April 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace. Does the hon. member

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CRANE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House,

on behalf of the members, to send a message of condolence to Mrs. Ellen

Moriarity, in Harbour Grace district, on behalf of her late husband, Paul.

Paul Moriarity was a young man who dropped dead over the

weekend, a man who contributed a lot to the community of Harbour Grace and to

the district of Harbour Grace as well. Paul was a young man, about forty-four

years old, who had spent about fifteen years as a councillor and mayor - about

ten years as Mayor of Harbour Grace. He relinquished that post only this year.

The man, as far as everybody knew him, was very healthy and

still on the go with sports and recreation, and anything to do with Harbour

Grace, Paul was involved with it. He was very involved in politics as well, of

course, and tried on one occasion to be an opponent of mine, but certainly we

were always good friends, even at that.

Paul got up on Saturday morning and drove his wife and

daughter to St. John's to do some shopping, and he dropped dead out at the

Avalon Mall.

I would like to ask you, Sir, on behalf of the members on

this side, to send a message of condolence to the family, including his father

and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Moriarity.

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, want to be

associated with the remarks of the Member for Harbour Grace. I can speak

personally about Paul who was, to say the least, an outspoken individual who was

not afraid to express his views and speak his mind on many, many issues, as some

members opposite certainly will know.

He also served I think it was two terms as Mayor of the Town

of Harbour Grace, so just that alone, I think, is worthy of tributes from

members of this House, anybody who gives eight years or so of their lives to

municipal politics these days, and those were in the days when most municipal

politicians didn't get paid - most still don't - certainly he didn't.

I got to know him on a political level, I guess, as well, but

I knew him well before the politics entered. He did seek the nomination for us

in the election campaign of 1989. To me, he was always an individual who was

aggressive, spoke his mind, worked very hard for the town and the people of

Harbour Grace and indeed the entire region. He was actively involved in the

Summer Games out there, he worked very, very hard on that issue as well as many

others. There are colleagues of mine here who served as mayors, the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount and the Member for Humber Valley, who knew Paul Moriarity,

and I think they would want to join with me along with all the other members on

this side of the House in seeing to the request of the Member for Harbour Grace

that Your Honour write a letter of condolences to the family.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Harbour Grace and

the Leader of the Opposition to concur in the request that the House send a

message of condolence to the family of Mr. Moriarity. He worked hard and with

dedication for the people of Harbour Grace both as Town Councillor and Mayor and

also otherwise and I think the family deserves the support of this House at this

tragic time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to send out congratulations. As of

yesterday, the Herder Memorial trophy was played for down on Southern Shore and

with all due respect to my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, the new Herder

Memorial champions are in my district, in the community of La Scie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The La Scie Jets were crowned yesterday as

the new champions, and I must say that I had a chance to watch two of the games;

it went to the fifth and final game and, of course, then ended up in overtime

and it was something to experience. But you know, to me, it is the true

championship of Newfoundland hockey. It has been there for years, they are all

Newfoundlanders on the ice, the atmosphere that was in the arena yesterday was

unbelievable, but I have to say at the same time, on behalf of my colleague, the

Member for Ferryland, that the Southern Shore Breakers and the La Scie Jets gave

what I would call the classic Herder Memorial championship and I would like to

commend both teams on a fine performance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay, in offering sincere congratulations to the La Scie

Jets. Yesterday morning at around -to show the interest, at 11:30, in front of

the Mobile Arena, there were at least, 400 people. It was a great series I

understand, I didn't catch it all, I got a little bit of it and having a little

bit of experience related to the Herder trophy, knowing what it means, as my

friend, the Member for Humber Valley -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. Opposition House

Leader, we never brought in any imports when I played; however, it was a great

series. Congratulations to the Jets and of course, congratulations to the

Breakers on the Southern Shore who put up a tremendous battle. It was a great

series.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to pass on congratulations too, to the La Scie Jets

and very importantly also to our Southern Shore Breakers who had all local

people, except for three on the team, from the Southern Shore who grew up and

played hockey there. They were a tremendous credit to the area. Fan support was

tremendous there and it revived senior hockey in this Province on an unpaid

basis. It speaks well for hockey and for Newfoundland in general. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Four brothers on the team.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to join in congratulating the La Scie Sea Jets, of

course and the town of La Scie, for winning the championship and for

demonstrating to all of us and the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador that you

don't have to be from a big place, big community or large town or city to be

able to have hockey talent and show that you can win a championship. So

congratulations, it's well deserved.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for my old friend the

Minister of Mines and Energy. He will remember before the House adjourned in

March month I think it was, certainly several weeks ago, I asked the minister at

that time for the cost of the government's and Hydro's advertising campaign and

their public relations campaign to promote the sale of Hydro. Now the minister

said then he would get the information for me. As a matter of fact, if I

remember correctly, he left the House, went outside, came back in and I asked

him if he had the information, he said: no, we couldn't reach the person. Well

since then, several weeks has gone by, I called his office, he certainly had

lots of time to reach out and touch someone. Can he now answer that question?

How much has government and Hydro budgeted to promote the sale of Hydro and how

much has been spent to date?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, two separate items. I think

it's been made clear since the beginning that government was not involved in the

initial campaign that was done. The only government involvement in the initial

campaign was in the preparation of text and so on but not in cost. That initial

campaign has concluded. The last ad was on radio, it appeared a week or so ago,

and the total cost in round figures was $82,000 for all of that. The brochure

that was done and the radio advertising that was done, paid for and sponsored by

Hydro, that's completed and over with.

Hydro is not involved, at the present time, with the latest

round of newspaper advertisements that are now being done by the government. I

don't have a cost that I can give at this time on that one. We've just started

it and I'll have figures later on when we see how much we're spending but it's

not very much, it's very little.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I've heard the minister say that

before, it's very little. I mean one of those full page ads with the two colours

cost $2,300 - $2,500 alone and I've seen four or five of them myself so don't

try to slough it off. I can't understand why he wouldn't have the answer to the

question. I asked it three weeks ago. Surely they must have budgeted.

Let me ask him another question, Mr. Speaker. Last year at a

particular time government created a new expenditure, a new subhead, for $1.7

million in their Budget. It is under Executive Council called Professional

Services. That amount wasn't there when the Budget was presented in March of

last year, it was created after that. It is on page 19 of the Estimates. Will

the minister now confirm to this House that that $1.7 million was the amount

spent last year by government on the privatization of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm any such

thing. It was very much less than anything like that, if I know the figures that

were spent last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister he had

better check into this and have a discussion with the President of Treasury

Board. Because in the Budget lock up on Budget Day this year, the officials from

Treasury Board in answer to questions from my officials, the researchers who

were there from my office, told us that represented the government's 1993

expenditures last year spent on the Hydro privatization issue. So somebody is

lying to somebody in this House. We want the answers. I'm asking the Minister of

Mines and Energy, will he tell us then what the exact expenses were covered

under that $1.7 million? Will he table a breakdown - surely it is readily

available - of that $1.7 million expenditure, and will he table it at least

before the end of this day?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will get a complete breakdown

of that as quickly as possible and make it available to the hon. gentleman.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I look forward to receiving the information, I

say to the minister, but back to the Minister of Mines and Energy. There is also

an amount of $1 million for the same subhead in this year's Budget. That is $1.7

million last year, $1 million this year. Will the Minister of Mines and Energy

confirm that that money is also intended to cover the expenses dealing with the

privatization of Hydro, and will he also tell us what kind of expenses will be

paid out of that $1 million?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to confirm what

it is for. I don't have the breakdown on what it is for. I will check into it

and I will get back to you on what it is going to be for.

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

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister told

me three and a half weeks ago he was going to get back to me on the advertising

costs and he hasn't yet got back to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: You didn't, you said you didn't know how much

it cost, what do you mean you got back to me? When will he get back? Will he get

back today? By the end of the day? It is $1 million. The officials of the

Treasury Board President's department told us it was for Hydro privatization.

Surely the minister knows how much is being spent on Hydro privatization,

doesn't he?

Let me ask him another question, Mr. Speaker. Things

obviously are not proceeding as smoothly with the privatization of Hydro as the

government would like to see it. You have spent tens of thousands of dollars in

advertising, whatever the amount is, which he does not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: No, you have spent. Hydro spent $82,000 I say

to the president of Treasury Board. Listen carefully, now - more than you had

anticipated in a futile effort to convince people that wrong is right, and it is

very likely some of the other costs have gone up, too, by the time the minister

gives us the answer if we ever get the answer. Can he tell us, or does the

President of Treasury Board know, one of them tell us, that the $1 million

expenditure that I just referred to for the privatization of Hydro that was

estimated for the 1994 year under the subhead I mentioned, has already been

revised to $1.5 million? Can either of the ministers confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I have

not seen any revised figures.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister get the answer

for us before the day is out, or try to get the answer before the day is out? It

is a very simple question, that the $1 million in that subhead has been revised

to $1.5 million?

MR. GRIMES: Nobody hears.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, truer words were never spoken

than those just spoken by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Nobody on that side hears, that is the problem. Let me ask the minister this,

this is a simple question, and the minister should be able to answer the

question. He told us how much Hydro spent on the ad campaign, $82,000. How much

other money did Hydro spend on the privatization issue? How much has Hydro

budgeted to spend in the coming year, this coming fiscal year, on the

privatization issue? Whether it is tens of thousands, or millions, whatever it

is, if that is being spent, will he confirm that any of those expenditures will

in fact be passed on to the consumers on their electricity bills?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if Hydro spends money Hydro has

to collect the money, and it will probably have to come out of their profits, or

otherwise. I do not see it being passed on, as he said, to consumers on their

electrical bills. It is such a tiny amount of money we are talking about here

that it is almost trivial and irrelevant.

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

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary.

A minute ago in asking questions of the minister he told us

he did not know the answers to the questions, but now all of a sudden it is

trivial. Does he know, or does he not know, how much Hydro spent last year,

1993, and how much have they budgeted to spend this coming year? Not on the ad

campaign - on the privatization issue? The Board of Directors have been involved

with this issue for quite some time, on the privatization of Hydro totally, not

just on the ad campaign; that's what I asked him. Of course, he evaded that

question as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro does have ongoing costs

for its board members who are participating in this. It has some other related

costs. I don't ask for a daily accounting or a weekly accounting, and I will not

ask for such from Hydro. When this is concluded there will be a full accounting

and you will see the facts.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health. We will see if there is any more success in getting answers from him.

In the past few years the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board

has gone from operating one hospital to becoming a regional board on the Burin

Peninsula, responsible for all health care facilities on the Peninsula. This was

undertaken, to a large extent, by direction from the minister and his

department, who assured them that would be the extent of regionalization; it

would be restricted to the Peninsula.

A few weeks ago the minister announced that the Burin

Peninsula will be included with Clarenville and Bonavista. This decision has

been strongly opposed by residents of the Burin Peninsula. Last Sunday my

colleague from Grand Bank and I attended a rally where over 2,500 people came

out to oppose the decision.

I say to the minister that there can be only two reasons for

the minister to consider such a regional board. One would be to improve the

health care of the Peninsula; the other would be to save money.

My question to the minister is this: Has he or his officials

done an analysis on how the health care services will improve, or how much money

will be saved by this proposed regionalization? If he has, will he make these

reports or analysis public by tabling them in the House today?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member said that there was a commitment by some

Minister of Health not to ever include the Burin Peninsula in a greater regional

area. As far as I know, that's not true. I might ask the former Minister of

Health some day if he made such a commitment; I doubt it. So whenever the hon.

member makes statements like that, I am questioning all his statements because

if he can't tell what is right in one, how can we believe what he says on other

points?

Now in answer to your question as to cost analysis, let me

say this. The health budget in this Province is under siege. We have trouble

funding the public services of this Province -

MR. TOBIN: Answer the question!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, can you protect me in some way

from this person over there who makes these erroneous statements and then

doesn't allow a person to answer. Now he has sort of sidetracked me, which is, I

guess, his original purpose.

To come back to the point, I was saying that health care in

this Province is under siege. We have great difficulty maintaining the budget,

and what we have to do is to make sure that the health of the Province improves

rather than decreases, and the only way we can make the health of the Province

improve is to eliminate unnecessary things and put the money in where it is

necessary.

We are trying to build up health care in the Province through

prevention. We need money for prevention, and one of the ways we are going to

get money for prevention is to make the hospital and nursing home situation much

more efficient than it is now - not by decreasing care, but by improving care -

by freeing up dollars which are improperly used and putting them into places

which are more appropriately used, and if we merge the Bonavista Peninsula and

Clarenville area with the Burin Peninsula area, we will be able to save

administrative dollars so that we can expend this money on prevention and on the

maintenance and improvement of the actual hands on care in the Burin Peninsula

and throughout that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, most of what the minister has

said hasn't got one ounce of fact. I asked the minister, and I ask him again:

Has he done an analysis on the cost saving, if so, will he table it and, Mr.

Speaker, my second question is to the minister and that is, if he has not done

an analysis, which is obvious that he has not, what then did he make his

decision based on?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have had a report, we

established a consultant and the consultant went throughout the Province and

heard people make representations. I have heard no representations from the

Burin Peninsula as to why we should not move, but I have heard lots of

representations and flag waving and things of that nature, largely stimulated by

the member opposite but not entirely, but in large measure, and every time I get

a letter it's based on improper information. They say we are going to make sure

that all the women who have babies on the Burin Peninsula are going to have to

go to Clarenville to have them and that is absolute nonsense; and letter after

letter after letter even from some physicians, make that false point, so as I

said before: let the hon. member tell me why, I shouldn't do it. Let him put up

or shut up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a final

supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is not the place to get into a

debate here, but for the minister to say that I am the one responsible for

what's taking place on the Burin Peninsula is down right not true, Mr. Speaker.

I did not tell the doctors what to say; I did not tell the 2,500 people who came

out what to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - and that is a cop-out, Mr. Speaker, by an

incompetent and uncaring and callous minister, that's all that is. The fact of

the matter is that you have gotten letters from the doctors on the Burin

Peninsula explaining their concerns; you have had requests from the mayors,

every single council on the Burin Peninsula, that's not me or my colleague from

Grand Bank who are concerned about health care and you shouldn't make such crazy

statements, but then again, what would you expect from the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister, after

the meeting with the Premier the other day, when you said in front of the

Premier, that: no Premier, I didn't have a cost analysis done; when you admitted

that in front of the Premier that you were basing it on hype for all intents and

purposes, will you do what's honourable and say to the residents of the Burin

Peninsula basically keep what you've got; you have gone regional, you have been

the first in the Province to start a Regional Health Care System on the Burin

Peninsula - get off our backs, Mr. Speaker, and let us keep what we have. Will

the minister leave in place the board that is in place, that has been in place

to protect the health care of the Burin Peninsula residents, by the people of

the Burin Peninsula?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another point that's false that he just made. He

said that the Burin Peninsula Board was the only board in Newfoundland that's a

regional board and that is not true. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the hospital in

Grand Falls. The hospital in that area serves - there is a regional system

operating with headquarters in Grand Falls which takes in the Harbour Breton

area which takes in the Botwood area; we have a system operating in Gander which

takes in Fogo, which takes in Brookfield, so it is not the only regional area in

the Province.

MR. TOBIN: I never said that.

DR. KITCHEN: You said -

MR. TOBIN: I said we led the way in the Province

(inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: They all led the way, everybody leads the

way. How can you say that the Burin - I am not putting down the Burin Peninsula

and I want to congratulate the people for how well they have made that system

work. It's a good system down there, it is one of the best systems in the

Province but, but, we want to merge them with others so that we can take more

savings and put it back where it needs to be. I hear requests from the Burin

Peninsula to provide better health care services, and how am I going to provide

better health care services unless I eliminate things that are not necessary?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

I want to ask the minister why there was no attempt to

consult with people who cut wood for domestic use before he changed the

woodcutting regulations in the eastern region?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know

there was indeed consultations; there has been consultations for two years. The

hon. member should also know that this is an issue and it's a major issue in the

media today, that the hon. member or members opposite or any new members can't

run with the hares and hunt with the hounds on this one.

We are over cutting the Bonavista Peninsula by 100 per cent;

100 per cent over cut, Mr. Speaker. Now I can turn a blind eye, forget it, let

it happen in which case there won't be a stick of wood left on the Bonavista

Peninsula for either the commercial operators or the domestic operators, or I

can manage the forest on a sustainable basis.

There has been consultation. Nothing is cast in stone. We

believe that six cords per household on the Bonavista Peninsula, on the Avalon

Peninsula, where 80 per cent of the over cut is by domestic firewood cutters, we

think with a view to sustainable development that that is adequate. It is not

cast in stone, nor is it two months. I can tell you, we are going to have to

take a major look and we are going to have to start managing that forest to make

sure there is any wood for anybody ten or twelve years from now.

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

Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the key

words in that first question, which the minister went off on a tangent

somewhere, I don't know where he went with the hares or whatever he is talking

about, but the key word was consult. It is the same thing with so many issues

that come up in this House with this particular government. I asked why there

was no consultation. We didn't say about what the minister went on with

afterwards. I was asking for the consultation. Nobody knew anything about this.

You said for two years there was consultation? If you come to my office and take

the phone calls that have been coming in, and my colleague here, the phone calls

he had, there was no consultation.

First of all, the domestic use of firewood varies

considerably from household to household as I'm sure the minister is aware. Some

people have it for fireplaces, other people have it for heat, some homes in this

Province have it for heat and cooking, and they need that wood. Six cords of

wood is the limit for some, yes, but for others they need more. There is no

doubt about it that they need more. Why didn't the minister allow for different

cutting limits based on the use of the firewood? Couldn't that be still done and

respect the conservation methods?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the

consultation aspect. I have had meetings with the Member for Trinity North

representing the people of Trinity North and Bonavista Peninsula, I've had

meetings with the Member for Terra Nova, representing her constituents, I have

had group meetings, people from the Bonavista Peninsula, sat and talked to them.

This weekend I attended as minister the annual meeting of the Newfoundland

lumberman's association where there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Lumberman's association. Lumber producers

association. So there has been consultation, Mr. Speaker, but there is a fact of

life, and the fact of life is that the forests on the Bonavista Peninsula can't

stand the level of cut that we are having up to this point in time.

I might say to the hon. member also, that there will be

different regulations for different parts of the Province. There are parts of

the Province where there is no over cut, where we are cutting within the AAC and

the forest is being managed on a sustainable basis. It so happens that on the

Bonavista Peninsula and the Avalon Peninsula, that is not the case. We are over

cutting by 100 per cent. The member can have it either way. He can suggest I

turn a blind eye and let them go cut what they like, because I can tell the hon.

member that in most of the consultation we've had, I've become known as `Dr.

No,': Increase my cutting permit. If I had a licence to cut a few more cords of

wood.

Mr. Speaker, the way the Bonavista Peninsula is being

managed, it is being managed on a sustainable basis, and I can tell the hon.

member that when representations are made to me that make sense, that are

credible, concerns expressed, I will consider them. I'm in the process now of

considering some of the recommendations or some of the concerns expressed to me

by the people on the Bonavista Peninsula. As soon as I determine in view of the

wood supply whether or not it is possible to accede to the wishes of the people

on the Bonavista Peninsula with regard to the level and the size of the cut, I

will be getting back to the people on the Bonavista Peninsula.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there are a

lot of `Dr. Nos' on the other side, especially when it comes to the word

"consultation," in many issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the minister this: most people

don't understand the need for the two month time frame to cut the wood and haul

it out. Just for example, I will give you one example of where there was no

consultation and this wasn't thought of, obviously. For example, people who are

working, okay? That will now give them eight days to haul their wood out for a

year's use of wood, eight days. If people can only cut six cords, does it matter

when they cut the wood, and what is the point of all the red tape?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, again with regard to

consultation. I noticed that all the members of the front bench clapped when the

member said there is no consultation. Let me tell the hon. member, I sat in

those back benches for fourteen years. The last five of those years, or three or

four of those years, I don't recall too much consultation on Newfoundland's

ability to produce cucumbers, so don't talk to me about consultation. Let me

tell the hon. member, and he had better recognize this - and the hon. the Member

for Bonavista South, I know, is concerned about this - and the hon. the Member

for Trinity North and the hon. the Member for Terra Nova had better know this,

that we have a situation in this Province where domestic cutters on the

Bonavista Peninsula are coming in and asking for domestic permits, an annual

domestic permit. Six or eight cords, it doesn't make any difference, they take

the permit and go out and cut forty cords and they sell twenty-five cords of

that on the black market, so it is a control mechanism. At least, if we regulate

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: What do you think I am doing? That's

regulation. If we regulate the amount of time we set - the hon. member is from

Baie Verte. Anyone who knows anything about cutting wood knows that you can cut

six or eight cords of wood in three or four days, you know, most cutters will

cut it in - so I said two months. If there is a real problem with that, if there

is a transportation problem, I will review it, but at least it will give us more

control. We will stop the black market; we will stop the rape that is going on

in our forests, because the enforcement officers have two months to worry about

somebody cutting eight cords of wood. The transportation aspect - if there is a

problem with two months because, as the hon. member says, it takes them two

months to haul their wood home, we will look at that and probably increase it.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Can he confirm that recently over seventy iron workers working at the

Hibernia project, Newfoundland iron workers, have been laid off while workers

from outside the Province, iron workers as well, with the exact same

qualifications have been maintained? If he can confirm that, does he have an

explanation for the House and for the people of this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

appreciate the question. It is probably a timely question, because all hon.

members should know that this summer the work force at the Bull Arm site is

expected to reach its peak, and the norm at Bull Arm for the rest of the period

of construction will not be hirings which is the norm now, but will be layoffs.

In the collective agreements that are there and in the special contract, there

was a preference statement for hirings which gave clear preference to

Newfoundlanders over everybody else. The layoff language is not nearly as

concise, or precise. The unions and the workers are trying their very best to

make sure that the same intent that is in the hiring

article which is preference

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as long as they are qualified and capable,

will be maintained even though it is not in the contract language.

With respect to the direct question, Mr. Speaker, there was

one full shift of iron workers laid off and that full shift did contain some

workers who were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and some workers who had been

previously brought in from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what a weak, weak, explanation

from the minister. Let me tell the minister what is happening out there. Over

seventy Newfoundlanders have been laid off, workers with the exact same

qualifications as those from outside the Province. That is not preference for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I can assure the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me also say to the minister that the

unions involved in the Hibernia site have absolutely no say in layoffs. It is a

management decision. Let me ask the minister this question: Can he confirm that

superintendents, general foremen, and foremen at the Hibernia site, due to the

work slow-down, have been given rank and file union jobs which is in direct

contradiction to and direct contravention of the Hibernia agreement, which says

that management has the right to bring in supervisory personnel but if they come

in as supervisory personnel they must leave as supervisory personnel. Why are

they taking Newfoundlanders' jobs, I ask the minister?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, there is

nothing to get too exercised about, I suggest to the hon. member opposite. The

fact of the matter is that there is a special project order in place with

respect to Bull Arm, and the role of the Provincial Government is very limited,

and everyone should understand why. In return for an opportunity for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in all the trades areas and in all the skilled

areas to demonstrate and prove to the world that they can produce top-notch work

on a one-of-its-kind, a brand new never-before-built structure, which is what is

happening at Bull Arm, the idea is that the union hall practice would take care

of the hiring with respect to the collective agreement. And the unions - because

what the hon. member pointed out is correct, there is no orderly layoff in the

contract like there is for hiring and the preference is not as clear. In the

meetings I have had with both the union representatives and the employer

representatives, they have indicated that their clear commitment is to try to

make sure that the intent of the language on hiring is followed through and that

there is a commitment to make sure that the maximum number of job opportunities

are maintained and offered to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians under every

circumstance. I would suggest that if the hon. member is going to be up today

talking about some seventy lay-offs in a workforce that approximates 3,500 with

the prospect of maybe going back when the work picks up again in the summer, and

if that is the kind of thing that you're going to get excited about and going to

get exercised over, then you're going to be doing a lot of talking about it over

the next two or three years as the project winds down, because everybody

involved has given a commitment to this government that they are doing

everything possible to maximize the opportunities for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, that this member here will get excited about

one job that's lost for a Newfoundlander in this Province, if it's only one, I

will get excited about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, I am also aware, I say to the

minister, of the commitment and the talk that is demonstrated from the employer,

from the union that they would guarantee or maintain wherever possible, that the

maximum numbers of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to work at that

site. The reason I raised this question today, minister, is because that is not

happening. Can you also confirm, minister, that while over seventy

Newfoundlanders were laid-off from that site, in the iron workers, that HMDC

maintained an extra overtime shift for employees from outside the Province doing

exactly the same work, with exactly the same qualifications, who have not even

gotten a day off in the last thirty-three - can you confirm that? If you cannot,

can you find an explanation for why that is happening and bring it back to this

House?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. member again, everyone opposite and

everybody in the House that this is not a project at Bull Arm that's being

managed by the Provincial Government, it's not being managed by the Federal

Government, it's being managed by HMDC with the contractors in full consultation

and working very co-operatively with the unions. The exchange and the deal from

day one was to make sure that the job gets done right, that it's a unionized

work site and that there is no stoppage of work - that we do it right, we do it

on time and we do it to the best of our ability and hold it up as an example of

the quality workmanship that can be done here in Newfoundland and Labrador, that

the government stay out of it. Now, that's the deal, Mr. Speaker, that was

agreed to by everybody at the time. The previous government was involved in

those kinds of discussions, members opposite and so on and we will honour that

commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I say again, each of the shifts that are still

working there, with respect to the iron workers and the rebar, are mixed shifts.

There are people from outside Newfoundland and Labrador working side-by-side

with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There's not one shift of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and another shift of people from outside the Province, they are

mixed shifts. And in the best interest of getting the project to function on

time and within the limits, effectively, efficiently and so on, it was decided

that there would be one shift let go and that shift comprised some

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and some people from outside the Province.

We have talked to the company representatives and the union

representatives, Mr. Speaker, and they all agree that while they would prefer to

make sure that every single person out there is a Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, it couldn't happen. There are reasons why there have to be some

people from outside the Province and everybody is satisfied that it is kept to a

bare minimum.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report

required under the mineral act, Report of Mineral Licences and Mining Leases

issued for the fiscal year April, 1993 to March, 1994.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today on behalf of a number of

residents of this Province. The petition reads as follows:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of the district of Terra Nova and Bonavista South humbly showeth;

WHEREAS the Department of Forestry has changed the

regulations for domestic cutting only, from Port Blandford to Paddy's Pond; and

WHEREAS the domestic cutter can only cut wood in a two-month

period, with less wood allowed, and the wood has to be hauled in the same

period, and this will be impossible at times if wood is not accessible by

vehicle until road conditions improve; and

WHEREAS full-time workers only get eight days in this period

to cut wood, and people not working full-time have fifty-two days to cut their

wood;

WHEREFORE we feel the regulations should be reviewed and

changed back to the way they were.'

This is dated April 13, 1994.

I would like to point out that the signatures are from

residents of other parts of this Province, included Trinity North, and I have

had lengthy discussions on this matter with my colleague from the district of

Trinity North.

As well, I have had discussions with the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture; he is aware of these matters, and they will be addressed. He

recognizes that the concerns raised in this petition are certainly legitimate.

The residents of my district contacted me over the last few

weeks regarding these new regulations for domestic cutting permits, and the main

concerns seem to be the reduction from eight cords of wood to six cords for

firewood. They feel that this will certainly have an effect on the amount of

firewood that they will be able to use for their homes. The length of time

allowed to cut the wood has been reduced to two months. Again, they feel that

these regulations are very harsh.

My constituents are confident, along with myself, that the

minister will review these new regulations. They are also aware of the need to

sustain our forest in a manner that will allow future generations the same

rights and privileges that we and our forefathers have enjoyed. So I would ask

that this petition be placed on the Table of the House -

MR. TOBIN: Do you support the petition?

MS. YOUNG: - and be referred to the appropriate

department.

My signature is on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

support the petition put forward by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

When the minister got up, he spoke about all the consultation

that was done. I would like to know what the Member for Terra Nova's stand was

in advising the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue some time ago.

MR. SIMMS: That's the reason why he is responding.

MR. FITZGERALD: That's the reason why the response is

there, certainly. But, Mr. Speaker, I raised the question through some people

calling from my district who had gone forward to get a wood-cutting permit on

April 1. The other permits expired on March 31, and it wasn't until that day

that those gentlemen went into the forestry office to get a permit that they

were told, at that particular time, that no permits were going to be issued

until October. So I called the regional manager in our area and he wasn't sure;

they didn't have any petitions. Then I called the regional manager in St. John's

and was advised that he wasn't even aware of the rules and regulations, and he

would look into it right away. So, Mr. Speaker, if that's the hon. minister's

understanding of consultation, I think there is a lot lacking here.

I would like to remind the hon. minister, when he sits down

to his deliberations, to consult widely with the people out there in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, because I can assure you that not everybody out there

has the luxury of looking at their wall and seeing two or three thermostats, so

that when the wood burner dies down the electric heat will cut in or the oil

furnace will cut in. Many people in my district depend on wood entirely, not

only for heat, but for domestic cooking as well. They are not all fortunate

enough to be living in an R-2000 house.

The minister speaks about conservation. I fully agree with

the minister that we should have conservation. In the particular meeting that we

had down in my district, a small number of people in King's Cove have voiced

their concerns. The Department of Forestry came down and met with them. At that

particular time there were a couple of sites identified where a commercial

cutter had left the area and had left log tops and other wood that was quite

suitable for domestic purposes behind in the forest - just there, just a

hindrance to the new growth that would be allowed to grow after those people

usually moved out. At that particular time, some people asked if they would be

allowed to go in there and clean up the area to make it more attractive for the

regeneration of the forest. The answer was: No, you are not allowed to go in

there because we are afraid you would cut some standing timber.

Are we in favour of conservation, are we supporting

conservation, or is it a situation where one or two people have gone out and

made a mistake or took the rules and regulations and made a mockery of them that

everybody else has to suffer? I don't think we should all have to suffer because

of the actions of a few. I call on the minister to immediately rescind those

rules and regulations, to allow the eight cords of wood, to allow the one year

on the permits, and also to allow people to have their 200, I think it was, up

until this time, domestic saw logs that they could harvest under domestic

cutting permit.

The minister points his finger. I would like to remind the

minister that rural Newfoundlanders, many of us, live below the poverty line as

it relates to income. We've always been able to take a great amount of pride,

with a little bit of intestinal fortitude, of going in the bush, cutting our saw

logs to build our own houses, being able to go in and build our own sheds, being

able to go in and cut wood to heat our houses. And now, this minister, without

consultation, has come forward and brought in those rules and regulations,

without talking to anybody, by sitting in his office in St. John's and being

guided by the actions of a few.

I remember a couple of months ago, just to give an example of

no consultation, talking to a gentleman at Forestry. At that particular time I

called him and it was about two weeks before he called me back. When he called

me back he apologized. He said: I went and I had to lock myself in a room to

bring in some new rules and regulations on forestry management on the Bonavista

Peninsula. A prime example, Mr. Speaker, of what everybody here is saying. No

consultation, not going out and listening to the people. And I don't know if the

people's input would make any difference anyway. Because, obviously, if the

minister consulted with the Members for Trinity North and Terra Nova and if he

calls that consultation, then they must have agreed with what the minister

brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Are those the people you consulted with?

Are those the people who agreed with what you brought forward? The Member for

Terra Nova got up and I still think that the minister probably wrote her

response to the petition. She didn't say she supported it, Mr. Speaker, she

didn't say she was against it. She just got up and read the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. YOUNG: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for

Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: I take exception to the insinuation from the

Member for Bonavista South. I would certainly not present a petition to the

House of Assembly if my name were not signed to it, and I would not sign

something that I did not support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: With regard to the consultations, you were not

in the - you were called to the meeting. The meeting time was changed for your

convenience and you didn't turn up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member has no point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

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

point of order raised by the Member for Terra Nova, I just want to say to the

member that you can't have it both ways - either you support the petition that

you presented today in the House on behalf of the people of your district, or

you support the minister in bringing in new rules and regulations that are

impacting negatively upon thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say

to the Member for Terra Nova. You have to make up your mind. Do you support the

people in your district, or do you support this minister -

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - who is going to make changes to the

forestry regulations? Are you going to support the minister who is bringing in

new regulations to the detriment of thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak to this petition, and I want to

congratulate the mover and the gentleman, the Member for Bonavista South who

spoke to the petition.

I want the Member for Bonavista South to know, inasfar as

having sensitivity, or being aware, I come from an area of Newfoundland that

burned firewood all their lives. I burned firewood, as did most of my family. I

have lived in St. John's for five years. The day I came to St. John's to live I

had seven cords of wood in my back yard that I burned - so I am aware. The hon.

the Member for Bonavista South hasn't got the monopoly on sensitivity and a

feeling for how badly the people of rural Newfoundland need to burn wood and

what it means if they can't cut it, but the Member for Bonavista South, and

other members of this House have to deal with reality.

A month or two ago the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay stood up in this House and accused me, and said: If you continue to manage

the forest the way you are managing it, the forestry will go the way the fishery

went. Now, he can't have it both ways.

There is a fact of life. The Bonavista Peninsula is being

over-cut by 100 per cent, and when we get those figures it is not estimating the

amount of illegal cutting; it is based on the permits issued and the wood that

is cut. If we continue to cut the wood on the Bonavista Peninsula, whether its

commercial or domestic, it doesn't matter, there will be no wood to cut in ten

or twelve or fifteen years. So you have to manage the forests on a sustainable

basis if you want wood there twenty years from now.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of six cords of wood: there are not

many Newfoundlanders today in Newfoundland, whether its rural or urban

Newfoundland, where the only source of heat is wood. There are very few. There

may indeed be some, and we will deal with that. We will deal with any

extenuating circumstances. On the Bonavista Peninsula the problem is that it is

the saw log material that is being over-cut by 100 per cent; it is not

necessarily firewood.

I would have no problem today in sitting down - I will be,

and I have been sitting down. This petition today didn't make me aware of the

concern on the Bonavista Peninsula. I have met groups from the Bonavista

Peninsula who have expressed their concerns to me about the overall forestry

situation. It may well be that it may be right to increase, if it's necessary,

the cut from six cords to eight cords or ten cords of domestic on the Bonavista

Peninsula, if the people on the Bonavista Peninsula understand they can only cut

in low-volume stands, in insect-killed, what we consider junk forests; but what

the hon. member should also know is that what has been happening on the

Bonavista Peninsula and elsewhere in Newfoundland is they are getting domestic

cutting permits, cutting saw logs and selling the saw logs on the black market.

They get a permit for eight cords, and they cut thirty-eight.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would have no problem in increasing the

cut for firewood on the Bonavista Peninsula if the resource can stand it, and

that is what we are determining right now.

Now, the regulations came out on April - there are 300

officials in the Department of Forestry. I can't be accountable for every one on

any given day.

MS. VERGE: You're the minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, yes. You were the minister when we spent

$23 million on Sprung. Were you responsible for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: You were the Minister of Justice, as a matter

of fact.

And, Mr. Speaker, the two months is not cast in stone.

Everyone knows that you can cut eight cords of wood, or six cords of wood, in

two or three days, even if you are using a bucksaw and an axe. With a chain-saw

most people will cut it in two or three days.

What people from the Bonavista Peninsula - the hon. member

shakes his head, but what his constituents tell me is that they are concerned

that two months is not long enough to get their wood home - it may not be, and

it may go to three months; I would have no problem with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let it go for a year like it's always

been.

MR. FLIGHT: No, I won't let it go for a year because we

have - we could bring a regime into this Province that manages the forest

properly, that eliminates to the extent you can the abuse that we have been

having. We only have so many enforcement officers. If an enforcement officer has

to worry about a domestic cutter for twelve months, he is spread too thin, so we

are going to reasonable. We are going to say you have three months, or whatever

it is, to cut your wood. If you need longer than that, come to the forestry

office and if there are extenuating circumstances we will approve it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: The hon. member should know, nobody is

allowed to cut domestic or anything else during the fire season, so that is two

or three months gone.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to manage the forests of

Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has elapsed.

MR. FLIGHT: - the way the people are asked to have the

forests (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - and make sure there will always be a wood

supply for the people on the Bonavista Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland I think, was on his feet.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in

various districts across this Province and it reads: `We, the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their

right, thus to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly, in the

certain assurance that the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit:

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, and as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is

so concerned about the conservation of our forests, maybe he would defeat this

Hydro bill and permit people to burn electricity again for the rest of their

lives. That's another nail in the coffin of people here in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I support these petitioners who are from

various parts of this Province, all over the Province, from Port au Port,

Kippins, Corner Brook, Port aux Basques, Bishop's Falls, Stephenville, St.

Anthony and numerous parts of the Province. Mr. Speaker, this government has

been far from up front and far from honest in dealing with the real problems and

downside of privatizing Hydro, and if you look at it just from a purely

economical sense, the answer would be no to privatizing Hydro, and I would have

great difficulty in voting against Hydro if it wasn't done on a sound, financial

basis. We just need to look at a few simple, little figures showing the impact

it is going to have on this Province.

Number one, it has been determined and suggested by an

economist that it will cost the ratepayers of this Province anywhere from $40

million, possibly up to $70 million just by increasing the rates of electricity

in this Province, and these figures are tabulated from looking at all the areas

that would impact upon privatization from the defeasance agreements, from the

increased equity by having a private company, all of those areas I won't get

into in any detail in these few minutes, that would come to $40 million to $70

million extra on the ratepayers of this Province.

Now, aside from the ratepayers of this Province, let us look

at the impact it is going to have on the taxpayers of this Province. The

taxpayers of this Province will give up the $10 million guarantee we now

receive, put that on top of the $40 million to $70 million, take the profits

that Hydro is making now; Hydro made a profit last year, their latest financial

statement showed a profit of $24 million; when you take away the portion that

applies to the Upper Churchill, it showed a profit of $16 million, so you have

your $16 million profit, you have your $10 million we are giving up in

guaranteed fees of $26 million, put that on to possibly $70 million or the $40

million if you want to take it that way, and that shows at least, $66 million

would be the downside of privatizing and on the positive side of the ledger,

there is only one positive financial reason for privatizing Hydro and you have

to compare the financial gain and the financial loss.

MS. COWAN: If you twist numbers long enough, they will

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they are numbers by independent people

and by the Premier. Your Premier, who dictated to you how to vote, said $10

million guarantee fee is in the financial statement, the Premier who dictated to

you, had tabled in this House of Assembly the profits of Hydro, and the same

Premier who dictated to you stated it would cost $25 million when he knew it

would cost $40 million to $70 million. Now, there are the figures that were

taken from government sources and from independent people. The only thing that

the Premier has said that makes any sense whatsoever, in which there is any iota

of truth, is that, it will save this Province roughly $25 million a year by not

having to pay interest on a debt that may go on while this Province has a debt.

So that's

MS. COWAN: Why do you (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to speak, I say to the hon.

Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: If she would like to speak, she should

stand and be recognized. People don't like to hear the truth.

It will save $25 million to spend from $66 million to $98

million, a loss to this Province of at least $50 to $60 million. Now, if you

want to charge the people of this Province higher electricity rates you are

following the proper route, and if the Premier thinks that the brochure he

circulated around this Province is coming close to telling the truth he just has

to read -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to rise and support the petition

presented by the Member for Ferryland. I note that part of the prayer of the

petition says:

whereas the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been

proven to be in the best interest of the citizens of the Province. Mr. Speaker,

even more than that, it has been proven that the sale is not in the best

interest of the citizens of the Province, and proven by none other than a

government economist. I call him that because he is doing work for the

government now. The Minister of Mines and Energy has this individual under

contract now to do economic studies. A government economist with no axe to

grind, Mr. Speaker, has done an objective analysis of this Hydro deal as

proposed by the government, and he has looked at the costs and benefits, based

on the figures obtained from the government itself, and he has concluded that

the rate payers of this Province will have to pay an additional $60 to $75

million to save both the local and provincial governments, and industry the

equivalent of $39 to $42 million per year.

What he came up with, Mr. Speaker, if you add in the loss of

the existing surplus that is generated by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he

said the net cost to the Newfoundland economy is between $33 million and $45

million every year in perpetuity, and that is just based on the economics of the

deal, Mr. Speaker.

Now, there is something going on in this House of Assembly, I

say to the Member for Eagle River, who the other day read out from this book,

the Thatcher bible of privatization. The other day he read out from this book

that is being distributed by the National Citizens Coalition. He read out from

that, but he did not read out this, and here is what he says: given the best

advice the private sector can offer, and the opinion of the experts as to what

price the market will bear, government is best to aim at a premium of between 10

and 15 per cent. That is it should deliberately under price the shares by that

amount. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the Thatcher bible.

How do you privatize a company? You sell it off at between 10

or 15 per cent less than what it is worth so that people will buy it up. What is

happening here, Mr. Speaker, is a very sinister conspiracy. Over on that side of

the House people are wondering who are the friends of these members over there

that plan to jump in and buy up these shares? What is going on? Is there a

conspiracy between the rich of this Province and the members over there who are

ignoring their constituents? Are they gutless wonders, Mr. Speaker? Are they

standing behind the Premier because they are gutless wonders? Is there a

conspiracy going on between them and the rich people of this Province who want

to jump in and make a quick buck on the shares of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro?

That is the question in the minds of people right now,

because it has been made very clear in the public opinion surveys that have been

done, in the Open Line shows, in what their constituents are telling

these members every single day - they told me they have been doing that, that

they do not want Hydro privatized, yet to date the members opposite are standing

behind the Premier who says: I have been elected, I have a mandate, and I can do

what I want. Well, something has got to stop that process, Mr. Speaker. The

members opposite have to turn their consciences towards the realities of what

their people want and have to start saying to the Premier: no, we will not

support this privatization.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of seventy-eight

people from the District of Bonavista South and the District of Trinity North.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents

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

accept the following prayer;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition in a list of petitions,

that's been brought forward in this House in the last few weeks. Mr. Speaker,

today we witnessed an event here in the lobby of Confederation Building of

another group of people coming forward to express their views, representing

about 80 per cent of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who object to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, today we heard a legal opinion from a gentleman

who is very well respected in the legal profession. Up until now we were always

told that if we didn't support privatization or all the people who are calling

into Open Line shows and writing letters to the editor were people who

were misinformed, Mr. Speaker. They were misinformed because they didn't

understand the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker,

today I think that those concerns, that the people over there might have about

all of us and all the people out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who

don't know what they read or who don't know right from wrong, should be laid to

rest. Mr. Speaker, public opinion polls have shown in just about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. member over the din in

the House. If members would keep their conversations down.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, public opinion polls have shown that in excess

of 80 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador oppose the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Premier and the government members

continually put forward our credit rating. They make it an issue that our credit

rating will be much more favourable if we sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

This, Mr. Speaker, has been dismissed as falsehoods by two of the credit rating

agencies. I can tell the opposite members that those are not good reasons for

selling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If they listen to their constituents,

if they go out - and the word consultation again has to come up - consult with

the people, hold public forums, Mr. Speaker, and do what they were elected to do

when they were elected here to this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we continually hear from the opposite side that

we will be able to go out and buy shares in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but

I can assure you that most of the people out there today who are finding

themselves - Mr. Speaker, I find it annoying and I guess the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador - I guess this is a reflection of how they feel too

because there's nobody over there again listening, everybody is talking among

themselves and a lot of action - Mr. Speaker, I say this is a reflection of a

government that doesn't care what anybody thinks, they don't care what the

debate consists of or if you're of a different opinion.

Mr. Speaker, a prime example here today of what's happening

here in this House, not interested when you read out a petition on behalf of

people from Newfoundland and Labrador, they are not interested in what they have

to say in the prayer of the petition. All we hear is people saying: oh, not

another one or yes, that's a good thing, a referendum. How much money is that

going to cost? Mr. Speaker, it's an example of letting people have a say in

what's going to happen to their future. I think that's a very, very important

issue here today and all during the debate here in this House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, that we're not consulting people and we need to do that. Mr. Speaker,

I'll leave the Member for Pleasantville alone. If he wants to speak he's quite

capable. I don't have to root him up out of his chair.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the Premier and I call on the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not to be shortsighted and not to come

forward with this piece of legislation. Consult the people, listen to the people

and represent their people as they were elected to do here in this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by my

colleague the Member for Bonavista South. Mr. Speaker, I've said and asked here

in the House on several occasions a number of things. I've asked the Premier,

I've asked the Minister of Mines and Energy and members opposite, what will

result if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized? Will we see new

investment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? The government has

failed to demonstrate that. Because we will not.

Will we see lower electricity rates as a result of

privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? No we will not. We will see a

dramatic increase in electricity rates. The government has indicated that

itself. Will we see an increase in jobs to this Province? No we will not, Mr.

Speaker. The government has failed miserably to demonstrate where there would be

a net increase in jobs in this Province. Will we see any new technology enter

this Province as a result of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? No, we

will not see new technology. The government has not demonstrated anywhere that

we have seen new technology or will see new technology, because we will not see

new technology as a result of this sale.

I've asked the government again, where is the cost benefit

analysis that was done by that government? Was it tabled in this House that

proved undoubtedly that the sale and privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro would be a positive thing for the government and for the people in this

Province? It has not provided it because one was not done, and if it was done,

why isn't it tabled here, I say to the Member for St. John's South? The

government has failed miserably. These things - new investment, new technology,

an increase in the electricity rates, a decrease in the number of jobs - are why

I do not support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The Premier on numerous occasions has stood in this House and

has accused members on this side of the House as being fraudulent, of

misrepresenting, of creating hysteria. I've said to the Premier, and I say to

government members, if we have been so fraudulent in our statements, if we have

been so misrepresentative of the facts that we have put forward and the

arguments that we have put forward, then why doesn't the government and

government members hold public hearings into the sale of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to

expose us for being the very fraud that they accuse us of being?

They will not because it is not this side of the House or

members on this side or members who are speaking out against the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who have been fraudulent or

misrepresentative. The government has not held public hearings because it knows

full well the people of this Province see no good public policy reason for

privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They see no good economic reason

from a private sector point of view to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. It is a good reason for those who can afford to buy shares, for

investment brokers, for banks. For those who have money it is a good reason, I

can tell you. They would buy shares. If someone were to sell you something today

that was worth twice its value tomorrow you would buy shares as well.

But it is only those in society, the minority, those with

money, who will be able to afford to buy shares in Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. That is why we see RBC Dominion Securities, ScotiaMcLeod, chambers of

commerce coming out and supporting the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. They do not represent the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian

on this issue.

If we backtrack to see where this tale really began we will

go back to October 1, 1993 when the Premier announced that it was government's

intention to proceed with privatizing or merging Newfoundland Light and Power

and Fortis with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The reason? Because it was in

the best interests of the Province to merge both utilities, to have one company

supplying electricity to the Province. When the people spoke out against that

the Premier and his policy were abandoned on merger. What did we see then? We

saw that maybe privatization on a stand alone basis was the second best option

for all economic reasons.

In this House the Leader of the Opposition and members

opposite asked the Premier was there another reason. Was there another reason

that we saw the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Power, Bill No. 1,

and the Electrical Power Resources Act, Bill No. 2. The Premier said: No, not to

my knowledge. Then what happened, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on behalf of residents mostly of the St. John's area. This is again

asking government not to privatize Newfoundland Hydro.

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been told many, many times

that the people of this Province disagree with the direction they have taken,

and the Premier has misled the people of this Province on public television. He

has done it here in this House of Assembly, and he has done it on many

occasions, and he has permitted his backbenchers and Cabinet ministers to go

along with him in further misleading the people of this Province and denying

them something that is legitimately theirs, and they deserve a right to be

heard.

Now the Premier has stated, and it is in the bill, that it

would result in consumers in this Province having equitable access to an

adequate supply of power. Now the Premier has identified, in this mail-out to

householders, what they consider an adequate supply of power. Seven hundred

kilowatt hours is what they call an adequate supply of power.

Now the Premier, by that statement, is once again misleading

the people. There are 173,000 households in this Province that consume electric

power, under Newfoundland Power, of which 99,000 are heated by electric heat and

74,000 by other than electric heat, and the average consumption by these people

is over 1,300 kilowatt hours. Yet the Premier determines an adequate supply of

power is 700 kilowatt hours.

The Premier stated on public television, and I repeat: If the

majority of people of the Province end up in the end being opposed to the

privatization of Hydro, I would not ask the Members of the Legislature to

proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro, because I don't think any

government, no matter how strongly it feels about an issue, should use its

majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to

the wishes of the people of the Province, and I won't ask the Members of the

Legislature to do that.

That is what the Premier stated on his public address in the

debate here to the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. SULLIVAN: What's wrong with that? There is nothing

wrong with that. The problem is, what's wrong with the Premier who won't listen

to the people of the Province? That's what's wrong here. It's not his words;

it's his actions. His words are full of trickery and deceit. He makes statements

he contradicts. The problem is with the Premier, and the problem is with you,

who support the Premier, and everybody else that supports him in misleading,

contradictory statements to the people of this Province. That's what's wrong.

I ask the Member for Fogo: Who can stand up in this House and

support legislation that's going to increase electricity rates in this Province

by $40 million to $70 million? Who, at the same time, is going to stand and

permit tens of millions of dollars of lost taxpayers' revenue in this Province?

It is not done on an economic sense, this privatization of

Hydro. If it is, I would probably be the first to stand up and support it. It is

not done on a financial basis. Still, the Premier - and if you read the full

page ad, the $2,500 - $3,000 page ad that they keep putting out to the people,

if you read that, there is nothing in that ad that tries to put forward an

argument for a financial basis to support privatization of Hydro because there

just isn't one. He is trying to sell it on a philosophy, ideology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read the ad?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did - called that number, too. You

call it and find out who you'll get. They will get back to you some time next

week. A recording is what they get.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I sure did, and I got as few answers as I

got and obtained here in this House of Assembly. We got as few answers as the

Minister of Mines and Energy gave today. We got just as much information by

calling that number, and everybody here in the House today knows very well the

answers the Minister of Mines and Energy knew about the costs - hidden costs. He

didn't even know that $1.7 million was spent last year by this government, the

government's portion, on the privatization of Hydro. He doesn't know that they

budgeted another $1.5 million.

He didn't know that, doesn't know any of the costs, he

doesn't know what costs Hydro is spending that is going to drive up and impact

electricity rates in this Province. The government doesn't know because it has

been led around by an individual and being asked to do what I say and do what I

do. That's the problem here. People are not standing up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the prayer of the petition put

forward by my colleague from Ferryland, and, it is a pleasure for me to echo the

sentiments that the majority of Newfoundlanders whom you hear around, that they

are saying no, and the tragedy is, how often should they have to say no? No is

no, is no, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears from men opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less than 100 people (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Look who is among them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't count very well.

MR. CAREEN: Look who is among them.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder the municipalities are in such

hard shape.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) don't be sidetracked.

MR. CAREEN: - but anyway, the men and women of this

Province who are constantly making it known that they are against the

privatization of Hydro are in the majority, from where I sit. I am glad to be on

the Newfoundland side not on that government side. Too often we see governments

over the years not listening to its people, and they pay for it and they pay

dearly, the governments themselves but the tragedy is that the people for whom

they were supposed to be responsible, they pay even a greater price.

Ladies and gentlemen today, yes there was a small crowd but I

don't go by numbers lots of times; I see out here today, Mr. Halley, and what a

long shadow that cast and what a spectre of doubt when you see a man of his

stature standing up to question what is going on. I hear the radio ads

constantly that used to be on the radio out our way; there was a despicable man

named Josef Goebbels who used to say about propaganda to simplify it and repeat

it every day, every day, every day, but now, they have terminated those ads on

the radio, so I am wondering now, what is the next move, and probably, by our

questions here, and questions and people outside calling radios and writing we

will get to the bottom of what is the real agenda of the government opposite.

A lot of people across the way have not risen to speak on the

Hydro issue. Some members opposite in their seats, in their roosts here, remind

me of laying hens the way they are perched up in their seats but that is where

the similarity ends, because a laying hen is much more productive. But my

friends, it is too important for any of us to get on with rhetoric here. What we

hear the people outside of this building constantly talking about and they are

against it and I am happy to be here to echo those sentiments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present this petition on behalf

of people in my district, Baie Verte - White Bay:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

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

views as to whether Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be privatized or

remain a Crown corporation.

Now I would just like to make a couple of points on this. It

was already commented on today that oh, it was 100 or 150 or 200 or if it were

5,000 out there today, I mean, the point the people are making time and time

again on the Open Line shows, whether you believe that is a good avenue

or not, it is still people speaking and whether you believe the true petitions

like this in the House, from what I can gather so far, the government doesn't

believe any of that. If there are petitions here in this House we've been asked

- we've been stopped from presenting those on occasion. Open line shows have

been dismissed as just set-ups orchestrated by us and by everybody else. The

different demonstrations that have been put off, and people have been accused -

the people who organized these demonstrations or whatever - of being political

on one side or the other.

I can tell you, all hon. members in the House, that the

people who organize these things, who phone into open lines, who sign these

petitions, are real people with real concerns. For seven long months we've stood

here in this House presenting petitions listening to those kinds of criticisms

about what people are putting forward on this particular issue. What does it

take - that is the question I keep asking myself - for this particular

government to finally say: Hold on a second, maybe they do have a point, maybe

we should reconsider, maybe we should go and consult. There is that ugly word

again, "consult." Because it seems like the consultation process on any issue -

and especially on this issue that is so vast, has such an importance in this

Province.... If there ever was consultation needed it is on this particular

issue.

That is why we plead and beg and do whatever we can every

day, ever way we can, to ask the Premier - because we have to ask the Premier,

because whatever the Premier says goes. We all know that. So we don't have to

ask the hon. members. What we really have to do is ask this Premier. He is

running the show. We have to ask him for God's sake, for everybody's sake, step

back, sit back for a second, say: Maybe there is a lot of opposition. Maybe

these 80 per cent polls that the PC Party did and the Power of the People did

and Decima Research did, maybe they are true. If they are true, would the

Premier just sit back and say: Hold on a second, we have to look at this again,

we have to get some people some input in it.

I still have to make this point once more, something that

came up quite a while ago, but now I still can't understands it. When the

Premier started to doubt whether all this criticism was true - I remember back a

few weeks ago when he thought that the open lines and everything and the

petitions that we were presenting, were all falsehoods. What the Premier did one

day in this House was stand up with a petition that we presented here in the

House, and he said while he was up in his office that morning he decided to

check it out.

I tried to picture the Premier of this Province calling some

lady 10:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m., saying to her: Say ma'am, did you sign this

petition? This is the Premier calling, by the way. The Premier of the Province

is calling some lady now out in who knows where, out in Conche. Calling my

mother. I can picture my mother getting a call at 10:30 a.m. now making her

bread and the Premier on the other end saying: Mrs. Shelly, this is the Premier

calling. We were wondering if you signed this petition, if you really do go

against this privatization. What do you expect those people to say? If you want

to see intimidation, that was the most explicit display of intimidation by the

Premier of this Province. I can't even fathom to believe that the Premier would

do such a thing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How about the St. John's North poll?

MR. SHELLEY: The St. John's North poll, as my hon.

colleague just mentioned. What a lovely poll. That was a great poll. I should

get you to do some research for me for the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I could be in trouble. I think I will do my

own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Now, accurate one time out of twenty, is it,

or nineteen times out of twenty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Here is my only criticism of the government

now and the Premier. The Premier has said that we have misled, people have been

misinformed. A few of the ministers have said the same thing. Let's just take

that for a minute.

The Premier has said the people are misinformed, they are

misled, that is why the public is riled up. In other words, what he is saying is

that those 80 per cent of the people in this Province who have been polled, none

of them know what they are talking about. All the information that went out so

far is misinformation by us, the Opposition, by the Power of the People, the

take back the power group. All of these people calling open lines, you are all

giving wrong information, the Premier is saying.

Here is what the Premier did. As we just found out today,

$1.7 million spent on advertising through Hydro. Indirectly through government

through taxes is what I believe, Hydro being a Crown corporation. Then they went

on the beat and decided: We are going to put radio ads on every day. Then the

Premier lo and behold gets a full half hour on NTV, and then complained because

he only got fifteen minutes on CBC, and then he had an open debate. All this has

happened with this nice glossy thing coming out in the mail from Newfoundland

Hydro explaining all the great things.

Every day I hate to turn on the radio now and hear these

little advertisement clips of how great Hydro is. Now to me, the government has

had the best opportunity to put forth their side. Now after doing all of that, I

can't see for the life of me why the Premier can still stand in this House and

say: well the people are misinformed. Well if they're misinformed, I say to the

Premier and all hon. members opposite, if the people are misinformed well you

didn't do your job. If it was such a great thing for this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lloyd you got quite a fine tan.

MR. SHELLEY: That's a great tan that the hon. Member for

St. John's North has - if the Premier was doing such a great job and the

government was doing such a great job of it, why are the people still against

it? That argument does not wash with anybody in this Province any more. Maybe

three months ago the Premier could have stood up and said: oh, the people

haven't been given the right information but we're going to correct that. We're

going to put radio ads on; I'm going to be on TV for half an hour -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - so I think the government has had their

chance.

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

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

I was not granted leave a few moments ago. I'd just like to

continue on by saying that I support my colleague's petition against the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who signed it.

As I was saying earlier, the tale of the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro began October 1, 1993, Mr. Speaker, when

government's intention was announced by the Premier then that Newfoundland Light

and Power and Fortis would be merged with Newfoundland Hydro. The reasoning put

forward was that it would be in the best interest of the people of this Province

to have one company deliver electrical resources and electrical power to all

residents in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now the people of the Province expressed - with great

dissatisfaction at that time - their belief that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

should be merged with Newfoundland Light and Power and Fortis. Now, Mr. Speaker,

thereafter it was decided by the Premier and his government that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro would be privatized on a stand alone basis. It was based upon

the economic argument and the economic merits of privatising Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro on a stand alone basis that the Premier said he and his

government came to that conclusion. Now when asked in the House, Mr. Speaker,

the Premier indicated clearly, he said that, no, there was no other reason for

privatising Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on a stand alone basis that he could

think of when he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and other members

opposite. On other occasions the Minister of Mines and Energy repeated again,

what the Premier had already said, that there was no other reason to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because simply it made economic sense.

Now, Mr. Speaker, over time, members here on this side of the

House - backed with the support of people in this Province - asked questions

daily, day after day, week after week, month after month, to this Premier and to

his government on why should Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro be privatized when

it did not make sense economically.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night before the spring break - when

the Premier was on NTV for half an hour - we found out why, Mr. Speaker, we

found out why. The Premier admitted and he said publicly, that he urged members

of his Cabinet and members of his government not to talk about the Electrical

Power Resources Act, not to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because

there was another plot, Mr. Speaker, there was another reason which he denied

earlier but which he came clean on that Tuesday night. He said that there was a

movement afoot or that he was convinced, in his own legal opinion, that power

from Upper Churchill could be regained based upon privatizing Hydro, which

needed to happen, he said that night, and also based upon the Electrical Power

Resources Act which would turn control over, of electrical power in this

Province, to the Public Utilities Board, he said that on Wednesday night.

Then on Thursday night - that following Thursday night or

that same Thursday night of the same week - in the leaders' debate the Premier

admitted that when he was Chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power that he put

forward the same legal argument. He put forward the same idea to the government

of the day which was rejected out of hand by independent legal advice but he

admitted then, that night, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro did

not need to be privatised for his theory to be checked out, for his theory to be

put forward in this House in Bill No. 2, The Electrical Power Resources Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to highlight these past events

dealing and beginning on October 1, 1993 because clearly it has been

demonstrated that from the onset this Premier has been fraudulent and

misrepresentative, and has not come clean with this House when asked questions

in the House. He has not come clean with representatives - elected

representatives - on the issue of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the

subsequent privatization of that company.

Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that the people of this

Province are so upset - violently upset - with the privatization initiative as

put forward by the Premier? Why has he constantly and continuously refused to

hold public hearings? Why has he constantly and continuously refused to listen

to the everyday, average Newfoundlander and Labradorian on their views?

The Premier has said publicly he has got hundreds and

hundreds and hundreds of calls from people, at his home privately, supporting

the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Where are those people coming from?

Where is the elusive pocket of support for the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro? It's not in Trinity North, as the member says. It is not in

Trinity North.

Seventy-five to 80 per cent of the people in this Province

know what the issues are. The Premier continuously, as early as last week, said:

I am confident that when the people of the Province have the whole story that

they will make a reasoned and rational judgement in favour of privatizing Hydro.

How long will it take to get the reasons and the full story on the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

I would put forward that my colleague from Humber East put

forward the right reasons why the Premier wanted to privatize Hydro, and why he

walked away from a Lower Churchill development agreement some two years ago that

saw side agreements for Upper Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Those are the reasons, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

Just a point of order before we move on to Orders of the Day.

I just want to raise the issue of the scheduling of the estimates committee with

the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance.

As I understand it, there are some meetings scheduled for

tomorrow, I believe. The Department of Health is

schedule for tomorrow morning,

I believe, and I don't know what else the rest of the day. I am just wondering

if there is some way, because every year it seems we have the same concerns and

same problems of scheduling the estimates committee. It sometimes turns into a

bit of a wrangle and members don't have sufficient notice.

I am just wondering if there is something we could do to try

and

schedule properly so that members have advance notice, proper notice, so

they can prepare. I am just wondering if the Government House Leader, the acting

House Leader today, would undertake with the Chair, persons of the committee,

perhaps the vice-chairs, to see if there is not some way we can

schedule these

estimates committees in an orderly fashion to enable members to prepare and to

get to the meetings as they would like to.

It seems that some committees, I believe, are scheduled for

tomorrow. There was one meeting originally scheduled for tonight. As I

understand it, the

schedule was given before we broke for the Easter recess, and

I believe the Minister of Social Services was scheduled but I understand he

can't make it tonight, which is fair enough, because I thought personally the

earliest we would start the committees would be tomorrow, as a lot of members

just came back into town today.

I am wondering if the House Leader would undertake, perhaps,

to initiate scheduling of meetings whereby it makes sense to give members

adequate time to appear.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition House Leader for raising these points.

They are extremely important, and we should be getting started now and going

through the departments. We are under time constraints. Of course, by agreement

we can extend those but we should really get started soon.

I will take it upon myself to check with the committee

chairpersons and see what has been scheduled. I know nothing of what has been

scheduled so far, but to check and see what has been scheduled and what we can

do to make the system more efficient than it seems it is at the present time.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Further to the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I doubt if the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, is

even aware, but I have a

schedule here that was sent around March 29. As I said,

there was a meeting originally scheduled for Social Services tonight at 7:00,

which I understood the Minister couldn't make, and that is fair enough, so that

won't go ahead; but then tomorrow, Tuesday, April 19 there is a meeting, if this

schedule is accurate, or correct, for 9:00 a.m. here at the House dealing with

the Department of Health. That is a bit short notice, I know, for the critic

here. He would like a little more time, so I am just wondering if there is

anything we can do to reschedule that until perhaps later tomorrow, tomorrow

evening even, and give the people a little more time to get on with it? I am

just wondering. I think the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is the Chairman of

the Social Services committee, as I understand it. I was just talking to the

acting Government House Leader I say to the member about the meeting scheduled

for tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock with the Department of Health. I am just

wondering if we could reschedule that for some other time because we have some

problems with our critic being there to be honest with you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: You are saying Health is scheduled for

tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. As far as the committee is concerned I do not

see any reason why we could not change it to later in the week, but I think we

would have to talk to the Minister of Health and his officials because I think

they are ready for it. You referred to the fact that the one this evening is out

and is rescheduled for later the week, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday night.

MR. GILBERT: Thursday night, I think. This one tomorrow

morning, I do not know if it would be fair to the department itself at this

short a notice.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Opposition House Leader and I could meet with

the Chairpersons of the committees at 5:00 o'clock today for about ten or

fifteen minutes and see if we can sort things out? Would that be okay?

MR. TOBIN: And the vice-chairs.

MR. BAKER: Well, the vice-chairs, too, it does not matter

to me.

We will go down to the Treasury Board boardroom and see if we

can sort things out at 5:00 o'clock today.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The address on the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess everyone has been eagerly awaiting the Budget Speech

and to get down to business and the nuts and bolts of what brings us here. We

come to the Legislature to make decisions on behalf of the taxpayers with

respect to the overall planning that government makes, and to put into effect a

program that it feels is in the best interest of the people of the Province.

Now, the Budget process this year is quite a bit different from the processes in

previous years. As most people are aware it has become much more transparent as

the demands placed on us require that there is a certain transparency in dealing

with fiscal matters of government.

It is the same thing when one looks at the way that

companies, large and small companies, run. They have to make sure that their

shareholders, or the people who have an interest in the company, or in this case

the general public of the Province require a certain element of transparency in

the process to make sure that they can reconcile of their own accord the reasons

and the rationale that government has used to put forward the decisions it has

and the program it wants the people of the Province to follow with respect to

taxpayer expenditures.

Now the transparency is such that it allows a building of

trust between those who make the decisions and those who in turn are affected by

them. One only has to look at the course this government has followed over the

last five years in order to make sure that there was an understanding of the

rationale for our decision making. We have provided the fiscal situation of the

government and of the Province to the public sector unions and to the people of

the Province so that they would understand why certain tax measures were being

taken; they would understand why we would choose not to borrow in certain cases

in order to accommodate expenditures that we would have to make otherwise

without the cutting that we had to do at times, the lowering of expenditures and

the trimming of budgets in order to, I suppose, meet the test of cutting the

cloth according to the garment's needs.

Now the one element of the Budget which was presented and I

feel is probably the most significant is an element of business development

initiatives, and, Mr. Speaker, it is in this area that we feel that we certainly

have to cultivate and assist the businesses here in the Province in developing

and also we have to see to it that the businesses are allowed to become more

profitable, there is certainly by virtue of the amount of taxation that is

generated for the Province in the area of business taxes, one only has to look

at that figure and find that we can collect more even in light of the tax

regime, the current high tax regime that we have in the area of alcohol and

tobacco, and when we can collect more from either of those two sin taxes than we

do from business taxes, it certainly shows that there is an unhealthy private

sector economy in this Province, and one only has to, I suppose, look at the

past history of the previous administration prior to the election of the Liberal

government, to understand that they saw the public sector as the engine of

growth in the Newfoundland economy.

The statistics demonstrate categorically that the Progressive

Conservative administration, previous to the election of the Liberal government

in 1989, increased substantially the public sector workforce which was great for

the statistical figures but certainly was not great when one took into account

the overall deficit position that it now places government in so, Mr. Speaker,

we certainly have to take account of what is the root problem of the

Newfoundland economy.

Now setting aside, not for purposes of importance but for

purposes of this discussion, the fishery and its importance as a resource

industry for the Province, if we just take that and just highlight the other

aspects of our economy where we can get an economy to grow because we are no

different from any state of the United States, any province of Canada that has

taken initiatives in order to improve the overall performance of our economic

and private sector and one would look at the way we go about it, the private

sector and say that - my time is up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I thought it was twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker,

I wasn't sure that it was ten. Anyway, just to conclude what I was saying there

with respect to business development initiatives, if we cultivate an impressive

private sector base for our economy, then growth will be as a result of that

and, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that that would key in more growth for the

future and would certainly allow us to improve the overall tax base through the

private sector -

MR. SPEAKER: You have lots of time.

MR. RAMSAY: I thought I did. - improve the overall

private sector economy and in turn -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is just a rookie, that's all.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, I think Mr. Speaker is just getting used

to his Chair. Anyway, I suppose the ultimate goal is to have a thriving private

sector that will in turn, through the provisions of wages and benefits for the

individuals who are working for these private sector companies, then stimulate

the economy and provide the necessary taxation to stimulate the public sector

and to - not necessarily stimulate, I suppose, that is not the correct word.

Possibly to provide the necessary tax support for the services and the overall

public welfare that the people of the Province want and deserve as citizens of

the Province.

In looking at this, it is the kind of business development

initiatives that the government has taken as a hallmark of its program for the

next number of years. The program that we are undertaking, Mr. Speaker, is a

program of lowering the taxation level for the businesses in the private sector

so that they in turn can stimulate the economy. This will have a twofold effect.

One, it should help to secure the existing private sector, and two, it can help

to attract new business opportunities and new businesses themselves that have

set up in other locations or have ideas and are looking for a new location to

set up.

We only have to look in several areas I guess to see where we

are strategically located. Not the idea of a strategic area of location but

certain fields and certain sectors of the economy that Newfoundland would

certainly be the ideal location to establish. One has to look at marine

transportation. One can look again at the issue of dealing with

telecommunications. With such a vast province that we have here advances in

telecommunications methods and devices and equipment are the kinds of things

that we certainly could be at the forefront of in dealing with our geography.

The harshness of the weather conditions in the northern parts of the Province,

the difficulties that we associate with Newfoundland being a rugged, rocky,

barren place, are things that we should look at as opportunities to develop the

products and services that will stand the test of any environment anywhere in

the world.

It is those areas and if you also look at a sector in the

fishery, to go back to that from a private sector viewpoint. To look at just

what in fishing technology that we have had success in over the years and how we

can go about stimulating that into the future.

While on Easter vacation I had the opportunity to meet with

an individual who is a native of the Sudan. This gentleman suggested to me that

there are huge opportunities for fishermen and fish plant people from

Newfoundland in assisting in the training and development of the Sudan and the

Sudanese people in that particular area. Sudan has a very wealthy area of

fishery off the coast of Africa near the India Ocean that is currently not

fished. This particular individual is hopeful that it is the kind of thing we

can stimulate a private sector interest in bringing our fisheries technology

over to train these individuals in fishing their waters that they have sovereign

rights over off the coast of Africa. Not dissimilar at all to something that was

featured on Land and Sea a while ago where we were training people in

Central America through the provision of assistance by the different agencies

involved in transferring the technological expertise of people here to people in

other parts of the world and teaching them what we know. It also then creates an

inherent sense of value and worth to the people who now have to stand idle

because of the crisis in the fishery.

This is the kind of thing that we are hopeful that this as a

private sector initiative in the lowering of a taxation regime and in making

Newfoundland a more attractive place in which to do business, we can offer up to

the people of the global business community and say: We are open for business,

we are interested in doing business with people in all parts of the globe. I

think that is the kind of thing that we can then serve better to the people of

the Province to assist them in stimulating their minds and their ideas and

broadening the overall horizon that they see as a potential for their future.

Especially young people. You speak of young people who have

become so disheartened with the economy - and it is not only here, it is

throughout the country, I suppose. Were it not for the occasional service job in

some cases the youth of the country would certainly be not well dealt to go into

the workforce without the foundation of a very high education, I say. Even a

basic higher education these days is no guarantee of employment. To see how the

individuals who would go out into the workforce and get an education in a

specific field, and you will find often that people who are trained in a

specific area, their services are just not able to be used because of the glut

of trained personnel in a given area or because the jobs just aren't there.

I think we have to fire ahead and we have to go as individual

members and take the initiative ourselves in making contacts and doing things

for our districts. As well, we have to see to it that the efforts that we make

in trying to attract business that we leave no stone unturned. It is I suppose a

real clich almost to use that term, but it is certainly the kind of thing we

have to do in order that we look beyond and we lead for our people and that we

show them that there is another day with another dollar to be earned. We have

the best entrepreneurs in the world with us in this Province and those

entrepreneurs are the fishermen who, running an enterprise, have sustained

themselves for hundreds of years continually using the resource available to

them.

That is the ultimate entrepreneurial spirit. An individual or

group of individuals in a fishing enterprise who would go and risk the risk of

peril at sea, who will work so hard and work long hours in the most difficult of

conditions, and to seek the harvesting of a resource, and then to take that and

turn it into real new dollars for their families and their community. If we are

to take that and harvest it and generate new wealth for the Province, I think we

can do the same thing with new initiatives, with technological initiatives. We

can do the same thing with creative ideas, and assisting in the cultivation of

these ideas through government agencies that are involved.

Everyone knows that these particular agencies have a long way

to go to improve themselves to the point where they are client centred and

responsive to the needs of the people of the Province. They are working at it.

They are bureaucratic by nature and therefore I guess they have to make a change

in order to develop this client centred approach and basis to serving the people

of the Province. It is very necessary that they do so. Because I've seen - as an

example of one member - I'm sure other members have had a similar experience -

I've seen many an idea go to waste. Because an individual will approach you with

the idea - and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you too have had people come forward with

business ideas and they haven't been able to get to first base.

Sometimes it is for the right reasons. Sometime it is not

very well thought through and the process of the individuals who assist them in

doing the determination as to whether they should proceed will assist them in

coming to a conclusion that maybe they should not. In general a lot of times it

is the process that stops them and it is that which is the key problem to

business development and support measures offered by governments throughout the

world.

Only when it I suppose is approached from a private sector

type of initiative providing the support that is necessary to backing the

businesses financially, should they have a product or service that they have a

good market for, to provide them with that backing, to assist them in the

marketing of their product, to assist them with management operations, to assist

them in the overall, so that they can stimulate our economy.

If we provide that, Mr. Speaker, we will have done our job as

legislators by creating the necessary climate for the improvement of business in

this Province. Should we fail, then it will be, to many generations, having lost

the opportunity because of our failure.

It is with this that I speak firmly from the heart, having

been from a family of entrepreneurs who started out in the area of a forge and a

blacksmithery, and grew up from there into a department store type of family

business, and having experienced that end of it, as well as having been a

business person myself, involved in a couple of different businesses, with no

help whatsoever from government in the initiatives that I was involved in, and

to see from there how we can stimulate and support, with a little bit of support

of the right kind, some of the business ventures that I have seen and been

involved with would have succeeded beyond the success level that they had.

Then again, one only has to look at - not all ideas are

sound. Not all ideas should go forward, but there are many ideas which, if a

person is discouraged, then the second time, when they come up with the right

idea, that discouragement will certainly affect their intent and their desire to

go forward and do something and start something. The confidence level is shaken.

They think, why bother to try?

Well, we need to bother to try. We need to assist these

people, regardless of the quality, I suppose, of their ideas, and if it is

handled in the right way, then the individuals concerned can certainly go on to

other ideas that are better thought through, I suppose is the way I would put

it, and from there you can judge and gauge how they would be able to take on the

next one, and that's very important. Some call it a holding of hands to a point

in stimulating business. I think that's part of it. The other part of it is in

allowing people to realize for themselves just how much there is to the running

of a small business. It's not a matter of opening the door and hanging out your

sign and hoping that people show up. There is a lot behind the scenes. Fishermen

do it every day that have fished over the years, over the hundreds of years in

this Province. They knew they had to gear up and be ready for the season. They

knew they had to have adequate supplies of bait. They knew they had to have

adequate equipment, personnel, and also that they had to look after the basics

of their enterprise by making sure that the proper remittances were made on

behalf of their crews. They had to make sure that they paid their taxes

properly, and had an auditor or accountant assist them with their bookkeeping.

These are the same exact things that we hope to be able to

assist them in stimulating and creating that environment in attracting the

necessary business opportunities to the Province so that from that point onward

there is industry to service, there is industry to support, there is industry to

participate with.

I think we have to seek out `more strategic alliances' is the

term that is used now in the business community throughout North America, and

throughout the world, for that matter, and seek out companies that have

strengths to combine themselves with companies that we have here who have

certain strengths, and if we combine those companies, not necessarily in an

ownership way but through co-operation agreements and strategic alliance

initiatives, we can see the results and the benefits of that kind of initiative.

One only has to look at how you go about doing this kind of

thing. Now, if we look at the Hibernia project as an example, Hibernia is a

project, I think, which has reaped a lot of benefits for some Newfoundlanders,

and a lot of benefits for some companies, but in general, I think more companies

have lost in gearing up for Hibernia than have actually yet prospered from it in

the small business area. We only have to look at the way that co-operation has

gone on in the consortiums that have been put together to take advantage of the

Hibernia project.

If you look at the different companies, we talk about NODECO,

which was a joint venture of numerous companies brought together to secure a

certain contract. PASSB - the acronym of PASSB stands for PCO, Acker, Stewart,

Stein, Becker. So those five different companies have come together with all of

their individual strengths and characteristics in order to bid on a very large

contract and they won that contract, and they are companies from all different

corners of the globe.

So the companies here in this Province are no different in

seeking - in the fact that they should seek to create an alliance between

themselves in order to take on larger projects, in order to draw on the

strengths of their partners and their joint venture collaborators in these areas

and build on the experience that they would gain from bringing themselves

together in that kind of consortium. A consortium sounds like a big word but

it's just another fancy word for bringing a bunch of companies together. Really,

Mr. Speaker, it's the kind of thing that we, as a government, should support,

and I know that the initiatives are in place to assist us in doing this.

The SIID agreement is an excellent agreement to assist in

bringing together this kind of activity and that's, I suppose, the future for

our children. I have four children who I hope will benefit sometime from this

kind of initiative - from taking the effort on behalf of the children of the

Province and putting together the kinds of initiatives as a government and also

in providing advice to our constituents and our constituent companies in helping

them go out and take advantage of what's out there in the global market. There

are huge opportunities out there. If we go about gathering the information and

we stay in touch with the trade commissioners who are there to serve us - as

members, businesse