November

27, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 41

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today, on

behalf of all members of the House, participants from Canada World Youth. There

are seven participants from Jamaica, and seven from other parts of Canada, and

they are visiting the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. They are accompanied

by teachers Donna Malone and Beverly Boothe Swaby, and bus driver Paul Whittle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the good news.

MR. DICKS: I share the sadness of the hon. member

opposite.

This morning I joined with the President of NAPE, Mr. David

Curtis, and with Minister Bettney in her capacity as minister responsible for

the status of women, to announce that the government has reached a joint pay

equity agreement with NAPE for the general government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: The agreement we announced today comes after

several years of hard work and co-operation between the government and the

union, and positively affects thousands of jobs within the general service.

This agreement, together with others that have been reached

in recent years, has occurred without legislation intervention. This marks this

series of discussions as virtually unique within the pay equity field in this

country.

Today's agreement totals $4.1 million per year for some 2,100

employees in female dominated classifications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Effective October 1, 1996, and until the end

of this fiscal year alone, government will provide almost $2 million in salary

adjustments to employees in provincial government departments, Cabot College,

Workers' Compensation Commission, West Viking College, Central Regional College,

Eastern College, Labrador College, Medical Care Commission, C.A. Pippy Park,

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, and the Marine Institute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the increase in salary for

approximately seventy-five female-dominated job classifications will have a very

positive impact on many employees. The pay equity adjustments will be phased in

two stages, the first being effective October 1 of this year - that is

retroactive - the second on April 1, 1998. Upon the full implementation of the

adjustment, employees in many classifications will receive a significant yearly

salary increase. For example, in the classification of Clerk I there will be a

gross salary increase per year of $2,700; Clerk Stenographer I, $2,700; Domestic

Worker, $2,600; Early Childhood Education Worker, $3,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: We have been thorough in reviewing job

classifications and salaries within the general government, and we reached an

agreement through a joint management/union process. This is a

progressive step in ensuring that pay equity is implemented

throughout the public service. It is a significant benefit for women in the

fields identified.

Government reached pay equity agreements within the health

care sector and with Newfoundland Hydro in 1990; and with the Nurses Union and

Allied Health Professionals in 1995. Together with today's agreement, government

will provide $28.5 million per year in pay equity salary adjustments for almost

11,000 employees by the year 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House we want

to commend the government. This is indeed an initiative that is long overdue, it

is a good idea; it has been promised repeatedly in the past and we are happy to

see that action has been taken.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say that we are happy that government

has caught up with the values in society, so we say to the government, this is a

positive step on behalf of the females who are in the civil service and in other

workforces of this Province. We know that they welcome this initiative and we

want to commend the government. It is a progressive step and we regret to say

that it has taken a long time and we hope that this will send a signal to all

other employers in this Province that, we have to treat people with equal

dignity and equal pay for work of equal value.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good day for the workers who have fought for this. It

is not an initiative of government but the result of a collective bargaining

effort on which I congratulate both parties on achieving but it is something

that has been fought for, for many years. It is something to be celebrated. It

is pure equality that is needed. We would like to see further announcements from

government on recognizing pay equity for home care workers in this Province as

the next step, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks very much.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for

local government and, on behalf of all members of this House of Assembly, I wish

to offer our congratulations to the new council elected Tuesday night in the

Town of Conception Bay South -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: - and also, on your behalf to extend our

best wishes for every success during their tenure of office.

I believe the decision to cause a new election to be held was

one that was in the overall best interest of the residents of Conception Bay

South, and it means that the town can once again take ownership of its own

affairs.

The new council will remain in office for a period of five

years. Officials in my department are already making plans to provide extensive

training for the new council with respect to procedures and budget preparation,

etc., and my department will provide whatever help and assistance that may be

required by the new council.

I was very pleased to see as many as thirty-seven people came

forward to offer themselves in this particular election and that certainly shows

the amount of interest in the community. It does serve to indicate that local

government in at least the town of Conception Bay South is alive and well.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very cognizant and

appreciative of the significant contribution that men and women - volunteers for

the most part - make to local government throughout the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the

minister today for a copy of his statement, and of course thank my colleague for

allowing me today to respond to this.

I would like, before I get into this Mr. Minister, to give a

very small bit of advice to your Minister of Education who decided he should

dabble in provincial politics. Might I say to him that he should stay out of

municipal politics. It is certainly not his area. In a rainstorm on a Sunday

with his fedora down around his eyes, he should stay out of the District of

Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness I too

want to join with the minister today in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: He lost. I wasn't going to say that, but....

I too, Mr. Speaker, would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. FRENCH: I would like to join with the minister in

congratulating the men and the women in Conception Bay South who were elected

last night. It is nice to see that there were thirty-seven people who offered

themselves for office. The minister and I have had conversations of disagreement

as to what happened in the previous council. But that is in the past. I think it

is onward and upward. We have elected an excellent group of people, we have

elected an excellent mayor, and I think that we are in for some good times in

the District of Conception Bay South. I would like to join with you too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my

hon. colleagues in the House that an independent review panel has been appointed

to conduct the public review of the Terra Nova development project. This panel

will be chaired by Dr. Leslie Harris, former president of Memorial University of

Newfoundland. Dr. Harris has a long and distinguished academic career and has

served on a wide variety of boards and advisory bodies. The other members of the

panel are Ms Irene Baird, who is a health and social services consultant in St.

John's, and Dr. Jon Lien, Professor at the Ocean Sciences Centre and the

Department of Psychology at Memorial.

The panel's job is to review: the potential environmental

effects for the proposed development project; safety considerations which will

be incorporated into the design; The general approach proposed to develop and

exploit the petroleum reserves of the Terra Nova oil field; and the employment

and industrial benefits that are expected to accrue to the Province and the

country from the project.

The panel will hold public hearings to permit interested

parties to present their views on the proposed development. And, Mr. Speaker,

the panel must submit its final report to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore

Petroleum Board (C-NOPB) and to the federal ministers of Environment and of

Natural Resources, and to the provincial ministers of Mines and Energy and

Environment and Labour no later than 270 days after it receives the application

from the C-NOPB.

Mr. Speaker, also the terms of reference for the panel are

here for members of the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this represents, another step

in the ongoing development of our oil and gas industry. Specifically I want to

refer to Dr. Leslie Harris and government's, I guess, in their wisdom appointing

Dr. Harris, a distinguished Newfoundlander, a Newfoundlander of tremendous

credibility. I think all members of the House and certainly on this side,

applaud government's efforts in appointing Dr. Harris because I know that the

information that will emanate from the process government has just announced

certainly will be exhaustive, conclusive and very, very to the point in terms of

what it recommends.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we, on this side of the

House, look forward to a similar process that will outline the potential

environmental effects, the possible employment and industrial benefits that may

accrue from Voisey's Bay and government appointing a similar process that will

allow all Newfoundlanders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - a chance to have a look at what this

Province will get in terms of the resources that we own and what we should

ultimately have.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Inco paid $4.3

billion to buy Voisey's Bay nickel company. This is a considerable expenditure

even for a company as large as Inco. Inco plans to reach full nickel production

of 270 million pounds per year by the year 2000 and the Premier knows that at

that rate the reserves will last for about twenty years. Now, will the Premier

ensure that such a long-term commitment is obtained not just from Voisey's Bay

but from Inco as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, it

is very doubtful that Inco will have a brand new smelter refinery complex which

will be constructed between now and the year 2000 up and running at full

capacity such that it would be producing 270 million pounds of product

instantly. It usually takes a few years for these refineries to bring their

capacity up to a full load, so the premise of the question is not quite correct.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government

whether or not we are committed to seeing that the smelter refinery complex, and

indeed the mine and all associated properties yield the greatest amount of

benefits for the greatest period of time, for the people of Labrador and of

Newfoundland, then I can give him that assurance, that it is exactly the

government's intention. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any

suggestion to the contrary, I would be interested in hearing about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My information came from a mining magazine, a statement by

Dr. Michael Sopko, I inform the Premier. Indonesia had the foresight to get Inco

into a long-term contract, I would like to inform the Premier. Now, since the

size of the reserve has not been determined, will the Premier ensure that Inco

commits to an aggressive exploration program over the next five years and

provision for continued exploration beyond that as long as sufficient new

reserves are determined?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

says: My information from a comment by Dr. Sopko is that Inco intends to produce

270 million pounds a year. Well, that has been known for months. There is

nothing new about that. The question is, Why is the Leader of the Opposition

trying to suggest, and trying to convey, the impression to the people of the

Province that he has some insider information, beyond the magazine he is now

reading, to suggest that Inco is going to sink $4.5 billion and then leave the

Province. It does not make sense, and frankly it does not contribute to the kind

of confident and positive environment that I think people should be feeling

about the development of this project.

If the Leader of the Opposition had any reason whatsoever to

suggest - and by the way, Inco should get new management if they are thinking

that way - that they want to sink $4.5 billion and leave town, then all I can

say is: Turn the ownership over to us and we will run it for another forty

years. This is too silly to really comment on seriously, unless the Leader of

the Opposition - I know he is a serious man - has some serious information to

put on the Table of the House beyond quoting old information from a mining

magazine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Twelve rigs were

involved in drilling at Voisey's Bay, and a barge is now on its way to take one

half of them back with exploration reduced to one-half of its current level.

Does the Premier know why this is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me, it

really is, that, you know, days before, hours before, we have yet another

milestone being met with respect to this project, an announcement on a facility,

a nickel smelter refinery facility that is going to be the largest of its kind

in the world - the largest - the largest annualized rate of production in the

world, the most modern, technologically advanced in the world, the most

environmentally clean in the world, with jobs that are high-tech and high-paying

for Labradorians and Newfoundlanders surrounding the whole development, it is

incredible to me that the Leader of the Opposition has gone out and found a

black cloud that he attempting to drag onto the floor of the House of Assembly,

and drive what should be a good news announcement into a whole era of suspicion

and worry and frustration and negativity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - you know, life is better than that in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Have a little faith, have a little confidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier permit the module construction of the

smelter and refinery to be done in Quebec or elsewhere, and then be shipped

here, or will he ensure that the work is done here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we intend to ensure that the

absolute maximum benefits are brought and the jobs are brought and revenues are

brought to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why when it comes to

maximizing benefits from our resources, I was surprised that even before I had a

chance to deliver my speech in Montreal, to the Montreal Rotary Club, on the

unfairness of the Churchill Falls power contract, that the Leader of the

Opposition had already released a press release condemning the speech before he

ever heard it.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear when someone is playing

politics rather than playing for the good of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The opportunity for secondary processing will only happen in

this Province if there is a long-term contract for continued exploration and

production. Has the Premier, or any of his colleagues, done any preliminary work

to identify secondary processing opportunities for the refined nickel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the House,

and I have to remind the people of the Province through the House, that last

winter during the election campaign the party of which the member opposite is

now the leader, and all of the members who ran under that slate said of, for

example, trans shipment: that it was a cover-up, the whole announcement that the

trans-shipment facility would be built in the Province; it was not going to be

done here; right after the election we would be announcing it for the Province

of Nova Scotia; you cannot trust the Liberals; you cannot trust the government.

Mr. Speaker, we are building a trans-shipment facility out in Placentia Bay!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And we are going to build the largest

nickel smelter refinery complex in the world in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We are going to maximize the revenues for

the people, and the Leader of the Opposition can gnarl and twist his teeth. He

can work himself into a knot. We are going to be happy soldiers doing it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health.

Is the Minister of Health aware that employees of the company

providing cleaning services for the Health Care Corporation have been recently

advised that there has been a change in the way that hospitals are to be

cleaned, and that indeed at St. Clare's Hospital they have been advised that

only certain parts of operating rooms are to be cleaned, which is certainly

different than it was in the past.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not intimately aware of how floors or walls are cleaned

at the hospitals in terms of where they start or where they finish, or in terms

of what type of chemicals they are using, or other ingredients or products they

are using to do it. If there has been a change in the timing of cleaning, or the

method of cleaning, or the mode of cleaning by the private contractors who are

doing the work, there must be a good reason for it. If the member has a specific

reason for asking that question, I would be happy to undertake, through the

Health Care Corporation, to get him specific information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To me it is a very serious issue when you find that people in

operating rooms, who work in operating rooms and who clean operating rooms, are

told that they must now clean them differently, and they are certainly not to

put the same time and effort into it as they have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why, or investigate

why, several rooms were not cleaned at the Health Sciences Centre on Monday, and

why employees are expected to do seven hours of work that in actual fact would

take twelve?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of

government, through the health care boards of the Province, and the Health Care

Corporation, is to ensure that we deliver the appropriate level of medical

service, that we provide a safe and clean environment in which health care can

be delivered. That is the mandate of the Health Care Corporation, and the method

by which they clean floors or clean walls, or do anything else in the health

care system, is a matter of operations that, I have to be very frank with you, I

do not get into on a daily basis, but if you want to put forward a proposition

or a specific question, if you want to know exactly how we clean the hospitals,

I will arrange to get you the information based on the questions that you are

specifically putting and if necessary, as was offered to me the other day, I am

prepared to take you on a tour of the hospitals to have a look-see while they

are doing the cleaning. I really do not know what the point of the question is,

quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: The bottom line is that we will have safe,

clean -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and good hospitals to work from.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that as Minister

of Health, if he does not care about the hospital cleaning and what I just told

him about the Health Sciences Centre and the garbage being left in the rooms and

the cleaning of the operating rooms, if you do not care, then the Premier of

this Province should remove you today, from the job that you have because you

should care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question please, he is on

a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Now, is the minister aware that some of these

employees were actually timed with a stopwatch on Monday to see how long it took

to clean parts of the Waterford Hospital and, does he believe that this type of

watch-dog behaviour is a good, healthy, working environment, and is good for the

employees who work there?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why the hon. minister - oh, the hon. member who

wishes he was a minister - would suggest that this government or this minister

does not care. We care and we demonstrate the care that we have for issues like

health care by putting budgets and resources and all of those sorts of things in

place to get the job done and to meet the need in as appropriate a fashion as is

realistic to expect, but to the question of whether or not the contractor who

does the cleaning at the Health Sciences or in any other hospital, uses a

stopwatch to find out time measurements as to how long it takes to do a job, I

really don't know that level of minute detail with respect to how they do

cleaning at the hospitals.

If he has something specific he wants to know, I will find

out for him but as to whether or not he wants me to pass a judgement on whether

or not the managers are managing the staff properly, I can only assume, Mr.

Speaker, that they are managing their staff in an appropriate manner. I have not

heard anything to the contrary.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he would confirm that the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering reducing the crab harvesting

quota in 1997 by as much as 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the management plan for crab

will be down some time in January, they have agreed to have it down before the

31st of January. There are some concerns expressed by signs that the regroupment

in crab off Bonavista is not at the level that it should be. No decision has

been made as yet as to the percentage, if any. Signs certainly indicate that

there will be some reduction in the amount of quota, but I have not had any

confirmation from the Minister of Fisheries on what the actual percentage will

be but we will have further discussions within the next several weeks and the

final decision will be announced in January.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would also like to ask the minister, if

he is aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is also looking at

reducing the harvesting capacity of crab in 1997 as much as 33 per cent in White

Bay?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I could give almost the

identical answer as I just gave on Bonavista Bay. The whole crab stocks are

under review by signs. There is some concern about the regroupment in different

areas around Newfoundland and Labrador. There is concern and rightly so,

conservation in all species must be utmost on everybody's mind in Ottawa and in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

If there is any danger of any level of regroupment to the

stocks, consideration will have to be given to the 1997 and future quotas. What

the actual percentage of reduction will be, I cannot give an answer on that

until the final decisions have been made, when the minister gets all the

recommendations in from the 1996 harvest, which he does not have at his disposal

yet, and the management plan, the final decision made, the management plan will

be then offered to the people of the Province and that will be some time in

January.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, despite declining groundfish stocks for many years,

processing licenses continued to be issued, resulting in a vast over-capacity in

this particular industry today. I ask the minister, is he planning on issuing

new crab processing licenses and will the health of crab stocks be a factor in

his decisions?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is listening to

a lot of rumours on the street, as he does on many, many other issues. What I

have said over and over again in this Province, is that the industry of the past

cannot go forward into the fisheries of the future with an industry like we had

in the past. We must do something about the problems that we have in the

processing sector. Unfortunately, every time you make a suggestion or anybody

makes a suggestion on how we should move forward, what type of processing

industry we have, the crab issue always clouds the area and the direction we are

talking about on a consulting basis, on a day-to-day basis, with the industry.

Ten to twelve years ago the quota in this Province was around

10,000 metric tons. Today we have 37,000 metric tons with three more processors

added for 1997. They have not yet begun to process but they will in 1997. Now,

in the year 1979, '80, '81 or whatever the years, the quotas were 10,000 tons

with the same numbers of processors. The question I am asking - no decisions, no

recommendations - the question I am asking is: How can we now process 80 million

pounds of crab within ten or twelve weeks, when in those days the same number of

processors processed crab, 10,000 metric tons, approximately forty weeks of the

year? There is something wrong with the industry and we are going to take a look

at it.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I saw the minister appear on

television the other night and he confused me more than ever when he talked

about issuing licenses and actually taking away licenses. Because in that

particular interview he talked about taking licenses back from processors that

are already involved in the industry. I ask the minister, yes or no, is he

looking to issue new licenses in the processing of crab or is he not? A simple

yes or no.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - it is not very

difficult to confuse him. He pays too much attention to what he listens to on

the news media and not enough to the facts of what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: First of all, I did not say - I have said

time and time again that this government will never walk into any community and

tell any community: Your fish plant is going to close. We will not play God with

people's lives. What we must do is change the industry, the fishing industry as

a whole, to improve, to bring more stability to the industry so it can be more

stable, to facilitate and substantiate the lives of the people who depend on it.

Does the member opposite agree with a plant, regardless of whether it is for

crab, caplin, herring or what species, operating for four or five weeks, and

then shut its doors and forget about the people? Does he agree that 220 plants

can operate on the amount of resources available? We have to take a serious look

at it and make it work and be stable for the community.

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

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

In a recent announcement some months ago, the Minister of

Environment and Labour announced an increase in the minimum wage, which

certainly every member in the House applauded, and I would say, most of the

working poor. Is the minister aware that the Workers' Compensation Commission is

now using this increase in the minimum wage to reduce the benefits for injured

workers? If he is, can he explain to the House what he intends, as minister, to

do about that?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member

for raising the question. Yes, I am aware. As a matter of fact, I have already

had a meeting with the Chairman of the Injured Workers Association and his

executive and we are going to be meeting with the Workers' Compensation

Commission in the next few days. We are going to be discussing the issue with

them. This decision has been made by the board, by the Commission, and we want

to have a dialogue with the board to see exactly what the rationale for the

decision was. Based on the discussions that we have with the Commission, we will

then decide whether or not that decision should stand. We are concerned about

it, we have had a meeting already and we look forward to seeing if we can

resolve the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would suggest to the minister that there

is more than dialogue required at the Workers' Compensation Commission. Just let

me explain that the Commission's current policy - so he is aware clearly - the

Commission's current policy states that the pre-injury earnings will be indexed

but the earning capacity estimates fixed at the prescribed minimum wage level.

So my question is this: The Commission has now informed injured workers, Mr.

Speaker, who have been deemed capable of earning the minimum wage, which has

been now set by government, and have been informing injured workers who have

been injured as far back as 1980, which is resulting, Mr. Speaker, in an annual

net loss of income of approximately $1,040 to injured workers in the Province.

When you meet with the Commission, Mr. Minister, will you do more than dialogue,

and give them clear ministerial direction that this must stop, and that those

benefits that are being clawed back from injured workers now must be put back in

their pockets immediately?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the

member that we have already had a meeting with the concerned individuals

representing injured workers, who, by the way, are doing an excellent job and

have done an excellent job over the past couple of years in representing the

interests of injured workers in the Province.

We are going to be meeting with the Commission to discuss

this issue. As a matter of fact, there has been a proposal put forward by

injured workers of the Province to help resolve the issue. We are going to look

at that very closely in the next few days. I expect I can report back to the

member and to the House of Assembly in the very near future on this issue. We

are concerned about it, we are going to be dealing with it. And, Mr. Speaker,

you know, we announced an increase in the minimum wage, and that was a good

piece of news for workers in this Province, and that was a good move to make. We

want to make sure that injured workers are not directly affected. We will be, as

I said, consulting with the Commission. In the next few days we will have a

formal response.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice. When will the

Minister of Justice eliminate the disparity between the RCMP and the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary in policing regarding the wearing of firearms?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question,

because I am hoping the hon. member will tell us what the position of his party

is on that very issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: In recent months the Newfoundland

Constabulary has asked government to review the issue, and we are doing that. In

the fullness of time we will. But I would like for the hon. member when he gets

up again to tell us exactly where his party stands on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Question Period, I believe, is

for the Opposition to ask the government the questions and get the answers from

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Our position will be known - you need not

worry, it will be known. You are the government, you are the ones who are in

power to make the decisions. When will the minister acknowledge that nothing in

the training of the respective police forces and nothing in the demographics of

this Province justifies tolerating the distinction that says RCMP officers can

wear sidearms and RNC officers cannot? Will he then tell us exactly what the

current justification is for permitting an RCMP officer to wear a sidearm in,

say, Arnold's Cove, Grand Falls, Windsor or Stephenville, while preventing an

RNC officer from wearing a sidearm in St. John's, Labrador West or Corner Brook?

What is your justification?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the RNC, as you know, is an

armed police force. They are trained in the use of firearms. They are highly

trained and over the years they have won some of the most prestigious awards in

North America. The only restriction is, they do not wear them as part of their

uniform as the RCMP do, and they have to get permission when they are responding

to a specific case.

It is an issue which we are considering. When we consider any

issue, we like to consult with everybody, and it would be very helpful to us -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will get leave.

MR. DECKER: - if the hon. member, and we are quite

prepared to give him leave, would tell us what is the position of his party.

Should we give the RNC the right to carry the sidearm or should we not? It would

certainly help us make our decision if we knew where the hon. member's party

stands.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, written requests

between January 1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) position?

MR. J. BYRNE: My personal position? I will tell you right

here and now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I can tell you my personal position.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Written requests between January 1 and

October 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you asking the questions or am I?

Written requests between January 1 and October 4 of this year

by the RNC officers to carry firearms were approved in 568 incidents. That is

from January to October. Doesn't the minister at all care that the current

discriminatory policy that lets only RCMP officers carry sidearms may be

actually jeopardizing the safety of the officers themselves and the general

public in areas served by the RNC?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would even go further and tell

the hon. member that all last winter the Newfoundland Constabulary in Labrador

City wore sidearms because they used to freeze up in the trunk of their car, and

no doubt this year they will do the same thing again. As I said we are

considering the issue and unless the hon. member is prepared to tell us where

his party stands I consider him to be disarmed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on

a final supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education that if

he cannot figure out my position from these questions he is not all that bright.

What exactly does the minister have to satisfy himself about

before he agrees to bring the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis

and I ask hon members to do the courteous thing and let him ask his question.

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

What exactly does the minister have to satisfy himself about

before he agrees to bring the two policies regarding sidearms for the RNC and

the RCMP in line with one another, and does he have any criteria in mind while

he considers the request of the RNC association to end the discrimination, and

what are those criteria?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should pick up

Hansard this afternoon or tomorrow and read it because he is asking the same

question in several different ways. We take a whole lot of things into

consideration but the most important thing we have to consider is if it is in

the best interest of the people the RNC are serving. We recognized the RNC as

being a very prestigious in North America, and the oldest police force in North

America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I attended their 125 Anniversary just a month

or so ago, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous police force. Now, we have to give them the

tools to do the job and if it is essential, if it is necessary for them to wear

a sidearm then we will make that decision, but we want to make sure that we have

looked at all sides of the issue. It would be extremely helpful, and I repeat

myself as the hon. member did, it would be extremely helpful if members on the

opposite side would tell us what is the position of their party. Should we arm

the RNC or should we not? A simple yes or no would certainly help us as we make

our decision.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

In previous weeks there were many talks concerning the EDGE

program, and while I would support an EDGE program that works it is clear that

the present program needs to be reinvented. I ask the minister, considering the

fact that this program is in the process of being reinvented, is this a good

time to revisit the possibility of eliminating the payroll tax?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the government is on record as

saying we want to remove the payroll tax at the earliest opportunity. The tax,

as you know, generates some $70 million. The problem is how do you fill in that

gap if you take away that tax. As the economy improves the Minister of Finance

will judge when is the appropriate time to look at the payroll tax.

With respect to the harmonization, we have instructed the

board, which is a public private sector board, to review all of the EDGE program

in light of the HST Atlantic Advantage, the Atlantic Advantage. We will review

all of that. We have to find something to backfill with respect to the RST

exemption. A couple of things that are being looked at are training programs in

consultation with the federal government, new marketing and development programs

to get out products out on the world stage, those kind of things, and when they

are ready to report to me I will report to Cabinet, and through Cabinet through

the House and to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table two Orders in Council to meet the

requirements of

section 26(4) of the Financial Administration Act. These relate

to pre-commitments for spending in our next fiscal year.

The first is an Order in Council 96-851 which authorizes the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation to enter into a contract for

the construction of the exterior shell of the James Paton Memorial Hospital,

Gander, with a funding allocation of $2 million to be provided in the 1997-1998

estimates.

The second is Order in Council 96-829, which authorizes the

same department, that is Works, Services and Transportation, to enter into a

contract for the upgrading and pavement of the Conne River Road, with a funding

allocation of $1.5 million to be provided in the 1997-1998 estimates under a new

$3 million federal-provincial cost-shared agreement which will be paid 100 per

cent by the federal government. It is expected that $1.5 million will also be

expended during the current fiscal year. I have six copies of those for tabling.

Secondly, I also wish to table the audited financial

statements of the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation for the year

ended March 31 1996. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report

(inaudible) the Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency for the period April 1 1995

to March 31 1996, including the financial statements for the Newfoundland crop

insurance fund and the report of the provincial auditor.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is Wednesday and it is Private Members'

Day. I call on the hon. Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in

support of the resolution that I brought to the House yesterday. I want to say

that this is not an issue, this is a cause, a cause for all of us who represent

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador no matter where you are from.

I grew up in Labrador. I saw for my own eyes the building of

Churchill Falls, the building of the mines in Labrador West. I saw iron ore

being taken from Wabush and pelletized at Pointe Noire. I saw a transmission

line built from CF(

L) Co. in Churchill Falls go to the Quebec border, and I call

that a corridor of shame, because that is what it is. That is what it has come

to be.

This particular contract is synonymous with humilation. We

have friends in our neighbouring province, in the Province of Quebec, who say to

each of us and all of us who live in this country that: We want to break the

contract called Canada because we feel a great deal of humiliation. We want to

change the contract called CF(L)Co. because of humiliation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, through the years Newfoundland

and Labrador has tried many times to change this inequity, this terrible

contract, that has taken from us the ability to be independent, from having to

reach out to Ottawa all the time looking for the kind of support that we need to

create a sound economy and a society that each of us can be proud of.

In 1974 this Province bought out BRINCO. From 1973 to 1976

Quebec and Newfoundland carried out negotiations on the development of Lower

Churchill. It failed. In 1978 and 1980 negotiations resumed on the Muskrat Falls

proposal. Again, failure. In the 1980s we attempted to recall 800 megawatts of

power. Hydro Quebec refused. The Supreme Court decided against Newfoundland and

Labrador in 1988. The water reversions act: Again we tried to change the

contract and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against us.

The last proposal that I'm aware of is the one that would

have caused us to extend a tax-free holiday to Hydro Quebec from the year 2016

to the year 2041. We simply cannot, as a Province, ever, ever give Hydro Quebec

an extension of that tax holiday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue to the House, through

you. At VOCM, I think the Leader of the Opposition was probably misquoted. I

hope he was. He said this to the interviewer: It does not make sense to threaten

someone who holds all the cards.

Mr. Speaker, I say to each of you: Hydro Quebec, or the

Province of Quebec, does not hold all the cards. Churchill Falls is in Labrador.

Labrador is in this Province. We own that resource. That is ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about how we got

to this point. Who dictated the terms of the Churchill Falls agreement? Hydro

Quebec dictated the terms of that agreement. Could power be sold to anyone

except Hydro Quebec? The answer to that is, no. Could power have been

transmitted across the Hydro Quebec grid? Again, the answer was, no. Could a

dedicated transmission line be built across Quebec? The answer again was, no.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a pipeline that brings gas, there is a pipeline that

brings oil, across other provinces to source Quebec, to cause them to have a

flow of energy for their own purposes. Yet, when this Province stood on their

feet and said: Let us put a transmission line across your Province, the answer

was: No, you must sell it to us at the border.

Mr. Speaker, circumstances have changed. There was a good

deal for Quebec in the 1960s based on their level of risk and their investment.

Since the energy crisis, a good business deal now has turned to an

unconscionable windfall profit for the other partner in this particular

agreement. Since 1976 Quebec has averaged some $600 million per year in

benefits. During the same period, we received some $23 million a year in profit.

Just let me tell you, from the beginning of that contract to

the year 2041 Hydro Quebec will have gotten $56 billion. That is how much they

would get.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. CANNING: Fifty-six billion, and we would lose $340

million through CF(L)Co. That is unconscionable. Nobody could stand on their

feet anywhere in the Western Hemisphere and say that one partner should earn $56

billion and the other partner should lose $340 million. Who should be able to

say that and have any face about them? Nobody should be able to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, there are many commentaries

across the whole of our country. The Premier has, and the government has,

embarked on a mission across this country to expose this inequity for what it

is. The first part of problem solving is defining the problem. The government

has taken it upon themselves to define the problem. They have gone from St.

John's to Vancouver to define the problem, to tell our fellow Canadians how bad

this deal is, how contrary to decency this particular deal is, how terrible it

is to us.

We look at the Labrador situation, and we look at the abject

poverty on the North Coast, the lack of transportation infrastructure throughout

Labrador down along the coast. We could build and pave a highway from Labrador

West to Red Bay in one year with the cash flowing out of Churchill Falls. That

is why I call that a corridor of shame.

PREMIER TOBIN: We could retire the debt in ten years.

MR. CANNING: We could retire the debt in ten years - that

is quite correct, Mr. Premier.

The fact of the matter is that all of us, each of us who has

a public responsibility in this Province, have to pull together and tell

Canadians, tell Quebec, tell Hydro Quebec, that this deal is improper and ought

to be changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, how is it that we were trapped

into this deal? We were trapped by what some would call the tragedy of

geography. We simply had to give our wealth at the border.

Now, about 150 miles from the Labrador border into Quebec

there lies a majestic dam, the biggest arch and buttressed dam in the world

today. If Newfoundland and Labrador were getting the kinds of profits from

Mannick 5 that they are getting from Churchill Falls, I can assure you that the

Government of Quebec, the politicians of Quebec, Hydro Quebec would make sure

that that were changed. They would not accept it at all. There is nobody could

tell me that if we were taking from Mannick 5 as they are taking from Churchill

Falls that anybody would find that acceptable. The fact of the matter is they

would not, and it would be changed, and changed quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to stand and

endorse this resolution. This is a significant step in the path of redressing an

historic wrong. Each of us should feel that we need to put each shoulder to the

wheel and push forward and make sure that Quebec understands that there is no

option only changing that contract.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members across the House to join with us

to say, That which you have began, that which you are undertaking, is the right

way to go. This is the proper step. We will tell the people across Canada how

bad this deal is, how terrible it is. We will have to get Hydro Quebec back to

the table, but they are not going to come back to the table with a twenty-five

year tax gift, I can guarantee you that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to support this

resolution, to stand and speak on behalf of the people of this Province. Whether

you live in Nain or Red Bay, Goose Bay or Labrador West, St. Anthony or Baie

Verte, St. John's or Placentia, you need to support the will of this government

to seek changes in that contract so we do not have to go begging cap-in-hand all

the time to Ottawa for help. We have our own resources. The biggest mistruth in

this Province is that we are a have-not Province. That is not true. We are a

have Province who have not made a good deal out of all those things we have had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: But I want to say in concluding, Mr.

Speaker, that you have seen the last Churchill Falls. There will be no more

Churchill Falls agreements.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make my comments regarding the Churchill

Falls deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. In fact, I am very strongly

opposed to an atrocious deal that was made between this Province or between

CF(

L) Co and Hydro Quebec. I think it is an unacceptable deal. That is why it is

important that we approach it in the most realistic way of trying to get a

resolution to this. I support getting it changed. I support getting revenues

that is going to make CF(

L) Co viable, that is going to fit our monies. We would

be able to get monies back to our Province to assist us in maintaining

facilities around this Province. I do not condone the methods of achieving this

deal. I do not condone methods of grandstanding and running around the country

to do it. I believe strongly in sitting down and dealing with the people with

whom we have the contract and trying to strike a deal to change it.

I am committed to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

have worked here in Newfoundland and Labrador all my life, employed up to 200

people working here, invested considerable dollars into this Province

personally. I am going to stay here and live in Newfoundland and Labrador and I

am committed to it. I do not accept -

I read the history of Churchill Falls, by Philip Smith, a

very interesting book, interesting reading for anybody who will go back and read

that book. It is a very lengthy, detailed description of what happened back

during the history of Churchill Falls. There are different theories and views

people will put forward, but whatever the case may be, a deal was signed that

the public were not made aware of. On the ongoing stages, had there been public

consultation, public input on these deals - that is why I make the parallel now

to Inco and other areas,that we need to have experts in the field. We need to

have mining experts, we need to have tax experts, we need to have legal

opinions, we need to have consultation. I hope the government is consulting the

best people available when we do a comparison on Voisey's Bay, because the

people of this Province deserve the best advice. Government then has an

obligation to make a decision based upon what those experts will tell us.

It is difficult as an opposition when we are not told

anything. We were told harmonization was not an issue, as an example, in the

election campaign. A memorandum of understanding was signed. There was no public

presentation for discussion until the deal was signed in secret, and the Premier

was not even in the Province at the time. Had there been something positive

there, we would have had a major news conference to that effect.

So we just want an opportunity to have public input, for us

to have input and suggestions into what is happening. If there are positive

things, I will support it. I supported Education Reform and the changing of Term

17 because I believe it is best for the young men and women who are going

through the school system in this Province, and I say so today whether it is

popular or whether it is not in my district. I stated it and I will stand on

that. It has never posed a problem for me what is publicly acceptable. There are

times when we stand on basic principles and integrity out there, and let the

chips fall where they may. I am not dependent on politics for a future in

Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you. I was not in the past. I shaped my

own future in a way, and I am not going to follow the sway of opinion just

because everybody else is going in that direction.

I feel the Premier, by taking the approach he has - I cannot

endorse getting on the airwaves in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and those areas

and condemning and attacking the people in Quebec. It is just not my way of

getting a change. I want a change every bit as much as the Premier wants it and

I want to see benefits.

To talk about Labrador: Just very recently, I might add, in

the House of Commons - the federal government has been and could have been a

major player in this issue. On March 15, 1996 in the House of Commons, this

resolution was put to the House of Commons, that this House condemned the

government for its neglect of Labrador and for refusing to resolve the injustice

of the Churchill Falls Hydro Contract, thus perpetuating interprovincial trade

barriers and denying the residents of Labrador the right to enjoy the benefits

of their own natural resources. That resolution was put to the House of Commons

and was defeated, and I will tell you some of the people who voted against that.

They were, George Baker, Bonnie Hickey, Lawrence O'Brien, Jean Payne, Fred

Mifflin and Roger Simmons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheila Copps.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and Sheila Copps, supporter of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the people who voted against giving Labrador

its rightful amount, former colleagues, close friends, accomplices and cousins

in Ottawa of the Premier of the Province, and they stood and voted against it.

Who are the true friends in Newfoundland and Labrador? The true friends are

people who stand up and fight.

They complained about Unemployment Insurance and when it came

to the vote, not one Newfoundland MP stood up to be counted when the vote came

in the House of Commons. That is not what I call showing true patriotism and

belief in Newfoundland and Labrador. I find that is not the approach to use.

We have to be realistic. There is a long, long history of

Churchill Falls. There was one underlying theme in the history of Churchill

Falls, as I read that book, one thing that jumped out at me in almost every part

as I read through that book, and that is: Quebec would seem to want to change

that contract only under one condition. That is what I gathered from reading it,

and that condition is a boundary change. It seemed to me that that jumped out

when Ren Lvesque was National Resource minister. He was a key player in the

history of discussions on this. I am convinced that Hydro Quebec and the Quebec

Government will put dollars in the coffers to keep CF(L)Co viable.

In fact, in 1991 - I will just use one example - in the 1991

deal, the opportunity there, they offered under the winter availability section,

$6.2 billion. Whether we get it by changing the basic contract - I will get the

same dollars from side contracts - is not the highly relevant issue. The

relevant issue -

MR. GRIMES: So, you are going to vote against this

motion?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I am going to do very

shortly,

I say to the Minister of Education. There will be no doubt

where I am to, I can tell you. You will find that very clearly.

I would say there are a lot of basic concerns and there are a

lot of particular aspects.

MR. GRIMES: Are you going to vote against it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you in due course if I am going

to support this or not. Do not worry! I will be here, I say to the minister.

There has been an evolution in this contract and discussions.

When you are offered $6.2 billion for winter availability - just think for a

moment, from now until the year 204l we are going to get, under the current

contract, which I say is atrocious, I agree it is atrocious, we are only going

to get $3 billion. I think that is despicable, I think it is unacceptable, and I

want to see -

PREMIER TOBIN: But, you do not think we should take about

it?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I said. The Premier

does not seem to listen very well. He spends too much time talking and not

listening. Here is what I am saying. They are willing to give double, under

winter availability, what we are going to get under the entire contract. Aren't

billions of dollars in CF(

L) Co and into this Province dollars? Does it matter

during the live of that contract? Let us get the revenues into CF(

L) Co, make it

viable to maintain its operation, to give a return to this Province which we

deserve, and then we have the opportunity. That power is going to be there for

many years to come for future generations of this Province, and I do not

advocate giving one particular inch to Quebec. We need a better deal. If we can

get through a legal contract enough inside agreements that are going to be

double what we are getting now, then we hold all the trump cards at the end of

that, and that is the important thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: If we give what? What are we supposed to

give for that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Allowing during peak periods the winter

availability that they need, and that they want, as they have been doing. There

are numerous other aspects of discussion on Churchill Falls, numerous other

aspects.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else do they want for that?

MR. SULLIVAN: There are two different theories. I will

not get into debating why a 1991 deal wasn't signed because the former Premier

and the current Minister of Mines and Energy gave two different reasons. There

was a lot of back-patting. The minister was in the Cabinet and he knows: What a

great deal we have here! He sat there in that Cabinet, if you go back - other

people thought it was a great deal at the time, but it did not go through

because the Premier did not want it. The same ministers who sat in Cabinet and

are there today thought it was a great deal then, but now they don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else did Hydro Quebec want for it?

What was the rest of the deal?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, there are numerous

different aspects.

When you have people here representing our Province who are

not going to support a resolution on Newfoundland and Labrador,I think it is

very sad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speaking of resolutions, what are you

going to do?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I am going to do.

MR. TULK: Move an amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might move an amendment, I just might.

Are there any amendments there that I can move? Oh, good idea! I say, you have

to stop putting ideas in my head because I am dangerous enough without putting

them there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody has to put them there.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right.

MR. GRIMES: You will get no chance. You are going to have

to vote against it. There are no amendments going through, I can guarantee you

that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No problem. Don't you worry. We will do

what is appropriate I say to the minister. I have not sat on the fence before, I

say to the minister. That is more than I can say about him, and more than I can

say about the Premier. I hear he goes and gets his skates sharpened every single

day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Private

Member's Resolution now before the House of Assembly be ended by deleting the

words, `the government in its efforts to change', and substitute the words `a

change to therefore'. Just to make sure it is quite clear I will read it in its

entirety now with the amendment there to make it clear. It states that the

Private Member's Resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what you are doing?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, certainly.

The amended resolution would now read - here is the wording:

Therefore

be it resolved that this Honourable House fully endorse and support a

change to this unconscionable contract to maximize the financial benefits

accruing from this Labrador resource in the Labrador region of our Province.

Here is what we don't support. We don't support efforts when

we haven't seen a plan. What is what we are voting for. In any resolution, if

the Premier of this Province or the mover or anybody is prepared to stand and

indicate what specific effort you want us to support, we will clearly tell you

immediately whether we support it or not. How can you support a blank cheque,

support it without any specifics in a resolution? It would be irresponsible of

us to support something that is general and vague, without specifics. We support

the intent, we support a change to it, and we support maximizing the benefits

for Labrador. We support that. We don't have any problems in supporting it.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: There has been an amendment moved, and I would

suggest that since he has moved the amendment that the hon. gentleman not

continue to tell us that he doesn't support the Premier putting out our case to

the people of Canada; that instead of that, he wait until the Speaker has ruled

whether indeed the amendment is in order, and then he might speak to the amended

resolution. He can't make the amendment and then go on making his speech. He has

to slow down. It is pathetic enough what he is doing over there, let alone

abusing the rules of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm indicating that I moved an amendment.

It is seconded by the Opposition House Leader. It is incumbent certainly, I

suggest, upon the Chair if it is ruled out of order. Unless a ruling is made to

rule it out of order, I make an assumption it is in order. I will certainly have

to give the Speaker an opportunity to pass that judgement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To clarify the situation, the hon. member was proposing an

amendment but I hadn't heard an amendment because there was no seconder. The

hon. member was going on continuing the debate. The Chair would like to see the

proposed amendment so the Chair can rule on it, and then we will continue with

the debate.

We will take a couple of minutes break.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready? Are the House Leaders ready? Okay.

The Chair has examined the amendment and finds that the

amendment is in order according to our Standing Order 36. The amendment is in

order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Whose time is up, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe leave for a minute or two just to

finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day. Members have

fifteen minutes to speak in -

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand. That is certainly why I

wouldn't want to abuse the time. I will do it in less than two minutes if

possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave. Okay. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he have leave or what, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up. The Chair has

asked if the member had leave. The member doesn't have leave.

I recognize the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Before we begin, the Chair would like the clarify who

seconded the motion.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - as put forth by the Member for Labrador

West, and I want to tell you that I do so because I see this as an opportunity

for this House, in a unified manner, to send a message, a clear and full and

unanimous message -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - that the people of Newfoundland are unified

in their desire to insist that this contract be changed.

I, like all members in this House, have been steeped in the

mythology of Newfoundland history, and that mythology is as follows: That we are

a people who are rich in resources; that we are a wealthy Province which has had

the resources of the sea, and the resources of the land, and the resources of

the forests, and the resources of the mines.

Contrary to that, Mr. Speaker, I looked around, as a child,

at my own family, at my own neighbours, and I look around now at our Province,

and I see children who are going to school hungry. I see a Province with

statistics that keep being repeated in this House, about how we have the highest

unemployment rate, the highest level of illiteracy, and the litany of other

problems when we talk of the difficulties that we have. I saw that in my youth.

I saw that as a young adult, as a student, and I was always concerned, like

everybody else, I should think, in this House, that there was something wrong,

that we were not maximizing the resources, not only of our people but of our

land, of our water power, of our sea, for the benefit of the people of this

Province.

Nothing stands more starkly - except, perhaps, for the

fishery that has been destroyed by mismanagement - in the way of the mythology

of wealth of resources and the actual reality of the people of this Province, as

the Churchill Falls contract.

I want to remind the Leader of the Official Opposition that

when the Churchill Falls contract was put to this House back in 1969, it was

supported unanimously. It was supported unanimously by the Progressive

Conservatives of the day as well as the Liberals of the day. So the mistake that

was made was not a partisan mistake of the Liberals or of the Tories. This House

made a mistake in endorsing a contract that they were party to, but it was

mainly a deal done by BRINCO, a foreign company, foreign capital, with Quebec

Hydro, to suit their particular purposes, not primarily first and foremost the

purposes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was not their aim.

Their aim was to take on this project to make money to maximize their return on

their capital. They saw they could do that with the contract that was there, and

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador went along with it.

I think the message that the Premier is trying to get out,

and I am not saying that I agree with every word the Premier said on this topic

- don't get me wrong - but I am not going to sit here and criticize the effort

of a government that is trying to change it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I am more interested in criticizing the

government for what they are not doing, not for what they are doing. I will

stand here and criticize them for not properly looking after the feeding of the

children of this Province through a full-fledged School Lunch Program. I will

stand here and criticize them for not looking after people on social assistance.

I will stand here and criticize them for not doing the kinds of things they

should be doing to create jobs for everyone in this Province who needs one. But

I will not stand here and criticize government for taking on a task that needs

to be taken on, on behalf of all of the people of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: So if we have an opportunity here today to

send, along with the government, the feelings of all the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador that this contract has to be changed, and if the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is the one who is in the position to seek those

changes, then I think we have to not sit around here and look for petty reasons

to find wording to change the motion and show that we can vote against it or for

it because of various wordings. I do not think this is necessarily a wording

that says we must praise the government for all of its efforts but we are

supporting the efforts to change this contract. The efforts are being made by

the government. Perhaps we could all be more involved in what the details of it

are and I think that is a good suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition but

the motion itself is a motion that requires, I think, the support of every

member of this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion which has been put

forward by the Member for Labrador West for consideration by all members of the

House. May I say to the Member for Labrador West that I think he reflects well

the strong feeling of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to stay and show me

the same courtesy I showed him during the course of his remarks.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a meeting planned. I certainly -

MR. TULK: Well, he has one, too. You could stay and

listen (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, then I think we know

the Leader of the Opposition's interest, then, if it is to leave in the middle

of a debate when he has moved a motion, an amendment, himself. I want to say to

the Leader of the Opposition that I think he should reflect upon the work of the

Member for Labrador West and the motives of the Member for Labrador West in

putting down this motion. This is a motion that reflects fairly and accurately,

without exaggeration, the circumstance that currently captures the reality of

the Churchill Falls power contract. He has given a presentation to the House

which accurately and properly reflects the disparity in the contract. It sets

forth a course of action. It does not call for partisan support of a political

party or partisan support of the government, but merely support of the

government in its efforts only insofar as those efforts are directed at renewing

this contract and giving a fair return of the benefit of the contract to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the Member for Labrador West

has set out in his motion. I think it is something that every single member of

the Legislature ought to be able to support without playing petty partisan games

in the Chamber today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, let me

acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Jack Harris, the Leader of the NDP, in

standing in his place today and putting the good of Newfoundland and Labrador

before political consideration in his remarks to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition that leadership is not defined by the size of the caucus that sits

around you. Leadership is not defined by the title attached to your name.

Leadership is not defined by the size of your office or the perks or privileges

assigned to you. Leadership does not come with the title Leader of the

Opposition or for that matter, Premier of the Province. Leadership is defined by

those who stand when the moment is right and do the right thing in the interest

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And, Mr. Speaker, I salute the Leader of

the NDP for showing leadership today in this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader

of the Opposition and I have to say to his colleagues who sustain him in that

role, that I understand the nature of Opposition. I had been a vigorous member

of the Opposition. I understand the role is to oppose and I understand the role

is to criticize and I understand the role is to offer alternatives. I understand

all that. But I also understood that when the cause was important to the

country, there came a time to stand as one and be heard in the interest of the

country as a whole, or in this case, in the interest of the Province as a whole.

I want to tell members opposite that I felt personally

wounded, more to the point, I was surprised - perhaps I should not have been;

perhaps I will never be again - but I was surprised the day I walked into a

ballroom in the city of Montreal to address a business audience of anglophones,

business leaders who were there to hear Newfoundland's case on the Churchill

Falls contract, and on the way in, before I even had a chance to make a

presentation, reporters were asking me to respond to the criticisms of the

Leader of the Opposition who critiqued my speech and condemned it before I even

gave it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that kind of action will not

catch me by surprise again. But I want to confess something. It took something

out of me. I was surprised. Perhaps I was naive. I expected at least to be

allowed to state the case of the government on behalf of the people of the

Province. I expected at least our historic circumstance to be considered prior

to our mission being condemned by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker,

yes, it disappoints me, and it pains me, and I will go further, it undermines

the Province. It undermines our position.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

PREMIER TOBIN: It does! I would like to be able to stand

and say it makes no difference, who cares what the Leader of the Opposition is

saying, but it undermines us when, as a Province, on something as fundamental as

Churchill Falls, one of the major historical parties, at least the Leader of

that party, consistently undermines the case.

A few weeks ago I was in Placentia. And I think every member

of the House can relate to this, because we have no monopoly on empathy for our

young people on one side of the House versus another. The Leader of the NDP

talked about ensuring that young people have a full meal in their bellies when

they go to school every day. We all subscribe to that, we all want that, and we

all have to seek to do more. But I was standing in front of representatives of

fifty-two high schools in Placentia at their annual leadership conference, all

young people, fifteen-, sixteen-, seventeen-years-old. I walked in prepared to

give a pep speech, we have all done that, to a group of young people. I was

going to pump them up and try to make them feel better and more confident about

their Province because I assumed that they needed to be pumped up and made to

feel more confident.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, they pumped me up. They made me

feel more confident. Some of the brightest and the best - great confidence in

their Province, great confidence in our future, great confidence in their own

personal ability to make a difference, positive and constructive attitude; and

it struck me as I looked out on this crowd of young people, all fifteen- or

sixteen-years-old - not one of them was even born when the Churchill Falls

contract was negotiated - that all would complete their education, live their

working lives, and many would be retired and grandparents by the time the

current contract expired. I really felt, looking out upon that room, 400 or 500

young people, that here was a generation who if nothing changed would have their

heritage stolen from them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they did not negotiate the contract. Our

sons and daughters did not negotiate that contract. Our sons and daughters did

not bargain to have their circumstance in Canada and their potential in Canada

stolen from them before they ever came into the planet Earth. They did not

bargain to see decades go by, an entire lifetime go by, before there could be

any renewal of this contract. And, Mr. Speaker, it is up to every single member

of this House to do everything in our power to set aside our partisan

differences and to work for the future of those young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

says we could have had a deal in 1991. The Leader of the Opposition says: What

difference does it make? I mean, the Leader of the Opposition from henceforth

should be known as the hon. member for Hydro Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't be ridiculous!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he is.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber,

advocating a position. Let me tell you what position is being advocated: that

the government of 1991, and I do not care what persuasion that government was,

because I applaud the efforts of Premier Peckford when he was here to try to

renegotiate that contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I applaud the efforts of Premier Moores

when he was here to try to renegotiate that contract, and I applaud the efforts

of Premier Wells to do exactly the same.

Mr. Speaker, what was the deal in 1991? The deal was, that if

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would extend the contract from the

year 2016, the protection of the contract, the full protection against taxation,

would extend by twenty-five more years, the most draconian part of this

contract, the protection for Hydro Quebec, then Hydro Quebec would give us a few

dollars. The Leader of the Opposition says it would give us twice as much as we

are getting now. Well, twice as much as nothing is still nothing, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is that the position of the

Leader of the Opposition, to extend the contract protection for twenty-five more

years? Mr. Speaker, I appeal - and there is no election in this Province, there

will be no election before the year 2000, we all have work to do in the

meantime, we all have a role to play and a responsibility to undertake in the

meantime - but I appeal to all members of this House on this issue, not to

forego our responsibility to ask questions, not to forego our responsibility to

criticize, not to forego the opportunity when it is apparent and necessary to

offer critique. No, I do not ask the Opposition to do that, but I ask us to

approach it with balance, to approach this issue with seriousness, and I ask all

of us to put the Province, in this regard, first, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am glad today to rise and speak on this particular motion

and amendment and, in fact, to speak on this particular issue, not just the

amendment or the motion put forward. And I say, when I hear the Member for

Labrador West put forward some of the thoughts about Churchill Falls, he said it

quite well, and I am going to say this: That the issue of Churchill Falls has

struck each and every one of us in the same way and just as deeply. The people

in this Province have for years - by my generation and the generation coming

behind me, a lot of the people who sit in this very House, Churchill Falls will

be talked about over and over, putting blame on who was responsible. The Leader

of the NDP talks about the different governments in the House, but the bottom

line is, it was a big, big mistake for this Province, and our children and the

future children of this Province will now be paying those debts because of a

major blunder in this Province.

There is nobody, from the Premier to every single member in

this House, to this hon. member, any hon. member here, the Pages who sit in this

House, the Speaker, anybody, who feels that we never got a bad, bad deal out of

Quebec. So don't anybody think, in this Province, throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, that anybody feels differently about it and has any less passion about

this particular issue than any Newfoundlander in this Province. And that is what

bothers me a little bit when we do a show on it all, Mr. Speaker, that is what

we are afraid of, the show.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the word that we had the problem with - and

it is not the issue that we have the problem with - it is the wording of the

amendment. Right now, we are talking about the `efforts'. The only word we

changed was the word `efforts', because we do not know what the efforts are.

We sat there - and the popular thing, by the way - you talk

about partisan politics, Mr. Speaker. You know, the easy, popular thing for all

of us to do today was to come out - and the Premier has a lot of support on this

from across the country. The easy thing for the Opposition to do today, which

the Leader of the NDP did, was to support it. The Premier has a big roll going,

there is a big bandwagon going; let's support it. It would have been easy for me

to stand here today and do that, but there is a reason why we did not do it, and

I am going to put it out during the fifteen minutes that I have.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: I know it is not the intention, or I do not

believe it is the intention, of the hon. gentleman, the Member for Baie Verte,

to mislead this House, but he just did, without knowing it, I suspect. He says

the only thing with which they had a problem here was the word `efforts'. I ask

him why it is that the amended resolution has cut out the words, `the

government, in its efforts'. In other words, his leader cut out - I will read

the resolutions, I tell the hon. gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: It is a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will listen to the arguments. If the Chair cannot

listen to the arguments it cannot determine whether or not it is a point of

order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman just said that

the only word they had a problem with was the word `efforts'. Yet, the amended

resolution as put forward by his leader has struck out the words, `support the

government in its efforts', and put in place of it, `support a change'.

Mr. Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. The truth of the

matter is that they are not supporting the government in its efforts to get the

changes that are required.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear what the hon. the

Member for Baie Verte said. I think this is just an argument amongst two hon.

members.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of disagreement.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of disagreement. I do not think

there is a point of order as such.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think it is just a point of

disagreement.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be very serious

about this issue. I may have just used the word `efforts' but, whether there are

three or four word together, the bottom line I am trying to get at is that the

change we had was to do with the efforts of government to date, specifically the

efforts of the Premier. That is the reason for the change, and I want to go on

to try to explain that. I am sorry if I just used the one word. The intention is

the method and the manner of what he is doing, which all rolls into the idea of

the efforts of the government to date. That should be clear enough. I just want

to make the point, and I want to be able to do that without being interrupted

again.

We talked about Churchill Falls, of course, and I talked

about the passion for it. The Premier, by the way - an aside - sat in the House

of Commons, was there for sixteen years, and decides, when he comes back to this

Province after sixteen years, that he just noticed it, like it never happened

before. The Premier did have a chance, in his previous portfolio as a Member of

the House of Commons, to raise the issue. He had a chance to raise that issue.

As a matter of fact, while he is going across the country persuading people, in

all seriousness, I say to the House Leader, why did he not stop and talk to the

Prime Minister, the man who would have the most influence on this particular

deal? The man who could talk to Quebec? What did the Prime Minister say, his

colleague, his friend? A contract is a contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) weak.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not weak at all; it is a fact.

MR. GRIMES: Sit down and relax, boy. You are after

embarrassing yourself to tears (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I allowed the Premier and the

other people to speak, and I would hope that the Minister of Education will

allow me to make the same points.

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

MR. SHELLEY: It is a very serious issue. The first point

is that I do not need the Premier, and neither should any member in this House,

to tell us how passionate we are about this issue, and what a bad deal it is,

and I want that deal changed, Mr. Speaker.

The point in the amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: But you will not vote (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What I am saying is that I would vote for

the amendment to it, and the only thing that the Premier would have to do in the

House is give us some idea of what the efforts - the efforts of the past we have

seen. He has had three meetings across the country, in Toronto with a business

group, in Vancouver another group, and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has requested silence, I guess, and the hon.

member, under the rules of the House, has the right to be heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I was hoping I could have the same response,

Mr. Speaker. It is a very personal and very emotional issue, this Churchill

Falls deal. I am trying to make the point, Mr. Speaker.

The efforts of the past are questionable. The efforts of the

past - if I want to make a political issue and support it and get all the

popularity that the Premier is getting, I say to the Government House Leader.

The point is, the three meetings of the past at the Empire Club in Montreal and

the so-called meeting in Toronto, we have the question how effective that was.

Are we closer to the deal now, Mr. Speaker? Are we closer to correcting the deal

of Churchill Falls because of the past efforts of the Premier? I am not saying

yes or no. I ask hon. members: Are we closer, have we gotten closer to

correcting the deal because of the three meetings they had across the country?

Mr. Speaker, the bigger question and the second part of the concern I have - so

that is one, whether the past meetings and the route that the Premier has taken

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will say to the Government House Leader, I

only have fifteen minutes, if he wants to get up on this issue he should get up

and make his points. I let the Premier say everything he wanted to say and also

the Leader of the NDP.

So one point being again - I have to retract that because

Skip, you keep interrupting - the efforts of the past are questionable, whether

they were effective and we are actually closer to a deal with Churchill Falls.

The second

part is even moreso, Mr. Speaker, and why the amendment was put

there. What is the Premier planning to do? Is he going to come to this House and

say I am going to do a twenty-city tour of speaking? Is he going to say I am

going to have a rally in Montreal? What is he going to say? Mr. Speaker, if I

thought it was something that we could support, I would go with the Premier, I

say to you, Mr. Speaker. I would go with the Premier if I thought it would be

effective and I would pay my own way there. That is what I would do.

All we are doing is questioning what the efforts of the past

have done and what is the Premier planning? If the Premier will lay in front of

us what his plans are when he talks about his `efforts', then he may have

support. But we cannot give a blank cheque to this Premier to say sit here

today, and I hope they believe in - if he remembers this in five months from now

when he comes back and says, I am going to do a twenty-city tour of Canada - and

give him a blank cheque! So, is it going to work?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next question we have to ask is - let

us take a scenario, Mr. Speaker: the Premier goes across the country and gets

the entire country supporting him - and by the way, I do not think the Premier

has to go across the country to get the support of Canada, he has it. He can do

it from his fax machine. He can do by a phone call. He has it. I got the

support. I have talked to people in the country, too, who said they have the

support. Is there anybody questioning that we do not have the support of Canada

on this deal, that it is a bad deal? Pick up the phone anywhere in this country

and call them and ask them if they support Newfoundland on this deal.

The Member for Harbour Main, unless he is going to stand in

his place and finally say something after being here for three years, he should

be quiet, because he is saying nothing.

So, Mr. Speaker, the point is, we are not questioning whether

the Premier is going to get the support of Canadians - we know he will, and

power to him, but does he have to do all of these carte blanc across the

country, the Empire Club in Toronto and so on? Is it not more effective, Mr.

Speaker, to get the proper meetings in place for people in Quebec and get the

support out of Quebec? Can you imagine going to Vancouver? Who in Vancouver,

British Columbia is not going to support the Premier when he says Newfoundland

got such a bad deal? Who is not going to support him, Mr. Speaker? Where were

the Liberal MPs in the House on March 15? Where were the Liberal MPs in the

House of Commons on March 15 when he talked about the neglect of Labrador, I say

to the Member for Labrador? Here is the voting - I will show him if he wants me

to - seven Liberal MPs, all of them voted no, that the government neglected it.

Now, what about a motion in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, to put pressure

on this deal, or are we just going to run across the country every time and jump

up and get the media to follow? That is what we are saying. So all we are asking

MR. EFFORD: You are afraid he is going to be successful

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: That is the real problem.

MR. SHELLEY: Don't make a joke of it, I say to the

minister. Don't make a joke, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, because he is

out to lunch if he is making a joke of it. He is out to lunch on it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) it is not out to lunch is it?

MR. SHELLEY: I am more serious than you will ever be

about this issue, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. All we are

asking is: What is the Premier planning when he talks about his efforts? What

are his plans for the next year or so? Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister that I

would walk across Canada with this Premier if I thought we could change the deal

on Churchill Falls. You have that on record in this House.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I don't need any government members to tell

me - how silly to get on with saying, We don't want the Churchill Falls deal

changed. How silly it is to get on with that foolishness. You talk about

partisan politics. I suppose, the next thing, the Premier will be in front of

the cameras saying: The Opposition doesn't want the Churchill Falls deal

changed, they are on side with Quebec. What a ridiculous statement! If you are

going to make a statement, be serious about it, I say to the Government House

Leader.

The only questions are - and there are two questions - to

this particular amendment: Was the Premier effective, and has he made any

difference to us getting closer to solving the contract in Churchill Falls? That

is one. The bigger question is: What are his plans to further get closer to a

deal with Churchill Falls? That is what you have to question. That is what I

say.

That is why, when we hear people stand and talk about the

Churchill Falls issue, I think that every member here is passionate about it. I

am sick of hearing about the Churchill Falls deal. If I could change it tomorrow

I would do it. If I thought that the Premier's efforts to date were in any way

getting us closer to that, I would do it. I would pay my own way up there. If

the Premier has an idea where he is going to invite maybe the House Leader and

the NDP Leader to some kinds of meetings that are set in Quebec, or somewhere

where there is going to be effective representation on this, then we will do it.

We will do what we think would be effective.

But to stand up and just say: Premier, you go ahead, do

whatever you want over the next year and we will support whatever it is you are

doing - maybe we will support some of the things he is going to do now. This

motion is going to pass in the House. We want to be clear that we are not just

giving the Premier a blank cheque to do whatever he likes. Hopefully, and this

is the point here, we will not have to object to anything that is happening in

the next six months, and hopefully none of his own colleagues will have to

object to it. Who knows where he is going from here, who he is speaking to next,

and what his plans are? Nobody knows, Mr. Speaker.

Many times during the Premier's reign as a federal MP, he had

many opportunities to discuss this issue in the House of Commons. He had a

better opportunity. As the Premier sat in the House of Commons he had a very

good opportunity over sixteen years to raise this issue.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: And not once, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ordinarily, I would get up and I would say it is certainly a

delight and an honour and a privilege for me to be standing in the House today

to speak on this very important issue. I think the more important word today is

I feel obligated to speak on this matter. I am honoured to be able to stand in

the House and support the private member's motion put forth by the Member for

Labrador West, so ably and quite capably. There is no doubt in my mind of the

injustice that was done this Province when the Churchill Falls deal was signed.

There is no doubt in the minds of most Newfoundlanders - I

would say most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am beginning to be a little

bit doubtful about the people on the other side, or at least some of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: This is an issue that rises above party,

partisan politics. It hurts me to sit here in my chair and look across the

House, and have thoughts in the back of my mind, for example: What are they

thinking? Why are they not supporting this particular motion? What would happen

to them as a party if we were successful in renegotiating the deal that was

signed many years ago? I am sure that question is in their minds, too. What

would happen to them politically if we were successful in changing the Churchill

Falls deal?

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think that that is the driving

force behind the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition while the hon.

the Premier was on his way across Canada trying to influence other Canadians. In

the court of public opinion there is a lot of power. We have to go down each and

every avenue that we have in order to be able to successfully renegotiate the

contract.

A number of things have been changed in the past and a number

of things have been tried in the past. We have gone the legal route and there

were a number of different issues we addressed, unsuccessfully. Maybe there are

some things that will come up in the future but we cannot just sit down and die.

We cannot lie down and play dead. We as Newfoundlanders have been left a legacy,

a legacy of courage and determination, and we have to succeed, we have no other

choice. We have to claw and scratch, bite our way, claw our way to the top no

matter how we get there.

I am sure there are a lot of people in Quebec who agree that

this is an atrocity, but unfortunately the government of Quebec does not see

things their way. We have now, and we have in the past, for a number of years, a

government in Quebec unequal to that in any other part of the world. It is an

atrocity. That is the lowest word I can call it. If I could think of something

else I would call it that but there is nothing else I can think of.

When you look at the bottom line and the bottom line is that

in 2041 we are going to be owing $340 million, I believe, as opposed to their

gaining $56 billion, it is immoral and we have to deal with it. We just cannot

sit down and play dead. I encourage members across the House to rise above the

partisan politics they have been showing in the House this past few months. The

leadership is probably a big factor. I am sure there are members across the

House who no doubt support this particular issue, this particular motion, and I

encourage them to rise above the partisan politics and support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, first of all to say that I support a change in

the Churchill Falls contract. I think it is unconscionable, the contract that is

now in place, and I think the only way we are going to successfully change this

contract is by successfully lobbying the government of Quebec, by lobbying the

people of Quebec and by gaining the sympathy of the people of Quebec and the

government of Quebec.

I think the only reason members of this side of the House are

not in favour of supporting the motion is because we feel that at some point

down the road, if there was a decision to be made by the Premier that we were

not in agreement with, it could come back and the Premier could say, you

supported us and told us to do whatever we had to do. I think this is the only

reason the members on this side of the House are afraid to give 100 per cent

consent to this motion.

We need to change the Churchill Falls contract that the

Province has with the province of Quebec. We need to change the unconscionable

contact. We need to work out a better contract. There is no question of that,

but I think the way to do it, if we are going to be successful, is to lobby

Quebec and the government of Quebec, and gain their sympathy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This gives me a great opportunity to speak to this most

important resolution introduced by the hon. member who did a marvellous job in

outlining the rationale for this resolution. I feel, as the hon. member who

preceded me on this side of the House, I feel an obligation and responsibility

to speak to this resolution today.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about the history of

Churchill Falls, and I am very glad to say that I was a part of that history in

a very unusual and unique way. As different from most other members in this

House I was there from the beginning to the finish.

I was at Churchill and observed and watched the digging of

every bit of rock that took place and took

part in the official opening.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for us here today to be

calling that great development a mistake and a blunder, all very well, but

decisions are made in view of the conditions and the circumstances of the time.

I do not want to stand here today and be blaming anybody. We all know that the

contract turned out to be a bad contract but nobody intentionally set out to

make this a bad contract. The Churchill development was one of the biggest

engineering, one of the biggest financial accomplishments of its kind. Just to

bring the financing together to do that tremendous job, Mr. Speaker, took skill

and took all of the talents of the people of the time to bring together that

financial combination of companies right throughout the Western World. The

largest companies, the largest financial companies and we had the best

engineering minds and we had the best financial advice that could be given at

the time.

The hon. member talks about consultation. There should have

been consultation back in those times, public consultation. The hon. member

ought to know that that was the day of brush cuts. That was the day when smoking

was popular. Public consultation was practically unheard of. A consultation of

its type was done and was done with the best minds, the best financial people,

the best engineers, but even with that, nobody could foretell the way things

were going to turn out economically and, Mr. Speaker, it is not much point for

us and, as proof positive how that was all done, that was done with the best

advice of the day.

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party acknowledged

that nobody in this House, nobody on either side objected to the contract or the

development at the time, nobody, but what are we saying, that they were a bunch

of nitwits, are we condemning these people, are we condemning these people to

historical eradication or historical traitorship? No, Mr. Speaker, they did it

with the best of advice that they had. Today we have a chance to change what

they set out to do. They got the job, the got the development, we today can

support the efforts to change that and, Mr. Speaker, I hear the words of the

opposition.

I hear the words of the opposition, they want to see the

contract changed to maximize the benefits to the people of this Province. They

want to see it changed but they are not willing to support the efforts of a

government that wants to bring in all that change. Now, Mr. Speaker, what

flimflam! What gobbledegook! What unmitigated twaddle! What fuddleduddle! Mr.

Speaker, never in this House have we seen such squirmy and such wiggly, such

slithering to try and twist around the resolution, to try and twist around the

resolution to meet their own political ends.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about a mistake. I have sat in the

opposition, longer years than I have been over here and we had to agree when the

government came up with an initiative that affected the benefits of this

Province. Hon. members can go back through the Hansard and see just about every

initiative taken of this nature, we supported it, to a person, without trying to

get into this method of trying to change and twist the words of a resolution

just to meet their own political desire.

Such an issue, such a critical issue, such an issue so

important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to find the Opposition

trying to twist the words. Talk about a mistake and a blunder, I would think

that the Opposition would have done just that today. They would have done just

that today, make this large mistake, this blunder, when we have a chance to

stand united today in supporting the efforts of a Premier, supporting the

efforts and initiative of a government that wants to change this contract so

that it will bring maximum benefit to the people of this Province. What does the

Opposition do? They take this narrow, buttoned-down, myopic view that they want

to see a change but they do not want to support the efforts of the one trying to

bring about that change. What a narrow, buttoned-down, myopic view!

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is not going to be bought by

the Newfoundland people. It is not going to be bought, and it is time that the

Opposition threw away that narrow view. It is time, in those matters, that they

decided to stand with the Province and stand with the people to show that they,

indeed, want to see change.

The Leader of the Opposition is playing that old,

traditional, classical role of an opposition, which suggests that you have to

oppose everything done by the government; you have to oppose everything. The

Leader of the Opposition has taken the same position on this issue, although it

is not nearly as important, as he took with respect to the Canada/Newfoundland

$100 million Economic Renewal Agreement. He hates to hear the Premier talking

about that great arrangement that we have entered into to develop this Province,

this $100 million Economic Renewal Agreement. He gets really sick when he hears

the Premier make an announcement about this project and that project. He says:

What time is he going to stop doing it?

He did it all during the election; he is now carrying on

again. What government was there ever in existence that did not announce to its

people when they had a good project going on, when that project was about to

take place, or to give some accountability of a project? It is a very

traditional view of the Opposition.

I would suggest the time has come for the Leader of the

Opposition to realize that we are approaching the year 2000, and the people of

this Province, if he hopes to convince them that he is the (inaudible) of

government, I am afraid he has to change his direction, he has to change his

focus, and he has to tell the people of this Province that when a position

develops in this House of Assembly that requires all members to stand together,

requires all members to vote together, on an issue for the benefit of all of the

people of this Province, that he has to demonstrate to them that he is with that

initiative, that he is with that effort; not to try and twist and change the

language to the effect that he supports a change but he does not support the

efforts of a government trying to bring around that change. As I said, that is

nothing but gobbledygook of the first order, and it is time now for the Leader

of the Opposition to change that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to support this resolution. I'm glad to

be part of a government that has the initiative, that has the will, to try and

bring about this change, to try and change a travesty of justice. I'm glad to be

a part of a government that would do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: That is alright, Mr. Speaker. I'm just getting

my thoughts together. (Inaudible).

In conclusion, I'm glad to be supporting the initiative of a

government that and of a person who wants to change that contract for the

maximum benefit of the people of Newfoundland. The Premier is trying to do it by

convincing the people of Canada what a terrible contract this was. He is trying

to get a consensus of the Canadian nation on his side, because to change a

contract of this proportion we realize it is a big thing to be doing. But

contracts have changed, and contracts can be changed. The Premier is trying to

point out to the people of Canada what a mistake this was.

Now is the hon. member against it? Is the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition against that? Against the Premier because he doesn't know what

his efforts are. He is against that? Against the efforts of the Premier, trying

to convince the people of Canada that that contract is an unjust contract and it

should be changed to maximize the benefits to the people of this Province. Is

that what he is against?

He is against the fuzziness, the vagueness, of the

resolution, because he doesn't know what the efforts will be. The efforts will

be to change the contract so it will maximize the economic benefits to the

people of this Province! That is the effort!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: All of the efforts of this government will be

focused, Mr. Speaker, on changing the contract to maximize the economic benefits

to the people of this Province. That is the effort. But he doesn't support the

efforts, but he supports a change to bring that around.

I clearly can't see any clarity to that particular

resolution, any more clarity to that than the fuzziness and vagueness he says is

attached to the government resolution. So I clearly today want to support the

efforts of this government, the initiative of this government, the efforts and

the initiative of the Premier, to bring about a change that will see this

contract change so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have a

standard of living that is equal to that enjoyed by all other Canadians. That is

my position, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise also

today to urge all members of this House to support this motion, and in

particular to urge the Leader of the Opposition. Because unfortunately he has

already given some comfort to the people who would suggest that there is

division in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: In his press release of October 15 of this year

he said the time has come to turn the page on the Churchill Falls deal, and to

accept the inequity of that deal. I was very disappointed to hear him say that,

and I urge him to change his position and I urge that party to make it clear

that that is not their position. We must demonstrate to all Canadians and to

Quebecers in particular that this Province is united in getting a better deal on

this Churchill Falls agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We have to do that because we have to ensure we

have maximum support right across this country. We have to put whatever pressure

we can on Quebec, and we have to put whatever pressure we can on the Government

of Canada to play a role in resolving this issue because we cannot accept -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: We cannot accept that there was not a role for

that Newfoundland had the right to transmit its power across Quebec as is

provided for in our Constitution.

You know, if we are to believe an

article that appeared in

the Globe and Mail last Saturday, authored by Mr. Cabot Martin who was

involved in government some years ago, what actually happened was scandalous.

The case seems to be that the deal that was made back in the 60s was not in fact

a blunder but a deal that was made because we had no alternative if we wanted to

develop that resource. We had no alternative because Quebec refused to ensure

that we had the right that every province of Canada should have, the freedom of

interprovincial trade and freedom to transmit and sell our resources through a

particular province.

Now, the Premier of the day, Mr. Joseph Smallwood was asked,

according to Mr. Martin, by Martin a few years ago, why he had not delivered

Newfoundland's formal request, that Ottawa take jurisdiction over the project,

including installing transmission lines across Quebec as he had been instructed

by his own government's Order in Council. Premier Smallwood said he had driven

up to Ottawa from Montreal by car sometime before the deal was finalized so that

nobody would know he was in the capital.

He meet with Mr. Pearson and two other Cabinet ministers, and

before I could say a word, Premier Smallwood said, Mr. Pearson said, Joe, I know

why you are here and if you ask me I will have to say, yes, otherwise we would

not really have a country. I am asking you not to ask me because we will not be

able to keep the towers up, and Premier Smallwood said, so I did not ask him. He

did not ask him for our right to transmit power across Quebec because Prime

Minister Pearson said that if that were not granted we would not really have a

country.

I submit that issue had to be resolved in the way it should

be resolved if we are to demonstrate to all Canadians and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, in particular, that we do have a country, and that Newfoundlanders

will get their rights just as Quebec would if the shoe were on the other foot.

Who could ever believe that if this issue stood in a manner that gave Quebec the

kind of disadvantages that Newfoundland has, we would not see the Government of

Canada intervene and it would not be changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to your buddies.

MR. NOEL: We will talk to our buddies. I talked to our

buddies but I also stand together with the people of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It is not enough

There is no point in me talking to Mr. Chrtien if he says it

appears that Newfoundlanders are divided on this question, Mr. Noel. So that is

why it is important today. It is important today for all members of this House

to demonstrate to all Canadians that we support this objective and we will not

be content with anything less! We will not be content with a few crumbs when we

should have the whole loaf!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: And we will not be content to be bought off by

a deal for benefits lower than we should get on development of the Churchill

Falls or anything else. We want our full rightful benefits out of the Churchill

Falls deal before we will give up on trying to resolve this issue and we will be

content with nothing less, Mr. Speaker, and I hope all the members today

demonstrate that that is the irrevocable position of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was also disturbed some time ago to see a

newspaper

article by a Mr. Eric Kierans who seemed to be suggesting that for

Newfoundlanders to try to get our fair rights in this whole question, we were

being disloyal to Canada. We were adding to disunity in the country because we

were raising ill feelings towards Quebec. Now what kind of people does Mr.

Kierans think that Newfoundlanders are? Are we too green to burn? The reality is

that Newfoundlanders are the ones who are suffering an injustice in this case

and we would be less than loyal Newfoundlanders if we never did everything that

we can to resolve it. For Mr. Kierans to suggest that we should continue the

sacrifices we are enduring for the sake of some people in another Province is

very disappointing to me because Mr. Kierans used to be a Liberal Cabinet

minister in Quebec and that is certainly not part of the Liberal philosophy in

my view.

Fortunately Mr. Kierans has a cousin who lives in my

district, a Mr. Tom Kierans, who takes an entirely different view. Mr. Kierans

has written some letters recently advocating the approach that should be taken

is that we should not seek to break the Churchill Falls contract but that we

should restore its original intention. Its original intention was to ensure that

Newfoundland got reasonable benefits out of the whole development. The kind of

benefits that we would have gotten when oil prices were what they were back in

those days. Now that is a case that we can make in law. It has not been made

properly yet. I would urge the government to consider making that case, that we

want the restoration, on the basis of what we can contend to be a force majeure.

There has been a substantial and considerable change in the circumstances

between the time that the contract was signed and today. I think the change has

been significant enough that we can invoke the principle of force majeure and

say that the benefits that were intended to accrue to our Province in that

contract should accrue today and necessary changes should be made.

So I would urge the members on the other side of the House to

make sure that we demonstrate to all Canadians that this Province is united. I

would point out that what we are debating here today is a motion, not a

contract. If you support this motion today that does not mean that you have to

endorse everything the Premier or the government might do for months and years

to come. If he does something you don't like you can say you don't like it and

not support it. This is not a contract. You support the motion today that

demonstrates to all Canadians that Newfoundlanders are united in our objectives

in getting a fair deal on this agreement and you will still remain free to

disagree with any particular actions the government might chose to take along