiate to get the

best price that he could for his business, would he make public his negotiating

strategy and all of the information that would give me an advantage over him? If

he were, I wouldn't ask him to do any negotiating for me or to sell any business

for me. If that's the approach that he was going to take.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That's right. No. We represent the people.

This House represents the people. It's got to come to this House for final

approval. The people are going to decide ultimately through this House. We're

entrusted to carry out this work on behalf of the people. If the members don't

understand that, or if they do understand it and they're still making the

statements anyway, then they're even more irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, the second question was with respect to

ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion Securities. I remind hon. members that it was

Hydro who engaged them, and I'm assuming that they engaged them for two reasons,

or three reasons perhaps. I'll give you the three facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, we didn't. They named the advisor

themselves before we had anything to do with it. They named the advisor. One of

which is, those two firms happen to be the Province's fiscal advisors and have

been for some ten years. We didn't appoint them. The former government did and

we kept them in office. So there's no problem there. We accept them. They're

good, sound sensible people.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, they're also the advisors for

Hydro. They are also the financial and fiscal advisers for Hydro and I presume

they would go to them for the same reason but there is an even more significant

reason, they were the two companies that were involved in the very successful

Nova Scotia Power privatization, Mr. Speaker. That was in the best interest of

the people of Nova Scotia and accepted as such and done as such, Mr. Speaker. So

I am assuming that that is why ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion Securities were

chosen to fulfil this role.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Premier is

saying about disclosing information. The only difference is, as has been pointed

out by somebody on this side, it is the people who own this particular business

that we are talking about now, not the Premier, not Dr. Gibbons, not Ed Roberts

or anybody on that side of the House, it is the people who own this particular

business.

Now I want to ask the Premier if he can tell us how much

these financial advisers will make if there is a successful merger and the

public sale of shares following the merger? How much would these financial

advisers make off the investment dealers who have been engaged? Can he confirm

the figure that we are hearing, that these financial advisers stand to make

somewhere in the area of $35 million to $40 million if such a transaction is

successful?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will deal with the first part of his

comment's first, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is the people. The people elected the

members of this House to represent them and they had the good sense to elect a

majority of Liberals to carry on the function of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And that is exactly what we are doing,

discharging our responsibilities to protect the public interest. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I also remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the people at that

time had elected the Conservatives to govern when they spent $24 million

secretly on Sprung and would not even bring bill's to this House to get

authorization to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They were acting for the people then

supposedly, too, and look at that! Now, Mr. Speaker, they stood and spent that

without bringing the legislation to the House for approval. They did not have

the political courage and integrity to bring it to the House for approval, Mr.

Speaker. We had to bring it in. We had to bring in legislation to cover their

waste and errors. The people elected us to do that too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Some suggestion that RBC Dominion

Securities were going to make $35 million to $40 million?... certainly not as

far as I know but I will try my best to get an estimate of what RBC Dominion

Securities may or may not make as a result of that and will advise the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I will yield to the Leader of the

Opposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one final comment, Mr. Speaker, or

question I guess, to the Premier. In view of the fact that the Premier has the

gall to raise the $24 million situation with respect to Sprung, I am surprised

he hasn't admitted to the House that it was his party, his government, one that

he was a part of, that gave away the Upper Churchill River Contract -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - and that has amounted to forty Sprung's a

year for the last twenty-five years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I know he is really good at doing the word

game and trying to fool the press, the public and the members of this House but

I am afraid he is about to undertake another Upper Churchill, that is what I am

concerned about. Now I want to ask the Premier first of all, can he confirm that

it is in fact RBC Dominion Securities that will be the investment dealers

associated with the sale or the merger? Can he confirm that, absolutely?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with his first comment first,

Mr. Speaker. It was every single member of this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - at the time it was every single member

of this House, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

PREMIER WELLS: - because they thought it was in the best

interest of the people of the Province. Now it may be that the hon. member was a

Liberal at that time. I don't know, he may have been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He may have been. He probably was.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's get the facts straight and deal with

the facts. What was the other question?

MR. ROBERTS: Could you confirm that RBC have been

retained as the advisers on this?

PREMIER WELLS: I will get the information. I do not know.

Let me make one other point clear and maybe then the hon. member will understand

why. The government is not negotiating this. A negotiating team has been put in

place that consists of the Chief Executive Officer, the President of Hydro, the

Chairman of Hydro, some people from RBC Dominion. One person I think from RBC

Dominion and one person from ScoticMcLeod, and there is one public servant

involved in it. Mr. Speaker, all interests are protected, we have advisors, and

that is the negotiating team. I do not know who the people are from Dominion

Securities. I met them but I cannot remember their names. One name I remember is

Derek Brown but I do not know who the other one is. David Mercer is of course

the present Chief Executive Officer of Hydro. Jim Chalker is the Chairman of the

Board of Hydro, and the public servant who is involved in it is David Oak who is

the President of Treasury Board, a very knowledgable and a very, very able

fellow. He is very intelligent and a very able fellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Well, he is a fairly reasonably affable

fellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I am sorry, there is one other I have

forgotten and that is Rollie Martin and I think hon. members opposite know who

he is, he was the former Deputy Minister of Finance under the Conservative

administration, Mr. Speaker. Under the Conservative administration he was the

former Deputy Minister of Finance. He is on the committee, too, Mr. Speaker, so

Hydro and the people of the Province are well served. It is the committee who is

doing the negotiating, the government, as the government, has nothing to do with

it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that committee must come to the government for final

approval of whatever they propose. They do not have carte blanche just to strike

any deal they want. We have to bring any proposal that is negotiated to this

House of Assembly for approval so we have to be able to approve of it. The

general policy direction has come from government and that negotiating committee

is carrying on.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act Respecting the Newfoundland Volunteer War Service

Medal."

"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act."

"An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."

"An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act."

"An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax

Act."

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991."

"An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act."

"An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act."

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act."

"An Act To Amend The Nursing Assistants Act."

"An Act To Repeal The Alcohol And Drug Dependency Commission

Act."

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Repeal The Youth

Advisory Council Act."

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Revise The Law In The Province Respecting Rail

Service."

"An Act To Repeal Certain Obsolete And Spent Statutes."

"An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act."

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

Labour Relations.

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

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

Relations Act."

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

Agriculture.

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

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

Act."

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

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

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

Of Social Services Act."

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Judicature Act."

"An Act To Repeal The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act."

"An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act."

"An Act To Amend The Statutes Act." That surely has to be the

ultimate act, Mr. Speaker.

"An Act To Amend The Judgement Interest Act," and,

"An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law."

That is one with which the intellects of the hon. gentlemen opposite will

grapple.

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

West.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution.

WHEREAS the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

would burden the people of the Province with higher costs for electricity, more

unemployment, the alienation of water rights, and the transfer of tens of

millions of dollars every year out of this Province in dividends to

shareholders;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the government retain

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order 1, Mr. Speaker, The Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1, Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. I believe the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern was on his feet first.

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

With respect to the Question Period we just went through, I

have to ask the question, I wonder whom the Premier was trying to convince,

himself and the members on the opposite side or the backbenchers?

I would like to say, it is nice to be back in the House after

five months, as the Premier rightly points out. I hope all the hon. members in

the House and their families had a nice enjoyable summer and fall.

I had, during the summer, the opportunity of running in and

speaking to some of the hon. members opposite, and they made a point of saying

that we were kind of easy on the government during the last sitting. I gave the

argument that maybe some of us here were new members, learning the ropes, but I

can assure you, by the time this session is over you won't be saying the same

thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You might be before the time is up.

I will get down to business. I have reread seven pages of the

Throne Speech, and basically it says nothing and proposes to do less. Page seven

of the Throne Speech states that the main legislative session will be this fall

sitting. The House Leader has already stated that it is going to be a short

session, so basically it gets back to saying one thing and doing another.

There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with in

the House at this sitting, and I believe the number one item on the agenda for

us, and I imagine for the government side also, is the sale of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for them.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not for them, no.

There are people, I believe, in the galleries here today

demonstrating opposition to the Hydro sale - merger, as the Premier would have

you believe. There is rising opposition across the Province that I don't say

this Province has seen in a long, long, time.

There are people such as Cyril Avery, the former Chief

Executive Officer of Hydro, who have come out against this, and for very good

reasons. I believe that individual alone has probably forgotten more about Hydro

than all the hon. members opposite will ever know.

Steve Neary, a former Liberal leader in Newfoundland, has

come out publicly against it. He has actually stated that it is a silly deal

that has to be scrapped.

Others are standing up and opposing it. One Liberal member

has already stated to me that he just can't see how it can be justified. How can

this be justified? I would certainly imagine the Premier will try to justify it.

We had 300 people at a meeting last week down at the Radisson, on very short

notice, who are opposed to this.

As I said already, one Liberal member is opposed and said so

to me. I hope, in due course, when the time has come, that the members opposite

will have the political courage and the moral conviction to stand up against

this.

The sale, or merger as the Premier would have you believe, is

just the sort of double-talk the Premier is very famous for.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say before the debate is over he

will be voting for it, when he finds out (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Sir, no doubt. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have to be very careful - very careful - when they are

listening to the government speak in favour of this. We know the Premier's skill

at manipulating words. He always throws in a red herring to clarify the

situation for the general public, but what does he do? He muddies the waters

instead - the waters of Churchill Falls, maybe.

When the Premier gets up to speak on this, and there was a

prime example during Question Period, it reminds me of the old westerns on

television when the indians and the cowboys were getting ready for a big battle.

The chief would come over to the general and say, "You are speaking with a

forked tongue. You are saying one thing and doing another." And that is exactly

what is happening.

I believe that the government on that side, and the Premier

in particular, had better be careful for his scalp, because that may be flowing

over the waters in Churchill Falls if he continues on this route.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was up and spoke.

In the last sitting he spoke for almost half-an-hour in Question Period, and I

did not once interrupt the gentleman. I expect the same courtesy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) expect the same courtesy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Sir, I did not interrupt you.

Some of the examples that I would like to give, with respect

to speaking with a forked tongue: before the election, when they were first

elected, the Premier stated that they would be opening hospital beds. What did

he do when he got in? He closed hospital beds. He talked about creating jobs.

What did he do? He laid off 1,600 to 2,000 people in the civil service.

He talked about amalgamation, saying that it wouldn't be

forced on anyone. What happened? We had a number of towns being forced into

amalgamation, except, of course, a couple of towns in his district where the

people didn't have to be amalgamated. He spoke of a university campus in Corner

Brook. We're still waiting - and the list goes on.

The Premier says that the Hydro deal is a good deal. How can

it be? The opposition is overwhelmingly against it. We have Letters to the

Editor which are opposing it. I don't know if I've seen one yet in favour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Callahan.

MR. J. BYRNE: Bill Callahan - well, of course. Why, I

wonder. I wonder why. We have organized now, a group called Power of the People.

Obviously, they are against this `merger', as the Premier would have us believe.

Power of the People - P-O-P, POP. I believe the government's bubble will pop if

they continue on with this line.

MR. SIMMS: He dismissed them too, by the way.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, of course. Does the Premier really

believe that the people are too stupid to understand? He has come out and

publicly stated that the people don't understand what is going on. I wonder why,

if we are not given the information that we require to understand.

I am upset with this deal ever being considered in the first

place. I am upset with the process. During the Meech Lake debates we had the

hon. the Premier on national t.v., totally disgusted with what was going on, the

dealing behind closed doors, being forced to deal behind closed doors. Now what

is he doing? He is dealing behind closed doors. The people are not being

informed about what is going on. We have NCLS being sold - Newfoundland and

Labrador Computer Services. That was okay to go up on tender, ask for proposals,

but not Newfoundland Hydro. I wonder why.

I am upset with the job loss. We have the fishery with up to

40,000 people unemployed and other industries laying off people every day. Now a

new company is going to be formed - for what purpose? to lay off another 400

people? We need every job we can get. How can you support such a thing?

Another major insult, to my mind, to the people of

Newfoundland is this: he is expecting people to go out and buy shares in a

company, in something that they already own. Why would we even consider it? Who

is benefitting?

MR. SIMMS: Thousands, he said, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Thousands. Where are they getting the money

to do it in the first place?

I have to also wonder, if we have thousands of people going

out and buying shares in Newfoundland and in this new company that would be

formed, is this money going to be used in some indirect way to finance Fortis'

buy-out of Newfoundland Hydro? I don't know - I mean, We aren't being given the

answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) buy-out.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is the same thing - play on words,

semantics, whatever you want to call it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to understand it.

MR. HEWLETT: A rose by another name.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Another matter that upsets me with

respect to this is the government expects the people of Newfoundland to maintain

the debt. After selling off the assets, the Newfoundland people would have to

maintain the debt of Newfoundland Hydro. Another issue I'm upset with when it

comes to Newfoundland Hydro is the Lower Churchill Falls. A former Liberal

government gave away the Churchill Falls back in the 1960s. In the 1970s, what

happened? A PC government decided to buy back the Lower Churchill. And what is

happening now? It is being given away again.

I'm upset that the Hydro deal, when it was asked about in the

House of Assembly back in May, was not being discussed. This House was

deliberately misled, in my opinion. The Minister of Mines and Energy, at the

same time, said it was not a viable deal for Newfoundland Hydro to be

privatized. Now it's a viable deal. Why now? Why all of a sudden?

Number nine, I would like to speak on. What happens to the

communities that are having electricity supplied to them by Newfoundland Hydro?

What happens to those communities? Is this another step in the Premier's

resettlement program? As my hon. colleague back in the spring mentioned with the

Budget, it is this government's resettlement program? The Premier states, when

it comes to Newfoundland Hydro, that he sees maybe rate increases for the next

five years and after that we really don't know what may happen.

So where is the benefit to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador? I have to ask the question: Who will benefit? The only people I see

benefitting are the shareholders of Fortis Inc. down the road. I am sure the

ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not going to benefit.

Personally I have electric heat in my home. I put it in back

in the early 70s when electricity was suppose to be the fuel of the future, but

I suspect that myself and a good many other people in this Province, if this

deal goes ahead, will end up replacing their electric heat with furnaces. Now it

was recently made public that there are a couple of cabinet ministers, well

actually one cabinet minister has shares and another person's spouse has shares

in Fortis Inc. I believe they are in a definite conflict to be sitting around a

table that is negotiating a deal such as this. One minister has stated that he

is refusing to withdraw himself from the deals so I have to ask the question,

why? I am glad of one thing with respect to this, and it is actually a statement

by the Premier. I think he has personally left the back door open for himself

and that government. He is basically stating now that there are ten conditions

that have to be met before this deal goes through. I certainly hope these

conditions are met and I believe that this deal should be churned up in the

turbines of Churchill Falls.

That is all I have to say on that at this point in time, Mr.

Speaker, and I sure we will be hearing a lot about the Hydro deal in the near

future.

Another issue I would like to deal with, with respect to the

Throne Speech, is the Emergency Employment Response Programme. I do not believe

the response program is responding adequately or fairly. We have $6 million

spent in 1993 versus $11 million in 1992, I believe, and that is a cut of

approximately 45 per cent, which I do not believe is sufficient to meet the

needs that it was set out to address. Now, we had $6 million to be spent across

the Province and I do not believe it was distributed fairly. We have some

members on the opposite side who are basically stating that themselves. If you

take $6 million divided by fifty-two districts you end up with $115,000 per

district and in my district in the East Extern I got $40,000. Some districts got

none and there is one district that I am aware of on the opposite side who got

$200,000. He was bragging in the paper that he got $200,000 for his district.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That could very well be. Is that an example

of the Premier's fairness and balance? I am still waiting on the district

breakdown, by the way, so I expect that in the near future.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I do not think the hon. member opposite

would do anything like that. We are still waiting on all the jobs from the

Economic Recovery Commission. We have a former cabinet minister and Liberal

leader, Mr. Neary, saying only last week that it is not working and it should be

scrapped. If you want to save some money, Mr. Premier, scrap the Economic

Recovery Commission. The Strategic Economic Plan is obviously not working. Where

are all the jobs? There are no jobs yet. We are still waiting, after five years,

and there are no jobs yet. We are only losing jobs. The gross domestic product

is declining. Since this administration first got elected in 1989 employment

fell by 1 per cent, another job loss of 1000 people. The unemployment rate is

21.6 per cent and that is aside from the people on the fishery package. Thank

God we had the former administration in Ottawa to put some money into the

fisheries programme.

There is a question I would like to ask of the Minister of

Finance down the road when I get the opportunity. Is it true that the deficit

this year will double? Are we going from $53 million up to $100 million after

all the cuts?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are over here now and not you guys.

MR. J. BYRNE: For another short period of time, until the

Hydro deal goes through. I do not expect you will be there very long after that.

Now, here is a good one. The Premier recently stated that since the new

administration got elected in Ottawa it is now time for the provinces to help

the federal government with the deficit. We have to accept transfer payment cuts

now. I wonder why. I know we are not being hypocritical, are we? Why are

transfer payment cuts okay now? Since the new government got elected we see

policy changes overnight. As I say, transfer payments acceptable now, okay, we

will have to bite the bullet.

Gunboat diplomacy - the Member for Eagle River, I believe, in

the last sitting said: oh, let's put the boats out there. Let's get them. Let's

defend it. Let's take over. That is basically what he was saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety days.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety days, that is right.

During the election we had the hon. Minister of Fisheries now

saying that within days we would have the gunboats out there. Within days after

the election we had the hon. Premier stating: Well, we will have to negotiate, -

exactly what the previous administration was doing.

The infrastructure job program - now previous to the election

we had the present administration cutting grants to municipalities, changing the

grant structure, whatever the case may be, and I was saying at the time that the

municipalities do not have the ability, do not have the money, to take advantage

of that program. All of a sudden we are going to get money dropping out of the

sky. We have the Premier saying: Well, the municipalities in the Province will

have to find the money and take advantage. I would like to know where it is

coming from all of a sudden.

Environment and Lands - the hon. member is not in the House

right now so I will address it to the government in general. Returnable bottles

- the hon. minister stated last year that we were definitely going to have

legislation, we needed legislation, to address the returnable bottles and

bottles on the side of the road. Actually what happened, you bowed to pressure,

you are going to have an industry driven education program. What a cop-out! I

would like to know: What are the guidelines going to be? How much money is going

to be spent by the industry on this industry driven education program; how much

money? What is the time frame for the program? When are we going to see some

positive results before the legislation is actually required, which is what was

promised in the first place?

An example I gave was the beer bottle situation. We do not

see any beer bottles in ditches on the side of the road. Why? Why I wonder?

Because people get something in return. They bring them back and get something

in return for them. We do not need an industry driven education program for

that. That is pretty common sense.

One of the other issues for Environment and Lands that has to

be addressed in the future is the Baie Verte situation. I recently had a trip to

Baie Verte, had meetings with the public out there in the different groups, both

for and against, and I will be saying some words on that in the near future.

Long Harbour - when will that be cleared up? Schefferville -

bring in septic sludge. What are we doing here? Why are we even entertaining

these things?

ATV regulations - another major issue that will have to be

addressed in the near future which definitely requires changes.

I believe it is time now that the government took our

environment seriously and brought in some legislation to help protect our

environment's future.

Electoral boundary changes - now these were brought in, or

proposals made, to save money for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It was recommended by the government that we would have from forty to

forty-six districts, but now that is changed all of a sudden again. Now it is

forty-four to forty-six. Why? Bowing to pressure of members on the opposite side

who are afraid they are going to lose their seats - another example of saying

one thing and doing another.

Agricultural land freeze - that is the one. That has been a

pet peeve of mine for a good number of years now, when I was mayor down in Logy

Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, and before. The minister finally saw fit to take

action on the report that was done by the commissioner. He removed land from the

freeze, and it was a positive step in my mind, but he did not go far enough. He

maintained a stupid regulation that I was opposing for a number of years. That

is, if a municipality has an application for a building, if it is within 600

metres of an existing barn, regardless if it is in a residential zone or not, it

has to go to Agriculture for approval. What a stupid regulation. Basically we

have three barns down in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove and if you take a 600

metre radius of each barn the whole town is covered and it is the same thing for

other towns. So basically what will happen is more red tape again, delays.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not interrupt you. You will get your

time. You will have your opportunity - 600 metres now - red tape, delays. When I

was mayor in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, I went to twenty-three appeals for

people on their behalf and I won twenty-one. All that happened was that it cost

money, it cost the government money, it cost delays and now we are having the

same thing happen to us again, back to where we started.

The Throne Speech refers to, `better and more prosperous

future for all our people.' That is what it refers to, agree? A nice thought, if

you would only do something about it over there. People are still waiting for

some positive results, some positive signs. The government has failed on all

fronts. I will have more on that in the near future.

Number two: the revitalized education system is being

negotiated behind closed doors. Typical, behind closed doors again. The public

is not being made aware of what is going on. We will work out a deal, we know

what is good for the people of the Province and we will tell you what is good

for you and we will ram it through the House, is that what is coming? Is the

system okay now with the RC School Board - representing thirty-two parent home

associations - and they are asking now that the people be consulted, that the

parents be consulted before there is any changes made to this. When will this

government learn? When, I would like to know?

Health care system: this is one that is being restructured.

According to the Throne Speech the health care system is being restructured. It

is going to be more cost effective and efficient. Right on, a nice thought

again, nice thought. We have waiting lists now for surgery, tripling. We have

waiting periods to see specialists, doubling, up as much as three and four

months. If these are the results of a cost effective approach I don't believe

the people of this Province deserve or want such a move.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say at this point in time.

I am looking forward to this sitting of the House. I am sure we will all be very

vocal in this sitting.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleague

opposite, I would like to start by welcoming everybody back to the Legislature

again, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start off this debate today by doing something

unusual, by agreeing, Mr. Speaker, with the opposition and criticizing the

government. I want to do that today. I wanted to, Mr. Speaker, I insisted - I

never got my way but I wanted this Legislature reconvened on October 26th of

this year, I did. I have to say to the members opposite that I wanted the

Legislature brought back here on October 26th of this year. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, I wanted it done to be able to properly acknowledge the historic event

that happened on October 25, 1993, when from one end of the country to the

other, from sea to sea to sea, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's ran the Tories out of

office from one end of the country to the other. I thought it was only fitting

that this House come back and be able to acknowledge the tremendous historic

victory. After twenty-two years the Liberal's are now back in Ottawa and in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think that it is lost on the

people of this Province, what it means. So I had to first of all acknowledge

that. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for St. John's East was

certainly hard on the campaign trail for the Federal Minister of Fisheries in

his efforts to have him retain the seat in St. John's East. I know, Mr. Speaker,

that all members opposite were very, very enthusiastic about what was going to

happen. I noticed today there's no glare from the buttons opposite. When we left

in the spring there was a big glare coming from the pink buttons opposite, the

pink Kim buttons opposite were glaring out at you. Today, no more buttons, no

more pronouncements. The Leader of the Opposition sent his book back to Kim.

They're all now on the retreat as far as Kim is concerned.

I didn't know it at the time, but when I was in Placentia

campaigning for the first woman ever elected in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Jean Payne, in the historic district of St. John's West, I didn't know

how prophetic I would be.

Because at that time I stood up in that meeting and I said

very clearly.... I said "prophetic." I don't know if members opposite know how

to spell that or know what the definition is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I'll get to the Member for St. John's

East in a little while. I said, Mr. Speaker, that there would be more buffalo on

Brunette Island than there would be Tories in the House of Commons. I was out by

one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't out by too many.

The only member happy today in this House is the Member for St. John's East.

He's the happy man today because he knows that there is at least one national

party that has now reached - his only objective in life is to have equity in the

House of Commons, men and women equally for the national party, and the Tories

have done that. He's very happy to be in the House today to acknowledge that

that historic event has taken place.

AN HON. MEMBER: So is the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Member for Grand Bank obviously is

very happy with the way things turned out.

Mr. Speaker, that is on a lighter note that I wanted to open

this debate today. I want to turn now to a very serious issue and a very serious

issue for all the people of the Province. The people of Eagle River are no

exception to this. I want to talk about the future of the fishery.

One of the other great things that happened after October 25

was of course we got a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We got the real

Brian this time. We got our own Brian in the Cabinet representing the

Newfoundland people, and certainly taking the fisheries as he should to be able

to get control back to the people that need it. I'm very hopeful and optimistic

about the future of this Province and the future of the fishery in particular,

knowing that Mr. Tobin is up there now with his hand on the tiller, being

coached and being supported by the tremendous team that's gone up there from

this Province.

This indeed is a very serious issue. I want to talk about my

District of Eagle River to be able to illustrate what I believe the future of

the fishery in this Province will look like, and what it should look like.

Because I believe that there needs to be greater security given to our coastal

communities. It can be done within the fishery,

The first thing I'd like to talk about is that there has to

be diversification in the fishery. Many people out in this Province today have

been led to believe, obviously through no fault of their own, but the people

opposite have done their best to make them believe that, that there is no future

in the fishery in this Province because there is no cod at the present time.

That could be nothing further from the truth. That is not right. I'd like to

just go back over what has happened in Eagle River district in the last four

years in particular to be able to illustrate that that is indeed wrong. Indeed,

we have shown the Province what we can do with our resources that are adjacent

to our shore and what we can give to our communities and to our people who

depend upon the fishery for their total livelihood.

In the crab industry, for the first time ever in twenty-five

years, the people of Cartwright, Labrador, have a new, solid, well-modernized

crab plant in that community giving 125 jobs to those people. For the first time

in their history they now have security, they now have the benefit of that

resource that's adjacent to the coast of Labrador. One hundred and twenty-five

jobs, good, well-paying, meaningful jobs. That is in Cartwright, Labrador. Down

the shore, further south, there are the crab plants in St. Lewis and in Mary's

Harbour. Again, Mr. Speaker, communities that have historically, hundreds of

years, attracted the people for the cod fishery, they now have 240 jobs between

them - good, meaningful, solid jobs in the crab fishery. I want, at this time,

Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge and congratulate the Minister of Fisheries in this

hon. government, for the action that he took this year, to see that the people

on the Coast of Labrador realize the full benefit of this particular resource

and indeed, also, the resource in Northern Labrador, namely, the turbot fishery.

It was a very historic thing, the first time ever in our

history that this government, through the Minister of Fisheries, said, that the

people who are adjacent to the resource must have their needs met first before

that resource is taken to other parts of this Province or indeed, other parts of

this country. That was a very, very significant policy orientation by this

minister, and, Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on the people of coastal Labrador.

They certainly understand and appreciate, that for once, we had a very

sensitive, understanding, courageous minister who would take this issue and deal

with it because he knew he was doing the right thing. So I want to acknowledge

his effort in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, this year, through assistance from the Labrador

Agreement, supported, directed and even started by the Minister of Fisheries in

his office here in St. John's, for the first time ever in the Williams Harbour

area, we saw some 140 people get good, meaningful income; solid, meaningful jobs

from the scallop industry in that particular area of coastal Labrador. It wasn't

done before. So, for the first time, and I predict for some time to come, the

people in the Williams Harbour area, Port Hope Simpson area, the Georges Cove

and Sandy Hook, in those areas of coastal Labrador, are working with a new

species, are developing a new fishery to give them the kind of security they

need.

I already noted the turbot fishery in Northern Labrador in

the area zero, up in the Davis Strait and on 2GH towards the northern part of

our peninsula, that fishery was harvested by our own people, not to mention, of

course, that many of the foreign fleets were there being supported by the

federal government through licenses that were given to them, that I am sure the

present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to adjust. But, Mr. Speaker,

this was a fishery that was so desperately needed and so beneficial to Nain and

Makkovik, that it was certainly welcome news indeed when the Minister of

Fisheries indicated it, through some opposition from the people in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that he did the right thing for

the right reasons and certainly, that is the kind of decision that we have been

known for over the years and certainly the reasons why we were elected last May.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to paint a picture to show that because of

these moves, there is not going to be a problem, that because of these decisions

there are not going to be some impediments. Yes, there are, other changes are

needed in the management of our fishery as it relates to the Coast of Labrador,

and certainly, we are eager to get to work to deal with them, and to put forward

the ideas that I believe make sense, with reason and also with the dedication

that people hope we would pursue them.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the principles of adjacency are

going to be given more than lip service by this Administration and by this

Minister of Fisheries, in Ottawa. The principle of economic dependency of

coastal communities - I believe, at the end of the day we are going to get

principles of fisheries management brought back into our fisheries policy that I

have placed in this country, as opposed to the partisan politics that was

obvious in the past fisheries management plans, and that can only spell good

news for the people of coastal Labrador and indeed, for the people throughout

this Province. So, I think we have a lot to be thankful for in our area; we have

a lot to be hopeful for in this area of our Province.

We have seen the moratorium on the Northern cod, but we

didn't give up, we didn't roll over and play dead, Mr. Speaker. We went out

there with the assistance, guidance, and encouragement of this government to

diversify within the fishery and I know that we have shown the results of our

effort and have capitalized to give the people of the communities along the

Coast of Labrador some of the security they have never had for the past twenty

or twenty-five years, and I am very appreciative of that.

The other big issue, of course, is what is going to happen

after May 15 of this year; that has to be the top priority of the Minister of

Fisheries in Ottawa at the present time. Surely, everybody opposite would agree

that right now there is very much apprehension about the attitude towards the

people who are receiving these cheques every two weeks. There are a lot of

people in this country who no doubt exercised their right to vote for the Reform

Party out West who, if they had their way, would not see one dollar given to the

people on the Coast of Labrador or throughout this Province under the NCARP

package. They would want to see it taken down. We know that the Fraser Institute

and others of that mind-set, Mr. Speaker, would like to see those things done

away with but I am very thankful and very appreciative of the fact that we have

a Liberal Government in there now which will always exercise a social

conscience, always exercise a responsibility to those in need. I am sure and

have every confidence that the government, through the Minister of Fisheries in

this Province, and through the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa will see that

past May 15 of this year there is a reasonable and logical replacement for the

NCARP program, one that will see people secure in income, one that will give

them an opportunity to challenge themselves, and one that will give them the

opportunity to work and also be able to protect and enhance their infrastructure

and their communities in general. Mr. Speaker, while this is a very, very big

issue, a daunting issue, past May 15, nonetheless, I am confident that this

House, through this government, and the House of Commons through the

administration there now, will see that these needs are met and protected. I

know also that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would want to see the

Saltfish Corporation thoroughly reviewed and certainly, if the people of the day

have no meaningful use for the Saltfish Corporation, it will be taken out of its

present role. I would hope, and I have already spoken to the Minister of

Fisheries about this, I would hope that the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa will

revisit the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation that was articulated by a

very, very strong advocate of assistance to Northern regions of this country.

The Kirby Task Force, many will remember, was a very, very good document, and in

the 1983-1984 Budget, the Administration of the day had $14 million put aside to

establish the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker, because

it understood that in that region of the Province and region of the country

there needed to be a vehicle that would give the financial resources and the

policy flexibility to enable their human resource development and also the

technological research and development necessary to make us, on the Coast of

Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland, able to compete, to be able to go out

there and harvest that turbot in the deep sea or take that spawny crab resource

that is out there, or to get the other adjacent fishing resources back into our

communities. People on the Coast of Labrador are not sitting back hoping that

somebody is going to give them another cheque. They are reaching out. They want

to be trained to harvest these particular resources, Mr. Speaker. Certainly,

they have shown they are up to the challenge, even with their limited ability.

I hope the government of the day will revisit the concept of

the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation, not only to assist the people

between Lodge Bay and Black Tickle, in particular, when the cod does recover -

because in many of these communities there will never be a private company that

would go into these communities and take the cod from these fishermen on a basis

other than in a salted form. Therefore, it is very necessary to have a

government presence there to give these people the security of the market, to

give them the security of a pricing policy that is fair and reasonable.

I would hope, in addition to the role of meeting the demands

of the salt fish producers on the Coast of Labrador, that will be there as soon

as the fishery re-opens, that in the meantime, this corporation would be used to

meet the human resource and the technological research and development

challenges that are real on the Coast of Labrador, and can have very significant

effects.

Mr. Speaker, another aspect of that corporation that must be

looked at is that it is investment into secondary processing. Recently, I had an

opportunity when I was on vacation to visit England and go back and see my

ancestors in Jersey. I was very encouraged at one hotel I went into in London,

England, to see there on the desk in front of me a little card that, in addition

to a welcome to the hotel, said: `For your pleasure we will have delivered to

your room two pounds of Scottish smoked salmon', to take back home. This

particular smoked salmon was available for the small price of $31 a pound. It

just struck me there and then what it would mean, and what it means to me on the

Coast of Labrador, knowing that we are harvesting our salmon and delivering it

to the market at $1.25, $1.75 a pound, while yet there is a market out there

paying $31 Canadian a pound. They don't have those little cards there for

decoration. They have them there because people are buying it. It is a good

product. And I am saying that we have to be out there challenging those markets,

demanding our presence in those markets and if that means assisting our people

in research and development, assisting them in going to the seafood shows, then

certainly, the people on the Coast of Labrador should be able to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you bring back?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I didn't bring

back any. I have the best smoked salmon in this world, coming from the Coast of

Labrador, and I didn't need to bring any back. I have a fair supply, I must add.

I will be able to make a couple of sales to members here, I'm sure, before the

holidays are upon us, so that we can help out some other people back on the

Coast of Labrador that would have that to sell.

But, Mr. Speaker, while the challenges are there, I believe

there is every reason to be optimistic about the fishery of the future in this

Province. As I have said many times before, many people in this Province do not

realize that there is a tremendous fishery happening as we speak right now. Do

hon. members realize that in the first nine months of this year, there has been

112 million pounds of turbot taken from the 3L-3K-3N area inside and outside the

200-mile limit? Inside and outside the 200-mile limit, one hundred and twelve

million pounds that is reported by NAFO countries in their -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not going on now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is going on now, for the first nine

months. We have seen that go on, and indeed, it is a devastating statistic, one

that we know will be corrected. It will be corrected. There is absolutely no

doubt.

The Prime Minister was questioned by the media the day that

the Cabinet was sworn in. A reporter asked: Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to

take control of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks? He never had to go 30,000

feet in the air and sip whine on his way to Mitterand, as the former Prime

Minister did - he was clear and unequivocal. He said: Yes, we are not going to

allow the foreigners to take our resources while our own people are there

without that work and without that resource. It will not be tolerated.

There is absolutely no doubt that the people of Canada know

now, Mr. Speaker, that this will not continue, that indeed, the day for its

coming to an end is fast approaching, and we will see these resources taken back

to our own plants.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West, I am sure, would feel

devastated at the imminent closure of the plant in Marystown. The Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes, I am sure, is very, very upset and devastated by the closure

of the plant in Trepassey where 400 people have gone out of work. The Member for

Bellevue, I am sure, is very, very upset with the restructuring of NatSea and

the impact it is having on Arnold's Cove, Mr. Speaker, but do you realize with

just that particular fishery alone, twelve plants of that size could be kept

going year-round - with that particular resource alone, 112 million pounds of

fish.

The people on the Coast of Labrador, for instance, are not

asking for much. We know that in the last year there were 30 million pounds of

turbot taken within 100 miles of the Coast of Labrador. Every plant from

L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain could have been kept open for the total fishing season

with 17 million pounds of product, so we were only asking for 50 per cent of the

resource that would be there adjacent to our shores to be brought into our

plants so that our needs are met; and it cannot be lost on the people of this

Province the financial impact that this can have on our economy at a time when

we are grasping and we are struggling and trying to meet the education and the

health care needs of the people. It cannot be lost that the value of this

particular fishery to our people, being taken away as we speak, $400 million is

being lost to our economy - $400 million, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of

impact, real bread and butter, jobs, dollars and cents, that we are seeing lost

to our economy and to our people who are out there and want to work.

Let it never be said that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador do not want to work, do not want that solid, meaningful job that is

there for them if they had an opportunity to take it.

We know what has happened with Hibernia. We know that the

people of this Province have now some 10,000 applications into the Hibernia

consortium to get something out of that project. We know that the people of this

Province want to work, are willing to work, and are certainly no strangers to

work. So I would hope that this hon. House, through all the members of this

House, will say clearly to Ottawa and to the rest of the country that we want to

see the compensation program extended. We absolutely need that, Mr. Speaker,

because we are in the situation through no fault of our own. We are doing our

best to diversify within the fishery. We are doing our best to meet the

challenges that are out there before us with the alternate species and the

secondary processing.

The Minister of Fisheries in this Province, for the first

time ever, formed a seafood marketing council in this Province that I know is

also going to pay real dividends to the seafood industry and particularly, the

secondary processing aspect of that industry. So we are doing our best, but we

want it said that we are not relinquishing our responsibilities to the people of

this Province when we say that this income support must be there, because let it

not be gone untold that as we speak there is $350 million annually in subsidy to

the dairy farmers of Ontario and Quebec. That is there fixed. Nobody says

anything about it because it is a fixed program. Once the dollar amount for

dairy products goes down below a certain level, a cheque comes in the mail. It

is not a hullabaloo. Nobody gets up and challenges the rest of the world that

they deserve it. It is there, it is fixed, and it is real because it is right

and because it is necessary, and the same thing applies to the tobacco farmers.

The same thing applies to the other farmers of this Province. They have a

program in place right now that when their income is reduced to a certain level

they automatically get the cheque in the mail from Ottawa. That is not wrong; it

is only the right thing to do. They are living in security. They are living in a

situation that through no fault of their own - they cannot control nature, so

they deserve that and I maintain they should have it. But equally so, don't look

down your noses at the plant workers and fishermen of this Province when they

get something from Ottawa, from the treasury, because through no fault of their

own they are not able to do as they have done for hundreds of years, to harvest

these fish that are adjacent to their shores, Mr. Speaker.

I would think that this is the kind of initiative that we can

look forward to from this Administration in Ottawa. I would hope, and I'm sure,

that the people of this Legislature will support the moves that we are going to

see undertaken by the new Minister of Fisheries and the new Administration in

Ottawa.

I say to all people of this Legislature, be clear and be

heard on this very important issue. Because we need the support of every man,

woman and child in this Province if we are going to get that kind of a program

to meet the needs of our people, if we are going to get the kind of power over

our resources that is absolutely critical. I would hope that we will be seeing

the kind of support from members opposite that the people demand of them. I

would say to the people of Eagle River that we can look forward with optimism

towards the fishery of the future because we are going to have the management

regime in place to see that the adjacent crab, scallop, turbot fisheries are

going to be harvested and managed for the benefit of the people adjacent to

these resources.

Once that need is met, then we are only too happy, only too

proud, to be able to see the rest of it go to other parts of this Province, the

plants in La Scie, in St. Anthony, in Fogo or the plants in Bonavista Bay and

Conception Bay. Because we have a long tradition of sharing, a long tradition of

giving, a long tradition of working with the people on this Island, in this

Province, and we want to continue to do so.

I will conclude by saying that through the work of this House

and this government, we are going to see a brighter future for the people of

Eagle River district and throughout Labrador. It is certainly not lost on me,

and neither, I am sure, on anybody else, that that is going to be augmented by

the tremendous support that we are going to receive from a new improved look, a

new real change in Ottawa, that the people of this country from coast to coast

couldn't wait to put in place on October 25.

I thank hon. members for their indulgence this afternoon and

I look forward to hearing their comments on the issues of the day, and indeed,

this very important issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Placentia, I

remind hon. members that it is unparliamentary for them to engage in private

conversation and turn their backs to the Chair.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike people who

were up before me, I am not going to enquire about anybody's summer. The ones I

care about on this side of the House and the other side of the House I have

talked with over the summer. The others I'm not going to bother to talk to.

The Member for Eagle River and, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I was watching you, though. I have a

couple of friends left. The Member for Eagle River said about the October 25

election that he would have liked to have been here on October 26. So would I.

Because I'd have been able to tell him that early in the morning of October 26,

the lone buffalo left on Brunette Island committed suicide when he heard what

had happened to this country, that the Quebec Bloc they talk about, the Western

faction that they talk about - but nobody talks about the Ontario faction of

ninety-eight members out of ninety-nine are Liberals. Five members out of

Toronto alone.

We all know that they are going to get glutted at the table

before anybody else in this country gets a crumb. I don't look at all the

Liberals as enemies. I look at some of these nunny-fudgers upalong. For any of

you who don't know the term, it is an old Newfoundland term that has gone into

disuse. A nunny-fudger is a covetous person. A nunny-fudger is a person who

would sooner have his dinner than go to work. A nunny-fudger is also a person

who looks after his own selfish interest and shirks their responsibility.

MS. VERGE: How do you spell it?

MR. CAREEN: It is spelled, for the benefit of Hansard and

people across, nunny-fudge. You are a nunny-fudger. Now I have heard

nunny-fudgers since I came into this House and I would like to, before I go any

further, refer to a statement that was made here on June 18 by the Government

House Leader, the Minister of Justice, who was accompanied by the Member for

Eagle River, that I would not be here the fall, and I said that I would be like

General MacArthur and that I shall return, and here I am.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: And that if ever I should be replaced, the

likes of me will always pop up opposite - the likes of the Minister of Justice -

but I am glad that my case is in front of two learned judges, not a wealthy

lawyer.

Getting back to Mr. Man from Eagle River, he was saying about

Mr. Tobin: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has brought the backstroke to

new heights. He is ready to join the Olympics. From what he was saying months

ago to what he is saying now, it is completely opposite.

The Member for Eagle River also called Michael Kirby, Captain

Canada. He became the youngest senator in this country, and the hundreds of

thousands of tons that he advocated never even came close, a fraction of it, and

now he is at the public trough, from the time he is forty-four years old to the

time he is seventy-five.

Now you people over there, most of you, were advocating the

Triple E Senate, and I only believe in the (inaudible), elimination. We do not

need them. Throw them to hell. The only thing you fellows have going against you

now is that the Senate is ruled by the Tories, and I do not know if that is good

or bad either. I am not blinded by partisanship. That is not the way I was

reared, or the crowd who hung around with me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, getting back to this session, it is late

opening - very late opening. The things that are important should have been

discussed, and discussed at length, and over this period of time that we have,

or that I have, the Argentia situation, 265 people, mostly from the Placentia

area - the Americans are leaving. On September 30, 1994 they are ready to take

down their flag. There are some people from Conception Bay and Trinity Bay.

Other members as well have people work there.

The Americans are leaving. They are not playing it fair with

regard to the environment. They said there was no such thing as an environment

back in the lease time of forty-one. Well let me tell those Americans that when

they came here it was for their sake, to guard their own back doors, and in

order for FDR - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - to be able to get fifty World War I

battleships to the British, we were sold out - the people of Argentia who lived

there. They had a `scorched shirt' policy and drove them out of there.

The Americans were stopped themselves, after awhile. They

used to torch houses when people were leaving them. Bulldozers rammed through

them while people were living there. Then our polite Commission of Government,

with three British, and three lackey Newfoundlanders, finally got to them, and

when the people disappeared out of the communities then they torched the houses

and then they bulldozed them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, the people of our area need a hand from

all members. They need a hand because we are into a triple situation with the

government of this Province, with the federal government, and with the American

government. We used to be governed from London, and now we are being colonized

from Ottawa - and I hope we are not being colonized from St. John's.

The Premier there some time ago said that he had good news

for the people who worked on the base, and it came to naught. That is not fair;

I do not care who is sitting in the Premier's chair. It is not fair to be

playing games with anybody. The people down there, through our justice system,

federal, and the Americans, the civilian workers of Argentia have been called

aliens. Just imagine, our own people, 265 of them are classified as aliens; they

have no rights in Argentia, they have privileges.

Now I am not prejudiced by any means, but some of these you

can relate to because some of the people whom our people in Argentia have to

deal with, only a few years ago, had rights in Georgia, below the Mason-Dickson

line. All before that, it was privileges.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I only used it twice, sir. I used it twice

since I was elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tear it up.

MR. CAREEN: No, I do not have to tear it up because there

are people on it who would have to go in there, but I never went in there and

glutted myself on any American stuff that they had to offer.

The Minister of Tourism and Culture, must be interested in

Placentia obviously, because he was trying to get a job for the former member

this summer, but the former member could not follow it out too good, he could

not handle the delivery of checks in a proper manner, without upsetting the

government office, opposite. Only for it is so tragic, it would be funny.

Getting back to the - what was his name, the former member, Mr. Hoggan - no, I

am sorry, Mr. Hogan, come to think of it, there is H - o - g in the word Hogan;

anyway -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not nice.

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not nice, and it was not nice what

has gone on through our district over the summer, where the former member tried

to get a person on social services kicked off a project, getting $300 a week,

and only for that person took care of himself - there was a decent person up in

the Premier's office, the heart and soul of that side is the Minister of Social

Services, who stepped in with myself and we finally got it straightened out. I

do not like anything small and petty.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations gave more

money to the former member in a job than he gave to the whole District of

Placentia, $73,000 for job creation and Hogan got $75,000 and it was only after

I met with the minister, and that the people on the Southern Shore, one

particular area, had told them to take what they had offered them and stick it

where Jack stuck the tacks, Mr. Speaker, that there were a few extra dollars

made available and that went to the development association, it got $5,500 and

the community of Freshwater got $20,000. That was just enough to balance it off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes. Now, Mr. Noel, they say that it is

advantageous to be on the government side and probably that might mean more

pavement but you cannot eat that. Mr. Noel, the man from Pleasantville, I, as

one lonely Joe, would support that man and support his district, getting a few

dollars from Scrooge, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and that

is not bah humbug, Mr. Speaker, that is only right because the people of

Pleasantville, and the member elected for Pleasantville is entitled, Sir, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. CAREEN: No, sir, and the one thing I know for a fact,

because I have a number of friends opposite, he will not buy the leadership of

the Liberal Party, and I do believe that in some party systems, and the Liberal

Party is not for sale any more than the Tory Party is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I should have qualified it. It is not for

sale now. It is not for sale now. The Premier, earlier, didn't you hear him, he

was saying: I got it; I did it, whatever. Reminds me of a fellow I knew years

ago who went to the Labrador. He said: I went to Labrador, I went up in the

woods, I cut timber for a boat, I built a boat, I launched her and coming back

from Labrador, we lost her. That is the kind of question you are talking about;

but Argentia, our area, is in for a rocky ride. We have gotten rocky rides but

we are not for sale, not for sale to anybody; poor, but never gave in.

Now there are some things that are going on. The federal

government, the past government, initiated money and there has been a

(inaudible) study done and that can be improved on from time to time but with

the new federal minister responsible for ACOA, we are hoping that some things

will come out it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, you are not aware today. Did you hear

about the Canada Trail Foundation that has been incorporated today into the

Trails of Newfoundland, the abandoned railway?

AN HON. MEMBER: I was invited to go.

MR. CAREEN: You were invited to go. You are talking about

a 15,000 kilometre trail? That is only outdone by the trail of broken dreams and

promises that this government opposite has done. Over this session I will be

inquiring about where the Rural Development Agreement is. Where is it? Where is

the Rural Development Agreement? We wonder about what is happening with the

token women. They have hired token women for Hibernia, not fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. CAREEN: Token women down there. People have been

trained adequately. Some of our unions - and I have nothing against unions - but

some of our unions do not want to increase their membership because after

Hibernia is over they are going to have more people to look after rather than

their nunny-fudger selves.

The Minister of Justice, since we recessed, in his police

commission - never even put one woman on it. Not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Does he know that there are intelligent women

on this island?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Does he? Where are they? He does not even

know that there are women lawyers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh my, my what a chauvinist.

Someone alluded earlier to the experts that they had. Well an

expert is a person who will not learn anything else because then they will not

be an expert. That is what we have here and I would like to see those experts,

that the Premier was talking about earlier today, put before a panel of this

House to find out if they really agree in the rural presentations because I was

told differently by one person in particular, who was telling me that one person

said it was stupid but if he was asked publicly he would deny it. No it is not

good enough. One of these five was telling another person that it was ludicrous

to sell Hydro but if he was asked publicly, he would deny it. The plot thickens

- but what we have are goose steppers. In the late fall of 1945 all you had in

Germany were people who only followed orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. CAREEN: You never heard tell of that?

We have people here and I know people within the Liberal

Party who are not very encouraged by the selling of Hydro. I realize that some

members opposite are under pressure. It is easy for me, as Opposition, to get up

and mouth off and talk about Hydro but I sympathize with some hon. members

opposite whose consciences are troubled by the sale of Hydro. They are under

pressure but ladies and gentlemen -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no conscience Careen.

MR. CAREEN: You never had one. They do not understand the

pressures that these good people are under and please God they do make the right

decision for Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the goose steppers opposite who

will make every decision when it suits their own ends.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Humbug, ba, there is Scrooge again, Scrooge.

Did the member who just mouthed off that time ever hear the little story that if

one person says that you are the rear end of a horse, you dismiss him, and if

two says that you are the rear end of a horse, you think about it and if there

are more than three mister, I suggest that you buy a saddle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The job creation project of Employment and

Labour Relations was not adequate either. The Member for St. John's East Extern

talked about the inadequacies but he never told about the regulations, that a

person with one hour of wages from the fishing industry was not allowed to go on

it. That is inexcusable. Any income at all from the fishing industry - and I

realize that there are other people out there - there is more than the fishery

involved in this Province, more than the fishery people caught up in some kind

of a crucifixion.

One particular person in Little Harbour who had twenty hours'

work, ineligible. Then there's people who needed more than ten weeks who were

ineligible. Mr. Minister, your program was inadequate, the amount of monies is

inadequate.

Three months ago you people were advocating gunboats. Now

they've all turned backwards. When you find out that it's probably your son or

your daughter or your nephew who might have to go out there it's a different

story, or when you find out that the wrath of the world is going to come down

around your ears, then you'll find your courage or your guts. No, you're wrong.

You're all wrong.

An honest person can only make an honest mistake. You, and

anybody who advocates Hydro or any of this other stuff, goose-steppers, you're

looking after your own selfish ends, especially when some of the speculation

that's rising to a new fervour, because between now and the end of January there

will be some new Cabinet people. It's all amazing. All little carrots dangled in

front of some people.

I'll tell you what I will find out before this session is

over, even if I have to have a sance to find out, where are Doug House and

Susan Shirk. Probably I will have to join hands with someone to find out where

they are. Because they seem to be doing alright. The rest of the Province is

not.

I can't get over some people whose opinion of themselves,

against the will of the majority, seem to come out on top. Any one of us, ladies

and gentlemen, any one of us here, what we do with our lives, you take a bucket

of water and you drive your arm right to the armpits, and when you drag it back,

if you're leaving an impression you're some person. Collectively, we can make an

improvement on it. I don't see that some of these people, the so-called experts,

are getting us out of the trouble we are in. Are going around with their tidy

smiles and their well-manicured hands, talking to the poor devils out there who

certainly need help and encouragement. Another

section which needs

encouragement, and that's from all of us, is the youth of this Province.

We're bringing home every mother's son of them. There's never

been as many of them leaving this Island as there are now. None. They can be

blamed too. Yes sir. I don't see it long before the honeymoon is going to be

over between the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals, like it happened

so often with other governments in the past. Because the interests of

Newfoundland comes first, and to them Newfoundland comes somewhere, probably

(inaudible). Anything good from you fellows opposite I'll be more than willing

to support. I can stand by myself and support them.

Marine Atlantic, ladies and gentleman. I worked with the

railway. It was called a railway because it was CN Marine back then, and it

became East Coast Marine and Ferry Services, and then it became Marine Atlantic.

It was all called the railway. They had a thing there that there was a right way

and the wrong way and then there was the railway. The railway is still operating

on that extent. Up on the Gulf with the Bond on the Labrador run. They

took the extra ferry off, put her up to dry-dock, and there's an inadequate

service up on the Gulf now, with people not even making connections with buses,

with people not making connections by train going through North Sydney. It's

inadequate.

What they're doing on the South Coast to the people of

McCallum and Franois over this summer, and the other places that they do now,

is not fair. You've got Liberal members up there and I'm willing to support

them. Because it's only right. I sailed up those coasts and there are good

people up there.

What's going on in Belleoram? The federal government now is

talking about taking down a government wharf. They should be stopped. The member

opposite for that district, he has my support.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They say they're having a meeting tomorrow

morning. Listen, sir, the tragedy in our system is that politicians come and go,

but some of those bureaucrats remain the same. In the United States, when the

president goes everyone from dog-catcher to governor goes. I cannot get into a

whole bunch of blame with the federal government yet because they have not got

their feet wet, but I am saying that the member opposite for that district needs

our support as well.

Ladies and gentlemen I am going to conclude with my rhetoric

but I am serious about what is going on in the District of Placentia and I am

serious when I ask you members opposite for a hand because you know yourself

that if you asked me you would get it. That is the way I operate. The Americans

are playing games. The USA is no more than any big business trying to get out

from under their responsibilities. The people are not getting an adequate

compensation package by Canadian standards at all. Their commitment to the

environment is nil. They are talking about monies for their buildings, their

assets. The rumour and speculation is that it runs anywhere from $40 to $100

million and that is not fair. I do know that the Premier has a copy of the

(inaudible) study and in short order I will be asking to sit down with the man

to talk about Placentia and Argentia.

We have an amalgamated council that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs should be given some kind of a nod on. We had a great turn out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Oh, you are a fine fellow. I never said too

much about you yet. Anyway we have an amalgamated council. The way it was done

leaves a bad taste in their mouths but unlike Saul I was not recently struck

from my horse. I was advocating that way back when and it is a good vehicle.

They have a well balanced council to start to tackle the affairs of the area. I

was glad to hear that the Premier when he met during the summer with the members

of the Long Harbour, Mount Arlington council, that they are not in favour of

containment either by Albright and Wilson. There has to be a better way than

just containing pollutants. There are jobs in cleanup. People can be trained and

with the proper gear, the proper working clothing on them, they can go to work.

Why should a company with an enormous amount of money be allowed to crawl out

from under their responsibility?

Before I sit down I ask that the government opposite,

particularly the members, support the heart of the Liberal Party, the Minister

of Social Services. We have a growing rate in every district of people going to

social services. It is a revolving door. It is as busy as the airport out there

in Torbay. The job creation project earlier this fall was not adequate but we

need a project through social services of another $5 or $6 million opened up to

a job development standard that will not be penalizing people. It will allow

people to get out and work, because a bit of work is not only good for your

pocketbook, it is also good for your head. I firmly believe that I cannot

guarantee people a job but I will do my level best to try to guarantee someone a

bit of work, wherever they are.

In conclusion I leave you with a word about ordinary people

because that is what the most of us are, ordinary Joes from ordinary Joans and

Joes. I said earlier about honest people making honest mistakes so let me tell

you in the words of the great Newfoundlander, Aubrey Mack, who said: the good

things we learn at mama's knee and the rest at other joints. He was probably

right. Ordinary people are us mostly, except for probably two members opposite

who believe they are heads and shoulders above the rest of us. But people who

change the world are not usually the self-styled leaders of men, nor yet the

willing martyrs who go singing to the stake. They are the very ordinary people

whom in diffidence and apprehension pursue the course they have set themselves

and who have no other reason for doing so than they would despise themselves if

they give up.

I'm saying this to appeal to the good members opposite, the

ones with consciences, the ones like myself. The ones who can stand up and be

counted. The ones who don't have to wait till tomorrow to get their guts because

they got their guts today. Whether you're from the Southside in St. John's or

you're from the western part of the Island. Or you're from up around Cape

Chidley or Cape St. Mary's, wherever you are.

This is home. It's the only home we'll know. Unlike some of

these fellows who leave and come here to the trough and leave and go somewhere

else. This is home, and they'll have to take me out of it feet first. Probably,

if the Minister of Justice gets his wish, they won't have to take me out of this

place feet first. But they'll have to take me out of this Island feet first.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your patience. Like I

said earlier, and I reiterate, if either one of you fellows need a hand, I'm

there. I'm asking everybody here for a hand with what we have to deal with. We

have a yeoman's task ahead of us. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and God

bless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I like the

juice in the Member for Placentia. He has that good old stuff in him and I

compliment him on his speech. There was a lot of heart there, however, certainly

more heart than head. In saying that, let me make a few comments about today's

important subject the hon. members tried to build on and discuss - namely, the

thought of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

If I may take the hon. members back to when another Liberal

government of the day -

MS. VERGE: Sold out the Upper Churchill.

MR. MURPHY: Perhaps the hon. Member for Humber East could

be right, that that particular government of the day sold out the Upper

Churchill. I remind the hon. member, nobody had a crystal ball in those days.

Oil was $2 a barrel. There were millions of dollars spent on the development of

Churchill Falls, where many fine young Newfoundlanders, who today are doctors,

lawyers, nurses, that were educated, there are homes.... It's easy, I say to the

hon. member, to look over their shoulder and have 20-20 vision. Because it's

hindsight, and the hon. member is always thrusting that stuff when she really,

deep down, should know the difference and stay quiet.

It was brought to the House. I say to the hon. member, how

come her Tory colleagues at that particular time didn't have the foresight.

Because Churchill Falls was passed unanimously. There were Tory members who

voted with Liberal members. It was a tough sell. The premier of the day had to

go to Great Britain and talk the Rothschilds and others into the capital funding

and get it going. You go around the rural areas of Newfoundland and look at some

of the houses and look at some of the people who came out of there. It was

because of the development of Churchill Falls.

Yes, today it's a bad deal. Nobody in their right mind could

say anything less. I say to hon. members opposite, I worked up there for four

years when they were playing alleys, or some other such thing. Their parents -

and I know lots of their parents from all over, because I met them - who worked

up there, doing carpenter work, driving trucks, working in aggregate plants. It

was the greatest thing of that particular day. Don't always look back.

This hon. member could remind hon. members opposite about

some of the other situations that have taken place. I don't think hon. members

want to stand and say, "We're proud of Sprung," and other such ventures. The

$100 million, I say to the hon. Member for Humber East, that was spent on the

Lower Churchill development, wasted by ex-minister Crosbie and then-premier

Moores - $100 million in 1975 dollars. Think about that today, I say to the hon.

Member for Humber East.

Now the need for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the

development of the Bay d'Espoir project was brought to being because of the

building of the Long Harbour phosphorous chemical plant. The Newfoundland Light

and Power did not have the generating capability at that particular time, and

more important, or the trouble was that they did not have the capital, nor did

they have the pen to borrow the capital to build and harness the great Bay

d'Espoir project.

Now let me take you back. So the government of the day, the

Smallwood government, the Liberal government, went out and got the capital and

the expertise to build and develop Bay d'Espoir in order to create the 500 or

600 jobs - the good jobs, as we thought at that time, all Newfoundlanders - in

Long Harbour.

Now we all know the story of Long Harbour and its demise.

Phosphorous became an unacceptable word because it was doing things to the

environment, et cetera, et cetera. So at that particular time we did not have

the energy and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was created, and created, I might

add, in a very real way in a sense of they came together.

Mr. Reid, who was mentioned today by the Minister of Mines

and Energy, was one of the initiators of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It had

no castles; it had no empires; it was not an organization that has marble

entrances over on Prince Philip Drive, or over on the Crosstown Arterial, and it

is time, and I said in a press release two years ago, that sometimes the worst

manager of consumer purchased material, whether it be Hydro or NLCS, or

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - not the social housing end of it, but the

Elizabeth Tower type things - government has absolutely no business in, so the

sale of Hydro today is not a sale as such that the government of this Province

has put a for sale sign over on Prince Philip Drive and said that this is for

sale.

It has brought people together, experts together, to have a

look at the possible merger of Fortis. I am glad the hon. Member for Grand Bank

is back because I want to say something to him, and all of us, because it is

politically astute today to jump up and try to trap the Premier, try to trap the

minister, into: Ah, ha, we have an issue. The Newfoundland people do not like

the sale of Hydro.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They don't, either.

MR. MURPHY: Gobbledygook. Hydro is not for sale. Hydro is

being looked at for the betterment of the taxpayers of this Province. If anybody

had the good common sense to read the former Leader of the NDP's column in the

Telegram yesterday, a very, very sensible column because he talked about the ups

and downs of the sale, or the merger, of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland,

he made more sense than the previous leader and Premier did.

You know, Hydro is the wealth of the people of the Province

of Newfoundland, and perhaps the wealth of this Province should be dispersed and

people given a chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well the Member for St. John's East is not in

his seat, Mr. Speaker, so I do not know why he is commenting. Now what he should

do is go down in his seat and have a look at his Fortis shares. Perhaps the hon.

Member for St. John's East will tell us if he has any Fortis shares?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no. I just asked if the hon. member could

say yes I do or no I don't. He can say it. Perhaps the Member for Menihek -

perhaps the Member for St. John's South has shares in Fortis. My father worked

there for fifty-four years, at Newfoundland Light and Power, it was not Fortis

then. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has some shares, perhaps the Member

for Menihek has shares in Fortis. We will see as the negotiations continue with

government and the team that government put together, on the sale of Hydro. As

Hydro developed it became very clear that this Province, like any other

Province, only needed one power company to generate and distribute the power

throughout the Province but then we ran into the rural subsidy problems, the

diesel situations and the smaller communities that wanted to be electrified and

had to be subsidized. So we started an inter-play balance of billing so that

those who lived in remote areas would pay the same amount of money for a bottom

line of kilowatt hours per month.

Hydro grew and then the thermal plant at Holyrood - because

we could see an energy source that was needed for commercial development to

bring along jobs. Now all of a sudden we had Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

generating 85 per cent of the power produced in the Province and Newfoundland

Light and Power selling 85 per cent of the power in the Province. Now to me it

seems like there is a middle man somewhere. Perhaps the ideal situation would be

that if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had the money to buy out Newfoundland

Power, maybe that would be the best way to do it.

I use the example - I say to the hon. Member for Kilbride -

my father used to have to go in and read a meter on behalf of the Light and

Power Company and looking over his shoulder was an employee from Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. A task that could be fulfilled by one individual but what

was happening was that it took two people to do the job of one. Now somebody may

say: well, that is the way it should be. We should be creating employment by

waste. Because the bottom line is that the taxpayers of this Province will have

to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well the hon. Member for Ferryland does not

know what the consumer will have to pay any more than I do, but I refer him

again to Mr. Fenwick's story who put both options there. So don't jump up for

the next five days and think you are making political points and think you are

going to gain something at the end of the day by driving home nonsensical

questions to the government about the sale or the merger of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Think, think, the Leader of the Opposition got up today and he

opened up his questions and he said: seven months we have not seen the House

opened.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is right but I remind the hon. Member

for Grand Bank that in 1986 the House opened on March 18th and closed June 17th

for a total of fifty-six days with no fall sitting. The hon. member was a

cabinet minister of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: In 1987 they opened it in February and closed

it in late May, sixty odd days but a fall sitting, no. No fall sitting.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Unbelievable.

MR. MURPHY: These are the people, and the Leader of the

Opposition was a Cabinet Minister in that government, and he stands up today and

makes an inference that this government does not open the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I do not want to totally embarrass him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you cannot embarrass this crowd.

MR. MURPHY: Oh you can embarrass them. They were

embarrassed October 25. But I say to the Member for Grand Bank, he came to my

mind, I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I said there are five very extremely

happy male Newfoundlanders, and two very happy female Newfoundlanders at about

ten o'clock that night; but I said, I know another man who is happy. I know

another man who is happy. I know he had a copy of the now famous Red Book. The

Red Book, the Book of Hope. When the new leader, the new Prime Minister of the

country said to all and sundry, for the world to hear, that we will negotiate

with other nations for a short period of time, but one way or another, we will

take over. We will take over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and I thought

about the Member for Grand Bank, because I had so many discussions with him and

I knew how disappointed he was during the previous regime. They would not get

down, find the courage - he comes from the district, he comes from the very

historical district of Grand Bank.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no. I say to the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West, that he is lucky that he has his few boats down there now; he

scuttled the Newfoundland dockyard by himself, scuttled them down there, sunk

the Newfoundland dockyard and put hundreds of Newfoundlanders on the street.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he do that?

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Burin - Placentia West,

because he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well I will tell you how he did it now. He

called up and he said: Now John, listen here. Listen here John, it is time for

you to help. We lost the other one, we need that boat and the game was over, and

subsequently we got the Newfoundland Dockyard down there, scratching around

trying to find a few jobs to refit and a little bit of repair work to stay

alive; but in all fairness, I say to the hon. member, that is what he was

elected to do, to fight for his district and fight for the people who live

there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank, that

Ms Hickey certainly can do no worse than was displayed in the seven months the

previous member was in, when he gobbledegooked around the district and did

nothing, he took over after heavyweight John. He could not make a decision and

the hon. member knows it. He could not make a decision to save his soul.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no, we had somebody to look after the St.

John's Dockyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. MURPHY: I will tell you who we have to look after the

St. John's Dockyard, Mr. Speaker; we have a woman who won with a majority of

nearly 7,600 votes over the John Crosbie seat and I humble myself in front of

the Member for Ferryland, who was the campaign manager for Mr. Hearn. Oh yes, we

blew you out of the water, we blew you away, and I thank the hon. member because

we would have only won by 4,000 had he not been the campaign manager.

The Member for Placentia made some good points. It is time

for members to pull together. It is time for members to try.

Now, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, unlike

the previous Administration, did everything he could to distribute the few

dollars that are around. There are not many dollars around.

MR. TOBIN: Ask Wally Noel. Go on, boy! Don't be attacking

your colleagues.

MR. MURPHY: I am attacking nobody, I say to the hon.

member.

MR. TOBIN: You were behind and you got Wally (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, is there any chance - I mean, I

didn't say a word when the Member for St. John's East Extern was up. I didn't

say anything when the Member for Placentia was up, but the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, somehow or another, when the truth falls on the floor of the

House he gets all upset, he gets all excited, he gets all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, he should be carried away.

I want to publicly thank the Minister of Tourism for the

great effort he has made down in my district, the situation that he has now made

with the federal counterpart to restore some of the great historic property in

the district. I just want to say that as an opener, and I hope he will continue

to do that. I will watch with great anticipation to ensure that the whole area

of Fort Amherst is done under his direction, and I say to this House, if it

isn't, I will knock on his door and ask him why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no. Listen, when you get a glass of

water, it is tough to put out the CLB fire. I say, the hon. minister could have

used $600 million and he still wouldn't have had enough money.

MR. TOBIN: What about what `Wally' said to you?

MR. MURPHY: Well, if the hon. member opposite were the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and he had $6 million, what would he

do? Well, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, if he is such a great,

passionate individual - I know what the hon. member received down in his

district - then when the hon. member stands in his place, like the Member of

Placentia, perhaps should offer some of the funding that he got to the Member

for Pleasantville.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are only going to heap praises on the

minister.

MR. MURPHY: I am not heaping praises anywhere. I am just

stating a fact, I say to the hon. member. I am stating a fact that with so

little it was a situation of loaves and fishes. That is what the situation was.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your protection from

the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Now, today, hon. members opposite were

hooting and hollering during Question Period about who was giving the advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) talk about it now.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, because the member knows what I am going

to say. Who was giving the advice to this government? Now, I don't want to start

talking about people who don't have the opportunity to defend themselves in this

House, but I suggest to the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern that many

of the competent people who were named by the Premier today are the same

competent people who gave advice to my friends opposite, who were appointed -

the very same people that this government is now taking advice from are the

people that the previous administration appointed to Chairman of Hydro, so to

try to make a political issue out of who is doing what, and to holler out how

many shares So-and-So has, and how many shares this other gentleman has, is

ludicrous and is not even worthy.

I say to the hon. member, don't go hooting and hollering

about people who have contributed to your government and to this government,

because the hon. member may find out that there are colleagues sitting very

close to him who are clipping coupons on Fortis shares. So you want to be

careful how you approach things. The time will come and the media will ask who

got what. We saw the other day the media publish certain things about certain

members on this side, Cabinet people, and maybe they will publish the whole

works.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope they do.

MR. MURPHY: So do I, I say to the hon. the Member for

Grand Bank, but let's not ge