April 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of privilege.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of

privilege to what I consider, quite naturally, to be a very serious matter

pertaining to the scheduled meetings of the estimates committees.

This morning, the Government Services Committee was scheduled

to meet here in the House to go through the estimates of the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The committee came here to the Legislature

this morning, waited for awhile, and the minister or the officials of the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did not show. Then, as I

understand it, the chairperson of the committee went to call the department and

was informed that they would not be here because the minister was at some other

meeting.

Last week some time, I think - or the week before, or early

last week - the acting Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance and

myself, and the Member for St. John's East, and the chairpersons and vice-chairs

of the committee, met at the Treasury Board boardroom to do a schedule. We

realize that there are times that are difficult, as encountered. There have been

some changes to the

schedule already, but that is done by agreement with the

chairperson and the vice-chair, and the minister and so on.

Tomorrow, for instance, Mines and Energy was scheduled in the

a.m. and Fisheries in the p.m., and there has been an agreement between all of

us that Fisheries will now go to the p.m. and Mines and Energy in the morning.

But I think for members of the committee to show up this morning for an

estimates committee hearing, and to be sitting here in the House waiting, and

not know that kind of thing was going to happen, I think, to say it's a terrible

inconvenience to members is an understatement because we had one member of our

committee - I know the Member for St. John's East Extern - who had another

commitment but rushed in here to be here because he felt that was his duty, and

then to get back out.

I wanted to raise it under a point of privilege so I could at

least have an opportunity to express the concerns that I and others on this side

have about it, and I am sure other members of the committee, as well, from the

government side. They should not be here sitting any morning or evening waiting

for a minister and officials from a particular department to show up, and then

they not show. I don't think it's good enough, and I wanted to take this

occasion to bring it to the attention of the House, and hopefully we can avoid

that kind of thing from happening again because it certainly takes away from

members work and scheduling and I suppose to say it is a breach of privilege, I

guess perhaps will go a little bit far, but it certainly is not good enough I

say, Mr. Speaker, is the point. It is not good enough.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think the minister

may want to say a word in a moment he indicates to me, but let me say a word or

two first. This is the first knowledge I had of the incident and I agree it is

not good enough to use my hon. friend's words; I am quite sure the minister

meant no offence and I can assure my hon. friend and the House that we on this

side, and particularly the ministry, those directly involved in these matters,

take the committee process seriously and that includes specifically in this case

the estimates proceedings when ministers with their officials appear before the

Standing Committees, the

section 84 committees to deal with the estimates of

their individual departments.

I don't know what happened this morning, I will have to leave

it to the minister to address that; I am quite sure it was inadvertent, he was

at a meeting throughout the morning which began at nine and went on until noon.

I know because I was at the same meeting, it was a meeting of the Cabinet, but

that still doesn't address the issue so I will leave it to the minister to deal

with that or, if my hon. friend and the minister would prefer, I would have a

word with my colleague once we get into Orders of the Day and address it there,

but let me say, speaking for this side including I am sure my friend, whatever

happened was inadvertent and I can assure my hon. friend that we shall take

steps to make sure it does not recur.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say a few

brief words. I totally agree with the hon. members concerned. The only problem I

have with it is that the hon. Member for St. John's East notified me walking in

here about ten minutes ago that I was supposed to be in the House this morning

for estimates. I had absolutely no idea - I haven't been notified, no one in my

department has been notified of estimates this morning so there has to be a

breakdown of communications somewhere. It is not fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that

it was neglect on my behalf or my officials behalf but the Ministry of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs was not notified and I am pretty sure that most members

who know me and know of my background and my previous four or five years in the

House, know that if I was scheduled to be in this House this morning I would

have been here; so I have to plead total ignorance on behalf of my department

and myself.

MR. TOBIN: Who is the Chairperson?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I would like to speak to that point. The minister has

mentioned that I spoke to him on the way in and I think he may have given the

idea that it was my responsibility to notify him of the meeting, when in fact it

was the member from Trinity North who is chairman of the committee who should

have notified us.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am somewhat surprised that the minister

would not be aware that he was scheduled. We have a schedule, which as I

understand, was developed in conjunction with the acting House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was no (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But the committee was here, so, I guess, the

purpose of raising it is to make sure that other ministers don't. We all know,

of course, that we are practising under some restraint, because we only have

fifteen days in which to deal with estimates, and we lost a full morning.

MR. BAKER: We can extend it a day or two.

MR. SIMMS: Can you? That is good. I am glad to hear the

minister say that. Well, that may resolve that part of it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, the hon. Opposition House -

MR. SIMMS: We have to watch the rules here, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I was recognized and had the floor.

MR. ROBERTS: I would say you have been recognized many

times (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and much more

favourably than the Government House Leader, too, as a matter of fact. In any

event that is irrelevant. The point is that it should not have occurred,

whatever the reason was. The Chairman of the committee is a government member in

the back bench, the Member for Trinity North and certainly he should have

advised the minister, if nobody else should have, and the officials, so I would

be interested in hearing what his explanation is as to why they did not do that.

I am also pleased to hear the House Leader suggest that we will get an extra day

or two if we need it. He is shaking his head, no, now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No problem at all.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, no problem. Okay. I appreciate that.

I will sit down when I am ready I say to the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the matter under advisement.

Order, please!

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

public gallery three groups. The first is a group of thirty-two students from

Bishop White High School in the community of Port Rexton, accompanied by their

teachers Barry Pearce and Lloyd Vey. The second is a group of thirty-nine

students from Improving Our Odds program in Bay Bulls and Tors Cove, accompanied

by their teacher Mrs. Cathy Doyle. The final group is a group of twenty-five

students from the Democracy Class at Queen Elizabeth Regional High School at Fox

Trap in Conception Bay South, accompanied by their teacher Kim Butler.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to get some clarification,

if I could, from the Premier. Yesterday I asked him some questions related to

Part 2 of the Electrical Power Resources Act. Specifically I asked him if he had

discussed the implications of

Part 2 with the paper companies. Now, in reading

Hansard, in reviewing Hansard, there were two conflicting answers.

When I asked him directly that question he had first said no

but then later during my questioning he said government had met with both

companies and they had expressed support for this bill. Further he said neither

Abitibi is concerned nor is Kruger concerned, that's what he said yesterday. The

first thing I want to ask the Premier is, which answer is correct? Have you in

fact met with the paper companies and specifically discussed the implications of

part 2 of the bill? If you have their support for this part of the bill, as you

said you have, could you tell us specifically when such meetings were held and

when such support was given and by whom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, every answer I gave is

correct. Every answer is correct. The twisting that the hon. member did of it

that's incorrect. That's the part that's incorrect. We have met -I've met

personally with representatives of both companies since that time, not

specifically to deal with this bill, to deal with other matters, nobody at any

time mentioned any concern about this bill to me. On one occasion during the

meeting one representative of one of the paper companies expressed firm support

for the proposition. There is no implication for the paper companies along the

lines that the hon. member spoke of. Now that's probably why they haven't

expressed any concern, because there is no implication. The only implication is

that which the hon. member has fabricated.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the

Premier, I'm asking him a straightforward question. Yesterday you said that they

had expressed support for this legislation - that's what you said yesterday. Now

I'm asking you to tell us when they did that and who in fact did it? When he

refers to meeting with a group of representatives in which one representative

expressed support for the proposition, what proposition was he talking to them

about then? Was it this legislation or was it the privatization of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting with any

representatives of either company specifically with respect to Hydro. What I

said was I have met with representatives of both companies since the tabling of

both pieces of legislation and both companies are fully aware of both pieces of

legislation and nobody expressed any concern whatsoever to me about that. In one

of the companies they expressed support for the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier to read Hansard. He said yesterday, `as a

matter of fact both of the companies have expressed support for this.' Now you

know, we're trying to get answers to questions. There's obviously a conflict in

the answer. The first answer was no, then it was both of the companies yesterday

and now he tells us one of the companies. Can he please tell us precisely when

he met with them and who gave him the support that he's talking about, can he

answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to recollect

now the meeting and my recollection is that in a discussion with representatives

of Abitibi they expressed support for this whole approach of government to this

whole question. Mr. Manuel has expressed support for the whole privatization

approach generally and so far as I know the general management of it. I can't

quote him as expressing support for this specifically, but the general approach

that the government is taking with respect to it, he has expressed support for

it, yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for clarifying it, because clearly we are talking about two different things

here. The Premier is talking about now expression of support generally for the

approach the government is taking. That wasn't what my question was yesterday,

with all due respect. I asked him about the implications of

Part II. That is

what I was asking him yesterday. Either he misunderstood my questions or he

misled us or he didn't hear what I had to say.

Let me move on, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Premier this.

We all know that any legislation - in view of the fact the paper companies in

this Province have been having a pretty rough time over the last few years - and

any legislation that might expose their electrical power and their facilities

and utilities for re-allocation, no matter how small that risk might be, could

very well affect the financial position of any of these companies. That is my

concern and should be the Premier's concern, I would argue. I would like to ask

him directly this question: Will he meet with the, or request a meeting, with

the top executives and their legal advisors of both Kruger and Abitibi-Price to

find out whether or not indeed there is any basis for concern on

Part II of that

legislation? Would he do that and inform the House of the results of such a

meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the reason why is not

necessary. There are no implications for either of the paper companies in

Part

II. Let me say again: There are no implications for either of the paper

companies in

Part II. It is only in the Opposition Leader's mind or it is only

his fabrication, whatever it is.

Both paper companies know they have access to me at any time

they want. All they have to do is pick up the phone and call. If they have any

concerns about this or any other matter I will happily meet with them. But I'm

not going to give any credence to this nonsense that the Opposition Leader is

generating that there is some implications in

Part II. There is none. None is

intended, none is there, nobody need be concerned about it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We've heard that from you before.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we have heard

that from the Premier before and he has been proven to be wrong many times.

Besides, all we have is the word of the Premier on this. That is not good enough

on a matter of such great importance, I say to the Premier. He shouldn't just

take my word for it. I can tell him that there are concerns within the top

executives of the two companies.

On radio today the individual spokesman said that lawyers

were looking at the legislation. He said the lawyers were looking at the

legislation, and I can tell him what part of the legislation their lawyers are

looking at. It is

Part II.

Now if the Premier continues to ignore these concerns, that

is fine; he will pay the penalty and the price in the end or, worse still, the

people of the Province will pay the price in the end.

Let me ask him this. Many provinces and jurisdictions in

Canada have some sort of legislation dealing with temporary allocation and

reallocation of power in emergency situations and circumstances, which is, of

course, the intent of

Part III of the legislation, and I can say to the Premier

that I think it's prudent for us to be doing the same thing and we support that.

I want to ask the Premier if he can tell the House if any

other province in Canada has legislation similar to

Part II, which provides for

the allocation of facilities and power produced by any electrical utility in the

Province, even if there is no power emergency.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I haven't checked it in six or seven

years, so I am not entirely sure. I can have it checked and find out; but what I

can tell the hon. member is that some other provinces have legislation that is

more severe. They have legislation entitling the Crown owned utility to simply

demand and direct any generator to supply power, with no protection, no nothing,

to simply demand and protect it.

MR. SIMMS: Outside of an emergency?

PREMIER WELLS: Outside of an emergency, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will dig it out. I don't know it

right off the top of my head, but I will dig it out and see.

There is provision in at least two or three provinces that

would allow such direction for the delivery of power generated by a generator of

electricity without having the independent Public Utilities Board involved in

it, as I recall. It has been many years since I looked at it, but that was the

situation that I recall.

Mr. Speaker, I just got some information. I met with the

industrial electrical users, which represented all of the industrial electrical

users, including the two power companies, on February 21, and they were advised

at that time of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: All of the industrial users, which

included the two paper companies. I met with them on Monday, February 21, and

people were made aware then of exactly what the government was proposing.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe at that meeting

the Premier discussed this legislation with that group of people. That group of

people included people from Come By Chance, I believe it was, oil refinery, the

Royal Oak Mining Company was there, Abitibi in Stephenville, Abitibi in Grand

Falls, and Kruger in Corner Brook. I know who was at the meeting, and I know

what was discussed, and it wasn't the implications of

Part II of this

legislation, and the Premier knows darn well.

It was at that meeting that your friend, the manager of

Kruger, jumped up and said that he supports Hydro - correct? Probably the same

meeting.

Anyway, let me ask the Premier this question. This

legislation could have very broad implications, whether the Premier wants to

admit it here in the House or not, or just say it's a figment of my imagination,

or attack me for raising the concerns. He can do all of that. The fact of the

matter is, there are concerns out there about the legislation, not only with

respect to the issue which I raised yesterday, but other issues which we will

raise in the coming days.

There is a lot at stake. We have no previous experience to

guide us on this particular matter, only the Premier's words, and we need to be

assured - the people of the Province and indeed the government - that the

legislation will not place existing industries in this Province in jeopardy at

all, or jobs in jeopardy in this Province, and in view of that - and there are

other concerns and people have a right to speak - would the Premier reconsider

his concrete mind-set that he announced yesterday, that he would not hold public

hearings with respect to this bill, or is it his intent to continue, as he has

said he would continue, without public hearings and create yet another public

relations disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of

diverting from the government's course with respect to this legislation because

of the nonsense that the Opposition Leader has been fabricating about the

implications of this and the implications of that where there are none.

The Opposition Leader is upset that this government is

proceeding to do something that will be of value to the industrial consumers of

this Province, that they sat for seventeen years and did nothing. Even when they

were advised as to how it ought to be done, they did nothing. They sat on it.

They didn't care about it. Now they are upset. This government is going to

achieve where they failed miserably. This government is going to achieve -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - in providing properly for the management

of all hydroelectric power in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we have no intention

of stopping or diverting from this course because the Leader of the Opposition

creates these bogeymen that he talks about because he can't discuss the issue on

its real merits. He is not satisfied with doing that. He has to fabricate these

bogeymen to create the idea that there is something wrong. Mr. Speaker, I met

specifically with all of the industrial users in the Province and none of them

expressed any concern whatsoever.

MR. SIMMS: But you didn't even bring up the bill on Hydro

privatization. Don't tell me because I know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

understand the Premier talking about his experiences with bogeymen because he is

the bogey of bogeymen in this Province today.

I want to ask the Premier - yesterday on the evening news,

federal fisheries minister Tobin told the whole country in front of a scrum in

Ottawa that there would be no joint fisheries management arrangement with the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Tobin's position is the same as that

of the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada. He said categorically,

not by an industry renewal board, or any other board, would there be a joint

fisheries management arrangement. That is what he said. I watched it myself.

Anyone else who saw it heard the same thing.

Everyone now knows Mr. Tobin's response. There cannot be any

doubt about it. I'm wondering in light of this, can the Premier now say if the

Province will participate in the fishing industry renewal boards which has been

a bone of contention for the last week or so between the Premier and Mr. Tobin?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Province will not participate in any

board that does not deal with the fishery on an ongoing basis. The Province will

not participate in any board that only deals with down-sizing of the fishery. I

can't make it any clearer than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

into the Premier's words that if the industry renewal board's mandate is not

broadened to include aspects of joint management between Ottawa and St. John's,

then the Premier will not participate. That is what I read into the Premier's

answer.

MR. SIMMS: Is that what he said?

PREMIER WELLS: No, that is his

interpretation.

MR. SIMMS: No, that is not what you said. We didn't think

you said that. That is what everybody (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay. See? That is why I said what I

said, so I hopefully could smoke the Premier out again.

Let me pursue another line of questioning. The industry

renewal boards and joint management is very important. I want to go on record as

saying that I support the Premier and the Provincial Government in seeking more

say over our fishery and joint management. But Mr. Tobin says you are not

getting it, which brings me to the next point.

If there is no industry renewal board, the Federal

Government, as I understand it, will proceed to reduce the harvesting capacity

by at least 50 per cent - the harvesting capacity - and that will affect plants

whether or not a plant reduction program exists or not. If you take out 50 per

cent of the harvesting sector it has to impact on your processing sector on

shore, I say to the Premier. I want to ask the Premier, is that what he is

really hoping for, to force the Federal Government to make tough decisions on

the harvesting sector that will then decide what plants close in Newfoundland

and Labrador? Is that what he is hoping for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what motivates

the hon. members opposite to try to thwart and twist everything. Mr. Tobin and I

have a reasonable understanding on how we can achieve an effective means of

providing for development and operation of the fishery of this Province on a

reasonable basis in the future that will give it some chance of success. That

cannot be achieved by the Federal Government sitting alone and managing or

directing its aspect of it and the Province sitting alone and managing its

aspect of it. If we are going to renew the fishery of this Province in the

future there must be joint -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Tobin did not say that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I've been meeting with Mr. Tobin, I've

been speaking with Mr. Tobin. I spoke with Mr. Tobin as late as yesterday. I do

not accept the hon. member's

interpretation or representation of what Mr. Tobin

said.

He expressed the position that the Federal Government is not

at this stage prepared to agree to joint management. That doesn't deter the

Province. The Province is determined that in the end we must have joint

management if we are to have a satisfactorily managed fishery in the future. And

I believe that both the Federal Government and the other provinces will in the

end come to realize that, and come to realize - the other provinces, that it is

in their own interest to take a similar approach.

Now, if Mr. Tobin says the Federal Government is not prepared

to enter into an arrangement of joint management at this time, well I'll talk to

Mr. Tobin about that when I see him, but I won't respond to it as though that is

precisely what he said until I talk to him directly. I won't do it in the

context of the hon. member's representation as to what he said. Now, let there

be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of this Province will not

participate in a renewal board that has as its sole objective the down-sizing of

the fishery. We simply will not do it and if there are other consequences we

will deal with that when they arise.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

I say to the Premier that in light of what he said yesterday

in Question Period - that is what, I guess, struck me about what Mr. Tobin said

last night, because the Premier left the clear impression here yesterday that he

was going to work things out with Mr. Tobin as he pointed to himself, to my

satisfaction. That's what he said yesterday. Then, I watched the news last night

and heard the answer that Mr. Tobin gave in the scrum, which left no doubt

whatsoever that this Province is not getting joint management, I say to the

Premier. Now, that's what the man said. You couldn't fool that up or screw it

up, I say to him. He was quite categoric about it. He said, `the Federal

Government has known the position of the Provincial Government for quite some

time and the Provincial Government has known the position of the Federal

Government for some time.' Now that's what Mr. Tobin said, which left me to

believe that the Premier has known for some time that he ain't getting joint

management from Brian Tobin and the Federal Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government

has 100 per cent responsibility for the processing sector. The refusal of the

Province to act within its own area of responsibility has left plant owners and

plant workers without any basis to plan their future. They can't do anything

until they hear what's going to happen to the fish plant in their community, I

say to the Premier, and they've been waiting for that now for about two years. I

ask the Premier: Why don't you now get on with the job, stop the struggle you

have with the Federal Government and start making decisions so that people in

the hundreds of communities out and about our Province can get on with their

lives? I ask the Premier, will he now do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the

Opposition want to make it impossible for the government to try to achieve

something for the people of this Province. Why don't they support the government

in its position instead of trying to thwart the effort? If they really genuinely

feel there should be joint management, then show it, don't try to stop it from

occurring. What is the real objective anyway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What is - to cause as much political harm

or to help the people of this Province? They made it very clear what the real

objective is. People of this Province aren't dumb, Mr. Speaker, they know what

the real objective is. Now, Mr. Speaker, we've been dealing for some time now

with the issues involved in the size of the harvesting sector, the size of the

processing sector. As a matter of fact, I had a very substantial meeting

yesterday dealing with just that issue. We were dealing with it before, Cabinet

dealt with the issue again today, we're not finished dealing with the issue,

we're providing for input by those who have direct involvement in it, that's in

the process of taking place. We will meet in the future with the federal

Minister of Fisheries and with the officials of the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans and I have no doubt we'll have discussions for some weeks to come before

there's any final resolution as to how we propose to deal with this matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, it's got to be fairly soon. It can't

go on interminably but there's no absolute time frame on it. There's no need for

an absolute time frame but, Mr. Speaker, the matter is being dealt with.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Doesn't the minister see major pitfalls associated with his

proposal to build a new four-lane Trans-Canada Highway in a trench through the

middle of Pasadena - a trench eighteen feet deep at its deepest point below a

level community road? Doesn't the minister realize that building a super highway

in a deep pit in Western Newfoundland would result in horrendous snow and water

problems and unacceptable safety hazards?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister glibly answered, no. The minister, so far has

produced no documentation whatsoever indicating that he or his staff have any

appreciation of the engineering construction or maintenance challenges or costs

associated with his crazy proposal to build a four-lane divided super highway in

a trench through the middle of Pasadena. Will the minister table whatever

documentation or studies that he has to support his proposal?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit

Pasadena at a public forum when the hon. Member for Humber East attended that

same meeting. I gave about a three, three-and-a-half hour presentation and

answered all questions to the people of Pasadena, on the reasons why government

was considering the transmission line. One of the reasons why we outlined a

southern by-pass road, it would look like a horseshoe going around Pasadena. It

would encompass about three kilometres extra for the traffic flowing through,

and there would be all sorts of terrain, hills and grades there, that are not

conducive with a new highway that we are now building for the future.

We gave all sorts of reasons and one of the reasons although

it is not the main reason, it would cost $10 million extra. Now if that is not

sufficient reason, those three there are not sufficient to at least look at

another route, then I have to question where the Member for Humber East is

coming from.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so the minister is

indicating that no plan exists.

A final supplementary for the minister. Will the minister

confirm that 100 per cent of the cost of building the new four-lane Trans-Canada

Highway in the Humber Valley, from Massey Drive all the way to Deer Lake is

coming from the federal government under the Roads for Rails Agreement, that

approximately $30 million has already been spent on the work done from Massey

Drive to Steady Brook, and that about $70 million of federal money will flow

over the next few years for the remaining Humber Valley work? Will the minister

also confirm that the provincial government has to pay the full cost of property

acquisitions and compensation to property and business owners adversely affected

by the highway changes?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: To answer the last part of the question, yes,

the provincial government purchases property. My department and the government

are also responsible for building a highway through the Province of Newfoundland

and reconstructing what is suitable to the national transportation policy. That

is very clear.

The money yes, 100 per cent of the money is coming from the

Roads for Rails Agreement, but that is not to say because the money is coming

from Ottawa, that we should take that money and spend it irresponsibly. Ten

million dollars is a lot of money but that is only one factor; the other factor

is that it adds on 2.9 kilometres to the distance and, just take the truckers

alone, the wood trucks that travel that distance, the extra cost that would be

incurred on a yearly basis, but apart from that the most serious factor of all

and the determining factor is the grade on which that southern by-pass would

encompass.

The hills and grades, which we had no other choice when

building that highway around Corner Brook, the grade that is now being

complained about by everybody who is using it, so I say to the hon. member, that

we have to make a decision that's in line with the national transportation

policy, the shortest possible route from point A to point B, and an highway that

is suitable to all the traffic, just not to the people of Pasadena. We have to

make the decision in the right context for the future, not just for the

political needs of the hon. Member for Humber East as she is trying to make this

into, and be very successful in her own district.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations concerning the fire at the Come By Chance oil refinery, which I am

told, Mr. Speaker, is the worst fire they have ever had at that facility, being

out of control for over two hours.

Mr. Speaker, given that by my information, the fire was in

the same area, in the same equipment and started in the same pump as the fire

that occurred over Christmas or just before New Year's, I want to ask the

minister, what action he has taken since that last fire to upgrade the safety

standards and the maintenance procedures at Come By Chance to make sure this

type of fire does not happen?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the previous incident, recommendations that

came forward from both the fire commissioner's office and also from the

Inspectorate in Occupational Health and Safety, had been enacted by the

operators at Come By Chance. The site is visited regularly both in scheduled

visitations and unscheduled visitations. There is an on-site occupational health

and safety committee which has stepped up its efforts since last fall. That

group which represents both the management of the company and the employees at

the particular site have been meeting with officials in our department and have

put a concerted effort into making sure that, not only things related to the

previous fire, but a number of other instances that have been reported and made

public as a result of my appearance before the annual meeting of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour last fall, have all been

investigated and everyone has given undertakings, and any directives that have

been written by the occupational health and safety officers and inspectors with

respect to improvements at the site have been followed up on a regular basis,

and everybody has expressed an increased concern for some time now with respect

to trying to make sure that the only oil refinery operating in Newfoundland and

Labrador, the one at Come By Chance, is the safest possible work site that it

can be.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that

there is naphtha gas which tends to be present at lower points of the refinery,

in sewers, and what not, and that sparks from this pump caused this fire, Mr.

Speaker. Now, the minister, according to the news reports, almost twenty-four

hours later was not even aware of the fire, this most serious fire. Can the

minister tell the House, why at this stage the fire commissioner and the RCMP

appear to be involved in cordoning off the area, and are there any other special

circumstances about this fire that the people ought to know about, Mr. Speaker?

It seems that if a fire of this nature can occur it is only through luck and the

time of day this happened that no one other than one of the fire-fighters was

seriously injured. Can the minister tell the House whether or not this

particular fire gives rise to specific concern by him, involving the fire

commissioner and the RCMP?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the fact that neither myself nor the Minister of Mines

and Energy had been contacted by our officials who are well aware of the fire,

were made aware of it shortly after the outbreak of the fire, and were actually

on the scene very early Sunday morning, that gave me great assurance because the

instructions and procedures and protocol that are in place in our office is that

I as the minister only need to be informed if there is some reason for great

public concern.

If the public of the Province would have a great concern, or

should have a great concern, and if there is something that I as the minister

responsible should be informing the public about, then they would have contacted

me immediately. The fact that there was no contact made meant that the officials

and the appropriate investigating agencies were on the scene and were

determining that there was an interim report given in terms of the fire

location, what they think may have been the cause, a final report from those

agencies which always reported those scenes. When there is a fire the fire

commissioner reports at the scene. Somebody goes to the scene of every fire,

whether it is at a refinery or at someone's home, and they are the appropriate

people to deal with a fire.

The only reason the occupational health and safety branch,

and the division is there, is because it is a work site, and they are concerned

about there being occupational health and safety issues at that work site that

may have been involved in someway in the fire at the site. Any time there is a

fire of that magnitude the RCMP are always involved in the investigation to see

whether or not someone is going to come forward and suggest that maybe someone

may have set the fire, those kind of things, and that there may be some reasons

for them to get involved. There is nothing unusual about it. It does not mean

that there is a great crisis because these agencies are involved. They are

involved as a matter of course because that is part of their responsibility and

their duty, and the fact that neither of the ministers were involved gave both

of us great assurance that it was in the best possible hands. There is no reason

for public concern or a great alert, so therefore we were not notified.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the Commissioner of Member's

Interests, I present the Annual Report dated April 25, 1994, and hereby table

it. It is the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Member's Interests dated

April 25, 1994, which I received yesterday.

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

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

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

Of Works, Services And Transportation Act". (Bill No. 16).

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

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

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

Aquaculture Act".

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce the following resolution:

The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, TAGS, for fishers and fish plant workers in

this Province based on a formula designed to adjust approximately 16,000 people

out of the fishery by May 16, 1998, whether or not they are able to find

alternate employment; and

under The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy over the next five years than they will

recoup from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the same time period in

unemployment insurance benefits reductions over and above what this Province

would have lost had the UI reductions been shared among provinces fairly on a

per capita basis;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this honourable House condemn

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy to provide adequately for persons and communities

that have depended on the groundfish industry for their economic survival.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give an answer to a

question posed by the hon. Member for Bonavista South a couple of days ago. The

question related to whether or not the community custody homes were required to

meet building code regulations, and the member specifically referred to fire

safety, fire escapes and so on.

I just wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of

hon. members, that community custody homes, just as the name implies, are family

homes, residential homes. They are not institutional facilities. Therefore, they

would not be subject to the standards and regulations of institutionalized

facilities.

It is expected, however, that the physical characteristics of

these homes comply with the basic municipal standards of other residential homes

in the area. Operational smoke detectors are mandatory, and the social worker

must inspect the home to assess physical safety standards such as medication

being stored in a locked cabinet, and in the interest of fire safety, methods of

escape to the outdoors.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

present a petition on behalf of some forty-eight people, residents of my

District of Menihek, who have signed this petition, the prayer of which is -

AN HON. MEMBER:

Chapter One.

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, no. It is much further along in the book

than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same twenty-eight petitioners

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, it is not the same twenty-eight I had

yesterday. It is part of a petition, the prayer of which is:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health has just suggested,

this is part of a petition that I have been presenting for many, many days now,

because they keep arriving at my door. They keep arriving in my mail. I have

submitted, I suppose, so far, probably in excess of 1,500 or 1,600 names.

The people in my district do have a very heavy concern about

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro because of how it is going to affect

them. I believe the privatization will affect them more drastically than any

other district in this Province. They are already facing tremendous increases to

their hydro rates because of other things that are occurring, Mr. Speaker.

They feel that because of the geography of the area, the

climate of the area, we know for sure that we consume by far a per capita usage

in excess of 25 per cent to 30 per cent more than any other region of the

Province. For many reasons that occurs. One is climate; the other is that as a

community we have converted. Most of the residences have been converted to

electric heat from oil-fired heat. We have, because of the extended winters and

the number of vehicles in the area, they have to be maintained in the winter

with block heaters and interior heaters, and thus they consume more. We have as

residents in the area a very heavy concern about the tremendous increases that

the people in Western Labrador are going to face because of the privatization

and other reasons.

Some people on the other side make light of the fact that

each day or every three or four days I stand and submit a petition with fifty or

sixty names on it. They laugh. The Minister of Health laughs, says: What

chapter

is this? and: It is so silly, he is up again doing this. He is the same minister

of course who is on record in Hansard about three weeks ago saying that the

people of Western Labrador should face a 500 per cent increase. That they should

pay the same amount that he pays in St. John's Centre.

That is what he says, and that is what he is attempting to

convince his Cabinet colleagues, and that is why the people in Western Labrador

are very apprehensive. Because they don't want this minister who has mismanaged

the health care facilities in their district to have the same influence on what

they are going to have to pay for electricity.

They do have a big concern and it is warranted. I would urge

that the Cabinet would reconsider and stop this silly notion of privatization

until there is more public awareness, until there is more knowledge about the

effect that it is going to have, that it is not some whim of the Premier and his

colleagues in Cabinet to go out and sell this Crown jewel, this Crown

corporation. Because it is going to have drastic affects not only on the people

of Western Labrador, of course, but on the whole Province. I would urge them to

reconsider and not go ahead with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few

words. I understand that the hon. member must express his concerns and the

concerns of his constituents, but I ask the hon. member to ask his colleague for

St. John's East Extern, or ask the Member for Kilbride, or ask hon. members on

this side - if we are going to have an electric rate in this Province that is

structured to be fair then surely the people in Labrador West must pay the same.

Or not always the same, but certainly close to the same, if we are going to have

a situation whereby we can look at all our citizens throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador and say that the electric power rate is one that is fair to all of us.

The hon. member knows and knows full well that the electric

power in Labrador West has been subsidized for -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MURPHY: Well, no, yes and no. It has been subsidized

by the people of St. John's, I say to the member. That is who has been

subsidizing, and the people from Kilbride, the people from Grand Falls. That is

who has been subsidizing the power situation in Labrador West and they have been

for years. Now they have to pay their fair share and so they should. The member

should be ashamed getting up day after day bringing up the same issue. It is

time for the members opposite who represent constituents who are paying the top

dollar for electric power rates in this Province to stand up and deny this kind

of support of that kind of a petition. We are all in this together, and the

member should understand it, and that is the way it should be and must be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this

afternoon and to support the petition of my colleague from the District of

Menihek. What the petitioners are asking for is a right to be informed, a right

to participate, a right to their democratic privileges.

Mr. Speaker, we have presented in this House in the past

month approximately 100 petitions, representing the voice of literally thousands

and thousands of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there has been a

consistent theme. The theme has been that people would like to have some say in

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

What we have seen from the government is a consistent

response. It says they believe that they have the elected right to make the

decisions, and that the concerns of residents for open forums, for discussions,

for public hearings, these concerns are not as great as - according to members

over there - their right to push through legislation without due consultation.

We have had, instead, a steady parade of ministers, a steady

parade by the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy, going out and

consulting with selected groups, namely, the Chambers of Commerce, and some of

the district associations. On the weekend, I happened to be in Central

Newfoundland and there was a district association that had, I guess, a dinner in

Bishop's Falls, and I am sure that there were a fair number of people there who

said to hon. members that privatization was a good idea. Mr. Speaker, that's

response from a group of people whose input is, I am sure, valuable, but it

doesn't always reflect the totality of the viewpoints of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the member's petition, and I would say that is

approximately the one hundredth petition that has been presented in this House

representing, as I said, thousands of people in this Province. What they are

saying is: Consult with us. Come out and have a public meeting.

I commend all hon. members on the opposite side who have had

public meetings. What the people are saying is, provide us with the appropriate

forum. They are saying that they don't want to have Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro privatized without the due process that is followed in all of the

legislation that we have been passing in recent times, where you have a

Legislation Review Committee, where you have public hearings.

Mr. Speaker, people are concerned about the increase in cost.

Every day in our offices, we are getting calls from constituents who are

adamantly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What

the Premier and his Cabinet are hoping is that in the next few weeks, after they

have had their parade around the Province, and after they have gone and talked

with the Chambers of Commerce and talked to their Liberal district associations,

that they can then do the appropriate poll, the appropriate public opinion poll,

and somehow it will show that there has been a big change of heart.

What we are hearing in our offices is that there is no change

of heart. As a matter of fact, the viewpoints of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador are remaining very consistent. There were 80 per cent opposed to the

privatization a month ago. There are 80 per cent opposed to the privatization

now.

The Premier's public relations campaign at taxpayers' expense

is an absolute failure. It is not convincing anybody in this Province to change

their minds. In fact, it is having the opposite effect, and one can only surmise

from the calls that we are getting in our offices that if we were to have

another opinion poll done today, that indeed, more and more people are opposed

to the privatization as the days and the weeks go by.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is about time the government realized

that there is a significant distrust -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - of the government on this particular issue.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is my pleasure today to introduce a

petition from 313 people from my constituency, particularly in the Domino -

Black Tickle area of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The petition says:

`WHEREAS the community of Black Tickle is adjacent to the

Northern shrimp stock and turbot and;

WHEREAS this community is solely dependent upon Northern cod;

and

WHEREAS the plant can accommodate shrimp or turbot and keep

this plant and community secure;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners humbly prayer and

call upon the House of Assembly to support the accessing of these resources for

this area of Labrador.'

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a number of things to

the House and to hon. members, to tell exactly where we are coming from on this

particular petition and why it's so important. Mr. Speaker, hon. members might

not know, but along the Coast of Labrador, right now, is taking place a $75

million shrimp industry - $75 million, Mr. Speaker, on the Coast of Labrador

reaching down to the St. Anthony basin. The people of this Province, including

the royalties in jobs, probably get about $10 - $15 million from this tremendous

industry.

Over in Greenland, Mr. Speaker, which is just on the other

side of that imaginary line that separates the Baffin Island and Labrador which

is the 200-mile limit - in Greenland right now, which is even north of the

parallel of Cape Chidley, eight inshore shrimp processing plants operate from

eight, ten to twelve months each year. So we know that there is tremendous

potential for an inshore shrimp fishery along the Coast of Labrador similar to

what they have in Greenland. It's the same shrimp, it's the same stock and the

latest scientific evidence shows that the stock can take an increase of 3,300

tons in the area of 4 and 5 which reaches from Hopedale channel down to St.

Anthony basin.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying and what I have asked the

Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa to do is to not allocate that 3,300 tons this

year because there is a pressure from the seventeen existing offshore shrimp

holders to have that 3,300 tons allocated to the existing offshore shrimp

holders, and I think that that would be wrong. I want to see them keep that

quota of 34,000 tons there now as it is, and we would then have a year or so to

assess the harvesting ability of the smaller boats, the sixty-five foot in

particular, similar to what they use now in the Gulf shrimp fishery. We would

have a chance to experiment with it and see if we can't harvest the shrimp on a

cost effective basis, and I certainly believe we can. Then, we would go through

a process of individual transferable quotas, somewhere around 200 tons each for

say, ten licenses, and we would then have a very, very efficient well-managed

shrimp fishery similar to what we have in the crab which has meant greater

economic salvation to the community of Cartwright than anything has in

twenty-five years. That's the kind of process that I would like to see this

issue go through, Mr. Speaker, and also the turbot fishery.

The turbot fishery is also off Labrador and out here on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Many people in this Province don't know that

last year 150 million pounds of turbot, 150 million pounds, 8,000 jobs are out

there floating on the sea. I know the member opposite will say, `Well, why are

they still out there?' I have to say to him, I don't think they should be still

out there. I think something has to be done. I think that the Minister of

Fisheries in Ottawa now has to put in the legislation, not only on the flags of

convenience vessels but something in the legislation to protect that stock,

protect those vessels, the Canadian vessels that are going out there and also to

make sure that we have this species regulated - regulated and put in the charge

of Canada, not in the charge of NAFO, because we know that's just a ridiculous,

useless organization and it's time we said that and made our views quite clear.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous resources around our

Province and around our communities that can keep communities alive. I think

that if there's one example that we should use - and I'm using it here today -

as to why we cannot do what the critic opposite for fisheries has just said,

about half-an-hour ago, Mr. Speaker, we cannot now go and cut these plants out,

cut them loose now. We can't go and close them down and take their licenses away

without giving them a fair shot, without looking at it in an holistic manner,

without taking a total picture putting all these resources on the table and

assessing then where places in the Province can be kept alive through some of

these other species.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's the -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He can finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I just want one minute, Mr. Speaker, and

I thank hon. members.

This is a very serious issue. It means the lifeblood of any

number of communities in this Province, it is one that I have dedicated all my

life to, and I hope that other members will understand what we are coming to

now, that we are on our knees.

We have to look at these other species, they are there, we

can do it, so give the process a bit of time and give us the tools, all the

tools, not just the one to say to cut out their licenses and forget about the

communities when we are only going to protect it for other people. Because 40

per cent of our adjacent fisheries outside of cod, have been taken by Nova

Scotia domestically, and about 70 per cent of our offshore outside of cod have

been taken by the foreigners, so we have potential there, we have to have the

process put in place and I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that many of these

communities will have economic salvation if we can approach it in this way.

I hope hon. members will note that this is an example of how

we should be going in the future and I enlist the support of all hon. members on

this particular issue and others that would be in the same situation throughout

this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the

concern of the hon. gentleman. I have been to the Black Tickle plant on many

occasions and I have talked to people there and I can fully appreciate the need

for added activity in the area.

With respect to the turbot, Mr. Speaker, there is a sizeable

quota of turbot in that area. For example, and I have some figures here: In the

area 2Gh and 2J and that's in the general area, I presume, for licensed

groundfish holders there is a competitive quota there of 4,900 metric tons. For

other licensed holders, there is a competitive quota of 3,000 metric tons and in

the same area, there is a 995 metric ton quota for all vessels under 100 feet in

length, so there is a total of 8,000 metric tons of turbot available in the

area.

Now, I realize that's an oversimplification, maybe, of what

the situation is, because I understand the plant in Black Tickle is finding it

difficult to be able to acquire the vessels necessary to harvest that quota;

nevertheless, the quota, itself is available. There is also a developmental

quota; there is 3,555 metric tons in the 2Gh area and we are supporting the

efforts of the Black Tickle plant to try to access some of that developmental

quota.

In the area known as O, zero, north of Cape Chidley, there is

another competitive quota and also for the nine groundfish holders, there is a

total there about 6,500 metric tons. So there is turbot available, Mr. Speaker,

but the question is, how do we get it to them, and that is something we have to

work on. With respect to shrimp, the shrimp quotas have increased, I am told,

and we certainly support the request of the operators of the Black Tickle plant

in their efforts to access some of that shrimp.

We have had discussions with one of the principals of the

Dawe Company, the operators and owners of the plant H. B. Dawe; Phillip Hillier,

I believe, is the Managing Director, or certainly holds a senior position with

that company. In fact, no later than yesterday morning I had a long meeting with

Phillip, Mr. Hillier; we talked about this and other matters and there is no

doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, that that plant should have access to that shrimp

quota. There are too few jobs generated from the shrimp that is being harvested

in that area, Mr. Speaker, and we have to take whatever steps we can, as a

government, working with our federal counterparts, to ensure that more of that

shrimp is landed in the Province, in this case, in Labrador, thereby providing

badly needed employment. We have encouraged Mr. Hillier to go after that shrimp

and we have suggested to him that he should give some serious thought to using

Newfoundland inshore vessels for its harvesting.

I guess, to sum up, we support this petition. We can

understand the need for it. We support it, we have done so, we will continue to

do so. We will support their efforts to get access to turbot; we will support

their efforts to get access to shrimp. I believe that if they can succeed in

that then the future of the Black Tickle area will be greatly enhanced. Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

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

to speak to the petition presented by the Member for Eagle River, and spoken to

by the Minister of Fisheries.

I have to say at the outset that the petition really is a

federal - it should be presented I guess in the House of Commons to his good

friend and colleague, Mr. Tobin. But I would say after yesterday and the next

twenty-four hours or so there might not be any discussions between the Province

and Mr. Tobin. I just say to the member on a serious note -

MR. MURPHY: You wish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, it is coming about. There won't be

two weeks and there will be a public spat, I say to the Member for St. John's

South. There is going to be a big blow-up between the Premier and the federal

Minister of Fisheries - a big blow-up, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the Member for Eagle River that I understand

what he has done there. He has solicited the support of the Minister of

Fisheries, provincial, and the government in trying to access resource for his

constituents in Black Tickle and area, which is laudable. I applaud that. I

think we have to do more of that. Adjacency is very important to all of us, not

only the shrimp off Labrador; the scallops off the South Coast of the Province

in 3PS, in the French zone, are very important to the town of Grand Bank, the

same way as the shrimp is important to those in Black Tickle, I say to him. We

can all identify with resource that is adjacent that we need to create

employment in our communities.

It is a very important point. Because if we are going to

restructure the fishery and if we are going to have a fishery of the future,

then decisions should be made accordingly, considering the resource, considering

the location of the fish plants. That is why I think it is so vitally important

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador make the decisions about the

processing plants in the fishery of the future, not leave it to someone else who

doesn't know about Black Tickle the way the Member for Eagle River does, or as

does the Minister of Fisheries. Let us decide. We know the resource, we know the

geographics, we know the people and their skills - let us decide. Because there

have to be decisions made. No one is arguing that. But let us make the

decisions. Right now we have 100 per cent control over the management of our

processing sector. Let's not give that away to somebody else.

I thought the Member for Eagle River was going to expand and

expound on his idea when he talked about the potential for shrimp and turbot and

other things in Black Tickle.

MR. SIMMS: Adjacency.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Adjacency. I thought that the next thing

he was going to tell us, Mr. Speaker, was that he was going to get involved with

H. B. Dawe and that he was going to help transport the fish to Quebec markets -

that when he takes back his rent-a-car, which will now soon become a

`rent-a-tractor-trailer,' when he takes that back to Quebec to turn it in, that

he could take a load of shrimp or turbot from the company with him.

MR. SIMMS: Make it a paying trip.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A paying trip - cut down on overhead for

the Black Tickle plant, get a few air points for the member, himself, for when

he wants to fly to Ottawa or across the country, and reduce the overhead in the

plant. Because certainly, he could transport the finished product to Quebec when

he is taking back his rented vehicle, more cheaply than if a company would have

to hire someone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I think the member should take it a

little bit further and get really involved with the company to help the company,

but as well to help himself.

I am sure the Member for Eagle River intends to send out, in

presenting the petition, the remarks by the Minister of Fisheries and myself, to

his constituents. I am sure he is going to household his district, so I ask him

to include that in his remarks.

On a serious note, what the people in Black Tickle and area

want to do is what people in hundreds of communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador want to do, and if we are going to keep this Province together, if we

are going to keep it together, keep our people in the communities, keep them

employed, keep our provincial economy going, then we are going to have to do all

around this Province what the member and the people of Black Tickle are

proposing. If we are going to keep this place together, we are going to have to

take initiatives such as that and let those who are adjacent to the resource,

who can process it to create jobs, who have markets where they can get a good

return on the finished product -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly. I note the member's remarks

about the turbot. It is one of great concern. I also note his remarks about

those out there catching it still that shouldn't be there. I hope it is soon

dealt with. It has taken too long already, by the former federal government and

now by the present federal government, who made an election campaign that in

ninety days they would have the issue resolved, which they still don't.

Having said that, I would be dishonest if I did not note that

it is a very complex issue that has to be dealt with in international waters. I

just hope that the present Minister of Fisheries, the Prime Minister, and the

federal government, has the resolve to settle this very important issue for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because without the foreigners out there off

the banks, out of it totally, then our future indeed looks bleak.

I support the petition presented by the Member for Eagle

River, and I wish him and the people of Black Tickle luck in what they are

trying to accomplish here, because all of our communities have similar

opportunities, but they are going to need the cooperation of the provincial

government and the federal government and the people in the communities in order

to access the resource to our benefit. I conclude my remarks by saying that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I know members are anxious to

get their noses back to the grindstone, figuratively at least, so I accordingly

move, pursuant to Standing Orders, that the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 4, second reading of

the Electrical Power Control Act.

My friend from St. John's South was enlightening and

entertaining us and still has, I believe, ten or twelve minutes left, so I have

no doubt he can entertain us even more and enlighten us still further.

MR. SPEAKER: Continued debate on second reading of a

bill, Bill No. 2.

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

MR. MURPHY: Second reading. I thought we were...

Just a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were - on a

point of order, a question. I thought we were dealing with the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the Speaker didn't say that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am glad you cleared that

up, Sir, and I appreciate it, Your Honour.

You know, I suppose if you look at what the Member for St.

John's East is doing here, or you try to consider what he is trying to do, or he

should consider, is obviously to take this very sound, very logical, very

protective of the people of the Province, and take it and put it on the back

burner for six months. I find great difficulty with this.

What the member should do, of course, as the Premier already

said, if he feels there is anything within the legislation that needs to be

addressed, then obviously what we should do is let the bill go to committee and

debate the bill and change and/or amend some of the clauses in the bill; but to

stand up in his place and suggest that this bill, this whole bill, be put on the

back burner for six months is a terrible, terrible injustice to the people of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would suggest to the Member for St.

John's East that probably he should do the right thing and get up and withdraw

his motion, withdraw it, and let us get on with the bill, and let us get on with

it clause by clause. After all just today the Leader of the Opposition stood in

his place and tried again to make some political points on Abitibi-Price and

Kruger.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fearmongering.

MR. MURPHY: Fearmongering. And how they are going to be

impacted and affected by this piece of legislation. Well, I would suggest to the

Leader of the Opposition that probably there may not even be a need to put the

emergency

section in there, because knowing that Kruger and Abitibi-Price over

the years have been good corporate citizens, and if something should happen in

Bay d'Espoir, if Bay d'Espoir should go down or another of the major hydro

generating stations, or Holyrood should go down and the grid could get in

trouble to light the hospitals or what have you, then Abitibi and Kruger would

gladly give up their power, even shut down their plants, I would suggest to give

power to hospitals, schools, and the like. But, no, no, that is not the issue.

It was explained to the Leader of the Opposition that

Section 8, reference in

Section 2 - and I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members who give

any credence to this bill, because this bill in reality, what this bill does, is

it opens the door again for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to access Labrador

generated power.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you believe that?

MR. MURPHY: I certainly believe it, I say to the Member

for Ferryland. I more than believe it. If members opposite really want to do

something what they should do is come out publicly. The terrible media that the

people of this Province have been subject to over the last three or four days -

we have heard from Mr. Lynch, the journalist who is a great friend, a close

friend of the previous Prime Minister. This is why they do not stand in their

place and criticize him. He is a great friend of the hon. Brian Mulroney. He

attacked Newfoundland again. He took Newfoundland and said Newfoundland is

living off the backs of the rest of Canada, unbelievable. This is a Tory

supporter, so I am not surprised that this good progressive, aggressive, piece

of legislation is being stymied again by the Member for St. John's East, and by

his friends, how the socialist in this House of Assembly and the Conservatives

in this House of Assembly can tie themselves together to slow down what I feel,

and my colleagues feel, is a very progressive piece of legislation.

As a matter of fact it stands alone and what previous

administrations have done over the years, what they have done, is brought in

absolutely nothing. They sat in this House and debated an issue which cost the

people of this Province, some eight or ten years ago when it ended in the

Supreme Court, and this piece of legislation will unravel for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians an opportunity to have an access power that is generated in our

Province back to the Island portion of our Province and to be used also in

Labrador.

That kind of ability will give the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology a tremendous opportunity to go to the marketplaces of the

world and tell those people out there that are interested in Newfoundland: look,

you are coming to a Province that has the best tax relief in North America. You

have a tremendous access to power, to low-price generated power, and I think it

is time that all hon. members realized that. I'm not saying that this piece of

legislation clause by clause is entirely correct. What we've seen on another

piece of legislation, we've seen it in Committee, been amended already. We've

seen Bill No. 1 been amended already, where as we got into Committee and we've

seen it been amended. That is what we should be doing with this particular bill.

But the motives of members opposite are not to help the

people of this Province, obviously. What their motives are - it is political

stymie that is what it is. To stymie the debate on behalf of the people. That is

why we are here. That is why fifty-two hon. members are here, to represent the

people of this Province. We should get on with this bill. With this government

we have an opportunity to come to the House of Assembly and debate the bills and

debate the issues.

I want to remind the hon. members opposite, if you look at

the time that the House of Assembly was open in their administration, it simply

doesn't come close -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Doesn't come close, I say to the member, to

what this House has been open in the last five years. There was no - members

opposite cry, and the Member for Green Bay was up yesterday crying about this

bill. I reminded him about the BRINCO mistake that Mr. Crosbie made, I reminded

him about the mistake that the Moores administration made with the wastage of

hundreds of millions of dollars -

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Ferryland that quite

a few of his constituents did extremely well on the Upper Churchill for the

twelve years during construction.

Mr. Speaker, what do we see today? We see the mainland media,

we see international media, attacking the seal fishery. Attacking the people of

Newfoundland, attacking the package. The very supporters, the very people who

supported Mulroney, the very -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Charlie Lynch. He was on last night with Rex

Murphy. I'm sure the hon. member - if he watched Mr. Tobin he watched Mr. Murphy

interview Charles Lynch last night. A great friend of the previous Prime

Minister, `When Irish Eyes Are Smiling' Brian.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: That is right, exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: No, that is a fact. He is gone, but Mr. Lynch

has not gone, nor has his poison pen gone, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lynch Lynch.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, `lynch Lynch,' that is a good slogan.

No, terrible. Then we saw that tabloid issue yesterday. I'm surprised that the

hon. Member for Grand Bank as the fisheries critic, not a word, not a peep out

of him, not a squeak out of him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: About what?

MR. MURPHY: That tabloid issue yesterday. A total 100 per

cent incorrect. So if we are in this House to represent the people of the

Province let's get on with this bill. This is a good bill, it is a good, honest

piece of legislation that will help the people of this Province, help the

Minister of ITT to get out there and sell this Province. Get out there and tell

the industry throughout the world that Newfoundland is the place to be.

We are seeing all kinds of good things. We are seeing a

laminated, now, hopefully, very hopefully. We are going to have a lumber process

of high-priced lamination that will afford my friend in Eagle River and his

constituent's employment, some 300, and people on the Northern Peninsula. These

are the kinds of things that interest those with money, those with money in the

East, in the Far East, and those with money in South Africa, who are now coming

to Newfoundland day after day, meeting with the minister, meeting with the

Premier, meeting with other ministers, to try and get a good sense of why they

should do business here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is incumbent on members

opposite to get on with this legislation and for the Member for St. John's East

to withdraw his silly motion. Let's get on in the Committee with this bill and

get this bill over and done. Because it is a good piece of legislation for the

people of this Province. I suggest that to the Member for St. John's East and I

look forward to that happening within the next day or so. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to

this legislation today, but I have to say that it is very difficult to deal with

the Water Reversion Act without running over into the Hydro Privatization Act as

well; the two are so closely linked together. One of course, is necessitated by

the other I think, and certainly it is very, very difficult to deal with one

piece of legislation without referring to the other piece of legislation and the

factors pertaining to it as well. Nevertheless, I do want to address primarily,

the Water Reversion Act and some of the implications of some of the clauses in

it. Let me say first of all that a great deal of what's in this act I don't have

a problem with and I think my colleagues will agree that there is a lot of good

stuff in this particular piece of legislation strictly dealing with emergency

access to power. I think we are long overdue in having that kind of legislation

in place which will give government, in this case through the Public Utilities

Board, the right to allocate power in the event of an emergency.

There are a number of things in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that -

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

I hate to interrupt the hon. member's speech but the level of

private conversations that are happening in the House I am having difficulty

with, the hon. member is only about five feet away from me and I am having

difficulty hearing what the hon. member has to say. I know this has been a

practise in this House that, not only are people not sitting in their chairs and

speaking, but we have little groups going on, little meetings standing up; it is

very difficult for the Chair to recognize people to speak when there are

half-a-dozen people standing at the same time, so I suggest to hon. members that

if they want to hold conferences or meetings that they should go outside the

Chamber.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that

very excellent ruling. This is indicative of the level of interest of hon.

members opposite in what's being said by the Opposition and more importantly

about the people of this Province. It shows how much attention they are paying

to what's taking place in this Province and the amount of opposition that is not

rising but already in place, against the privatization of Hydro.

But to get back to the Electrical Power Resources Act, Mr.

Speaker,

Part 1, clause 3 subsection (iv), deals with elimination of subsidies

under the Power Distribution Districts, that is something that we have not

talked about a great deal in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly will

mean additional costs. What it does is provide relief for industrial customers

basically. It separates industrial customers from residential customers and

basically says that the cost of power to domestic consumers, residential

consumers shall be considered as one aspect and industrial power rates shall be

totally separate,

whereas, where today, we basically have a blended rate, now,

what we are saying is that any losses in rural areas of the Province will be

borne by all residential customers with no contribution from industrial

customers. I don't know if we have been given figures, exactly what that cost

will be to domestic customers, but clearly it's a break for industrial consumers

and it's an additional cost that will accrue to residential consumers in this

Province.

I haven't seen any numbers yet to tell me exactly what that

cross subsidy has been in the past, and what impact that will have but it ties

in with the $30 million subsidy that the Province was putting in.

AN HON. MEMBER: $5 million.

MR. WINDSOR: Five million? I thank the Minister of Mines

and Energy for that, Mr. Speaker. He is telling us it is about $5 million, so

that is $5 million more that residential customers will have to bear; not that

large amount in the overall scheme of things but nevertheless, it is another

percentage that residential consumers will have to pick up and it is a break for

industry; and we have to wonder why government is anxious to give a break to

industry.

Obviously, for industrial development purposes, to keep

industrial rates as low as possible is certainly a valid objective but, if that

were a prime concern of this government one would have to question why is this

government considering selling Hydro and losing control to a very large measure

over electrical power rates to consumers, losing the ability except by direct

subsidy to a private company, losing the ability to use electrical power rates

as an industrial incentive, as a development tool in attracting energy-intensive

industries particularly, to locate into this Province and to create economic

development and to create jobs, so you know, there is that aspect that I think

needs to be looked at in this particular case as well and it causes some concern

to domestic consumers I am sure.

The bill basically from a policy point of view talks about

the most efficient form of production, equitable access to an adequate supply of

power, lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service. All motherhood

statements, Mr. Speaker, which I don't think anybody can have any difficulty

with.

Then we get to the

section that has been discussed in the

last few days at some length.

Part I,

section 3(b)(iv) says: "[T]hat would

result in a producer having priority to consume the power it prices, subject to

Part III, and (

v) where the objectives set out in subparagraphs (

i) and (iv) can

be achieved through alternative sources of power, with the least possible

interference with existing contracts...."

I suppose lawyers will spend a lot of time arguing back and

forth over what that means and I've heard the Leader of the Opposition and the

Premier arguing over it in the last couple of days. I would suggest to this hon.

House that there is sufficient uncertainty in that wording to cause some concern

as to exactly what the

interpretation of that might be. The producer "...having

priority to consume the power it produces...." The Premier says: Well, that

means that, for example, the two paper mills have priority to consume what they

produce except in an emergency, he told the House yesterday. That is fine, I can

accept that. I don't have problem if that indeed is the case.

But it says "...subject to

Part II...." When I look at

Part

II, subsection 8(2), where it says: "Where, after the conduct of an inquiry," -

referred to in preceding sections of this part - "the public utilities board is

satisfied that a producer or a retailer is not or will not be able under the

existing supply and allocation contracts or arrangements to satisfy the current

or anticipated demands of its customers for power in the manner required by this

Act, the public utilities board may, subject to subsection 11(3), allocate and

re-allocate any or all power produced in the province...."

Any or all power produced in the Province. Remembering that

this priority to consume power it produces is subject to

Part III, this being

Part III says the board has the right to allocate or re-allocate any and all

power. That is aimed undoubtedly at the Upper Churchill contract. I will deal

with that in due course. I would suggest as the Leader of the Opposition has

suggested that it at least puts into question the security of supply and

security of the right of Abitibi and Kruger, for example, to utilize the power

resources that they have.

I don't think for a moment that it is intended that that

would ever happen, but I've seen many things that have happened, in courts of

law particularly, that were never intended by Legislatures to happen, but are

interpreted by courts of laws, when challenged by one party against another, are

interpreted in a manner that is totally inconsistent with the spirit and intent

of the legislation. What I've just said is that I don't have a great amount of

confidence in our courts of law to use good, sound, common sense.

We sit here not as legal minds but as laymen, as

representatives of the people, passing legislation which we feel in all honesty,

on both sides of the House, is in the best interest of the people of the

Province, and is the sort of legislation that the people of the Province want us

to put through this House of Assembly. I don't always see that in fact being

interpreted as we wanted it to in courts of law. Obviously we have the power to

come back and to change and to revise, but sometimes that takes a long time and

sometimes it is too late and the deed is done.

I do have some concerns here. Even though the intent of this

Legislature, and the intent of government, may not at all be to weaken any

rights of Abitibi or Kruger to access to the power that they are producing, but

in fact, in my humble, unlearned opinion -

AN HON. MEMBER: I never thought of you as being humble.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I try to be humble, but I'm not

perfect either. Sometimes I do fail. I'm certainly unlearned in law although I'm

learning quickly, from experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: In some laws, as says my friend the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, to our detriment, I say. I suggest hon.

gentlemen not get me on my favourite topic today, as my time will soon expire

and I find myself in great jeopardy when I next visit that great place of

judgement - which is coming very close, I might say to my friend.

I do have some serious concerns here, Mr. Speaker, in all

honesty and all sincerity. I make light of it, but this is a serious matter that

I think could be a matter for question, and I would certainly suggest to the

paper companies - they are certainly large corporations quite able to look after

their own affairs, but I think it is sufficient that it be brought to their

attention - that they look at that and have their legal advisers look at that,

and if they have any concern, bring it to the attention of the members of the

House very quickly.

Part II starts out quite innocuously enough, I suppose. One

thinks, well, this is all good stuff, power allocation and reallocation, and the

planning of facilities. Subsection 1 says: The Public Utilities Board has the

authority and the responsibility to ensure that adequate planning occurs for the

future production, transmission and distribution of power in the Province. It

sounds good. I don't think we have any problem with that; but then we stop -

wait now. Planning - responsibility for planning. Whatever happened to the

minister? We have just given all of the power and authority and responsibility

of the Minister of Mines and Energy to the Public Utilities Board.

Now when you take that one step further and say that arm in

arm and hand in hand with this goes the privatization of Hydro - and this is one

concern that has not been, in my view, put forward strongly enough in this House

during this debate - is that over the years not only have we invested tens of

millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we

have a huge investment in human resources in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

There is some tremendous expertise there, not only in hydro generation and

distribution, but legal expertise in negotiations, negotiations with Quebec, the

appeals to the Supreme Court, and several cases that have gone through before

us. I won't go back over those, we are all familiar with them, but during the

course of spending millions of dollars on legal work that we did, we have some

key people at Hydro who gained tremendous experience, a form of technology

transfer. They, in fact, are probably some of the most experienced minds and

some of the greatest expertise available in Canada on these particular issues.

The question then that remains is: If the minister no longer

has, in the Department of Mines and Energy, the kind of expertise necessary for

planning, for the future requirements of production and transmission and

distribution of power in the Province, and if our great legal minds and our

engineering minds from Newfoundland Hydro are gone to a new corporation, and if

and when this government, or some future government, finally returns to

negotiations with Quebec on developing the Lower Churchill, where then will we

call on our expertise? Where will we find it available? No longer will it be

available in the minister's office or in a Crown corporation known as

Newfoundland Hydro.

Now the minister will tell me: Well, CF(L)Co still will

exist. Indeed it will, but CF(L)Co is a different type of character altogether.

It's a Newfoundland/Quebec corporation designed to control and operate the

present facilities at Upper Churchill. They are there to run a production and

transmission facility. They are not there to develop resources. They are not

there to plan requirements of the Province. They are not tied in with the

industrial development objectives of this Province, and the government that

represents us from time to time. That is not their role or mandate or concern;

nor do they have the expertise; nor will they have the expertise; nor do they

want to have that expertise. It has to remain within the Province, but how can

we justify it?

We talk now about reducing costs by a privatization or an

amalgamation, and indeed I will concede that there would possibly be some

reduction in cost simply because these types of key personnel would now be

serving both the private corporation and the former Crown corporation, but I

suspect we will lose a lot of them, or there will be redundancies. There is some

very small benefit from that, but an insignificant amount of benefit, I suggest,

a very small amount.

What we are talking about here is that no longer will we have

within government the personnel that can properly advise government, who are on

government's payroll. So what do we do? Do we again hire consultants? Where do

you find consultants to deal with that? You can find great legal advisors, I

guess you can find engineers, but you can't put together the team of people that

we presently have at Hydro. They will be gone with new Hydro. So now are we

going to hire new Hydro to do the negotiating for us? Who are we going to have

to do that? I think that's something that needs to be looked at very, very

carefully here, Mr. Speaker.

It gets into the question of developing the Lower Churchill

and what importance is this government putting on it. I have to say that I was

really, really amazed when we discovered not too long ago that the proposal had

come forward from Quebec and had been rejected by this government. I find that

amazing, because I know in 1988 when I had responsibility for these negotiations

we were making great progress. As the minister will know, we were well along the

road.

In fact, I was just reading over the records of a meeting

that I held in Montreal with Mr. Ciaccia the former Minister of Energy for

Quebec, held on July 12, 1988. There were subsequent meetings after that that I

have the records of, as well. We had some great progress on developing the Lower

Churchill and on getting access to Upper Churchill power. We had broken down one

of the great barriers between the two governments, that being that Newfoundland

was not prepared to enter into any negotiations or any contract that did not

include a renegotiation of the Upper Churchill contract.

Quebec, for its own part - and quite understandably, since

they gain about $750 or $800 million a year clear profit from the sale of power

generated in Churchill Falls - obviously, politically, could not sell to their

constituents. Any negotiation of a contract that clearly opened that contract

which had been won in many court battles - they had fought, they had spent tens

of millions of dollars defending their rights to that contract in courts and

they, being successful, why would they, indeed, voluntarily then, agree to

re-open the Upper Churchill contract? So that was always the great standoff.

That was always the stalemate that we had. But in those meetings in Montreal, we

finally reached, I guess, a consensus that said we will not re-open the

contract, that Newfoundland would gain access to power at Upper Churchill rates,

and that's the key thing.

I recall saying, and these minutes, in fact, here quote me

quite accurately as saying, `Mr. Windsor says he doesn't care where the power

comes from as long as it is at Upper Churchill rate.' Why would we indeed take

power from Upper Churchill, bring it down to Goose Bay and then to the Island

and take power generated at Gull Island and ship it in the opposite direction to

the markets? Obviously, you wouldn't do that. It all goes into the grid. So it

doesn't matter where the power is generated. It's all going into the system. But

the point was that we would have access to a block of power at the very cheap

rate of 3 mils. That was the basis on which those negotiations started. And

Quebec, on the other hand, said: `We have to be able to go back and say we're

not renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract.' In other words, we were gaining

access of our power from Upper Churchill by basically a contract dealing with

the whole resources of the Churchill River - by developing Gull Island and

Muskrat Falls by some concessions on the five rivers that flow from Labrador

through the North Shore of Quebec. That's off the table, but it's always there

as an aside.

In fact, in that meeting on July 12, 1988, it was agreed that

we should try to deal with those five rivers. They're down the road, let's not

complicate it. It was no urgency. Quebec had all of the James Bay development so

they had large supplies more economical then those smaller rivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Deal with them later.

MR. WINDSOR: Deal with them later. But it was an item of

discussion, and that was something that was traded off, that there was an

understanding that in due course, Newfoundland would not stop Quebec from

developing those rivers, and that we would negotiate a share of the benefits of

it for the right of having that water flow through to Quebec so they could

develop it.

So there was a quid pro quo, but the bottom line was that we

were accessing power at Upper Churchill rates; Quebec was not re-opening the

contract. So they did not re-open their contract, but we got the same benefits

as if we had. That was the deal, and that was pretty much what the minister had

on the table from Quebec - very few changes from that position. We refined it

subsequent to that, little bits and pieces, who went here and who went there,

and all the rest of it, but that was pretty much what came down. I am simply

amazed that the government walked away from it. I suspect there is a reason that

we are not being told, because it is too good to be true.

The Government of Quebec, through Quebec Hydro, had agreed to

purchase all of the output of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls - all of it. Now,

that was something that we could not do on our own, sell that hydroelectric

energy, because we couldn't get it to market. We couldn't get it to market

give Newfoundland a corridor through Quebec, as they have in the case of gas

pipelines and oil pipelines in Western Canada, and even the Conservative

government of the day were hesitant to do that.

In looking at the political realities and the political

strength of Quebec, one can understand why it would be a very difficult thing

that I have been associated with in my eighteen years in this House, in that

Newfoundland has not been given the same rights of interprovincial

transportation of energy as other provinces of Canada have had, and as a result,

we have been allowed to be held up to ransom by Quebec Hydro and the Government

of Quebec, at a cost of $750 million a year.

Now, when you think about that, we are here dealing with a

piece of legislation that the government and the Premier stood up and said: This

is the greatest thing I can do for Newfoundland. We will knock $300 million debt

off the table, and we will have about $25 million a year in revenue. What a

great thing!

One year of revenue from Upper Churchill would have more than

done it. It would have given you the benefits of the next six years of this

proposal - if you accept those numbers, which we don't. I will get into that in

another forum. I don't want to go into those details at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One year. If we, for one year, had the $750

million that Hydro Quebec makes on the sale of the Upper Churchill power, there

goes your $300 million or $400 million equity that you are going to take out of

the sale of Hydro, and there goes the $25 million a year for six years, which is

$150 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am sorry. I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Because equalization kicks in, yes, but

there is a year delay on that, too. There is a dampening on that one.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is what a huge deal that

was. The benefits, I would assume, of that, would be in the magnitude of $50

million a year, because it gave us immediate access to some Upper Churchill

power - immediate access - either to the power or to the profits that were being

made on it. I would suggest that this year alone, this Province would have

benefitted to the tune of $50 million, let alone if construction were starting

in 1994, which it well could have. The huge benefits of the investment of all of

those billions of dollars in Newfoundland, and the jobs that were created in

economic development, but we are talking about $50 million a year in direct

revenues, starting in 1994.

Here the Minister of Finance is wringing his hands, and he is

about to set up the battle lines with every major union in this Province to save

$50 million. How does this government justify walking away from that deal that

would have given them, in the short term, $50 million, and in the long term,

hundreds of millions of dollars?

AN HON. MEMBER: There was no deal.

MR. WINDSOR: There was no deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Very close. Well, we are led to believe that

it could have been there. I would like to know what stopped the deal from going

through.

MR. BAKER: They didn't need the power.

MR. WINDSOR: They didn't need the power. I will say to

you, Quebec could use the power. They tried that bluff on me at a conference

that we had in Connecticut, I think it was, at one time - no, Minnesota.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: That is that Eastern Governors (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It was not the Eastern premiers conference,

it was an energy conference called by a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress or the

Senate. Again, John Ciaccia was there and I was there. I spoke to them.

It was very clear that the market was there and that power

from the Lower Churchill could be delivered to that market more cheaply than

power from the next phases of James Bay. The first phase then was on market and,

in fact, was sold - at least bargained for. It may not have been finally

finished. Construction wasn't finished but the market had been acquired and the

deal had been done and that power was sold. But the next phases were more

expensive than Lower Churchill power. The difference that was being made, the

difference in it, was that by taking Lower Churchill power and having to give up

some of the extremely cheap power in Upper Churchill, that you were watering

down those benefits, so that the overall cost then came more closely aligned

with the cost of producing James Bay.

Mr. Speaker, there was indeed the basis of a deal there. I

would like to know - the Minister of Finance says that there wasn't a deal, they

were very, very close. We were very, very close, we were there in principle in

1988. There was an agreement in principle basically. This is the framework, and

it was simply a matter of putting meat on the bones in 1988. I don't know what

went wrong in the ensuing couple of years, nor what took so long. I know Quebec

tends to drag its feet. They are not in any hurry. It wasn't in their best

interest to hurry and to lose revenues from Upper Churchill. They weren't in a

great hurry to get the Lower Churchill. But they did want to move ahead because

there are great economic benefits to Quebec too, in doing a project of that

magnitude. A lot of the expertise and a lot of the equipment that would be

necessary would come from Quebec. It is a project that benefitted all of Canada,

but certainly Newfoundland and Quebec most directly.

We have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, why that went wrong. What did

the government do or fail to do that caused that contract or that potential

contract to be lost, and the benefits of it? One would have to wonder what

indeed would the government have to have done to secure that deal, and would the

pain of that be more than finding $50 million this year in the public service?

Would it be more than losing our Crown corporation, which is not a burden to us?

And I totally reject outright any claims of improvement in our credit rating or

any of that nonsense as a result of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

There is not one shred of truth in it, not one. It will have absolutely no

impact because it is not a burden on us now. In fact, it returns $10 million a

year through the guarantee fee. When you look at the subsidies that will be paid

and you look at the taxes that will be paid, passed over, and you look at all of

the other direct and indirect losses or costs of doing that, it is very clear

that the financial gain of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not

there.

So there has to be another reason. I guess the Premier, in

his Province-wide address basically admitted to us that his reason is hidden in

the power control act - not very well hidden. It is very plain to see. In fact

the day that he introduced that act I interrupted him as he spoke and asked him

the question: Does that mean you can get at Churchill Falls? I think his answer

to me was, well, if it does, it does. It was not very well hidden. We now know

that indeed that was the rationale or a large part of it at least. Again, in the

Premier's mind privatizing Hydro is a way of making the court challenge more

acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I had the misfortune of going through two or

three court challenges. We spent many hours agonizing over the approach to take,

and whether or not we should spend those tens of millions of dollars on legal

fees, and everything else, that it would take the delays in the negotiating of

the Lower Churchill development, and all the rest of it. There were great costs

in challenging that, but in fairness to the people of the Province we had to do

what needed to be done, we had to put those challenges forward or we would

always look back and say, why did we not do that? Why did we not appeal to the

good sense of the Supreme Court of Canada? Why did we not try these two or three

possible avenues of breaking that contract and securing some benefits from Upper

Churchill?

So, we had to go the whole route, Mr. Speaker, and it was not

something that any government wanted to do, or enjoyed. We would have much

preferred to be able to sit down with the Government of Quebec and negotiate a

deal that was acceptable to both sides. Unfortunately, after we lost all of

those cases, we did sit down and negotiate but not from a position of strength,

but even from that we made considerable progress, as I have already indicated.

We did extremely well in getting to the point where we were, and it is a great

disappointment that this government was not able to proceed with that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again I say that a matter of great concern

to me personally is this passing the power to the Public Utilities Board. The

Minister of Mines and Energy is now giving the responsibility and the power to

control all of these matters, to decide what planning needs to be done and how

to approach future development in this Province. It has all of the power of the

minister, yet it does not answer directly to the House of Assembly, except

through the minister. That is all well and good, that it does answer through the

minister, but that is not the same as having a minister standing in his place in

this House and justifying decisions that are being made. So, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I think we are losing a tremendous amount of control over our

hydroelectric resources and over our ability to manage, not only those

resources, but to attract energy intensive industry, particularly, into this

Province.

It is an area where we will be greatly weakened. We have had

some success in the past and we have had some failures in the past in that

regard. We all know the development of the Bay d'Espoir development was largely

justified by the construction of ERCO at Long Harbour which in retrospect we

found that in time was a losing proposition for us because of concessions that

had to be made, but at the time it was not a bad proposal. It created a

tremendous amount of economic activity. It created a large number of jobs.

We have had environmental problems and we can certainly get

into that as to the advisement as to whether or not we should indeed have gotten

involved in that kind of a project which had environmental implications, but

remember that was back in the days when there was no such thing as an

environmental assessment, or very limited environmental assessment. Certainly,

we did not have the Environmental Assessment Act that is in place today, a very

strong piece of legislation.

Nevertheless, that industry did create a tremendous amount of

economic activity in the Province for many, many years and supported a number of

communities in the immediate area of Long Harbour. It created employment for

people and livelihoods for their families.

Some time ago we went to great pains to negotiate it in

tandem with negotiating the Lower Churchill contract, because what is the good

of Newfoundland gaining access to a block of say, 600 or 800 megawatts of power

if we do not have a market for it? We could use part of it on the Island to

displace thermal generated power in Holyrood. We have about 450 megawatts as I

recall being generated at Holyrood, but what do you do with the rest of it?

Obviously the answer was to attract an energy intensive industry, and great

efforts were made to attract the aluminium industry to the Island.

All of this had to be done hand in hand. Development of the

Lower Churchill, negotiation of the Upper and Lower Churchill contracts

together, development of an Island in feed from Labrador, the crossing of the

Strait and the transmission line down through the Island, and the development of

an aluminium industry. They all had to be done together to make the overall

project viable.

MR. SPEAKER (Crane): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WINDSOR: My time is up? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

will get another opportunity to speak a little later. Or will I? I guess I

won't.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad today to

rise on the six-month hoist motion to allow a six-month hoist on the electrical

powers act.

Some of the things that concern me, I guess one of them is,

being a common Newfoundlander myself, looking at the subsidy presently being

paid by industrial customers, it will be taken away by the end of 1999.

Something in the tune of between $5 million and $12 million. Obviously this $5

million to $12 million will eventually end up being paid by either the taxpayers

of this Province or by the rate payers of this Province. I suppose even that in

itself there is no real reason to have to privatize Hydro, because those kinds

of things can take place without privatization. If that subsidization needs to

be taken away from industrial rate payers and it needs to be put forward on our

tax bills that we see going out every month to our rural Newfoundland customers,

and I suppose our urban customers as well, then it doesn't have to be done

through the act of privatization or through the electrical powers resource act.

We continue to hear people speaking out against this piece of

legislation. All polls indicate that anywhere between 68 per cent and 80 per

cent of our people continue to speak out and talk about this legislation, of how

wrong it is, and all the mistakes that were made in the past, and the plea to

have public meetings, the pleas for the ordinary people to be informed. If it is

such a great piece of legislation then people are saying: Show us the facts and

figures.

This piece of legislation now has been on the table ever

since this session of the House opened. I don't think that there is any more

knowledge that has been brought forward to convince people that it is a piece of

legislation that needs to be addressed or needs to be voted in this House of

Assembly any more than it was on the first day that it was brought forward.

Because this government I'm sure does not have the facts and figures to bring

forward to convince people that it will be a piece of legislation that will

provide all the good economic benefits to this Province that they continually

put forward.

The only people who I have heard and the only information

that I have read in support of this piece of legislation has been big businesses

and people who stand to make money on the privatization. People who can go out

and invest in shares and buy into this new Hydro and make some money. I fear

that many of our common Newfoundlanders today who are out there, the 28,000

people who find themselves on the fisheries compensation package, especially all

the negative things that might be happening to them over the coming months and

within the next two years, I fear that those people will not be buying shares,

as I've said here in the past. They live in fear that their Hydro bills that are

a necessity will become a luxury that they will not be able to afford.

In the beginning I think - and I stand to be corrected - we

were led to believe that a person or a company could only buy a maximum of 20

per cent shares in new Hydro. Now I understand with the approval of the Public

Utilities Board that in excess of 20 per cent shares can be purchased. This

causes another great fear, Mr. Speaker, a great fear of where the control of

this new Hydro will lead us. Will it be people in this Province or people from

outside our Province? Mr. Speaker, many, many times we have seen this happen in

the past. You and I both know that sometimes people lose feelings and have no

real desire to cater to the needs of common people and all they see is profits,

Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that this particular privatization plan will be no

different then what we have seen in the past.

Members continue to speak about the important issues that are

facing us today. I'm sure as many of us sit here to represent rural areas - and

especially we find that there are many, many more important issues that should

be brought to the floor of the House of Assembly rather than the privatization

of Hydro, the six month hoist or the Electrical Power Resource Act. I have said

in the past that it's certainly not the biggest issue in my district and it is

not, Mr. Speaker. There are lots of more important issues that should be dealt

with but continue to be overlooked while we continue on a journey to bring about

this privatization plan, this wish of one or two individuals.

I don't believe that it's borne by all the government

members, Mr. Speaker. I think it's borne by a few and other people have chosen

fit to follow in the wake of what their leader or a couple of other members have

put forward. They've been told it was a good thing, they've been told: trust me,

trust me! I'll lead you through these difficult times and what I'm doing is

right for the Province, right for the people. I'm scared, Mr. Speaker, that many

of us, many on the other side will be led down the garden path and our problems

will be going along with them.

The question that has always been asked in my district when I

talk with people is: why sell something that is ours? Something that is not a

liability to us? The Member for St. John's South shakes his head but this is a

big concern, Mr. Speaker, because it is ours. It is ours and whether we call it

our birthright, the crown jewel or whatever it is something that we own. It is

something that is very, very important to any province, to any economical thing

that we do in the future. I suppose the lifeblood of any economy is its ability

to produce electricity especially in the years we find ourselves in today. Why

sell something that is already ours? Mr. Speaker, many people come forward and

tell us what a great liability it is and how, if we had this $300, $400, $500 or

$600 million that we could put it into our general coffers. We wouldn't have to

borrow money, that would enhance our borrowing scheme, our credit rating would

improve, but every time that is brought up it's always somebody else who will

come forward and say that that is not the case.

The high cost of electricity is very, very important. The

purchase of electricity is very important. I suppose there's not - probably you

can count as many households on one hand that we find in our Province today, in

most of our districts, without electricity. It has not become a luxury anymore,

it's a necessity. I know of one person in my own district, in my own hometown

not in my district, that is without electricity. I can guarantee you, that is

not the norm, Mr. Speaker, and many of us today if we can't flick on a switch or

turn a dial and get either heat or light, we're not living in the '90s.

A lot of people today are not going to be able to do this

anymore and if government continues to bring forward the price of electricity

that it would cost us - the raise that they envision that will cost a house,

that would have just the - without electricity, just the normal sources of

electric use. A few lights, a few plug-ins and ordinary portable appliances. Mr.

Speaker, many, many homes in rural Newfoundland today, I can assure you, are

heated by electricity. It was proven in the past that it's a good source of

heat, it's trouble free, it's maintenance free, Mr. Speaker, and up until now I

suppose, it's been pretty well affordable, but if we give the minister his way

over there, the Minister of Forestry, the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans, it

seems he would like for us to burn more electricity. He continues to come

forward and take our wood supply away from us -

AN HON. MEMBER: It's part of the plan.

MR. FITZGERALD: - part of the plan and, Mr. Speaker, I

can see you're enjoying my comments here today. I hate to wake you up, sir, but

I will provide you with a copy of Hansard so that you can read it, Mr. Speaker,

and I would have to tell you, it was your hon. colleague on the other side who

directed my attention to you and I thought I should wake you up before I alert

anybody else here. I wouldn't want them to all fall asleep because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a good speech, Mr. Speaker, it is a

good speech that I am bringing forward and I am sure that you will be rushing

tomorrow to get a copy of Hansard to read directly in the words that I have

spoken and the words that I have echoed.

AN HON. MEMBER: He only has a nodding acquaintance with

it.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will not go over the words again

because I am sure that the people on the other side will like to hear something

new and sometimes we will rehash the things that have been said so I will

continue to enlighten you, Mr. Speaker, on some of the things that concerned me

and some of my constituents on the privatization of Hydro, and why I am in

favour of the six-month hoist on the Electrical Power Act.

Job losses, Mr. Speaker, sometimes when the hon. members from

the other side put forward the benefits that are put forward by the

privatization of Hydro, we always talk about the Nova Scotia experience and we

continue to set aside the possibility of job losses right here in our Province,

and if we look at Nova Scotia when Nova Scotia privatized their utili