December

12, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 74

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine I would like to welcome, on

behalf of all members, the executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Fire Chiefs, President, Vince MacKenzie, and directors, Richard

Murphy, Bill Lynch, Jim Andrews, David Messie, and Hubert Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome

twenty-seven Democracy and Law students from St. Francis High School in the

District of Harbour Grace, along with their teachers, Tony McCarthy and Ms

Laurie King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the

House today to advise the House that Petro-Canada, as project operator, is today

issuing a press release advising that along with their partners in the Terra

Nova project they will be proceeding with the preparation of a development plan

application for submission to the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board

for the development of the Terra Nova oilfield.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The preparation of a development plan

application is a requirement under the Atlantic Accord Acts. It represents the

initial step in the approval process of the CNOPB for the development of the

Terra Nova oilfield.

The decision by the project participants to proceed with the

preparation of a development plan application for the Terra Nova oilfield is

indeed welcome news. It is a clear statement of the commitment of the owners to

the development of this important offshore project.

In their release, Petro-Canada and the other owners have

clearly indicated that the final decision on the filing of the DPA with the

Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board will be dependent on reaching

agreement with the Federal and Provincial Governments on fiscal and benefits

matters. The Province has been pursuing discussions on outstanding issues for

pretty well most of this year - I think they started in February - and we remain

confident that final agreements can be in place by the time the development plan

application is completed. The completion date for the DPA is targeted for the

end of March, 1996.

In the coming weeks, Petro-Canada will be releasing further

details on the consultation process they will be following in the Province for

the public input to the preparation of the development plan application. I

encourage all those in the Province with an interest to make their views and

their concerns known when the opportunity is presented.

The development of the Terra Nova oilfield is the next phase

following Hibernia in building an oil and gas industry in our offshore area.

Although many critical decisions remain to be taken, the government is

encouraged by the decision of Petro-Canada and the other project owners to

proceed at this time with the preparation of a development plan application. The

government will also continue to dedicate its efforts to finalizing agreements

on fiscal and benefits issues so as to ensure that this important offshore oil

project can become a reality at the earliest possible date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is welcome news indeed. The Official Opposition, along

with everyone else in the Province, have been anxiously awaiting a positive

announcement about Terra Nova go-ahead. Of course, if it weren't for the legacy

of the Peckford Government which some of us were part of, and the contribution

of John Crosbie when he served in the federal Cabinet, we wouldn't have an

Atlantic Accord, we wouldn't have an offshore petroleum board, we wouldn't have

an offshore oil industry, Mr. Speaker.

I would urge the Premier and his colleagues to be vigilant in

completing the negotiations to ensure that the fiscal and industrial benefits

arrangements agreed to, will benefit this Province and the people who live in

this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources about

Hydro.

It was at the end of last week that the minister, without any

prior warning, tabled in this House a bill which significantly affects

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and which will hike electricity rates. The

measures could well pave the way for another go at Hydro privatization.

Yesterday, the minister ruled out a process of public consultation. I ask the

minister now: Have you reconsidered? Will you now refer Bill 35 to a House

committee for public hearings early in the New Year, so that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians can have a say, over the future of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, let's make it clear so that the

hon. member opposite can understand, the public can understand, that what we are

doing has absolutely zero to do with privatization, we are not proceeding with

privatization. We took the decision on that because the public, the people of

the Province said they did not want us to privatize Hydro and we listened.

What we are doing now, is taking some steps so that Hydro can

be a much more efficient organization, publicly run through the Public Utilities

Board.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: If you are not afraid to have the public

scrutinize the technicalities of this measure, if you are confident that upon

examination it will be found to be consistent with continued public ownership,

why won't you refer it to a House committee for public hearings? What are you

trying to hide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we aren't trying to hide

anything. We've had two years of debate about this. We've passed in this

Legislature an Electrical Power Control Act that this Province should be proud

of for the production, distribution and sale of electricity no matter where it

is produced in this Province. We want to proclaim that legislation. The action

we are taking in this regard with this Bill No. 35 will allow us to do that

immediately.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Won't the minister admit that Bill No. 35 does far more than

whatever might be necessary for them to proclaim the Electrical Power Control

Act, 1994? Why, for instance, would the government now be changing that act so

that the Cabinet can direct the Public Utilities Board to set Hydro rates to

recover on top of Hydro's costs more profit, as much as double the profit Hydro

is permitted to recover now? Why would the government want to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant of the

implications of rate increases. We are cognizant of the implications of having,

for example, a lifeline rate in the rural diesel areas, and we are cognizant of

anything that may change rates. That is one of the main reasons why we think

Cabinet should still have authority to give direction on issues of provincial

significance, policy-wise. That is what we are doing in this. We will give

policy direction where we deem it appropriate to do so.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is wrong with the present policy? Why is the government

changing the law to enable the PUB to permit Hydro, to direct Hydro, to recover,

on top of its costs, as much as double the profit it is permitted to get now?

And how much would that result in electricity rate increases? How much of that

would be passed on to consumers? Will the minister tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, what happens to rates depends

on the policy direction that we give. It depends on the policy direction that we

give relative to the rate of return, relative to the phase in of the rate of

return, relative to the sitting of the debt equity ratio. If the debt equity

ratio is maintained as it is today, 81/19 at this time, approximately, so 80/20.

If we say we are going to keep it at approximately that and if we say that the

dividends that we expect from Hydro are going to be at a certain amount maybe

there won't be any change at all. There may not be any significant change at

all. It depends on what we do in terms of giving direction to the Public

Utilities Board.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Health.

Your department has placed a cap of $2,100 per month on the

Enriched Needs program. Now since the waiting list for admission to nursing

homes is quite lengthy and is growing rapidly, what is the minister doing with

people who are assessed as needing more then that cap of eight to nine hours per

day? Are you enforcing the $2,100 cap in all new cases as well as in the current

cases that now require more then that amount?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member

is correct, we have capped Enriched Needs to seniors for services in their homes

at $2,100. We are in the process now of implementing that new and revised

capitation throughout the system. In some instances the Department of Social

Services are continuing to carry on the work that they done wholly in the past.

Eventually, by January 1, the Department of Health will be actually dealing with

all of the clients or the seniors population on the account of the Enriched

Needs program.

We are doing two things by direction; new entrants into the

program, we will not bring them on at a service level beyond $2,100. Those who

are at the moment receiving more then $2,100, we are working with them on an

individual basis giving due consideration to their circumstance and all of that

sort of thing, to ensure that we can bring them down to within the $2,100 cap

and still provide to them an appropriate level of service such that their needs

will be adequately met.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your department recently changed its policy allowing Level II

people into personal care homes even though you said in this House, one year

ago, that personal care homes are not equipped to deal with Level II care. Your

department, in its eligibility criteria, which I have here, for the three levels

of care outlines the heavier level of care that is needed for Level II as

compared to Level I. It states that care in this level can be carried out by a

nursing assistant under the supervision of a registered nurse as directed by the

attending physician. I ask the minister if there is a change now in the

requirements for professional staffing in personal care homes as a result of

that policy change?

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

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

We have not opened up the personal care home industry, carte

blanche, to Level 2 clientele. What we have done is indicated to that private

sector group of homes that operate, about seventy-one or seventy-two at the

moment, that where they can demonstrate that they meet an appropriate level of

programming services, and where they can meet life safety and other types of

requirements, we will entertain increasing their licensure level from Level 1 to

Level 11 where they can meet the requirements and the standards, so nothing is

changed. We are simply making provision for those private sector homes to

continue to fulfil a very vital role in the continuum of care for the elderly in

the Province.

I might add that in terms of the personal care homes, these

homes average about $800 or $900 a month for a very, very good level of care.

Certainly that is probably the best value for dollar that seniors could spend in

terms of accessing long-term care for themselves, and certainly it is the best

value for dollar that government is spending in the long-term care sector.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your director has written all Level 1 homes asking them if

they are interested in taking Level 11 people. The minister has stated that your

department has a policy that states we need a higher level of care than is

provided in Level 1. You said that a year ago and your policy that I have a copy

of indicates that. I say to the minister, you are now allowing Level 11s in

without the care your department has specified in its policy. I ask the minister

if his department is now going to increase its subsidy to personal care homes

for those beds to reflect the increased level of care that these people need?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: To the question directly, no, we have

not put any additional funds into that sector. Let me tell the hon. member that

in the personal home care sector there are two types of beds available. There

are the subsidized beds which are the majority in the system, and there are a

significant number of unsubsidized beds, in other words beds to which we do not

contribute anything. In the subsidized beds there is a vacancy rate of about 12

per cent at the moment and in the unsubsidized beds there is a vacancy rate of

30 per cent, so there is on average a vacancy rate right across the system of

about 15 or 16 per cent. Really what we are doing is allowing, where the homes

can meet a Level 11 licensure requirement, and only in those instances, we are

allowing them to apply for level 11 licensure so that two things can happen:

They can fill the beds that they have and make their industry more viable; but

more importantly, we are increasing the number of spaces for level 11 and level

1 people so that they can access good quality care in the time of their lives

when they some help beyond what they can provide for themselves.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Yesterday I asked a

question of the Premier regarding the Province taking over the wharves and

freight sheds on the South Coast, and wharves and sheds in other parts of this

Island, from the federal government for an amount in excess of $10 million. I'm

led to believe that a letter from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was sent to federal Minister of Transport Doug Young earlier this

month agreeing to the take-over of these assets. I want to know if this is true

or false.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year when we

started discussions on a take-over of the ferry service along the South Coast,

in negotiations for taking over the full ferry operations, the taking over of

the wharves was part of that. It started last year. We've had continued

discussions with Transport Canada officials on taking over those wharves on

which the provincial ferry service is operating, and only those in which the

provincial ferry service is operating within the Province.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am told the

estimated value of these wharves and freight sheds is around $30 million. I

would like to know where the Province is going to get the money to keep up

maintenance and repairs to these assets when they are taken over by the Province

when the Ministry now cannot adequately look after its road system.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Let me correct the hon. member, two parts of

his question where he is absolutely wrong. First of all, we can very adequately

take care of the road system. I must say, the people of the department are doing

an excellent job in the road system. We have one of the best road services in

this Province anywhere in Atlantic Canada.

In the second part of his question, we have done a full study

into the wharves. We have had a study done. There will be no need to do any

major work on those wharves for the next twenty, twenty-five years. The wharves

are going to be completely rebuilt. Let the hon. member do the full research on

his question and get the answers, and he should get the answers before he asks

the question, because he would know full well that the numbers he is quoting are

not correct numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia on a supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that minds are like

parachutes; they work better when they are open.

Mr. Speaker, I was told that a letter was received from

Transport Minister Young last spring stating that the feds would assume all

responsibility for the wharves and freight sheds on the South Coast and other

portions of this Province. I am asking the Premier: Why would his government

want to go against this policy unless it is to get the $11 million miscellaneous

monies this government needs to make up their $60 million deficit?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, the hon. member is not correct

again, the federal minister did not write this Province and tell us that his

office would be responsible for all wharves within the Province. In fact, if you

had listened to the minister's speech, and saw excerpts of his speech when he

was here in Transportation Week and gave a speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: - the Minister of Transport, here in St.

John's, Newfoundland, he said the opposite, that he would be working with the

Province, with all the users of the ports within the Province, in assuming

responsibility, so again you are wrong.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

In light of the information contained in a recent fisheries

resource conservation council report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, it

states that there are approximately 4.8 million harp seals consuming

approximately 7 million tons of fish on an annual basis. I would like to ask the

minister if he has put forward any quota suggestions as a harvesting management

plan to Minister Tobin, and if so what figures did this minister suggest?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little out of breath because I just ran up over the

steps, and I guess I am not in the shape that I used to be, but there is no

question that the population of harp seals off our coast is alarmingly high and

certainly, there have been suggestions from this government that should be

addressed, and I am sure that the federal minister will indeed be addressing it

when he announces his plan for the coming year as far as the harvest of the

seals off our coast.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he

had made any suggestions to the federal minister and what his suggestions were,

exactly what quota did he suggest might be harvested this year? I would like to

ask the minister that again, please.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The harvest of harp seals must be one that is sustainable

within the confines of the present population, and certainly, the present quota

of 186,000 harp seals is certainly somewhat below. There is no need to say what

would be needed for a sustainable harvest. If we look at the fact that there are

approximately 4.8 million harp seals off the coast, a sustainable harvest should

be somewhere of the order of around 300,000 to 350,000 animals. The final

decision on that of course, as to what that harvest will be, will be up to the

federal minister, but certainly the request from this government is that an

increase in the harvest should take place; and as to the exact numbers, that

would be up to the federal minister.

Thank you.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, the only seal tannery

existing in the world today is in Norway. There was some hope and optimism

created a few weeks ago when it was announced by the minister or his department

that a decision would soon be made as to the location of a new seal tannery

somewhere on the Northeast Coast. Would the minister inform the House as to the

status of this potential new industry, and if he has made a decision on the

location of the same?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me correct one thing. This minister did not say a few

weeks ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: - that there would be a decision shortly on

the establishment of a tannery for this Province. I will say that there is a

great need, indeed, for a tannery to tan the hides of different animals. I will

also say, Mr. Speaker, that there are several groups who have expressed an

interest for the establishment of a tannery to tan leather but in particular for

the tanning of harp seal skins. To say that Norway is the only country in the

world that has a tannery for tanning seal hides, that's not quite right either,

Mr. Speaker. Certainly, there is a tannery in Russia that tans seal hides, but

the whole issue of a tannery is being addressed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: - will be addressed and probably should have

been addressed ten years ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: - as the population of seals were increasing

at that time but was ignored by the previous administration.

Thank you.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we find out there is a

tannery in Norway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the hon. member yet.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We find out that there is a seal tannery in Norway, we find

out there is one in Russia but I say to the minister, one is still needed here

in Newfoundland.

Last year, there was provision made for a food hunt of mature

seals allowing individuals to take a maximum of six for the season. Would the

minister inform the House if such a hunt is being considered again this year and

if those people, who are taking

part in the food hunt, will be allowed to sell

their pelts rather than discard them and dump them because they are not

considered as commercial fishermen?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everything that we harvest off our coast should be utilized

to the fullest extent. That is why, recently when I asked the federal minister

to give us an early decision on the possibility of a caplin harvest, in that

request I also asked the federal minister that part of that decision be ruled a

policy on anti-dumping, so that every animal harvested off our coasts, every

animal harvested, male or female, be utilized to the fullest degree. Now, if

there is a food seal harvest this year, I can assure you, the requests from this

minister will be that all parts of the animal, be it commercial or food harvest,

be utilized to the fullest extent. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I had constituents involved in that recent

tragic accident out near Badger. Badger is one of those areas in an inland

valley which has the earliest and deepest frosts in the Province. I am told that

his department used to have someone stationed at Badger to monitor roads in that

area because of the peculiar climatic conditions in the Badger area. I am also

told that the individual staff member - there is no one doing that headquartered

in Badger anymore. Have I been told right, Mr. Minister?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what we do in the case of the

reorganization of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, we have

foremen on twenty-four hours, week-in and week-out. That foreman is responsible

for a

section of highway. The foreman responsible for the

section of highway

into Badger was stationed and he was out on the road that morning stationed in

the area. He was out on the road that morning of the accident, prior to the

accident. In fact, it was 5:00 o'clock in the morning before the sun had come up

and it was a mild temperature. He went back to his office and went down over

another

section of road. So the areas all across the Province, not only in

Badger but every

section in the Province, there have been some changes to the

location of where the foreman or the unit, the driver or whatever is located,

but the whole area of the Province is under full surveillance twenty-four hours

a day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, given

the unique geographic position of Badger and the sudden drops in temperature in

that particular area, will he reconsider having someone stationed at Badger to

monitor the roads in that particular area? Because my constituents tell me it is

an ongoing and growing concern.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that argument could be made

pretty well with every

section of the highways in Newfoundland or every region

of Newfoundland. I don't think that it is unlike - the temperature rises and

falls in Badger, the temperature rises and falls on the Northern Peninsula,

Western Newfoundland and Eastern. So the hon. member, or any hon. member can

make the argument for any part of this Province. I don't see it necessary to

change it when we have full surveillance of all sections of highway. That

morning, I say, and I will tell the hon. member again, the foreman responsible

for that

section of highway was out there two hours prior to the accident and

had his second visit back over that highway that morning before the accident

happened and knew full well what the condition of the road was, but the

temperature dropped as the sun came up. You could have people on the highway

twenty-four hours a day, you are not going to prevent all accidents from

happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Minister of Social Services, I would

like to put my questions to the Premier. They have to do with the Auditor

General's report and the Cadillac computer system that in 1989 was estimated to

cost $3.7 million for software only and be completed in four years. The

completion date now, Mr. Speaker, will be sometime in 1997 at an estimated cost

of $47.9 million. I would like to ask the Premier: How come this development has

gotten totally out of hand? How does the Premier justify this immense

expenditure of public funds when at the same time over 30,000 children are going

to school hungry in this Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, the hon. member is not correct

in his assessment of the Auditor General's report. There has not been $47

million spent to date. In the beginning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish. And there will not be $47

million spent. In fact, as of last year, the whole expenditure was put on hold.

If the hon. member had read and researched he would have found that out. What

the Auditor General said was at the beginning it was $3.4 million, and if it

went to its fullest extent it would be $47 million. It is put on hold, and to

date, somewhere in the vicinity of $10 million has been spent.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing that should be put on hold is the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, I would say.

According to the Auditor General's report, of the $10.3

million spent on the project thus far by March 31, 1995, only $2.5 million has

been identified as providing some future benefit. The remaining $7.8 million,

according to the Auditor General, was spent in areas that are difficult to

evaluate their future benefit. I would like to ask the minister: Does he believe

that the $10.3 million expenditure was money well spent? Also, did Newfoundland

and Labrador Computer Services, NLCS, have any part to play in the development

of the new computer system?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what the Auditor General said

was at this time she could not evaluate the $7.8 million to be spent. It is

money well spent. All the programming, all the statistics of the Department of

Social Services, had they been put on the computer, would make a very efficient

service. In the case of writing cheques - every cheque was hand-written and

signed by people working in the department. Now, it is in the computerized

system. It is a much more efficient, effective way of doing business. When all

the files of the Department of Social Services get put on a computer programming

system, yes, it will be money well spent.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Part of my second question was the

involvement of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, which the minister

failed to answer. If he would remember that for the next time.

At a time when we are laying off staff, cutting programs, in

an effort to be fiscally responsible, I would like to ask the minister: Would he

participate, as a member of the government, in cutting this expenditure? And, as

you are telling many people in this Province now, to start living within your

means, will you take this public fund of $10 million and put it into things that

will directly help the people of this Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, the hon.

member is just getting his question out of the Auditor General's report. Because

I just told the hon. member, as of last year, because of budgetary restraints,

everything in the expansion of the computer service for the Department of Social

Services was put on hold. The hardware and the software that is already done,

and the training, and already in place, is money that was well spent within the

department to computerize clientele information, rather than have it done in

files stored up in buildings all around the Province. Now, it is easily

accessible - money well spent, but put on hold because of budgetary problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS good labour relations are built on fairness between

workers and their organizations, and employers and their organizations, and a

fair balance of power when collective bargaining breaks down; and

WHEREAS the use of scabs or replacement workers by employers

during strikes or lockouts is a threat to bargaining rights and an incitement to

breaches of the peace; and

WHEREAS the experience of other provinces in Canada has shown

that anti-scab legislation which bans the use of replacement workers during

lawful disputes results in shorter strikes and lockouts, and greater harmony

between unions and employers;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House go on record as

supporting the introduction of anti-scab legislation, banning the use of

replacement workers in lawful strikes or lockouts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to

introduce such legislation in the next session of the House of Assembly.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of ninety-three

residents of the Trepassey, Biscay Bay, Portugal Cove South, and St. Shotts

areas of my district. I presented a petition here last week and it concerned the

layoff of the mechanic at the Trepassey depot and the concerns it has raised for

the people of my district. The prayer of the petition is as follows; we the

people of Trepassey and surrounding communities who use the Cappahayden and

Peter's River barrens as a lifeline to hospitals petition you and your

department to reconsider your decision to cut the heavy duty diesel mechanic's

position from the Trepassey depot for the 1995-96 winter season. Last winter the

employee in this position worked extensive overtime hours along with his regular

hours to repair and maintain the snow clearing equipment so that we the people

in this area would not be isolated from essential services.

It takes one minute to write a safety rule, it takes one hour

to hold a safety meeting, it takes one week to plan a safety program, it takes

one month to put one in place, it takes one year to win a safety award, it takes

one lifetime to be a safe worker, and it takes only one second to destroy all

that with an accident. Please do not let this happen to our residents this

winter while waiting for the services of a mechanic, either from St. Joseph's or

Renews, to repair the equipment necessary to maintain our highway for the safe

use of our ambulances, school buses, fire trucks, and other motorists.

Over the past couple of weeks we have heard questions being

asked in this House by members on this side of the House, petitions being

brought forward, concerns raised about the situation that is starting to evolve

out around this Province as it relates to road maintenance, and winter

maintenance by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. While I

have much faith in the people in my district who are employed with the

department I say that you can only work and do with have you have, and the

equipment you have to do the work with, and that has created many problems.

Just the other morning when driving through my district I

came across a sand truck on the side of the road belonging to the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation broke down. I stopped to talk to a couple of

the gentlemen who were there and I said: boys, according to the minister this

truck is under warranty so you should have no problem getting her fixed. They

said: there is no warranty now because she is sixteen years old, and then the

minister stands up here in the House and says, all new equipment. We do not need

half the mechanics out there because for the next five years everything is

covered under warranty. Well, I say to the minister that there is a lot of

equipment on the roads of this Province now that should be in the dump. There is

a lot of equipment on the roads of this Province that need a mechanic close by

because there are continuous breakdowns.

MR. EFFORD: Who were you talking to?

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister, why do you want to know

the name of the man I was talking to? So, you can send him a loud and clear

message to go home for the rest of the winter. Threats again. Knowing what the

minister has done in the past to anybody who questioned his authority, the

intimidation tactics that they use on the workers of this Province, not only in

Works, Services and Transportation, but in many other fields, I will not give

the minister his name, but I will tell the minister in all honesty that there is

equipment on the roads in this Province now that is thirteen, fourteen, fifteen

and twenty years old that has continuous breakdowns and needs the help of a

mechanic close by, and not to be sitting on the side of the road for three or

four hours waiting for a mechanic to arrive.

This is the problem that is evolving now in Trepassey. The

winter months have come upon us now, the snow has come, machines are on the road

early in the morning and are having breakdowns, and they have to sit on the side

of the road waiting four or five hours for a mechanic to arrive. Down in

Trepassey now they have to depend on a mechanic to come from Renews while they

had a mechanic, as the petition states, who worked many overtime hours last year

because of the problems they had with the machinery in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the cutbacks that this minister and this

government has put out on this Province is causing hardship for many, many

people. This issue alone is only one of the many issues that are facing the

Province at this time due to the cutbacks of this department in an effort to

save money. I have no problem with trying to save money. I have no problem with

this minister trying to run an efficient department, but I do have a problem

with putting people's safety at risk, and that is what is happening with the

cutbacks that this minister has brought into this House and in his department

over the past couple of months.

There is a safety issue in this Province now. All you have to

do is drive the roads and know that. Not everybody, I say to the minister, can

hop in a taxi and go home; they have to get in their cars. There may not be

taxis in a lot of parts of rural Newfoundland to take them home. They have to

depend on getting in their own car, and it is a danger to their life now in a

lot of cases getting on the roads in this Province because of the cutbacks in

his department, and the people who are out there working are only working within

the means that they have to work. They only have the machines that they have.

There are very few new machines on the road, even though the minister may get up

and say we have this many bought, and that many.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: You go out around the Province and find out.

There are some, but they are not providing the service that is needed. The

mechanic in Trepassey is needed. The machine down there demands a mechanic be

put in Trepassey -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and I ask the minister to take this

petition from these ninety-three people, along with the 405 I presented last

week; take the issue seriously for a change, I say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and put the mechanic in Trepassey where he

belongs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague in the petition he is

presenting on behalf of the people in Portugal Cove South, Trepassey, Peter's

River, St. Vincent's area, and I ask the minister: Where are your priorities?

The Premier said they were out shopping and they got a good bargain in water

bombers and spent $7.2 million - because they had a good bargain. Does that mean

if you see something else you get a special warrant to spend $7.2 million that

is not in the budget, when $2 million or $3 million extra will guarantee safety

during the most dangerous time of the year.

The minister stands in his place here and tells us what they

spend in winter maintenance. Well, I tell the minister, according to the

estimates filed by his department, they spent less on snow and ice control last

year than they did the previous year and three years ago, and that is filed by

your department.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is so correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: And out in Badger - the minister can say

what he like, and I heard him saying `a rapid drop in temperature'. The weather

office in Gander indicated that the temperature was -2 ̊

at 5:30 a.m., and right up to 8:30 a.m., one-half hour after the accident, the

temperature never changed from a -2 ̊

to -1 ̊ ,

and the minister is trying to blame that on a sudden drop in temperature. That

is a fact. The weather office in Gander will confirm it, and people on the

highway will confirm it, and they will know what the conditions were like.

The minister might as well admit it, that cutbacks in winter

snow clearing, in snow and ice control, are endangering the lives of people in

this Province and contributing to an increasing amount of accidents.

Now he might talk about statistics for the past ten years,

how there are less fatalities. The minister has to wake up. Divided highways and

less head-on traffic has contributed to saving lives in this Province, and he

cannot try to use that as a means of supporting the cutback measures that he has

brought about in his department. It is not reorganization. He might as well face

the fact; it is a cutback that is occurring in the department.

If you look at the area, not one mechanic in an area now from

Renews right over to St. Joseph's, not one heavy equipment mechanic to care for

trucks on the highway. Some of this equipment is over twenty years old. Some

mechanics have worked on that equipment for twenty years. They know the

problems, and know how to deal with them. A warranty is not going to fix it. You

need human beings to fix trucks, not warranties, I say to the minister. The

minister has done nothing but try to deflect responsibility.

There is a dangerous stretch of highway from St. Shotts into

Trepassey. They come every single day to school in the area, and from Portugal

Cove South. There are school buses; there are no hospitals in the area; there is

one doctor; ambulances have to come into this city for a few thousand people in

the surrounding area. On a daily basis here people are being sent in, so they

are endangering the lives of people who cannot get the medical care they need;

they cannot get to drive on our highways, and they send someone out scouting for

a few hours in advance and make a decision hours later when it is too late. The

time to get a response is early, when the road is slippery, not two and three

and four hours later.

The same thing happened in Purbeck's Cove, and the minister,

I think, admitted afterwards he is taking some corrective action. Whether it is

suitable or not, I don't know. You will have to ask the people in that area. He

admitted yesterday in the House he was wrong on something. Well, the minister

should admit that what he is doing here now - and there is a lot of scepticism

by people in his department - that the cutbacks in those areas are not going to

be cost saving in the long-term.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) names.

MR. SULLIVAN: I won't tell the minister names. The

minister is using his scare tactics and trying to tell people they will be fired

if they speak out. He is trying to use the high power of his authority to scare

people. Well, I won't fall for the minister's tactics, very low tactics, to

scare people in the department. They are honest, hard-working people in there,

who are putting in dedicated work and a lot of hours, I say, a lot of time spent

in overtime, over and above the normal work period to keep the roads clear in

wintertime.

The minister now, is going to take equipment that breaks down

in Trepassey, put it on a flatbed, wait for a flatbed to arrive, be out of

commission for hours and hours. I say to the minister, we don't need the

equipment if there is no snow; it doesn't break down when it is not working, it

only breaks down when it is being used. So we don't need it fixed when it is not

being used. But we need someone there on the spot to deal with problems, some

preventive maintenance. It is going to cost this department in the long-term by

cutting back the few million dollars that are cut back on the highroads in the

Province. It is going to pay a terrible price, and it has been paid already by

families. Over the years, a terrible price has been paid for the conditions of

roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not blaming the minister for

highway conditions if a road is slippery, but I will blame a minister for not

taking preventive and corrective actions and for not using money wisely in his

department to get the best results for that money. Sure, I blame the minister,

you are responsible and nobody else and we need people to care for the highroads

in the wintertime, a very dangerous

section of highway between Renews depot

right up to Trepassey area, and that has been eliminated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: So I say to the minister, they should look

at some long-term planning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and save us money in the long term, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are no cutbacks, and I

will say it again: there are no cutbacks. Do you understand it? no cutbacks in

winter operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: You see? All of that fuss for one mechanic,

Mr. Speaker, all of that fuss for one mechanic. He must be some supporter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: Because that's four petitions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, boldly stands up in this House and says: There are

no cutbacks. There are nine people laid off on the Baie Verte Peninsula alone,

it would take me the next three hours to go through it and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - outline where the cutbacks have been.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: At least, he should have the decency and

the courtesy -

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

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. That is not a point

of order.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me take a couple of minutes and explain to hon. members

opposite, who don't seem to understand the rationale and the logic behind our

making the decision to reorganize the department. Let us go back to the first

days of Confederation - there were very few roads built in this Province. As

years went by, we built more and more roads; therefore, at the completion and

the building of these highways, we didn't need as many depots around the

Province so we closed out a lot of depots that we didn't need.

Then, in the last three or four years, we started to buy new

equipment, those high-speed truck ploughs, much different from the

old-fashioned, slow plough, so because we bought new equipment, more modern

equipment, we don't need as many mechanics, we don't even need as many people

out there working in the department. The one thing you always were blamed for in

government, was having too many employees. Now, that is the way they operated,

that is the reason why we are $7 billion in debt and they are still carrying on

the same policies as the former administration. I thought, the new, younger

people coming in would at least have some sensible ideas, but I can see that

fell on their mindless heads and they are still carrying on with the same

foolish policies: borrow money, hire on people, keep people happy, drive the

Province further into debt. And that was the policy they operated under for

seventeen years.

The reality of this is, some logic, business decisions based

on need, not based on politics and silly ideas as with the Member for Mount

Pearl on building a pickle factory and a cucumber factory in the middle of Mount

Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to my right to do the courteous thing

and let the hon. member speak.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very simply, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the foolish

spending of money by that crowd on the opposite side for seventeen years, we

wouldn't be in the mess we are today. We wouldn't have to make hard decisions on

so-called cutbacks, as they say in my department. We would be able to buy twice

as many ploughs. We could have ploughs parked on the side of the road waiting

for the snow to fall. But, unfortunately, we have to deal with a major financial

problem that we took over from the former Administration that just spent money

like drunken sailors.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: So the answer is, we will do what has to be

done.

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

I believe I heard the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay make an unparliamentary statement. I ask him to withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: You know what the statement is, I think.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

petition.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in the

Province. It reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer: We, the undersigned, hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, back in September and October when people in

this House - myself and other members on this side of the House - asked the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would there be an emergency

employment program this year, he stood and said that there would not be. But

there was a caveat, and that caveat was that there were negotiations taking

place with Ottawa that something would be coming down, to use his words, or

something was about to happen by which Lloyd Axworthy and the Federal Government

would look at some form of emergency employment program. What we have seen in

the last two weeks is what the Federal Government calls an emergency employment

program, but what I call a complete claw-back and neglect of duties in what has

happened with the UI program and what is about the happen.

Today, people in rural and urban Newfoundland and Labrador

have every right to be concerned about what is about to happen to the UI

program. As a result, many people - and the government know this to a minister,

to the Premier. They know what the impact will be, but they are trying to do,

somewhat, damage control, spin-doctoring of what the real impact of these

changes will be. The reality is this: As a result of UI changes there will be

significantly fewer people who qualify - thousands of people who will not

qualify who have normally qualified for work because of the nature of their

employment. Nothing to do with a `do not wish to work', nothing to do with not

looking for work, but due to the nature of the type of employment that they are

in, namely seasonal industries, they will not find themselves in a position of

even qualifying for UI.

Thus petitions are starting to come in. This issue will

become more heated - I promise the minister and I promise the government that it

will, over the next two to three months - as people begin to realize that the

benefits outlined by the federal minister will not directly put enough money in

their pockets to even survive, to even pay light bills. People will be forced to

go to two options: Pack up and leave Newfoundland and Labrador with their

families in tow, or to come with cap and glove in hand to the Minister of Social

Services and depend upon welfare. That is what these changes will do to this

Province.

I ask the minister today: As a result of these changes, and

as a result of pending funding coming from Ottawa and what he has described as

transitional funding, how much funding will this Province be given in

transitional funding? How much of it will go towards direct employment creation,

if any? When will that employment creation begin? What proportion of the money

will we get? Will it be proportionate based upon our population compared to the

rest of Atlantic Canada and the country, or will the proportion of money be

given to us based upon the unemployment rate in this Province per capita,

compared to other provinces?

It is a serious issue, more serious than the government, in

my opinion, has cared to admit to date. Even last week when we presented the

private member's resolution on the impact of the unemployment insurance changes,

members on the other side came within a hair's breadth of supporting the

Opposition's private member's resolution. But they did not because the door was

left open, as the Member for Fogo said, that there may be some hope, there may

be an opportunity for more people to qualify.

The reality is the teflon of the Federal Government and the

teflon of the Provincial Government on this issue and this Provincial

Government's silence to date on how this will impact on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians; people who live in Kilbride in my district, in the Goulds, Petty

Harbour and Maddox Cove, who will know in January, February and March what these

changes will mean and the hard realities that they will have to face, Mr.

Speaker. So I ask the minister today to stand and respond to some of the

concerns that I have raised on behalf of my constituents and other people in the

Province and to further enlighten members of this House on what this government

plans to do.

Thank you very much.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support the petition put

forward by my hon. colleague, the Member for Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis, I receive calls from my

district. When I am out and around my district there are people on a continuous

basis talking to me about work, some type of work. Because of the fishery crisis

we are in, many of the people in our Province and in my district of St. Mary's -

The Capes, have to rely on NCARP, TFAA, TAGS and some other programs.

The problem that we are faced with out there - and for some

reason or other, I don't think this government or the Federal Government has

come to sit down and think about it. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, is that we

have had a great many indirect jobs in our districts - in my district, for

example, a great many indirect jobs such as the people working up in the stores,

the people who are working in the restaurants, the people who are working as

baby-sitters, or whatever the case may be, who were employed because of the

fishery. But, because they were not directly involved in the fishing industry

they could not participate in any of the programs, such as income support, and

could not participate in the training programs that are being offered.

So these people are being shut out, Mr. Speaker, because they

were not directly involved; people who were even driving the fish trucks, people

who were working on the wharves and who, for many, many reasons, Mr. Speaker,

could not participate in any type of training, the TAGS program or anything

else. These are the people who, as the old clich goes, fell through the cracks

in this system.

This is what I would like to make a few comments on today, in

speaking to my colleague's petition, that there is very little being done for

these people who have fallen through the cracks. I talked to a gentleman the

other day out in my district, fifty-two years old, married with three children,

and for the first time in his life, he had to go down to the Social Services

office. Mr. Speaker, the dignity of that man had over the years, and everything

else, he felt, has gone out the window. I had to sit down and explain to him

that there was no other choice. There was nothing coming forward from this

government, there was nothing coming forward from the Federal Government that

gave him an opportunity to go out into the work force. I had to sit down and say

to him: Look, Sir, you have no choice. You are going to have to rely on Social

Services. Hopefully, things will get better, hopefully, things will improve.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem that I am sure members on the other side of

the House are aware of - it is not only the people on this side of the House,

Mr. Speaker, who know that these people have fallen through the cracks. There

are thousands of Newfoundlanders in this Province. The Minister of Social

Services herself confirmed the other day that there are over 70,000 people now

depending on Social Services in this Province. Over 70,000 people, over 30,000

caseloads. They are in my district, as I said before, for the first time in

their lives having to turn to Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, we have an out-migration in this Province that I

don't think anybody has come to terms with. Many, many years have passed when

people have left the Province and gone away to work and that has been going on

for a long time. Newfoundlanders have been known to travel to other parts of the

world to work. But out in my district, right in my home town a few months ago,

nine young fellows under the age of thirty, left in one day. One Sunday, Mr.

Speaker, nine young fellows left and flew away to British Columbia. Why? Because

they had no opportunity to find work in their community, there is no hope in

their community and no promise of a job down the road. Now, it is easy to say go

out and make your own job. We hear that from people in government - go out and

make your own job. That is not very easy in a small rural community, with 300 or

400 people who for hundreds of years depended on the fishing industry to provide

the employment and provide the opportunity to live, work and raise their

families in rural Newfoundland. The fishery is gone, it is depleted in my

district to the point where we have very little fishing activity now except for

a few weeks of the year and a very small number of people get to participate in

it.

So there is a need, Mr. Speaker, for this government to come

forward with something to provide some emergency employment to let those people

get over this tough time that we are in. Even in the years when there was plenty

of work in the fish plants and everywhere else, the government always came

forward with an emergency program. Here we are now with nothing going on in our

fishery and the government refuses to come forward with an emergency program to

provide employment. People find many, many faults with those programs. They call

them stamp factories, they call them everything else. I call them lifelines. You

can go out around my district, and indeed every district in this Province, and

find infrastructure that was put in place through these programs, such as new

fire halls or community halls, water lines, helping municipalities, garbage

cleanup, the whole works, and all done through these programs, Mr. Speaker.

These things to some members, Mr. Speaker, may have passed lightly, but I see

the need and I see what those programs can do for small communities when people

put their minds to it.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the programs in the past, as I

see it, was the administration of them and the political game that was played

with those programs, and that was on all sides, the political games played with

those programs. It is time that government start taking the issue of the

unemployed in this Province more serious and put forward some program that will

give the people of this Province an opportunity to get back to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words. I think the hon. the Member for Kilbride

and the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes would remember that when we

discussed that issue when the question was raised initially, there were a couple

of things that were identified. Number one was the fiscal position the Province

was in, and everybody realizes and knows that that program was always entirely

funded by the Provincial Government. The other thing that has to be considered

at that particular time and point was that we were negotiating with the Federal

Government, and discussing with the Federal Government, not only the UI

situation, or the EI, whatever you want to call it. So, really, the quandary

that faced this government was, number one, trying to find the extra dollars

that were needed to respond to that type of program.

Hon. members know, as well as I know, that there are

tremendous numbers of opinions out there as to whether or not these programs

should or should not be. Now, personally, from my point of view, people in need

are people in need. We discussed it at department level and we knew and

understood that the Minister of Finance's problem was obviously grave to say the

least. We have been dealing with that for some time now and that was one side of

the coin, and the other side of the coin, was again, we were trying to take a

position with our federal counterparts in recognizing the regional problem that

this Province had. I think we accomplished that. As a matter of fact I do not

think, I know we did. The other side of the coin that my friend, the Member for

Kilbride discussed was that I mentioned at that time there were going to be some

dollars in skills training and what have you. I stand to be corrected on the

hard dollar amount, but I understand that the Atlantic region, from Mr.

Axworthy's announcement, will have some $150 million in that program.

Our position is quite clear. I mean, if you look at it

nationally we are 2 per cent of the population, and in the Atlantic region, of

course, we are much greater, but I think if we are going to be treated fairly -

and this is the position we are taking now, is making representation to Mr.

Axworthy and trying to ensure that he looks at the unemployment rate or the per

capita rate that my friend, the Member for Kilbride talks about. These things

are ongoing now and we are hoping to have that program in place as soon as

possible, I say to the member.

Of course, who will deliver it, and so forth and so on, is

still there to negotiate. We have, as the member is probably aware, become very

involved in the delivery, and/or co-ordinating the whole career role with HRDC.

As I said just the other day, we have five offices around the Province trying to

help Newfoundlanders to bring up their c.v., bring up their abilities, identify

the needs. We are trying to deal with the kinds of statements that Mr. O'Brien

made, that there are 7000 jobs out there that could not be filled. He never

identified them.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I do not know what that has to do with it, I

say to the member. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is always when

you are trying to deliver a message that you get the same old gobbledygook from

the Member for Placentia. Why do you not give your ears a chance?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) out of touch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: No, I'm not out of touch, I say to the

member. The last thing the member did, in trying to make sense, finally he

couldn't resist, he got into the political foolishness. I say to the member,

when we had the program last year - the member knows and the member - his seat

colleague or mate well knows that I did everything I possibly could to try to

distribute the money evenly throughout the Province, both on the Island portion

and in Labrador. Every member in this House knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The member should know that as far as I was

concerned there was no politics. I can honestly say that to him. We will

continue to try to do our best, I say to the Member for Kilbride, the member on

the opposite side who seems to make the most sense. We will do our best to try

to address the issue. I know how serious it is, I know how people are suffering.

You can be sure that my department and this government will do our best to

negotiate a position on behalf of people in the Province to do what we can under

the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 53,067

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I would say one of the largest petitions ever

to be presented in this House.

It states as follows:

Whereas the Janeway Child Health Centre

has served the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more

than twenty-five years as the only acute care children's hospital, and

whereas

the Janeway has provided a first-rate service to generations of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians which should be further improved and enhanced rather than

down-sized, and

whereas the people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their

support for the Janeway by contributing millions of dollars every year to

enhance the services provided by the children's hospital, we, the undersigned,

support the continuation of a stand-alone children's hospital to provide quality

health care for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation says these people are silly. I say to him that these

are people of this Province who have a genuine concern and fear of what this

government is planning to do with the Janeway Child Health Centre. We have a

very valuable, well-recognized, well-known, first-class facility, a specialized

centre of excellence in children's medicine and paediatrics, that there is

legitimate concern and feeling by the people of this Province that will be lost

by moving this hospital to become just another part, just another wing, just

another department, of the Health Sciences complex.

This is an issue that goes deep to the hearts and minds and

understanding of people of this Province. Every community in this Province,

perhaps every family, has a deep emotional attachment to the Janeway Child

Health Centre because they have had the experience of having a child or a

relative, a family member, or a person in their community, who has been required

to be treated by that hospital and has come back home to their community after

receiving that treatment.

This is a petition that was initiated by a local of NAPE at

the Janeway, Local 6205, but it was one that was carried around this Province by

men and women and children who had a great desire to have some influence on this

government. I will give you an example. A woman from Torbay writes to the people

who organized the petition: My nine-year old daughter, Candice Taylor of Torbay,

doesn't want the Janeway hospital to close, so she took it upon herself to start

her own petition, and here is a list of 239 names that she has collected. We

hope this list will also be of help.

There is a grass-roots reaction to the initiation of this

petition. In stores, shops and businesses all over this Province, individuals

took it upon themselves to collect names, and spontaneously people asking for

more, so that they could go and collect them. And there is more to come, because

the people of this Province are very concerned with what the Minister of Health

is planning to do, and they don't get assurances from the kinds of comments that

have been made by the minister.

There is $100 million said to be allocated for the moving of

the Janeway Hospital, which also has to deal with the Children's Rehab Centre,

the Grace Hospital moves and other capital costs in St. Clare's. This cannot do

all that has to be done. The minister has some rule of thumb that he is trying

to apply to this. There has never been any study or plan tabled in this House to

show how this could be done for the costs that have been suggested and that the

savings can be obtained. There is a need for a proper assessment of the

government's plan in this matter. Put the negatives and the positives all

together and look at the costs and the benefits. I don't think that has been

done, and the people of this Province don't have faith that this government has

done that work.

They are supposedly going to save the duplication of

services, but you can't have an operating room where you have children and

adults together. You cannot have an emergency service with children and adults

together. There is a need for a separate service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is still going to be a requirement of a separate

service, and a separate specialized service, and the people of this Province who

have donated to the Janeway Foundation over the years, the hundreds of thousands

of people who have donated, have an emotional and a material and a real

commitment to a stand-alone child health facility, the Janeway Child Health

Centre. That won't be there. That will be lost if it is seen to be absorbed in

some super hospital that does not have a separate stand-alone facility. The

reputation, the emotional attachment, the commitment to service, the commitment

to quality and excellence for children's health will be lost if this is absorbed

into a larger hospital. So I ask this minister to commit himself and his

department to reviewing that decision, and reconsidering that decision, and

doing a proper cost benefit analysis, and listen to what these petitioners and

others have to say about what is happening to health care in this Province,

particularly as it relates to the Janeway Child Health Centre, and commit

himself and his government to maintaining the Janeway Child Health Centre as a

separate, stand-alone hospital facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am happy to rise again today and speak to the petition that

has been presented. Certainly, I want to pay recognition and say thank you to

the 53,667 people of the Province who have sufficient interest in paediatric

services in the Province such that they were willing to take the time even to

sign a petition indicating an expression of interest in paediatric services, and

indicating a degree of support that we maintain and continue to maintain at the

highest level children's health services in the Province, and a dedicated

service at that.

I also would offer a word of commendation to the people who

organized this. I gather the NAPE people are the ones who spearheaded this

particular initiative, and certainly, their interest in children's affairs is

not being expressed here the first time today. In my experience with children's

charities in the Province, one of the greatest supporters of children's

charities and children's causes, I can say to the hon. House, has been the

labour movement. People in the movement have taken much effort and great

interest in supporting causes like the Children's Wish Foundation, the Janeway

Foundation, and a number of other efforts and initiatives -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the food program.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The food program, and a number of other

things that are concerned with children. Certainly, I can only respect and

commend them for their level of interest in ensuring that children's services of

all types are maintained in this Province and enhanced where we can possibly do

so.

It gives me another opportunity, of course, to again state as

clearly as I know how for the people of the Province and the people of the House

this government's commitment to essentially what the member has suggested we

should continue to have, and that is a dedicated paediatric service delivered

from a point where it can be done in the most efficient and most effective

manner, and this government announced on the 29th of June, in the site reduction

initiatives that we outlined for the St. John's area, a singular commitment to

maintaining a children's hospital attached to, contiguous with, as a part of the

services being offered not at the old site in a building that is substantially

redundant and is run-down and outlived its usefulness, and which is only about

half-occupied basically based on the number of beds that it originally had, but

we are committed to providing a hospital, a paediatric service at a new site, at

a new address and a new location in the most modern setting possible for the

services to these children and that will be over at the Health Sciences Centre

on Prince Philip Drive.

In addition to what we are doing today at the Janeway, we

want to improve services that are required to be delivered to new mothers and to

new babies and we believe that bringing all of these services and the mothers

and babies under one roof over to the new site that we are proposing at the

Health Sciences Centre, will be an improvement in services to the new-born and

to the mothers who have given birth to them.

The new facility that will be provided at the new site on

Prince Philip Drive, will not be a department of the Health Sciences Centre. It

will not be a secondary service to that being offered to adults. It will not be

a situation where children will have to line up behind adults for service; it

will not be a situation where children will be mixed with adults for ongoing

care. It will be a situation where children will receive dedicated, professional

services provided by the care givers who are presently working in the system at

the Janeway, and by others whom we can bring in to that continuum of care, such

that, at the end of the day, we will have I suppose, in comparative terms,

something like we have at the Health Sciences/H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic

setting over there now.

We have brought over there, the cancer treatment services of

the Province, they have been located and situated and co-ordinated with the

Health Sciences Centre, and the people of this Province, by national standards,

have the singularly, best delivery of services, clinical space available

anywhere in the country for cancer patients. We will duplicate that in spades on

behalf of the children of this Province in terms of the dedicated paediatric

services that we will provide in dedicated space, staffed by dedicated

clinicians, doctors and health care providers, and the mothers and the children

of this Province will be better off by a million country miles when we have

completed the reorganization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - of health care in this city and

relocated the Janeway services where it most appropriately should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must have attended a different press conference

than I attended when he announced on June 29. There was no mention ever made of

having a facility that is contiguous with, attached to the Health Sciences

Centre. After being browbeaten by the public, by the Opposition and by everybody

else, by union, staff and people, several days later, in fact it could be weeks

later, the first mention ever made of having an extension was made by Mr. Tilley

on CBC Radio. I listened every day and followed intently one morning on CBC that

they are going to look at attaching a building on to the Health Sciences Centre.

It was never stated, it wasn't their intention, they were looking at downsizing

and pushing everybody in together, and the minister stood in this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell you, the minister stood -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I said to the press.

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Ferryland and I

ask the other hon. members to let the hon. member speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Before I finish I will tell them what I

said to the press that day, exactly what I said but I have other points I will

add first.

The minister stated in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your not speaking to the petition,

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - in response to questions, the minister

does not want to get hurt, he said in this House that in the new centre, kids

are going to share operating rooms, studios and x-rays and so on when I was

there. It is in Hansard, and I asked him in this House and I quoted it several

times. That is what the minister stated. That is what his plan is, to share

operating rooms -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I see I am annoying the minister now with

the truth. It is in Hansard, I say to the minister. That is something the

minister is not very familiar with.

I will give you some examples. First, Mr. Speaker, I will

give him examples to back it up. I will give him examples.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: First, they made no mention of extension,

then Mr. Tilley said we are going to have an extension. Then the minister said

we are going to have a separate Janeway attached and contiguous to. The earlier

proposal said it was going to take $300 million to do the consolidation. Now

they come back and say $100 million. To this day, and the minister stated in

this House also and in the public, by the end of this year they will tell us the

plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, from the comments made by

the hon. member he is quoting me incorrectly. It is an infactualization that he

is putting forward. He is suggesting that I stated in this House dollar figures

that I never did state or commit to and I would ask him to be asked to withdraw

that assertion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a difference of opinion

between two hon. members. That certainly does not constitute a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is more interested in giving,

Mr. Speaker, $250,000 to buy a house for an executive director in Goose Bay when

he could be putting $250,000 into a children's hospital, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And $90,000 to buy a Tim Horton franchise,

I say to the minister, that is what he is talking about. No, the minister has

made barefaced falsehoods in this House. I have heard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot say that. I ask the hon. member to

withdraw that comment.

MR. TOBIN: What about what he said?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement, it is

unparliamentary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and I will say

that since 1958 - I am speaking now on the petition, since 1958 it has been

ruled parliamentary in the House of Commons to use that phrase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: What about infactualization, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get tied up

on a point of order. It is in Hansard, it is in citation, I think, 479, it has

been ruled parliamentary in the House of Commons. I won't get hung up on that

issue here but the minister has made several statements that are not factual, I

say to the minister. He keeps contradicting and jumping all over the place

because they have no plan. They don't know what we are going to save. It could

cost substantially tens of millions of dollars more to move it. I will agree and

here is what I said to the media that day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to tell them what I said?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on a new subject, namely Sunday shopping. I present a petition on

behalf of 613 people from the Corner Brook area; from Irishtown, Gillams,

Meadows and these communities in the Premier's district, as well as Port

Saunders, St. Anthony and other communities, Corner Brook. That is where I

present it. Tomorrow I will present more from the Grand Falls area, from the

Lewisporte area. I will present them from every nook and cranny in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, as long -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't (inaudible) get

anything, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I didn't

(inaudible) get anything. They are people who are concerned about the actions of

this government, the callous and the non-caring, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: You got sucked in.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I got sucked in like the municipalities

got sucked in from you with the MOGs, Mr. Speaker. Like the municipalities got

sucked in on the MOGs when you levied taxation on the people of this Province

through the back door what you, sir, have not got the guts to do through the

front door! That is what is going on in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, now I will present a petition on

behalf of 613 people, taxpayers and voters who are opposed to Sunday shopping in

this Province. I would say that the people of this Province are concerned. If

anyone in this Province has been successful in uniting the labour force and the

Board of Trade and the chambers of commerce and the church groups and every

working person in this Province, it has been the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the minister, it is more than I

would ever want to do on an issue such as this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn't say it was a grand

idea, I would say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. My head

doesn't think like his. The only one who told you it was a grand idea was your

cousin, Peter O'Brien.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is against it.

MR. TOBIN: He is against it, is he? Your infamous cousin,

your claim to fame, a man who says there are jobs going crying in this Province,

and his cousin the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. member to get on with his petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I intend to get on with my

petition if you would keep the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

quiet over there, the man who levied taxation in through the back door.

This petition is from 613 people who are very concerned about

Sunday shopping. The people of this Province have expressed their views: We the

taxpayers and voters of this Province are opposed to Sunday openings of stores.

That is the prayer of the petition. Quite clear, I would say to the minister.

They are talking about Sunday shopping. You don't go confuse, Mr. Speaker, don't

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you go to Florida again on another

trip and keep your yap -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - quiet in this House? Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. minister to refrain from interjecting in the

proceedings of the House.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have

spoken on a very important issue. The people of this Province are concerned, I

would say to the minister, regarding Sunday shopping. I heard the president of

the provincial Chamber of Commerce today on the radio saying that it has

surveyed its membership, and 80 per cent of its membership in this Province is

opposed to Sunday shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he

would look at this very seriously, if he would withdraw immediately this

proposal on Sunday shopping. He never gave anyone the opportunity to have input.

No one in this Province had the opportunity to have input on this very important

issue. No one, not a soul.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is true, Mr. Speaker. The Federation of

Labour had to go into your office the other night for a meeting on it. It was

not consulted on this issue. The Chamber of Commerce. The minister got up in

this House and he said: It would take me all day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There

is a lot of truth in what the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West is saying,

there are quite a number of individual people who are against Sunday shopping.

There are some groups out there which are against Sunday shopping. I am hearing

from a lot of people. The bill is on the paper. If government decides to call

the bill we will call it; if we don't, we won't. We are listening to the people,

we've always listened to the people, and we will continue to listen to the

people.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is laugh at the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relation's response: We listen to people, we

will continue to listen to people, and he sits down.

There was no thought whatsoever gone into presenting a bill

on Sunday shopping by this government through the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. He stands in the House on one day and says if he had to list

every business who phoned him and phoned his office about Sunday shopping he

would be here until 9:00 a.m. tonight talking about them, and outside in a scrum

AN HON. MEMBER: We said, "Name six".

MR. E. BYRNE: Name six, and he could not do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then we said, "Name three".

MR. E. BYRNE: Name three, and we went down, six, five,

four, three, two, one; he couldn't even name one. He goes out in the scrum; the

media asked him, `What about business?' `Well, I really didn't get much pressure

from businesses'- five minutes later. Now, the reality is that the larger

corporation, multinational corporations that operate in this City, would be the

only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shopping?

MR. E. BYRNE: Am I against Sunday shopping? Yes, Sir, I

am. I will say that anywhere, at any time. The difference is that I will say it

here and out in the scrum I will say it also, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only people who are in

favour of Sunday shopping are the large, multinational corporations that operate

in this city. Those are the only beneficiaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations brought people together like never before, who would never sit in the

same room together let alone agree on an issue together, but he did it. When the

Baccalieu Chamber of Commerce, the St. John's Board of Trade, representing the

majority of businesses on the Avalon Peninsula, stand up and say emphatically

that they have no understanding of why the government is proceeding, that what

it is going to level on businesses are extra costs, that they are going to go

after the same amount of dollars, and the Federation of Labour, at the same

time, were not consulted, stand up and say: Where is this government coming

from? No one consulted them.

What was really interesting was when the minister first

introduced it, and how he sneaked back step by step by step from his original

statement. It is hilarious, but he has retreated. I give him credit; he has

retreated. He has heard the people loud and clear, there is no doubt about that,

and I suggest his office heard it loud and clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It must be.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday shopping does not work in this Province.

It is a day where people can take it off, a day of rest, for lack of a better

term, but the reality is, from a strict economic point of view, that there are

only so many dollars to go around in this Province. It would be detrimental to

local business, and would only benefit large, multinational companies that take

taxes and profits and leave the Island to places in Montreal, Toronto, New York

and elsewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I assume we are now at the

happy point where the Orders of the Day are called.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, we have had a vigorous go

'round. Before we get into the major business of the day, which is the adjourned

speech of my learned friend from St. John's East on Bill 35, perhaps members

might wish to take a minute to see where we are. My friend from Grand Bank is

not in the Chamber, but I assume my friend -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he is, over there, to your right.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, he is to my right, geographically if not

politically. In fact, he is probably to my right politically as well.

He and I have had some conversation, Your Honour, behind the

Chair, and I will suggest to members on both sides that this requires, of

course, the consent of every member, that if the House will agree we will pass

up the Private Members' Day that we are entitled to tomorrow, Wednesday - it is

a day called by government motion, and my friend from LaPoile has agreed to what

I am about to say - that is on the understanding that members opposite will

agree as well. We will deal with next Wednesday next Wednesday; we are not at

next Wednesday yet. That is Wednesday, the 20th. of December. We are getting

very close to St. Nicholas' slide down the chimney by that stage. It would be

our proposal to call Bill 35 again tomorrow, and to conclude debate at second

reading on it tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If we finish it today we will call something

else tomorrow, but I suspect that my friend from St. John's East and my friend

from Ferryland and others who wish to speak will take us beyond 5:00 p.m., and

we will not sit beyond 5:00 p.m. today because I understand there is a social

function to which we have all been asked.

Let me first of all ask Your Honour if you could ascertain

whether the House is prepared to deal with that. My friend from Grand Bank

wishes to say something.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point raised by the Government

House Leader, we did have a chat behind the Chair, and basically what this side

is willing to agree to is that we forgo Private Members' Day tomorrow but do

government business up until 5:00 o'clock with an understanding that we again

will adjourn at 5:00 o'clock on Thursday. That is the understanding we have. The

Government House Leader said, well, next week will take care of itself, if we

are here next week. As next week unfolds we can make decisions then about next

Wednesday, if we are here then, or whatever. We are willing to forgo Private

Members' Day tomorrow to do government business for a couple of hours, but only

until 5:00 o'clock and then again the same thing on Thursday.

My own read on the situation, I say to the Government House

Leader, is that we will be able to finish the government business by adjournment

time next week, that is my view, without getting into night sittings or that

stuff. For what it's worth I know the Government House Leader has some concerns,

and trust, and time, and the business he has to do, but being the season that it

is I do not see any problem with us finishing the business that government so

desires to finish by the time we adjourn for Christmas, whenever that is next

week. It will be sometime next week for sure.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to facilitate

the passage of Bill 35 by tomorrow and this Private Members' business put on the

Order Paper as of notice of motion today, which I would like to see debated. I

have not had any discussions with my friends about this.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What did you say?

MR. HARRIS: I said I am not prepared to facilitate the

passage of Bill 35 by having more government business tomorrow, the Government

House Leader intends to call this and finish it tomorrow. There is Private

Members' business on the Order Paper, including a motion which I moved today,

and I would like to have debated before Christmas. I would like to try and

facilitate that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: That is fine. We will deal with Private

Members' Day tomorrow. We shall be here on Thursday and Friday after 5:00.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We will not be here tomorrow after 5:00, and

Thursday we will see what comes. Members have every right to insist upon the

protection of the rules and my friend for St. John's East may, and others will

have to do the same. I have no problem with that at all.

MR. TOBIN: (inaudible) Burin - Placentia West.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my friend for Burin - Placentia West

has a problem with a friend for St. John's East, then perhaps the two of them

may perhaps go behind the Speaker's Chair and we will see what happens. I would

hope, at least in the parliamentary sense, that the two of them are friends. I

understand why my friend for Burin - Placentia West would say he has no friends

anywhere.

MR. TOBIN: You are the only friend I got.

MR. ROBERTS: In that case, Mr. Speaker, we are both in

bad trouble. If I am the only friend the gentleman for Burin - Placentia West

has we are both in bad trouble.

Your Honour, we will deal with the Hydro bill and will not

sit beyond 5:00 today. On Thursday we shall be dealing with the Provincial

Offences Act, and if we get through that we will begin debate on the Mineral Tax

AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday?

MR. ROBERTS: I do not know how long the Provincial

Offences Act will take. It should not take very long, but that is up to members,

including the learned gentleman for St. John's East. If he wants to bore us with

another of his disquisitions we will sit and listen. Then we have three other

mineral related bills which we will deal with the remainder of Thursday and on

Friday.

MS VERGE: I am still trying to get them.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady has already got two of them

and given what she has done with them she does not need another for awhile. The

first of them on the Order Paper is the Minerals Impost Bill, then there is the

Minerals Act Amendment which is processing in the Province, and the third is the

Mineral Tax Bill which will be distributed, I hope, tomorrow in the House, and

it will not be the first one called I say to my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Minerals Tax Bill. That is the one that

stands as Order 32, Bill No. 43. That will take us Thursday and Friday, and then

we have four other bills to come, three of which are not in the House. One is

the Pension Benefits Act which is in the House, the second is the Attorney

Generals Bill which is the usual cleaning up the commas, full stops, and what

have you. The Public Accountancy Bill, I understand, requires further attention

from Cabinet and I do not know where we are on that. I understand my friend the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has a minor amendment to the

Assessment Act. What is the other one Art?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. He has a minor amendment to the

assessment act which will come forward and we will see what it says when we are

here to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The government is prepared to stay. We will

take off enough time for Christmas, I have no problem with that.

MR. FUREY: Christmas Day.

MR. ROBERTS: We will take Christmas Day. No, Christmas is

Sunday. We will take Saturday and Sunday off, I would say to my friend the

minister.

MR. FUREY: Oh, okay. We don't have to we can

MR. ROBERTS: I've got no problem with that.

MR. FUREY: - come back Saturday.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible) turkey on the Table (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There are enough turkeys in this House, I

say to my friend for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I think there is also enough sauce in this

House, I would say to my friend for Grand Bank.

Your Honour, that is where we are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good. There is a lot of whining on

the other side. Your Honour, would you be good enough - I feel like saying a

prayer: For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful. But with

that said, I wonder if Your Honour would call Order No. 31, and we will let the

gentleman for St. john's East get on with what has to be the most boring speech

I've yet to hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 31, Bill No. 35.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are debating at

second reading Bill No. 35. First of all, let me say to the Member for Grand

Bank that I didn't intend to imply that he was facilitating the passage of this

legislation, but it seems that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will repeat myself, as you weren't

listening.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible), Jack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader is very

interested in cooperation from all sides of the House and he is doing everything

he can to facilitate it, I say to hon. members.

didn't mean to imply that the Member for Grand Bank was attempting to facilitate

the passage of Bill No. 35. I did notice that the Government House Leader said

he intended to call Bill No. 35 tomorrow and have it pass second reading

tomorrow. That is what I object to, and I don't intend to facilitate that action

by the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 35, under the guise of what is called

An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act,

1994 And Other Acts, is as I said yesterday nothing short of the

pre-privatization of Hydro bill, or

an act to facilitate the privatization of

Hydro. Every

section of this act is designed to place this corporation in a

position where it can be privatized. I believe upon a review of the act, in what

little time that we've had, that the Hydro corporation can be privatized if this

act is passed without further reference to this Legislature. There are numerous

scenarios which see that happening.

When we look at the act as a whole - and we are looking here

in principle at the act - we have to go and look at what the Hydro corporation

was and is designed to do in this Province. We can only look to its mission

statement which is published as part of its annual report. Their mission

statement includes the primary mission of providing electricity to the people of

this Province at the lowest possible price consistent with reliable service and

the safety of its employees. That is the mission of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro under its present constitution and its present legislative powers.

What is the government doing to this mission, to this

corporation which has as its mission the provision of this kind of electrical

service to the people of this Province at the lowest possible price consistent

with reliable service and safety to its employees?

Its intention, and stated clearly by the Minister of Natural

Resources yesterday, is to conform and to transform Hydro into just another

private corporation. Just another private facility with commercial goals whose

only response is to the bottom line and returns to the shareholders. That is

what a private corporation operates for, to return to its shareholders a return

on their investment, a return on their equity in an enterprise. There is no

question about that, that is the goal of a private corporation.

As part of our pluralistic society private corporations have

a role, a very strong role in the development of an economy, the provision of

goods and services, the organization of new enterprise and effort. There is

nothing wrong with the existence of private corporations which have goals that

are set by the shareholders in terms of their own commercial interest, as long

as they obey the law, as long as they don't destroy the environment, as long as

they don't exploit their workers, as long as they don't act contrary to

legislative intent and as long as they pay their taxes.

There is nothing wrong with a private enterprise corporation

but that is not what Hydro is there for and that is not what the people of this

Province want when they said last year loud and clear, we don't want our Hydro

Corporation sold. What were they talking about? They weren't talking about some

corporation that is going to be made by this legislation. They weren't talking

about a Newfoundland Light and Power look alike. They weren't talking about a

corporation that had, as its only goal, the return on investments, that

shareholders are making money, stripped of its public policy objectives. They

were talking about the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with a strong history of

a corporate culture dedicated to public service, with the rights and duties

under the Hydro Corporation Act, to act in the best interest of the people of

this Province as directed by the Cabinet.

They were given extraordinary powers, extraordinary powers as

a corporation with the approval of Lieutenant-Governor in Council the Hydro

Corporation could expropriate land, waters, water privileges, water powers,

rights, easements, privileges of every description which the corporation

considered useful for its purposes. Well they had first call in all the hydro

electric generating power of this Province. The right of access for transmission

lines, the distribution services, special rules with respect to Crown lands that

apply to the Hydro Corporation because in fact, it was indeed seen as an arm of

the people's government.

What does this government propose? We saw the Premier

avoiding questions on it today, passing them off to the Minister of Natural

Resources. He doesn't want to have his name associated with this. He is not

prepared to stick his head into it. He is trying to downplay it and the

Government House Leader keeps saying: oh, this is a minor piece of legislation.

It is insignificant. He even calls a speech, which I started to make yesterday,

describing it as a Hydro privatization - one of the most boring speeches he ever

heard in his life. We can all fall asleep and that is what he wants everyone to

do, Mr. Speaker. He wants the whole Province to fall asleep between now and

Christmas Eve. The whole Province to fall asleep so he and his government can

pass this legislation without a public outcry, without the public knowing what

is going on. We will just downplay this, we will lowball it as much as we can.

The minister was in the House yesterday, he was huddled over

his papers and he was speaking quite lowly. He was trying not to attract any

attention to himself. He was just there huddled over his papers. The Minister of

Natural Resources started reading out a few things, half-heartedly, saying well

this is what we plan to do. No big pronouncement by the Premier like we had the

last time, Bill No. 1, Bill No. 2 the last time - the first order of business,

the Premier all puffed up about his plans to privatize Hydro. No, we don't have

that. They obviously consulted with their PR gurus. They obviously consulted

with the people who tell him that they will be walking into another wall of fire

if they reveal their real intentions but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through

you to the people of this Province, this government has not changed its mind on

the privatization of Hydro. The Premier in his speeches, the government

backbenchers and the ministers said in this House that Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, in their view, has no public purpose, and what does this legislation do?

It follows through on that very policy objective. It says Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro has no public purpose. We will take away all of its public

powers. We don't even want it controlled to the extent of the Public Tendering

Act. Let them go and do their own contracting with whoever they want, and the

only people who have any control over it are the shareholders. Now, who are the

shareholders? I didn't quite get that out of the minister yesterday. He said,

`Oh, it was us.' The reality is that the shareholder is the Minister of Finance,

who holds these shares for the time being, I say, on behalf of the people of

this Province. The legislation does everything except pass over the shares in a

public offering or private sale, or whatever else the government may decide to

do after this legislation is passed.

There are some hints, you know. The government didn't just

come out of the blue and say this. They said: We have no public purpose for

Hydro; we want to sell it off. Then, when they ran into a brick wall on that one

from the public and from the backbenchers in caucus they decided to do another

plan, and as part of their plan they appointed a new chairman, a chief executive

officer. Who was that? Mr. Bill Wells. There is nothing wrong with Bill Wells as

a man. He is very competent, I am sure. He has a long history of business

dealings, practice of law as a labour lawyer on management side, negotiated with

the fishermen's union for many years on the side of management, was president,

at one time, of the fisheries association. He had differing views than a lot of

other people.

I recall him back in 1973, Mr. Wells taking the position that

we could not have a collective agreement for trawler men in this Province that

provided a guaranteed minimum wage for a voyage because they would stay in their

beds; they would not fish. I recall some rather antiquarian and rather patrician

arguments from him at that time, but he has over the years shown himself to be

competent in his profession and in acting on behalf of another private

corporation that was once public, FPI. Fishery Products International was a

the Government of Newfoundland after the near collapse of the fishing industry

in the early 1980s, and he participated in that company as if it was privatized,

so we do have a hint of what the government plans. We will put Bill Wells in

there. He does not have a history of commitment to the public service. He is not

a man who has spent his life in the public service, in the corporate culture

that goes with that of public service. He is a man who has been involved in

private enterprise for a large corporation all his latter working life, so what

message does that send to the people of this Province of what their intentions

are with respect to the operation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? What

message does that send?

This legislation is just one little step away from selling

off this corporation, a proposition that the people of this Province are opposed

to. They opposed it last year, the spring of '94 when this government tried to

run it through the House of Assembly. It resulted in a major public issue,

televised debates, public opinion, had lots of opportunity to divide on the

issue, and divide it did. Over a period of several months it became very, very

clear that this government was about to embark on a very unpopular move. The

people of this Province rose up against the government's plan, the series of

events, involvement of public opinion on Open Line programs, demonstrations, one

after the other, public opinion polls, expressions of public opinion through

newspaper articles, letter-writing, phone-in shows, petitions in this House,

Letters to the Editor, letters to members, for the most part, with one voice,

opposed to the government's plan to privatize Hydro.

As a result of this massive public opposition, even the

back-benchers on the other side got nervous. The plans of the Premier, the hopes

of Fortis corporation, the plans of individuals and stockbrokers to make a lot

of money very quickly, the plans of some investors to capitalize on the

privatization of Hydro, all of these had to give way to the desire of the people

in this Province to maintain a public Hydro corporation with public goals and

with the kind of corporate culture that it had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I do not expect members opposite to like what

they are hearing from me, and they can tell me to sit down if they like. But I

won't sit down, Mr. Speaker, until I have had my say about what this government

plans to do with the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation.

Every section, every clause in the bill that is now before

the House, is designed with one goal in mind: to gut the Hydro corporation of

its public purpose and to turn it into just another public utility, just another

Newfoundland Power, or there could be a dozen of them, in the government's view,

with no vehicle for public purpose, no engine of economic development that we

talked about the last time, the way that Hydro-Quebec has been for the people of

the Province of Quebec, an engine of economic growth, a training ground for

engineers dedicated to the public purpose.

That is going to be all gone. They want it just to have one

purpose and one purpose only, a commercial venture for its shareholders. Who are

the shareholders? Temporarily, I say, the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board. In a few months we might be hearing the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board saying he has to rejig his accounts, he has to find a couple of hundred

million dollars of new debt issue, and after the creation of some artificial

crisis, will say, as the Premier said on his return from London, that he had no

choice. `I had no choice,' was the cry of the Premier as they cut 400 people

from the workforce. I had no choice but to put $15 million into water bombers

and Marble Mountain while we were watching our deficit grow and our ability to

maintain our balanced Budget slip away from us. I had no choice.

That is the same tune we are going to hear a few months down

the road, I predict, from the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, when he

offers to sell a proportion of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to some

shareholders to raise some equity, to change the rules, to further take what

this enabling legislation provides for them to do and to turn it into the

privatized corporation that they have always wanted it to be, contrary to the

wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All of the provisions of this act, some of it is found in the

Hydro Privatization Act, bringing certain things into their capital value,

bringing the Hydro pension plan into - or separating out the Hydro pension from

the Public Service Pension Act and making the ratepayers pay up the difference

that in this case, I guess they are making the ratepayers pay up the difference.

I don't believe that the Public Services Pension Plan is making up the

difference.

There is provision for an agreement between the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board and the Hydro corporation with respect to the

existing obligations on the Public Service Pension Plan. It is not clear what

the intention of all that is, but what is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that they

intend that this corporation be controlled by shareholders and not controlled by

the Cabinet of this Province which, under the existing legislation, has control

and direction of Hydro through the powers set out in the various provisions of

the existing Hydro Corporation Act.

By taking away the authority of the Executive Council, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and substituting in its various provisions, the

shareholders is setting the stage for there to be more than one shareholder, Mr.

Speaker, and it is very clear that if the government did not intend to sell

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, they would not be doing what they are doing

here today. If there were no intention to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

on a public share offering, the government would not be putting in legislation

that they have here now.

Why would you be taking out the rights of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council in

section 8.1 of the act and substituting the

shareholders by special resolution? Why would you be doing all of those things

that are here if there was no intention of selling Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro? I think that the plans of the government are transparent despite their

denial. The passage of this legislation, the installation of Bill Wells as the

new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, all point in one direction, the same

direction, and that is to try to do and try to get through this House by stealth

what they couldn't get through this House by direct action, and that is to

achieve the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro contrary to the

wishes of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this Bill 35, "An Act To

Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act and other acts

including the Crown Lands Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act might be better termed

An Act to

facilitate the revenge of Premier Wells on the people of the Province for having

rejected his earlier foray into the Hydro privatization debate. What we have

here is an attempt on the part of this government to do through the back door

what they tried to do through the front door, the front door being soundly

slammed in their face. So they come around to the back door to try to get into

the house, and the house we are talking about is privatization.

Over the years since this government has come to power, it

has become very obvious that the hon. the Premier and his Administration have

had a plan, and still have a plan, to somehow get rid of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro Corporation, put it out there in the private sector where there

are a number of corporate entities and individuals with money who seem to have a

very close association with the Liberal Party, and who seem to be fully

expecting the Liberal Party to somehow, for whatever reason, in return for

whatever favours, heaven knows, they seem to expect the Liberal Party to come

across and turn over the people's Hydro corporation to them, one way or the

other.

Very early in the game, we saw changes to the Crown lands act

in this Province that to some extent defied logic, unless there were certain

reasons why certain individuals or certain corporate entities wanted full access

to the water. We had a Crown lands act that allowed for a shoreline reservation

around water courses. The act was changed to basically allow people unfettered

access to the beach. That is good for people if you are going to go into the

business of launching a boat; it is also good for, I suppose, individual

corporations which might want to get into hydroelectric generation and have

unimpeded access to a water course.

At the time, the government was extremely evasive as to the

exact nature of what they were up to with regard to the Crown lands changes, but

I think now the - we suspected at the time and indicated our suspicions at the

time, but right now the picture is becoming somewhat clearer. I will give this

government Brownie points for one thing. They are determined, they are dogged.

It doesn't matter what the people think, it doesn't matter what the House of

Assembly says, it really doesn't matter what the Open Lines say. This government

is intent on having its way with regard to Hydro, come heck or high water. They

really want to get their agenda completed on that one. One has to wonder just

what they are up to.

This particular Bill No. 35 is essentially an interim step on

the way to privatization. We have a government that are going to make certain

changes in the structure, in the running of Newfoundland Hydro, which will make

it look and behave corporately much more like Newfoundland Light and Power, a

privately-owned, publicly-regulated utility. We are seeing certain changes in

the structure and behaviour of Hydro under this new law, changes which for the

most part will cost money which, in due course, will be passed on to the

ratepayers of the Province in increased electrical rates. The other change that

we have seen by way of practice with regard to this Administration is requiring

more and more dividends from the Hydro corporation to offset the government's

revenue crunch.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was set up as an instrument

of public policy with regard to the generation and supply on a sustained and

regular basis of electricity for the citizens of our Province. It was not set up

as a cash cow for the government, and that is what the government have been

using it as lately. The changes that are in this current act will indeed

facilitate Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro more easily becoming a cash cow.

In so doing, Mr. Speaker, what this government are

essentially up to is raising taxes on the people of the Province through a

surreptitious way by putting restraints and conditions on Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro which will cost them money, and eventually force them to the

Public Utilities Board for redress of the restraints and conditions imposed on

them. And make no mistake, that redress will involve an application to the PUB

for higher electrical rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is in fine

condition to talk about leaving. Their Hydro bill left us some time ago and it

has come back, too, and the - my apologies, Mr. Speaker. It is not the hon.

members opposite who have stopped me, but a minor case of postnasal drip.

Mr. Speaker, this government have been up to this agenda from

the very beginning. As I said, their ch