May 20, 1994                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLII  No. 46


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it was just over a year ago, around April 5 1993, that the Premier called a provincial election, he will remember. At that time when he called the election - I know he remembers the results and he is delighted with them. I want to talk about the issue, or one of the main issues on which he called that election, remind him of what he said when he called the election.

At the time that he did, at his press conference, he launched a vicious campaign to try to turn parents, the public, students, everybody in this Province against the teachers. At that time it was clearly calculated to gain political advantage by discrediting the teachers. What is more interesting is that in the many months since that time, the Premier, his Minister of Education, and many of his other ministers have continued this tirade designed to paint teachers as unreasonable, unrealistic, and uncaring.

I want to ask the Premier: Why has he, as the leader of his government, and why has his minister set out to destroy the credibility of teachers? Is it a deliberate plot, a deliberate approach on the part of the Premier? If so, what possible motive could he have for doing it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I've seldom heard a more inaccurate representation of anything in all the time that I've been in this Chamber than what the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me restate. I've seldom heard a more inaccurate or more grossly misstated representation of anything than I've heard from the Leader of the Opposition today. The President of Treasury Board reminds me that the Treasury Board bargaining team had reached a tentative agreement with the NTA bargaining team at that time, it had been submitted to the teachers, and the teachers had rejected it and decided they wanted to go on strike. This was a decision of the government to take the issue to the public of this Province and state, for the public of this Province, the position.

You have to remember, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members opposite frequently forget that the government is not some detached body protecting its own interest of the fifteen members who sit around the Cabinet table. The government are the trustees acting on behalf of the 580,000 people who live in this Province and pay the taxes. We went to the electorate and asked them what our approach ought to be in maintaining it, and asked them to endorse the approach we were taking. And they did, in spades, as the hon. member knows.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the Premier loses his memory so quickly - maybe some of the media will remember to dig out the tape when he made the provocative statements. But unreasonable, uncaring, unrealistic, are all terms that you have used, that your Minister of Education has used, and other ministers in the Cabinet have used in the months since that particular time. Just look at your ad in The Evening Telegram last Wednesday, if those words aren't provocative and inflammatory, I don't know what evidence you need to show that they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: Does he seriously believe that good faith negotiations can take place with an employer which continuously, almost on a daily basis, slings insults at its employees? Doesn't he realize that approach is only making the situation much more difficult?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the ad, and the issue at hand dealt with in that ad, we believe that it is unreasonable to not allow restructuring in the education system. It is unreasonable to insist that as the restructuring occurs that the protection should be there so that if jobs no longer exist we must continue to pay these people for three years, given the financial problems we are now facing, and given what has happened in the last few years to the other systems of government and government departments. We believe it is unreasonable to insist that this total job protection exists.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who would differ. What about the argument, or the words used in the ad, `the members of the NLTA who, on average, earn more pay and have more benefits than any other public service or private sector group', don't you think those words are provocative and inflammatory as well? I mean, it is pretty obvious.

Now, I am trying to ask the Premier some questions and I would like him to answer the questions. A week has now gone by and nothing really seems to be happening. The schools are all closed down and by the time we get back to the House next Tuesday we are going to be into the middle of the second week of the dispute. This is not a question for the President of Treasury Board; it's a question for the Premier directly. I want to ask him: How long does he, as Premier, and Leader of the Government, intend to let this issue drag on before he personally takes some action to instruct his officials to get the parties back to the table, particular the government - to offer whatever kind of gesture is required to get them back to the table? When is he personally going to take some initiative to try to get this matter resolved?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the premise that the hon. member is using is not correct. First of all, progress has been made; and there is constant contact and progress is being made, number one. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday night we had a four or five-hour meeting that I thought was rather productive and a lot of progress was made on both sides and a lot of fundamental issues were discussed that had never before been discussed. On Friday morning, the strike was called in spite of that progress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even in spite of the fact that a strike was called, there has been continuous contact and progress has been made almost every day since the strike began so, Mr. Speaker, it's unfair to characterize the situation as one where there has been no contact, where progress has not been made, and all of a sudden it requires some sudden intervention to bring about a solution to this problem.

The solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, will be when both sides end up agreeing that a solution is to behave sensibly, reasonably, both sides, and when we come up ourselves with a solution that could be presented to the teachers of the Province. That is the solution and that's what we are working towards, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't require any sudden intervention at this point in time.

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

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

Does the Premier intend to sit idly by and not take any personal initiative to try to get the schools open in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

The President of the Treasury Board speaks for the government in collective bargaining matters. He is the proper person to address this. Now this kind of grandstanding and posturing to make it look as though the government is not involved - I left a meeting with the President of the Treasury Board and we both came down here to the House this morning. We left the meeting dealing with the issue.

I haven't been sitting idly by; I have dealt with it. I have met with the President of Treasury Board the last thing last evening dealing with the issue as well, but the President of the Treasury Board speaks for the government in this matter. It's unnecessary and quite inappropriate really, for me to be injecting myself into it all of the time and if I were doing so, the opposition would then be saying: why doesn't the Premier let his ministers do their work, why does he have to be a dictator and be involved in it? For heaven's sakes, have some consistency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition one final question on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, this individual, this Premier, getting up and lecturing us about what we are doing, about being inconsistent, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? The epitome of inconsistency sits right over there, on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask - the Premier won't answer it so I guess I will have to ask finally the President of Treasury Board this question, because I gather the communication went to the President of Treasury Board.

Now I understand in 1983, the last time the teachers were on strike in this Province, that the Provincial Home and School Federation offered to play a role in trying to get the sides together during that particular dispute and indeed I believe they did play a significant role in helping to settle that dispute in the end. Today I understand the Provincial Home and School Federation have made a similar gesture, offered to help in whatever way they could, maybe to try to talk to both sides or whatever to try to get them back together again. Does the President of Treasury Board see a role at all for the Home and School Federation in trying to get the parties back together and if so, does he intend to respond or has he responded?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as I've pointed out earlier, the problem now is not that there is lack of communication. The problem now is that we're dealing with some fundamental issues, some really fundamental issues. All of the peripheral issues are off the table, are no longer there and we're dealing with a couple of fundamental issues with the NLTA executive. So that's the situation at this time, it's not that we need someone to make the contact. However, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I heard as the hon. member did, that sometime today there would be a letter sent to me with something in it from the Home and School Associations. Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to respond in any way I can to the letter once I receive it but I've not yet received it so I don't know specifically what they're asking for, whether they want a meeting to get a briefing of our position and then meet with the NLTA to get a briefing. I don't know what the nature of the correspondence is but I assure the hon. member that we will not rule out any avenue.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. If the Premier privatizes Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who would be left to develop the vast undeveloped water resources in Labrador? Who would be left to develop the Lower Churchill? The Lower Churchill Development Corporation (LCDC) is a paper company only, it doesn't have any employees. By privatizing Hydro wouldn't the provincial government be giving up all the expertise the government now has and the financial strength required for the government to develop the Lower Churchill? Wouldn't we be reduced to the same position as the Smallwood Government in the '50s and '60s which turned to the private sector, to BRINCO, to develop the Upper Churchill with disastrous consequences?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Everybody connected with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would still be in this Province. Everybody connected with Newfoundland Power would still be in this Province. All of that expertise is still there. All of the competence is still there. The financial resources to develop it would still have to come from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Start telling the truth.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all of the expertise and all of the competence, and whatever financial resources are here now would remain here, would still be here. Whether the Crown owns Hydro or it is privately owned, it doesn't enhance its financial ability to develop the Lower Churchill Development Corporation in any way. We would still have to go and raise the money to do it, and if the government has to raise it, the government has to put its credit at stake. We would then have to decide whether we would seek to have it developed by a private corporation so that the government wouldn't have to put its credit at stake.

If the government is going to cause it to be developed in a way that it owns it, we must put our credit at stake. Now maybe that will be the right thing to do at the time, but if it is, let's make that intelligent decision at the time. Nothing that we would be doing now would, in any manner, impair our ability to develop the Lower Churchill one iota - not one iota.

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

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, is the Premier telling the people of the Province that he is privatizing Hydro to set up a bonanza for Paul Desmarais or somebody in central Canada who will control Hydro? Is that what the Premier is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are non-sequiturs, and then there are non-sequiturs, and then there are gross misrepresentations, and that statement falls into the latter.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A transmission line connecting the Upper and Lower Churchill to the Island would cost something like $2.5 billion, and the projected demand for electricity on the Island is such that it's not likely to pay in the early years. Does the Premier expect the private sector to build an interconnection to the Island? Will the Premier admit that privatizing Hydro would kill any realistic chance of ever getting an interconnection to the Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The approach that we are taking makes a good deal more sense than spending $75 million digging a hole on Pointe Amour and another hole on the other side of the Straits, and wasting the money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We are talking a reasonable, sensible, planned, orderly approach to the development of the resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Truth - they really get stirred up when they hear truth. It really pricks them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - and you see the blood start to run, start to spill all over the floor. They really don't like truth, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My question is directed towards the President of Treasury Board, in view of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is not in the House this morning.

In his recent Budget we saw the elimination of fourteen electrical inspectors across the Province and as a result government has turned over, for the most part, inspection of electrical business in terms of residential and commercial to the private sector. As a result there are new regulations that have been introduced as a result of this move. One of the regulations states that for an electrician to qualify for a contractor's electrical registration certificate that he must have at least five years' experience as the holder of an electrical qualification certificate.

My question to the President of Treasury Board is this: Does he not realize, or does his government not realize, that as a result of that regulation there are businesses in the Province right now that will not be able to operate because they do not have five years' experience as electrical inspectors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the minute details that I would have to know about to answer the question totally I'm not in possession of, and I could easily I suppose find out. However, my understanding is that there is not a total elimination of all electrical inspectors, that there is enough flexibility in the new system so that firms - that where electrical inspections are required they can still be done. However, the bulk of the inspections, or most of the inspections, will be the responsibility in the first instance of the contracting firm.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back and have a look at specifically what the regulations are and specifically how many of these people are still available to do inspections where required or to keep track of the types of inspections that are being done by the contractors. I will take the question as notice and try to get an answer provided as quickly as possible.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board is obviously missing my point. The point is that I understand the Province will still maintain some electrical inspection, more as a monitoring, but my point was not directed towards that. The new regulations that your government has brought in will effectively shut down some businesses in this Province. The regulation states that for a contractor to get a contractor's electrical registration certificate, which would qualify him or her to do inspections in the Province, will not get a certificate unless they have at least five years' experience as a journeyperson.

I have spoken with contractors in Fogo, in Corner Brook, who are running profitable businesses right now. They are running businesses which employ upwards to ten and twelve people. They will not be able to qualify for a contractor's electrical certificate because they have less than five years' experience as a journeyman, effectively shutting them down from tenders and effectively shutting them down from inspecting any operation or any type of construction operation in the Province.

My question is this: When you speak with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations will you do it with a view to revise the regulations so as not to shut down businesses in this Province but to encourage more to open?

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

MR. BAKER: There are a number of issues tied up here, Mr. Speaker. Obviously if a firm is to be allowed to do proper electrical inspections than there have to be restrictions on the expertise whose advice we would accept. Number one, the first issue is that firms that do electrical inspections must have the expertise available. We can't dispute that. You can't allow electrical inspections to be done by firms who have people who don't have any experience in the field. I think that is a sensible regulation.

The other part of that question assumes that a company - and these companies the hon. gentleman is talking about never did do electrical inspections, as far as I know. They haven't been going around doing electrical inspections.

The key to the question has to do with the type of work that they do, and can they bid on a contract to do electrical work and get somebody else to come in to do the final inspection?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

All I can say is that where electrical inspections are required we must have an appropriate level of expertise available. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I will get Hansard, look at Hansard, get a copy of his question, and pass it along to the proper officials to get an answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and concerns government's policy on rehiring government pensioners. In 1993 a Minute of Council states in part that as a matter of public policy applicable to government departments, all government agencies and Crown corporations, a preference be given in hiring to persons other than those in receipt of a pension under the public service pension plan, uniform services pension plan, teachers pension plan, and members of the House of Assembly pension plan, unless there are no other persons qualified to fill the position.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy has been used to prevent retired teachers from acting as substitutes, redundant hospital workers on minimal pension seeking part-time work in nursing homes. I even spoke to one retired teacher who was told he could not do enumeration for the provincial voters list because of this policy.

The policy goes on to say that any exceptions of this policy have to have the approval of Cabinet. I am going to ask the Premier whether or not Cabinet has made any exceptions to this policy, and if so how many, and for whom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is a question that might more properly be on the Order Paper. I obviously do not have the answer off the top of my head but I will obtain the answer, Mr. Speaker, and provide it in the House at a later time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Can the Premier state whether this policy applies to Mr. Gordon Seabright, a retired provincial court judge, in receipt of in excess of $98,000 from the government for the period April l, 1993 to 1994. Mr. Seabright, of course, is a defeated Liberal candidate in the 1989 election.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The policy applies to everybody. I have forgotten the date the hon. member said when the policy was put in place. He had the date.

MR. HARRIS: 1993.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know when Mr. Seabright was appointed, but there were others that would have been appointed before that who otherwise would have come under the policy. I do not know the date, but the policy is intended to apply to everybody, unless there is some exceptional circumstance, or some person is best qualified or would do the best job. We propose that the policy be generally applied.

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

MR. HARRIS: Can the Premier find out and tell the House whether it applied when on February 24, 1993 the `Dear Gordon' letter was written from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations giving additional duties to former Judge Seabright, and can the Premier also confirm that Judge Seabright receives this $98,000 from the government in addition to his full pension as a provincial court judge? Would that be on top of his pension, or instead of his pension?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will find out the two dates. He has already mentioned one date which was the letter of appointment that he said was sometime in February, 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He was appointed before that? That was when the additional duties were assigned, or something, was it?

I will find out, Mr. Speaker, if that was before and I will advise the House as to whether he is in receipt of it. If the payment through the public system, even though it is not a payment by government, it is a payment out of the Workers' Compensation Fund, but that is public funds and I think it all ought to be covered by the same general policy. Even though it is Workers' Compensation Fund and it is not payment by government as such my own view of it is the policy ought to apply to government and all agencies of government, and not just government directly.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. For almost two years the residents of Rutledge Cresent off Newfoundland Drive have been plagued by gasoline smells, and the problem seems to be getting worse in recent weeks. This was brought to the attention of the Department of Environment and Lands in January of '93. Can the minister tell the House why it is taking so long to trace the source of this smell of gas?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Rutledge Crescent problem remains a real provoking issue. I have a detailed comment on it which I will pass along to my critic after I have said a few words.

We have worked extensively on this problem and spent perhaps more money on it than we have on any sort of individual problem of that nature in the Province. We have had hydrological studies of the area, we have had toxicologists in, we have had testing of sewers, testing of air quality and we still have not been able to locate exactly what is happening in that area.

We are starting, in the next couple of weeks, a survey of the storm sewers to see if there is some problem at entry level there which is causing the odors. This is a city responsibility as well as an Environment Department responsibility, so we are working very closely with the city and doing some cost-sharing as well in this particular study.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a supplementary.

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

I understand that there has been a fair bit of that work done in that area, Madam Minister, but can you tell the House, have you determined the measure of concentration with respect to the amount of gases in the area because of course, if there is gas, there is always a risk of explosion and can you come up with some kind of a degree of the health hazard in the area?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, yes.

Are you talking about radon gas? If he is indeed talking about radon gas, Mr. Speaker, that is naturally emitted from bedrock and soil, and we have had that tested and there are no unusual measures of that particular gasoline vapour in that area - or not gasoline, radon isn't a gasoline vapour, excuse me - but there are no particular concerns in that particular area.

As far as gasoline vapours in the storm sewer, again we have not been able to identify that it is actually gasoline odors. It is very similar to the odor we get at Come by Chance, which of course we have been able to identify but there is still this problem trying to identify what the problem is in that particular area. The gentleman who wrote you the letter has experienced more problem in his household than other people along the street have, but at the same time it has been found that it is not, with what we know today, a health hazard and we have as well, I might add, been working with the Department of Health very closely in this particular area.

We brought in two people from Ontario actually to go and speak to the residents, who are experienced in the whole area of this type of thing and the risks to health, and I think they were of some benefit in putting the fears of the residents to rest, however, it still is a major concern of mine and of the department and we will continue to pursue it; and if you have no further questions then I will table this for the member's benefit, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to, I guess, whoever is acting Employment and Labour Relations Minister, or acting Minister of Fisheries, or acting, acting.

Now I stated in this House and outside that when the TAGS program was announced that people who were fifteen, twenty or even thirty years in the fishing industry would be dropped from the program as early as year four in this five-year program, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stated that he had a letter from HRD, Human Resource Development, stating that, that was not the case and they would be accommodated. Now I say, there is no such letter.

Now two weeks after my statement, Earle McCurdy of the FFAW wrote the federal ministers, Tobin and Axworthy, indicating and voicing concerns over that same problem. Now I ask the minister, will he inform this House if there is any accommodation for people who have had long-standing history of working in the fishing industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will ask the minister to inform the House on the next day that it sits or, if the minister is here shortly. I don't know where he is at the moment and with the consent of members opposite, he can inform the House as soon as he comes into the Chamber.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under NCARP, training for work outside the fishery was available for those who chose priority one, license retirement. Now it was stated in the NCARP information booklet on training options that the full NCARP income replacement benefit rate will be available to those in acceptable training programs. Now, between 300 and 400 people chose that option one - priority one, licensed retirement. They were led to believe that they would receive an income during the course of their training. As of May 16, these people are in training institutions with no income and it was stated that the income would be there. Now, Minister's Tobin and Axworthy stated on April 19 here in St. John's, that all people on NCARP would continue at least to the end of December, even those who are not in training programs. I ask the minister, will he see that this injustice to these people, who chose to give up their long-standing place in the fishery and took an early - not retirement - an early licensed retirement settlement, would be looked after to the end of their training program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I should tell the House that the Minister of Fisheries is in Toronto and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is at some meetings in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I will address the member's concern. I don't have the detail at hand but if he has any more explicit information with respect to the individuals involved, would he please pass it on to my office quickly and I'll have the matter addressed immediately. I don't know what the answer to his question is but I'll see that steps are taken to find out the answer and if, indeed, the injustice he talks about is being done, I will make every effort to correct the injustice.

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

Notices of Motion

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand under Notices of Motions today to give notice of some minor amendments that we are going to bring in at Committee stage when we again call the bill on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I would like to table these matters today so that members opposite will have a chance to read them and understand them before we call back in Committee.

Petitions

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

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

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of some people in the district of Baie Verte - White Bay.

The petition reads: `Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the people of Eagle River are wondering why their MHA is not standing in the House and supporting a petition like this as well.

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing debate as to whether or not Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be privatized has been in front of the media, in front of people's minds for the last several months. In particular, in the last several weeks, the issue has become even more heated. In that time, the government has failed to do many things when it comes to the explanation and the reasoning and the rationale for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

They have failed to demonstrate where the net economic benefits of the sale of Hydro will come from and what they will be for this Province. They have failed, and failed miserably. They have failed to demonstrate clearly any good public policy reason for the sale of this very valuable asset owned by the people of the Province, not owned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who are elected there.

They have failed to demonstrate in any way, shape or form what benefit there will be in terms of increase in jobs. They have failed to do that for one reason only, because they, themselves, know there will be no increase in employment as a result of this sale. As a matter of fact, there will be a net loss of jobs as a result of this sale. What about increased investment in the Province. Will there be new investment as a result of this sale? No, there will be no new investment. The government knows that. It has not demonstrated where it will come from.

Where there be any new technology transfer as a result of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Again, there will not be any new technology transfer as a result of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Will there be any new technology whatsoever coming with the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? The answer clearly again has been that there will not be any new technology brought to this Province or come about as a result of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Most importantly, has there been, or has government commissioned a socio-economic impact study of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that would clearly show the net benefits and the net losses of such a sale? They have not taken that initiative to do that, but certainly, independent economists at Memorial University have taken it upon themselves to do so. Professor Wade Locke certainly has demonstrated the net losses, and certainly not net benefits, of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The question remains with us before the Legislature today as it has for the past several weeks: Why is the government persistent in its pursuit to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when clearly the people of this Province have said time and time again that it is not their wish for it to be done? Why has the Premier, who on March 24th, told the people of this Province that he would not pursue the sale of Hydro if it was clear to him that the majority of the people in this Province - that the majority, Mr. Speaker - were not in favour of this sale?

Surely, he and his government must know that public support is not on their side. Surely, the Premier and his government must know by now that the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not in the interest of the people; and the people of this Province are more aware on this issue than many other issues, and they, themselves, do not wish to have Hydro privatized.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has, on many occasions, stood in this House and said that members on the opposite side here were misrepresenting the facts, and has told us that we have been fraudulent in presenting our views. I have said to the Premier, and to the government, and I will say it again here today, that if we have been fraudulent, if we have been misrepresentative in the way we have presented the facts, then why hasn't the government held public hearings on this issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to prove us the frauds he accuses us of being. He cannot, because he, himself, is a fraud.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and support my colleague in presenting a petition from the people of Baie Verte, and I can say to hon. members on the other side, at least he had the guts to present a petition, like hon. members opposite did not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: As we did many times in this House, I have presented petitions from Kilbride, and Kilbride has presented petitions from Baie Verte and so on, as all of my colleagues over here have done many times since this debate has started. And I can say here today that although these names from Baie Verte, from Kilbride, from all the districts around this Province - remember that it was 80 per cent of the people of this Province, not just a few names on one petition; you have downgraded everything that has been said in this House, the demonstrations and protest outside. What does it take for this government, especially this Premier, to understand that 80 per cent of this Province is against this privatization of Hydro?

No matter how the Premier wants to turn the words around, no matter how he wants to twist the words and play games with the way he speaks, the people of this Province do not want Hydro sold. It is plain and simple.

In the television debate it was also quite clear to the people of this Province that the Premier said - maybe he was put into a corner, but this Premier did say that if the people of this Province did not agree with the privatization of Hydro, he would not ask this Legislature to pass that bill. It was clear. Now, the people are asking: What does it take for the Premier to listen to the people of this Province?

As mentioned earlier, when this election was called just over a year ago, the main issue was the teachers. It wasn't Hydro. The Member for St. John's South stands every now and then and brags about a little pamphlet where he had, in small print, privatization of Hydro. It certainly wasn't anything put forward by this government, and I can tell you that Hydro wasn't mentioned in my district. All that was mentioned was about the teachers, and how this Premier was going to take on the teachers of the Province. It was a hidden agenda, no more than that, and for this Premier or any of these hon. members to stand up - well, actually they don't stand up very often; they just sit in their seats and squabble back and forth, because they don't have the guts to stand and talk about it - except for the Member for Pleasantville - to stand and say what their constituents think.

I mentioned it before, that I think the people in the back benches especially, the ones who squabble from their seats instead of standing to speak for the people who elected them, had better remember that Hydro is just one issue. There are other issues coming, I say to them, where you are going to have to stand and speak for the people who elected you - not to stand up because the Premier told you to stand, and jump because he said so, and you ask, `How high?' You are going to have to answer to the people who elected you.

Time after time, this Premier has stood, and so have hon. members, and said: What does it matter what they say on Open Line? What does it matter if we present petition after petition? What does it take? It is scary, some of the thoughts that come through sometimes from people who call Open Line, and why the police are in the galleries sometimes watching the Premier. It is scary stuff, and nobody likes that. I don't like it. But people of the Province are starting to say to this Premier: you had better start listening to somebody.

MR. MURPHY: Listen to whom?

MR. SHELLEY: You are here because you are elected. Remember, you were elected by people. You weren't elected by the front benches here, or by the Premier. He didn't vote for you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell the Minister of Health that the Premier didn't elect you, it was your constituents. Why don't you listen to them? Any hon. member who can come in here and tell me that they believe that the privatization is in the best interest of the people of this Province are not listening, it's plain and simple. If you all believe that - the strategy is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear that the hon. members opposite think that this will all die away, this is the first year of their mandate and people will forget. Well let me remind the hon. members that month after month as people get their electricity bills and they see it going higher and higher and knowing that it's out of control they'll be reminded, I say to the hon. members in the back benches who sit there and squabble.

They'll be reminded and when you have to stand three years from now at some rally somewhere and justify the privatization of Hydro, another mistake that another Liberal government has made, because for twenty or thirty years we've been trying to justify - the Premier and his hon. House Leader over there - trying to justify, not justify but lull over the mistake of the Churchill, the mistake of Churchill Falls, well you'll be doing the same thing for Hydro. You'll be going through your election campaigns trying to justify Hydro privatization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm forced to rise in this particular debate, Mr. Speaker, because I've noticed something totally unprecedented in the five short years that I've been here. Never have I been here when a member sitting next to me, my own colleague, got up and presented a petition from my district, my people, and told me: you better sit down and wait until I tell you what to say and then you can get up and say something about it. I never, ever saw it before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I know that he's been whipped on a couple of occasions now because he got up and embarrassed his leader, embarrassed his party over there and I know he's been put in his place a couple of times but never did I see a situation where he would be chastised in such a way as to follow the Member for Kilbride. Mr. Speaker, apart from that, he has made the accusation, which is totally unfounded again, that members over here do not get up, stand up and be counted on this issue, and that is wrong. It is certainly unequivocally wrong. Because members over here are quite pleased and proud to be able to stand here with the initiatives that we're taking in this area as well as any other area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The situation is very straightforward. There is no public policy purpose to be served any more by the government running the electrical generation and distribution in this Province and in any area of our economy the people have told us in spades, get out of it. Your government has no business in any number of areas of private enterprise and they've told us again that government cannot run a business. They're there for the private sector and we are returning to the private sector the generation and distribution of electrical services. Right now people must know that 90 per cent of the distribution of electricity is done by a private company and has been done for 100 years by a private company. So we are just doing what the people want us to do in that regard, Mr. Speaker, and we're quite proud to be able to come in here and take that initiative.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the debt problem is a real problem that the people have caught up to much quicker then the members opposite have caught up to. The people out there want us to do something substantial, something significant about our debt. We have now over $6 billion on our books and in this initiative we will take $1.2 billion off our books. We will save our taxpayers, our future generations, millions of dollars that we will not have to pay back, Mr. Speaker, as a result of not having to borrow $300-$400 million a year. These are the clear facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and they can spin all they want, they can run all they want, they can jump all they want, they can wave all they want but the parade has stopped, the game is over, the people have spoken. They know we're doing the responsible thing and we are going to carry on, we're going to support our Minister of Mines and Energy and we're going to support this government to carry through this initiative because it is the right thing for the people at this point in time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and present a petition on behalf of residents of the District of Menihek, residents of Labrador City and Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, my God.

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Health and the Member for Eagle River laugh at the small number of twenty-five people of Western Labrador who expressed their concerns in the form of a petition given to me and asked to be presented in the House. The views of twenty-five residents in my district are very important, and I would ask the Minister of Health and the Member for Eagle River to pay attention and not belittle the fact that there are only twenty-five on this piece of paper, because I have presented petitions of practically 2000 people from Western Labrador who have expressed a very similar type of opinion maybe with a little different prayer.

When members on the opposite side belittle the aspect of only twenty-five people signing a petition and say it is unimportant what twenty-five people think, it is more important what I think, the Minister of Health thinks, it is more important what the Member for Eagle River thinks. Do not take away my time with the concerns of twenty-five people.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: I tell the Minister of Health that the prayer of the petition is about the giveaway that you are perpetrating on the people of this Province about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is what it is about. It is about you ripping off the taxpayers. That is what it is about.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what it is about. It is about this Minister of Health who suggests that the people of Western Labrador pay 500 per cent more for their electricity. He thinks that is fair. He does not recognize what it is like to live in Labrador. He does not realize that in the month of May it is 25 below zero, cars have to be plugged in, and that the people of Labrador City and Wabush consume more electricity per capita than anywhere else in this Province. It is because of the climate but he is not aware of that because he is only accustomed to the comforts of the 10th and 11th floor, the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the millions of dollars that are spent on his offices, the Cabinet rooms, and the 8th floor. That is what he is interested in.

He has all those comforts of plush carpet that he has wasted the taxpayer's money on. He is not concerned about electricity. He does not care about that, a man making $120,000 a year, plus drawing a pension. Why should he care about paying 500 per cent more for electricity? He would not be concerned about ordinary people in Labrador. Why should he? He is only beholden to his colleagues in Cabinet, that is all.

He has become so arrogant since he has been re-elected the second time, Mr. Speaker, that he has forgotten what ordinary people are concerned about. He does not realize what ordinary people think about. He does not realize that by raising electricity costs to ordinary people it is going to slow down the economy, because they have to spend more money just to survive, and that is exactly what is happening with privatization.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River suggested that there is no public policy function or purpose for this Crown corporation. Well, there could very well be. Quebec Hydro, Mr. Speaker, has a public policy purpose of their Crown corporation, Hydro Quebec. As a matter of fact it has been used as an economic lever to attract industry to the Province of Quebec, and there is absolutely no reason why we should not be using it in a similar fashion in our Province.

There are eight other provinces that have their hydro utility as a Crown corporation and they find it beneficial as a lever for economic development. We should be doing it, we could be doing it, but now what this government is doing is a sell-out, Mr. Speaker, and the people are concerned about it.

The Member for Eagle River also mentioned that we are going do away with a debt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and support the petition signed by residents of the District of Menihek. They have every right, whether it is five, or fifty-five, or 5,500 people, to be heard.

The Premier tries to convince the people of this Province that the downgrading of our credit rating by one credit agency is a reason to privatize Hydro. The Premier has been on a course to privatize Hydro for over one year and longer. He has been on a crusade since 1986 when he was a legal advisor and on the board of directors of Newfoundland Power, and later became their chairman. That is a part of his long-term agenda.

The credit rating agencies that rate this Province, three have already given us a rating below A. It is a matter of the fourth one coming in line. Different economic advisors and analysts recently have been quoted as saying that it is just a matter of this fourth credit rating agency coming into line. They are on record as stating it is not going to have any impact on our ability to borrow money on the world market. We've already had three out of four credit rating agencies giving us a B+ or BBB+ in this latest downgrade from A-. It is just smoke and mirrors trying to cloud the issue for the people thinking we have to bail out.

The Premier thought that before when he sat around the Cabinet table in the 1960s when he participated in what he thought was a great idea, or he refused to say anything against it, in the biggest sell-out in the history of Canada. Eight hundred million dollars a year from Upper Churchill and he thought it was a good idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor? I will tell you what we are paying for electricity if the minister wants to know. Hydro Quebec is receiving by virtue of that agreement three mils. Three mil rate they are paying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait till I'm finished. They are going to pay 2 mils in 2015. That is three-tenths. They are going to pay three-tenths of 1 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When you get your light bill in the mail today you pay 6.542 cents on your bill. They are paying three-tenths; it is going down to two-tenths or one-fifth of a cent. That is what they are paying. You multiply that and calculate, it is thirty-two and a half times the rate we are paying, people here in this Province, to what Quebec is going to be paying and Hydro Quebec to get electricity after the year 2015.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Do I hear an echo here in the building? I will ask the minister - he knows the rules of the House. If he could just remain - stand up and speak on the petition when you have an opportunity and I will listen to what you have to say. If I think it is important enough I might even heed it. I haven't heard anything on Hydro yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true Cyril Abery wanted to extend that contract for forty-five years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The government of this Province had on the table, and it has been tabled here in this House, the opportunity to correct in some way the wrongs that were done back in the 1960s. They had an opportunity to at least save some face and get a better return in lieu of developing the Lower Churchill. After agreeing - Quebec on certain concessions, they came back in agreement and the Premier scuttled the deal because he started to take back things that were already agreed to under that deal. That is what happened there. An opportunity.

We are going to have a sell-out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

If there are any economic reasons why we should privatize Hydro on sound economic reasons I would support it. Regardless of policy. We have to do things on an economic basis. One of the reasons why in this Province we are in the dilemma we are is because we have not done enough to stimulate the economy of this Province. The GDP and debt ratio to the GDP is a main factor in determining what our credit rating is. It is now at 70 per cent. We haven't stimulated this economy and diversified and developed industries at a sufficient rate to keep in line with the debt that we have.

That is why we have had a downgrading in our credit rating, and the outlook for this Province, regardless of Hydro, was negative. And if it's positive to privatize it, you can be assured, if it is privatized, it should put the rating back up again if it is going to have an effect. The outlook is negative over the next while. We have projected growth in this Province of only 0.7 per cent this year, while Prince Edward Island is over 4 per cent projection; British Columbia is over 4 per cent. Canada, as a whole, has a projected growth of 3 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Your Honour, I have a petition of citizens of the Conception Bay and St. John's areas which I wholeheartedly support.

The petition calls on the Legislature to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, the same as most citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, realize that the Province will be much better off if the government retains Hydro. Despite government propaganda claiming that the mandate of Hydro has been fully carried out, most people realize that an important part of Hydro's remaining mandate is to keep down electricity prices. Another part of the remaining mandate is to keep Hydro profits in the Province so they can be used for the benefit of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy and the citizens of our Province. Perhaps the most important part of the remaining mandate of Hydro is to develop the vast undeveloped water resources in Labrador.

Hydro is the government's electricity division, with the expertise needed to develop the Lower Churchill and to protect our interest in the Upper Churchill. It also has the financial strength required for Lower Churchill development.

In the Question Period exchange between me and the Premier today -

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

MS. VERGE: - it became very obvious - `me' is the objective case, I say to the minister. There are some teachers in the gallery who might confirm -

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Your Honour. His Honour confirmed that indeed I was using correct grammar.

Regardless of that, what is at stake is the Lower Churchill, and what the Premier confirmed today in Question Period is that if the government proceeds to divest itself of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, then the private sector will be all that remains to carry out the development of the Lower Churchill, so just as the Smallwood government turned to the private sector, to BRINCO, in the fifties and sixties, because the government didn't have the expertise or the financial strength for the development of the Upper Churchill, with disastrous consequences, either this administration or some future government, without Hydro, will have to turn to the private sector.

The Lower Churchill assets are owned by the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, which essentially is a sister corporation of Hydro, but LCDC is a company on paper; it doesn't have any employees. Without Hydro, LCDC is basically a shell, so for future Lower Churchill development, the private sector would be in control.

Obviously, if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized, most of the shares will be held by non-residents of this Province and control will rest in Montreal or Toronto, some other part of the country or part of the world, and the private interests who will control Hydro will be in the driver's seat in relation to Lower Churchill development. They aren't going to be concerned about benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about providing an interconnection to the Island for economic development on the Island.

A transmission line connecting Labrador to the Island is a huge undertaking. The estimated cost is $2.5 billion. A minimum of 800 megawatts of power would be required, and realistically, the Island demand for electricity in the decades ahead probably wouldn't justify that block of power immediately so it would have to be added gradually as the Island economy expanded. So realistically, if Hydro is privatized, we'll be losing our shot at getting an interconnection to the Island. So what we stand to lose by privatizing Hydro is a lot of money out of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy because of the higher electricity prices -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - that businesses and householders will have to pay. We'll lose the Hydro profits. Most of them will be paying for non-resident shareholders and we'll lose a golden opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the petition. An hon. member doesn't have to support the petition to speak to it and the hon. gentleman is a part of the false argument that's been promulgated through the land now, when people ask, Where do government members stand? When, in our history, did anybody ever ask, where do members of government stand? What nonsense! What nonsense to be preaching throughout the land! I get the greatest amusement when I hear somebody on Open Line saying: I haven't heard Tom Lush speak out, I haven't heard Dr. Kitchen speak out as to where he stands on privatization, and hon. members opposite are feeding that kind of ignorance. That's nonsense! Everybody on government side stands with the government initiative. That's where I stand, firm behind the government initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: And to stand here, Mr. Speaker, day after day and listen to political neophytes, telling you to stand up, you haven't got the guts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Over the past twenty years, Mr. Speaker, I've stood on a lot of issues. I've never been afraid to stand up on an issue, and at the end of the day, every member on this side is going to stand proudly and take a vote on this issue and we can tell you now, we are firmly behind the privatization of Hydro!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Social Services is he saying now that the people of this Province are ignorant? Is this what I heard him say?

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman doesn't understand what I said. It confirms what I said in the beginning whether - and teachers weren't included - the hon. member might very well be, but teachers weren't included.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. the Member for Ferryland say that he would vote for this if somebody had given him some sound economic reasons why he should support it. Well, I stand on the other side. I might vote for this if hon. members gave me some sound economic reasons why I ought not to support it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would do it. I haven't heard from him, I haven't heard from hon. members. What I've heard is a lot of fearmongering, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order because I've spoken on this bill on numerous occasions. I've stated - and he can read Hansard - in the House on dozens of occasions, I've stated financial reasons why and I'll do it again when I get up again on another petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members on the opposite side demonstrate how they think that they are the fountain of all wisdom. They think that the only thing correct said about Hydro is what they say. The only economics correct about Hydro, the only details correct about Hydro are what they have to offer. I suggest that the economic issues advanced on this side are every bit as correct as what is advanced on that side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have heard from the other side, and I agree that the hon. member has made some economic sense, but when I am listening to these petitions, what have I heard? What I have heard, is the challenge to this side of the House to stand up, have guts, this kind of nonsense. I haven't heard an economic reason advanced this morning - only, oh yes, the rates are going to go up. Now, Mr. Speaker, what a bogeyman! The rates are going to go up - we all know the rates are going to up if we don't privatize Hydro.

Now, the latest one introduced in the debate today is the one by the Member for Humber East, development is going to stop - no more development in this Province - another fearmongering tactic and the people of this Province are too intelligent to believe that. The greatest hydro development in this Province, the greatest hydro development in North America, one of the greatest hydro developments in the world was done by private enterprise - Churchill Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Now, Mr. Speaker, if anybody ever demonstrated why we should privatize Hydro, it's that development that was done by the private sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: I was there working, that's where I have been; I spent five years on the site, probably the only member here who knows anything about the details of the job, having spent five years there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at long last, at long last we heard from the Minister of Social Services, who proudly proclaims that it is only political neophytes who oppose the privatization of Hydro. Well, I say to the hon. minister that wisdom doesn't always come with age, whether it is political age or human age, Mr. Speaker. There are an awful lot of people in this Province, the 79 per cent of the people are not political neophytes, Mr. Speaker. They are the people, they are the rulers of this Province - the people are in charge of this Province, not this government, not a dictatorship of democracy, so-called democracy, that we have over here.

Now, the reason we had to ask for these individuals to get up and stand up individually is because we know they are being dictated to by the Premier; we know they are being told what to say and what not to say, the Premier told us himself, so we have to smoke them out, we have to hear from them one at a time. And if they are going to stand behind this undemocratic decision by the government, well, they are going to have to stand up individually and be accounted for.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were the Minister of Social Services, who has been around perhaps a little bit too long, Mr. Speaker, if I were him, I wouldn't brag about the private development of Churchill Falls, because yes, the private capital was able to develop Churchill Falls, there is no doubt about that, and in whose interest did they develop it, Mr. Speaker? They looked after the private interest, the Rothschilds did not lose a cent; they got the full return on their investment - not only did they get the full return on their investment, they guaranteed it by locking in the sixty-five-year contracts, Mr. Speaker, locking them down, nailing them down for sixty-five years, in order to guarantee that they were going to get a return on investment.

They looked after themselves, they carried the ball and they built it on time and on budget and all that stuff, but in whose interest, Mr. Speaker? In the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, no; they developed it in the interest of the private capital that they were designed and their function is to protect, and I say to members opposite that the reason the people of Newfoundland are so overwhelmingly opposed to the privatization of Hydro, is because they know. We've learned from that bitter lesson, Mr. Speaker, that we are learning from every day. We know that private enterprise - while it has good qualities, it serves an economic purpose, but we, the people of this Province, know that private enterprise serves private enterprise.

When you take a resource as valuable and as large and as important as this to the people of Newfoundland, that the people of Newfoundland have to be in control of it. Because if we are not, we are going to lose on the Lower Churchill, we are going to lose this enterprise, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is designed to serve the people - to serve the people in more than one way. As the Member for Humber East pointed out in presenting the petition, it serves the people because part of its mandate and mission is to provide electricity at the lowest possible rates. That is a service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Secondly, it provides a service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by responding to the people through the government the expertise and the loyalty of professionals who are going to be charged with the responsibility of further development of hydroelectric power in this Province in Churchill Falls and the Lower Churchill. They are going to do that, this time we hope, for the long-term benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and not the private capital that a private company would be designed to look after.

That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. That is why people in this Province are opposed to it, and that is why I support the petitioners and this petition. And that is why this government is going to go down in disgrace. If they go through with this proposal to privatize Hydro they will go down in disgrace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. minister presenting a petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speaking to a petition.

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

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

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

MR. LUSH: I thought I spoke to a petition that had been presented by the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: He spoke to my petition.

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East presented a petition. The hon. the Minister of Social Services spoke to it, and the hon. the Member for St. John's East, as I understand it, spoke to that petition. So we've had three speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: New petition.

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

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he listened a little more carefully he might know that there had been three speakers.

Now, I would like to touch on things I've touched on many times before in a petition. This petition is on behalf of residents in Conception Bay South and surrounding areas. Dozens of people have signed this petition - several dozen.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, there are several dozen, there are thirty-seven names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Several dozen!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to touch on some financial reasons why I'm supporting it. In this House, there are very few members on the government side who have sought out the financial information.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are opposing it, you mean - you are opposing privatization.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm opposing privatization, supporting this petition. I will just touch on some financial reasons. I've done it dozens of times before. Wade Locke has analyzed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: What are you supporting?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A petition not to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. Wade Locke, economist, has indicated that it could be $40 million to $70 million extra cost. Here is why, from a taxpayer's perspective, and then I will tell why, if I have time, from a ratepayer's perspective.

From a taxpayer's perspective it is not a direct debt on this Province. This Province receives $10 million a year by guaranteeing the debt of Newfoundland Hydro. This Province receives an average of almost $10 million a year on federal corporate income tax under PUITTA that would go to Newfoundland Power. Because 85 per cent of the corporate federal income tax paid by a utility in this country is refunded to the province in which the utility is located. Since Newfoundland Power is located in this Province 85 per cent of its federal corporate income tax that averages out to about $10 million a year comes back into the treasury of this Province to help keep down our debt or to use for revenue sources throughout the Province. That is $20 million a year we are now achieving directly as taxpayers in this Province.

Now, this government has decided, this government has made a decision in this bill that what they are going to do, if Hydro is privatized, they are going to kick another $20 to $30 million into the unfunded pension liability of Hydro employees. I am not knocking that point, but the point I am knocking is they have hung out to dry the pension plans of other public sector employees in this Province over the past number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not.

Do you want to hear facts? They do not listen because they are afraid to hear the real truth. Why would you want to privatize a company that is given a margin of profit to cover its costs, like Newfoundland Hydro, and enough profit to maintain credit worthiness on the international market? That is what happens with Hydro.

The third item, what they are going to do under a privatized Hydro, would permit a newly privatized company to get a return of profit to its shareholders that has averaged for Newfoundland Power 13.74 per cent. Hydro has only been showing a profit of 5 to 8 per cent but we are going to turn over tens of millions of dollars extra return to shareholders of new Hydro and 80 per cent is going to go outside this Province. This Province can only provide enough capital to own a maximum of 20 per cent of a new company and the remainder is going out to shareholders on Bay Street and in Montreal and wherever the capital is in this country.

Who would not invest their money into a fund that is going to give them a return of 13.74 per cent? The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Fund are the largest shareholders in Fortis, 16 per cent. Montreal Engineering has a large per cent. The Ontario Teachers Federation invests and gets returns in numerous companies because they want to go where the largest rate of return is. That is one of the reasons from taxpayers' perspective, and we are going to take all these new costs of lawyers and investment dealers on the market, and the Rothschilds that were infamous in the Upper Churchill. We have paid them already, up to a month ago, $538,000 for financial advice. That almost destroyed the economy of this Province with the Upper Churchill. That is why we do not want to privatize Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And the minister denied this is privatizing other Crown corporations. We spent $1.7 million and a budget of another $3 million to get financial advice on what was the worse deal in the history of the country. The Premier is leading you all around and not giving the truth. The Member for Pleasantville knows the truth. He took the time and effort to proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I want to rise to support the petition presented by my colleague the Member for Ferryland. I can understand members opposite not giving the member leave. He is confusing them with the facts. That is the problem with members opposite. They are getting the reasons now why they should not privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but they do not want to hear that. They have been told they must privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, regardless of whether it is a bad deal for the Province. For months the Premier has told them to shut up and be quiet, do not think about it. I am telling you it is best for the people of the Province so do not think or speak about it. That is what has happened to members opposite.

Now, I want to say to the Minister of Social Services, and I have heard him say before that he spent some time working in Labrador, but after the performance he put on today, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he actually went over the falls in a barrel and survived, I say to him. I really thought he must have gone over and is still spinning.

AN HON. MEMBER: We would be better off if he had been under.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would not say that to the minister, but what a performance by the Minister of Social Services, trying to justify something that deep down inside him he really cannot justify. That is what is happening over there. They are trying to justify it because they have been told they must proceed with it.

Then the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is so confused and disoriented that he does not know if he was supporting a petition or presenting a new one.

Is there any wonder that Standard and Poor's has downgraded the Province's credit rating, when they look at the front benches of the government, look at what is supposed to be managing the Province? Is there any wonder why, I say to the Minister of Health and the Member for Eagle River, the two Ronnies over there this morning. All they have done is cat call and joke about everything that has been said over there. The Minister of Health is still at it over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) crossword.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess that is what happened to the Minister of Health; he came off without his crossword puzzle, and now he is irritated, really upset. Send somebody out to get you the paper, or to get your book. Get your executive assistant to bring up your crossword puzzle book from your office, for God's sake. We want to make some progress here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are joined by the Member for Fogo. Now we have the three amigos. We have gone from the two Ronnies to the three amigos. Is there any wonder that the people of the Province don't believe the Premier and the government about the benefits of privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? Is there any wonder, with the performance of the members opposite, and the ministers? Is there any wonder Standard and Poor's have downgraded the credit rating of the Province, when they look at who is managing the financial affairs of the Province? My God, Mr. Speaker, I would say we're lucky that they only downgraded us to BBB+, and I would say, by the end of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, my God, I say to the poor Minister of Environment and Lands, the poor creature, how can she sit in her place today and even open her mouth, when she looks around the galleries of this House today and sees the hundreds of teachers who, just a few short years ago, she was supposed to be leading. We know where she led them, right down the garden path, and now she has deserted them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Education then?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know. I say one thing, we would be better off without the present Minister of Education. As I said the other day, when he talked about isolated schools, I said: If we could only isolate the minister, we would get this dispute resolved. If we could only put him in quarantine, if we could only put the minister in quarantine, lock him up somewhere in a cell, get him out of the way, don't put a microphone in front of his face...

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a woman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It was a woman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha! That narrows it down substantially.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It does.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many women were in your Cabinet in 1983?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: 1983, I believe there were two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Aha, there were two. You thought there was one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to say to the Minister of Education: I know it has been a long week, but you shouldn't be speaking across the House, telling the Member for Humber East -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Standing Order 92, says: Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contains.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the question of relevance could be brought up to the remarks of the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. minister is correct when he states that the presenters and speakers of petitions should contain their remarks to the petition and the names, and I ask hon. members, when they present petitions, to stick to that point.

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Maybe my hon. friend from Grand Bank will give me permission, now. Am I right this time? I am allowed to speak this time, am I?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, thank you very much; I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, it is sort of amusing, isn't it, that we are speaking on the Hydro bill, and a petition of a group of people - the dozens of people, the thirty-two or thirty-three who signed it - and my hon. colleague from Grand Bank got up and attacked everybody on this side of the House and never mentioned Hydro once. It is sort of funny, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, for the past weeks we have been sitting in this House and some, I must say - there are some over there who got up and spoke directly on the bill and on petitions. The vast majority know no more about what's going on with Hydro then I would say - 90 per cent I'd say quite honestly - of the children under two years old in the Province. They don't know any more about it then most people that age and I get a great kick -

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak to the petition. I'm going to speak to the hundreds and the thousands of people around this Province who are against Hydro. I'm going to say to the hon. members across - and I'll swear this on a bible. I will not stand in this House and lie to this House and I'll prove it to any member that asks me. I have had one letter from my district, one letter, Mr. Speaker, signed by two people from the District of Carbonear. I have seen two petitions which were identical signed by one person from Carbonear and that same person signed the same petition twice, I've seen that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've been travelling around this Province and almost on a daily basis I meet people. People who have no connection with government whatsoever, decent, honest, educated, understanding people of this Province. It's a funny thing that the vast majority of those people, if they mention Hydro at all, their comments are: Art, get on with it, privatize it. It's the best thing that we can do for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: But, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be driving along the Trans-Canada at twelve-thirty or one o'clock in the morning either trying to get home to Carbonear or trying to get back into St. John's and to keep me awake, to be honest about it, for amusement, I may push that 590 dial and they're on the line saying: Good evening Bas. Is that you Bas? Bas will reply: all the lines are open in St. John's, come on give us a call. Vetters is on the line and he wants you to support Hydro. I get a great kick out of that.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I hear in the Province to be quite honest about it - I haven't had any petitions presented to me. I haven't had any people from my constituency come to me and express a deep concern. I had one, I had an employee of Hydro speak to me as a personal friend some time ago. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that there is nobody sitting in this House from that side of the House or from this side of the House, that's going to tell me how to vote when the time comes to vote on Hydro. The Premier of the Province, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber or anyone else is not going to influence my decision, my mind is made up. It's the best possible thing that I can do for my children and my grandchildren and I'm voting in favour of Hydro! Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Tors Cove, Bay Bulls and surrounding area requesting that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken many times on petitions and many times on the bill and I feel that - if you read back Hansards - I've talked facts any time I spoke on Hydro privatization. I've challenged people on the other side of the House on previous occasions that I will go to any public forum and debate with them, with the Premier or anybody pertaining to privatization. I haven't heard the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stand up and talk one fact. I haven't heard the Minister of Social Services stand up and talk one fact. I haven't heard them refute the facts that we've indicated or haven't given any figures to the contrary and until such time as somebody can do that - the Premier hasn't done it or nobody else has done it on Hydro privatization.

I will stand by the economic facts that are presented and are available - and from the Premier's own facts in the closed media conference he had, that's where I received a lot of the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I wouldn't have to - if there was order on the other side of the House and control I wouldn't need to shout. The members asked for facts and I'd like to stick to facts. Now, another aspect -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lower your voice.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will if you'd lower yours.

One other aspect under this is the rate adjustment fund. Now, under the rate adjustment fund this Province is trying to hoodwink the rate payers into not seeing the real truth up front. I think this Province has a responsibility to tell the rate payers of this Province up front that your rates are not going to increase by just $1.50 a month in year one. The real truth is that the $15 million fund is going to be part of the funds to ease in the rate adjustment to rural Newfoundland and to shift from large industrial consumers in this Province.

The people are going to see the real brunt, and the Premier admits this, and if the ministers read what the Premier released, if you had seen the volumes of information on this, you would see that the real impact of these rates are going to be hit in 1999. That is when the full impact hits. If you think that 700 kilowatt hours of consumption of electricity per month is the average for this Province, that is the rate at which he is guaranteeing equitable rates to a reasonable access to power. Forty-five dollars worth of electricity is a reasonable access to electric use in this Province. That is what the Premier used in his closed media conference here on a Friday that he wouldn't permit anybody else to enter. We received a copy afterwards, of course, and that is what he is indicating.

When Newfoundland Power will tell you that there are 173,000 consumers and the average consumption per month the past year was between 1,300 and 1,400, double what the Premier is using in that. That is considering 99,000 of these people do not have electric heat, 99,000 of these homes don't have electric heat. It is double the figures he is using just based on the average consumption, not counting the $15 million that is kicked in to cushion it further, and not counting the other rates that are going to be absorbed within the rates that the Province is not going to put into it. We are going to have a tremendous increase of electricity in 1999 if Hydro is privatized.

On top of all that, why would you want to go to a cost of tens of millions of dollars to sell shares on a market, to give a return of profit to the shareholders of a corporation, to incur legal costs, and all other costs, to go out and privatize a company that has a self-supporting debt in this Province?

If Hydro was in grave danger - I think Hydro has a better credit standing really than this Province if you look at in terms of its assets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Looking at its assets, I said. Listen to the rest of my statement. I will use the example of Bay d'Espoir. Bay d'Espoir has a book value listed for asset evaluation purposes of $150 million. Built at a cost of $170 million, all the debt on that was retired in 1992. Now in order to replace that, recent hydro projects in this Province - and I will name them if you want them named - that have been they built in this Province - and I have a list here of each one and what it cost and how many megawatts it produced - and the average now to put it there today is about $3 million per megawatt.

I will just go to the most recent. Paradise River in 1989 cost almost $3 million. In 1985, Cat Arm, at the time it was 2 million a megawatt. One hundred and twenty-seven megawatts. The Bay d'Espoir project today, the Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric asset there, has -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: - a value of about $1.5 billion based on the replacement value of that, or more.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move that we proceed to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. minister that we move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the Member for Ferryland just presented a petition on Hydro introducing and repeating many of the economic arguments against privatization. I think one or two other members should have a chance to speak on the petition as well to elaborate, to continue the list of reasons why privatizing Hydro is an extremely bad idea for the Province.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. member presented a petition. The hon. Minister of Finance rose in his place, the Chair recognized him. The motion was put to move to Orders of the Day. The motion was carried. There is really no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: We are into Orders of the Day now, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. BAKER: I would like to call, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. BAKER: The Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm honoured today to speak to this Budget. I guess the first order of business would be congratulations to the Minister of Finance of this Province for bringing in what all people would have to say is a masterful document, one that could only be brought in by a financial genius, Mr. Speaker, that's what I would have to submit to this House today.

Hardly have we ever heard of a situation where we have been in such dire economic straits and be able to get a Minister of Finance to bring in the kind of Budget that he did here a few weeks ago, that kept our commitments to social programs, it maintained compassion, integrity in our social programs, it gave the financial world a very clear picture of our fiscal responsibility in our programs and then, Mr. Speaker, obviously ignored the socialists hoards opposite, obviously ignored the socialists opposite.

Obviously, he didn't look at Bob Rae up in Ontario, obviously he didn't look at Mr. Rae in Ontario who nearly, nearly drove the finances of that province through the floor, so, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to stand here in support of this Budget and I want to outline a few things as it relates to the Budget's expenditure details, that I think are very, very important and people must remember that we have now put in place some very significant things, and a great deal of the credit has to go to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

This year, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be spending millions of dollars throughout this Province, and indeed in Labrador spending $4 million to $5 million, money that wasn't there just a few short weeks ago, is now being put into place to be able to meet the pressing needs of transportation in Labrador. In my own District of Eagle River, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that they are going to be resurfacing the road between Lodge Bay and Mary's Harbour; they are going to be resurfacing the airstrips at Paradise River and Mary's Harbour -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, resurfacing because obviously the weather and the fact that it hasn't been paved, has worn it down and the top is gone off it and obviously very, very hard for people to commute from Mary's Harbour to Lodge Bay, and where we have the crab plant in Mary's Harbour, a lot of the people who are in Lodge Bay and not only for work but just the mail delivery and getting goods and services back and forth between the two communities, is a very important link for these people and to be able to go in there now and be able to put $300,000 or $400,000 of taxpayers money into that particular region, Mr. Speaker, I think, is a very, very fine indication of the kind of commitment that we have to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and commitment to our small communities because we are taking taxpayers money and putting it where the need is, not simply because of partisan political purposes that we saw so much in the past, and obviously to be able to maintain a roads program this year, a provincial roads program of $20 million in this fiscal year, is very, very good news indeed and, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the construction industry will be saying anything but good news that is forthcoming from this government again this year on the transportation needs that we have.

Mr. Speaker, we see from the Department of Environment and Lands, funding of some $150,000 being provided for the development of a waste management strategic plan for the Province, very, very important; people in this Province want to know how we are going to approach waste management and to put this kind of funding into it so that we can get a strategic plan in place, I think it is very indicative of our consciousness as it relates to environmental concerns and waste management, one of the most important aspects of the Department of Environment and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Fisheries, we see a strong, unequivocal commitment to helping out Northern Labrador to be able to provide the money to operate the plant in Nain and assist in the plant in Makkovik, to be able to get the turbot that is there adjacent to these communities, brought in to these communities so that we can have these people in Northern Labrador working rather than on any kind of a program, they will be working and producing a tremendous product from Northern Labrador, that it will be attractive to the marketplace, that we will be able to generate revenue not only for the communities but for the government as well so that we can make the government owned operation in Northern Labrador a self sustaining one.

Mr. Speaker, the interest rate subsidy that we've seen, or the rate subsidy for the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation in the coastal air flight services. I noticed that in the Budget the government indicated there would be an increase of 25 per cent. Thanks to the work that has been put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains, and I would say also the people in my riding, and I've supported them, the government has now seen the implementation of a 10 per cent increase in these rates. That is something that is reasonable, that is something that the people on the Coast of Labrador can support.

Obviously now we are at the stage where we have two airlines going into Coastal Labrador. There are five communities - Mary's Harbour, St. Lewis, Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown, and Cartwright - that now have a second airline going into these communities. They are going in there at this level of pricing, which is very encouraging to know that we have the ability now to be able to keep two airlines on the Coast of Labrador and at a reasonable rate. I think that the government must be congratulated for being able to see these things move along and still be able to maintain a sound program of transportation services along the Coast of Labrador.

Forestry and agriculture. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is also going to be well remembered and well respected on the Coast of Labrador for the work that they have done under the comprehensive Labrador Agreement, which is 30 per cent funding from this government. We have seen the completion of a management plan for the Coast of Labrador. We have seen the introduction of a training program in forestry harvesting. Some thirty people who would otherwise be on NCARP or the new TAGS program went into the forest training program last year, a first of its kind in Labrador, and through that program thirty-some people on the Coast of Labrador and the Cartwright and the Port Hope Simpson area got trained in wood harvesting.

At the present time I'm happy to say to the people of this House and to the people of the Province that we are revitalizing our forestry industry along the Coast of Labrador. Just a couple of days ago I talked to an individual in Port Hope Simpson, Mr. Strugnell, who has always been involved in the local saw milling industry, but this year he has two significant contracts to fulfil, some 4,000 cords of wood that he is going to provide to Abitibi- Price. At the present time he is looking at having twenty people working there full-time. For six to seven months of this year they will be working along. He has a contract now also to keep a number of these people on through the winter months. That is the start of something that is new, something that is great and something that is meaningful, because our economy, as you know, is dependent, for the last thirty or forty years in particular, on the fishery pretty well 100 per cent.

What we see here now is the start of a real alternative in the economy of Coastal Labrador and that is the tremendous wood resources we have in the Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown and Cartwright area. This wood must be harvested because if it isn't it is just going to decay. Here we have the best black spruce in the world for pulp production. It can generate a much greater yield than the wood on the Island because of the fact that it had such a short growing season. Apparently, they tell me that because of the short growing season it has been compressed that much more than it would be in other parts of the Province. They say it gives a much greater yield in the pulp and paper industry, in the processing of that particular resource. I'm very optimistic about the future for forestry harvesting and processing along the Coast of Labrador and I think the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture must accept a lot of that responsibility.

We know that there has been a proposal for some time by an Austrian company to come into Cartwright and to put a laminating processing plant in Cartwright. Unfortunately, because of the fact there was no management plan in place, because of the fact that there has been the land claims issues that have been raised by the Innu and also supported strongly by the Metis association, because of that there has been a delay in being able to get anybody to go into that area and cut wood and saw it into lumber form. Therefore that particular company has moved and obviously any kind of a company that can't provide its market must look to find an alternate source. They have now set up, or some of the principals involved, have purchased Canada Bay Lumber in Roddickton and certainly they are proceeding there to try and fulfil their markets.

It is certainly our hope and our aspiration, and I would hope that the management plan that has now been finished, and the environmental report that must accompany that plan will be finished by the end of this year. By the end of this year we will know that we have so many cords of wood, some 40,000 cords of wood that can be taken out of the Cartwright area alone, that we will be able to go to the marketplace once again and say: We have solved our problems, we have addressed our environmental concerns, we have made the management decisions that are necessary to promote this industry on a self-sustaining basis. We will be able to find other companies that are out there that are willing to come in and take this product.

Because it is, as every member of this House knows, that lumber is one of the fastest rising commodities on the market today. Its price has increased significantly over the last number of years. We are very optimistic that we can put together a package where the people locally can be joined into joint ventures with others and be able to harvest the wood and bring it out to the Cartwright area and saw it through having saw mills set up in that area. I am optimistic that we will have 100 to 150 people in two to three years' time, at least in two to three years' time, working in that particular area of forestry on the Coast of Labrador.

That is the kind of thing that will sustain our communities. That is the kind of thing that we will have to put in place to be able to keep our communities alive and to keep our lifestyles as we are. Because believe it or not I do sincerely believe that our people want to stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to maintain that same standard of living that they have. They want to be able to keep their families where they grew up. They want to maintain their homes that they've worked so hard for in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is incumbent upon us to assist them in being able to diversify their economy and being able to put the plans in place that will see it sustain itself into the future.

Obviously one of the most critical things to the development of forestry and tourism and other general services along the coast of Labrador is the completion of the northern Gulf route, which would encompass a Trans-Labrador Highway. We do have the sound economic basis for it. Just last January there was a study released by Fiander-Good, a very reputable consulting firm in Atlantic Canada, which did a $200,000 study which showed quite clearly that to put a road across Labrador is a sound economic proposition. For every dollar that would be spent by the taxpayers in putting a road from Red Bay to Cartwright in my riding the taxpayers would get back $1.70. Seventy cents more would be given back to the taxpayers than the taxpayers would have to put in, by virtue of a number of factors.

The first factor of course is that there would be an elimination and a rationalization of Marine Atlantic. Right now the Marine Atlantic service to Coastal Labrador, which is there for three to four months a year, costs $24 million to be able to operate. If we were to take the road down to Cartwright that would eliminate the need for at least 80 per cent of that particular subsidy. Immediately we would have that kind of money being redirected. That money would then be spent more effectively.

We would then have a greater diversification in the Goose Bay area, where Goose Bay then would be receiving the freight from the transport trucks and going to Northern Labrador, and obviously, later on in the fall, Cartwright would then be a distribution point. That is one thing that Marine Atlantic has done this year and has done right. It has designated Cartwright as a transshipment point for the freight going to Mary's Harbour, to Nain on the Coast of Labrador. Because, before, it used to go into Goose Bay, but because of the twelve or fourteen hours steam into Goose Bay they were losing a lot of time. Also, because Lake Melville freezes up so much more quickly than every other part of the Coast, we were losing about a month each year where the service could not continue. By having the transshipment point in Cartwright, we will now be able to have the goods delivered faster, more efficiently, and obviously, Mr. Speaker, it will bring more economic benefits to the community of Cartwright.

I would hope that some hon. members this year will take their vacations and visit the Coast of Labrador and see what is happening there, because there is still a very vibrant economy on the Coast of Labrador. I would venture to say that we are ahead of the game when it comes to diversifying our economy and making a fishery of the future. People will know that on the Coast of Labrador this year, even though there is a moratorium on Northern cod - and if you were to ask anybody on the street what is going to happen to Coastal Labrador with no Northern cod, people would say: There is no reason for it to be there, there would be no reason for it to exist. Because the home of Northern cod used to be the Hamilton Banks for a certain time of the year, and in the Cartwright channel and the Hawke channel and all along the coast of Labrador. Then throughout the summer it would move on along into 3K, and obviously, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks later in the year.

Today, as we speak, once the ice clears from the Coast of Labrador, we will have a modern crab plant again operating in Cartwright, Labrador, with over 100 jobs, producing a fine product in fully processed crab meat taken by local people in their own vessels, harvested by our own people on the Coast of Labrador, brought into Cartwright and processed by a modern plant that takes the crab, cooks it and then freezes it and puts it out ready for market. It is a very attractive product, indeed.

They are making money. Last year the plant in Cartwright made $1 million profit. It is the people's plant. It is owned by the people themselves through the Labrador Shrimp Company, some 800 or 900 shareholders in that particular company. It is the real ideal, in my view. It is an ideal indication of how the people can take control of their resources, maintain integrity in the financial world, and go out and put money into places where maybe ordinarily there wouldn't be any money.

Because a few years ago when Cartwright wasn't in co-op. hands we weren't seeing very much activity there. When the co-op took it over, what they used to do with the money that they were getting from their offshore shrimp industry, the royalties they were getting from the offshore shrimp, they would take that money and cross-subsidize it. They would put it into a place like Cartwright. That is how they put in $300,000 to $400,000 into Cartwright to give it the brand new modern equipment that is there and built a very fine plant indeed, a state-of-the-art plant, because of the cross-subsidization. Now, we have greater security in the community of Cartwright than they've had for twenty-five years. That is no stretching of the truth at all.

Then, we go further up the shore and we find in the community of Mary's Harbour, again, right next to the great cod fishing off the Coast of Labrador, right next to Battle Harbour - it used to be the capital of Labrador - where there were 25,000 people from the Island who used to go fifty years ago in schooners, and obviously, 100 years ago it was the same thing. They used to go down there and they would all go to Indian Harbour, Indian Cove, Battle Harbour, Carol's Cove, Camp Islands, Murray's Harbour and Tub Harbour. All those places would be crowded with schooners from Newfoundland and other parts of the northern shore of Quebec.

They would go there and fish. Now there is no cod, obviously we are not going to see that kind of migration. But today the community of Mary's Harbour has a greater future and a more secure future than they've had for twenty-five years. The last two years, Mr. Speaker, in this community, with a population of 300-400 people, there were twenty-nine new houses built there, and these twenty-nine new houses were built by our young people. I think it is quite telling that these people, under thirty-five, 90 per cent of them who built these new homes, these are people who we are saying can't wait to get out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's not true. When there is an alternative, when there is security, when there is a chance to earn a living and build a future for themselves and their families, they will choose every time to stay where they grew up, stay where their home is, stay where their family is.

Now, that is not to say that everybody will, because there are people who want to go into other fields. People will leave for adventure, regardless; if they were given a million dollars when they went to school, they will do that, but for the most part, people who have an obligation to themselves, and want to be able to sustain themselves and their families, they will certainly make that decision every time.

St. Lewis, just next door to Mary's Harbour, is in the same situation. They, this year, are going to be operating a crab plant there. Now that doesn't end. Down in the Williams Harbour area of Labrador we have a tremendous scallop industry, one that has never been utilized before. People used to go out when there was codfish, and maybe in the evenings they would go out and put a small bucket over a sixteen foot or eighteen foot boat and just drag up a few scallops for their dinner table, but today -

Last year there were 150 people who got insurable earnings, rather than go on the NCARP, rather than go and get assistance from government, these 150 people worked in the scallop industry in that area and got better earnings that they have had for quite some time. This is an industry that can start this time of year, usually in May or June, and it can go well on into October or November. It can have a longer season than the cod fishery ever had. It can bring greater stability to this area than the cod fishery ever could. Those are the kinds of things that we have to look at, and we have to put management plans in place that will be able to give that kind of security to these communities.

When I talk about management plans, what I am saying is that there is a chance in a number of other areas in this Province where we can take adjacent fisheries, whether it be scallops, turbot, shrimp, crab, or redfish, and right now we have a $75 million shrimp industry. People don't realize this, but right now as we speak there is a $75 million shrimp industry going on right from Northern Labrador, down along the Coast of Labrador, and into St. Anthony Basin. Now, that is going on, albeit out of sight, because you can't see it. It is being done by seventeen license holders. Obviously, unfortunately, nine of these license holders are outside of this Province. Six hundred of the 1,000 jobs in that industry are taken by people outside of this Province, even though there is not one shrimp caught south of Fogo Island, even though we are not allowed to go even close to the shrimp in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, over towards the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec shores, up in Anticosti and Sept-Iles; we are not allowed to go there, but for some reason, the Government of Canada decided that 600 of the 1,000 jobs, paying at least $50,000 a shot, can go to people outside of this Province. They can go to the Coast of Labrador and take this precious resource, and also the mainstay, as the Clearwaters of the world, and the Mersey Seafoods of the world, and the Ulf Snarbys of the world, they can go and reap the profits from that particular resource, and nobody can say anything to them - and that is not right.

Right now, just north of us, over in Greenland, it should be noted, which is further north than Cape Chidley, we have eight shrimp processing plants in operation, some of them for eight to ten to twelve months each year - each year - in Greenland. Now, that is the same shrimp that is being landed in Greenland, the same stock as serves the Coast of Labrador, because Davis Strait is separated only by a line. On one line you have the Greenland fishery and on the other line we have the Canadian fishery controlled by Canada.

That particular industry is providing hundreds of jobs in Greenland, and shrimp is a resource which has a very long shelf life to it so you can bring it in, store it, and be able to process it as you need it. It is not something like, even caplin, which would spoil rather quickly. Shrimp have a long shelf life, so what they do over there is take it, and they have access to the market and they know what the market can stand at certain times of the year, so they use it according to the market demand. They are able to keep the price up at a certain level, and obviously they are able to keep their processing at a certain stage in terms of the number of people they employ. But, for the total shrimp resource on the coast of Labrador, which is some 30,000 metric tons right now, there is not one shrimp processing plant taking one shrimp from that anywhere in Canada, and certainly not one in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, there is no reason for that. Over in Greenland they have an inshore shrimp fishery which is harvested by people with sixty-five foot boats or less, and here we are on the coast of Labrador trying to get an inshore shrimp fishery started. There is no reason why it cannot be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it lie now?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The proposal you mean? Well, right now, this year we want to get an experimental program underway and we are asking the federal government to provide at least one or two experimental licenses so that we can take a couple of our idle sixty-five footers that are in the Labrador Straits and have them go down there and see what they can catch, and see what the economics would be. Between the harvesting of the shrimp and the academic study that should also be carried on, which would tell us what the resource is, and what the markets are, then we would be able to put together a program to say there should be a plant in Black Tickle. That is what I would advocate, that there should be a plant in Black Tickle because it is right out in the middle of the coast of Labrador. It is the furthest out on the coast and it can be accessed for eight to ten months each year regardless of ice. There is a facility already there now, and the transition to a shrimp processing plant would not be an astronomical cost, and it would give security to that community and all the people in that community for any number of years to come, because the shrimp are always going to be there.

For instance, right now, the shrimp industry and the shrimp resource is one of the few that are actually growing instead of declining. One of their main predators, of course, is cod and they are not there anymore in the numbers they use to be, so the shrimp is actually growing. Now, we are seeing tremendous growth in that resource and the scientists are now telling us that areas 4 and 5, which would go probably from Smokey down to St. Anthony, can withstand another 3300 metric tons of shrimp. The quota can be increased by another 3300 tons. It would take about 2000 tons to give a community like Black Tickle and the 100 workers in Black Tickle a product that they can use, and give them at least six or seven months work each year.

What I am asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do, is to not have that 3300 tons reallocated amongst the seventeen users, nor have separate offshore licenses issued, but to keep that there for this year so we can assess the viability of an inshore fishery. Then, if we can, dedicate that quota to an inshore quota and give our fishermen say ten boats and allocations of 200 tons and then we would be able to direct them into a community like Black Tickle.

Also, I would not ignore the possibility of having a shrimp plant for the Northern Peninsula on the same basis, Mr. Speaker. These are the type of things I am happy to see being encouraged by the actions of our government, and the actions of our Minister of Fisheries, in particular. Now, we have the directorate in Labrador, a fisheries directorate. That was brought in last year for the first time ever and it is now up to speed, it is working well and we have a good group of civil servants that are dedicated to Labrador and are working hard to see something like this put in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a good member I would say.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I suppose they must have a good member, too, and I hope they will acknowledge that in another election to come.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do care quite seriously about the future of the Coast of Labrador and I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing in the kind of Budget he did. It provides us with the incentives to continue. It gives us a clear message that in our social sector, in our social programs, in our health care, in our education, in our social services, you are going to be there for us. You are keeping the financial House in order, and at the same time you are allowing us the extra money through the Labrador agreement that will be able to keep us going and keep those new energies channelled in the direction where we can have long-term meaningful employment for the people in this part of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and for that I thank you on behalf of the people of Eagle River. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in the House and say a few words on the 1994 Budget. The strip and cut budget, Mr. Speaker, is probably the way it should be known.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a year almost to the week, few weeks, that I was first elected to the House of Assembly and the people of St. John's East Extern gave me the honour and the privilege to represent them in this hon. House. Mr. Speaker, it's been a very busy year. To say the least, it's been a very interesting year. We've dealt with many issues in the House of Assembly and in my district. I've dealt with many personal problems, helped people out in many issues. I've dealt with municipal issues and had a lot of meetings with the municipalities and helped solve problems of individual constituents. Now, Mr. Speaker, since I got into politics, it's only been a year, I find that I get the most satisfaction from solving personal problems with people. If it could be said that there is such a thing as a natural high, if an individual has some serious problem and you can help solve that problem, it certainly gives me a personal high and I'm sure it does to many hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year there's been many contentious issues dealt with in the House of Assembly of course and probably the one that's taking the most time is the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Bill 1. Mr. Speaker, what can I say on that that hasn't already been said by most of the members on this side of the House? I realize that many members on the opposite side of the House have not spoken for various reasons. I think the most obvious of course is that they are not permitted to speak. They've been asked by the Premier to keep quiet on the issue. He announced that on province-wide television but, Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of this Province are against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

What it boils down to, for me on that issue, is the simple fact that even if the Premier and the government could prove to me and to everyone in the Province that it was a good deal for the people of the Province, that it was going to put money in their pockets or whatever the case may be, if they could prove it was the best thing since sliced bread, if the majority of the people don't want it - end of discussion, Mr. Speaker. So not much more could be said on that issue that already hasn't been said, Mr. Speaker.

Some members opposite have been saying that there will be no facts and figures given on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not a true statement to make because members on this side of the House, and in particular the Member for Ferryland has stood in this House and gave a lot of facts and figures. The only people who haven't been giving facts and figures to the public and to this House is the government, Mr. Speaker. They haven't actually refuted the facts and figures that were given by the members on this side of the House and members in the public that have done a lot of study on this issue. So that's all I'm going to say on that issue at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 2, which was brought into this House, the Electrical Power Control Act - and we saw the government bringing in closure three times on one bill, Mr. Speaker. From what I can gather and the information that's been given me is that this government has used closure more times than all three previous governments combined since 1949. To me that is certainly the sign of trying to curtail - at least curtail, not end but curtail democracy in this Province and certainly the makings of a dictatorship, Mr. Speaker.

In this Province over the past year we've seen labour unrest build. I would also say that's it's almost to the point of being unreal in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We saw the stripping of contracts over the past four or five years. I would think that the labour organizations in this Province and the unions in this Province would love to have their previous administrations back. They now know how lucky they were when they had the previous administration in power.

We have the teachers strike upon us, Mr. Speaker. From what I can gather here and there's a lot of people of this opinion, that the teachers were deliberately put on the street. I don't know if it was because of the vindictiveness of the administration but it certainly appears to be so, vindictiveness on the part of their government, Mr. Speaker. The issue of the severance pay during the winter months was put on the negotiating table by the government, Mr. Speaker, and now we have something like 300 teachers resigned because of the threat of losing their severance pay, definitely a tactic by the administration to get rid of the higher paid teachers who have been in the system thirty-odd years, without consideration for the students.

Also we know now that the government wants to get rid of the 2 per cent clause. The 2 per cent clause is a very important factor to the people of rural Newfoundland and to the schools of rural Newfoundland, where they would be protected if the enrollment of students declines and to me it is just another one of the resettlement tactics of the administration opposite.

I believe that the teachers have been treated differently from other unions in this Province and other groups, and it is basically because they want to save $2 million a day that they are on the streets, for my point of view; and I have a suggestion to the minister now before I end on the teachers' situation and how it can be solved, hopefully; and I will ask the question: who has most to gain from this situation of having the teachers on the street? Is it the teachers, the government or the students?

I don't believe the students are going to gain from it, we all know that; I don't believe the teachers are gaining from it, so I think it is one group of individuals who would gain and that is the government, Mr. Speaker. Who is suffering? Of course we all know who is suffering the most anyway, and it is the students of the Province. They are missing part of their school year, maybe the whole year and they are having problems with exams for the Level III, Grade XII, Mr. Speaker.

Why are they on the streets? Because the bottom line tactics of this administration is - my way or no way. To the Minister of Finance, the Premier is not here now and to the Minister of Finance, to solve the problem, I would suggest that the Premier, if he would listen, and the Minister of Finance give the negotiating team the complete authority to work out a deal with the teachers, and I would suggest that the negotiating team and representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association go in a room, lock the door and agree that they won't come out until they have an agreement, and in this way, maybe, Mr. Speaker, we can get the bottom line issue of having the kids out of school back in the classroom, if the government would agree to do that, to give the teachers and the negotiating team particularly, the authority to work out a deal.

Other things we have seen in this House over the past year or so, Mr. Speaker, another very important issue down the road is the Income Supplement Program. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was introduced, and thank God, it never went anywhere at this point in time. We know now that the federal government were looking at it and taking certain sections in considering it but it was turned down by the federal government, but the minister, I think it was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations I believe, said that it is not a dead issue, it is still on the agenda and would be forthcoming in the future.

Again, as I said before, another resettlement policy of this administration. What it is basically doing, if it were put into effect, it would take money from the poorer people and redistribute it to the poor, thereby creating more poor in the Province. Then we have this situation with the ATV regulations to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. There was no planning whatsoever going into these regulations, none whatsoever, there was no consultation process put in place with the users of the ATVs, and the long promised education program that was supposed to be put in place in January and February was not put in place until two days before the regulations became effective April 1.

Now of course, we see the problems that are being caused by these regulations. We have different government departments feeling the effect of the regulations now. We have the Works, Services and Transportation with respect to the Highways Traffic Act or the regulations given permission for people to use their ATVs on roads and cottage developments and woods roads and we are having a problem now where we don't know which overrules which. I have asked the Assistant Deputy Minister to give me a letter stating that the ATV regulations overrule the Highways Traffic Act. That was two months ago, Mr. Speaker, and I am still waiting for that letter.

The forestry and the paper companies now are having problems with the ATV regulations. I again contacted the assistant deputy minister of Forestry and Agriculture and asked her did the ATV regulations apply to forestry equipment like the skidders and the forestry equipment, and I was told quite bluntly that they did apply. I asked if she knew the impact this would have on the paper companies, and it wasn't a factor they were applying.

It was only this past week to two weeks that the forestry people have gotten a letter from the deputy minister, telling them that the regulations don't apply to the forestry companies if they are within approved areas for logging.

Mines and energy are having problems also with the mining companies, and use of equipment with respect to the ATV regulations; also, the Department of Justice.

I have recently found out that the five departments that I mentioned, including the Department of Environment and Lands, had a meeting to discuss the ATV regulations, where the Minister of Environment and Lands, I think, was pretty well reprimanded for not having consulted with the departments in the first place and causing all the headaches.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we see that with respect to the licensing of ATV trails, we have the Department of Environment and Lands going out and looking at the trails, approving the trails, and we have the wildlife turning down the trails. We have a real conflict here, and I also understand now that there has been a big rush put on to approve trails for the May 24 weekend, as many as twenty or thirty trails being approved recently, where the Department of Environment and Lands had to overrule the wildlife section.

Also, with the ATV regulations, staff were supposed to be hired back in January. It was budgeted for, I found out in the Estimates Committee, four staff. They have not been hired yet, at this point in time, and we are going to see more problems in the future. This is what happens when the government refuses to listen.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many more issues that I can get into with respect to the House of Assembly, but there are a few issues that I would like to discuss or mention with respect to my district.

In the Town of Flatrock, over this past year - it has been a year now; it has been something like fifteen months - I have been trying to get some solution to a problem down there with respect to nine wells being polluted, and fourteen houses being affected by the pollution of these nine wells. Now I first started out dealing with the Department of Health for a few months, trying to get the inspections done and completed, and they were finally done and it was confirmed that there were nine wells, I believe, and fourteen houses affected. Not only is the water not fit to drink, but it has a scum on the water. This was caused from pollution, I believe, from septic tanks.

The Department of Health did give approval for some of the septic tanks that were installed and inspected, and other septic systems were installed without inspection, and it is directly related to this problem now. The Minister of Health saw fit to pass the problem on to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The problem has been ongoing for over a year. We have had people in the town carrying water to their homes, in the Town of Flatrock, to these houses, and it is a very serious situation. I have offered a solution to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and have yet to have a response to that proposed solution, or any recommendations back from the department on how we can solve the problem.

The Town of Flatrock is also paying $36,000 a year for the debt retirement of their water that they have in the ground. The only problem with that is that the water line that is in the ground now does not service any houses in the town. It is approximately a kilometre from the nearest house, and because of the formula that is in place now, the town had to turn down a grant to put more water in the ground to service the houses because it could not afford the debt retirement on that.

I offered that maybe we should look at that $36,000 a year and put that towards the solution to the problem with the wells in the area, and hopefully when the minister gets around to it he will give us a positive, positive response to that problem.

Also, with respect to the Town of Flatrock, the Windgap Road is supposed to be a part of the scenic Marine Drive, from St. John's to Pouch Cove, over around the Portugal Cove area. That road is in very, very, poor condition. As a matter of fact, in winter months it is in dangerous condition, with the humps and the bumps and the rises with the frost, and it needs some major, major repairs. I have had meetings with the regional supervisor of Works, Services and Transportation. Actually I had him in the area and we drove over all the roads in the district, all the roads.

Mr. Speaker, we have had very little funding over the past few years and very little funding coming forth this year for roads in my district. There are a few that desperately need to be addressed and hopefully with the co-operation of the department we can address some of those problems this year.

I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is not here right now but I have been speaking with two of the towns to actually meet with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to look at taking over some of the roads that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation now maintain. They seemed to be quite interested in that, and maybe in due course they will agree to take over the roads and take some responsibility off the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Basically why I am approaching the towns at this point in time along that route is because I noticed in the Budget that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is planning to accelerate the takeover of local roads in the municipalities, and the roads that are being maintained by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the town of Bauline also has a road down there, and I had a meeting with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and representatives of the council, to look at the poor condition of the road going into Bauline. Again, that is in very poor condition. The centre of the pavement is cracked, bumpy, and basically pavement was put down over poor bedding. I would think that is what is causing the problem. The pavement is probably twenty-five or thirty years old, very, very old. Again, we are trying to work out a solution on that.

The town of Bauline also made an application for some infrastructure money under the new program that is out. I noticed in the twenty-two projects that were announced a few days ago that no towns in my district obtained any funding. I believe the projects that were announced were probably desperately needed in the areas that did receive those projects, Mr. Speaker, and we are hopeful that maybe in the next announcement, where there is apparently going to be $55 million announced, we may be fortunate enough to get some of the projects approved.

I do believe that the projects are certainly worthwhile, particularly the one in Bauline. The application for infrastructure was an extension to the recreation centre and repairs to the water line in the area. They are two good projects and I supported both in writing to the people responsible. I also say that the proposal put together by the town of Bauline was an excellent job. It was put together really well and I was impressed as soon as I laid my eyes on it.

There are also assessment problems in the town of Bauline, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It has been ongoing for a number of years now and the assessment they are using at this point in time is an assessment that was put together by the old St. John's Metropolitan Board. The town definitely requires a new assessment. What they are using now is incomplete and because it is incomplete they are losing valuable tax dollars that can help offset the costs they have. They have a very low budget, Mr. Speaker, and very few dollars to work with within the town.

The town of Pouch Cove also applied for infrastructure money and they made some very good applications also. They applied for money for the funding of a recreational building in the town. They applied for some water and sewer projects, Mr. Speaker, and I believe after looking at both proposals that they are both desperately needed. There are approximately 2000 people in the town of Pouch Cove and they feel they deserve the services that other municipalities across this Province are receiving. They are virtually pretty close to the City of St. John's, and to see people living so close to St. John's not having the services that are provided to communities maybe three, four, or five hundred miles away makes it seem that there is something drastically wrong with the system.

Also the town of Torbay applied for some infrastructure, and again they are very good applications. They applied for water and sewer projects and some road work which is desperately needed in the town, a recreational building, which was one of the buildings which burned down next to one of the ponds there. They have their share of the money in place to replace that building. I supported both of the projects in the past and as I said before, with respect to the Town of Pouch Cove, that the people in the Town of Torbay deserve no less, Mr. Speaker.

One point I'd like to make also, fifty years ago, I believe in 1945, we saw the end of the Second World War. Actually my father served overseas for seven years in that war. He lives in Torbay now and we have a committee in place in Torbay that are trying to raise funds for a war memorial down there which is long overdue from my perspective, Mr. Speaker. We are working towards having a nice war memorial put in place by the end of this summer and the committee are very active along those lines, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully we can get some support and will get support from the people in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Mr. Speaker, has a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with. I spoke on this last year, one year ago, Mr. Speaker, when I made the speech in the House and it needs to be dealt with. I believe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is taking some action along this route and that's the problem with the St. John's regional fire committee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's regional fire committee is nothing less than a schemozzle as it now stands. I said it in the past and I say it again, Mr. Speaker, and it was created by this administration. Now in May of 1992, two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I made a presentation when I was chairman of the Northeast Avalon Towns Joint Council which includes both cities and thirteen other municipalities at the time. I made a presentation to the St. John's regional fire committee which had eleven representatives from the City of St. John's at the time and still do and one from each other municipality that's involved, which I think is five other municipalities. Now, Mr. Speaker, that in itself creates problems but I think that problem can be solved in due course, Mr. Speaker, quite reasonably.

Now I made a presentation to that committee and, Mr. Speaker, during that meeting after they listened to the presentation - one of the most vocal members of the committee made a statement that what we'll do, in the future we will listen to the people of the smaller towns and then we will do what's best for the City of St. John's. So, Mr. Speaker, what did I do? I got up and left the meeting because I knew we were beating a dead horse. There was no point of being there. So after I left three other mayors got up and left also because they felt the same way and that was in the fall of 1992, September of 1992, and it's still ongoing. It's not solved yet. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said I presented a paper or submission outlining the problems and they were never addressed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a portion of my district is in the City of St. John's. I'm in a bit of a conflict here because I had represented the views of - some people living in the City of St. John's and five other towns but what I said two years ago I can't change today because I'm standing in the House of Assembly. What I believed to be right then, I believe to be right now, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I said, the major problems are representation and the cost recovery formula. The cost recovery formula is a more difficult problem to deal with. I think we all addressed it and know that but, Mr. Speaker, the cost recovery formula has to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. As it now stands, the cost recovery formula and what the towns are being billed by St. John's has not been approved. They're not legal bills and being the mayor at the time of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, I realized that we were not paying our proper share, our fair share. So what we did we doubled our - we were paying $15,000 up to $30,000 and in the following year we went up to $45,000, Mr. Speaker, which I thought was quite reasonable based on the services that we were receiving.

The St. John's regional fire committee and in particular the council of St. John's are saying that the towns are not paying their bills and they're in arrears. Mr. Speaker, legally speaking we are not in arrears one cent. We're paying more then we are legally required to pay at this point in time and I think the minister would have to agree to that, legally speaking. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill that we received from the City of St. John's increased the cost to the town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove by 850 per cent. It went from almost $16,000 up to $130,000 which is quite a lot of money for a small town. Now just to give you some idea of the unfairness of this situation, I made some comparisons and I made this presentation back two years ago and it was never looked at or considered. As I said, our Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, where I live, is paying $130,000 a year if this is accepted, and it the minister decides to go with what is being proposed.

Now the Town of Witless Bay is paying $10,000 a year; the Town of Bay Bulls, $2,500 a year; the Town of Flatrock, $9,000 a year; the Town of Pouch Cove, $30,000 a year, and they have their own volunteer fire department, which we are not allowed to have, by the way; the Town of Bauline, $4,500; and the Town of Torbay, which has their own volunteer fire department, and we could actually approach the Town of Torbay, but because of legislation that was put in place and named one town, or two or three towns, it is not a regional fire department, I think there are members on the council in Mount Pearl who agree that it can't work and will never work, and the Town of Torbay is paying $33,000 a year, and here we have a little town over in Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, half the population, are going to pay $130,000 a year.

Now we have a situation where the City of St. John's is going ahead and talking about hiring more staff, more firemen - I think it was forty-odd firemen before - with no input from Mount Pearl or any of the towns involved, just made that decision. It is impacting upon the smaller towns with no input whatsoever. It is not right; it hasn't been. I disagreed with it from the start, and it has to be dealt with.

With respect to some of the problems involved, I mentioned the cost recovery formula, but in my report - I will refer to it here now - the cost recovery formula also, now what is being proposed is that if a town is a certain distance from the fire hydrants it would be a 10 per cent decrease -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of private conversation is such that I can't hear the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is important stuff, and I think the people should listen to it.

The cost recovery formula - now they are talking about reducing it by 10 per cent to a town such as Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, who is a certain distance from a fire department - 10 per cent, okay. Now it drops down to $117,000; another 10 per cent if they don't have water and sewer in the town, so that is another 10 per cent, so now we are down to $100,000 - still three times the amount of money that is being paid by a neighbouring town which has their own fire department - and we are not getting the services.

For example, at the meetings I have stated in the past that if a house catches fire in Logy Bay or Outer Cove, because of the response time, the house will burn to the ground. In seven years we have had three major fires, and what happened? Each house burned to the ground. At the committee meeting I made a statement. I said: If a house catches fire in Outer Cove, on Doran's Lane in Outer Cove, I said it will burn to the ground. A year later, unfortunately, we had a new home built up there, it was only a year-and-a-half old, maybe a $300,000 house. It caught fire; the fire department responded. What happened? The house burned to the ground, so it is something we have to look at.

Some of the problems I have with it is, why do we have to pay so much money? A town like Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, because of insurance costs they are paying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure Kents Pond is next door to that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hang on, now. We have to pay more money for insurance costs.

It was just pointed out to me that Kents Pond is right next door, but the response time is thirteen minutes down there. On a good day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: If Kents Pond is out, which is the initial response, then they have to come from O'Leary Avenue - what do they call it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kenmount.

MR. J. BYRNE: Kenmount, to the other part of Logy Bay, and they want us to pay the same money as they do in St. John's. It is unreal, it is unreasonable, and it has to be dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) save a life down there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is another issue altogether.

Insurance costs, we pay more because we are so far away from a fire hydrant, and more again because we are so far away from a fire department, so there are increased costs there.

We have the federal and provincial government buildings in the City of St. John's that are a factor. I think there is 15 per cent difference that the government would pay. I think what should happen is that every building in St. John's - and that goes with the university, the Health Sciences, Confederation Building - everything should be appraised and assessed, and they should pay their fair share. You cannot expect a small town like Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, with 2,000 people, to pay $130,000 a year. It is unreasonable, again; it is unfair.

We have the potential for major fires in the City of St. John's, which we don't have in the small, rural communities. We have row housing in St. John's; we have hospitals in St. John's; we have buildings with dangerous chemicals in them in St. John's, which we don't have in the smaller communities. We need equipment with the St. John's Regional Fire Department specifically to address those concerns. We have the large aerial ladder; we have the response for emergency equipment with respect to dangerous fires; we should not have to pay (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Mr. Speaker, this is very important; I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. members opposite for giving me leave on this - for the potential fires.

The rescue units, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to pay the same percentage based on a per capita basis and we have the rescue units in St. John's being called out to respond to the City of St. John's, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more times than they do down in our town in Logy Bay, Middle Cove and Outer Cove. I think in the run of a year, it is ten or twelve times compared to hundreds and hundreds of times.

As I mentioned before, the response time with respect to Kents Pond and Kenmount is a very serious situation in our town and as I stated before, one fire that we had down there a couple of years ago, took something like thirteen minutes and that was on a good day, on a good day, a bright, sunny, fall day, a dry day. If there were snow and raining, it would take them even more time and that's a major concern also, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to go on a lot more on this issue, Mr. Speaker, but I would say that when they make the comparison to the smaller towns and paying on a per capita basis, it cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. Something has to be worked out where, if it is on a per call basis that we pay a basic amount, whatever, $30,000 or $40,000 a year and I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he wanted a solution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? What I am saying is, maybe the smaller towns could pay a base rate, $30,000 or $40,000 a year and then pay on a call-out basis. That is a possible solution to this problem with respect to the cost recovery formula and the situation with the committee itself, representation on the committee, I think that can easily be worked out; so, Mr. Speaker, on that note I would sit down and say, thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to have the opportunity to take part in this Budget debate. Before I go into my presentation, I want to say a few words to carry on from where I left off yesterday as a result of some comments that my good friend from Grand Bank, who just asked me to sit down, had made reference to it so I would like to continue on.

I made reference to the importance of proper nutrition and the effect of nutrition on colon cancer, and I will show you why I am raising this point now.

Dietary fat has a greater effect on the incidence of colon cancer than does dietary fibre actually and I will tell you why. When you consume a lot of fat it slows down the passage of stool out of the body and as a result the stool sits in the large colon where there is certain bacteria that act on the secretions from the gallbladder known as bile; there are chemicals that are secreted from the gallbladder and the action of these microflora are in the large colon on the bile, creates very, very, in small amounts, but very, very, very potent carcinogens, and the leading thinking on the incidence of colon cancer today, a major cause is the result of the level of fat in our diet.

Now, I suspect in twenty years time, because of the great increase in fat consumed by our young people today and some who are a little older like myself, it will be interesting to see the incidence of colon cancer in twenty years time because of the amount of fat consumed in the form of McDonald's hamburgers, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mary Brown's Fried Chicken and I can continue with the fast food industry which is primarily a source of empty calories as we would call it, that is very high energy intake food with very low total nutrient content, so I want to raise that point because of the cost of health care.

Now today to continue on on the Budget debate I should also like, as I did yesterday, to commend the Minister of Finance for the job that he is doing in this Province, and certainly support this present Budget that is put forward to this House for approval.

The cost of health care, again, I want to come back into being here. The direct and indirect costs of health care are enormous. The direct costs of course are what we experience every day in the visits to the doctor, the hospitalization for various health problems and so on. Then there is the undercover cost and that is the cost of the low productivity as a result of sickness, the cost of sick leave days, which is a cost to our Province and our society, and the general cost from people just not feeling well as they go to work or go to their school and so on. Therefore the cost to the treasury of this Province is enormous. We calculate it generally in the cost of the direct cost but the indirect cost is probably even larger than the direct cost.

Good health, Mr. Speaker, begins at the level of the foetus. The pregnant mother is where the good health and nutrition begins. I say that because the effect of - we all know of the problem of alcoholism and alcohol consumption. The effect of alcohol for instance on the developing foetus is also very significant. We know that as far as alcoholism is concerned a large percentage of alcoholics and alcoholism starts at a very young age. Because it stimulates in the fetus in the developing liver a group of cells -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. HULAN: Please listen. It stimulates in the liver a group of cells that feed on alcohol and the by-products of alcohol metabolism. Those cells as we get older send off a chemical that sends a message to the brain to crave alcohol. That is one of the leading theories on alcoholism today. Of course alcoholism both at the fetus level, the pregnant mother level and at the adult level has a tremendous effect on nutrition absorption, nutrient absorption and proper nutrient of the body, and that search, Mr. Speaker, and hon. colleagues at the level of the fetus.

Smoking is another issue that has an effect directly on the developing fetus and is responsible for a certain percentage of the heart defects of young children which can be directly related to the smoking of the mother, the pregnant mother.

I want to bring back a comment from yesterday versus breast feeding and can milk. The reason why I am up here today is because I want to make the rest of my presentation centered around breast feeding, believe it or not, and the importance of breast feeding in the proper nutrition and health of the young individual.

We know it is impossible, as I told you yesterday, to mimic human milk. With the exception of the more recent development, it has been through the years impossible to mimic human milk. The reason why it is impossible to mimic is because human milk contains a certain combination of nutrients, and one nutrient in particular that does not exist from terrestrial sources is a particular omega-3 fatty acid that is found in seal, as I indicated earlier in this House, and fatty fish. That particular fatty acid I will just abbreviate now for you, DHA, we know is directly involved in human brain development at the level of the fetus. It is also important in the development of the retina of the eye, but more importantly it is associated with the development of the human brain.

Maybe that is why over the years Newfoundlanders who have been reared on fish and fish products have always been smarter, as I told my mainland friends, smarter than our colleagues on the mainland. If I had time I would tell you a story about that from the results of some research I did years ago that disproved that theory very, very much. The results of the research indicated that if you ate fish and fish oil you may become, over time, less smart and more stupid, and it is unfortunate the results came out that way. But good nutrition in the human being, in the developed child, is directly associated with, of course, good health, but more importantly, there is a direct connection between good nutrition and the learning ability of children, the retention span of children, the level of hyperactivity of children.

My hon. friend, the Member for Grand Bank, when I mentioned hyperactivity, pointed to his hon. colleague, the Member for Ferryland. I don't know why he did that, but anyhow, he did.

Believe it or not, good nutrition is associated with the level of comprehension in the young child. So we have a very important aspect of our life here in that in the early stages of life, since we cannot mimic, in a formula, human breast milk that contains the right level combination and ratio of these nutrients, and some nutrients that don't exist on land, you can see the importance of why we should introduce and encourage a whole program on breast-feeding in this Province, as Ontario and Quebec have done. Ontario and Quebec have done that. Many states in the United States have introduced and encouraged breast-feeding in the care of pregnant women and childbirth.

As a result of breast-feeding being practised in the United States, and in some provinces in this country, there is some evidence now to suggest that breast-fed babies are more intelligent than babies fed artificial formulas. Having said that, though, a colleague of mine in Ottawa has recently basically produced human milk from a combination of goat milk, cow's milk and fish oil, and he has pretty well mimicked human milk production. It will be interesting to see what the human milk content - how that milk behaves in proper experimentation with that of breast-fed children.

In order for us to introduce a program in this Province on breast feeding, it certainly would involve encouragement and input from the Department of Health and those outside agencies such as the Dietetic Association, the Home Economists' Association, and the health care nutritionists who will work hand in hand with the medical community and the Newfoundland Medical Association in the development of such a program.

One of the problems is that there is a large education package required here, therefore, any move towards breast-feeding would also have to include the Department of Education and the school system to educate the young towards good nutrition and also the young women and young men of our society to the importance of breast-feeding when the young women become mothers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Yes. I will not tell that story.

So, you can see, it is not just going to be the input from one department of government. It has to be the input of the outside agencies, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture - because it is a food we are talking about - and believe it or not, the Department of Justice. We have an opportunity in this Province to take a lead here now and start the ball rolling towards this move in the area of preventative health care that will save millions of dollars to the provincial treasury through the areas that I have mentioned.

I would now like to say once again that I support the Budget that has been presented to this House. I adjourn the debate for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Monday, as hon. members probably know, is a holiday, so we won't be meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday and that the House do now adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I will be contacting the Opposition House Leader; I assume that it will be either the continuation of the Budget debate or the estimates of the Executive Council.

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