December 10, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 50

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery eighty-five Grades VIII and IX students from St. Peter's Elementary School in Upper Island Cove, in the District of Port de Grave. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Calvin Peddle, Mr. Howie Lundrigan, Mr. Robert Bishop, Mr. Aiden Drover, and Ms Barb Patey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, recently there has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, the ad hoc Northern Nursing Crisis Committee and government over the issue of recruitment and retention of nurses in Labrador. Today, I would like to clearly state government's position on this matter for all members present and for the general public.

While we appreciate the concerns that have been put forward by the ad hoc Northern Nursing Crisis Committee, government has a responsibility to deal with the members of a collective bargaining unit in an appropriate manner. This manner is to deal with the officially certified bargaining agent for nurses in the Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union is the officially certified bargaining agent for nurses in this Province. I am calling on the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union to recognize its responsibility to its members as the officially certified bargaining agent for nurses, and to formally meet with the government officials to discuss the concerns of their Labrador members. Effective immediately, government officials are willing to meet with representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union to work toward a resolution of concerns put forward by the Labrador nurses.

If the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union is not prepared to officially meet with government to discuss these issues, government can only assume that the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union has abandoned their right to represent nurses in Labrador. We urge the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union to act immediately to address the outstanding concerns of their members.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot believe what I have just heard and what I am reading. Last year, the government treated nurses very unfairly. They bargained in bad faith with them. Now they are attempting again to divide the nurses of this Province, divide Labrador nurses from the rest of the Province. Then the minister, in her last statement, says: We have to assume that the nurses, if they do not come back to the table, have abandoned their right to represent nurses in Labrador.

Nurses in this Province do not want to be lectured by this minister or this government. Nurses will not forget how they were treated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. H. HODDER: They will not forget how they were abandoned by this government. They want to be treated fairly, with respect, with dignity, and with a focus on patient care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is (inaudible) that government is continuing to attack the nurses' union of this Province, and trying to blame them for the things that are not adequate in the nursing profession. I noticed, even in the Ministerial Statement, it says: Effective immediately, government is willing to meet with representatives.

Does that mean that they were not before? There is a letter here that has gone to the President of Treasury Board, from the nurses' union, saying that they are willing to meet at any meeting organized and lend their support to the request for a timely response to their proposals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: I would suggest the President of the Treasury Board call upon the nurses' union and sit down and meet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce in the House today, additional funding for some innovative employment programs that come under my department.

Following a mid-year review of employment programs, an additional $300,000 has been approved for the Linkages Program. This program offers valuable work with youth, to give them experience as they prepare to make the transition from the classroom to the labour market. This brings to community based projects for this youth-oriented program a total of $1.1 million for this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This funding comes as good news for anyone who works with the Linkages Program, because ultimately this means more resources and more opportunities for our youth.

Linkages is designed to help youth age eighteen to twenty-four who are finding it difficult to make the transition into the labour market. Through the program, the Department of Human Resources and Employment provides funding to community agencies to provide up to twenty-six weeks of career-related employment. Youth also take part in regular career planning workshops and earn a completion bonus towards the cost of post-secondary tuition and books.

Many of our youth are faced with the challenge of securing a first-time job with little professional experience. Linkages provides youth with work experience as they continue to develop and plan their career paths.

Youth measures from this government, including the Linkages Program, have assisted 2,520 youth over the past year and it is anticipated that we will assist a further 2,724 new clients in this new year to gain work and training experience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Youth employment is a priority for this government. We recognize that youth face unique challenges as they prepare to move from the academic world to our labour market. Linkages is a great initiative that assists youth in overcoming these challenges.

Since its inception in 1998, Linkages itself has helped over 400 youth in the Province. Its program's success and innovation have been nationally recognized by Human Resource Development Canada and the National Volunteer Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight some additional funding for two other employment programs. My department allocated approximately $300,000 for the Graduate Employment and the Employment Generation programs, which translates into about 110 long-term jobs for our Province.

The department's Graduate Program, which is designed to help new graduates find work in their field of study, receives an additional $175,000, bringing the total for this year to $1.725 million.

n

The Employment Generation Program, which creates new long-term employment opportunities, will be funded at a total for this year of $1.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the additional support for Graduate, Employment Generation and Linkages Programs demonstrates our commitment to strengthening our labour market and increasing opportunities for people in this Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see some funding put into the Linkages Program. I say to the minister, in the youth programs in general we have the highest youth unemployment rate in the country. People coming out of our systems, our colleges, universities, Graduate Employment and other Employment Generation programs, many of them are having to find work in other provinces across this country.

Anything that can be done to enhance their opportunities to get unemployment here is welcome. It is unfortunate that many of the jobs they enter into are low wage jobs. We have to look at providing opportunities for our youth. Unfortunately, it is the youth of this Province that we are missing out on, that we are not devoting enough attention to.

The minister made reference to $300,000 and an additional 110 long-term jobs. If you look at that ratio, that is about $2,800 put into a job. I hope they are not just a short-term one year thing and then it is dead-ended. I think it is important that we continue to look at allocating higher amounts of resources to ensure that the youth here are able to stay on a job. Not for a short term to fulfill the requirements of the program, but even look a little further to see if further assistance - I know there is a phase out period - can be provided to encourage employers to hold on to these people after the end of this program, or even some other contribution of a percentage level that will do that.

Because the youth here have been neglected. The opportunities have not been as great. They have come out of colleges with high debt and they are having to seek jobs in other provinces to enable them to retire the debt. Their choices are limited here in this Province. Certainly I'm delighted to see some extra funding put in here, and I hope it will continue and it will be earmarked to even a higher level in the next budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that youth unemployment is a priority for its government. If that is the case, how is it that we have a 25 per cent unemployment rate? We have tuition costs in this Province that have doubled and tripled in the last ten years. We have young people unable to get an education to be able to get a good job because of the costs of education, the costs of tuition and the debt associated with it is so high.

Mr. Speaker. if that is how well they perform in the areas of high priority, I would hate to see the areas of low priority for this government. Certain people are being helped through this Linkages Program, there is no doubt about that, but we do not need pilot programs. What we need are full programs that are going to provide full opportunities for all of our young people to get a decent education and get good jobs so that they can have a future for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the Christmas season, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will soon be traveling into the woods in search of their Christmas tree. It is fitting therefore that I address the regulations involved in this festive tradition.

I ask that it be noted that it is illegal to cut any tree within 102 meters of the centre line of any highway or to cut trees in any forest improvement or preservation area, such as a plantation, thinning, “No Cutting” areas or provincial and national parks.

In the interest of conservation I urge people to decide upon their tree before cutting it, as it is also illegal, not to mention wasteful, to cut trees down and leave them in the forest.

Selling Christmas trees is also a seasonal industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Vendors who plan on cutting trees to sell require a commercial cutting permit. These can be obtained from any Forestry office throughout the Province.

Another seasonal industry, which is growing by leaps and bounds, is the Christmas wreath industry which provides employment on several levels from harvesting tree tips to wreath tying and the final marketing of the product. Newfoundland and Labrador is in an ideal place for a Christmas wreath industry. There is an abundance of balsam fir which is the species of choice for wreath making and many facilities available for production of the wreaths.

Last year, two pilot projects at Clarenville and Victoria Cove produced 10,000 Christmas wreaths and employed or trained approximately eighty people. These results have been very promising. Operators -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Victoria Cove and Clarenville.

Operators were able to train wreath tyers, establish local markets, and gain entry into lucrative export markets. This year the number of wreaths manufactured locally has more than doubled, with approximately 25,000 wreaths produced. The majority of these wreaths are exported to the United States, and there are wreaths available at local retail markets. I encourage the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to hang a locally grown wreath in their homes this Christmas season. Not only will you have a beautiful Christmas decoration but you will also be supporting local industry and jobs.

In closing, as people begin their hunt for that perfect Christmas tree, I ask that they observe the rules and also that they use care and common sense while in the woods and make this a safe and happy Christmas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: It must be the minister's turn to read a ministerial statement because all this is is a recital of rules and regulations that are already in existence.

I can relate to some of the things that the minister refers to here. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a family of five boys and come Christmastime the five of us would go in and we would cut five Christmas trees. We would bring them out and somebody would stand in the window and they would either go like this or they would go like that, and back in the woods you would go again, and you would bring out another five Christmas trees. When you were finished you had a pile of trees that high. You would pick out one and probably my grandmother would be the one who would cut it.

I can relate to what the minister is saying here. I think people have become more conscious of what they are doing now to the forest, but the shame of it is when we look at the number of trees that are imported into this Province, when you look at the trees that are coming in from Nova Scotia. It does provide some economic activity at a time of the year when money is important and when people would like to have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a few dollars in their pocket. We are not paying enough attention and not placing enough emphasis on having those trees grown right in our Province and having our own local people provide that market. That is where the minister has to pay his attention. Maybe this time next year he can stand in his place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and tell us how many new Christmas tree growers are in this Province so that we can stand and give him the clapping hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is the intention of the government, through ministerial statements, to promote what is already in place, but I also encourage it. Because there is a lot of wastage at this time of the year in our forests by people cutting trees and bringing them home, not satisfied, and carrying them back. In some parts of Labrador, we have to drill the trees and stick limbs in to make the tree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: I have done that before, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the minister that I congratulate the minister on encouraging people of the Province to support their local industries by buying local crafts. I support the minister and commend him on that. Maybe other ministers in this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - can take an example from his leadership and support the local industries themselves.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House of Assembly to recognize a very important event in the history of human rights.

Today, December 10, marks fifty-one years since the first signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard for all people of all nations.

The Human Rights Code, which is law in Newfoundland and Labrador, is integral to our present and future accomplishments as a government, a Province, and as a people. This code protects individuals from discrimination and harassment and promotes equality of opportunity. It applies to provincial government departments and agencies and private businesses. The code ensures that all individuals are not victims of discrimination because of their race, religion, religious creed, sex, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, political opinion, colour, or ethnic, national or social origin and sexual orientation.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador strongly believes in the Human Rights Code and approaches all government initiatives on the code's standards.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources and Employment is currently redesigning its income support and employment programs. The main purpose of this redesign is to provide easier access to our services and programs for the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador. These numerous programs and their specific details ensure all clients have equal opportunity to reach their social and economic potential.

In an effort to address potential discrimination in the labour force, many of the department's programs are specifically designed for individuals who may face unique challenges or stereotyping in our employment market. These programs teach clients and their employers that all individuals have a valuable contribution to make to our labour force and should always be given the opportunity to do so.

Some of these specific client initiatives include programs for individuals who have experienced challenges due to disability, gender, or lack of financial resources. I am proud to say that the department's programs and services reflect the diversity of our clients. Ultimately, thanks to our valuable partnerships with local communities, work done in the department promotes a diverse labour market based on equality.

I would like everyone to join me today in recognizing the fifty-first anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I believe that the true success of our Province rests in the acknowledgment that every individual is a valuable human resource. It is this recognition and acceptance of diversity that will ensure the next century is filled with opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; opportunities that are realized through collaborative effort and mutual respect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important day, as we mark the fifty-first year of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. I have a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before me. The first paragraph of the preamble, I think, is very telling.

It states, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...”, so it is certainly important that we commemorate and remember the declaration at all times.

It is also interesting to note that Canada is a refugee accepting country and the definition of refugee is founded by the definition of refugee as determined by the United Nations where it states, not only in dealing with discrimination but in dealing with persecution, that a person who may be persecuted in his or her country of origin for reasons such as: religion, race, nationality, social group or political opinion, may indeed be found to be a UN convention refugee as determined by that definition and, upon a hearing before the Immigration Refugee Board, may be determined to be allowed to stay in this country because of persecution.

It is an important day to commemorate, and it is important to remember that both discrimination and persecution of all kinds, of any kind, is unacceptable in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fifty-one years ago, and our own Human Rights Code, but it is also a time where we should examine whether we are not, in fact, in our own Human Rights Code, discriminating against those people who have complaints on the basis of human rights. We provide, in the Human Rights Code, for a six-month limitation period to bring an action, whereas in the ordinary courts, for any other kind of action, you have up to two years. This is an example where we have special rules for human rights which we should not have. This ought to be changed.

We also have to recognize that human rights go beyond the anti-discrimination rights and look at the whole of a person's life. Poor and hungry children are an affront to human rights. The fact that women earn far less than men -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and that the majority of people with disabilities live in poverty, all of these things are human rights issues and we should work to address them as quickly as we possibly can.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Minister, since the elimination of the provincial grants program in 1993, post-secondary students in this Province have fallen deeper and deeper into unmanageable, unacceptable, amounts of debt. The elimination of this program coupled with, until recently, steadily increasing tuition costs, has seen student debt loads triple in size. Minister, will you bring forth any measures in this sitting to address this critical problem?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the debt loads of our students of the post-secondary institutions and we see it as a serious problem, which is precisely why this government last year put addition funding into the post-secondary budget to enable a two-year tuition freeze at both public institutions, Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.

We recognize that this is a serious problem for our students, but I want to say again that the tuition rates at our university are among the lowest in our country. We are doing what we can, as a government, to ensure that our students will get a quality education, bearing in mind that there is a cost to that but again working hard to try and address that cost.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, how can this government boast about a tuition freeze as if it were the be-all and end-all of the student financial problems when students and former students are faced with heavy debts, high interest rates, threatened credit ratings, and having to leave this Province to earn income enough to pay their debts? Again, Minister, I say to you that the tuition fees freeze, the scholarships, are fine; but, really, when are you going to address the student debt?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member would have us do. Clearly we are looking at the high cost of tuition, and again putting it in prospective that we are among the lowest in the country. We have instituted a tuition freeze for two years at our public college and at our university. We are working with the federal government in terms of trying to harmonize the student loans so that it will be much more cost-effective for our student population.

There is a cost to education. If you look at the university itself, this government in fact pays for 73 per cent of the cost of providing a university education in this Province. Having said that, clearly we are on top of it in terms of making sure that we put a fair dollar back into our public system, that we have frozen tuition for this year and next year. We have seen the scholarships available to our student population increase. In fact, this government has matched, dollar for dollar, the $25 million the university has raised, a percentage of which will go towards scholarships.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been acting very progressively in terms of dealing with issues around post-secondary education and student debt.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a key word there was public; but I remind you that there are post-secondary students in this Province who attend private colleges in order to get the courses that they wish to take. How is it, Minister, that these private college students qualify for neither loan remission, scholarships, nor tuition freezes? When is the minister going to address this blatant discrimination?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member opposite, he obviously isn't aware that students at private colleges can access student aid, that they are eligible for scholarships, that in fact they are able to avail of programs just as students at public institutions are. We are doing everything we can to try and address the issue of student debt and we will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, I referred to loan remission, not student aid. Are the private college students, post-secondary, eligible for loan remission, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to our students, student that have difficulty in terms of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no!

MS FOOTE: Students that are having difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in terms of repaying their debt, we look at them on a case by case basis, and we do everything we can to ensure that they are eligible.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour regarding the workers compensation act. Minister, the RNCA are again asking government to consider changing the legislation regarding the amount of benefits officers can receive if injured on the job. At present, they are given 80 per cent of their salary. Minister, this puts officers in an awkward predicament as they have to consider, when in a dangerous situation, not only their obligation to do their duty, but also their family and the financial burden their family would face should they be injured on the job. Will you change the legislation, minister, to allow RNC officers who are often put in dangerous situations to collect full benefits if injured while in the line of duty?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our legislation that we have in this Province does not allow us to single out different classes of people to pay different rates to. I have met with the RNC on a number of occasions and have outlined that to them, and we are no different than any other province across the country. Once you start singling out classes of people, as I said, to pay different rates to, then that becomes a situation where you are showing favouritism to one group of workers over the other. That is not in the works and we have no plans to change the legislation to deal with that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are other police forces, I say to the minister, in Canada that offer higher and full benefits. The RNCA are now considering suing private homeowners for loss of income should they be injured while responding to a call on private property. What message is being sent to private citizens who may face lawsuits because government refuse to change legislation to allow RNC officers who are injured in the line of duty from collecting full benefits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be the first to recognize the work that is done by the RNC as good work. I also recognize the work that is done by the nurses of the Province. I understand the work that is done by the teachers of the Province. Last year when we undertook the review of the workers' commission report that was done, we increased the benefit for all workers across the whole spectrum of the workers. The RNC, like nurses, like everybody else, get the maximum amount that is being paid under the workers' commission and the legislation that we have in place. We are not treating the workers any differently than anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The RNCA are being treated differently because most other professionals can refuse to put themselves in a position of danger. The RNC are not able to do that. In fact, when other professionals are put in danger they often call the RNC to step in to protect them. Shouldn't government make provisions to fully protect the police officers who are obligated to put themselves in danger to protect professionals and private citizens in this Province? I ask the minister again: Is he going to change the legislation to allow full benefits to members of the RNC who are injured in the line of duty?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, as I have said before to the hon. member, that we treat all workers covered under the workers' commission the same right across the board. We have no particular intentions at this time to change the legislation.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, there has been a great deal of concern expressed by inshore fisherman that the allocation of crab stock in the offshore will have a negative effect on their ability to catch this particular species. I ask the minister if he has any fear that this concern might be real.

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

MR. EFFORD: I'm going to have to ask the hon. member to repeat the question. I did not get the first part of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: My question to the minister was this. Minister, there has been a great deal of concern expressed by small boat inshore fisherman that the allocation of offshore crab will have a negative effect on their ability to catch this particular species inshore. I ask the minister if those concerns are real and if he has any fear.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Choose (a) or (b).

MR. EFFORD: I should say A or B, because I do not understand the question. Fisherman fishing outside the 200-mile limit or the offshore crab quota, how is that going to have an impact on small boat fisherman inside 20 miles when they have the total allocation inside there?

There is lots of place in the market for crab. There is lots of processing capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador for all crab being caught, as long as it is good quality. So I do not know how it is going to have a negative impact on small boat fisherman.

What the small boat fisherman would like to have is greater quotas, but if you give greater quotas, or greater ITQs, to individual fisherman, now that you have 5,000 fisherman you would have a greater demand on resource and then you are asking for trouble like we did with the cod. If you are asking the question, does the crab inside the 20 miles crawl outside 200 or 300 miles?, the answer is no, they do not.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister should be a scientist instead of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because I say to the minister that I have not heard a scientist confirm that particular statement yet. The real concerns are out there and the concerns are brought before the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council on an annual basis.

I say to the minister that there were some concerns expressed by him that the quality of crab that was caught offshore outside of the 200-mile limit may be negatively affected because of the inability of small boats to go and harvest this particular species and land it at the ports designated.

I ask the minister if the quality of crab has been along the lines of the same high quality of crab that was landed when the boats took part in the regular fishery this year, or if his concerns are justified.

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

MR. EFFORD: My concerns are justified and my concerns have been corrected. My concerns have been implemented by the market, by the industry, by the fisherman, by the trucking companies, by everybody. There is a problem with catching crab outside the 200-mile limit in the 3NO division in the fall of the year. This was an exploratory experimental quota. The temperatures of water out there in September and October is about 10 degrees higher than it would be in the spring. What we will do now is when we get the allocation for next year we will catch that quota in the spring. On top of that, they are now putting RSW systems on their boats so they can bring all the crab in alive.

In answer to the first part of your question, no, I am not a scientist, but what I did two weeks ago was sit down with the total science community, including Dr. George Rose here at Memorial University, all the scientists from DFO, and we went over that very concern that the small boat fisherman are asking. It is not a problem. Crab do not crawl 300 miles.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated he had concerns about the quality of crab being landed. In answer to the last question he confirmed there have been problems with quality. Just a couple of days ago I was talking to a fisherman from the minister's district who informed me that the inspections being carried out on this particular landing now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - are completely different from what was done this summer. The fisherman went on to state that he was after coming to St. John's, having open-heart surgery, and he did not get the going over inspection that his crab got by being landed (inaudible). So I say to the minister, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He need not have a preamble. I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister: Has he stepped up and beefed up his quality inspection program just to prove that those small boat fishermen, the under sixty-five foot sector, are not capable of landing a good quality product like he had fears of in the beginning?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning I said, when I left the House of Assembly, it must be silly Friday morning. Now I am sure it is.

In 1995, we put 24 million pounds of bad crab cooked in this Province into the Japanese market, when we got $2.50 per pound. The next year we got eighty-five cents a pound. I said when I was appointed minister I was committed to turning this industry around and putting a top quality product into the marketplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We have accomplished that, Mr. Speaker, and whether this fisherman from Port de Grave told you that or not, I don't care. I don't care! The one thing I am not going to do, whether he is a constituent of mine or not, he or she is not going to put dead crab into the marketplace! We have now reached $1 billion in export value this year because we are doing it right!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That was the trouble with ministers in the past. They gave in to political pressures because someone said: If you don't do that, I won't vote for you. Well, you know what they can do with their votes, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am filling in for the critic for that department who is away on a medical appointment.

The residents of Harbour Deep have lost faith in the mechanical integrity of their ferry, the Lady Rosella Regina B. Last Friday there was a near tragedy at sea. People have a long litany of complaints and delays and frustrations with this ferry. This morning this ferry continues to be chained to the wharf at Harbour Deep and the residents, in the interest of concern for the safety of their children and themselves, refuse to let the ferry leave port. What steps has the minister taken in the last twenty-four hours to resolve this problem?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm well aware of the situation in Harbour Deep. The ferry - when I left to come to the House around 8:50 a.m. - is still chained to the dock in Harbour Deep. I have been in consultation with the Users Committee last night and again this morning. They are supposed to meet at 10:00 a.m. to see if they can make up their minds whether to release it or not. Other than that, all the reports that I have, everything from the owners, from the captain, and from everybody else that had anything to do with that ferry, is that it is seaworthy. The reason it did not sail yesterday was because of the weather. It is entirely up to the people whether to let the ferry go or not. We did not chain it on. The Users Committee chained it on.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past summer the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation called the Gulf ferry boats cattle boats. He wanted newer and he wanted improved ferry service on the Gulf. Yet the people in Harbour Deep, and even some of the crew, I say to the minister, have expressed grave concerns about the seaworthiness of the Lady Rosella Regina B. I want to ask the minister: Will he today go to Harbour Deep and address these concerns directly with the people? Will he this morning give the order to offer the residents of Harbour Deep, who have great concerns about the seaworthiness, the opportunity to leave that community, particularly in the case of the students who are there, by helicopter so we can give the alternate transportation that is normally available in cases of emergency?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to find out that the hon. member opposite has finally found out where Harbour Deep is.

There is no question about the seaworthiness of the boat. Whenever anything happens in Harbour Deep or anywhere else around this Province with regards to ferry services, I put a helicopter in there and put a plane.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that in your district?

MR. WOODFORD: It is in my district, but that does not make any marine service in the area exempt from mechanical failure. Every report that I have says that ferry is seaworthy. If I get a report today, tomorrow, or any day saying that it is not, I will do what I have done every other time, and that is put an air service in there. Other than that, up until today, up until when I came to the House, it is seaworthy. There will not be an air service going in there today unless the boat is not released.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's lack of positive action here has to stem from determination to degrade that ferry service to Harbour Deep. Is this a way, I ask the minister, that he is putting pressure on the 16 per cent that do not want to resettle to change their minds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I say, is this the way to offer very poor ferry service and people having to protest to get the minimum standards met in the seaworthiness of that particular ferry? Is that your real motive, minister? Are you trying to force resettlement by the back door (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Shelley was smart enough not to ask that question. He wouldn't embarrass himself to ask it. (Inaudible) stupid enough (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member has asked the question now. He should give an opportunity to the minister to answer.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said yesterday in this House that that vessel has been operating there now for three-and-a-half years. It had twenty-six days of down time in three-and-a-half years. Eleven of those were the changing of an engine a couple of years ago. Seven months on this year's run since she went out she has had five-and-a-half days downtime. I can only go on all the reports that have been given to me by my officials and by people in the area. For the hon. member to say that I am deliberately going down and doing something with an engine or doing something with the safety of that vessel to jeopardize some people in Harbour Deep -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. WOODFORD: That is what you said! That is what you said! Doing that in order to use the sixteen per cent out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I am a member (inaudible) is lower than the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: That is what the hon. member said. I will not do that to the people of Harbour Deep, but I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what I did do that was never done before this year. I went down and met with the people in February, and I told them: You put it to a vote. You get 100 per cent agreement to come out of Harbour Deep and I will support you. I did not go down and tell them that I might support them. I told them up front. They knew where I stood. They knew then. They know where I stand today. They will know where I stand tomorrow, unlike some hon. gentlemen across the way who told them three or four years ago: We will help you move. I did not do that. They know where I stand, and it is the same thing with the vessel. When the vessel there is down and there is something mechanically wrong with it, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot do a thing about it.

 

Now, if there is any other emergency service needed, those people will get it just like anywhere else in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister, I say to you this morning that people of all walks of life are looking forward to this New Year's celebration marking the millennium. The celebrations are so important in the provincial government's view that it extended operating hours for bars in the Province. Minister, will your government now consider also amending the Shops Closing Act so that retail workers do not have to work on Sunday, January 2, for the year 2000, only because it is a special weekend for each and every one of us and it would allow families to be together?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year we brought in legislation on the Shops Closing Act. We have gone through that, and I have no intention of changing that particular law right now, but I will take it under advisement and get back to the member in due time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, as well this morning I would like to ask you this. If the Province is not willing to amend the Shops Closing Act for Sunday, January 2, could we have the Premier of our Province consider writing to the business community, and to the different boards of trade, asking them to consider the festive season surrounding this very special weekend, and to close for that day out of respect for retail workers?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said to the member a few moments ago that right now we have right now no intention of doing it, but I will take it under advisement and get back to the House on that particular matter.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. There have been major problems with recruitment and retention of pharmacists in hospitals in our Province. This has led to a staff shortage and unacceptable staff turnover rates.

For the past several years in St. John's alone there has been never a time when there has been a fully trained complement of pharmacists in our hospitals. There have been numerous pharmacist vacancies across this Province. Many have been advertised, and for some, not even one applicant has applied. I ask the minister: What is being done to address this serious shortage of hospital pharmacists?

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

 

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as with all other areas of the health care system, this government has been making extensive efforts to try and recruit, and in many cases retain, the professionals it needs to run the system. Government, through the Minister of Health and Community Services, has paid close attention to all areas of the health care system. It has undertaken major efforts to recruit in the area of specialists, nurses, doctors and, I am sure, in the area of pharmacists as well. Government will continue to exercise every effort it can to work with the boards and to try and accommodate their needs for various specialists, and it will continue those efforts in this area as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The current starting salary for a pharmacist here is $34,000, and after seven years it peeks at $43,000. In Nova Scotia it runs from $41,000 to $50,000, in Prince Edward Island from $46,600 to $51,000. The retail sector in this Province has a starting salary of $42,000, it runs as high as $55,000, and is up to $70,000 in certain areas outside the urban parts of our Province. I ask the minister: How can you expect to fill vacancies, reduce staff workloads and stress, when you pay starting pharmacists anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 less than they would receive in the retail sector, or even if they went to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, financing, and certainly salaries in relation to financing, continues to be an issue for the health care system. This government has invested significantly in our health care system. As we know, over the past year, government has invested millions of dollars, over $14 million, for example, in the health care system to address nurse workload issues. We have invested over $32 million to address physicians and their needs. We have invested significantly in the capital needs as well of our health care system. There is a limit, there is a constraint, and that is the overall finances that are available to the Province.

Approximately one-third of the full budget of this Province is used in the area of the health care system. We will continue to provide resources at a capacity that we can afford. This is something that we will continue to struggle with and it is an issue for all provinces across this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

There is time for one quick supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pharmacists who are about to graduate this year are even being recruited this fall for the United States, offering $70,000 U.S. There was a similar problem, I say to the minister, at the cancer clinic with respect to the recruitment and retention of radiation therapists and medical physicists. These groups were recently reviewed, and justifiably so. I am not sure if the minister is aware -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact now, I inform the minister that there is supposed to be a review going on with hospital pharmacists. I want to ask the minister: Will she ensure that this growing and very severe problem we are having with hospital pharmacists is resolved by paying a competitive salary like is being done in some other medical specialists areas?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the opposite member's concerns are brought to the attention of the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with section 32.4 of the Auditor General's Act, I hereby table the Report of the Audit of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move on, so that there is no delay in passing out the bill as soon as it is printed, I am going to call first reading on Motion 5, Bill 52.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act”, carried. (Bill 52)

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could get the attention of the Minister of Mines and Energy - and get some of those people away from him - I understand that it is possible, maybe, that the minister may not be around the early part of next week so I am going to call second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act”. (Bill 51)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act”. (Bill 51)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few brief comments, for the record, with respect to the bill that is before the House, Bill 51. It is a significant piece of legislation. As has been discussed in the Legislature before, sometimes a bill is very thick and there are a lot of words but it may be a lot of housekeeping. This one is one of the fundamentals that has been debated in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly since 1994.

Again yesterday, in preparing for this particular bill, I read a Ministerial Statement that gave a history of the background of the electrical industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The context is important for the debate on this particular bill. Upon until the 1960s there really had been private sector operation of electrical utilities in Newfoundland and Labrador and the fundamental of it, to paraphrase - historians could find some flaw in what I am saying, but, by general rule - electrical utilities decided to provide electric energy only in areas where there was a big enough population to make it pay. As a result, the larger centers of Newfoundland and Labrador, from the late 1800s, the early 1900s to the 1960s, the larger centers like St. John's and surrounding areas - like Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook - had electricity. Many of the smaller centers, though, of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not have electricity; so there was a public policy issue that was taken and dealt with during the late 1950s and early 1960s, concurred by everybody in the Province - there was no debate to the contrary in the Legislature or elsewhere - that, as a matter of public policy, the government should be involved in making sure that electricity was available in every community in Newfoundland and Labrador if at all possible.

One of the instruments - and this is where we will have to admit that we learned from the people of the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and I know that the Opposition Parties will probably both take some measure of credit for convincing the Legislature and the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I am trying, in my own quiet way, just to suggest why I supported a certain view at one point and I am supporting another view today; maybe practicing for life after politics where I might try to go to law school or something and learn to argue three or four sides of the one issue. Most times there are only two, in most people's minds, but practiced and learned lawyers can find several different arguments to support on the one issue.

In the contextual piece, as I continue to recognize a change in direction here in response to the wishes of the people of the Province, through the 1960s, and using largely the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as the instrument of public policy, the government and Hydro itself, together, decided upon which kind of generation projects needed to be approved so that we could extend electrical energy to all of the regions in Newfoundland and Labrador. There were river developments, there were diesel operations put in place, and other operations, so that we could have the point where we are today, where just about every single community in the Province has access to electric energy.

There are some places now where people are moving, where they have moved out of communities and a group of livyers have congregated in groups of twenty, thirty families or more, where they are still paying for poles to go into areas and so on and it is not a part of the public grid in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the real shift was in the 1960s. The real shift was in that period in the 1960s. When we got to the period of 1994, the government of that day, the Administration of Premier Wells that I was a part of, brought forward the whole notion that maybe the time was right in Newfoundland and Labrador to privatize Hydro and to use the revenues that could be garnered from the sale of Hydro into the private sector to meet some of the public policy needs of the government by converting the assets to cash.

It was clear, and I readily acknowledge, that the people of the Province and the Opposition Parties did convince the government that while that may have been a policy issue that was seriously contemplated, that it was not one that the people of the Province wanted to proceed with. In the meantime -

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to point out to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is up there speaking his heart out, like he so often does, to look at the support he has behind him in his benches.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to note that we do not have a quorum here at the moment for carrying on the government business of the day.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The quorum is now present.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister for Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize that today I am probably much like my tie here, if you can hear it, a little bit off key, a little bit out of tune. That is probably why the members vacated me when I was speaking, because I wasn't up to my normal form. So we will see how it happens.

The point again that I was making was that in the debate that actually was the pivotal debate in the Province in 1994, the government had promoted for several weeks the notion that privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was the right policy direction for the Province. The Opposition parties, the public generally and even some of our own members, indicated that they did not think that it was in the best interest of the Province at the time, and that Hydro itself, as it is known in Newfoundland and Labrador - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but everybody refers to it as Hydro - the public utility, should stay in the hands of the people; that it was actually an asset to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that it should continue in its position of being able to be used as an instrument of public policy; and that at points in time the government, with Hydro, should be able to decide upon priorities that are deemed at any particular point to be necessary and in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was a debate that was going on in the Legislature, as all members will recall. It was actually at second reading. The debate was suspended, a vote was not taken and privatization did not occur. However, in preparing for privatization - because admittedly that was the government's agenda and plan of the day - there were amendments made to two particular acts that actually provided for a circumstance where we would operate in a privatized hydro environment. The two acts that were changed were the Electrical Power Control Act and also the Public Utilities Act.

The effect of it was this. The changes in the Electrical Power Control Act basically structured Hydro not as a public utility any more, but considered it to be a commercial entity, whereby the overriding concern was that Hydro was instructed, under the Electrical Power Control Act, to take decisions that would reflect in the best possible bottom line as if it was a private company. That is the tenor of the Electrical Power Control Act today with respect to references to our public hydro.

There was even a more critical change made to the Public Utilities Act which stated, in preparing the way for privatization, that because Hydro was going to be privatized the only way - and we have had an experience with this already, members will recall - a new hydro development or a new electric generation development of any kind could be considered in the Province to add energy components to the electrical grid of Newfoundland and Labrador would be that there would have to be a call for proposals. The Public Utilities Board was instructed to only permit the lowest cost option to come on stream, because it was considered to be a private environment, a private sector operation, and therefore profitability and lowest cost were to be the only considerations. That is the important point.

The legislation today says in both acts that the only thing that is allowed to be considered is that any new electricity coming on line must have been judged by the Public Utilities Board to be the cheapest electricity. I think everybody has understood, through the 1960s right up to the 1990s, that some of the electricity that we are providing in isolated communities with diesel is not the cheapest electricity, and would never be in place if the only thing allowed was to bring on the cheapest electricity. In the context of privatization, which was the debate, the legislation that is in existence today assumes that we operate as if we are in a private environment. So those two pieces of legislation read exactly that way. I am sure the examination of it by the Opposition parties would concur.

Just to give an example, most recently, in anticipation of a potential smelter and refinery at Argentia, we knew we were going to need an extra 200 megawatts of energy. The electrical grid for the Province only had surplus capacity of in the range of 30 to 40 megawatts. In preparation for what Inco had announced it was going to do in Argentia four years ago, under the current legislation we had a call for proposals. Because we could not go out and say: You go and build 200 megawatts, no matter what the cost. The legislation absolutely required that the only way Hydro or anybody else could consider bringing on new sources of electricity was to go to the PUB and prove that it was the least cost power, the lowest cost. That is the only thing allowed to be considered under the present legislation.

I think that the House and the representatives here, and the people of the Province, understand that there are circumstances and there will be circumstances where we will need electric energy - it will have to be generated because we do not have it available at the present time - sometime in the next decade or longer, while we are waiting for an in-feed from Labrador. If the only way you can bring it on is to go through a proposal where it has to be lowest cost, then there may be circumstances whereby a development that needs to occur because it is in the best interest of the Province, either for continued social development or continued economic development, that we need to be able to consider something, even though it might be marginally a little higher in cost than some other options that could occur that would not fulfill the immediate need but would provide energy to the grid but not necessarily fulfil an immediate need.

We have circumstances, for example - and I suggest that these are potential examples for the exemption clause that is being anticipated here - where we have industrial users, such as the paper mills, which have indicated to the government that they would like to secure their own operations by having co-generation plants available on their own property, utilizing waste materials and other things, but that the cost of it compared to other developments might be a few pennies higher than some other river project somewhere else in the Province. It does not give the government even an opportunity to consider the combined effect of securing an industry and providing energy. Because right now the act says you can only consider it if it goes through the PUB and if it is judged after full examination to be absolutely the lowest cost.

The solution to that is to provide an exemption, understanding that, as a result of the energy policy review that is ongoing and at a partial stage of completion, we may go with some other amendments that may be required to one or both of these acts, depending upon the outcome of that review, which will be fully debated and made known in the Province and so on. Currently we do know one thing. Even in advance of the completion of the energy policy review, we do know - and it reaffirms - that this government is not contemplating privatization. It is not on the agenda in any way, shape or form. The legislation today contemplates and restricts any kind of development to a privatized environment. It contemplated that and that is why the changes were made.

I will listen to the proceedings in the debate with interest to try to answer any particular questions or concerns that may be raised, but I just wanted to put in terms of that context. We are requesting passage of these couple of exemption clauses to the two necessary pieces of legislation so that the government can go back to the pre-privatization debate and let Hydro run itself the way the people of the Province want it to be run, and the way we understand that the Opposition parties asked us to leave Hydro, so that it could be an instrument of public policy in the Province and could be used for other than a privatized commercial environment which both acts restrict it to today.

I hope those few comments have been instructive and helpful in terms of framing the debate, and look forward to participating further in the debate and answering any concerns that might be raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They were as equally constructive as they were in 1994, but the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am really impressed by the minister, with his humble but apologetic flip-flopping here today. I must say, I am really impressed.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) any Hansard quotes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry, it has already been done and I don't wish to belabour it here today. I won't belabour it. Anybody who wants to read Hansard, it is there for the record. It is humorous to sit here, I not only found it so informative, provocative, hardhitting; it was a complete, other end of the spectrum there we heard here from the very same minister, the very same people, just five years ago. What wonders time will do to people's minds, or what different leaders will do to people's minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) five years ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: He sure was; and, I might add, there were others silly enough to speak, not only him. Bill Wood, I think it was at the time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Older and wiser (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure. Older.

He made an interesting point with the low cost. I was listening on the radio this morning as I was coming in, talking about low cost, and the Premier indicating now that this transmission line, I think, with the offshore gas, may have undermined their position with the feds. Now that is a good reason to put forth but, because their position was never on, the feds were never bought into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was never on.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly, the feds never bought into it.

How do you justify - if you work on a point system in the U.S., exchange of using a point system, saying: Well, it should be worth $2 million for us to bring down to reach the Kyoto limits that they anticipated meeting, which they can meet - Newfoundland giving its contributory share - that should be worth a few pennies in the coffers here to be able to do that exchange.

I attended an environmental conference in the U.S. and they looked at companies, what they do there in purchasing their points - the Environmental Protection Agency. There were some very interesting discussions, I might add, and it has implications. It is a whole universal problem. It is a major thing for Canada and the U.S. in dealing with this, but the low cost of natural gas and the abundance of it there, they burnt off probably more than they should. They are certainly up to the limits, and who knows how much more is being burnt off there, but when you are looking at a low cost thing, it is hard to compete with natural gas. Let's be realistic on it.

Anyway, I don't want to get too far off on a tangent and away from this particular issue. I will keep it brief. I will have a comment in Committee. I just wanted to add a few particular points. It is really interesting to see a completely diverse position. I just say: What took you so long? What took you five years to get it in and do something that we said you should have never done in the beginning? Anybody who was in the House at the time know very well, they all know very well - with Bill 1, An Act To Amend the Electrical Power Control Act; and Bill 2 - the privatize Hydro act, whatever the official name is - we had some very interesting, very lengthy discussions that dominated Question Period and dominated discussion here in the House.

It brought a new meaning to the word closure. Four times in the history of our Province, before 1989, we had closure, and twenty-seven times in 1989 we had closure. They brought a new meaning to the word closure in the history of this Province. That is what some of those actions did; forcing it down the throats of the people. I am delighted that the people of this Province said: We are not taking it any longer.

I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he knows what I am talking about. It was a very sensitive issue to the people of this Province, and I admire him for standing up on something that was fundamental.

Hydro has put more money in the coffers of this Province, $70 million - tens and tens of millions every year. It is a cash cow for the Treasury of this Province to get us through tough times. That is what happened in the last two or three years. Just look at the financial records. Look at the contribution to this Province and this utility. Who wouldn't want to buy Hydro? Who would not want to buy it? The sad part, why should we give it to Bay Street and eastern townships and everybody else and we will have the measly 2 per cent or 3 per cent, the same way it has gone with most companies out there now? All major companies out there now are owned by other parts of Canada. Take FPI; they are probably 94 per cent owned outside. Look at Aliant now, Newtel previously, Fortis. Let's face it, the big investment companies, (inaudible) in particular, are in there; (inaudible) some of the major ones representing employees in Quebec. They are all over the place. They are on the market and they are owned outside. Keeping something owned here by the Province, there is nothing wrong with it. It is positive, and we are delighted that the minister has seen the light. We are delighted he has moved forward. The question we ask, as my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne said, is: What took you so long?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy this morning talking about the ability to change his stripes in a short period of time. It reminded me of the story of a very famous English lawyer who later became a judge, Lord Denning, who one morning appeared before the Court of Appeal arguing a case and a particular point of law on behalf of his client. The case was over that morning, but that afternoon he had the misfortune of representing another client who happened to be on the other side of the very same issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The judges of the Court of Appeal said to Mr. Denning: Weren't you here this morning, saying the very opposite of what you are saying now? Later, Lord Denning said: Yes, my lord, but I was wrong.

That is the position the Minister of Mines and Energy finds himself in today. I have to acknowledge that he is prepared to admit that, in fact, he and his government were wrong to try to privatize that great public asset, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

Humility is one of his long suits, I say. I know he is hardly ever upset. He is usually very humble. It took the Member for Windsor-Springdale to put him off his oats the other day and cause him to totally lose it.

I want to get to the issue of the importance of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and , I guess, some concerns as to what exactly, the effect of this bill is and why, why is this being brought in today? Why today? Does it have anything to do with the visit to Newfoundland of the Premier of Quebec? Do we need to have this in place? Does he need to have this in place for some particular reason that he is not telling us? I know some of the examples that he has given, and some of them I share.

One of the things he said yesterday was that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was required by legislation to operate on a commercial basis for its shareholder, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the approach government took to try and get the utility in shape for privatization.

One of the negative consequences of that - and I use it, I suppose, as an analogy as to what, for example, Newfoundland Power did with the issue of demand-side management. Demand-side management is a utility undertaking efforts to reduce the consumption of power by consumers, conservation measures. For example, I represented a consumers association before the Public Utilities Board a number of years ago and presented a very strong case for the Public Utilities Board ordering Newfoundland Power to undertake a program of demand-side management. What that would do is reduce the demand for new energy sources and reduce the cost of additional energy resources, because that would be in the long-term best interest of consumers.

Well, the Public Utilities Board did not go along with that. They were not prepared to order them to do it, but they ordered them to conduct some studies. Throughout the next few years, indeed, Newfoundland Power did some studies and, in fact, instituted some programs. One of them was for an energy efficient showerhead. An energy efficient showerhead will reduce the flow of hot water when you are having a shower, and when, perhaps, 50,000 people at the same time in the morning are having a shower. This reduces the demand for electricity and reduces what is called peek demand. So you do not have to have the same energy capacity in place in order to provide power for the same number of people - a very salutary effect. Not only that, this $5 or $6 item would save consumer $20 or $30 or $40 a year.

That program was put into effect by Newfoundland Power; one of the effects, I should say, of my efforts, I think, of trying to convince the Public Utilities Board to get Newfoundland Power to engage in demand-side management.

The next time I was at the Public Utilities Board, as a MHA, on a more recent hearing, I had occasion to look at the reports on the effects of the studies of demand-side management. Lo and behold, all the reports as to how effective it was, how the useful it was, and how it actually worked, were there; and then was a notation that they had discontinued this program of providing free energy efficient showerheads. They discontinued this program because it was reducing sales of electricity. In other words, it was more important to Newfoundland Power to sell electricity to consumers than it was to conserve electricity through demand-side management and through other practices.

That is something that is clearly not in the public interest. I would expect that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, operating a utility in the public interest and with public policy and public advantage in mind, would be required to, or should be required to, or could be required to, engage in a policy of demand-side management because it would have the effect of keeping electricity costs down over the long term, because each new source of energy is always far more expensive than the ones that are in place. It is called the marginal cost.

The marginal cost of new energy sources is always very, very high, and the longer you can postpone that by demand-side management or other practices, you can in fact save money for consumers and save money for the economy.

That runs contrary, obviously, to the principles under which a company like Newfoundland Power operates, because their major interest, and perhaps only interest aside from their other corporate responsibilities or whatever else might be contained in their mission statement in terms of safety and reliability, their major interest is to provide a return to the shareholders. In this case the shareholder was Fortis. The one shareholder of Newfoundland Power was Fortis, and their obligation was to provide that shareholder with a rate of return. That is very different from a public utility that has public policies as it guidelines.

I would hope that when the government, and the minister, is conducting the overall energy review that he is talking about, that the end result of that will be a revised and revamped legislation affecting Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which spells out in some detail the principles around which we hope to see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro operate and conduct its activities. In fact, I would think that we should try to enforce certain kinds of policies on even the private utilities when the public interest requires that to happen.

The privatization of Hydro issue was one which caused a lot of concern in this Province, a lot of discussion and debate. The thrust that I took during this debate, on behalf of my Party, was that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro ought to be the engine of the Newfoundland economy in the same way that Hydro-Quebec had been the engine of the economy of Quebec. Not only the engine of the economy, but also a stable, if you will, of engineers, experts, people with construction knowledge and ability and technique, acting in the public interest, a whole group of people with the synergy, I think is the word, that comes with having a whole group of talented, professional people working together to make the economy work and to make the Province work for the people of the Province.

That has had spinoffs in Quebec. It has had spinoffs with groups like SNC-Lavalin, with other engineering groups that have had, as a result, played a significant role in power projects around the world, including China and other places. It is something that helped to build the infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure and ability of the people of Quebec to be involved in other projects. That could have effects here, in the ship building industry, in the offshore industry, in having a pool of talent available to engage in public projects and private projects that would be of great benefit to the people of this Province.

The public policies - and I know the minister has brought in this legislation that really just transfers to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to exempt projects or exempt a public utility from the application of the act when, in their opinion, in the opinion of the Cabinet, it is in the best interest of the Province. That is an awfully broad statement.

We heard, in the last month, the ministers - the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Premier - say almost little else, for example, about the NEOS bid: We will approve this bid and we will change legislation if we think it is in the best interests of the Province. That is a pretty broad category of exclusion, whatever the government of the day, at any particular day, thinks is in the best interests of the Province.

I believe that type of legislation and that type of exemption power from important legislation given to Cabinet is too broad a power not to be spelled out. I am wondering - I know the Minister of Mines and Energy has said that they are conducting a review and they are hoping to have more comprehensive legislation in the spring, perhaps, so why are we bringing in this now? What particular project does the minister have in mind that he wants to exempt or give a comfort letter to the development? What is he up to, Mr. Speaker?

Does part of the negotiations, for example, with Inco require this legislation? I know he can put out a smoke screen by talking about how he does the flip-flop, and be humble and everything else, but tell us the truth. What is this really for? Is there something in the negotiations with Inco, for example, that requires letting the Cabinet have this power so they can do the deal? Is that one of the reasons? We have not been told. That is what I want to know. Why is it being done now? Is it part of the Inco negotiations? Are we going to have this as another opportunity to sweeten the deal, for example? Is that part of the rationale for this? Is this another opportunity for government to be able to negotiate with Inco without consulting the people of the Province through this Legislature? I think I am on to something here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Listening to the way the members opposite are responding, I think I am on to something here. Is this another part of an attempt by the Minister of Mines and Energy to do this deal without consulting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, without bring it back to this House? He said the other day, if we can do it without changing legislation we will, but here we are, we are having legislation changed. Is this enabling legislation, Mr. Speaker, for the Inco deal? Tell us. Tell us the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: On one hand you are congratulating (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I congratulated him on one thing, on the major change in policy of this government affirming the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as an instrument of public policy. Now I am trying to get him to tell us: What is that public policy that he wants his government to enact without consulting the people of the Province, by saying whatever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council thinks is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is not something that is easily defined. It covers a multitude of sins to say whatever, in the opinion of the Cabinet, is in the best interests of the Province. Sure, wasn't it the Cabinet that did the tri city deal because they thought it was in the best interests of the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tri city? Trans City.

MR. HARRIS: Trans City. I was thinking of the three Liberals who owned it. I am sorry. When I said tri, I was thinking of the three prominent Liberals who owned it. I am sorry, I want to say to the Member for Bellevue, my mistake. I admit I made a mistake.

Oh, there was a fourth; there was a fourth Liberal. There was a fourth Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader says there was a fourth, an unknown, and he knows who it was and I don't. Well, I guess that's the way it is when the Cabinet takes it upon itself the power to decide what is in the best interest of the Province and does not tell anybody. In fact, we may not even find out what is in the best interest of the Province until somebody takes them to court and we will find out what a schemozzle they have made of acting in the best interest of the Province.

MR. BARRETT: Are all the members of your caucus going to go home for Christmas?

MR. HARRIS: My caucus will be home for Christmas, I say to the Member for Bellevue. My Caucus will be home for Christmas, in good time.

MR. TULK: Ah, you looked around, didn't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Making sure he was there.

MR. HARRIS: At least I don't have to look very far and I don't have a lot to worry about behind my back. It is a lot different than members in the front benches over there. I don't have anybody behind my back. He is by my side, I say to the members opposite. He is by my side. He is with me all the way.

The legislation, or at least the minister's policy statement, enunciates - the minister's policy statement at least announces a change in direction of government policy, and I am assuming that is not just the current policy. It is not just the policy of the day, and it will be different again tomorrow or Monday or next week. I am assuming that this will be the policy of this government until it is no longer the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will acknowledge that it was a government of a different Premier that wanted to privatize Hydro. The government of the mentor of the Government House Leader - the mentor of the Government House Leader was in the previous leadership, and it was his government that wanted to privatize Hydro. I will acknowledge that this is a different government. Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, or the guilty, as the case may be. I acknowledge that the Minister of Mines and Energy made many speeches in this House in support of the previous government and the previous government position; and I will not quote them either. He has already acknowledged defeat and thrown himself at the mercy of public opinion on that point. We will have to see where the chips fall in the leadership race, whether or not his credibility has suffered as the result of his flip-flop on the Hydro position.

It is an important public policy direction that the minister has announced here, and I support that direction; however, I do not support the withholding to Cabinet without public consultation or knowledge, the kind of power that is being given here.

When there was a move to develop the small hydro sites, the small hydro sites required a change in amendment to the Public Utilities Act to allow for them to happen, and in a manner of government policy they were going to encourage the development of small hydro sites. They even encouraged the development of a small hydro site on a river that they had signed an agreement with the Government of Canada that they would never, ever allow to develop. They ended up having to pay more than $1 million to the person who was working assiduously to try and develop this river, even though his government had signed an agreement with the Government of Canada, with the Terra Nova National Park, saying that they would never interfere with that watershed and interfere with that salmon river.

Those are the kinds of things that Cabinet does when it has all this power without public scrutiny, and I don't think we should be very happy to pass over power to a government with the kind of record that we have seen in them determining what they think is in the public interest.

I mentioned the debate over NEOS for the last month, and all we would hear from the government was: Well, we will do it if it is in the public interest. Well, what does that mean? What does that mean, the people of Harbour Breton wonder, the people of Marystown wonder, the people of Triton wonder, the people of Bonavista wonder. What does that mean? No one would say. No one would say what the government thought the public interest was or was not. For too long a time there was no comment as to even what method would be used to evaluate the proposal to determine whether it was in the public interest. The people spoke, and I have to acknowledge that the government listened on that particular occasion and they had very little choice.

This is the type of thing that we will not know. We will not know what private exemptions Cabinet might decide some Thursday morning to give to some company. We will not know, perhaps, for years down the road. We will not know, perhaps, for a long time who these exemptions are given to and what the real reasons for giving these exemptions are.

While I support the change in policy, I cannot support giving the Cabinet all of this power. I want to ask the minister: Why does he want this power now? If we are coming here in the spring with a whole new regime, with comprehensive changes to the Public Utilities Act and the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro 1975 Act to provide the new electrical regime, why do we need to pass this now? If the minister can answer that question, perhaps I could be convinced to provide support for this legislation; but for now, with just the barefaced exemption power given to Cabinet for whatever they think is in the public interest, I think it lacks the degree of certainty and particularity that is required for support in this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I am pleased to rise and speak for a few moments to this bill, and I want to preface it by saying to members opposite: Words are indeed very important in this Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - very, very important. I am going to explain why, and how important they actually are.

The Minister of Mines and Energy last week got up, or a couple of Fridays ago, in response to questions from the critic, the Member for St. John's East, and talked about a course that he did in university, and talked about how that course taught about how important it is, the language, the use of it, and words are important.

Earlier this week, he said: Words are important, and at some point, for historical reference, that when somebody is looking at this particular issue - he was talking about Inco at that time - that people will be able, for the record, to say for themselves and see for themselves exactly what was said and who said it so we can see what is correct.

Mr. Speaker, let's take that logic, let's take his advice, and let's apply it back to 1994. In 1994, the amount of debate that took place was probably one of the biggest issues in my time in the House in terms of publicly debated issues, hotly debated issues, legislative sessions going on all night, the introduction of closure motions on pieces of legislation that would limit the time of the Official Opposition to debate; but what was more important during that debate is who said what. Not only who said what, but how many times did they say it? It wasn't as if, in response to a question or one question, it was here or there; but, how many times did this minister stand in his place, in response to questions, more importantly, in response to debate.

I remember the time I was his critic. He was the Minister of Employment and Labour, and I was his critic. We stood up in the House. We had our ducks in a row, if I could use that expression, on the privatization of Hydro, who was saying what; our position clearly outlined, clearly articulated. I went out and dug up some of our old caucus notes, I say to my colleagues here, on the electrical power resources act, which was Bill 2 at the time, 1994, and the Electrical Power Control Act. I remember making at least a dozen speeches, maybe even more, on this particular issue, on The Electrical Power Control Act in this Legislature. I remember the minister well at that time standing up, standing in his place - now, let's keep in mind that words are very important, very, very important - in response to things that I had said.

Here are some of the things that I said back then. Number one: In our view, there was no good public policy reason to privatize Hydro because there would be no technology transfer that would take place as a result of it. Number two: The amount of jobs that would be created would be zero - nil. As a matter of fact, it was clearly demonstrated at the time that it would have a negative impact.

In response that the issue that the former Premier raised that this was somewhat of a white albatross - the Taj Mahal term was used, for example - around our Province and the ability of it to borrow. Not true. As a matter of fact, Hydro Corporation - and the minister knows that, he knew it then but he did not say it. I am going to get to what he said. The debt issue that was raised, that this is an albatross around the Province, that it is inhibiting our ability to borrow, it is inhibiting our ability up in credit rating standings, all not true. The converse is true.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Not only that, when bond ratings like Standard and Poor's and Moody's and the bond rating agencies look at the Province's assets, Hydro is a jewel. It is probably the Crown jewel. These are some of the things that we talked about then. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, at least publicly, from what I can determine from what he said. He at least made a dozen speeches in this House. For a little project over the weekend, what I am going to do for him - because I know he would like me to do it - I am going to get Hansard researched for him on all the discussions that went on publicly in the House. I am going to highlight for him what his view was, and refresh his memory.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I ask you a question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: If the person says something and believes something different, what does that make him?

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no idea, Jack.

Anyway, that is what I am going to do the weekend. I am going to research that for him. I understand that he might not be here on Monday, so when he comes back either Tuesday or Wednesday I am going to have a little binder on his desk for him, highlighted.

Here are some of the things he said, and I remember them well. This was just a standard move. It was not a big deal. This was going to make sure that the Province was in sound fiscal and financial order.

Secondly, he talked about, at that time, that this was a good initiative on behalf of the government. It was an initiative that was timely. The Cabinet stands behind the Premier - at the time he was a member of the Cabinet - and that this was going to be done for good -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) public meeting and supported it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, well there is no doubt about that. That was when your poor old colleague, the former Member for St. John's South - when there was a public meeting down in the Holiday Inn. I remember that meeting as well. That was an interesting meeting. He was not at the same one you were at.

This was what he said, there was no good public policy reason to do what they did.

Mr. Speaker, the real story that has never come out - it has come out, but at some point when somebody is doing some research on it - maybe it will be some member in this House writing a book some day on it - when they go to see how much taxpayers' money was spent by the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten million.

MR. E. BYRNE: More than that.

- and by Hydro on the failed privatization initiative, and how many Orders in Council that this minister right now, standing up and bringing in a piece of legislation that we called for five years ago, that we did not support, to bring it back to where it was, the money that government spent. He was a member of the Cabinet -

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I ask you a question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: In the couple of years following that, did the government use Hydro to get money (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am going to get to that. I am going to tell you how much. Not only am I going to tell you that they did it; I am going to tell you how much and how often and how much they are making off it. I will get to that in a moment.

How much money did the Cabinet of the day spend in the failed privatization initiative? The Cabinet, by the way, that minister was a part of. About $13 million - the Rothschilds of England, of Britain, of the Commonwealth. The Rothschilds were hired to consult.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the Government House Leader in on this?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, he was not here then. He was sitting up -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in the nosebleed section.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important issue, some $12 million or $13 million dollars. We do not expect anyone over there to know about that because on a $3 billion budget, it is only a few million dollars. What odds? Who cares? It is only a few million dollars. They cannot be expected to know everything about everything. I understand that. That is their own statement. Words are extremely important.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro themselves spent about $7 million to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. The government spent about $6,500,000 to $7 million. Combined, it was about $13 million. That is my understanding. Thirteen million dollars was spent, and part and parcel of the strategy in spending that money was the introduction of the Electrical Power Control Act which today, five years later, the same minister, who supported it, is now bringing in legislation to bring it back to status quo. That is what is happening. There is no more to it than that.

It would be an oxymoron to suggest that we would not even support this legislation. We called for it five years ago. We said there was no need to even introduce it five years. I guess the view and strategy is that if you leave it long enough the public may not remember it. It is only now that they have the nerve, five years later, to come back and do it, but the public are not that stupid, I say to the minister. If you listened this morning to what is happening in Corner Brook over the condominiums that have been built, and you hear what people are talking about, when you and your government made commitments to people and now have completely reversed, you would know people are not that stupid in this Province any more.

I can say to the minister in all honesty, and he knows as well, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro contributes directly significant amounts of money to the provincial budget. In time when the economy has slowed down, it has been a well thought out strategy where Hydro has been able to kick in, and kick-start in some areas, providing needed revenues, needed jobs in areas: for example, more maintenance. The money, directly, that comes into this government, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, direct cash, that has come from Hydro in the last three years. Not only that, but this government also makes money on Hydro's debt, because government has to guarantee Hydro's debt. They make, I think, it is a 2 per cent fee -

MR. SULLIVAN: It was 1 per cent. It usually (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It was 1 per cent and it went to 2 per cent, I believe. Isn't that right? Is it 2 per cent now?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still 1 per cent (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is still 1 per cent, is it? Yes. I have to be careful because words are extremely important. We have to be clear. I did a course at university called Oral Communications. We were taught that when you stand up to speak make sure you state what you want to say clearly, directly, so people understand clearly and directly what you want them to hear you say. Words are extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did very well actually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are here at this point introducing and talking about this piece of legislation. The irony is not lost upon me. It is unbelievable, when you think about it. I look across the House, for example, and I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I have said this on four or five different occasions. About four weeks ago when I was speaking to the Chamber of Commerce in Corner Brook, I was asked about a number of issues in terms of the question sort of answer -

AN HON. MEMBER: All nineteen people

MR. E. BYRNE: No, there were twenty-nine. It was a regular membership meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: There were a couple of good Liberals there.

I recall in this House that it was about 9:00 one night, and you could have heard a pin drop when the Member for Virginia Waters at the time stood to his seat, and said that while he is a member of government he could not support his own government in terms of the privatization of Hydro. I'm not trying to politicize or be partisan with this at all. I want to be clear with that to the minister, I want to be very direct. At the time it was one of the best speeches that I've heard in this Legislature. I say that honestly and I've said it on a number of occasions before. The truth of it was that it was - the place was blocked, the galleries were blocked. It was about 9:10 p.m.- because it took courage and backbone to do it.

I used to sit right where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne sits. That is where I was sitting then. All the Caucus were here. There were sixteen of us then. We could not believe it. There was silence. Anyway, the point was that somebody there had the courage to do it. I see the Minister of Education today, who was the public relations or communications director for government and handling it. I see the Minister of Environment and Labour, for example, who was not a minister then, but in the Cabinet shuffle that happened, when he got in, prior to that, the four new Liberal dogs that spoke - and I don't mean that in any negative sense - that supported the former premier's approach to this heavily, they were the current Minister of Environment and Labour, the former Minister of Social Services -

MR. J. BYRNE: Who's that?

MR. E. BYRNE: She was a new member in 1993, up on her feet all the time supporting this initiative. There was also the former Member for St. George's area who is now - this Buds for you, I think, we used to say to him, right? He was a member and then appointed to Cabinet. Who was the fourth person that went into Cabinet that time?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it was not the Government House Leader. A rumor in the Goulds, in the farming community, was that he was going to be appointed as the agriculture minister. That was the rumour then. There was one more who went in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tom Murphy.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the Member for St. John's South. Those were four people who went into the Cabinet, and what was interesting about it was that as backbenchers and private members those were the four strongest in their approach, at the time, in supporting the sale of Hydro. I guess they got their rewards. There were four. They were the four, stronger than anybody else at the time, in terms of privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation today -

MR. TULK: I don't know how a young man like you (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have been around politics a long time. In elected politics I guess about seven, but involved a lot longer than that. I will say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: What did he say about it? I would like to know.

MR. E. BYRNE: He didn't say anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. I am getting to that. I am glad you asked, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, because I am coming to that. Today's Government House Leader did not say anything about the debate at the time. He did not say a word. He sat then where now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is sitting.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) hon. gentleman I did say a few things but I was too far away to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He did not say anything for the record on Hansard, that I can assure you. I will double check that, but there was no speech in this House by that member in support of Hydro because it was not there, was it? You cannot find what is not there, Mr. Speaker. Isn't that right? It isn't what he did not say in this House that is really important, it is what did he say at the caucus table. Now, that is what is important, but that is another story for another day.

I want to talk about the bill itself. We support this piece of legislation. We see that it is putting back, I guess from a legislative point of view, a legal point of view, back to where Hydro actually was. This legislation that we are debating now would have put Hydro - if left it there, it was the first step in the privatization process.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ed, (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, can't say that, Jack. They won't do that. Five for five. Can't say that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) this legislation allow them to privatize it without going to the Public Utilities Board (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't see them doing it. I don't see them having the backbone to do that, Jack. What do you think? I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I just do not see that happening.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I will say to the minister who is introducing it that, when you get back Tuesday, I will have for you that little bit of research that I will do this weekend for you, reminding you of how important words actually are, so that when we close debate - at least when we get into clause-by-clause debate - it is not a very big piece of legislation, but we will have the opportunity again to quote directly for the minister how important words are historically in this Legislature.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments on Bill 51. Unfortunately, I missed the introductory comments of the minister this morning. I was involved in an appeal that I had to attend to in the adjacent building and I missed, I am sure, what were very enlightening comments as the minister introduced this particular legislation.

What I will simply indicate is that there are some implications, I would say to the members of this House, and there are some points of view that I am sure would want to be made, perhaps not at this particular time during debate on second reading, but certainly as we enter into the Committee stage.

I would say, in view of the fact that we are essentially only talking about two or three sections, that we would have significant opportunity, one would think, to enter into meaningful debate upon some implications perhaps that may not be as apparent, I say to the hon. minister, and that it would give an opportunity upon review of the introductory comments that were made earlier this morning by the hon. minister to perhaps express some concerns and make some observations when the opportunity arises during the debate in Committee.

I would simply say that I will reserve my comments for that opportunity which obviously will come during clause-by-clause debate in the next coming days; however, I would say that there is a reason why this legislation is being introduced at this particular time, just days before the adjournment of this House prior to the Christmas recess. There is a reason, and a few days will now allow us to find out perhaps why this legislation is being entered into, or being distributed at this time, so that the opportunity may be given to members to participate in this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Opposition critic, the Member for St. John's East who just spoke, I am sure that the members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party will take further time to look at the amendments and discuss them further at the Committee stage and look forward to participating at that point.

I can, though, with respect to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, indicate that the information that we have is that there would be no need to generate any additional electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador for the hydrometallurgic process that Inco is considering discussing with us. My understanding of it is that the electrical requirements for a plant of that nature would be in the range of thirty-five to forty megawatts, which Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro indicate to us are already available within the grid at this point, and particularly for the foreseeable future where the construction might occur. So, it is not an issue that is in any way related to Voisey's Bay; however, Mr. Speaker - and I would be quite forthright in indicating to the Legislature that Hydro itself, which I believe everybody in this House now acknowledges would like to have as a real public utility, have indicated that they do have some concerns.

They understand that an in-feed is being negotiated as a possible long-term solution with respect to having electrical energy from Labrador available on the island, but if that does come to fruition we are talking about ten or twelve years out, if at all, and they have indicted to the government that there will be a need for some additional generation to cover their intervening period. They are not exactly sure of the timelines yet, but they have given notification that they will be requiring and requesting some new generation sources for the Island before 2012 certainly, and that the process that is available to us now, as we have all just witnessed when we talked about it before, is that if any project is to be considered then a call for proposals has to go forward and a whole host of private entrepreneurs, as happened the last time, would come forward and say: I think I can produce the least cost energy.

I don't mind mentioning this as well. There are other projects such as Granite Canal, which is in the same watershed as the Bay d'Espoir, that Hydro could develop quite readily. In an assessment that was done in the last call for proposals, my recollection is that it was rated as number one, even with the Public Utilities Board's scrutiny in terms of lowest costs, and the idea would be that if it is needed to go forward on a timely basis, that they just go ahead and proceed with that rather than have to go through a call for proposals again.

Those notions are there, and that is the kind of thing that we are contemplating with respect to this, as well as the one I mentioned in my opening remarks and introduction, that we have had inquiries from current industrial users, like our paper mills and so on, who could further secure their own operation, reduce their own costs by having low-cost energy available to them for their own needs - much as is done in Grand Falls-Windsor now where they supply almost all of their own needs - and then they could sell any excess power back into the grid, so you would meet two needs. You would have environmental concerns of using bark and other types of things to generate electricity at site and combine more than one public interest, even though the cost as examined by the Public Utilities Board might be a little, tiny bit higher than the Granite Canal, for example. Those are the issues that drive this particular initiative at this time, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, and again I look forward to answering questions in more detail at the Committee stage, I do, at this point, admit to having some fuzzy recollections of the 1994 debate, and - understanding that words are somewhat important - if he is busy at other tasks over the weekend and doesn't have time to research Hansard, I will be quite happy to relieve him of that obligation that he has made to the House, if he is so inclined.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we do acknowledge and we do learn and we do listen to the people, even though in some instances we might be a little bit of a slow learner, as we are in this case - it might takes us four or five years - but we appreciate the spirit of the debate and look forward to more detailed examination at Committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to move and pleased to move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 51)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, Bill 30, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act”.

I believe the debate was adjourned by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on behalf of all members I would like to welcome to the public galleries fifty Grade IX students from Roncalli Central High in Avondale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: These students are from the districts of Harbour Main-Whitbourne and Conception Bay South. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Phil Griffiths and Mr. Keith McCarthy.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to continue briefly on the debate on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act. This is an important piece of legislation, and even more important is the whole possibility or plan for the protection of special wilderness and special ecological areas in the Province. The fact of the matter is that government's policy in this area, while having been described as having been one of good intentions, has been one, in fact, of absolute failure.

Now, while we have students here in the gallery, I will tell them the results of a report card done on the activities of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government by the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Newfoundland and Labrador got a grade of D+, not very high on its activities in this Province in protecting areas of important ecological significance and in protecting wildlife areas. Not a very good grade, I say to the government, and something that has to be improved upon.

When you look at the conservation of lands in Canada, our Province has under protection of one form or another, less than 2 per cent of the land mass, 1.8 per cent. That is very, very low compared to other provinces such as Alberta, which has protected 9.8 per cent; British Columbia, which has protected 11.2 per cent; the Yukon, which has 9 per cent of its land mass protected; Ontario, which has 8.8 per cent of its land mass protected. We are way behind in a stated goal to reach a special 10 per cent of our land mass being protected by the year 2000.

I want to quote from the then Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in November of 1999. The current Minister of Mines and Energy, who just spoke, said, in November of 1999: In establishing a network of protected areas by the year 2000, government will ensure that areas representative of Newfoundland and Labrador's nineteen natural regions are available for future generations to enjoy. That is what was said in 1995, and we are nowhere near the establishment and the protection of the nineteen unique natural regions being protected by the year 2000.

The year 2000 is almost upon us. The year 2000 will be here in a matter of days, and we don't have these nineteen natural areas protected. In fact, we are not even halfway there. We are not even partway there. So what kind of commitment does this government really have to protecting our habitat, to protecting natural species, to making sure that we have areas of our Province that are protected for many, many years to come, for future generations, for our children and our children's children and their children? Protected because we need to make sure that the habitat for animals is protected, the habitat for wildlife and all species, not just endangered species, although we have a number of them in our Province as well: the pine marten, the wolverine, the harlequin duck in Labrador, the peregrine falcon, all of which are threatened in one form or another by loss of habitat, by development, by pollution, and by other activities. The piping plover is another bird that is in danger, endangered by a loss of habitat. These are just some examples of what is happening and what will continue to happen if we don't protect our wildlife and our wilderness. The failure of government to meet this obligation is a serious omission and a serious fault against the environment.

Government is full of good intentions. I can take you back to Premier Clyde Wells in September of 1993: Our goal remains the creation of a network of parks, ecological reserves and other protected areas to preserve the diversity of Canada's wildlife and wilderness for future generations.

That was Premier Wells in 1993. What did this government do? They started selling off parks. They started selling off provincial parks, turning them into recreation grounds run by private individuals, instead of continuing to protect them.

We had the then Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who is now the current Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, talking about - Premier Brian Tobin, November, 1997: The completion of a network of parks, ecological reserves and other protected lands and waters by the year 2000 is an admirable goal and one which can be achieved through continued cooperation and partnership; November of 1997, three years ago. Three years ago he talked about the completion of a network of parks and ecological reserves. Where are we? D+; that's the report card of this government when they make a commitment by the year 2000 to have a comprehensive network to protect our ecological resources, our wilderness areas and our parks. We have 1.8 per cent of our land mass protected when the goal was 10 per cent, and we are nowhere near there with only days to go by the end of the year.

There are things that can be accomplished even by June of the year 2000. If we are going to try and do something in the year 2000, if not by the year 2000, then we can accomplish something. The new goal has been set and has been urged upon government by the Protected Areas Association, by the World Wildlife Fund Canada, as part of its endangered spaces program. The World Wildlife Fund Canada launched an endangered spaces campaign in 1989. The idea was that by the year 2000 there would be a network of protected areas throughout all of Canada, and Newfoundland is way behind in meeting reasonable goals that were set ten years ago.

I think it is a shame that we have not done more to protect areas. The Little Grand Lake announcement was made just a couple of weeks ago. There is no question about that. That was a good announcement, but it was long overdue. It has been hotly debated for the last six years. The people trying to preserve the Little Grand Lake area on the West Coast of the Province have spent twenty-five years fighting to protect this wilderness area, and finally government acted this year. Why should it take twenty-five years? Why should we wait years and years to protect areas of our Province?

The Ripple Pond area on the Avalon Peninsula is a very important ecological zone. What has this government done? They have given logging rights to a major portion of this valley, a very important representative sample of our wilderness, very close to major population centers, accessible without going on a major exhibition, accessible by our young people, accessible by hiking groups or Scout troupes or Girl Guides, and other people who would want to explore our wilderness in its pristine state.

What do we do? We give someone logging rights to go in and clear-cut large sections of it and destroy that habitat. Not that everything has to be preserved. We have to use our resources. We have to use our forests. We have to harvest our wildlife where that can take place, such as the moose and caribou populations, in the rabbit populations, depending on the cycles, but we have also to preserve our ecological places, the biodiversity of life which is protected by maintaining wilderness areas and special areas for limited use.

The Minister for Forest Resources and Agrifoods a couple of months ago talked about how we have in this Province, as well as the need to protect wildlife and certain endangered species of wildlife, a need to be concerned about the loss of plant life, rare plants. We have a large number of rare plants that exist only in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I quote the minister. He says: Many of the Province's endangered species are plants, many of which are only found here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we have to do a lot to ensure that these plant species survive, and the major way of the survival of species, whether it be plant, animal or bird, is the habitat.

The habitat has to be protected. If you take away the habitat you cannot survive. That is true for fish, that is true for birds, that is true for humans. If we cannot -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) habitat? (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS: I know the Minister of Fisheries has concerns about some of these issues but I would like to ask: Is he happy that they got a D+ from the World Wildlife Fund Canada on protection of natural resources? Is he satisfied with that? Is he satisfied that we have 1.8 per cent of our land mass protected when other provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia have 8 per cent, 9 per cent, or 11 per cent in the case of British Columbia, of their land mass protected for wilderness and ecological reserves and protected in one form or another? We are way behind.

His Premier said, and I will repeat it for him, in November 1997: The completion of a network of parks, ecological reserves and other protected lands and waters by the year 2000 is an admirable goal and one which can be achieved through continued cooperation and partnership. We are no where near achieving that goal. In fact, the government has even yet failed to approve a protected areas system strategy or plan for the Province. They have no plan. They have no strategy. They have no timetable. They have not made any commitment beyond the very broad, nice sounding words, but where is the action?

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said this in March 1998: The protection and preservation of these natural areas and species is vital. The provincial government will strive to meet its commitment to the endangered species campaign, ensuring that the Province's nineteen eco-regions are adequately represented in a system of parks and reserves. They are not. I'm sorry that he is not here today to tell us what his plan is, what his timetable is, because that is something that has not taken place, that should have taken place, that should be taking place now.

What better way could we celebrate the millennium in this Province than ensure that the next generations to come, for the next one hundred years, for the next 500 years, will have protection of our natural habitat and resources, so that they too will know what wilderness is, will know what it is like to have pristine environment - at least portions of our environment - that are untouched by development, exploitation and activity, so that the young people here in this gallery, their children and their children will have the opportunity to go into the wilderness and experience nature in its natural state. That is very important. It is very important for our spiritual well-being. It is very important for our well-being as human beings that we have a natural habitat that works over generations and centuries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seals.

MR. HARRIS: Seals are part of that ecology too, I say to the minister. I know the minister made intemperate remarks in this House, which he regretted, I think, later, that we should kill all 6 million of them or however many we could find. I think he regrets that he said that because that was not a sensible thing to say.

MR. EFFORD: Protect them all, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: The minister says protect them all. No, I do not think we should protect them all. I do not think we should protect all the moose, I do not think we should protect all the caribou. I think we should harvest these animals in a proper way. We have to provide adequate protection for our habitat and for our wildlife, but we also have to have sensible rules to ensure that one species does not destroy another as well. I agree that we have to be sensible about that.

Mr. Speaker, extremist positions such as those taken by the Minister of Fisheries on occasion on this issue has done more harm than good I would say to the cause that he was trying to espouse and that we were all trying to espouse in terms of having sensible regulations for wildlife management, habitat management.

I would ask him to use some of his energy for that, to convince his colleagues to meet the commitments that they made. They've acknowledged that they have made them. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation acknowledges he made them, the Premier underscored the commitments, but we do not see the action. We have to judge a government not by what it says but by what it does. When we see a government saying something we can praise them for having the proper goals, but when they do not do it then we have to criticize them, and criticize them I will certainly continue to do, and we will continue to do, until they meet their commitments and obligations to all of society.

Because the obligation to protect habitat, wildlife, and ecological zones is part of our obligation as a people, not only to ourselves but to the world. We have obligations that go beyond our own borders and our own country. We have an obligation to ensure that species do not become extinct if we can avoid that. That is why it is to our shame, even though it may not be our fault, that the great auk went extinct within the boundaries of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is to our shame, even though, as I say, it may not have been our fault, because we were not in a position to protect it, and it happened 175 years ago. At one time the Funks was covered with the great auk and they were wiped out by the activity of humans. On the list of extinct species, that looms large in our history, along with the more important human extinction, that being the Beothuck Indians.

I am not going to go much further. I think I have pointed out -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Why not? Would you like me to?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said you can't go much further anyway. You only have a minute left.

MR. HARRIS: I could go on. I have not been told how many minutes I have left. I am sure I have plenty of time to say something more.

MR. SULLIVAN: I keep a record.

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what records you keep. I rely on the record of the Table, rather than that of the Official Opposition, because I find that they tend to interpret things to suit themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think I am about to be told how many minutes I have left.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say around two at the most. Two at the most, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: No, we are down to one minute. I would rather have one minute and use it all up than have unlimited time and have to try to use that up, I say to hon. members.

MR. TULK: I will tell you something, that what you said in the last thirty minutes you could have said it all in thirty seconds.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to hear now is some response from government as to why they are not implementing the plan they agreed to and the commitments that they made to protect the wilderness and ecological system of this Province, and to put in place the plan that they agreed to, set by the endangered species campaign of the World Wildlife Fund Canada. Can we have a report on when we will meet their commitments -

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and when they will in fact protect the wilderness and ecology of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: In the absence of the Minister of Tourism, I would like to close the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say very quickly that this is a very important bill. It is meant to protect the wilderness and the ecosystems in the Province. It is a piece of legislation that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation should be congratulated for.

I just want to tell the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that it is not a piece of legislation that will save him from extinction. He should use every moment he has in this House. He scraped in here the last time by the skin of his teeth, and I suspect -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Now, let me say something to the hon. gentleman. Any time he wants to vacate his seat, he should resign and call for a by-election. He will not be around much longer either.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that it will not save the hon. Leader of the NDP from extinction. He has this term, so he should use every moment that he can in this House to ensure that his words are on the record for posterity.

Having said that, let me say that this is a great bill. It is the kind of legislation that we should pay some attention to and that we should get more of through this House because it is important that our ecosystems be protected. Having said that, I would move Bill 30.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 30)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,” Bill 40, Order 23.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Schools Act.

MR. TULK: Do you want to do the Schools Act? Mr. Speaker, okay, let's do “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," Bill 43, Order 25. How cooperative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997". (Bill 43)

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this is actually a simple amendment, but an important one, to deal with clarifying the Schools Act with respect to a conflict of interest.

Essentially what the bill will do is provide a school trustee able to vote on issues with respect to a school, whether or not that trustee has a relative in the school and not just a child. What we have found is that when trustees have been voting it has varied from board to board whether or not they were deemed to be in a conflict of interest. What we are trying to do is bring some consistency and some clarity to the act. We have in fact expanded it so that the category of persons considered to be relatives of a trustee would also include grandchildren and nieces or nephews. So any person, as a trustee, voting on either the closure, or anything to do with a school - whether it is redevelopment or whether it is the programs that are being offered - would not be considered to be in conflict if they have a relative in the school system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak certainly in support of Bill 43. It has been a while coming.

MS FOOTE: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: I was waiting for that, minister. It has taken a while, minister. Like I said, you came back with a yes that day, and I guess I have to admit, you threw me off. Because it is the first time, minister, that you have ever said yes to me!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly -

MS FOOTE: I don't say yes to you very much (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. The buck stops here, does it?

Anyway, minister, I stand once again to indicate that yes, this is a needed change to the Schools Act. It is needed because over the last three years I cannot even add in my mind the number of court cases, the number of situations, which have been caused by trustees not being able to carry out what the people who elected them to do. Because the situation is that the act, as it read, put the trustees in an absolutely terrible position.

Just looking in the gallery today, of course, we have our students from Roncalli, which happens to be part of my district and we welcome them here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I cannot imagine this group of students not being able to be represented by a trustee. I cannot imagine it, because I know Roncalli High School and I know the reputation this school has throughout not only my district but indeed the whole Province. The students here today represent a student body that is second to none, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: Exactly. I have had involvements with this school for twenty-two years, and let me tell you that their academic program, their extracurricular program, the support they get from the community, again is just absolutely tremendous. I say to the two teachers this morning, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Griffiths, to bring back to your staff from me that you are doing an excellent job. Please keep it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: It is ironic again that the students would be here today while an amendment to an education act comes to the floor. It comes to the floor because today it is nice to see this House really becoming a classroom. It is a part of education that we do not always see.

AN HON. MEMBER: If this was a classroom, the two of you would be kicked out, I can tell you that.

MR. HEDDERSON: Exactly. I hope that the experience that these students have today, and when they go back to discuss this, will mean they certainly will have learned some very valuable lessons. Again, I welcome them here today.

To get back to my original remarks, with regard to this particular amendment it is hard to believe that for the last three years this flaw has remained in place despite a lobbying. I go back not only to the present minister but to the former minister. The former minister got up this morning and talked about, I guess, a flip-flop that he did from five years ago. Now we have a situation - ex- minister, I guess I can say - where there is a flip-flop from two years ago.

I must remind the House that this party has asked for this amendment, for as long as I can remember, since it came it. We need to make sure that these flaws are addressed. I say to the former and the present minister that in this particular case this was a flaw that you and this government hid behind to ram through decisions that would not have been rammed through. Trustees had to leave meetings and slink over in the corner or get out of it. They could not debate. They could not vote.

There were decisions made in this Province, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that would not have been made had this been corrected.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is too late to do anything about it now. It is unfortunate.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, it is unfortunate.

I also give notice, as I finish up today, because I see my hon. colleague from Conception Bay South will speak on this as well, that I say to you, minister, that you have not gone far enough in your amendments. In the Committee stage this party will be bringing forth additional amendments to address other flaws in this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in support of my colleague for Harbour Main-Whitbourne to say that this bill has certainly been long overdue, and as well, to echo his sentiments that some of these students have come from my district. I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, don't get too excited, don't jump out of your seat. If you do, you might have to run out and bring enough in so we will continue with a quorum. I would not want you to be embarrassed again.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: You were the one who went out and lectured them all this morning, I say to the Government House Leader. You were the one who gave the lecture this morning. It is too bad that the man wasn't in there with the stick. He is out somewhere this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: I will buy half of whatever Tom buys.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I say to the Government House Leader it is too bad we do not have your budget, we would certainly get half of yours.

Mr. Speaker, I rose in this House a couple of days ago and raised some questions on sport and recreation in this Province. One of the areas that I mentioned was Sport Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the High School Athletic Federation. This is a high school that has won many awards -

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Member for Conception Bay South has confirmed that he will buy half a lunch for those students. I want to know why the member is standing over there. Is he going to buy the other half?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Let the record show: yes. Let the record also show that the Government House Leader is invited to come along as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to get al liberal lunch from a Tory.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I say to the (inaudible) he should be very careful about talking about Liberals and Tories. I say to the students in the gallery that this minister over here was one of the biggest supporters of the Tories in this Province. He was a member of what we call the 500 Club and donated his $500 to the P.C. Party in Newfoundland and Labrador religiously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: A big supporter. You buy lunch with all your money!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a number of occasions in this House I have had to correct the hon. members, one after the other over there, as they made reference to the old 500 Club. It did not cost $500 to get in. It cost $1,000, and if I spent my money unwisely I want to get credit for it equally as if I had spent it wisely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, to that point of order the minister raised. I think he has had considerable savings for the last number of years, and maybe he could contribute and help toward the lunch too.

 

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, this is a high school that has won many provincial awards. I remember being in the school during police week watching the demonstration that was put on by the RCMP in this Province. Of course, it was a pleasure to be there and see the banners hanging from the ceiling. I remember on one particular occasion being there and talking with one of their teachers who gives freely of his time. I'm sure the former Minister of Education would certainly know about extracurricular activities, when they take their students and they train them in various sports. This person mentioned to me: Bob, its about time that this government put more money back into the High School Athletic Federation in this Province. I could not agree with him more.

Again, to this particular bill, I just say to the minister that the legislation is long overdue. I am sure you did throw my colleague the day you stood in your place and answered yes to his question, because we are not used to getting those kind of answers from you guys in this House. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time.

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

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

I would like to take the opportunity to speak to the legislation. Before I do, I want to say to the visitors in the gallery that what you have witnessed today occasionally happens in the House. It is known as some brevity and levity and some humor that takes place. The legislation that we are debating is an important piece of legislation and it will impact upon the school system and, more importantly, on how those people we elect to the school boards as trustees will make decisions about your schools, the schools across the Province, and the impact that those decisions will make on our communities and our ability as communities within this Province.

There is a point. This legislation has come about mainly because of the restructuring that has occurred in the school system in the last three years, the reorganization, the decision making that has taken place. Many of the decisions that boards or trustees made have been challenged successfully through our legal system. Jacques Fontaine comes to mind, for example. In some boards trustees were ruled in a conflict, in other boards they were not. Regarding the level playing field or the rules and regulations associated with how trustees were supposed to make decisions, it became very clear and very evident that changes were required, and that is why we are debating this piece of legislation today.

Now we can stand and say that it should have happened three years ago, and yes, it should have. We can also stand and say that government hid behind, to some extent, the rules and regulations that existed because decisions that were made probably would not have been made because those who definitely were ruled in conflict - when this legislation comes into effect - would not have been in conflict had it been there in the first place.

Nevertheless, it is an amendment to the Schools Act that governs each and every school, how it operates, how education operates in the Province, how decisions are made, how decisions are to be made, and under what form and regulation and process they are to be made. This amendment is long over due. This is an amendment that is important. It clarifies directly for everybody who wishes to be a trustee, it clarifies for those who get elected on what the process of decision-making is. More importantly than anything, it clarifies for students and families, parents within the community, that our schools are operating in so they clearly understand what are the rules and regulations by which school board trustees must abide when they make decisions that affect the schools in their communities, whether they are about to close a school down or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down on that note. I think it is important for the record, from the point of view of the legislation, to clearly outline how important this piece of legislation is in my view and in the view of the Opposition obviously. The record is also very clear in terms of where we were on the position and wanting this to be changed so that the way in which we make decisions from here on in at the school board trustee level on the notion of conflict of interest, possible conflicts of interest, that it is clearly understood on who is in conflict or who is not, and what basis they can vote upon for future reference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to briefly comment again on a significant piece of legislation and remind us all again - particularly in the presence of some of our visitors who happen to be students and teachers in the Province - that there has been a lot of debate in this Legislature about education - because, of course, education, as everybody acknowledges in this Legislature, is the lynchpin really and the key to what happens to the future in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It all starts even preschool. We have done some work, we have done some legislation with respect to opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador with out Strategic Social Plan as to before formal schooling even starts. Secondly, there had been a wide-ranging debate in the Province that has spanned some six or seven years now about the K-12 system, about the compulsory K-12 system for students from age five up to age sixteen or seventeen, and knowing now that with our high school system that runs to Grade XII that we have students graduating at age seventeen, eighteen, some at age nineteen. We have compulsory education, and there has been a wide-ranging debate.

One of the things is this: the legislation that we are now agreeing to change today hopefully - because I understand from the commentary opposite and I expect, I don't know for sure but I expect, the Leader of the NDP will also probably support these changes in terms of representations made in the public, that it is an issue that in the current Schools Act which we are now agreeing to change - and the Opposition critic indicates that at the next stage of debate where we go clause-by-clause and look at it - that they might want to raise some other issues for consideration as well, some further amendments; that there might be other things in the Schools Act that deal with the running of the K-12 system, that they might also like to bring up for consideration for change since we are talking about that particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Legislature understands that is the proper form, and any time a bill is brought forward, even if the government only intends to deal with one aspect or one issue, that it is fair, once the issue is forwarded for debate, that everybody in the Legislature can say: Well, with respect to that bill and that piece of legislation, I would like also to spend some time dealing with other issues. We fully expect that to happen.

 

Mr. Speaker, there should not be any impression left that there was an issue here that is partisan in any way, that it is one particular Party or another Party, because in this House - and I know that with respect to an earlier debate today the Leader of the Opposition and others will go through some pains and go to some length to produce the document, because the record of this House is written. What we say in this House gets transcribed, recorded and written so that we can be reminded from time to time what we said on a particular issue.

On this issue with respect to the Schools Act that currently governs the Province today, including the provision that exists today that talks about conflict, the issue that says that if your at this point - I guess what the court rulings have, because the lawyers who are in the House, and there are three of them, I think, at this point, the fourth - four elected, all understand that the courts have actually dealt with this issue and ruled two different ways. They have ruled on both sides of the issue.

It is not a matter, I guess, of anybody making a mistake or so on because the judges themselves who have had this matter presented to them as to under what circumstance an elected school board trustee would be in conflict, the courts themselves have ruled in one instance that if you are related to people in the school that it is considered, you are in conflict and you should not vote on the matter; and a different court and a different judge has examined the same issue in Newfoundland and Labrador and ruled that, in his or her opinion, as a judge, if you are an elected trustee, and if a matter comes before the board that you are elected to speak and participate in, and you are related to a person in one of the schools being actually discussed, that you are not in conflict.

The courts have dealt with the issue and have given two answers. The choices then for all of us as the people who create the law in the first instance - we debate and create the law - the choices are, then, that the courts deal with it and go to another level of appeal and have the school board spend all kinds of money saying: Well, let's get a higher level of a judge. Let's get another judge at an appeal division to rule which one of the other judges was really right.

Rather than do that we are here now as a total group, a total collective, admitting two things. Number one, that we all fully debated this issue before, because there has been no more comprehensive debate in this Province on any piece of legislation in the ten years that I have been in this Legislature than there was on the Schools Act that exists today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Hydro.

MR. GRIMES: We didn't particularly debate on Hydro, the legislation. We had a lot of questions about the issue, and there were a lot of questions in Question Period, which is the point the Leader of the Opposition raised the other day. Even though the issue was on the Order Paper, there were questions asked in Question Period as well.

Not only that, there were many, many, many numerous petitions brought forward to the Legislature, hours upon hours upon hours of petitions. The issue was fully debated, but I am saying that on the actual bill itself there has probably never been a more comprehensive debate, and an overarching and totally consuming debate in full scrutiny than there was with the Schools Act because it was, for the first time in the history of the Province, putting in place the framework for elected school boards for the first time in our history, for the first time in the history of the Province. Before, school boards were appointed by representatives of different denominations. There were some partial elections in some areas, but it was a fundamental shift to say that those people in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador who are going to make the fundamental, final decisions about programming in schools, school realignment, school closures, school openings and so on, would be elected by the people in the area and that they would be empowered to make those decisions.

As a matter of fact, this Legislature decided - because the old law that we debated fully used to say that a decision, for example, with respect to closing a school, could never occur without the final consent of the Minister of Education, whoever he or she may be at a particular time.

This Legislature, everybody, examined that issue and said: No, no. If the people who are elected to run the system in the local area have come to the conclusion that a particular school should be closed, that should be the final decision. It should not then require someone else, a minister, whoever he or she may be, to re-examine the whole debate, enter into the debate again, have another series of meetings, that the board should have the final authority and the kind of people who were elected should be able to vote on those issues. That leads, then, to the issue that we are dealing with specifically here today, the issue of conflict of interest. Primarily where it has gotten challenged in the courts, and the reason it has ended up in the courts, as today's critic, the Member for Whitbourne-Harbour Main -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. GRIMES: Harbour Main-Whitbourne. The hon. member raises it, rightfully so, that issue itself has been in the courts on at least three occasions. There are other issues that have been taken to the courts, but the issue as to whether or not a school board member duly and properly elected by the people in the area has the right to participate in a debate about closure of a school - it might be in their hometown; they might have gone to the school themselves all their lives. The courts, though, have ruled in one instance at least that, on a matter of closure, if you are related to somebody in the school, you are in a conflict of interest.

The government, through the Minister of Education today, has indicated clearly that was never the intention of the government to exclude the elected representatives from those kinds of matters. We had all examined it, and we had examined that issue at the time, but there are some words in the legislation that are now being proposed for amendment, that when the lawyers got at it and when the judges got at it, they decided to plead a case, to take a particular point of view, much as certain ministers in this Legislature took a certain point of view four or five years ago and maybe have taken a different point of view in the current circumstance.

The whole issue is this, that all of us, with our best examination, our full examination a couple of years ago, did look at this issue and felt that we had the right wording in the law because we debate and we decide the law. The courts are there for a purpose, to interpret the law if somebody challenges the basis of the words that we have agreed to.

This Legislature agreed to the current words and all of us, I would expect, are going to agree - because if we did check back in Hansard at the time, which is the official record of the debates in this Legislature, there would be no suggestion whatsoever from anyone who spoke in the debate that a duly elected member should be excluded from those kinds of decisions.

I think what we have realized now is that rather than leave it to what would now be called its normal and natural course outside the Legislature, to let people take further court actions, to have judges debate the issue further and so on, that what we will do, recognizing that there is a flaw on this issue, that we have brought forward an amendment which we hope and expect would again get the fully approval of the Legislature, that there will not be a divided vote; that it will not be this group saying we are for it and that group saying we are against it. At the end we will all conclude that this is the right thing to do, and we have written the best language that we can think of at the time to give effect to it. We would hope that this time we got it maybe a little better or a little more right than we did the last time, because it led to at least an element of confusion that has been tested in the courts.

There are people who have spent years in politics, and then have left and gone off to law school. Here you debate a point, you support a certain point of view, and you try to convince others it is the right point of view. As I understand the training of a lawyer, a lawyer is trained to keep the options open, because you might get paid to argued that black is white or you might get paid to argue that white is black. Whoever is going to pay you, you have to be able to argue the case for them. You are not the judge, that is the point I am making. The lawyer is not the judge. The lawyer is a hired gun paid to use whichever words and whichever arguments are most compelling.

The Leader of the NDP used an exact example this morning in an earlier debate, suggesting that there was a lawyer before a judge at one point in time - and he might want to tell the story again as he speaks in the debate - who was before the judge in the morning arguing a certain point of view, because that what he was doing for his client. In the afternoon he was representing another client, on another issue, and argued the exact opposite point of view, because he was being paid by that client to argue the opposite point of view. The judge, Mr. Speaker - and I shouldn't rob the story -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The minister has made a good point. I wonder could he enlighten us on what his excuse has been for operating on both sides of the fence, on any given day, at any given time, in this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot cloak myself in the guise and pretense of being a lawyer, because I am not and probably never will be. Only understand, Mr. Speaker, that one of the traits that we try to exhibit is complete, maximum and utmost flexibility. That is the only point I can make.

Anyway, to finish the hon. member's story, the judge having the same lawyer argue black was white in the morning came in in the afternoon for a different client and argued that white was black. The judge said: Weren't you here this morning arguing the other case, the other point, the exact opposite view? The lawyer said: Yes, Your Honour, I was, but this morning I was wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is the same kind of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that what we are about to do here is to say that despite all our best efforts a couple of years ago, we may not have been wrong, but we certainly left an element of confusion that has been proven to be confusing enough, at least in the courts, to let more than one interpretation to be given.

I certainly commend the minister for bringing the issue forward, at the urging of the School Boards Association, I understand, Madam Minister. Certainly I believe that with the concurrence of all of the parties of the House that we might try to make a better law this time than, obviously, the one that we made just a few years ago.

So with those few comments, and appreciating the spirit, tone and tenor of the debate, I certainly would adjourn debate and look forward to its conclusion, probably at our next sitting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I move that the House adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.