April 28, 1994                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 32


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries three groups of individuals involved in the Improving Our Odds courses. The first two are from the Districts of Trinity - Bay de Verde and Bellevue, one comprising twenty-two people with their instructors, John Cumby and George Brown. The second, a group of forty people with their instructors Roy Moores, Kay Swain, Rosalind Dawe and Ross Tricket, and the third group is a delegation of thirty people from the District of Grand Bank, again, from the Improving Our Odds course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Terra Nova have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer sincere congratulations to Susan Capps, Nancy Creighton and Dorothy W. Riach who are recipients of the first ever, Women of Distinction Awards which were presented last evening at a banquet hosted by the St. John's YMCA and YWCA. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you send a congratulatory letter to each recipient on behalf of the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assure Your Honour and members opposite that all the members of the Official Opposition heartily concur with the Member for Terra Nova in asking Your Honour to send congratulatory messages to the three women who were honoured last night at the first annual St. John's YWCA Women of Distinction Banquet. We would certainly want to be associated with praise of those three women's outstanding contribution to the people of our Province. Also, I suggest, Your Honour, that you send a congratulatory message to the St. John's YWCA for having so successfully initiated this project destined to become a yearly event to honour Women of Distinction in our Province.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we in the ministry would certainly like to be associated with this and I would add only two points. My friend from Humber East I think spoke of the YW. My understanding is it is now the YM-YWCA, or perhaps the YW-YMCA. I had dinner Tuesday night with the national president, Mrs. Godsoe, an old friend of mine from Halifax. We have here in St. John's, as in many places throughout Canada right now, a joint YM-YW - or perhaps it is YW-YM, I'm not sure.

Secondly, I can report to the House that with respect to these statements the House Leaders have met. The best we've been able to do at this stage is agree to meet again. So until we can find a better procedure we are here, but I still maintain the position, or the government does, that we should try to find a better way. My friend for Grand Bank and I, when we are not writing doggerel limericks about each other, are putting our heads together. We will see what we can come up.

Statements by Ministers

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" and I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the young women seated in our gallery who have participated in this project. "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" has been promoted by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women as a simple project which has the potential to greatly influence the lives of our young women.

This day is designed to focus on the needs of young girls aged nine to fifteens years old. Recent studies are finding that adolescence takes a greater toll on the self-esteem of girls than on boys. There are many reasons why young girls need this day, and we have outlined some of the recent research studies in a backgrounder which I have attached to this statement. Today, however, I have decided to focus on celebrating, rather than justifying, "Take Your Daughter to Work Day." Our workplace is brightened today by the presence of these young girls. They help us recall the enthusiasm of that "first day on the job." When they grow up we must continue to ensure that every opportunity possible is available to them. Nothing less than the future of our world depends on their contribution. As government we must ensure that doors are still opened for young women: doors to power, doors to wealth, doors to opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, 1994 is the International Year of the Family, and a major initiative is creating family friendly workplaces. What better time to share our work experiences with our daughters. Perhaps those members who were unable to participate today may take their daughters in for a visit on International Family Day, May 15. Ask your daughter if she would like to visit and then mark it on your calendar. Taking a young girl to work provides us with a way to support girls and to begin to redress the inequities in their lives. It tells them that we think they are important. "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" provides a wonderful opportunity to have "our daughters" seen and celebrated for the value they add and will add to our society as our future engineers, mothers, and politicians.

I would like to commend all those persons who have taken time today to show there girls the great variety of exciting career opportunities that are available to them. By participating in this event, you have helped to broaden a girl's horizon and enrich all our lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for her statement, and also for her leadership in promoting "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" in Newfoundland and Labrador. Members may not be aware, but this is a program that was initiated by the Ms Foundation in the United States, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has been promoting it in Canada. It is good to see it introduced in our Province with the minister's leadership. I hope it continues and will become even more important in the years ahead.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the girls and young women who are in the galleries today, and to assure them that we need them. We need lots more women filling these seats. We only have three women out of the fifty-two members in the House of Assembly right now and that is not properly reflective of women's share of the total population, and as a consequence, our government doesn't function as well as it should. Our House of Assembly doesn't perform as well as it could.

We need you, I say to the girls and women, and please think about politics as a future career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of recent new developments in the educational reform process.

On April 15, Premier Wells and I met with church leaders to discuss some concerns they had with Adjusting the Course. As a result of that meeting, government decided to make some modifications to Adjusting the Course.

Those modifications were documented and forwarded to the church leaders on Tuesday, April 26, for their review and consideration. As a courtesy to church leaders, we decided not to make the modifications public until they had a chance to respond to us.

However, in recent days, some media claim to have obtained some of the information. I say, `claimed to', Mr. Speaker, because of the announcement that was made last night on some of the media, which did indeed show a knowledge of the proposal put forth. By no means do they have a total knowledge of what they are. So, in the interest of the public, and in the interest of the House, it seems appropriate for me to table the modified proposal.

They concerned the composition of the school boards, the denominational education committees on the boards, the process to determine which schools should remain or become uni- denominational, it ensures that the system will truly be a denominational system - will be an interdenominational system.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say it looks like some of the changes proposed by the minister may be significant enough, hopefully, to get the churches back to the table. It seems as if they might be willing. I am sure they will be back to seek clarification, particularly in relation to the criteria for determining uni-denominational schools, item number 3 in particular.

As you look through it - I have only had it for a minute or two - but the viability criteria issue, where there doesn't appear to be any problem of cost or duplication, where there is only one school in one community, why the requirement or consent of 90 per cent of parents of children might be required. That means 11 per cent could, in fact, make a school a public school, or whatever the word is you want to use.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: If I could just briefly make a comment, I am sure they will be back to seek clarification on those matters. These are the most significant changes in the criteria, and clearly the government is now proposing more denominational boards than they had originally proposed, which is a good thing; it is something we suggested.

Finally, let me just say, I said publicly, if the government were to get a third party involved in this, throw out the Minister of Education and the Minister of Justice, then they would have a better chance to get an agreement. I am glad they took my advice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the rules of the House, going back to his time in the Chair, if memory serves me, provide that in response to the Ministerial Statement one may only have one-half the time taken by the minister. That is not a rule that we made; it is a rule of the House that has been there for some time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gets up and then asks for leave, is granted leave, and then proceeds to use that to abuse the privileges of the House by trying to cheapen the debate.

My point of order is simply to tell him that from now on he will not get leave for anything beyond that which he is allowed by the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: To the minister's point of order, if the minister prefers to use that kind of approach in the House of Assembly - dictatorial approach, childish and silly kind of condemnation - then that is okay, because two can play this game and it will be tit for tat, and I can assure him, the tat is over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the point of order, the Government House Leader is correct in that the member replying on the other side has half the time that the minister does, but in this case the hon. Leader of the Opposition had leave and was entitled to continue.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in the absence of the Premier. At the press conference last week, Brian Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries, estimated that about $1.4 billion of the $1.9 billion to fund TAGS over the next five years will be spent here in this Province. Now, in the absence of the Premier, I ask the minister, can he tell us how much of that $1.4 billion will be paid out in actual direct income support to fishermen and plant workers? How much of that amount then - say it's $700 million for direct income support - how much of that amount then will actually be spent on work there - the environmental projects, employment bonuses, the portable wage subsidies and so on? Will he give us that breakdown?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Such a breakdown is not possible to give at this point in time. The only information is that - I think the latest numbers that have been in use are that 77 per cent of the fishing activity that is covered by the compensation arrangement is in Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore 77 per cent of the money is expected to be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador. How much of it will be spent on actual compensation to individuals will depend upon how many people in Newfoundland and Labrador or any of the other Atlantic Provinces and Quebec - the Quebec shore - qualify under the new eligibility criteria and it is impossible to predict any numbers. There are some estimates that have been made but all of those can only be confirmed after the individuals who will start receiving information in the mail directly, everyone that's currently in receipt of compensation, will go through a requalifying period. It's expected - just in a ball park figure - that because 77 per cent and most people are saying approximately 80 per cent, rounding it off, of the activity is in Newfoundland and Labrador in this whole region, then it is expected that 77 or 80 per cent of the money will be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what the minister is talking about. I already told him - the minister said 80 per cent, $1.4 billion, I know all that. What I asked him is, surely they must have done some - how do they know how much to put in the program if they didn't know how much was there for each individual component? There's about $300 million there for the IRBs, for example. My question for the minister - I repeat it because obviously he didn't understand the question - $1.4 billion is what Mr. Tobin said will be spent here in Newfoundland. Now $300 million or whatever for the IRBs, there's going to be millions for administering some of the programs, there's going to be millions for training and so on. My question to him was twofold, simple: How much of that $1.4 billion will be paid in direct income support to the fishermen and plant workers? How much of that amount then, whatever that amount is, say it is $700 million, will actually be spent on the workfare programs? The environmental green projects, the bonuses that are going to be paid, the portable wage subsidies and that kind of thing. Answers to those questions the minister must have at his disposal.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again it is not a matter of anyone not understanding the question, or maybe not even a matter of the members opposite not understanding the answer. The reality is - and I think everybody understands the reality - it is impossible for any person, whether it be the federal Minister of DFO, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, the Premier, anybody else involved in it, any of the officials, to answer your question today by saying: X number of millions of dollars will be paid out in compensation in bi-weekly cheques that individuals in the fishery who are now in receipt of some other form of compensation will receive.

How much money will be spent will depend upon how many people qualify and for what period of time. It is impossible to give an answer to that question. If the question were to be: Have some projections been made, have some people speculated as to how much they think might be spent, sure, those numbers have already been made public. There is nothing added to that debate by me reaffirming it, because they are guesses, they are estimates. But if you ask the question: How many million dollars are going to be paid out on a bi-weekly basis to people in receipt of compensation in Newfoundland and Labrador under the TAGS program, it is absolutely impossible today for anybody in Canada to answer that question.

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

MR. SIMMS: You have no idea how much will be spent out of that $1.4 billion to be given directly to the fishermen and plant workers in income support. That is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, I will move on. The minister would be aware, and remember as we all do, of course, that the first draft of the famed NCARP about two years ago, when it was announced by John Crosbie, proposed a similar workfare component. At that time both this government and the fishermen's union rejected that idea because it was going to force fishermen and plant workers into unfair competition with other workers in other sectors for all the scarce jobs that there are. I'm sure the minister must recall that. Therefore, it is important to ask him this question. How come this government now supports workfare for fishermen and plant workers? Shouldn't that concern, expressed two years ago, be even stronger today than it was then? There are less jobs to go around and there are more people unemployed, Mr. Speaker, for those other workers in other sectors of society who are not in the fishery.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate again the question because it provides an opportunity to clarify the situation.

It is not a matter of using the phrase "workfare" at all. In the discussions that have involved the federal government, the provincial government, FFAW and FANL, it has been clear that one of the things that may very well be a part of this program, once the re-qualification exercise has gone through, which will take most of this summer - it is expected to take some ninety days after May 15 or so for people to be determined whether or not they are in the program after the end of this calendar year. That is the first exercise.

One of the things that has been discussed openly and clearly with everyone is that those who are determined to be eligible for anywhere from two full years up to five years, once that determination is done, one of the things that will be asked of these people is to commit - because they are going to be deemed to be able to receive compensation, two questions will be asked. Will they in fact commit, and can we find a meaningful way to have these people commit to some kind of combination of training and provision of worker service in return for the receipt of the compensation.

That issue is still under discussion. The FFAW has made its position perfectly clear. It doesn't object to the concept. The workers themselves, the actual fish harvesters and the fish plant workers have said they don't as a rule object to the concept, as long as it is meaningful. They would like for most of it to be related to the fishery, to marine related types of work, if at all possible. Those are the discussions that are going on now. Is it going to be possible in Newfoundland and Labrador to find fishery, marine related meaningful work to have these people do in exchange for the receipt of compensation for anywhere from two full years to five full years?

Those discussions are continuing. The concept is that somewhere between four, five or six months of work in a year if it is meaningful, combined with the rest of the year in some kind of directed, meaningful training, would keep the people who are in receipt of the compensation active, keep them involved while they are waiting, many of them, for an opportunity to go to the fishery or to exit the fishery to some other work opportunity.

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

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what you've got to do to try to get a direct answer from the minister. That has nothing to do with the question. The question is the concern that exists out there among the many, many people who are desperate for jobs in this Province, who aren't involved in the fishery; and won't the workfare program that he just described so capably, actually affect all of those people, making it more difficult for them to find job opportunities because of the workfare program? That was what my question was about, and how did he feel about that. Was he concerned about that? Because the people who phone our offices tell us that they are concerned they will be shut out of any job opportunities because of the program, and they will have nowhere to go but to face the welfare lines.

Let me ask the minister this question: Can the minister give assurances to all those other people that their opportunities for jobs won't be affected by these workfare programs funded by TAGS? Can he give some assurances to the people?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the related issue that we have also been dealing with. As a matter of fact, I have dealt with that particular aspect of it in private and personal meetings with Mr. Axworthy because it is of some concern, there is no question.

There are two things that everyone should understand. Any of the work related effort that goes into making sure that people who are in the compensation package of the new TAGS program, as it is called, any of that work will be work that would not otherwise be done, and that should be made clear to everybody. That will be work that would not otherwise be done, and would not otherwise be available to anyone else in Newfoundland and Labrador anyway. Everyone should understand that clearly.

This is going to be an effort to try and give the people who are in receipt of the compensation an opportunity to stay meaningfully active, but it is not going to take away from job opportunities for the rest of the 20 per cent unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador who also desperately need work.

We sought two particular clarifications before the program was even announced, and we were assured first of all that any efforts relating to employment arising because of this compensation program over the next five years would not displace any current workers, and particularly because a lot of this stuff is done on a seasonal basis, that any seasonal operators in Newfoundland and Labrador who have regular workers, regular seasonal employees that they call back annually, that they would not be denied their annual call back in exchange for an employer, the government or anyone else, accepting people who are in receipt of compensation in their stead.

So those clarifications have been sought and given, and any work opportunities that are related to receipt of compensation under this program will not, in any way, diminish any opportunities that there are for the rest of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are not in this position.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

I am wondering if the minister has been monitoring the fishery observer program - observers on our domestic and foreign vessels inside of the 200-mile limit. I am wondering if the minister has been monitoring that situation, because from news media reports there is a serious situation that has arisen in Nova Scotia where a Quebec company has taken over the contract and now the experienced, seasoned observers are out of the system and inexperienced, unseasoned workers are acting as observers on the boats. Has the minister been observing this situation, and does he have any concerns for the Newfoundland observers?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have been observing it. I would prefer to take the question as notice and maybe later on this afternoon provide the member with copies of correspondence and any other relevant material relating to it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for that.

While the minister is getting ready to respond, would he as well check and see, because I have heard reports that within the last twenty-four to forty-eight hours there have been fishing vessels sail from Newfoundland ports without observers, and I am wondering, while the minister is at it, if he could check into that as well, because if we are going to have a fishery in the future, then conservation must be the key word, regeneration of our stocks must be the key word, or all the billions of dollars that have been spent, or will be spent on the new TAGS program, will be all for naught if we don't have a revived fishery. So could the minister undertake to get that information for me as well?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I can tell him now that I share his concern with respect to the observer program, and we have complained on numerous occasions that maybe it's not strong enough and I will certainly get the information for the hon. member, maybe later on this afternoon.

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

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

I want to follow up with the minister on an issue that was raised last night in the Budget Estimates Committee for the Department of Fisheries.

At that time we were trying to focus the minister and get some answers on the 50 per cent reduction in the processing sector of closure of plants, which plants will stay open, which will close, and the minister made some reference that they will probably have to identify which plants will reopen which, in essence, is identifying which plants will stay closed. Of course, we may be looking at five to ten years before our stocks regenerate and people get back working in the processing plants. Could the minister inform the House and the people what program the Provincial Government will undertake to mothball and maintain the processing facilities so that they are in working condition when the fish stocks rebuild?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee meeting last night we did have a very interesting discussion on the business of down-sizing or rebuilding the processing sector. Some reference was made to the need for regional balance and the hon. gentleman expressed some concern that we were now talking about regional balance, but I should remind him by the way, that in this discussion paper that was put out almost a year ago, recommendation No. 24 talks about the need for regional balance in the processing sector; but, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the plants, all plants in the Province that depend on groundfish for their survival are closed, with a few exceptions.

Some are doing Russian cod, we have a plant in Arnold's Cove, Fishery Products International has a plant in Fortune; I believe there is a plant in Triton, Green Bay and in Winterton, Trinity Bay now processing Barents Sea cod. Apart from that, just about all of the other groundfish plants are closed, so the question arises, I suppose, at the end of the day, of putting in place a mechanism whereby we find ways and means of getting those plants re-opened. And given the fact that the moratorium is in place now and will be, it is predicted, for another five or six, or maybe longer years, then it is going to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, to say when these plants will re-open and, in fact, given the fact that it will depend almost entirely on precisely to what extent the fish stocks rebuild, then it is not difficult to understand why it is almost impossible to determine which plants will be in operation in the year 2000.

Getting back to his question about mothballing, Mr. Speaker, there isn't any program in place at the present time on the part of the Provincial Government for mothballing plants. I am not able to tell the hon. gentleman if there will be such a program, that is something that will have to be decided at some future date. That's the sort of thing that would probably be decided or looked at by the New Fisheries Renewal Board, if and when that is established and providing the terms of reference of that board, are such that the Province can go along with it. It is something that I expect will be looked at but, at this point in time, there isn't a program in place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question pertaining to Tourism and Culture.

I understand the acting minister is out of the Province on business, but the Premier has been aware of this in a letter, so I will direct it to, I guess, whoever is the acting, acting Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Now, the tour boat operation in this Province is a rapidly growing business, and at present there is no system of licensing for tour boat operators in the Province and there is a successful business operating in my district. Now, many other businesses related to tourism require a government license or approval in order to operate. I ask the minister, will this government look at putting in place a system whereby there will be a licensing for tour boat operators in this Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am, I guess the senior survivor as it were, on this side at this point. I have no personal knowledge of the matter; what I can do and will do gladly is to undertake on behalf of my colleague, the minister who is out of the Province at present, my colleague, the acting minister, the Member for St. Barbe, to have an answer prepared and we will give it here in the House as quickly as we can. We shall look at the issue. What the result of that would be I cannot say, but I will certainly undertake that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the season rapidly approaching this year, and in order to set in place a proper standard of professionalism among tour boat operators it is imperative that government establish certain minimum standards of safety for tour boat operators. At present there are none.

Now, in British Columbia when the White Water Rafting business started to increase there was influx of fly-by-nighters which resulted in many deaths, a catastrophe there, and lawsuits involved because it was not regulated in any way for safety.

Now, I ask the minister: Would he undertake to put in place an acceptable safety standard for the operation of tour boats?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman has apparently let his enthusiasm carry him away. It is not within the constitutional powers of this Legislature to regulate boats operating in the areas of which he speaks. These are regulated by the Canada Department of the Ministry of Transport, called the Canadian Coastguard which is a division of Transport Canada, in my understanding. I don't claim any particular knowledge or expertise in this matter.

My understanding is that all boats, including specifically in this context, boats which carry passengers, including tour boats, are regulated by the Canadian Coastguard, or by CSI, the Canada Steamship Inspection Service. My understanding is that the Canada Shipping Act, which is the federal legislation which governs this, is considered to be among the most advanced in the world, and furthermore, the regulatory scheme administered by CSI, and by the Coastguard, is, in my understanding, complete, comprehensive, and meets the need.

Now, with all that said, I will still undertake, as I said, to find out from those with some detailed knowledge of this matter - and I claim none - where we are. What I will say to my friend again, is that I think I have some knowledge of the constitutional parameters of this Legislature, and we cannot, we just simply cannot legislate validly. We can legislate. Sure, we can also make rules about the South African elections, if we want, one has no more validity than the other, but we cannot legislate - with this Section 91 and Section 92 of the Constitutional Act, address the issue.

Now, my friend can make what points he wants, scaremongering, fearmongering, and raising those apprehensions, but what I say to him is he should better take his concerns where they properly belong.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I really appreciate the expert legal advice from the minister. These boats meet the Coastguard standards, and have met standards in order to operate. Tour boat operators in this Province have been approaching and lobbying the provincial department to set standards for embarking and disembarking, on ground safety that relates to the operation, to enhance the professionalism of tourism on safety requiring someone with a first aid certificate, the proper first aid equipment that falls outside jurisdiction on the ocean. These are the types of things I am talking about, Mr. Minister. They are things that are under provincial control, and they are operating in two parks here in this Province.

Now, I ask him a final question. At present there are no requirements for those operations to have comprehensive liability insurance, none. I ask the minister, will he undertake to ensure that there are minimum comprehensive liability insurance standards set for the operation of tour boat operators in this Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is no way I can answer that question, even assuming the premise is correct. And I don't know if it is correct, but I have no reason to doubt it. The hon. gentleman claims expertise in a number of areas, I don't. I have some knowledge of the law but even that, I acknowledge to him, readily, is quite limited. What I will say is we will have a look at it and, in due course, if we believe that action should be taken, we will come here to the House and ask the House to enact the legislation that will be needed to require a liability insurance scheme.

I should add, though, lest he leave a misimpression, and my hon. friend inadvertently often leaves misimpressions, that whether or not insurance is required, and I know not, it does not speak to the liability of the operator. An operator of a boat who is judged to be negligent will be liable to any person who has suffered damages as a consequence of that negligence. I would therefore say that any prudent tour boat operator would effect liability insurance to guard against his/her or its potential exposure should there be negligence causing harm and which lead -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman really wants an answer to his question, he will do me the courtesy I did him and not interrupt me rudely or otherwise. He is at an expert at interrupting people rudely in the House, so is his friend, the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman asked a question and I shall try to answer it. I will do him the courtesy of thinking that he is expressing his views honestly and straightforwardly because he believes in this. In that case, let me again say that any prudent tour boat operator, in my judgement, will be well-advised to effect insurance against the contingency, because the liability is there, assuming the legal requirements are met, whether or not there's a requirement for insurance. On the insurance issue, all I can say is we will have a look at it and as soon as we can, we will address the matter in a policy statement. I'll leave it at that. That's all I can say.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.

In a recent news story it was noted that over the past two years some twenty-odd fish plants in the Province did not have their license renewed. The reason given by the minister when questioned by the media on the criteria for not renewing the license was that if a plant were inactive for a period of two years the license was not renewed. Over the past few days we have had some problems in my district in the community of St. Bride's with regard to the fish plant and the sale of fish. Most of this has come because of the concern that the people there have, Mr. Minister, for the future of the fish plant. I would like to ask the minister: Will the same criteria that was used over the past two years be carried into the future with regard to which fish plants stay open in the Province and which fish plants are closed?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there's a policy in place now and has been for quite some time, that licenses that are idle two years or longer, prior to the date of the first moratorium, are automatically cancelled. Now, in recent days, there have been a lot of letters sent out to a number of fish plants advising them that their licenses have been cancelled. These are licenses that were for different species, for example, squid, herring, mackerel and a number of other species that have not been active for two years. They have been cancelled, and there are a number of plants in the Province, I believe twenty-six altogether that have lost their licenses by virtue of that regulation. Obviously, the plant in St. Bride's is an operating plant, so as long as it's operating that rule will not apply but if it's idle for two years, unless there are extenuating circumstances, then the licenses will be retrieved.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister the following: If the plant over the next couple of years has to close, say, for three or four years due to the cod moratorium, would I be correct in saying that there would be a possibility that that plant would not lose its license - that you would look at extenuating circumstances because of the moratorium and not the fact that it would be closed for maybe four years, who knows?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear when I explained, licenses that are idle two years pre-dating the first moratorium which was imposed in 1991, so plants that were idle prior to that time had no activity in groundfish, for example, their licenses have been retrieved.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Over the past couple of days I've held several meetings with plant workers and a concern that some of those plant workers have is that if they decide to do a training course outside the fishery for the next couple of years - whether it's a one year training course, two, or whatever the case may be - that when the fish do come back or when the industry starts again, because they trained outside of the fishery they will not be allowed to go back into the fishery if they cannot find a job in the course that they have trained for. In a nutshell, if a person decides to train outside the fishery, will that person be signing away the opportunity to work in the industry in the future?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, people who again go through the eligibility criteria and are deemed to be eligible for continuing compensation for a minimum of two years beyond May 16, one of the options that will be presented to them will be to select certain training options.

The training options would be clearly to look at programs that might make them more suitable for work in the professional new fishery of the future, or that they themselves might have made a judgement that there may be very limited opportunities for them in the area or community of the Province in which they live, and that in their best interest maybe they had best look at a training option for some other opportunity outside the fishery altogether. That will be their individual choice to make, as I understand it.

I'm not aware that there is any particular regulation or rule that will require them to sign to say that: If I train to be something other than a professional fisherperson or a plant worker that I will never again be allowed to enter the fishery. How many people will go back into the fishery will largely be determined by the size and the extent of the fishery that re-opens based upon the new health of the restored stock.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Mines and Energy. I would like to ask the minister: When the Premier and the government decided to privatize Hydro, what were their assumptions about interest rates and the rate of exchange between the Canadian dollar and the foreign currencies in which part of the Hydro debt is denominated? Have the recent increase in interest rates and the slide in the value of the Canadian dollar resulted in a change in the government's position on Hydro privatization, or led to an alteration of their timetable for doing the dirty deed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Talking about dirty deeds, why don't you declare your conflict of interest?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should (inaudible) conflict of interest.

MR. TOBIN: Who said that over there? Murphy, you?

MR. MURPHY: No.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that we made any particular assumptions on interest rates. Our advisors were telling us that the optimum time to go to the market to get the maximum value for our assets, for our equity in the Hydro, would be when interest rates are at their lowest. That is when you get the maximum value. We have clearly said ourselves publicly in the last few weeks that as interest rates climb then our return would likely decrease and lessen. We would want to do the privatization when it is optimum.

As everybody also knows, in the last few days interest rates have been receding again. We are watching what is happening in the market. We are going to continue to watch what is happening in the market, and we would like to be ready to do the privatization when it is going to be best for the government and the Province, when we would get the maximum number of dollars for what we own in this particular enterprise. We would do it then. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I have the pleasure of presenting a petition of 156 Pasadena schoolchildren.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having great difficult hearing the hon. member, who is to my immediate right. If members want to converse, could they please take it outside the Chamber?

I recognize the hon. member again.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Pasadena schoolchildren, who are petitioning the House of Assembly, have written as follows:

`We, the children of the Pasadena Academy, protest the destroying of our land to build a highway through our town, destroying our everyday activities.

We ask you to think about we children and our needs. Some of our needs are to have fun and be safe. You will also be destroying some of our town's good farm land.

We ask you to please build the highway, but around our town and not through it. Thank you.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition of 156 students of Pasadena Academy was sent to me by Jennifer Hillier, an eleven-year-old, Grade V student. Jennifer sent me a covering letter, which I would like to read to hon. members of the House. Jennifer wrote:

`My name is Jennifer I. Hillier. I am eleven years of age. I am writing this letter on behalf of the children of the Pasadena Academy School. The Principal of my school, Mr. Butt, permitted myself to pass around a petition for the children who are against government laying the four-lane highway through our transmission line which runs through the middle of our town. You will be taking away some farmland and homes that people live in right now. We protest against the route of where the four-lane highway will be put. This will affect our lives forever.

We, the children, protest against our everyday activities being destroyed. Some of the activities are: skiing, skidooing, sliding, walking, talking, running, fishing, and many, many more. Please build the highway around our town and not through it.

The adults have already sent a petition with over 1,600 names on it to Clyde Wells, but I would like you to present our petition. Thank you very much for your help!!!!'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: `Sincerely yours, Jennifer I. Hillier.'

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend Jennifer and the other children at Pasadena Academy for their initiative in trying to preserve the natural beauty and the excellent quality of community life in Pasadena.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly concur with the children. Building a four-lane divided superhighway in a trench through the middle of Pasadena, along the transmission line, as the current minister proposed, would lead to a quite unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into Pasadena life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, for the hon. member and for the minister's benefit, I think he is having difficulty hearing the hon. member, as I am, so if members could keep their conversations down, please.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are used to getting report cards from their teachers at Pasadena Academy. If the Pasadena Academy teachers could give a report card for the minister, they would write: Johnny can do better.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to reading you Jennifer Hillier's letter, I would like to read to hon. members a letter written by a wise, older person in Pasadena, a businessman whose name is Karl H. Diemer. Mr. Diemer wrote:

`Once upon a time there was a lovely valley adorned on one side by a beach and a tranquil lake, and on the other side by tree-covered hills. People settled here and lived in harmony with nature. They cared for their surroundings and houses. They planted trees and flowers to further beautify their town. The soil was fertile and the people grew delicious strawberries and other fruits. On the meadows in the summer, cows were grazing and drank the clean water from the brook. The inhabitants were friendly and lived in harmony in their community, but one day outsiders came. They were the mean trolls from St. John's. They wanted to build a four-lane speedway - an ugly four-lane speedway, a noisy four-lane speedway, a four-lane speedway that would divide the town. The outsiders would cut down the trees, they would dig dirt tunnels, create artificial hills, put up high fences that would divide the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: These mean people would create scars all over the beautiful valley.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to finish her -

MS. VERGE: The people of Corner Brook did not watch the trolls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: The people of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MS. VERGE: No leave? Such a good letter! Well, I'll have to complete reading the letter at another time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand and support the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber East. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't want to see the hon. minister's report cards - Johnny's report cards, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I would have to say in support of the petition is this: back in 1989-1990 when the former minister, Mr. Gilbert, met with the town council in Pasadena and the residents, to talk about the re-routing of the Trans-Canada Highway - the new four-lane highway, I should say, because re-routing wasn't talked about at that time - there was a decision reached that this particular piece of road would go around Pasadena in what they call the southern bypass route. Now, that agreement was between the town council at that time and the government of the day - the same gentlemen who were there in 1989 are there today, have been for the last five years. The only difference is that the ministers have changed.

Mr. Speaker, the department at that time knew full well about the travelling distance. There's no difference in the length of a kilometre, there's no difference in the length of a mile or the distance in it, the footage in it, the meters, the centimetres or anything else. It's the same today as it was back in 1989. The concern of the people at that time was that they should go with the southern bypass route. The same concern is there today, the same concern is expressed today, only in this case there were two public meetings held and the majority of the people said without hesitation, they wanted the southern bypass route.

One of the other things that was agreed on back in 1989, Mr. Speaker, was this - very, very important - that the Town's plan, the municipal plan in Pasadena, was done in such a way that it would accommodate a southern bypass route. In order for the minister and his department to go with what they consider the transmission line route now, that particular section or the particular plan at Pasadena would have to be changed. Now, there are only two ways - one way really, that a municipal plan should be changed in the Province and that is, when it's up for review - a plan is usually up for review after five years - there is one other way, and that is if a municipality wanted to make an amendment to a municipal plan before the review was up; those are the only two ways. In doing that, a municipality would have to have public hearings, the public would have a chance to voice their opinions to the changes, the amendments or the review of the plan and they would be given the opportunity to do so.

There is only one other way that can be done, and that is, if the government of the day could unilaterally change the municipal plan in the municipality, but they would have to have the same - and it meets the same criteria as a municipality. That is, they would have to have public hearings on this particular issue. They can't just go to Cabinet and the minister can't just sign a document saying, we're going to change the municipal plan in Pasadena, period. They can't do it. The same rules and regulations apply to a minister of a government department, regardless of that department - in order to do it, they would have to have public hearings and so on to give the general population a chance to have some input.

So I say to the minister that he needs deliberation on this particular subject. He said that he has heard pretty well - to sum it up, that he's had enough and he would take to Cabinet the concerns raised by the people of Pasadena, and Cabinet would make a final decision on it.

Well, I would submit to the minister today, Mr. Speaker, that his decision should be to go with the southern by-pass route, especially these days, especially going down through the Humber Valley. If there was ever a time to put a southern by-pass route, it is now. I say to the minister that in his deliberations he should take that into consideration, and make sure we don't do what we did last year with respect to the entrance to Corner Brook.

If there was ever - I never saw it in this Province before, where we built the hill to put a road on it. We usually build hills for ski slopes and so on, but the first time ever I saw it, we built the hill, one of the largest in the country, next to Kelly's in Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the minister, take the people's considerations under advisement and do what they want to have done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Time is up, time is up!

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not up. Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue put forth through the political manipulation of the Member for Humber East, so much so that she has all of the people of Pasadena stirred up, and now she went into the school yard trying to stir up the children, trying to get them frightened - fear-mongering about a section of highway that is going to go through Pasadena. It is absolutely unbelievable that a member would stoop to such a low that she would go in and give the schoolchildren the wrong information on what is going to happen in Pasadena.

I've had just about everybody in this Province upset with me at one time or another - the adults. Now, the hon. member is going to go down and get all the schoolchildren upset.

MS. VERGE: They are doing it on their own.

MR. EFFORD: No, they are not doing it on their own. The hon. member knows full well the emotions of the children and the people of Pasadena whom she has so politically stirred up over the last few months.

The Member for Humber Valley made a good point about the hills and the valley, the steep incline of the road going around Corner Brook and the trouble that has caused - there was no other alternative route around Corner Brook - to the traffic and the trucks travelling that road. If I were to agree to build a southern by-pass road it would be - and even much worse, the hills and valleys on that road. The engineers have studied it, looked at it - the grades, the inclines, the hills and valleys, would be ridiculous. I am not prepared, as minister of this department, to put that road through the southern by-pass route, the horseshoe turn coming around Pasadena, and for someone to ask after that road was built: What crazy individual signed his name to that document to build that piece of road? I am not prepared, as minister, to do that.

I am, as well as the people of Pasadena, concerned about the road going through Pasadena. I have listened and understand all of their concerns. They have some legitimate concerns, concerns that will be addressed in the construction of that road. The four-lane superhighway that she talks about is ugly? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may call it ugly; somebody else may call it beautiful. I don't see anything wrong with the Trans-Canada leading out over St. John's. Some people may call that ugly; that is up to the individual. When we build that highway through Pasadena, we will give every consideration to the schoolchildren - the noise, the landscaping, the sound barrier, every option. Everything that has been discussed will be taken into consideration.

When that highway is built along the transmission line, I suspect the Pasadena people are going to look at the hon. member - if she is still the hon. member then - and ask: What were you talking about? This is a beautiful highway. It is serving the town of Pasadena, all the people of Newfoundland, and we are quite satisfied with it.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people from the communities of Little St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence and Lawn. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the district of Grand Bank, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cease their efforts to dismantle denominational education and the right to denominational schools be maintained, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as quickly as possible.'

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been taken up in the last while. There is a great deal of concern on the Burin Peninsula and particularly in that area of my district about the educational reform that is being proposed by the provincial government, consequently the people wanted their concerns and their views expressed to the government in the House of Assembly and which I am pleased to do for them today.

Now I was pleased I must say, to hear the minister's remarks today following on the heels of the new stories last night, that there seems to have been some progress made between government and the churches; that's indeed encouraging and I just hope that that progress continues. As the Leader of the Opposition said today, this progress was made by the former minister, Dr. Warren, and I believe a gentleman by the name of Mr. Browne.

We have said for a number of months here, that if there was ever going to be a resolution between the church leaders and the government, that the Minister of Education would have to be put on the sidelines because he is so inflammatory; because just as it seems that progress was being made, the minister would go to the media and make a remark and then things would go backward again, so we are very, very pleased that at least some progress has been made in this particular area, so I wanted to stand in my place today and present this petition on behalf of the several hundred constituents of my district, from Little St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence and Lawn and I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I full-heartedly, full-heartedly support the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the petition presented by my colleague the Member for Grand Bank, and as he stated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you go outside boys and have a cup of coffee?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when they are finished - if you want, I will take my seat and when the government members are finished having their chat, I will be recognized if that's what Your Honour so wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to remind hon. members that if they want to have private conversations they should go outside the Chamber. I also remind hon. members that the Chair has ruled many, many times that it is unparliamentary to turn backs to the Chair, and the Chair is going to start to enforce the rules of the House and for the next hour or so, I may have to embarrass hon. members, but those are the rules of the House and they will be enforced.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I want to stand and support the petition -

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

The Chair doesn't like to make a ruling and then immediately afterwards hon. members do the same thing.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to some of the members opposite that this is a very serious request signed by hundreds of people from the Burin Peninsula communities of Lawn, St. Lawrence and Little St. Lawrence. They were sincere when they requested my colleague from Grand Bank to present a petition asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to cease in their efforts to dismantle denominational education, and the rights of the denominational schools be maintained, and we take it very seriously on this side of the House.

We take it very seriously, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the rights of people to have their petitions heard, and I am sure that my colleague from Port au Port and other places are interested in what the petition has to say. I support the petition, I was delighted to hear, as everybody else was, from the minister today that there have been some efforts, there has been some work done by the government and I think it is very important as well, that we recognize the contribution of the former Minister of Education, Dr. Warren.

Dr. Warren, who came back to government as I understand it and said: listen, let us get some sense in this business, you are dealing with the churches, all denominations, and said to the present minister, I think you know this has to be addressed and I want to today, recognize the contribution of the former Minister of Education. It is obvious that he is more of a conciliator than the present minister who knows nothing except bullish tactics in trying to bring things about. So thanks to the efforts of the former Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, the points raised by the Opposition Leader and by other people in the Province, that government has begun to realize that we have to start talking; we have to negotiate in order to get things done in this Province. You just can't move ahead bullish like the Minister of Education has been trying to do, and resulting from these efforts, the churches and the government are now talking.

Hopefully, the matter, Mr. Speaker, will be resolved to the satisfaction of the churches and the government. I think that is very important for all of us, and I really believe and hope that is what we will see as a result of the consultation that has now been started. It was good news today that the Minister of Education brought to this House, and to hear the various church leaders - I believe some of them have already met - they are going to be meeting and talking with government again, is extremely important.

Let me say in conclusion that the people of Lawn, St. Lawrence and Little St. Lawrence who asked the member for the Burin Peninsula to bring this forward in the House, that I certainly feel a responsibility to speak to the petition and make sure that the wishes of these people are heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My friend and colleague, the Minister of Education, is in the lobby participating in the experience that we call a scrum, so let me say a word or two with respect to this petition on behalf of the ministry.

I am first to endorse the remarks of my friend from Burin - Placentia West about the need for a little silence in the House. I have been known, on occasion, to request silence, as did he and, like him, on occasion I have been known, perhaps, to interject in part of debate, but I would say to my friend that he ought to be careful to set an example. He, as much as anybody in this House, is noted for rude and intemperate interruptions on occasion, and I can only say to him that perhaps today he saw how very unsettling these can be. They don't deflect one from one's remarks. They simply lower the decorum of the House, and he will acknowledge that at times in the enthusiasm of presenting his cause he has been tempted into this.

Let me say as well that I and my colleagues are the very first to acknowledge the role played by Dennis Browne, a well-known lawyer here in the city, and Dr. Warren, an old friend of mine going back thirty years, and a former colleague of mine in this House and in other ventures, but I would say to my hon. friend from Burin - Placentia West that he ought not to try to use this as an excuse for cheap partisan shots, as he did.

The door has been open with the churches, and there has been a great deal of communication all along through various channels of one sort or another. Dr. Warren and Mr. Browne, I think, have helped constructively, but so have a great number of other people. With that said, Mr. Speaker, let me come to the substance of the petition.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have no intention of dismantling the denominational system. It's not in any of our proposals to do that. In fact, to the contrary, we wish to maintain and to strengthen the denominational system, but to reform it. The proposals we put forward in Adjusting the Course, Part I, and Adjusting the Course, Part II, and now the modifications that were tabled in the House earlier today by my colleague, in our view, are designed to achieve that.

The gentlemen who speak for the churches, the leaders of the churches, the seven denominations with educational rights in this Province, have expressed concerns with these proposals. I think it is fair to say they have not accepted the ones we put forward hitherto. We will see what happens with these modifications.

I don't want to get into the details of what we said, because it is difficult to negotiate in public, but let me say specifically, and as clearly as we can, we do not wish to dismantle the denominational education system, and that we wish to maintain the right to denominational schools as the prayer of this petition requests. We do wish to change the system, to make it an interdenominational system with uni-denominational schools in appropriate circumstances. We wish to do that because we believe that is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly the young people who look to the educational system for their education.

We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that while the churches have educational rights, and while the government has responsibilities as well as rights, and the churches have responsibilities too, in the long run the one interest we must take seriously in dealing with educational matters is the interest of the children, the young people. That is what education is about. That is what is driving the reforms we brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: So I would hope that the men and the women in the District of Grand Bank who signed this petition, or those who signed in behalf of others, as is the case with many of these signatures - I look through them, and I don't object to that; that's common enough - but that the men and women who did that get this message. I hope the message goes back to them that we are driven by a desire to improve the system for the benefit of the children and so, I believe, are the leaders of the churches. There is no question of that. We may differ on the means to reach our goal, but we have a common goal.

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to please call Motions 5 and 6. Those are a couple of first readings, and then we will go on to the debate on the Electrical Power Control Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act,," carried. (Bill No. 15)

On motion, Bill No. 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act." carried. (Bill No. 16)

On motion, Bill No. 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 4, the Electrical Power Control Act, second reading. I believe my friend for St. John's East Extern had the floor when the debate adjourned Tuesday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment to the bill?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the six-month hoist amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: We are still on the amendment. Okay.

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

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

On Tuesday evening when I adjourned the debate I was speaking on accessing the Upper Churchill power. The point I was making is that the Premier had stated that he would not like to have this situation discussed in the House, with respect to using this bill to access the Upper Churchill power. I thought that was a bit late when the Premier himself came on Province-wide TV and made the announcement, and the real secret agenda for Bill 1 and Bill 2 going through the House together was that it could be used to access the Upper Churchill power. Basically, what I thought he was trying to do was muzzle the Opposition like he muzzled the members on the government side.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of public meetings held over these past couple of months with respect with to this issue on the privatization of Hydro. They are mostly being held by members of the Opposition but there have been some meetings held by government members. I remember one in particular by the hon. Member for Pleasantville which the Member for St. John's North attended, and now the Member for St. John's North has a request from 279 people, I believe, to have a public meeting, and I believe he is going to have a public meeting. I say to the hon. Member for St. John's North that I wish him luck in that he has some better answers, and full answers, for the people than he had when they questioned him at his meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a comment on the amount of public money that has been spent on trying to convince the public that their views are wrong. We have tens of thousands of dollars being spent, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, on radio clips and newspaper ads with respect to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. If you sit down and read those newspaper ads closely, my personal view is that there is some misleading information in those ads. I do not know if it is intentional or not, but I do not think they tell the whole truth.

The ads talk about government's involvement in commercial enterprises and how they should not be involved in commercial enterprises. I agree to some extent with that train of thought, but the problem is that government is saying that there is nothing changing here. There is nothing changing if Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, only government's involvement in the financing and operations of the new Hydro. Personally, I do not believe that Hydro can be compared to an ordinary commercial enterprise because it is a public utility and it would be a monopoly. There would be basically no competition there. They sell the power now to Newfoundland Power and the new Hydro would have complete control over a monopoly, which would be -

I wouldn't say, Mr. Speaker, that privatization of Newfoundland Hydro is the same as the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products or Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. While I agree that those two ventures could be quite successful, seeing the facts and figures down the road, maybe we could possibly agree to that. It is a completely different situation then with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The Premier and the government say there is nothing changing. I think there will be some major changes in that we will have the loss of ownership of the hydro production in this Province, and also we would have the loss of the control of our future, possibly with respect to an economic machine to stimulate the economy. The Province of Quebec uses hydro to do that.

Subsections 23(1) and (4) give power to the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership of 20 per cent of the shares in an electrical utility. I believe that this is certainly one step in paving the way for a merger between Newfoundland Power and Hydro today, which was the Premier's first objective as we well know from what went on last fall. I would have to ask the question: Why? Why is the Premier so intent on having this merger?

I'm wondering if anybody watched - I think it is on Thursday nights, Friday nights, with the CBC news, there is a guy on that called "Sammy Ludlow," and he starts off with: "I was wondering there the other day...." I have to say, I was wondering too about the privatization of Hydro and this merger that is quite possibly coming down the road. Is it payback time? That has been covered enough in this Legislature and in public, what is going on. I've been asked a number of times by the public, people coming up to me and asking: What is going on here? Why is he so intent on privatizing Hydro? Is it payback time?

I answer: I honestly don't know that and I can't have the answer to that because we have never been informed of what went on a few years ago when the Premier left private industry and came into government and his salary was subsidized. We still don't know who paid that. I'm sincerely hoping that this is not the case that it is payback time.

I believe there are a number of other sections in the bill that pave the way for a merger down the road of Newfoundland Power and Hydro. Of course the first one would be where the bill instructs the Public Utilities Board to base rates on three criteria. The first one of course is the cost to Hydro, second would be the maintenance of credit worthiness, and of course the profits for shareholders. Another one to help pave the way would be the section that directs the Public Utilities Board to phase out the rural subsidies to industrial customers by 1999. We all realize the reasons for this, because it certainly would cushion the impact of privatization on the general public in the beginning, but the end result would be that it would be a major factor in increasing the cost to the general public in consuming electricity.

A section of the act that I really don't understand and I really believe it is a very peculiar section to have in the act, and that is the section that refers to the transfer of responsibility of the essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board. Especially when you look at the fact that the Labour Relations Board are the people who have the expertise for a number of years now to deal with labour relations and the dealing with essential employees, whereas the Public Utilities Board are not - I personally don't believe have the experience to deal with such issues. I have to ask the question: Why is that, I wonder? Is it because then Newfoundland Power, which has a lot of experience dealing with the Public Utilities Board and getting rate increases whenever need be, that maybe they could influence the Board more so than the Labour Relations Board when it comes to the appointment of essential employees? Just a question to throw out there, some food for thought.

Another section that I believe would help pave the way of course would be the refund for the federal tax paid by utilities rebated to the Province under PUITTA. That is another major concern of mine in this situation.

I believe the only true facts and figures that are being put forward in this issue are being put forward by those opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. I might be a bit biased in making that statement, of course, and I could be considered to be biased. The reason I say that is because the most figures I see are the figures that are being put forward by those opposed. We don't see any figures coming out from the government or government members other then the $25 million a year that would be supposedly saved if we privatize Hydro.

The Premier has publicly stated that those people opposed to Hydro are basing their opposition on hysteria, emotion and are led by misinformation. Well, if the general public is indeed getting misinformation, maybe it's about time for the government to come out and give the proper information. I believe the government and the Premier are directly insulting the intelligence of the general public out there and saying that they don't understand the situation. The public know what they want and as far as I'm concerned, from what the polls have shown and from the people I have talked to, they do not want privatization. They want the sections taken out with respect to privatization, in particular in Bill 2. Maybe we could proceed with Bill 2 - it's possibly a good thing for the Province. Again, as I said before, we're dealing with a motherhood issue here, with Bill 2, if we could access the Upper Churchill power.

We have some experience in this situation, Mr. Speaker, with respect to trying to access the Upper Churchill power, of course. Back in the 1970s and again in 1980 we had two attempts made; partial access strategy, which was unsuccessful, of course, as we know now, and the Reversion Act of 1980, which was unsuccessful. We had the Supreme Court ruling, seven against that act as being a legitimate or a legal act and they ruled in favour of Quebec. I don't know why the Premier would think now that he could convince four out of seven judges to change their minds. I believe that this act now, really, Mr. Speaker, is trying to access the Upper Churchill through the back door. Again, as I said, I think we can go ahead without Bill No. 1 and we could get some support for that if you would exclude the sections related to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

I have listened to the debate, Mr. Speaker, over the months, from the members opposite, speaking on the privatization of Hydro and now on Bill 2, and there have been very few of them actually speaking in favour of privatization. We have the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Eagle River who have been very verbal on this issue over the past little while. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the word `Sprung' thrown across the House, and `seventeen years of mismanagement', Mr. Speaker. When you look at the previous administration who were in power for seventeen years, at least they tried things. They tried to accomplish things, they did create jobs and they did have the guts to try something, some new ideas - they opened hospital beds versus closing hospital beds. They supplied dollars for infrastructure for the municipalities around this Province and they created jobs. As far as I can see, this administration has yet to create any jobs in this Province of a worthwhile nature. As I said, this administration has a very poor record for creating jobs in this Province.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to what this government has accomplished over the past five years. From my perspective, after five years of administration this government has created havoc in the Province. We see many Newfoundlanders worse off - I realize and I understand that there are outside factors affecting this Province and its economy, but I don't see the government actually doing anything to boost the spirits or increase the morale of the people of this Province. Since they came in, all I've seen is cutbacks and hardship. I don't see any possibilities of jobs for the near future.

This administration basically supports the resettlement program of Mr. Brian Tobin, who announced it, last week or the week before - I don't see him standing up for Newfoundland. We have had previous Premiers who were very emotional and forceful in their ideas when protecting Newfoundlanders. We now have a Premier in this Province who, for some strange reason or other, always seems to think of something - of fairness and balance in his mind, now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, not in the minds of the people of this Province. What's happening in this Province, I don't see in it any fairness and balance? He's promoting this scheme that's been put forward last week by the federal Minister of Fisheries as being positive for this Province when we all know - and we've heard the Member for Ferryland expand on it and explain what's going to happen in the near future here in Newfoundland with respect to the fishery. This Administration also is taking, lying down, a cut of $1.3 billion in U.I.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have many more comments to make, Mr. Speaker, but I will get back to them in due course.

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

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

I rise today to support the motion put forward for a six-month hoist on Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, and I say to the Member for Fogo that if he had any backbone himself, notwithstanding what has taken place in this Legislature over the last year with the story and the spinning of webs, the spinning of lies, in terms of the Hydro privatization, then he, too, should stand and call for a six-month hoist for public inquiries.

Now, let me enlighten the Member for Fogo, or maybe remind him of what has taken place on the story of Bill No. 1, the Privatization Act of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, and why we need a six-month hoist, and why we need public hearings on this very, very important issue.

Last year, upon being elected to this House of Assembly, a question was asked then of the Minister of Mines and Energy, and was asked directly to the Premier: Did the government, at that time, have any intention whatsoever of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? The response was: No, not at this time.

The question was asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not true, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman hasn't been in the House very long, but he is a bright young fellow. He has been here long enough and he is bright enough to know he cannot accuse another member of telling lies or of making statements that are not true.

The fact remains that the statement the Premier made was true. Whether the hon. gentleman believes that or not is his problem. What I will say to him is that he cannot, in the House, make the kind of statement he just made. And just let him possess his soul - if I may finish my point of order - for a moment. There is a very good reason for that. My hon. friend, who, as I said, is a very bright young man, and by osmosis as well as by his own intellect, is well imbued with parliamentary tradition, would realize and acknowledge there is a very good reason for that rule. That is one of the basic rules of the House. That is why I take the trouble to stand and interrupt him, and if he wants another minute to finish his remarks, we will gladly give him the extra minute to compensate him for the minute I have taken.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, speaking to the point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, the Government House Leader stood up and made the comment that what the Premier said at the time was true. Now, if the Government House Leader had been listening, I wasn't referring to the statement made by the Premier in the Legislature, I was referring to a statement made by the Minister of Mines and Energy.

However, to the point of order, the Government House Leader has reminded me very well that I cannot, at any time, say that a member's statement in this House was untrue, but I do have my suspicion that statements were misleading and fraudulent, although I can't confirm that. May I go on?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question of that.

Should I continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, I assume, is withdrawing the remark?

MR. E. BYRNE: I withdraw the remark saying that it was untrue, but I will say this, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. member has to withdraw it without conditions.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have withdrawn the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: There are no conditions, either you withdraw it or you don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have withdrawn the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before, at that time when the Opposition asked the government, were they involved, or had any intention of privatizing Hydro, the government said: `No, not at this time.' Now, I have my suspicions that that statement was somewhat misleading, but let us move on.

October 1 was a very important date in this ongoing saga of the privatization of Hydro and the Electrical Power Resources Act, because at that time, the Premier publicly announced that the government was intending to merge Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with Newfoundland Power.

The basis for his reasoning at that time, and the logic behind the Premier's argument, and the logic behind the government's argument, was that it made no sense to have two companies in this Province delivering electricity to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that streamlining these companies, merging these companies, would make better sense economically for the people of this Province, and it would make better sense to the entire electrical industry, and the management of that industry. But from October 1, to the end of December, we saw what happened. The people of the Province spoke loud and clear, Mr. Speaker.

They did not want Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro merged with Newfoundland Power or any other company. The Premier at that time said that a committee, a Premier's committee had recommended three options to the Premier: Merger was the first option with Newfoundland Power, secondly was privatization on a stand-alone basis and the committee he said, recommended as the third option and not the most viable alternative, to leave Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as it was.

Upon probing the Premier, at that time, Mr. Speaker, we discovered that it really was not a committee of the House, it was a committee of three or four business people whom the Premier had called in for an informal chat, maybe over tea and crumpets, we are not sure, but there was no formal process for this committee to be established. There was no formal report presented to the Premier; there was no formal report on privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro presented to the Cabinet of the day. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was no formal recommendation emanating from that committee because it was not a committee at all. It was a group of supporters of the Premier who came in and advised the Premier on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. SULLIVAN: Hand-picked.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hand-picked, no question. There was no committee, no Parliamentary or Legislative Committee set up, so the spin of information that the government had tried to put on merging Newfoundland Power with Newfoundland Hydro failed, and failed miserably. In the new sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker, in the March sitting, we discovered early, that the privatization of Hydro was going to proceed on a stand-alone basis. Now, the reason for this, a new spin of information - first, the Premier said that merger would be best, but he backtracked on that; then, privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on a stand-alone basis.

Now, here is where the plot thickens, and here is where this story about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and the government's own secret and private agenda really, really started to come to light. The Premier, in announcing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, said that for many, many reasons, sound and good judgement reasons, it would be in the best interest of the people of this Province to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and open it up to any private investor, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians alike, Mr. Speaker, he said, would be able to buy shares in the new company.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of that debate, the merits of selling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the government failed and to this day, Mr. Speaker, have failed to demonstrate some very important principles. They have failed to demonstrate that there would be new investment coming into this Province as a result of this sale, they have failed to demonstrate that and in fact, Mr. Speaker, investment dollars that would normally be in this economy would flow outside, with new investors. They have failed to show that there will be new technology brought into this Province or any technology transfer into this Province as a result of privatization; they have failed to demonstrate that there will be an increase in jobs whatsoever as a result of the privatization sale, because there will not be any increase in jobs as a result of privatization.

But forced by the members opposite and in particular, the Leader of the Opposition, in asking demanding questions and demanding answers, correct answers to what was taking place, the truth started to unfold, and the government really got into trouble on the privatization issue, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Humber East, tabled in this House, Cabinet documents outlining why, in 1992, the government walked away from a deal on the Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. E. BYRNE: She tabled those documents in the House.

DR. GIBBONS: We hadn't reached the deal.

MR. E. BYRNE: She tabled those documents there, why the government had instructed Newfoundland Hydro to pursue certain objectives in reaching a deal on the Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, because the Premier would not let you reach that deal, minister, I say to you. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's when the government got into trouble, that's when the jig was up as the saying goes, that's when really the truth started to come out. Shortly thereafter, the Premier appears on provincial television and indicates to the people of this Province that he had urged members of his caucus and, indeed, urged members of his Cabinet, not to talk about the real reason for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he said. The real reason, Mr. Speaker, is contained in Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act. That is what the Premier indicated to the people of this Province on provincial T.V.

He said that shrouded in the Electrical Power Resources Act was the possibility, he indicated - he said, in his legal opinion, it was a possibility that this could take place. The "this" that he was talking about was the recall of power from Upper Churchill. Questioned in the House on numerous occasions on that very issue, dating back as far as last September, October, when the House opened for the fall, the Premier denied flatly that that was the reason for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. But we smoked him out! That is what happened. We smoked the government out to come clean and tell the truth to the people of this Province as to why they were pursuing the privatization initiative that was not then, that is not now, and will not be tomorrow, in the best interest of the people of this Province, either economically as ratepayers, or economically as taxpayers. It will benefit a minority and a few in society, but I will deal with that point a little later on.

Following the Premier's address to the Province where he had told the people that he had urged his caucus and his Cabinet to remain mum, don't say a word about the Electrical Power Resources Act and its real intent, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Part appeared on provincial television, along with the Premier, in debating the merits of privatization. And yet again, an interesting revelation came to light in that debate. The Premier, who, two nights earlier - just two nights before, had admitted to urging and keeping his Cabinet and caucus mum on the real reasons for privatizing Hydro, admitted again that he really didn't need to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to have a legal shot at recalling power from the Upper Churchill.

The question remains, why has the government not pursued a six-month hoist? Why will they not support this motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? Why have they not, themselves, called public hearings on this very important issue?

I would suspect that hindsight has told the government many things. That maybe, on October 1, 1993 if they had come forward in an honest way, in a straightforward way, with the people of this Province and laid on the table the real reasons for privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for getting out of Crown corporations such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and consulted widely in this Province through a public hearing process, as they have done on other issues, then they may be looking today at the possibility of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro being privatized. They did not do that.

They wonder why - as they sit in their seats, as they sit around the Cabinet table, as they talk to their own constituents - they wonder why people are upset, why people are angry. From day one, the real story on Hydro was not given to the people of this Province. Members opposite, excluding the Cabinet, have had ample opportunity to stand up in this House and to let this Legislature and thus, the people of the Province, know where they personally stand. They did not; they could not, because the Premier would not let them. That is what I say, Mr. Speaker.

Where does that leave us today in all the debate? Where does that leave the people of this Province? The motion that we are debating today is a motion to, for six months, put a hoist on this piece of legislation - for six months that would give the government the opportunity to explain more clearly, to define their objectives and explain them fully to the people of the Province. I doubt we are going to see it. The Premier has said on many, many occasions that he is convinced that once the people of this Province have the truth and the real story, then that will expose us on this side of the House for being fraudulent and misleading. That is what he has said. He said it to me.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked. Yes I have, every aspect of Bill No. 2. But we are not debating Bill No. 2 here today, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, we are debating a six-month hoist on the bill. And once the discussion comes up for debate on Bill No. 2 I will stand here and debate Bill No. 2 with him at any time.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated, as I've just said, that once the people of the Province find out how wrong the Opposition have been, how fraudulent we have been, how irresponsible we have been on this side of the House, he has said here, how much egg we will have on our faces. Some time ago, I stood here and, when we were debating a petition, I asked the Premier, if he was so convinced that we had been fraudulent with the facts and figures and arguments that we have put forward to the people of this Province, then why does he not hold public hearings and expose us for the frauds that he accuses us of being? He cannot do so because in doing so he may expose himself, his Cabinet, and his government for what they have been. They have not, during this whole debate, given the full story to the people of this Province. Why?

That brings us to the question of why.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe a word you are saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no doubt, minister, that you don't believe a word I'm saying, but what are you against so many? is the question I ask you. What is one voice against so many of the people out there who are opposing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

The question is this: Why has not the Premier provided the opportunity for people to have public input from the business community into the privatization initiative? Why has he not given people in this Province, everyday rank and file citizens, the taxpayers, the ratepayers of this Province, why has he not given them an opportunity to voice their concerns in a meaningful and constructive manner? Because he knows, Mr. Speaker, he knows deep down, he has to know, that the people are not behind him or his government in privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What other reason could there be? This story has gone on for almost one full year, but people are becoming angrier and angrier at the Premier and his government because of the way in which they have handled it and because they have failed to listen to the people of this Province.

As a new member, Mr. Speaker, I've stood in this House, and I've sat in this House and listened to some remarkable comments made by supposedly hon. men. I have heard people called foolish, bull-headed. The Government House Leader called us all a bunch of dogs over here, one day - I couldn't believe it - all because we have a different point of view; that we dare speak up, that we dare challenge the Premier on something that he knows is wrong, when he knows the people of this Province are behind this side of the House on the issue; because we dare be so arrogant and we dare speak up on behalf of our constituents in this Legislature. That is the problem.

I have heard hon. members in this House refer to people and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador as being out of whack, not represented, or not representative, of a certain point of view. They really have no support. What right do they have challenging me? Greg Malone has been stripped down. Cyril Abery has been stripped down by this government. Is that, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, the sign of a government that is confident in the legislation that it puts forward, in that it has to detract and amount to personal attacks upon members opposite and people in the Province, everyday citizens who have exercised their democratic right of speaking out? Is that the type of government that really believes what it is putting forward in this House for debate is in the best interest of the people of the Province? Not in this member's opinion, Mr. Speaker.

Now let us get to some really, really comical aspects of this whole debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say comical ones?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, some comical aspects of this debate.

The Member for St. John's North stood up in this House and talked about the Lloyd Matthew's poll, the M-25 poll he said, Mr. Speaker. When questioned on it he said the M-25 poll was a poll he conducted amongst his own constituents. He called up and said, Hello, I am Lloyd Matthews, the Member for St. John's North. I am in favour of Hydro, how about you? Hardly a significant poll, Mr. Speaker. For the member to say in doing that, that twenty-one out of twenty-five people agreed with privatization, and that he had no need for a public meeting, none whatsoever, but he is having one now, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. Three constituents of his went door to door and got 279 people to sign a petition, or letter of intent, calling upon their member to hold a public meeting on privatization - shamed into it, Mr. Speaker.

If members on this side of the House, in dealing with this whole public debate had sat down and did nothing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be privatized today and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be far less better off as a result of it.

We announced early in the going what we would do to try to get the message out. Early in the going members on this side began holding public meetings in their own constituencies, in their own districts and began to get a feeling of what was happening, a real grass roots feeling from their constituents. Questions were put directly at the meeting I held in my district. How do you feel about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? It is too bad that some government members were not there, and some ministers were not there, because they would have found out clearly that the people in my district were in tune with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and the government's arguments.

They knew full-well that they were not in favour because government's arguments on this issue do not hold water, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: What time is the meeting in St. John's North?

MR. E. BYRNE: A good question. My colleague for Humber East just asked if I knew when the Member for St. John's North was holding his meeting. I suspect it is sometime this week or next week. He told our colleague for St. John's East Extern that he was welcome to come down but he was not allowed to say anything. What kind of public meeting is that, when you invite people, ask them to sit down and say nothing? What kind of public meeting is that?

The Member for Humber East held two public meetings on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, one back in the fall and one in the winter. The people from her district spoke loud and clear. The Member for Bay Verte held a public meeting so his constituents could have the opportunity to have their say and to have their input noted. The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes held a public meeting for the same reasons. The Leader of the Opposition held a public meeting. The Member for Ferryland held a public meeting. The Member for St. John's East Extern held a public meeting. The point of this is simple, that the opportunity was provided for people living in certain districts to have a say, to voice their concern, and for their members to bring back their concerns to this House, which we have done.

Mr. Speaker, there are members opposite who cannot stand in this House today and say they have done that. There are members in this Legislature, opposite, who know full-well that privatization is not in the best interest of the people of this Province, but they have not stood their ground and said that, with the exception of one. The Member for Pleasantville held a public meeting. He listened to his constituents and he bought back their views to this House. He was the only member opposite who had the courage and the foresight, Mr. Speaker, to stand up against this privatization initiative. The reasons he outlined in a nutshell said, he did not believe there was any good public policy reason to proceed on this initiative, thus far, without holding public hearings.

Why is the government so intent on not holding a formal public hearing process? I sat on a Select Committee of the House dealing with public accountancy that provided for public hearings on whether or not the Public Accountancy Act should be changed. Should CGAs be allowed to provide audited services? While that issue is very important, the government demonstrated an ability - a small ability - but they did demonstrate that they have the capacity to provide public hearings on an issue, but on an issue that is so large, on an issue where we will be selling a Crown corporation owned by the Province, owned by the people in this Province, they refuse to hold public hearings, it is beyond me.

They wonder why people are upset. Oh, it's only a few people here and there. It's only those people who call into Open Lines who really have no say, and don't know what they are saying. That was said in this hon. House. They dismiss everything so easily, I say to my colleagues here, so flippantly, that it means nothing, but mark it down, the attitude, the arrogance will come home to roost. It will come home to roost, and that attitude and that arrogance will display itself, or the people's attitude toward that arrogance will display itself after the next election.

I look forward to that, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and maybe some day he will be my critic in the House, or a critic of somebody opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't he back.

MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe not. That's true, maybe not, but I guess he will be pensionable then. He's got his severance.

MS. VERGE: The Member for Pleasantville will be there.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Pleasantville will be elected, because the constituents in his district know that they can talk to their member and that he will listen.

Let us get back to the six-month hoist. Poll after poll has indicated the clear understanding of what people in this Province are thinking about, what their feelings are on this issue. Any poll that has been done clearly adds up to almost 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the people against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the government knows that. Any government worth its salt, polls all the time. They know that. Cabinet knows that, but they have developed a bunker mentality. It's us against the rest of the Province. They have stopped working hand in hand and cooperatively.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like John Diefenbaker said, `Poles are for dogs'.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, my, Mr. Speaker. `Poles are for dogs', a quote from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who is quoting John Diefenbaker. He should know. John Diefenbaker stopped listening to the people of Canada, and look what happened to him after one election.

I can say this, that government should take heed and save their own political hide. Hold public hearings on this issue for six months. Delay the privatization initiative for six months. Hold public hearings, I say to the Government House Leader, but they will not. I know they won't. They are convinced.

They have passed the point of return, and do you know why? The Minister of Finance tabled it here recently. Treasury Board spent $1.4 million, that we know of, on the privatization initiative; $580,000 for the Rothschild group of companies; $708,000 for Cassels and Blake, a Bay Street law firm in Toronto, to provide them advice on the privatization initiative. At the same time, hospital beds are closing down in this Province, the educational system is in chaos, and yet when asked in this House, the minister and the Premier could not answer.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said that the amount of money spent on the Hydro privatization initiative thus far was so small that it would be even trivial to discuss it. $1.4 million, according to my math, and the math that I was taught going to school, is nothing to laugh about, and it certainly isn't trivial.

I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations: Ask that to the 16,000 people who won't get UI this year because of the UI changes. Ask that to them. Ask that to the 8,000 or 10,000 people more this year who will end up on social assistance. Is $1.4 million trivial to them? How about the Family Resource Centre, funding cut from special needs in the classroom, teacher lay-offs, $1.4 million trivial to that group? Be serious, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, be serious. Stand up and speak your mind. Do not be intimidated by a Premier or a Cabinet. You'll have no hope, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, no hope of sitting in that chair if you don't stand up now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Justice is quite exuberant, enthusiastic and energetic today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Maybe before the hon. member starts I can announce the questions for the Late Show so that I won't have to interrupt him once he gets into his speech.

The first question is to the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning eligibility criteria for the new TAGS program and that's from the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The Employment and Labour Relations Minister concerning the CWB testing requirements and the hon. Member for Kilbride. The hon. Minister of Fisheries concerning fisheries observers on domestic and foreign vessels and that's from the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm just beginning and I appreciate Your Honour's interruption to update the ministers particularly and the Late Show questions for the day.

As I was about to say, the Minister of Justice is quite exuberant, enthusiastic and lively today. He's the only person -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a poem?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A poem? Maybe later on. There may be a poem about Hydro. Maybe a Hydro poem not poll, poem. Yes, poem and he's the only member since we started up on February 28 who speaks more when he's not recognized then the member who's recognized when he's on his feet speaking, I say to the Minister of Justice. I don't know what's happened today to him, it's uncharacteristic.

MR. ROBERTS: I got to go make a phone call -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He keeps speaking again, Mr. Speaker, just continually interrupting, trying to deflect and distract.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes he is terrible with interruptions. Yes, he has a lot to say, Mr. Speaker. Yes but he says nothing, I say to the Member for Fogo, has a lot to say but really says nothing when you analyze what he says, the Minister of Justice.

But I want to have a few remarks, Mr. Speaker. We're debating today the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on the day that - second reading of this piece of legislation introduced here, second reading of Bill 2, an Act to Regulate the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, quite an appropriate amendment, that the debate on this piece of legislation would be delayed for six months, quite commonly referred to as the six month hoist amendment. The reason the Leader of the Opposition did that was because we felt on this side that the people of the Province should be given an opportunity for input into the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They needed an opportunity to be better educated on the issue, not that they weren't educated but to become better educated on the issue of the privatization, such a very important issue.

Of course our real reason for moving the amendment, Mr. Speaker, was to enable the government to go out and about the various regions and communities of this Province to hold public hearings which we felt were certainly fundamental to the whole process of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We thought that those people out and about our Province who are interested in this issue should be given the opportunity to go to a public hearing in their community or in their region to do two things; one was to get further information on the implications of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and as well to express their concerns about the implications of what they thought were the positives of privatization or what were the negatives of privatization of a Crown corporation which the people of this Province own outright. Now that's the reason that we introduced the amendment. We still feel very convinced that it was a most reasonable, logical, sensible amendment and we still think the government should have passed the amendment. They should have accepted the amendment because when you look at what's happened, we've been almost a month now, pretty close to a month, without the privatization bill being called.

The Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice, acting under the direction of the Premier, has not seen fit to call the Hydro bill for weeks. The reason for that is quite obvious, that the government knows full well - the Premier and the government knows full well that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are deadly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So why won't the government, the Premier particularly, be reasonable? Have public hearings out and about the Province and if at the end of the day because of information flowing from the government, from the Opposition, from Power of the People, from the union at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If after all this information flow both ways then at the end of the day the people of the Province say: The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is in our best interest, well then we will stand in our places here as well and seriously consider. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, the opposition to the privatization is overwhelming, and the government knows that, and that is why they have not proceeded with the piece of legislation.

Of course, we are all waiting for the day when the Premier will meet his commitment that he made on public television before all the people of the Province on that infamous Thursday night when he told the people of the Province, after being pressured by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Member for St. John's East, the Leader of the New Democratic Party - the Premier almost totally caved in - but what he said that night was that: If, in the final analysis, there is overwhelming public opinion against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I will not proceed with the legislation.

MS. VERGE: He said if there was a majority against it. (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If there was a majority against it. That is what he said, yes. Which we now know it is an overwhelming majority opposed to. So it is incumbent upon the Premier - and I think that is the box the Premier finds himself in. The Premier has to do one of two things.

Firstly, he must withdraw the legislation because it has been proven time and time again now that people are deadly opposed to it. The other thing he said was that: If this privatization effort fails because of the way that I've handled the situation and put forward the proposal, if it has failed as a result of my bungling of the situation, then he said he would consider resigning. That is what the Premier told the people of the Province on two television appearances. Tuesday night on NTV Province-wide television, and Thursday night on the CBC debate.

That is what the Premier of this - and that is the predicament he finds himself in. Because he said that not in the Legislature with just us or with ten or twelve people in the gallery, he said that to everybody in the Province, and there was quite a big viewing audience on both those nights. He finds himself in one predicament. I think if the Premier was smart he would stand up and admit he is wrong. He would stand up and say to people: Yes, people, you are opposed, I respect your rights, I've handled this very badly, I'm going to withdraw the legislation and I'm going to call a press conference and announce my resignation. That is what the Premier would do. That is the only way that the Premier can keep his word to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Then of course there are others opposite who - we know the Member for Pleasantville has made it very clear. He was decisive, after considering all the facts, the Member for Pleasantville. He considered the facts. He wasn't led by the Premier or others applying pressure. He went and he met with his constituents, held a public meeting, perused all of the information that was available, and made his decision, I say. A very good decision. A decision shared and an opinion shared by 80 per cent of the people in this Province.

There are others opposite who've had their weak moments, members opposite, other members, who have had their weak moments. We've heard Mr. Neary say there were five or six members opposite who had called him and talk to them. Members have denied that. Members opposite know who talked to Mr. Neary. Sure, the Member for Fogo knows some of those who talked to Mr. Neary. I'm sure he does.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Fogo, I say. He knows some of the people who talked to Mr. Neary, I say to the Member for Fogo. He knows. He knows some of them.

MR. TULK: I know all of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He knows all of them. He hasn't told us whether or not he was one of them.

MR. TULK: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You weren't?

MR. TULK: Not about this issue, no.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not about this issue. I wonder if the Member for Fogo would tell us if this issue happened to come up. I wonder if the Member for Fogo would be willing to share that information with the House. Did he and Mr. Neary discuss it at all? Did it come up?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure about the Member for Fogo, I somehow think he is one of them, but I will leave it at that, I don't want to push it, I don't want to embarrass the Member for Fogo - that's not my intent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are a few comments that I want to make about Bill 2, and I don't know if members opposite will understand this or not, what I am about to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am talking about the bill now. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is much in Bill 2 that we can support. We can support the general thrust and principle of the legislation.

MR. TULK: You can?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We can.

MR. TULK: Good.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there are parts of this that we have no problem supporting, I say to the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: We are part-way there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are part-way there, that's true, like anything; it is like the government now, on the issue of privatization, is part-way there; they now know that the people are deadly opposed, they're part-way there. The only thing we need them to do now to complete it, to be all the way there, is to withdraw the legislation.

MR. TULK: Did they (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe, maybe. That's up to the government, I say to the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, it's up to the government. The allocation of power, Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of that, we don't have any great problem. The management of power during emergencies, we can see the reason for that. I can see the reason for that, why that would be necessary at times, perhaps we will never have to use it; perhaps that provision of the bill, the Part III, perhaps it will never have to be used. We hope it doesn't, for all reasons, emergencies and so on.

MS. VERGE: Is the Member for St. John's South in charge over there?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope so. I say to the Member for Humber East, I am not going to say what I think or feel about the Member for St. John's South, I am not going to get into that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unparliamentary?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No. I am not getting into that. All I am going to say is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: He is making a very, very good speech and I ask Your Honour to keep the members on the opposite side quiet, so I can hear him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. member, the Chair is having difficulty at times hearing the member speak, and because of the conversation by other members, I ask hon. members to afford the courtesy to the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, so that all can hear him.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say I appreciate that. I don't mind a bit of banter, as a matter of fact, I enjoy it. I enjoy a little bit of interaction with members opposite, I think it shows a bit of life.

But I was about to say, and I don't want to be sidetracked, the Member for St. John's South, who is now sitting in the Premier's seat, which I am sure has nothing to do with ambition - I just want to say this -

MR. MURPHY: But if the Member for Ferryland were sitting here -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. I was going to say, if the Member for St. John's South were in the Premier's Chair today, as of now, this minute, it would be a definite improvement, I say, Mr. Speaker. He would do a much better job than the current Premier is doing in this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: At least he would tell us what he thinks.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He would, because the job that the Premier is doing on behalf of this Province is a disaster, I say to the Member for Fogo, an outright disaster. He is leading the Province down the road of disaster and my biggest worry is that this Province is going to come unglued and he would be remembered as the Premier who was there when this Province came unglued and fell apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who made the road?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have never known anyone who could pave a road of disaster as quickly as one, Clyde K. Wells, I say to the Member for St. John's South, it's amazing what he - but of course, he doesn't do anything except travel.

Mr. Speaker, I had a few things I wanted to say about this bill that I thought were important we get on the record so that members opposite would know.

Part II of the bill we can support in principle, dealing with the new legal theory, I guess. My colleague, the Member for Humber East would probably be more versed in this than I am, even though I have a copy of her bill which I know she is now looking for. A new legal theory in accessing Upper Churchill power, I guess, Part II deals with, as I understand it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. Now, that's a bit controversial. Let me just say this to the Member for Fogo. The Premier seems reasonably confident that he will succeed in the courts. I hope he does, but the big worry that we have, as an Opposition, is that we could go through this whole exercise, cost the taxpayers of the Province millions of dollars for nothing, end up back at square one, but if it works then the Premier would have to be commended, because all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, with the problems we have had with that contract over the years, would dance in the streets.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it's a big gamble, I say to the Member for Fogo. It's a big, big gamble.

Now, the Premier seems quite willing to take that gamble. I am not as convinced that he should. Try to work out a deal with Hydro Quebec on the development of the Lower Churchill, work for some improvements on the Upper Churchill, which they were very, very close to a year or so ago, as the member knows. For one reason or another it broke off, but that would seem, I would say, the safest way to go, to try to improve the benefits of the people of the Province from the Upper Churchill by entering into a deal with Quebec Hydro to develop the Lower Churchill where we would create thousands of jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, billions of dollars in royalties for the Province, and hopefully, improve the Upper Churchill contract which we are all so upset about, because it is costing us millions and millions a year. So it's a gamble, a big gamble, I say to the Member for Fogo.

We have outlined the concerns we had about the general application of the legislation as it applies to utilities owned and operated by the paper companies.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but I am saying it's a big, big gamble that could cost millions for nothing. That is our concern.

With the general application as it pertains to utilities, generating facilities operated and owned by the paper companies, we highlighted that earlier this week. It's a concern that we have. We understand lawyers for the paper companies are reviewing the legislation, and maybe in the final analysis they will come back and say, `Well, there's not', but we have highlighted that, and we felt that as an Opposition we should highlight that concern - that's what our job is. Our job is to peruse the legislation, research, talk to the people who can give us honest, good opinions, and then express them, and that's what we have done with the whole Hydro debate, by the way, but this bill particularly. We have done that with the Hydro debate in full, but with this piece of legislation.

Our real concern about that particular aspect I just talked about was the implications for the financial viabilities of those companies. We highlighted that, but having outlined those concerns I would say that it's fair to assume that we could support that part of the legislation. I think we could, because we feel now that we have highlighted it, the companies are aware of it and have legal people looking at it, and I guess we can't do much more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not like the Member for Fogo, because the Member for Fogo was up on the resolution yesterday and the only thing he could take exception to was the word `condemn' in the resolution. I am not like that, I say to the Member for Fogo, but he makes an interjection, a very timely objection and prediction - very timely.

It is no surprise to anyone that the concerns we have about this piece of legislation are contained in Part I, that is, the part dealing with the privatization of Hydro. Facilitators, I called them, when I read the legislation, and when I discussed the legislation with the caucus and others. I called them facilitators for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That's what they are, a number of conditions that are facilitators. Everyone knows that I am deadly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for all the right reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are gone into horse talk now, Mr. Speaker. Here I am trying to tell the government members that I can support parts of this piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation, important for the government and important for the people, and now it is broken down into pony talk - the Newfoundland pony, and finding a partner - I don't know; but that' what is happening.

MR. NOEL: Horse sense is what it is.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, he certainly has a lot of that, horse sense. He has proven that he has. As a matter of fact, all the horse sense in the government benches, I think the Member for Pleasantville has it all. He has every ounce of it, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is over (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am not going to pursue it any more.

Everyone knows that we are adamantly opposed to the privatization of Hydro and I cannot support anything in this piece of legislation that facilitates that. But if the government were prepared to make some changes to these particular sections, which we will talk about on a later date, we may.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relatively quieter, I expect.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes. We will propose some amendments, I am sure as we go on, when we get into Committee, if we ever get to Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to go into Committee now?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do I want to go to Committee now? No, not really, we have some things we want to say about this, I say to the minister. We will get to Committee, as the Government House Leader would say, in due course. I would suggest sometime in late July, Mr. Speaker, we may get to Committee on this, and then by the end of the year, I would say, we will have the Hydro bill called again, sometime in December, when government are getting ready to take a Christmas break we may get to that, but if we get our wish, then it will never be called again.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have gone through this in detail the best I can, and to at least go on the record and let members opposite, and anyone who might be listening, know how we feel about this piece of legislation. We are not all negative about this piece of legislation, and anything we object to in this piece of legislation we feel is for good reason and with solid foundation. We are not just doing it to oppose, any more than we oppose the privatization of Hydro. We are not just opposing it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why don't you bury the whole thing?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Eagle River, is like other members opposite, they get personal and attack people who are of a different view from theirs. I think that is very, very unfortunate. It is most unfortunate that they attack people like Mr. Malone and Mr. Abery. Mr. Malone believes in what he is doing, I say to the Member for Eagle River, just the same as he does. I hope he believes in what he is doing. I hope he is not doing what he is doing because the Premier tells him to do it. That is certainly not the case with Greg Malone. No one is telling him what to do.

MR. TOBIN: Ask him to shuffle (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not worried about the shuffle. I can understand the member wanting to be in Cabinet. If I were in his seat I would probably want to be in there, too, to be honest with you. I think the way to get into Cabinet would be to show the Premier that I had a bit of spunk and a bit of spine, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Stand up and be counted. If I were to select a Cabinet I wouldn't want all wimps in my Cabinet. I wouldn't want a Cabinet full of wimps. I would want a Cabinet that would tell me, `Now, Bill, hold on a minute, you are off the rails here. You had better rethink.' I would want a Cabinet that would be true friends of mine, who would tell me where I was going wrong, not ones, who, because I thought something should be, would say, `That's it, that is a great thing you are doing Premier, give it to them, we are all with you.' That's what is happening over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I think the Member for St. John's South would be different. If the Member for St. John's South were in the Premier's chair, he would want his Cabinet advising him, giving him advice, leading the way and telling him where to go.

That's the way it is - the government would be so much healthier because - I hope you all heard what the Member for St. John's South said, `Don't tell me what I want to hear. Tell me what's right and proper.' That's very, very important. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's South continues, I might write out a cheque for the campaign immediately, I say to him.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, all I say to the Member for Fogo is you don't need one. I tell you, if ever there's a party in this country, in this whole great country of Canada, that needs a leader, it's the party opposite.

Now, he's leading, I say to him, he's leading but where is he leading you? Where is he leading the government and the party that he leads, Mr. Speaker? But that's fine; they're all willing to follow as he leads. They're all following the Premier, except one, the Member for Pleasantville.

It's no trouble to tell, Mr. Speaker, that the real Premier is not in the chair again today because any time - which is quite often by the way, it's quite often when he's in flight to other parts of Canada, Asia and wherever he goes to get away from the real problems of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is quite often, when he flies away from the problems, you can tell it by the noise level in the benches. You know something? I tell you what it shows me, Mr. Speaker, they're so happy to see the Premier leave the Province, they're so delighted and relieved to see him get out of this Province that they can't control their enthusiasm, they want him out.

I don't know if the Government House Leader was - I'll just say I went through the bill as best I could and I outlined -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I guess what I wanted to do today, I say to the Government House Leader, I wanted to let the government know that we don't have problems with all of the bill. There are things in the bill we can support but we have one major concern and it's no surprise to the Government House Leader what it is.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) on Hydro privatization.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly, exactly. So if the government is willing to change that and so on we'd support the legislation, I say to the Government House Leader. Now - Sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: I have difficulty reading the changes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You have difficulty reading the changes, well, the Premier feels - I understand what the Premier feels, the Cabinet feels.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

Oh, I'm sure I'll make them again and I might further develop them, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: And that will be at Committee stage.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In committee, and I might further develop it again there and hopefully by the time we get to Committee stage when we propose some amendments, maybe we can have a meeting of the minds before this is all over, I say to the Government House Leader. Maybe we will have a meeting of the minds on this particular bill and we will pass it. Please god, we're going to pass something this year before 1994 passes us by. The only thing we've done yet is give the government Interim Supply, Mr. Speaker. The only thing we've passed is Interim Supply and the government, of course, has refused to call the privatization bill for the last three weeks - hasn't called the bill in three weeks.

MR. ROBERTS: We're going to deal with this one first then (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, but it's kind of strange, I say to the Government House Leader, that the bill you called first was the privatization bill. The first bill -

MR. ROBERTS: In fact, we called this one first.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and then switched. Yes, and then you left it. You completely ignored it. The Premier spoke, the Leader of the Opposition and - pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: They brought in Bill 1 again and brought closure on it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Brought closure? Oh, yes. We have the Late Show today.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker, or whatever I have to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I lost time at the beginning of this debate because of the Late Show. Did you give me that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair made the adjustment of thirty-one seconds.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will assume that there is agreement now to move on to the Late Show. We will call it 4:30 p.m.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I asked a question in Question Period concerning training for fish plant workers who were affected with the closure of the Northern Cod fishery in the Province. I wasn't sure if I really got the answer from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I was expecting.

The people of the Province waited last week with anticipation for the announcement of the new program, the TAGS program. As a matter of fact, I was sitting with approximately eighty fish plant workers when the announcement was made, and they were no further ahead on exactly where they go from here than anybody was before the program was announced. We were very concerned, and it is starting to hit home more and more to people that there are a fair number of people to come out of the fishery over the next couple of years, and people are wondering exactly where they would like to go. They would like to take chances, and they would like to take the opportunity to explore some different fields, if possible, and that is why we have a fair number of people who are looking at such things as secretarial courses, computer courses, and whatever the case may be, but they are also concerned that if they do not find a job in that particular field after they do their training, that the opportunity for them to return to the fishery won't be there.

It seems like there is no answer to the many questions that are being asked. Even though the new program seems to encourage people to train, it also encourages people to train outside the fishery because of the fact that there are a fair number of people who aren't going to be working in the fishery of the future.

People are concerned for the simple reason that the economic situation in our Province now is not the greatest, and the fishery being the backbone of the Province, especially in my area, it seems that people do not see the opportunity for jobs outside the industry itself, and therefore they are very concerned that if they take a chance, or take the opportunity to explore some other avenue of employment and spend a couple of years training outside the fishing industry, that the opportunity may arise somewhere down the road where they would not have the opportunity to go back into the plant.

Now it's easy to say, really, we don't know how many people will be working in the fishery of the future, for the simple reason the stocks, I guess, and other concerns will contribute to the fact of how many people will return to the fishery itself, but the concern is there. It is there with a lot of plant workers. It is there about the future of plants, the future of fish plants themselves in smaller communities, but I will leave that alone for today.

I would just like to ask the minister if he could expand more on maybe the discussions that are ongoing with the federal government. I have the criteria of The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy program that was announced, but it doesn't touch on anything to do with training, so I guess, as the minister pointed out, there are some ongoing discussions, and Minister Tobin announced, when he put forward TAGS last week, that consultations, and this wasn't the perfect program, and there was room for improvement, etc., and I guess that is where the training would come into it, so I learn from that that there are ongoing discussions with the federal government in relation to training and what the criteria for people who decide to train outside the fishery will be.

People are concerned, and people are definitely worried about the future of rural Newfoundland, and the impact that the moratorium will have. People, like I said earlier, are looking for opportunities elsewhere, but they are not sure where to go because of the concern they have in relation to getting back into the fish plant, if that was the case, in a few years time. Now if they were successful enough, I guess, in taking a trade in whatever it may be, and they found employment outside the fishery, well I am sure they would be delighted with that but many families, young families who are in our rural communities can't very easily pack up and move on somewhere else. Whatever they are trained to do they will try to find work somewhere close to home. Now I understand that it is easy for somebody to say: pack up and move on, that could be fine for some single people maybe, but in the case where people have young families and have constructed homes and have settled down in rural communities, it is not that easy to pack up and leave, therefore the concerns are being raised continuously.

I met over the past few days - we have had some problems out in my district in relation to the sale of fish to the fish plant in St. Bride's and the concerns put forward by the plant workers and I guess a lot of this is coming from the uncertainty that people have and really, there does not seem to be any enlightenment on what the future holds and this I guess is creating the anxiety and the financial stress put upon these people, is only adding to the continuous problem that we are having in our small communities and what I have witnessed over the past couple of days is, families arguing with each other, fishermen who have fished side by side with each other for years and years, arguing because we only have so many fish and so few jobs to worry about.

I can see a lot of this coming in the future if some ground rules are not laid down so people know exactly where they are going and exactly what - I think it is time that we stop holding the people at ransom and that we do come up with some criteria that are laid down so people can sit down and get on with their lives, and discuss the options that are available to them and really, more or less make up their minds whether they are going to choose to stay in rural Newfoundland and try to make things work or they are going to move on.

In cluing up, I would just like to ask the minister if he could expand on, and more or less, is there any discussions ongoing with the federal government, with the minister in relation to what exactly the training or the options I guess that are going to be available to the plant workers, and if they do decide to train outside the fishery, is the future then closed off to them to go back into the industry? I think this is very important and I think the plant workers of this Province should know now so instead of waiting for another six or seven months, a lot of people were looking at May 15, as being the time that they could make their decisions, but when the announcement came last week, many people were sitting down ready to make decisions, now, as I said, they are not sure exactly what comes next so, I would ask the minister if he could expand on that to some degree, so that I could bring back not only to the people of my district but to the people of the Province and all members could bring back some news or some information that the people can sit down and really have a look at what the future holds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to put the hon. member at any great degree of ease with respect to the issue. It is clear that there is one very large difference between the TAGS program and any of the three predecessors who are currently still operating, whether it be the TFFA, AGAP or NCARP. Each of the others was a short-term, emergency stop gap program, where there was a ban put on the fishery for an undefined period of time and a quick effort made to find some mechanism, and the mechanisms differed in the three different programs to give the people much needed income support, and while they were in one of those three programs, Mr. Speaker, even though it was set up very quickly and even though it was very short-term, some people were given some limited training options to exercise even in the short term.

The big difference with the TAGS program, with the Atlantic Groundfish Adjustment program that is now going to be in place after May 15, is that, it's a structured program that will benefit individuals on an individual entitlement basis up to a maximum of five years. Everybody who qualifies will get two years beyond May 15 and those that reach the maximum qualification because of longer and stronger attachment to the fishery could be entitled to some level of compensation for the full five years. In that period of eligibility there are a number of options available for individuals to exercise using personal choice on a voluntary basis. The only time there has ever been a criteria that said, if you do this you cannot go back in the fishery - I am not sure if it was PWAP, the Plant Worker Adjustment Program, which was the retirement program for plant workers. That was even before the moratorium. If somebody took that retirement option they were not allowed to go back in the fishery because they were retired, they had an income of source until they were sixty-four and then would go onto Canada Pension and Old Age Security.

It was reasonable and it was thought at that time that anyone who exercised that program, by getting the money they would sign something to say, I will no longer earn money from the fishery, I will never go back to the fishery. I believe, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, that was the crux of the question that the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was asking today. Is there going to be any kind of stipulation saying if I personally exercise a training option for some kind of job outside the fishery will I have to sign something saying that I will never again even to try to earn money from the fishery. I answered at that time, and to the best of my knowledge right now, that is not a provision. It has not been part of the discussions, and it is though a personal choice option, that the individuals will be asked to analyze for themselves, with some guidance and counselling, what they think on a personal basis their best chances are where they live.

And, if they decide that the best thing for me to do is to try to make myself prepared in some fashion for a job outside the fishery, then they would opt for some training program to lead to that. If they think there is a future in the fishery in their community, or in their area, they will probably opt for some training to professionalize themselves in terms of plant processing capabilities and facilities, or harvesting if they are actual fish harvesters. It will though be individual choice.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say if they will in fact, if they exercise an option, no matter what the option, will they be able to go back into the fishery if a job becomes available in that area? To my knowledge at this point in time the answer is, yes. What will determine whether or not someone goes into a plant, will be that the plant owner and operator will take the best available people in the area at the time. If it is a fisherperson it is going to be clear that through the continuation of this process core fishers will be designated and defined. It will be expected that they will go out and harvest fish after the moratorium is lifted, after the ban is lifted. Anybody else, will they lose the license, will they give up the license? Licences and so on and buy-outs are voluntary. So all those issues will yet unfold in the next little while and unfortunately I am not in a position at this point in time to clarify it any further.

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

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

Last Friday I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations a question dealing with eighty to 100 welding jobs at the Newfoundland Dockyard. The minister responded and dealt with the CWB designation. Yesterday in the House I asked the minister, or informed the minister, if he was aware that there were ten Newfoundland welders in this Province who had taken the CWB testing and that their tests were sent to Halifax and they would have to wait an extraordinary amount of time to get the results back and in the process of waiting people were still being hired with that designation while people from this Province were waiting for the results from the CWB testing.

Frankly, I put my question on the Late Show today because I was not satisfied with the minister's answer, and I do not think today that he has gone far enough in taking this issue, bull by the horn so to speak, to ensure that Newfoundland welders get the CWB designation and have a chance at the jobs at the dockyard and therefore any other future jobs that may come up in that area.

I would like to inform the minister again that we have in this Province the technology and the professionalism to grade the test examination by the CWB. Why it has to be sent to Halifax to be graded is beyond me. Another result of the examinations being sent to Halifax is that the results come back pass or fail, but it doesn't allow the instructor to go over with the participant or the welder how they've made out, why they were successful or why they were unsuccessful. That possibility doesn't exist.

The real issue here, Mr. Speaker, is this. Why haven't the minister and his government acted to ensure that jobs at the Newfoundland Dockyard requiring CWB designation that Newfoundland welders were not provided the opportunity to write that designation?

The minister in response to the question last week said that if we used my logic to the nth degree then we wouldn't let anybody in this Province come in and take jobs here because Newfoundlanders would be the biggest losers as a result of that. If the minister is not going to provide an opportunity for welders in this Province, or to ensure that the opportunity is provided for welders in this Province to write their CWB designation for an employer so that Newfoundlanders can have jobs in their home Province, then it fails me to understand how the minister is going to provide opportunities for training in this area so that Newfoundlanders can take advantage of other employment opportunities across the country.

The issue is this. Will the minister act to ensure two things? One, that a test is provided, welders have the opportunity to write the test; and two, that the test and examinations are graded in this Province so that Newfoundlanders will know in a shorter time frame if they've passed or failed, and therefore can take advantage of employment when it arises. That is what I asked the minister today. Can he explain why he hasn't done that yet and why his department will not pursue it?

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the issue, I will just take maybe a couple of minutes to try to clarify it again.

In many of the trades areas that require a specific training and certification the government, through the apprenticeship programs and so on, makes sure that we provide opportunities for training and then also supervise and even assist people in getting the hours of apprenticeship that they need before they can get their certification and qualification. As a matter of fact, with respect to welding, only in the last little while - because the apprenticeship training since 1989 has been in the Department of Education under the guidance and direction of my colleague the Minister of Education, many people still think it is housed in the Department of Labour because that is where it was for a long time, probably all through sixteen or seventeen years.

We have actually opened five different welding centres in the community college system scattered throughout the Province to take care of training and apprenticeship needs.

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I never asked the minister questions related to the training centres for welding and the Cabot Institute where they provide it. I asked the minister specifically about CWB designation and providing the opportunity for Newfoundlanders to work in this Province. Now if he wishes to get up and speak about what they're doing with the welding program and apprenticeship program, well he can write a question over to me that he'd like me to ask him. I'd be happy to ask him at some point in the future but if he can answer the question I asked him now, I'd certainly appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. I'm sure that the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, regrets cutting into the time because I was just getting to the answer. Now, I'll probably be cut a bit short because of the interjection.

In fact, the other part, Mr. Speaker, that I had been - in answering the question previously and I find it unfortunate that it wasn't to the satisfaction of the hon. member. I tried my best to provide the answer and I guess I failed in that respect. I'll try again for the next couple of minutes.

The Canadian Welding Bureau, as the hon. member knows and many members in this House knows, is basically an industry organization. It is not a government organization, it's an industry organization. The industry itself came together, banded together and said when there are major industrial construction jobs requiring qualified welders, in certain jobs, they will require certain abilities. We'd like to test on a job by job basis to make sure they can actually weld to the specification of this job. So they ask - when an employer goes ahead and tenders and bids on a contract like the dockyard did and wins, they guarantee as part of that process, that they can provide welders who can do a certain type of welding. That they have a certain proficiency. The only way to guarantee that is for the person to already have a designation certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau or to get that certification by being tested.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have done both. We have worked with the employer in this case. They have provided opportunities for the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have come forward and shown basic minimal qualifications, in terms of journeymen status and so on, that they are eligible to be tested. They provided for the test for a number of years now. Actually, for years now we have had discussions with representatives of the Canadian Welding Bureau as to whether or not they would be interested in coming into one of the five centres - which is why I mentioned that - and setting up a permanent testing facility so that they could do the testing and the grading right in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Earlier - because there were limited needs for welders and limited opportunities pre-Bull Arm - it wasn't in their best interest, they didn't think there was enough volume to warrant that. During the Bull Arm days it was done by the unions, paid for by the unions in a big way. There was no need for CWB that they saw to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, set up a centre, and do testing on site. They are considering it again now only because of the fact that there are two current opportunities that might warrant it in their view, one being at the Dockyard and certainly current opportunities surfacing as well at the Shipyard in Marystown.

Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that they are very well actively considering again with us doing exactly what the hon. member suggests, which is to put an on site regular permanent facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they will make that decision with our encouragement, we hope, and hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question to the Minister of Fisheries this afternoon pertaining to the fishery observer program. I asked the minister if he had any concerns about the observer program. The minister said he would get the information. I fully realize that perhaps the minister hasn't had time to get it yet, but I wanted to follow up on it in the Late Show today. Because it is a matter of which I've become very concerned, particularly over the last day or so.

In Nova Scotia, the Scotia - Fundy region, a Quebec company has won the contract to put fishery observers on Nova Scotian vessels. What that has done is it has eliminated the experienced, seasoned, well qualified observers, has put them off the boats of Nova Scotia vessels, and they are in the process of being replaced by people who have not been observers before. I wanted to ask the minister if he has any concern that the same situation might develop in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because I feel it is certainly an asset to have observers on the vessels who are experienced and seasoned and know their work. Where at all possible it should be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We should not be displaced by a Quebec company if they bid lower than our Newfoundland company. That is one concern I have.

The other thing I noted to the minister today is that I've heard that in the last day or so there have been a number of vessels that have left port from Newfoundland and Labrador that have not had observers designated. There have been no observers on the vessels, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) years ago.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm not worrying what the member said four years - I remember it, and they were good points he made, but that is no reason why we should quit. That is no reason now, in this time of crisis, when the federal government is just going to spend another $1.9 billion on top of $1.5 billion that it spent in the last two years, bringing it up to $3 billion or $4 billion to keep our people, to keep food on their tables, that we should do away with an effective observer program.

If we are ever going to get the stocks to rebuild and regenerate, then conservation must be uppermost in everyone's mind, and the expenditure to put observers on vessels is a minor expenditure when you look at the program that was announced by the federal minister the other day of about $2 billion, a few paltry million to put observers on the vessels out there, inside the 200-mile limit, domestic and foreign. It's the only conservation measure we are taking, I say to the Member for Eagle River, to put observers on the boats, and now it looks like observers are not being placed on all the boats, and I ask the minister if he is concerned about that. Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can't hear you. I am talking to the minister. I wish the member would stand up some day and express his concerns about the fishery, like I do, instead of being quiet over there, speak from his seat.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very, very serious situation, I say to the minister. As I understand it, the minister's officials are involved with the federal people in monitoring this kind of situation, so I am very concerned about it. I am accessing some information. I have some already that I find very disturbing. I have to talk to a number of people to verify some of the things that I found out, which I will be doing over the next number of days.

My point is that conservation has to be the priority for all of us. We can't just pay lip service to it. We have a Province in crisis, an industry in crisis, a people who don't know what they are going to do. The provincial member and the Provincial Government talks about a fishery of the future, but if we don't practice conservation and get those stocks to regenerate and rebuild, we don't need to waste our time talking about a fishery of the future; we won't have a Province of the future. That's my point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if only we could muzzle the Member for Eagle River. If only we could rent a car to Quebec and let him go on in one direction and never return, I would say we would all be a lot better off. Just keep on driving through Quebec and keep going, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's a very serious problem, I say, and I know some of those observers. I have seen some of their reports. All I am saying is that for God's sake, in this time right now, let's not be cutting back on observers. Let's not have boats going out there, inside of 200, without observers. Observers help. They won't cut out all the problem, but they help.

If we are sending vessels out there without observers - and we are - and there are violations occurring that we don't know about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will name them in time, I say to the member, plus others.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes some good points, and I share his concerns with respect to the observer program. In fact the Newfoundland government is consistently on record at most - or at least all of the NAFO meetings that I've attended - demanding almost that there be a step up observer service.

The Scotia - Fundy region contract that he talked about earlier was awarded to a Quebec company earlier this year. I'm told that the contract had been in place since 1991. It expired and tenders were called by the federal government. Not surprisingly in the awarding of the tender financial considerations played an important part. I understand that there is a considerable difference between the contract price tendered and the one tendered by the existing company, Sea Watch.

The Newfoundland contract comes up for renewal in 1995. We are lucky I guess, in a sense in that there is a one year extension on that contract. So the current contract will be in place until 1996. When that contract comes up for award we are going to have to keep a sharp eye on what happens, because the hon. gentleman is right. We have a highly trained core of fishery observers. In fact, we have seventy-two very qualified observers with an average of eight years service now working with Sea Watch. Seventy-five per cent of those observers have post-secondary education; 19 per cent of them have university degrees. Unfortunately their salary is not that high. On average they are earning $21,500. It is obvious that when the contract comes up for renewal the Sea Watch is going to be hard pressed to put in a lower tender because these people cannot sustain themselves on a smaller salary. It is going to be interesting to see what happens.

With respect to the efficiency of the observer core, I should tell the hon. gentleman that last week the vessels that left Newfoundland - there were eight trawlers fishing for redfish - had 100 per cent coverage. That is the way it should be. It should be no less than 100 per cent. This week I'm told they have about a 50 per cent coverage. That is not the way it should be. I'm told, as well, that there is seldom 100 per cent coverage and that is too bad.

When the Northern cod fishery was in full swing I am told there were 100 per cent observers on board, but since the closure of the Northern cod that seldom happens. Yes, I am told that with respect to the Nova Scotian vessels pretty well the same pattern prevails. Nova Scotian vessels do fish in Newfoundland waters without observers and that, too, is unfortunate, but, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right. The observers who serve on those vessels must be highly trained people, totally committed to their employer, and to change at this point in time would be very, very unfortunate. And I can tell him now that we won't wait until the contract changes hands; we will be making the necessary representation to the appropriate people in Ottawa to ensure that there is no break in continuity in terms of the observer core. We want these people to remain in the observer core and we will do all we can to ensure that happens.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has concluded?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion to adjourn, as required by the Standing Orders, which I anticipate will be carried -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have a limerick today?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have no limerick today, but my friend, the Member for Grand Bank and I are hoping that we make the - what is it, the seventh column, is it, in The Evening Telegram?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, the seventh column.

MR. ROBERTS: Hope springs eternal in the human breast. The only fear my friend, the Member for Grand Bank expressed is he might have to share it with the Member for Kilbride and that would be a - Your Honour, tomorrow we will be asking the House to resume the debate on the Electrical Power Control Act, and we will listen as my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay plods on with it. With that said, I would ask Your Honour to put the motion, please.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.