May 20,

1994 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 46

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it was just over a year

ago, around April 5 1993, that the Premier called a provincial election, he will

remember. At that time when he called the election - I know he remembers the

results and he is delighted with them. I want to talk about the issue, or one of

the main issues on which he called that election, remind him of what he said

when he called the election.

At the time that he did, at his press conference, he launched

a vicious campaign to try to turn parents, the public, students, everybody in

this Province against the teachers. At that time it was clearly calculated to

gain political advantage by discrediting the teachers. What is more interesting

is that in the many months since that time, the Premier, his Minister of

Education, and many of his other ministers have continued this tirade designed

to paint teachers as unreasonable, unrealistic, and uncaring.

I want to ask the Premier: Why has he, as the leader of his

government, and why has his minister set out to destroy the credibility of

teachers? Is it a deliberate plot, a deliberate approach on the part of the

Premier? If so, what possible motive could he have for doing it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I've seldom heard a more inaccurate

representation of anything in all the time that I've been in this Chamber than

what the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me restate. I've seldom heard a more

inaccurate or more grossly misstated representation of anything than I've heard

from the Leader of the Opposition today. The President of Treasury Board reminds

me that the Treasury Board bargaining team had reached a tentative agreement

with the NTA bargaining team at that time, it had been submitted to the

teachers, and the teachers had rejected it and decided they wanted to go on

strike. This was a decision of the government to take the issue to the public of

this Province and state, for the public of this Province, the position.

You have to remember, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members

opposite frequently forget that the government is not some detached body

protecting its own interest of the fifteen members who sit around the Cabinet

table. The government are the trustees acting on behalf of the 580,000 people

who live in this Province and pay the taxes. We went to the electorate and asked

them what our approach ought to be in maintaining it, and asked them to endorse

the approach we were taking. And they did, in spades, as the hon. member knows.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the Premier

loses his memory so quickly - maybe some of the media will remember to dig out

the tape when he made the provocative statements. But unreasonable, uncaring,

unrealistic, are all terms that you have used, that your Minister of Education

has used, and other ministers in the Cabinet have used in the months since that

particular time. Just look at your ad in The Evening Telegram last

Wednesday, if those words aren't provocative and inflammatory, I don't know what

evidence you need to show that they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: Does

he seriously believe that good faith negotiations can take place with an

employer which continuously, almost on a daily basis, slings insults at its

employees? Doesn't he realize that approach is only making the situation much

more difficult?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the ad, and the issue at hand dealt with in

that ad, we believe that it is unreasonable to not allow restructuring in the

education system. It is unreasonable to insist that as the restructuring occurs

that the protection should be there so that if jobs no longer exist we must

continue to pay these people for three years, given the financial problems we

are now facing, and given what has happened in the last few years to the other

systems of government and government departments. We believe it is unreasonable

to insist that this total job protection exists.

Mr. Speaker, that is what that ad says and we stand behind

it.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who

would differ. What about the argument, or the words used in the ad, `the members

of the NLTA who, on average, earn more pay and have more benefits than any other

public service or private sector group', don't you think those words are

provocative and inflammatory as well? I mean, it is pretty obvious.

Now, I am trying to ask the Premier some questions and I

would like him to answer the questions. A week has now gone by and nothing

really seems to be happening. The schools are all closed down and by the time we

get back to the House next Tuesday we are going to be into the middle of the

second week of the dispute. This is not a question for the President of Treasury

Board; it's a question for the Premier directly. I want to ask him: How long

does he, as Premier, and Leader of the Government, intend to let this issue drag

on before he personally takes some action to instruct his officials to get the

parties back to the table, particular the government - to offer whatever kind of

gesture is required to get them back to the table? When is he personally going

to take some initiative to try to get this matter resolved?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the premise that the hon. member

is using is not correct. First of all, progress has been made; and there is

constant contact and progress is being made, number one. Mr. Speaker, last

Thursday night we had a four or five-hour meeting that I thought was rather

productive and a lot of progress was made on both sides and a lot of fundamental

issues were discussed that had never before been discussed. On Friday morning,

the strike was called in spite of that progress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even in spite of the fact that a strike was

called, there has been continuous contact and progress has been made almost

every day since the strike began so, Mr. Speaker, it's unfair to characterize

the situation as one where there has been no contact, where progress has not

been made, and all of a sudden it requires some sudden intervention to bring

about a solution to this problem.

The solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, will be when both

sides end up agreeing that a solution is to behave sensibly, reasonably, both

sides, and when we come up ourselves with a solution that could be presented to

the teachers of the Province. That is the solution and that's what we are

working towards, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't require any sudden intervention at

this point in time.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will try again.

Does the Premier intend to sit idly by and not take any

personal initiative to try to get the schools open in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the leader's grandstanding is

just that, it's grandstanding.

The President of the Treasury Board speaks for the government

in collective bargaining matters. He is the proper person to address this. Now

this kind of grandstanding and posturing to make it look as though the

government is not involved - I left a meeting with the President of the Treasury

Board and we both came down here to the House this morning. We left the meeting

dealing with the issue.

I haven't been sitting idly by; I have dealt with it. I have

met with the President of Treasury Board the last thing last evening dealing

with the issue as well, but the President of the Treasury Board speaks for the

government in this matter. It's unnecessary and quite inappropriate really, for

me to be injecting myself into it all of the time and if I were doing so, the

opposition would then be saying: why doesn't the Premier let his ministers do

their work, why does he have to be a dictator and be involved in it? For

heaven's sakes, have some consistency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker -

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

I will give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition one final

question on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, this individual,

this Premier, getting up and lecturing us about what we are doing, about being

inconsistent, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? The epitome of inconsistency sits

right over there, on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask - the Premier won't answer it so

I guess I will have to ask finally the President of Treasury Board this

question, because I gather the communication went to the President of Treasury

Board.

Now I understand in 1983, the last time the teachers were on

strike in this Province, that the Provincial Home and School Federation offered

to play a role in trying to get the sides together during that particular

dispute and indeed I believe they did play a significant role in helping to

settle that dispute in the end. Today I understand the Provincial Home and

School Federation have made a similar gesture, offered to help in whatever way

they could, maybe to try to talk to both sides or whatever to try to get them

back together again. Does the President of Treasury Board see a role at all for

the Home and School Federation in trying to get the parties back together and if

so, does he intend to respond or has he responded?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as I've pointed out earlier, the

problem now is not that there is lack of communication. The problem now is that

we're dealing with some fundamental issues, some really fundamental issues. All

of the peripheral issues are off the table, are no longer there and we're

dealing with a couple of fundamental issues with the NLTA executive. So that's

the situation at this time, it's not that we need someone to make the contact.

However, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I heard as the hon. member did, that

sometime today there would be a letter sent to me with something in it from the

Home and School Associations. Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to respond in any

way I can to the letter once I receive it but I've not yet received it so I

don't know specifically what they're asking for, whether they want a meeting to

get a briefing of our position and then meet with the NLTA to get a briefing. I

don't know what the nature of the correspondence is but I assure the hon. member

that we will not rule out any avenue.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. If the Premier privatizes

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who would be left to develop the vast

undeveloped water resources in Labrador? Who would be left to develop the Lower

Churchill? The Lower Churchill Development Corporation (LCDC) is a paper company

only, it doesn't have any employees. By privatizing Hydro wouldn't the

provincial government be giving up all the expertise the government now has and

the financial strength required for the government to develop the Lower

Churchill? Wouldn't we be reduced to the same position as the Smallwood

Government in the '50s and '60s which turned to the private sector, to BRINCO,

to develop the Upper Churchill with disastrous consequences?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Everybody

connected with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would still be in this Province.

Everybody connected with Newfoundland Power would still be in this Province. All

of that expertise is still there. All of the competence is still there. The

financial resources to develop it would still have to come from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Start telling the truth.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member wouldn't recognize it if

he tripped over it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all of the expertise and all

of the competence, and whatever financial resources are here now would remain

here, would still be here. Whether the Crown owns Hydro or it is privately

owned, it doesn't enhance its financial ability to develop the Lower Churchill

Development Corporation in any way. We would still have to go and raise the

money to do it, and if the government has to raise it, the government has to put

its credit at stake. We would then have to decide whether we would seek to have

it developed by a private corporation so that the government wouldn't have to

put its credit at stake.

If the government is going to cause it to be developed in a

way that it owns it, we must put our credit at stake. Now maybe that will be the

right thing to do at the time, but if it is, let's make that intelligent

decision at the time. Nothing that we would be doing now would, in any manner,

impair our ability to develop the Lower Churchill one iota - not one iota.

Now maybe the hon. member doesn't understand that, but she

really ought to.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, is the Premier telling the people of the Province that he

is privatizing Hydro to set up a bonanza for Paul Desmarais or somebody in

central Canada who will control Hydro? Is that what the Premier is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are non-sequiturs, and then there

are non-sequiturs, and then there are gross misrepresentations, and that

statement falls into the latter.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A transmission line connecting the Upper and Lower Churchill

to the Island would cost something like $2.5 billion, and the projected demand

for electricity on the Island is such that it's not likely to pay in the early

years. Does the Premier expect the private sector to build an interconnection to

the Island? Will the Premier admit that privatizing Hydro would kill any

realistic chance of ever getting an interconnection to the Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The approach that we are taking makes a

good deal more sense than spending $75 million digging a hole on Pointe Amour

and another hole on the other side of the Straits, and wasting the money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We are talking a reasonable, sensible,

planned, orderly approach to the development of the resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Truth - they really get stirred up when

they hear truth. It really pricks them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - and you see the blood start to run,

start to spill all over the floor. They really don't like truth, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to hear the hon. member's

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: My question is directed towards the

President of Treasury Board, in view of the fact that the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations is not in the House this morning.

In his recent Budget we saw the elimination of fourteen

electrical inspectors across the Province and as a result government has turned

over, for the most part, inspection of electrical business in terms of

residential and commercial to the private sector. As a result there are new

regulations that have been introduced as a result of this move. One of the

regulations states that for an electrician to qualify for a contractor's

electrical registration certificate that he must have at least five years'

experience as the holder of an electrical qualification certificate.

My question to the President of Treasury Board is this: Does

he not realize, or does his government not realize, that as a result of that

regulation there are businesses in the Province right now that will not be able

to operate because they do not have five years' experience as electrical

inspectors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the minute details that I would

have to know about to answer the question totally I'm not in possession of, and

I could easily I suppose find out. However, my understanding is that there is

not a total elimination of all electrical inspectors, that there is enough

flexibility in the new system so that firms - that where electrical inspections

are required they can still be done. However, the bulk of the inspections, or

most of the inspections, will be the responsibility in the first instance of the

contracting firm.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back and have a look at

specifically what the regulations are and specifically how many of these people

are still available to do inspections where required or to keep track of the

types of inspections that are being done by the contractors. I will take the

question as notice and try to get an answer provided as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury

Board is obviously missing my point. The point is that I understand the Province

will still maintain some electrical inspection, more as a monitoring, but my

point was not directed towards that. The new regulations that your government

has brought in will effectively shut down some businesses in this Province. The

regulation states that for a contractor to get a contractor's electrical

registration certificate, which would qualify him or her to do inspections in

the Province, will not get a certificate unless they have at least five years'

experience as a journeyperson.

I have spoken with contractors in Fogo, in Corner Brook, who

are running profitable businesses right now. They are running businesses which

employ upwards to ten and twelve people. They will not be able to qualify for a

contractor's electrical certificate because they have less than five years'

experience as a journeyman, effectively shutting them down from tenders and

effectively shutting them down from inspecting any operation or any type of

construction operation in the Province.

My question is this: When you speak with the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations will you do it with a view to revise the

regulations so as not to shut down businesses in this Province but to encourage

more to open?

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

MR. BAKER: There are a number of issues tied up here, Mr.

Speaker. Obviously if a firm is to be allowed to do proper electrical

inspections than there have to be restrictions on the expertise whose advice we

would accept. Number one, the first issue is that firms that do electrical

inspections must have the expertise available. We can't dispute that. You can't

allow electrical inspections to be done by firms who have people who don't have

any experience in the field. I think that is a sensible regulation.

The other part of that question assumes that a company - and

these companies the hon. gentleman is talking about never did do electrical

inspections, as far as I know. They haven't been going around doing electrical

inspections.

The key to the question has to do with the type of work that

they do, and can they bid on a contract to do electrical work and get somebody

else to come in to do the final inspection?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Then I misunderstand the hon. gentleman's

question.

All I can say is that where electrical inspections are

required we must have an appropriate level of expertise available. Beyond that,

Mr. Speaker, I will get Hansard, look at Hansard, get a copy of his question,

and pass it along to the proper officials to get an answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier

and concerns government's policy on rehiring government pensioners. In 1993 a

Minute of Council states in part that as a matter of public policy applicable to

government departments, all government agencies and Crown corporations, a

preference be given in hiring to persons other than those in receipt of a

pension under the public service pension plan, uniform services pension plan,

teachers pension plan, and members of the House of Assembly pension plan, unless

there are no other persons qualified to fill the position.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy has been used to prevent

retired teachers from acting as substitutes, redundant hospital workers on

minimal pension seeking part-time work in nursing homes. I even spoke to one

retired teacher who was told he could not do enumeration for the provincial

voters list because of this policy.

The policy goes on to say that any exceptions of this policy

have to have the approval of Cabinet. I am going to ask the Premier whether or

not Cabinet has made any exceptions to this policy, and if so how many, and for

whom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is a question that might

more properly be on the Order Paper. I obviously do not have the answer off the

top of my head but I will obtain the answer, Mr. Speaker, and provide it in the

House at a later time.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Can the Premier state whether this policy

applies to Mr. Gordon Seabright, a retired provincial court judge, in receipt of

in excess of $98,000 from the government for the period April l, 1993 to 1994.

Mr. Seabright, of course, is a defeated Liberal candidate in the 1989 election.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The policy applies to everybody. I have

forgotten the date the hon. member said when the policy was put in place. He had

the date.

MR. HARRIS: 1993.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know when Mr. Seabright was

appointed, but there were others that would have been appointed before that who

otherwise would have come under the policy. I do not know the date, but the

policy is intended to apply to everybody, unless there is some exceptional

circumstance, or some person is best qualified or would do the best job. We

propose that the policy be generally applied.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Can the Premier find out and tell the House

whether it applied when on February 24, 1993 the `Dear Gordon' letter was

written from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations giving additional

duties to former Judge Seabright, and can the Premier also confirm that Judge

Seabright receives this $98,000 from the government in addition to his full

pension as a provincial court judge? Would that be on top of his pension, or

instead of his pension?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will find out the two dates. He has

already mentioned one date which was the letter of appointment that he said was

sometime in February, 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He was appointed before that? That was

when the additional duties were assigned, or something, was it?

I will find out, Mr. Speaker, if that was before and I will

advise the House as to whether he is in receipt of it. If the payment through

the public system, even though it is not a payment by government, it is a

payment out of the Workers' Compensation Fund, but that is public funds and I

think it all ought to be covered by the same general policy. Even though it is

Workers' Compensation Fund and it is not payment by government as such my own

view of it is the policy ought to apply to government and all agencies of

government, and not just government directly.

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. For

almost two years the residents of Rutledge Cresent off Newfoundland Drive have

been plagued by gasoline smells, and the problem seems to be getting worse in

recent weeks. This was brought to the attention of the Department of Environment

and Lands in January of '93. Can the minister tell the House why it is taking so

long to trace the source of this smell of gas?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Rutledge Crescent problem remains a real provoking issue.

I have a detailed comment on it which I will pass along to my critic after I

have said a few words.

We have worked extensively on this problem and spent perhaps

more money on it than we have on any sort of individual problem of that nature

in the Province. We have had hydrological studies of the area, we have had

toxicologists in, we have had testing of sewers, testing of air quality and we

still have not been able to locate exactly what is happening in that area.

We are starting, in the next couple of weeks, a survey of the

storm sewers to see if there is some problem at entry level there which is

causing the odors. This is a city responsibility as well as an Environment

Department responsibility, so we are working very closely with the city and

doing some cost-sharing as well in this particular study.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

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

I understand that there has been a fair bit of that work done

in that area, Madam Minister, but can you tell the House, have you determined

the measure of concentration with respect to the amount of gases in the area

because of course, if there is gas, there is always a risk of explosion and can

you come up with some kind of a degree of the health hazard in the area?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, yes.

Are you talking about radon gas? If he is indeed talking

about radon gas, Mr. Speaker, that is naturally emitted from bedrock and soil,

and we have had that tested and there are no unusual measures of that particular

gasoline vapour in that area - or not gasoline, radon isn't a gasoline vapour,

excuse me - but there are no particular concerns in that particular area.

As far as gasoline vapours in the storm sewer, again we have

not been able to identify that it is actually gasoline odors. It is very similar

to the odor we get at Come by Chance, which of course we have been able to

identify but there is still this problem trying to identify what the problem is

in that particular area. The gentleman who wrote you the letter has experienced

more problem in his household than other people along the street have, but at

the same time it has been found that it is not, with what we know today, a

health hazard and we have as well, I might add, been working with the Department

of Health very closely in this particular area.

We brought in two people from Ontario actually to go and

speak to the residents, who are experienced in the whole area of this type of

thing and the risks to health, and I think they were of some benefit in putting

the fears of the residents to rest, however, it still is a major concern of mine

and of the department and we will continue to pursue it; and if you have no

further questions then I will table this for the member's benefit, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to, I guess, whoever is

acting Employment and Labour Relations Minister, or acting Minister of

Fisheries, or acting, acting.

Now I stated in this House and outside that when the TAGS

program was announced that people who were fifteen, twenty or even thirty years

in the fishing industry would be dropped from the program as early as year four

in this five-year program, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

stated that he had a letter from HRD, Human Resource Development, stating that,

that was not the case and they would be accommodated. Now I say, there is no

such letter.

Now two weeks after my statement, Earle McCurdy of the FFAW

wrote the federal ministers, Tobin and Axworthy, indicating and voicing concerns

over that same problem. Now I ask the minister, will he inform this House if

there is any accommodation for people who have had long-standing history of

working in the fishing industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will ask the minister to inform the

House on the next day that it sits or, if the minister is here shortly. I don't

know where he is at the moment and with the consent of members opposite, he can

inform the House as soon as he comes into the Chamber.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under NCARP, training for work outside the fishery was

available for those who chose priority one, license retirement. Now it was

stated in the NCARP information booklet on training options that the full NCARP

income replacement benefit rate will be available to those in acceptable

training programs. Now, between 300 and 400 people chose that option one -

priority one, licensed retirement. They were led to believe that they would

receive an income during the course of their training. As of May 16, these

people are in training institutions with no income and it was stated that the

income would be there. Now, Minister's Tobin and Axworthy stated on April 19

here in St. John's, that all people on NCARP would continue at least to the end

of December, even those who are not in training programs. I ask the minister,

will he see that this injustice to these people, who chose to give up their

long-standing place in the fishery and took an early - not retirement - an early

licensed retirement settlement, would be looked after to the end of their

training program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I should tell the House that the Minister

of Fisheries is in Toronto and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

is at some meetings in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I will address the member's concern. I don't

have the detail at hand but if he has any more explicit information with respect

to the individuals involved, would he please pass it on to my office quickly and

I'll have the matter addressed immediately. I don't know what the answer to his

question is but I'll see that steps are taken to find out the answer and if,

indeed, the injustice he talks about is being done, I will make every effort to

correct the injustice.

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

Notices of Motion

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand under

Notices of Motions today to give notice of some minor amendments that we are

going to bring in at Committee stage when we again call the bill on the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I would like to table these

matters today so that members opposite will have a chance to read them and

understand them before we call back in Committee.

Petitions

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

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

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of some people

in the district of Baie Verte - White Bay.

The petition reads: `Wherefore your petitioners urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their

views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown

corporation.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the people of Eagle

River are wondering why their MHA is not standing in the House and supporting a

petition like this as well.

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing debate as to whether or not

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be privatized has been in front of the

media, in front of people's minds for the last several months. In particular, in

the last several weeks, the issue has become even more heated. In that time, the

government has failed to do many things when it comes to the explanation and the

reasoning and the rationale for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

They have failed to demonstrate where the net economic

benefits of the sale of Hydro will come from and what they will be for this

Province. They have failed, and failed miserably. They have failed to

demonstrate clearly any good public policy reason for the sale of this very

valuable asset owned by the people of the Province, not owned by the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who are elected there.

They have failed to demonstrate in any way, shape or form

what benefit there will be in terms of increase in jobs. They have failed to do

that for one reason only, because they, themselves, know there will be no

increase in employment as a result of this sale. As a matter of fact, there will

be a net loss of jobs as a result of this sale. What about increased investment

in the Province. Will there be new investment as a result of this sale? No,

there will be no new investment. The government knows that. It has not

demonstrated where it will come from.

Where there be any new technology transfer as a result of the

sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Again, there will not be any new

technology transfer as a result of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Will there be any new technology whatsoever coming with the sale of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro? The answer clearly again has been that there will not be any

new technology brought to this Province or come about as a result of the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Most importantly, has there been, or has government

commissioned a socio-economic impact study of the sale of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro that would clearly show the net benefits and the net losses of

such a sale? They have not taken that initiative to do that, but certainly,

independent economists at Memorial University have taken it upon themselves to

do so. Professor Wade Locke certainly has demonstrated the net losses, and

certainly not net benefits, of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The question remains with us before the Legislature today as

it has for the past several weeks: Why is the government persistent in its

pursuit to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when clearly the people of

this Province have said time and time again that it is not their wish for it to

be done? Why has the Premier, who on March 24th, told the people of this

Province that he would not pursue the sale of Hydro if it was clear to him that

the majority of the people in this Province - that the majority, Mr. Speaker -

were not in favour of this sale?

Surely, he and his government must know that public support

is not on their side. Surely, the Premier and his government must know by now

that the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not in the interest of the

people; and the people of this Province are more aware on this issue than many

other issues, and they, themselves, do not wish to have Hydro privatized.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has, on many occasions, stood in

this House and said that members on the opposite side here were misrepresenting

the facts, and has told us that we have been fraudulent in presenting our views.

I have said to the Premier, and to the government, and I will say it again here

today, that if we have been fraudulent, if we have been misrepresentative in the

way we have presented the facts, then why hasn't the government held public

hearings on this issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to prove us the frauds he accuses us of

being. He cannot, because he, himself, is a fraud.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and support my colleague in

presenting a petition from the people of Baie Verte, and I can say to hon.

members on the other side, at least he had the guts to present a petition, like

hon. members opposite did not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: As we did many times in this House, I have

presented petitions from Kilbride, and Kilbride has presented petitions from

Baie Verte and so on, as all of my colleagues over here have done many times

since this debate has started. And I can say here today that although these

names from Baie Verte, from Kilbride, from all the districts around this

Province - remember that it was 80 per cent of the people of this Province, not

just a few names on one petition; you have downgraded everything that has been

said in this House, the demonstrations and protest outside. What does it take

for this government, especially this Premier, to understand that 80 per cent of

this Province is against this privatization of Hydro?

No matter how the Premier wants to turn the words around, no

matter how he wants to twist the words and play games with the way he speaks,

the people of this Province do not want Hydro sold. It is plain and simple.

In the television debate it was also quite clear to the

people of this Province that the Premier said - maybe he was put into a corner,

but this Premier did say that if the people of this Province did not agree with

the privatization of Hydro, he would not ask this Legislature to pass that bill.

It was clear. Now, the people are asking: What does it take for the Premier to

listen to the people of this Province?

As mentioned earlier, when this election was called just over

a year ago, the main issue was the teachers. It wasn't Hydro. The Member for St.

John's South stands every now and then and brags about a little pamphlet where

he had, in small print, privatization of Hydro. It certainly wasn't anything put

forward by this government, and I can tell you that Hydro wasn't mentioned in my

district. All that was mentioned was about the teachers, and how this Premier

was going to take on the teachers of the Province. It was a hidden agenda, no

more than that, and for this Premier or any of these hon. members to stand up -

well, actually they don't stand up very often; they just sit in their seats and

squabble back and forth, because they don't have the guts to stand and talk

about it - except for the Member for Pleasantville - to stand and say what their

constituents think.

I mentioned it before, that I think the people in the back

benches especially, the ones who squabble from their seats instead of standing

to speak for the people who elected them, had better remember that Hydro is just

one issue. There are other issues coming, I say to them, where you are going to

have to stand and speak for the people who elected you - not to stand up because

the Premier told you to stand, and jump because he said so, and you ask, `How

high?' You are going to have to answer to the people who elected you.

Time after time, this Premier has stood, and so have hon.

members, and said: What does it matter what they say on Open Line ? What

does it matter if we present petition after petition? What does it take? It is

scary, some of the thoughts that come through sometimes from people who call

Open Line , and why the police are in the galleries sometimes watching the

Premier. It is scary stuff, and nobody likes that. I don't like it. But people

of the Province are starting to say to this Premier: you had better start

listening to somebody.

MR. MURPHY: Listen to whom?

MR. SHELLEY: You are here because you are elected.

Remember, you were elected by people. You weren't elected by the front benches

here, or by the Premier. He didn't vote for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Health (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell the Minister of Health that the

Premier didn't elect you, it was your constituents. Why don't you listen to

them? Any hon. member who can come in here and tell me that they believe that

the privatization is in the best interest of the people of this Province are not

listening, it's plain and simple. If you all believe that - the strategy is

pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear that the hon. members opposite

think that this will all die away, this is the first year of their mandate and

people will forget. Well let me remind the hon. members that month after month

as people get their electricity bills and they see it going higher and higher

and knowing that it's out of control they'll be reminded, I say to the hon.

members in the back benches who sit there and squabble.

They'll be reminded and when you have to stand three years

from now at some rally somewhere and justify the privatization of Hydro, another

mistake that another Liberal government has made, because for twenty or thirty

years we've been trying to justify - the Premier and his hon. House Leader over

there - trying to justify, not justify but lull over the mistake of the

Churchill, the mistake of Churchill Falls, well you'll be doing the same thing

for Hydro. You'll be going through your election campaigns trying to justify

Hydro privatization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm forced to rise in this particular debate, Mr. Speaker,

because I've noticed something totally unprecedented in the five short years

that I've been here. Never have I been here when a member sitting next to me, my

own colleague, got up and presented a petition from my district, my people, and

told me: you better sit down and wait until I tell you what to say and then you

can get up and say something about it. I never, ever saw it before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I know that he's been whipped on a couple

of occasions now because he got up and embarrassed his leader, embarrassed his

party over there and I know he's been put in his place a couple of times but

never did I see a situation where he would be chastised in such a way as to

follow the Member for Kilbride. Mr. Speaker, apart from that, he has made the

accusation, which is totally unfounded again, that members over here do not get

up, stand up and be counted on this issue, and that is wrong. It is certainly

unequivocally wrong. Because members over here are quite pleased and proud to be

able to stand here with the initiatives that we're taking in this area as well

as any other area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The situation is very straightforward.

There is no public policy purpose to be served any more by the government

running the electrical generation and distribution in this Province and in any

area of our economy the people have told us in spades, get out of it. Your

government has no business in any number of areas of private enterprise and

they've told us again that government cannot run a business. They're there for

the private sector and we are returning to the private sector the generation and

distribution of electrical services. Right now people must know that 90 per cent

of the distribution of electricity is done by a private company and has been

done for 100 years by a private company. So we are just doing what the people

want us to do in that regard, Mr. Speaker, and we're quite proud to be able to

come in here and take that initiative.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the debt problem is a real

problem that the people have caught up to much quicker then the members opposite

have caught up to. The people out there want us to do something substantial,

something significant about our debt. We have now over $6 billion on our books

and in this initiative we will take $1.2 billion off our books. We will save our

taxpayers, our future generations, millions of dollars that we will not have to

pay back, Mr. Speaker, as a result of not having to borrow $300-$400 million a

year. These are the clear facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and they can spin

all they want, they can run all they want, they can jump all they want, they can

wave all they want but the parade has stopped, the game is over, the people have

spoken. They know we're doing the responsible thing and we are going to carry

on, we're going to support our Minister of Mines and Energy and we're going to

support this government to carry through this initiative because it is the right

thing for the people at this point in time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and

present a petition on behalf of residents of the District of Menihek, residents

of Labrador City and Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to

whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-five people signed this petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, my God.

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Health and the Member for

Eagle River laugh at the small number of twenty-five people of Western Labrador

who expressed their concerns in the form of a petition given to me and asked to

be presented in the House. The views of twenty-five residents in my district are

very important, and I would ask the Minister of Health and the Member for Eagle

River to pay attention and not belittle the fact that there are only twenty-five

on this piece of paper, because I have presented petitions of practically 2000

people from Western Labrador who have expressed a very similar type of opinion

maybe with a little different prayer.

When members on the opposite side belittle the aspect of only

twenty-five people signing a petition and say it is unimportant what twenty-five

people think, it is more important what I think, the Minister of Health thinks,

it is more important what the Member for Eagle River thinks. Do not take away my

time with the concerns of twenty-five people.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: I tell the Minister of Health that the

prayer of the petition is about the giveaway that you are perpetrating on the

people of this Province about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is what it

is about. It is about you ripping off the taxpayers. That is what it is about.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what it is about. It is about

this Minister of Health who suggests that the people of Western Labrador pay 500

per cent more for their electricity. He thinks that is fair. He does not

recognize what it is like to live in Labrador. He does not realize that in the

month of May it is 25 below zero, cars have to be plugged in, and that the

people of Labrador City and Wabush consume more electricity per capita than

anywhere else in this Province. It is because of the climate but he is not aware

of that because he is only accustomed to the comforts of the 10 th and

11 th floor, the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the millions of

dollars that are spent on his offices, the Cabinet rooms, and the 8th floor.

That is what he is interested in.

He has all those comforts of plush carpet that he has wasted

the taxpayer's money on. He is not concerned about electricity. He does not care

about that, a man making $120,000 a year, plus drawing a pension. Why should he

care about paying 500 per cent more for electricity? He would not be concerned

about ordinary people in Labrador. Why should he? He is only beholden to his

colleagues in Cabinet, that is all.

He has become so arrogant since he has been re-elected the

second time, Mr. Speaker, that he has forgotten what ordinary people are

concerned about. He does not realize what ordinary people think about. He does

not realize that by raising electricity costs to ordinary people it is going to

slow down the economy, because they have to spend more money just to survive,

and that is exactly what is happening with privatization.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River suggested that there

is no public policy function or purpose for this Crown corporation. Well, there

could very well be. Quebec Hydro, Mr. Speaker, has a public policy purpose of

their Crown corporation, Hydro Quebec. As a matter of fact it has been used as

an economic lever to attract industry to the Province of Quebec, and there is

absolutely no reason why we should not be using it in a similar fashion in our

Province.

There are eight other provinces that have their hydro utility

as a Crown corporation and they find it beneficial as a lever for economic

development. We should be doing it, we could be doing it, but now what this

government is doing is a sell-out, Mr. Speaker, and the people are concerned

about it.

The Member for Eagle River also mentioned that we are going

do away with a debt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure

to rise and support the petition signed by residents of the District of Menihek.

They have every right, whether it is five, or fifty-five, or 5,500 people, to be

heard.

The Premier tries to convince the people of this Province

that the downgrading of our credit rating by one credit agency is a reason to

privatize Hydro. The Premier has been on a course to privatize Hydro for over

one year and longer. He has been on a crusade since 1986 when he was a legal

advisor and on the board of directors of Newfoundland Power, and later became

their chairman. That is a part of his long-term agenda.

The credit rating agencies that rate this Province, three

have already given us a rating below A. It is a matter of the fourth one coming

in line. Different economic advisors and analysts recently have been quoted as

saying that it is just a matter of this fourth credit rating agency coming into

line. They are on record as stating it is not going to have any impact on our

ability to borrow money on the world market. We've already had three out of four

credit rating agencies giving us a B+ or BBB+ in this latest downgrade from A-.

It is just smoke and mirrors trying to cloud the issue for the people thinking

we have to bail out.

The Premier thought that before when he sat around the

Cabinet table in the 1960s when he participated in what he thought was a great

idea, or he refused to say anything against it, in the biggest sell-out in the

history of Canada. Eight hundred million dollars a year from Upper Churchill and

he thought it was a good idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what we are paying now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor? I will

tell you what we are paying for electricity if the minister wants to know. Hydro

Quebec is receiving by virtue of that agreement three mils. Three mil rate they

are paying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait till I'm finished. They are going to

pay 2 mils in 2015. That is three-tenths. They are going to pay three-tenths of

1 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When you get your light bill in the mail

today you pay 6.542 cents on your bill. They are paying three-tenths; it is

going down to two-tenths or one-fifth of a cent. That is what they are paying.

You multiply that and calculate, it is thirty-two and a half times the rate we

are paying, people here in this Province, to what Quebec is going to be paying

and Hydro Quebec to get electricity after the year 2015.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Do I hear an echo here in the building? I

will ask the minister - he knows the rules of the House. If he could just remain

- stand up and speak on the petition when you have an opportunity and I will

listen to what you have to say. If I think it is important enough I might even

heed it. I haven't heard anything on Hydro yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true Cyril Abery wanted to extend

that contract for forty-five years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The government of this Province had on the

table, and it has been tabled here in this House, the opportunity to correct in

some way the wrongs that were done back in the 1960s. They had an opportunity to

at least save some face and get a better return in lieu of developing the Lower

Churchill. After agreeing - Quebec on certain concessions, they came back in

agreement and the Premier scuttled the deal because he started to take back

things that were already agreed to under that deal. That is what happened there.

An opportunity.

We are going to have a sell-out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is fact. You know it well.

If there are any economic reasons why we should privatize

Hydro on sound economic reasons I would support it. Regardless of policy. We

have to do things on an economic basis. One of the reasons why in this Province

we are in the dilemma we are is because we have not done enough to stimulate the

economy of this Province. The GDP and debt ratio to the GDP is a main factor in

determining what our credit rating is. It is now at 70 per cent. We haven't

stimulated this economy and diversified and developed industries at a sufficient

rate to keep in line with the debt that we have.

That is why we have had a downgrading in our credit rating,

and the outlook for this Province, regardless of Hydro, was negative. And if

it's positive to privatize it, you can be assured, if it is privatized, it

should put the rating back up again if it is going to have an effect. The

outlook is negative over the next while. We have projected growth in this

Province of only 0.7 per cent this year, while Prince Edward Island is over 4

per cent projection; British Columbia is over 4 per cent. Canada, as a whole,

has a projected growth of 3 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Your Honour, I have a petition of citizens of

the Conception Bay and St. John's areas which I wholeheartedly support.

The petition calls on the Legislature to demand the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown

corporation.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, the same as most citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador, realize that the Province will be much better off if

the government retains Hydro. Despite government propaganda claiming that the

mandate of Hydro has been fully carried out, most people realize that an

important part of Hydro's remaining mandate is to keep down electricity prices.

Another part of the remaining mandate is to keep Hydro profits in the Province

so they can be used for the benefit of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy and

the citizens of our Province. Perhaps the most important part of the remaining

mandate of Hydro is to develop the vast undeveloped water resources in Labrador.

Hydro is the government's electricity division, with the

expertise needed to develop the Lower Churchill and to protect our interest in

the Upper Churchill. It also has the financial strength required for Lower

Churchill development.

In the Question Period exchange between me and the Premier

today -

MR. ROBERTS: - `the Premier and I'.

MS. VERGE: - it became very obvious - `me' is the

objective case, I say to the minister. There are some teachers in the gallery

who might confirm -

MR. SPEAKER: - `the Premier and me'.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Your Honour. His Honour confirmed

that indeed I was using correct grammar.

Regardless of that, what is at stake is the Lower Churchill,

and what the Premier confirmed today in Question Period is that if the

government proceeds to divest itself of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, then

the private sector will be all that remains to carry out the development of the

Lower Churchill, so just as the Smallwood government turned to the private

sector, to BRINCO, in the fifties and sixties, because the government didn't

have the expertise or the financial strength for the development of the Upper

Churchill, with disastrous consequences, either this administration or some

future government, without Hydro, will have to turn to the private sector.

The Lower Churchill assets are owned by the Lower Churchill

Development Corporation, which essentially is a sister corporation of Hydro, but

LCDC is a company on paper; it doesn't have any employees. Without Hydro, LCDC

is basically a shell, so for future Lower Churchill development, the private

sector would be in control.

Obviously, if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized,

most of the shares will be held by non-residents of this Province and control

will rest in Montreal or Toronto, some other part of the country or part of the

world, and the private interests who will control Hydro will be in the driver's

seat in relation to Lower Churchill development. They aren't going to be

concerned about benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about jobs for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about providing an interconnection to the

Island for economic development on the Island.

A transmission line connecting Labrador to the Island is a

huge undertaking. The estimated cost is $2.5 billion. A minimum of 800 megawatts

of power would be required, and realistically, the Island demand for electricity

in the decades ahead probably wouldn't justify that block of power immediately

so it would have to be added gradually as the Island economy expanded. So

realistically, if Hydro is privatized, we'll be losing our shot at getting an

interconnection to the Island. So what we stand to lose by privatizing Hydro is

a lot of money out of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy because of the

higher electricity prices -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - that businesses and householders will have

to pay. We'll lose the Hydro profits. Most of them will be paying for

non-resident shareholders and we'll lose a golden opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the petition.

An hon. member doesn't have to support the petition to speak to it and the hon.

gentleman is a part of the false argument that's been promulgated through the

land now, when people ask, Where do government members stand? When, in our

history, did anybody ever ask, where do members of government stand? What

nonsense! What nonsense to be preaching throughout the land! I get the greatest

amusement when I hear somebody on Open Line saying: I haven't heard Tom

Lush speak out, I haven't heard Dr. Kitchen speak out as to where he stands on

privatization, and hon. members opposite are feeding that kind of ignorance.

That's nonsense! Everybody on government side stands with the government

initiative. That's where I stand, firm behind the government initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: And to stand here, Mr. Speaker, day after day

and listen to political neophytes, telling you to stand up, you haven't got the

guts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Over the past twenty years, Mr. Speaker, I've

stood on a lot of issues. I've never been afraid to stand up on an issue, and at

the end of the day, every member on this side is going to stand proudly and take

a vote on this issue and we can tell you now, we are firmly behind the

privatization of Hydro!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Social

Services is he saying now that the people of this Province are ignorant? Is this

what I heard him say?

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman doesn't

understand what I said. It confirms what I said in the beginning whether - and

teachers weren't included - the hon. member might very well be, but teachers

weren't included.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. the Member for Ferryland say

that he would vote for this if somebody had given him some sound economic

reasons why he should support it. Well, I stand on the other side. I might vote

for this if hon. members gave me some sound economic reasons why I ought not to

support it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would do it. I haven't heard

from him, I haven't heard from hon. members. What I've heard is a lot of

fearmongering, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order because I've spoken on this bill

on numerous occasions. I've stated - and he can read Hansard - in the House on

dozens of occasions, I've stated financial reasons why and I'll do it again when

I get up again on another petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll give him financial reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order. No point

of order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members on the

opposite side demonstrate how they think that they are the fountain of all

wisdom. They think that the only thing correct said about Hydro is what they

say. The only economics correct about Hydro, the only details correct about

Hydro are what they have to offer. I suggest that the economic issues advanced

on this side are every bit as correct as what is advanced on that side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have heard from the other side, and

I agree that the hon. member has made some economic sense, but when I am

listening to these petitions, what have I heard? What I have heard, is the

challenge to this side of the House to stand up, have guts, this kind of

nonsense. I haven't heard an economic reason advanced this morning - only, oh

yes, the rates are going to go up. Now, Mr. Speaker, what a bogeyman! The rates

are going to go up - we all know the rates are going to up if we don't privatize

Hydro.

Now, the latest one introduced in the debate today is the one

by the Member for Humber East, development is going to stop - no more

development in this Province - another fearmongering tactic and the people of

this Province are too intelligent to believe that. The greatest hydro

development in this Province, the greatest hydro development in North America,

one of the greatest hydro developments in the world was done by private

enterprise - Churchill Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Now, Mr. Speaker, if anybody ever demonstrated

why we should privatize Hydro, it's that development that was done by the

private sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you (inaudible) Churchill

Falls?

MR. LUSH: I was there working, that's where I have been;

I spent five years on the site, probably the only member here who knows anything

about the details of the job, having spent five years there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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.

Well, at long last, at long last we heard from the Minister

of Social Services, who proudly proclaims that it is only political neophytes

who oppose the privatization of Hydro. Well, I say to the hon. minister that

wisdom doesn't always come with age, whether it is political age or human age,

Mr. Speaker. There are an awful lot of people in this Province, the 79 per cent

of the people are not political neophytes, Mr. Speaker. They are the people,

they are the rulers of this Province - the people are in charge of this

Province, not this government, not a dictatorship of democracy, so-called

democracy, that we have over here.

Now, the reason we had to ask for these individuals to get up

and stand up individually is because we know they are being dictated to by the

Premier; we know they are being told what to say and what not to say, the

Premier told us himself, so we have to smoke them out, we have to hear from them

one at a time. And if they are going to stand behind this undemocratic decision

by the government, well, they are going to have to stand up individually and be

accounted for.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were the Minister of Social Services,

who has been around perhaps a little bit too long, Mr. Speaker, if I were him, I

wouldn't brag about the private development of Churchill Falls, because yes, the

private capital was able to develop Churchill Falls, there is no doubt about

that, and in whose interest did they develop it, Mr. Speaker? They looked after

the private interest, the Rothschilds did not lose a cent; they got the full

return on their investment - not only did they get the full return on their

investment, they guaranteed it by locking in the sixty-five-year contracts, Mr.

Speaker, locking them down, nailing them down for sixty-five years, in order to

guarantee that they were going to get a return on investment.

They looked after themselves, they carried the ball and they

built it on time and on budget and all that stuff, but in whose interest, Mr.

Speaker? In the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, no;

they developed it in the interest of the private capital that they were designed

and their function is to protect, and I say to members opposite that the reason

the people of Newfoundland are so overwhelmingly opposed to the privatization of

Hydro, is because they know. We've learned from that bitter lesson, Mr. Speaker,

that we are learning from every day. We know that private enterprise - while it

has good qualities, it serves an economic purpose, but we, the people of this

Province, know that private enterprise serves private enterprise.

When you take a resource as valuable and as large and as

important as this to the people of Newfoundland, that the people of Newfoundland

have to be in control of it. Because if we are not, we are going to lose on the

Lower Churchill, we are going to lose this enterprise, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, which is designed to serve the people - to serve the people in more than

one way. As the Member for Humber East pointed out in presenting the petition,

it serves the people because part of its mandate and mission is to provide

electricity at the lowest possible rates. That is a service to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Secondly, it provides a service to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador by responding to the people through the government the expertise

and the loyalty of professionals who are going to be charged with the

responsibility of further development of hydroelectric power in this Province in

Churchill Falls and the Lower Churchill. They are going to do that, this time we

hope, for the long-term benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and

not the private capital that a private company would be designed to look after.

That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. That is why people in

this Province are opposed to it, and that is why I support the petitioners and

this petition. And that is why this government is going to go down in disgrace.

If they go through with this proposal to privatize Hydro they will go down in

disgrace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to try to be as

oratorical -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. minister presenting a petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speaking to a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: No, we've already had three speakers.

MR. SULLIVAN: This is a new petition here now.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the hon. minister if he is

presenting a petition.

MR. LUSH: I thought I spoke to a petition that had been

presented by the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: He spoke to my petition.

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East presented a petition. The

hon. the Minister of Social Services spoke to it, and the hon. the Member for

St. John's East, as I understand it, spoke to that petition. So we've had three

speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: New petition.

MR. SPEAKER: A new petition, yes, or move on to Orders of

the Day.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he listened a little more carefully he might know that

there had been three speakers.

Now, I would like to touch on things I've touched on many

times before in a petition. This petition is on behalf of residents in

Conception Bay South and surrounding areas. Dozens of people have signed this

petition - several dozen.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, there are several dozen,

there are thirty-seven names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Several dozen!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to touch on some

financial reasons why I'm supporting it. In this House, there are very few

members on the government side who have sought out the financial information.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are opposing it, you mean - you are

opposing privatization.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm opposing privatization, supporting this

petition. I will just touch on some financial reasons. I've done it dozens of

times before. Wade Locke has analyzed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: What are you supporting?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A petition not to privatize Newfoundland

Hydro. Wade Locke, economist, has indicated that it could be $40 million to $70

million extra cost. Here is why, from a taxpayer's perspective, and then I will

tell why, if I have time, from a ratepayer's perspective.

From a taxpayer's perspective it is not a direct debt on this

Province. This Province receives $10 million a year by guaranteeing the debt of

Newfoundland Hydro. This Province receives an average of almost $10 million a

year on federal corporate income tax under PUITTA that would go to Newfoundland

Power. Because 85 per cent of the corporate federal income tax paid by a utility

in this country is refunded to the province in which the utility is located.

Since Newfoundland Power is located in this Province 85 per cent of its federal

corporate income tax that averages out to about $10 million a year comes back

into the treasury of this Province to help keep down our debt or to use for

revenue sources throughout the Province. That is $20 million a year we are now

achieving directly as taxpayers in this Province.

Now, this government has decided, this government has made a

decision in this bill that what they are going to do, if Hydro is privatized,

they are going to kick another $20 to $30 million into the unfunded pension

liability of Hydro employees. I am not knocking that point, but the point I am

knocking is they have hung out to dry the pension plans of other public sector

employees in this Province over the past number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not.

Do you want to hear facts? They do not listen because they

are afraid to hear the real truth. Why would you want to privatize a company

that is given a margin of profit to cover its costs, like Newfoundland Hydro,

and enough profit to maintain credit worthiness on the international market?

That is what happens with Hydro.

The third item, what they are going to do under a privatized

Hydro, would permit a newly privatized company to get a return of profit to its

shareholders that has averaged for Newfoundland Power 13.74 per cent. Hydro has

only been showing a profit of 5 to 8 per cent but we are going to turn over tens

of millions of dollars extra return to shareholders of new Hydro and 80 per cent

is going to go outside this Province. This Province can only provide enough

capital to own a maximum of 20 per cent of a new company and the remainder is

going out to shareholders on Bay Street and in Montreal and wherever the capital

is in this country.

Who would not invest their money into a fund that is going to

give them a return of 13.74 per cent? The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement

Fund are the largest shareholders in Fortis, 16 per cent. Montreal Engineering

has a large per cent. The Ontario Teachers Federation invests and gets returns

in numerous companies because they want to go where the largest rate of return

is. That is one of the reasons from taxpayers' perspective, and we are going to

take all these new costs of lawyers and investment dealers on the market, and

the Rothschilds that were infamous in the Upper Churchill. We have paid them

already, up to a month ago, $538,000 for financial advice. That almost destroyed

the economy of this Province with the Upper Churchill. That is why we do not

want to privatize Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And the minister denied this is privatizing

other Crown corporations. We spent $1.7 million and a budget of another $3

million to get financial advice on what was the worse deal in the history of the

country. The Premier is leading you all around and not giving the truth. The

Member for Pleasantville knows the truth. He took the time and effort to

proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I want to rise to support the petition presented by my

colleague the Member for Ferryland. I can understand members opposite not giving

the member leave. He is confusing them with the facts. That is the problem with

members opposite. They are getting the reasons now why they should not privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but they do not want to hear that. They have

been told they must privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, regardless of

whether it is a bad deal for the Province. For months the Premier has told them

to shut up and be quiet, do not think about it. I am telling you it is best for

the people of the Province so do not think or speak about it. That is what has

happened to members opposite.

Now, I want to say to the Minister of Social Services, and I

have heard him say before that he spent some time working in Labrador, but after

the performance he put on today, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he actually went over

the falls in a barrel and survived, I say to him. I really thought he must have

gone over and is still spinning.

AN HON. MEMBER: We would be better off if he had been

under.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would not say that to the minister,

but what a performance by the Minister of Social Services, trying to justify

something that deep down inside him he really cannot justify. That is what is

happening over there. They are trying to justify it because they have been told

they must proceed with it.

Then the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is so

confused and disoriented that he does not know if he was supporting a petition

or presenting a new one.

Is there any wonder that Standard and Poor's has downgraded

the Province's credit rating, when they look at the front benches of the

government, look at what is supposed to be managing the Province? Is there any

wonder why, I say to the Minister of Health and the Member for Eagle River, the

two Ronnies over there this morning. All they have done is cat call and joke

about everything that has been said over there. The Minister of Health is still

at it over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) crossword.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess that is what happened to the

Minister of Health; he came off without his crossword puzzle, and now he is

irritated, really upset. Send somebody out to get you the paper, or to get your

book. Get your executive assistant to bring up your crossword puzzle book from

your office, for God's sake. We want to make some progress here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are joined by the Member for Fogo. Now

we have the three amigos. We have gone from the two Ronnies to the three amigos.

Is there any wonder that the people of the Province don't believe the Premier

and the government about the benefits of privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? Is

there any wonder, with the performance of the members opposite, and the

ministers? Is there any wonder Standard and Poor's have downgraded the credit

rating of the Province, when they look at who is managing the financial affairs

of the Province? My God, Mr. Speaker, I would say we're lucky that they only

downgraded us to BBB+, and I would say, by the end of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, my God, I say to the poor Minister

of Environment and Lands, the poor creature, how can she sit in her place today

and even open her mouth, when she looks around the galleries of this House today

and sees the hundreds of teachers who, just a few short years ago, she was

supposed to be leading. We know where she led them, right down the garden path,

and now she has deserted them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Education then?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know. I say one thing, we would

be better off without the present Minister of Education. As I said the other

day, when he talked about isolated schools, I said: If we could only isolate the

minister, we would get this dispute resolved. If we could only put him in

quarantine, if we could only put the minister in quarantine, lock him up

somewhere in a cell, get him out of the way, don't put a microphone in front of

his face...

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a woman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It was a woman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha! That narrows it down substantially.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It does.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many women were in your Cabinet in

1983?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: 1983, I believe there were two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Aha, there were two. You thought there

was one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to say to the Minister of

Education: I know it has been a long week, but you shouldn't be speaking across

the House, telling the Member for Humber East -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Standing Order 92, says: Every member

offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the

material allegations it contains.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the question of relevance could be

brought up to the remarks of the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. minister is correct when he

states that the presenters and speakers of petitions should contain their

remarks to the petition and the names, and I ask hon. members, when they present

petitions, to stick to that point.

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Maybe my hon. friend from Grand Bank will give

me permission, now. Am I right this time? I am allowed to speak this time, am I?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, thank you very much; I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, it is sort of amusing, isn't it, that we are

speaking on the Hydro bill, and a petition of a group of people - the dozens of

people, the thirty-two or thirty-three who signed it - and my hon. colleague

from Grand Bank got up and attacked everybody on this side of the House and

never mentioned Hydro once. It is sort of funny, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, for the past weeks we have been sitting in this

House and some, I must say - there are some over there who got up and spoke

directly on the bill and on petitions. The vast majority know no more about

what's going on with Hydro then I would say - 90 per cent I'd say quite honestly

- of the children under two years old in the Province. They don't know any more

about it then most people that age and I get a great kick -

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak to the petition. I'm

going to speak to the hundreds and the thousands of people around this Province

who are against Hydro. I'm going to say to the hon. members across - and I'll

swear this on a bible. I will not stand in this House and lie to this House and

I'll prove it to any member that asks me. I have had one letter from my

district, one letter, Mr. Speaker, signed by two people from the District of

Carbonear. I have seen two petitions which were identical signed by one person

from Carbonear and that same person signed the same petition twice, I've seen

that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've been travelling around this Province

and almost on a daily basis I meet people. People who have no connection with

government whatsoever, decent, honest, educated, understanding people of this

Province. It's a funny thing that the vast majority of those people, if they

mention Hydro at all, their comments are: Art, get on with it, privatize it.

It's the best thing that we can do for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: But, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be driving

along the Trans-Canada at twelve-thirty or one o'clock in the morning either

trying to get home to Carbonear or trying to get back into St. John's and to

keep me awake, to be honest about it, for amusement, I may push that 590 dial

and they're on the line saying: Good evening Bas. Is that you Bas? Bas will

reply: all the lines are open in St. John's, come on give us a call. Vetters is

on the line and he wants you to support Hydro. I get a great kick out of that.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I hear in the Province to be

quite honest about it - I haven't had any petitions presented to me. I haven't

had any people from my constituency come to me and express a deep concern. I had

one, I had an employee of Hydro speak to me as a personal friend some time ago.

I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that there is nobody sitting in this House from

that side of the House or from this side of the House, that's going to tell me

how to vote when the time comes to vote on Hydro. The Premier of the Province,

the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber or anyone else is not going

to influence my decision, my mind is made up. It's the best possible thing that

I can do for my children and my grandchildren and I'm voting in favour of Hydro!

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Tors

Cove, Bay Bulls and surrounding area requesting that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken many times on petitions and many

times on the bill and I feel that - if you read back Hansards - I've talked

facts any time I spoke on Hydro privatization. I've challenged people on the

other side of the House on previous occasions that I will go to any public forum

and debate with them, with the Premier or anybody pertaining to privatization. I

haven't heard the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stand up and talk

one fact. I haven't heard the Minister of Social Services stand up and talk one

fact. I haven't heard them refute the facts that we've indicated or haven't

given any figures to the contrary and until such time as somebody can do that -

the Premier hasn't done it or nobody else has done it on Hydro privatization.

I will stand by the economic facts that are presented and are

available - and from the Premier's own facts in the closed media conference he

had, that's where I received a lot of the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I wouldn't have to - if there was order on

the other side of the House and control I wouldn't need to shout. The members

asked for facts and I'd like to stick to facts. Now, another aspect -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lower your voice.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will if you'd lower yours.

One other aspect under this is the rate adjustment fund. Now,

under the rate adjustment fund this Province is trying to hoodwink the rate

payers into not seeing the real truth up front. I think this Province has a

responsibility to tell the rate payers of this Province up front that your rates

are not going to increase by just $1.50 a month in year one. The real truth is

that the $15 million fund is going to be part of the funds to ease in the rate

adjustment to rural Newfoundland and to shift from large industrial consumers in

this Province.

The people are going to see the real brunt, and the Premier

admits this, and if the ministers read what the Premier released, if you had

seen the volumes of information on this, you would see that the real impact of

these rates are going to be hit in 1999. That is when the full impact hits. If

you think that 700 kilowatt hours of consumption of electricity per month is the

average for this Province, that is the rate at which he is guaranteeing

equitable rates to a reasonable access to power. Forty-five dollars worth of

electricity is a reasonable access to electric use in this Province. That is

what the Premier used in his closed media conference here on a Friday that he

wouldn't permit anybody else to enter. We received a copy afterwards, of course,

and that is what he is indicating.

When Newfoundland Power will tell you that there are 173,000

consumers and the average consumption per month the past year was between 1,300

and 1,400, double what the Premier is using in that. That is considering 99,000

of these people do not have electric heat, 99,000 of these homes don't have

electric heat. It is double the figures he is using just based on the average

consumption, not counting the $15 million that is kicked in to cushion it

further, and not counting the other rates that are going to be absorbed within

the rates that the Province is not going to put into it. We are going to have a

tremendous increase of electricity in 1999 if Hydro is privatized.

On top of all that, why would you want to go to a cost of

tens of millions of dollars to sell shares on a market, to give a return of

profit to the shareholders of a corporation, to incur legal costs, and all other

costs, to go out and privatize a company that has a self-supporting debt in this

Province?

If Hydro was in grave danger - I think Hydro has a better

credit standing really than this Province if you look at in terms of its assets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Looking at its assets, I said. Listen to

the rest of my statement. I will use the example of Bay d'Espoir. Bay d'Espoir

has a book value listed for asset evaluation purposes of $150 million. Built at

a cost of $170 million, all the debt on that was retired in 1992. Now in order

to replace that, recent hydro projects in this Province - and I will name them

if you want them named - that have been they built in this Province - and I have

a list here of each one and what it cost and how many megawatts it produced -

and the average now to put it there today is about $3 million per megawatt.

I will just go to the most recent. Paradise River in 1989

cost almost $3 million. In 1985, Cat Arm, at the time it was 2 million a

megawatt. One hundred and twenty-seven megawatts. The Bay d'Espoir project

today, the Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric asset there, has -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: - a value of about $1.5 billion based on

the replacement value of that, or more.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move

that we proceed to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. minister that we

move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the

Member for Ferryland just presented a petition on Hydro introducing and

repeating many of the economic arguments against privatization. I think one or

two other members should have a chance to speak on the petition as well to

elaborate, to continue the list of reasons why privatizing Hydro is an extremely

bad idea for the Province.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. member presented a

petition. The hon. Minister of Finance rose in his place, the Chair recognized

him. The motion was put to move to Orders of the Day. The motion was carried.

There is really no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: We are into Orders of the Day now, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. BAKER: I would like to call, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. BAKER: The Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm

honoured today to speak to this Budget. I guess the first order of business

would be congratulations to the Minister of Finance of this Province for

bringing in what all people would have to say is a masterful document, one that

could only be brought in by a financial genius, Mr. Speaker, that's what I would

have to submit to this House today.

Hardly have we ever heard of a situation where we have been

in such dire economic straits and be able to get a Minister of Finance to bring

in the kind of Budget that he did here a few weeks ago, that kept our

commitments to social programs, it maintained compassion, integrity in our

social programs, it gave the financial world a very clear picture of our fiscal

responsibility in our programs and then, Mr. Speaker, obviously ignored the

socialists hoards opposite, obviously ignored the socialists opposite.

Obviously, he didn't look at Bob Rae up in Ontario, obviously

he didn't look at Mr. Rae in Ontario who nearly, nearly drove the finances of

that province through the floor, so, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be

able to stand here in support of this Budget and I want to outline a few things

as it relates to the Budget's expenditure details, that I think are very, very

important and people must remember that we have now put in place some very

significant things, and a great deal of the credit has to go to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

This year, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

will be spending millions of dollars throughout this Province, and indeed in

Labrador spending $4 million to $5 million, money that wasn't there just a few

short weeks ago, is now being put into place to be able to meet the pressing

needs of transportation in Labrador. In my own District of Eagle River, Mr.

Speaker, I am very happy to say that they are going to be resurfacing the road

between Lodge Bay and Mary's Harbour; they are going to be resurfacing the

airstrips at Paradise River and Mary's Harbour -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, resurfacing because obviously the

weather and the fact that it hasn't been paved, has worn it down and the top is

gone off it and obviously very, very hard for people to commute from Mary's

Harbour to Lodge Bay, and where we have the crab plant in Mary's Harbour, a lot

of the people who are in Lodge Bay and not only for work but just the mail

delivery and getting goods and services back and forth between the two

communities, is a very important link for these people and to be able to go in

there now and be able to put $300,000 or $400,000 of taxpayers money into that

particular region, Mr. Speaker, I think, is a very, very fine indication of the

kind of commitment that we have to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and

commitment to our small communities because we are taking taxpayers money and

putting it where the need is, not simply because of partisan political purposes

that we saw so much in the past, and obviously to be able to maintain a roads

program this year, a provincial roads program of $20 million in this fiscal

year, is very, very good news indeed and, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the

construction industry will be saying anything but good news that is forthcoming

from this government again this year on the transportation needs that we have.

Mr. Speaker, we see from the Department of Environment and

Lands, funding of some $150,000 being provided for the development of a waste

management strategic plan for the Province, very, very important; people in this

Province want to know how we are going to approach waste management and to put

this kind of funding into it so that we can get a strategic plan in place, I

think it is very indicative of our consciousness as it relates to environmental

concerns and waste management, one of the most important aspects of the

Department of Environment and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Fisheries, we see a strong,

unequivocal commitment to helping out Northern Labrador to be able to provide

the money to operate the plant in Nain and assist in the plant in Makkovik, to

be able to get the turbot that is there adjacent to these communities, brought

in to these communities so that we can have these people in Northern Labrador

working rather than on any kind of a program, they will be working and producing

a tremendous product from Northern Labrador, that it will be attractive to the

marketplace, that we will be able to generate revenue not only for the

communities but for the government as well so that we can make the government

owned operation in Northern Labrador a self sustaining one.

Mr. Speaker, the interest rate subsidy that we've seen, or

the rate subsidy for the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation in

the coastal air flight services. I noticed that in the Budget the government

indicated there would be an increase of 25 per cent. Thanks to the work that has

been put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains, and I would say also the

people in my riding, and I've supported them, the government has now seen the

implementation of a 10 per cent increase in these rates. That is something that

is reasonable, that is something that the people on the Coast of Labrador can

support.

Obviously now we are at the stage where we have two airlines

going into Coastal Labrador. There are five communities - Mary's Harbour, St.

Lewis, Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown, and Cartwright - that now have a second

airline going into these communities. They are going in there at this level of

pricing, which is very encouraging to know that we have the ability now to be

able to keep two airlines on the Coast of Labrador and at a reasonable rate. I

think that the government must be congratulated for being able to see these

things move along and still be able to maintain a sound program of

transportation services along the Coast of Labrador.

Forestry and agriculture. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture is also going to be well remembered and well respected on the Coast

of Labrador for the work that they have done under the comprehensive Labrador

Agreement, which is 30 per cent funding from this government. We have seen the

completion of a management plan for the Coast of Labrador. We have seen the

introduction of a training program in forestry harvesting. Some thirty people

who would otherwise be on NCARP or the new TAGS program went into the forest

training program last year, a first of its kind in Labrador, and through that

program thirty-some people on the Coast of Labrador and the Cartwright and the

Port Hope Simpson area got trained in wood harvesting.

At the present time I'm happy to say to the people of this

House and to the people of the Province that we are revitalizing our forestry

industry along the Coast of Labrador. Just a couple of days ago I talked to an

individual in Port Hope Simpson, Mr. Strugnell, who has always been involved in

the local saw milling industry, but this year he has two significant contracts

to fulfil, some 4,000 cords of wood that he is going to provide to Abitibi-

Price. At the present time he is looking at having twenty people working there

full-time. For six to seven months of this year they will be working along. He

has a contract now also to keep a number of these people on through the winter

months. That is the start of something that is new, something that is great and

something that is meaningful, because our economy, as you know, is dependent,

for the last thirty or forty years in particular, on the fishery pretty well 100

per cent.

What we see here now is the start of a real alternative in

the economy of Coastal Labrador and that is the tremendous wood resources we

have in the Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown and Cartwright area. This wood must

be harvested because if it isn't it is just going to decay. Here we have the

best black spruce in the world for pulp production. It can generate a much

greater yield than the wood on the Island because of the fact that it had such a

short growing season. Apparently, they tell me that because of the short growing

season it has been compressed that much more than it would be in other parts of

the Province. They say it gives a much greater yield in the pulp and paper

industry, in the processing of that particular resource. I'm very optimistic

about the future for forestry harvesting and processing along the Coast of

Labrador and I think the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture must accept a lot

of that responsibility.

We know that there has been a proposal for some time by an

Austrian company to come into Cartwright and to put a laminating processing

plant in Cartwright. Unfortunately, because of the fact there was no management

plan in place, because of the fact that there has been the land claims issues

that have been raised by the Innu and also supported strongly by the Metis

association, because of that there has been a delay in being able to get anybody

to go into that area and cut wood and saw it into lumber form. Therefore that

particular company has moved and obviously any kind of a company that can't

provide its market must look to find an alternate source. They have now set up,

or some of the principals involved, have purchased Canada Bay Lumber in

Roddickton and certainly they are proceeding there to try and fulfil their

markets.

It is certainly our hope and our aspiration, and I would hope

that the management plan that has now been finished, and the environmental

report that must accompany that plan will be finished by the end of this year.

By the end of this year we will know that we have so many cords of wood, some

40,000 cords of wood that can be taken out of the Cartwright area alone, that we

will be able to go to the marketplace once again and say: We have solved our

problems, we have addressed our environmental concerns, we have made the

management decisions that are necessary to promote this industry on a

self-sustaining basis. We will be able to find other companies that are out

there that are willing to come in and take this product.

Because it is, as every member of this House knows, that

lumber is one of the fastest rising commodities on the market today. Its price

has increased significantly over the last number of years. We are very

optimistic that we can put together a package where the people locally can be

joined into joint ventures with others and be able to harvest the wood and bring

it out to the Cartwright area and saw it through having saw mills set up in that

area. I am optimistic that we will have 100 to 150 people in two to three years'

time, at least in two to three years' time, working in that particular area of

forestry on the Coast of Labrador.

That is the kind of thing that will sustain our communities.

That is the kind of thing that we will have to put in place to be able to keep

our communities alive and to keep our lifestyles as we are. Because believe it

or not I do sincerely believe that our people want to stay in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador. They want to maintain that same standard of living that they have.

They want to be able to keep their families where they grew up. They want to

maintain their homes that they've worked so hard for in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is incumbent upon us to assist them in being able to diversify

their economy and being able to put the plans in place that will see it sustain

itself into the future.

Obviously one of the most critical things to the development

of forestry and tourism and other general services along the coast of Labrador

is the completion of the northern Gulf route, which would encompass a

Trans-Labrador Highway. We do have the sound economic basis for it. Just last

January there was a study released by Fiander-Good, a very reputable consulting

firm in Atlantic Canada, which did a $200,000 study which showed quite clearly

that to put a road across Labrador is a sound economic proposition. For every

dollar that would be spent by the taxpayers in putting a road from Red Bay to

Cartwright in my riding the taxpayers would get back $1.70. Seventy cents more

would be given back to the taxpayers than the taxpayers would have to put in, by

virtue of a number of factors.

The first factor of course is that there would be an

elimination and a rationalization of Marine Atlantic. Right now the Marine

Atlantic service to Coastal Labrador, which is there for three to four months a

year, costs $24 million to be able to operate. If we were to take the road down

to Cartwright that would eliminate the need for at least 80 per cent of that

particular subsidy. Immediately we would have that kind of money being

redirected. That money would then be spent more effectively.

We would then have a greater diversification in the Goose Bay

area, where Goose Bay then would be receiving the freight from the transport

trucks and going to Northern Labrador, and obviously, later on in the fall,

Cartwright would then be a distribution point. That is one thing that Marine

Atlantic has done this year and has done right. It has designated Cartwright as

a transshipment point for the freight going to Mary's Harbour, to Nain on the

Coast of Labrador. Because, before, it used to go into Goose Bay, but because of

the twelve or fourteen hours steam into Goose Bay they were losing a lot of

time. Also, because Lake Melville freezes up so much more quickly than every

other part of the Coast, we were losing about a month each year where the

service could not continue. By having the transshipment point in Cartwright, we

will now be able to have the goods delivered faster, more efficiently, and

obviously, Mr. Speaker, it will bring more economic benefits to the community of

Cartwright.

I would hope that some hon. members this year will take their

vacations and visit the Coast of Labrador and see what is happening there,

because there is still a very vibrant economy on the Coast of Labrador. I would

venture to say that we are ahead of the game when it comes to diversifying our

economy and making a fishery of the future. People will know that on the Coast

of Labrador this year, even though there is a moratorium on Northern cod - and

if you were to ask anybody on the street what is going to happen to Coastal

Labrador with no Northern cod, people would say: There is no reason for it to be

there, there would be no reason for it to exist. Because the home of Northern

cod used to be the Hamilton Banks for a certain time of the year, and in the

Cartwright channel and the Hawke channel and all along the coast of Labrador.

Then throughout the summer it would move on along into 3K, and obviously, on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks later in the year.

Today, as we speak, once the ice clears from the Coast of

Labrador, we will have a modern crab plant again operating in Cartwright,

Labrador, with over 100 jobs, producing a fine product in fully processed crab

meat taken by local people in their own vessels, harvested by our own people on

the Coast of Labrador, brought into Cartwright and processed by a modern plant

that takes the crab, cooks it and then freezes it and puts it out ready for

market. It is a very attractive product, indeed.

They are making money. Last year the plant in Cartwright made

$1 million profit. It is the people's plant. It is owned by the people

themselves through the Labrador Shrimp Company, some 800 or 900 shareholders in

that particular company. It is the real ideal, in my view. It is an ideal

indication of how the people can take control of their resources, maintain

integrity in the financial world, and go out and put money into places where

maybe ordinarily there wouldn't be any money.

Because a few years ago when Cartwright wasn't in co-op.

hands we weren't seeing very much activity there. When the co-op took it over,

what they used to do with the money that they were getting from their offshore

shrimp industry, the royalties they were getting from the offshore shrimp, they

would take that money and cross-subsidize it. They would put it into a place

like Cartwright. That is how they put in $300,000 to $400,000 into Cartwright to

give it the brand new modern equipment that is there and built a very fine plant

indeed, a state-of-the-art plant, because of the cross-subsidization. Now, we

have greater security in the community of Cartwright than they've had for

twenty-five years. That is no stretching of the truth at all.

Then, we go further up the shore and we find in the community

of Mary's Harbour, again, right next to the great cod fishing off the Coast of

Labrador, right next to Battle Harbour - it used to be the capital of Labrador -

where there were 25,000 people from the Island who used to go fifty years ago in

schooners, and obviously, 100 years ago it was the same thing. They used to go

down there and they would all go to Indian Harbour, Indian Cove, Battle Harbour,

Carol's Cove, Camp Islands, Murray's Harbour and Tub Harbour. All those places

would be crowded with schooners from Newfoundland and other parts of the

northern shore of Quebec.

They would go there and fish. Now there is no cod, obviously

we are not going to see that kind of migration. But today the community of

Mary's Harbour has a greater future and a more secure future than they've had

for twenty-five years. The last two years, Mr. Speaker, in this community, with

a population of 300-400 people, there were twenty-nine new houses built there,

and these twenty-nine new houses were built by our young people. I think it is

quite telling that these people, under thirty-five, 90 per cent of them who

built these new homes, these are people who we are saying can't wait to get out

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's not true. When there is an

alternative, when there is security, when there is a chance to earn a living and

build a future for themselves and their families, they will choose every time to

stay where they grew up, stay where their home is, stay where their family is.

Now, that is not to say that everybody will, because there

are people who want to go into other fields. People will leave for adventure,

regardless; if they were given a million dollars when they went to school, they

will do that, but for the most part, people who have an obligation to

themselves, and want to be able to sustain themselves and their families, they

will certainly make that decision every time.

St. Lewis, just next door to Mary's Harbour, is in the same

situation. They, this year, are going to be operating a crab plant there. Now

that doesn't end. Down in the Williams Harbour area of Labrador we have a

tremendous scallop industry, one that has never been utilized before. People

used to go out when there was codfish, and maybe in the evenings they would go

out and put a small bucket over a sixteen foot or eighteen foot boat and just

drag up a few scallops for their dinner table, but today -

Last year there were 150 people who got insurable earnings,

rather than go on the NCARP, rather than go and get assistance from government,

these 150 people worked in the scallop industry in that area and got better

earnings that they have had for quite some time. This is an industry that can

start this time of year, usually in May or June, and it can go well on into

October or November. It can have a longer season than the cod fishery ever had.

It can bring greater stability to this area than the cod fishery ever could.

Those are the kinds of things that we have to look at, and we have to put

management plans in place that will be able to give that kind of security to

these communities.

When I talk about management plans, what I am saying is that

there is a chance in a number of other areas in this Province where we can take

adjacent fisheries, whether it be scallops, turbot, shrimp, crab, or redfish,

and right now we have a $75 million shrimp industry. People don't realize this,

but right now as we speak there is a $75 million shrimp industry going on right

from Northern Labrador, down along the Coast of Labrador, and into St. Anthony

Basin. Now, that is going on, albeit out of sight, because you can't see it. It

is being done by seventeen license holders. Obviously, unfortunately, nine of

these license holders are outside of this Province. Six hundred of the 1,000

jobs in that industry are taken by people outside of this Province, even though

there is not one shrimp caught south of Fogo Island, even though we are not

allowed to go even close to the shrimp in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, over towards

the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec shores, up in Anticosti and Sept-Iles;

decided that 600 of the 1,000 jobs, paying at least $50,000 a shot, can go to

people outside of this Province. They can go to the Coast of Labrador and take

this precious resource, and also the mainstay, as the Clearwaters of the world,

and the Mersey Seafoods of the world, and the Ulf Snarbys of the world, they can

go and reap the profits from that particular resource, and nobody can say

anything to them - and that is not right.

Right now, just north of us, over in Greenland, it should be

noted, which is further north than Cape Chidley, we have eight shrimp processing

plants in operation, some of them for eight to ten to twelve months each year -

each year - in Greenland. Now, that is the same shrimp that is being landed in

Greenland, the same stock as serves the Coast of Labrador, because Davis Strait

is separated only by a line. On one line you have the Greenland fishery and on

the other line we have the Canadian fishery controlled by Canada.

That particular industry is providing hundreds of jobs in

Greenland, and shrimp is a resource which has a very long shelf life to it so

you can bring it in, store it, and be able to process it as you need it. It is

not something like, even caplin, which would spoil rather quickly. Shrimp have a

long shelf life, so what they do over there is take it, and they have access to

the market and they know what the market can stand at certain times of the year,

so they use it according to the market demand. They are able to keep the price

up at a certain level, and obviously they are able to keep their processing at a

certain stage in terms of the number of people they employ. But, for the total

shrimp resource on the coast of Labrador, which is some 30,000 metric tons right

now, there is not one shrimp processing plant taking one shrimp from that

anywhere in Canada, and certainly not one in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, there is no reason for that. Over in Greenland they have

an inshore shrimp fishery which is harvested by people with sixty-five foot

boats or less, and here we are on the coast of Labrador trying to get an inshore

shrimp fishery started. There is no reason why it cannot be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it lie now?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The proposal you mean? Well, right now,

this year we want to get an experimental program underway and we are asking the

federal government to provide at least one or two experimental licenses so that

we can take a couple of our idle sixty-five footers that are in the Labrador

Straits and have them go down there and see what they can catch, and see what

the economics would be. Between the harvesting of the shrimp and the academic

study that should also be carried on, which would tell us what the resource is,

and what the markets are, then we would be able to put together a program to say

there should be a plant in Black Tickle. That is what I would advocate, that

there should be a plant in Black Tickle because it is right out in the middle of

the coast of Labrador. It is the furthest out on the coast and it can be

accessed for eight to ten months each year regardless of ice. There is a

facility already there now, and the transition to a shrimp processing plant

would not be an astronomical cost, and it would give security to that community

and all the people in that community for any number of years to come, because

the shrimp are always going to be there.

For instance, right now, the shrimp industry and the shrimp

resource is one of the few that are actually growing instead of declining. One

of their main predators, of course, is cod and they are not there anymore in the

numbers they use to be, so the shrimp is actually growing. Now, we are seeing

tremendous growth in that resource and the scientists are now telling us that

areas 4 and 5, which would go probably from Smokey down to St. Anthony, can

withstand another 3300 metric tons of shrimp. The quota can be increased by

another 3300 tons. It would take about 2000 tons to give a community like Black

Tickle and the 100 workers in Black Tickle a product that they can use, and give

them at least six or seven months work each year.

What I am asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do,

is to not have that 3300 tons reallocated amongst the seventeen users, nor have

separate offshore licenses issued, but to keep that there for this year so we

can assess the viability of an inshore fishery. Then, if we can, dedicate that

quota to an inshore quota and give our fishermen say ten boats and allocations

of 200 tons and then we would be able to direct them into a community like Black

Tickle.

Also, I would not ignore the possibility of having a shrimp

plant for the Northern Peninsula on the same basis, Mr. Speaker. These are the

type of things I am happy to see being encouraged by the actions of our

government, and the actions of our Minister of Fisheries, in particular. Now, we

have the directorate in Labrador, a fisheries directorate. That was brought in

last year for the first time ever and it is now up to speed, it is working well

and we have a good group of civil servants that are dedicated to Labrador and

are working hard to see something like this put in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a good member I would say.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I suppose they must have a good

member, too, and I hope they will acknowledge that in another election to come.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do care quite

seriously about the future of the Coast of Labrador and I congratulate the

Minister of Finance for bringing in the kind of Budget he did. It provides us

with the incentives to continue. It gives us a clear message that in our social

sector, in our social programs, in our health care, in our education, in our

social services, you are going to be there for us. You are keeping the financial

House in order, and at the same time you are allowing us the extra money through

the Labrador agreement that will be able to keep us going and keep those new

energies channelled in the direction where we can have long-term meaningful

employment for the people in this part of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and for

that I thank you on behalf of the people of Eagle River. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in the House

and say a few words on the 1994 Budget. The strip and cut budget, Mr. Speaker,

is probably the way it should be known.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a year almost to the week, few weeks,

that I was first elected to the House of Assembly and the people of St. John's

East Extern gave me the honour and the privilege to represent them in this hon.

House. Mr. Speaker, it's been a very busy year. To say the least, it's been a

very interesting year. We've dealt with many issues in the House of Assembly and

in my district. I've dealt with many personal problems, helped people out in

many issues. I've dealt with municipal issues and had a lot of meetings with the

municipalities and helped solve problems of individual constituents. Now, Mr.

Speaker, since I got into politics, it's only been a year, I find that I get the

most satisfaction from solving personal problems with people. If it could be

said that there is such a thing as a natural high, if an individual has some

serious problem and you can help solve that problem, it certainly gives me a

personal high and I'm sure it does to many hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year there's been many contentious

issues dealt with in the House of Assembly of course and probably the one that's

taking the most time is the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

Bill 1. Mr. Speaker, what can I say on that that hasn't already been said by

most of the members on this side of the House? I realize that many members on

the opposite side of the House have not spoken for various reasons. I think the

most obvious of course is that they are not permitted to speak. They've been

asked by the Premier to keep quiet on the issue. He announced that on