March 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

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, the Premier is in Corner Brook, I

gather.

MR. ROBERTS: The Premier is in Corner Brook doing an open

line show.

MR. SIMMS: And the Minister of Mines and Energy is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: He has been exiled.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will ask the Government

House Leader, and ask him if he can respond to the questions.

I understand from media reports that at a public meeting held

in his district on Wednesday night, called to discuss the sale of Hydro, the

Premier's parliamentary assistant, the Member for St. John's South, I understand

from media reports, was asked this question: Do you have an impartial objective

cost benefit analysis from someone who won't benefit from privatization?

MR. MURPHY: The Minister of Finance (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, the Minister of Finance. I understand

the Member for St. John's South said yes in answer to that question. I would

like to put the same question to the Government House Leader. Is there a cost

benefit analysis of the Hydro privatization done by a person or company who is

not involved in the sale of Hydro or that will profit from the privatization? If

such a cost benefit analysis exists, could he tell us who the authors were and

would he table it in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was also at that meeting

and I thought that the Member for St. John's South did an admirable job. There

have been a lot of cost benefit analyses done of the proposed privatization of

Hydro. The analyses have taken two forms. One, when we were originally thinking

about merging with Newfoundland Light and Power. That particular proposal was

analyzed financially by our financial advisors. The proposal for the stand alone

privatization of Hydro was also analyzed in detail, Mr. Speaker. The results of

the analysis indicated that we should go ahead and that has been done.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the question was, was there an

impartial objective cost benefit analysis done from someone who won't benefit.

Does the minister really consider RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod to

really be impartial? Don't they stand to make millions of dollars as

underwriters for the sale of Hydro, or being involved in the sale of Hydro, just

as they made millions of dollars from the sale of Nova Scotia power? Isn't

privatization in their self-interest?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, to

get these analyses done you use the best people who are available. The best

people we feel are the Province's financial advisors. I suppose you could search

around the world. I don't know if you would ever find anybody who would not have

a possible benefit to gain, including the benefit to be gained from doing the

cost benefit analysis. I think that concept is a red herring that the hon.

member is dragging through the issue. I suppose every major financial house

anywhere could possibly stand to gain from a privatization of a large

corporation like this in some way, so, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's question has

no bearing on the situation at all.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That may be the opinion of the Minister of Finance and I

respect that opinion but I don't agree with it. The reason I asked the question

is that I understood the question was put at the meeting: do you have an

impartial objective cost benefit analysis from someone who won't benefit from

the privatization, and I understood the answer was yes, but now the minister is

saying no, the answer is no; they don't have such a study done by somebody who

doesn't stand to benefit because he doesn't think he could find anybody, I

believe that's what the minister said and maybe he would confirm that as I don't

want to be putting words in his mouth. So let me ask him this or let me tell him

this first of all: I have an impartial economic study that compares the

differences in cost to consumers of private and public electrical utilities. It

was done in 1980 by two economists from universities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't quite hear the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: This study was done in 1980 by two economists

from universities in the United States. The results - is he aware of this?...

the results of their analysis show that public utilities minimize cost and have

24 per cent to 33 per cent lower cost per unit than their privately owned

counterparts and the report says: most of that difference in cost to the higher

rate of return is because of the higher rate of return given to shareholders and

profits. Does the minister have any independent study to refute that particular

finding for example?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I guess you could go back as long

as you want, a 1980 study, a 1985 study, a 1954 study and I guess you could find

a number of analyses done of the concept of privatization, whether privatization

is of benefit or not of benefit. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the

benefit of the privatization of Hydro has been explained well in terms of the

finances of the Province, that's the benefit of privatization of Hydro, and I

would like to say to the hon. gentleman that, you can dig around and find

studies I guess at some point in time to prove anything you want to prove. We

have had the stand alone privatization of Hydro as well as the merger with

Newfoundland Light and Power examined by financial experts who are reliable,

considered amongst the best in the world and, Mr. Speaker, we have used those

figures and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance is standing quite close but I am

having trouble hearing him above the conversations in the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that's a very, very weak argument. I

mean, these people have a self interest. They're going to make millions off this

privatization. My question was: Is there any kind of independent study done?

Now, let me ask him this, if the government hasn't commissioned its own studies,

outside of what the financial advisors have told them, hasn't attempted to

analyze the numerous economic studies that have been done in Canada and in the

United States and elsewhere on the advantages and disadvantages of public versus

private ownership of electrical utilities, have they at least done that much and

if so will they table it? The second question is, since he says there is no

impartial cost benefit analysis done but that there were studies done or

analyses done by their financial advisors who stand to benefit, will he table

those in the House as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it seems that consistently the

tactic used by the Leader of the Opposition is to get up, ask a question and

regardless of what the answer is, then say: Oh, the minister has confirmed that.

Mr. Speaker, it's a tactic that's wearing thin, I should imagine with everybody

in this Province. It's something that is beneath the hon. gentleman. What I say

will stand on its own. The hon. gentleman's

interpretation of what I say is

simply his

interpretation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before we proceeded very far towards the

privatization of Hydro it's been indicated in this House that we did hire a

company who would not stand to benefit from the sale of Hydro, which is

Rothchilds. They would not stand to benefit from the sale of Hydro. This is a

company that is recognized around the world as having experts that can be relied

upon. This is a company that is recognized - maybe not in the hon. gentleman's

mind - but around the world as being a superb company. They are also giving

advice on what has happened, they've looked at the analysis that has been done

and are giving independent advice to government, advice that cannot possibility

be tainted by the possibility of later on receiving some benefit from the sale.

So the independent advice, Mr. Speaker, is in place, yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: So, you have independent advice in place. Now

the other part of my question that he avoided answering, I'll make it simple - I

don't want to put words in his mouth - will he table that independent study or

advice done by Rothschilds and will he table in the House for the benefit of the

public the studies done by the financial advisors recommending privatization?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not table it in the

House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ah! You don't have it!

MR. BAKER: I repeat again, for the Member for Grand Bank,

we do have it. We will not table it for the very simple reason that if we

proceed with the privatization of Hydro, the process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that, that has

consistently been the position of government, that the bill has not passed the

House and we would not insult the House by assuming it has been passed. That has

been our position consistently. When the bill passes the House, in other words

if Hydro is privatized, we would then have to go through a process, and in that

process, we would have to ensure the maximum benefit for the people of this

Province.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.

MR. BAKER: I am getting to the hon. gentleman's question.

I hope he can follow it, if he wants to, if he wants to stop interfering. We

have to go through a process at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, of a prospectus

and sale of shares and we must guarantee, number one, the integrity of that

process. We must guarantee that we are not seen as hyping the sale of shares,

and we must guarantee that the Province receives the maximum possible benefit

from the sale. I say to the hon. gentleman that in transactions of this sort,

whether in the public or private sector, it is not proper to release all of this

information beforehand, Mr. Speaker. It would interfere with the process and it

would guarantee that we would be interfering with what is a stock market process

and that we may, in fact, get less than we should for the sale of shares.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to interfere with that process

- we are not going to do anything that will be detrimental to the best interest

of the people of this Province, and I am not going to table that information,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to the

Government House Leader, a question related to the same topic, the same issue.

During this past week there has been a flurry of activity involving the Premier

and the government, the Premier in particular, Open Line program

appearances, requests for Province-wide air time to make speeches and so on.

Can the Government House Leader confirm that the government

is now, or is about to, in the next day or so, conduct a public opinion poll

following on the heels of this flurry activity and, if so, would he table the

question that will be put to the people?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny

it because I have no knowledge at all on the matter. I can neither confirm nor

deny. I was in Ottawa - I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I heard about it. I heard what a

spectacle the hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East, made of himself,

but no, I have been in Ottawa for the last two days at a meeting of the

Ministers of Justice, with the Attorney General for Canada, so my answer to the

question again is, I can neither confirm nor deny; I just don't know.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would appreciate getting an answer to the

question - maybe the Minister of Finance, who was the Acting Government House

Leader, could answer the same question. I presume he heard the question.

MR. BAKER: What was the question?

MR. SIMMS: Is the government now doing, or about to do,

in the next day or two, or day or so, whenever, a public opinion poll related to

this question of privatization of Hydro and, if so, would he table the question?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seemed to be

surprised that I didn't know what the question was. Not everybody is waiting for

the next word that comes out of the hon. gentleman's mouth, so I am sorry; I was

distracted by something else. The question wasn't to me, and I asked him to

repeat the question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier last night indicated, it seems to

me, that he would not do anything that he felt, in doing, he did not have the

support of the people of Newfoundland. Now, that is my understanding of what he

said.

Mr. Speaker, a poll is one option, and there are other

options. I will probably be speaking with the Premier later on today to see what

he has in mind. As far as I know, and I am not always privy to everything that

goes on, there has not been a poll done, although there might well have been,

and as far as I know there is no time

schedule to do a poll, but that is one

option. I believe the Premier also indicated there may be other options, but

that is an option.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Both the federal and the provincial governments during the

last federal and provincial elections espoused that the Trans-Labrador Highway

was a priority with them, Mr. Speaker. The town council of Happy Valley - Goose

Bay has been told recently, as recent as a month ago, that there would be no

major construction this year. Can the minister confirm this?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, perhaps I could

answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, hold on now!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No, no! Because my friend for Menihek is

misinformed. I was at the council meeting which gave rise to his question. My

friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was not at the council

meeting. I was. No such statement was made to the town council. What I did say,

and what is correct, is there is no money provided in the present estimates,

which my friend has brought to the House for this, and that is no secret, that

is where we are.

We are still negotiating with Ottawa. My friend the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation has been in touch with his counterpart in

Ottawa within the last week or so with a view to dealing with this. The minister

can deal with that. I want to deal with the inaccurate premise, not the false

premise, the inaccurate premise upon which the question was founded. It was and

is an inaccurate premise.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the

minister responsible, the Minister who is responsible for Works, Services and

Transportation. If indeed the hon. Minister of Justice didn't make those

statements about any funding available this year - it wasn't in the Budget -

will there be any major construction this summer on the Trans-Labrador Highway?

Or indeed, will there be any major tender calls this year on the Trans-Labrador

Highway?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to

argue over who was at the meeting or what anybody said at the council meeting. I

wasn't there. I will tell you that I have had negotiations with the hon.

Minister of Transport, the hon. Doug Young, concerning the Trans-Labrador

Highway. I will also tell you very clearly that the Trans-Labrador Highway is a

major priority of this government, is today, and will be in the future. Not only

the completion of the present route from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls but also

the Northern Gulf Road. We have been negotiating over the past couple of weeks.

I've already made that quite clear. I'm hoping that in the next couple of weeks

I will be able to make an announcement on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, in light that the Minister of

Justice said that there was no money in the Budget this year, will there be a

tender call this summer? Does the minister anticipate a tender call this summer?

I would repeat that question, please.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Justice is quite correct.

There was no money in the Budget Estimates for this year. I just finished

telling you that I am in the process of negotiating with the Minister of

Transport of Canada concerning money for this year for the Trans-Labrador

Highway. If we get a successful answer there will be tenders called this year.

If the answer from the Minister of Transport of Canada is no, obviously there

will be no tender called.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation as well. For

years the federal brother of the current Minister of Finance in this House raved

considerably on public media about no Trans-Canada Highway work being done

outside the overpass. With the Roads for Rails Agreement the tractors and trucks

have been busy basically from Donovans to Port aux Basques. However, the

section

of the road between Badger and the Baie Verte Junction might as well be in the

Bermuda Triangle. Why has it been neglected?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the first part of

the hon. member's question because I was turned back on and it is a job to hear

the question down here. If he could repeat the first part of the question. I

wasn't paying attention because I turned back on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had indicated that

for years the federal brother of the current Minister of Finance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

You know, it is very difficult for me to hear at times with

members talking across the House. I'm sure it is extremely difficult for the

minister in this case. So if the hon. member is going to ask a question let's do

him the courtesy of listening to him.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had indicated that for some years the federal brother of

the current Finance Minister in this House had made considerable comment in the

media about the fact that there was very little TCH work being done outside the

overpass, as it's known.

With the Roads for Rails Agreement basically tractors, trucks

and other heavy equipment have been busy basically from Donovans to Port aux

Basques; however, one

section of highway between Badger and the Baie Verte

Junction has been terribly neglected over this time and I would like to ask the

minister: Why has that

section of highway been neglected?

Thank you.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell the hon. member that there is quite an extensive

amount of work going on on the Trans-Canada Highway outside of the overpass. I

fail to understand what he is saying, that there is no work outside of the

overpass. In fact we are spending, this year, about $20 million on Trans-Canada

Highway work across Newfoundland. What we are trying to do is spread as much

work as we can across the Province without doing all of the work in one

particular area. There is a substantial amount of work here on the Avalon

Peninsula. There is more in Central Newfoundland, and quite an extensive amount

of work out in Western Newfoundland.

The piece of highway that he is talking about now is not in

as bad a condition as he says it is in - definitely not - but certainly by the

time the year 2003, when the agreement runs out, we hope to have all of the

highway, the worst part of the Trans-Canada, completed to a reasonable standard.

In the meantime, we are negotiating with the federal

government on a separate agreement, a national policy on highway improvements,

and that will also be a part of when the agreement is reached over the next two

or three years; but in the meantime we have about another $200 million left to

spend on the Trans-Canada, and all that

section of Trans-Canada which requires

repairing and operating will be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Last year I wrote the minister with regard to the terrible

condition of the bridge at the intersection of South Brook, Halls Bay. I even

sent the minister photographs of the bridge in question.

The minister has agreed that the bridge is in terrible shape,

and in need of repair. Can the minister confirm now that that particular bridge

will be done before 2003, number one, and when, if possible, it will be done.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: One of the things that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation is very concerned about is the safety of all

the bridges across the Province. We have an itemized list of the worse scenario

cases of the bridges. They will be done as needed.

I will check out and tell the hon. member on another day

exactly what time the bridge he is referring to will be done, but there is no

particular preference given on any particular area, only the worst case scenario

of the bridges across the Province.

There is money provided in this agreement to do the bridges

on the Trans-Canada, in the Trunk Roads Agreement. Wherever there is a

provincial bridge in any area that needs to be repaired on an emergency basis,

or an urgent basis, we are also looking at that, but I will check out the

particular bridge and give the hon. member a time when it is going to be done.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Justice, and concerns the legal work for the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, commonly known as NLCS.

Would the minister tell the House why, when the tender for

legal work for NLCS was given to the law firm of French, Browne and Dodd, the

work on the privatization of NLCS is being done by the minister's former law

firm, Halley, Hunt. Can the minister explain that? And can he tell the House

whether or not that legal work was put out to tender as well?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the assignment of solicitors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader in his

reply.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the assignment of solicitors

was done by my friend, the Minister of Finance, who carries the responsibility

for divestiture of NLCS. In fact, I have opted out of the entire divestiture

process because, as is well known, I hold shares in NewTel, which is one of the

companies of the consortium.

I can, however, answer his question in a general way. Halley,

Hunt have been retained to act for the government, not for NLCS, and my hon.

friend will acknowledge that the interest of a shareholder, in this case the

government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry; let me answer the question, I

say to my friend, rather than interrupting me.

The interests of a shareholder, in this case the government,

are different than those of the entity themselves. In the case of Hydro, for

example, Hydro has retained law firms. The Hydro Board of Directors have - Rally

Noseworthy and Tory, Tory in Toronto. The government has also retained lawyers,

Curtis, Dawe with the assistance of Blake, Cassels in Toronto. So that's the

answer to the question as to why the firm that was awarded the NLCS work,

French, Browne and Dodd is not representing the government. There would be and

there is a conflict and I may add, we've seen in the case of the Hydro

negotiations ample evidence of the fact that the interest of the company being

divested - either Hydro or NLCS as may be the case - differ from those of the

shareholder, in each case the government.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the - whatever minister would like to do this, table in

the House the contract or the tender for the work on the privatization, the

legal work for the privatization of NLCS and the hourly rate being paid under

that contract for legal work, the estimated cost of the legal work and whatever

tender documents that might relate to it, or is the government saying to the

House that this process of tendering legal work was just a farce and that we're

no longer tendering legal work anymore as long as the government has its own

ideas as to who should be passed out this work? Is this work tendered? What are

the rates being paid and can these documents be tabled in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. gentleman knows, he is or was a member of a law

firm and he knows how the process works, he's done considerable work himself.

The process is that a couple of years ago the Minister of Justice announced that

we'd gone to all law firms and instead of simply picking law firms at whim - as

had been done previously with previous governments - that all law firms were

contacted and they submitted proposals. I suppose it constitutes standing offers

in a sense that all law firms sent in their fees, their particular expertise and

the kind of work that they would like to do. So we have that available to us.

Law firms are then selected on the basis of what information we got back from

these law firms at that point in time.

In terms of the privatization issue, Treasury Board has a

responsibility for the privatization process. Treasury Board, under the

direction of the President of Treasury Board, chose a law firm to do that

particular piece of work for the privatization of NLCS. The Minister of Justice

explained quite adequately that the company that was referred to does work for

NLCS and will do work for NLCS if NLCS needs to during this process but in terms

of the privatization we chose a lawyer at Halley, Hunt to do that particular

piece of work for us.

Mr. Speaker, as to what he asked to be tabled, I would say to

him that we will - once we know what the costs are, as soon as we finish this

part of the process - we'll table the total costs including exactly what was

paid to, not only legal advisors but accounting firms and so on related to the

privatization. All of this information will in fact be tabled.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a quick question for the Government House Leader in

the absence of the Premier. The Premier told the whole Province last night on

CBC Television that he would withdraw the Hydro Privatization Bill from the

House of Assembly if it's not supported by the majority of citizens of the

Province. Since it's obvious that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are dead set against privatizing Hydro, will the government

withdraw the bill forthwith?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a short question deserves a

short answer and the answer is, the hon. lady's judgement in this case is as

flawed as it was a year ago when she was convinced that her party would form the

government of the Province. We do not accept her judgement on these issues.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's a noisy Friday morning which is

unusual but I guess members are pretty testy after the lousy performance of

their Premier last night -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - when he informed the Province that the

truth he told Tuesday night wasn't the truth, Mr. Speaker, but anyway, I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries.

In the Budget Speech that was given by the Minister of

Finance a few days ago, it was stated that there was $75,000 allocated for a

campaign against foreign overfishing. I am wondering if the minister could

explain to the House, what format the foreign overfishing campaign will take.

Will it be through advertising, will it be visits by the minister or ministers

to Europe; could he inform the House what kind of a campaign this $75,000 will

enable him to undertake, and does he feel that it is enough money for a very

important foreign overfishing issue?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans made at this

time to undertake a public relations campaign. The funding was provided in the

estimates in the event that it becomes necessary, but having as we do of course,

complete faith in the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and government in

Ottawa, we don't believe it will be necessary but if it is, then we will plan a

program and will do what needs to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: And if we go to Europe -

MR. CARTER: We will take the credit with us.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table an

interim report of the Select Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For some reason I am having a lot of difficulty hearing

speakers this morning. I know I recognized the hon. member but I do not know if

he said anything yet. If he would pick up where he left off, if he could start.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table an interim report of the Select

Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot hear him.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are speaking across the House.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, for the third time I would like

to table an Interim Report of the Select Committee on the practice of Public

Accountancy in the Province.

Thank you.

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of 108 residents of Grand Falls - Windsor. At least most of

them are from Grand Falls - Windsor. There are a few there from Botwood,

Bishop's Falls, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the petition about?

MR. SIMMS: Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, it is on top of the petition I tabled the other

day from Grand Falls - Windsor containing nearly 1100 names.

MR. GRIMES: It's not the same one, is it?

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not the same one, I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Let us see the prayer.

MR. SIMMS: I thank the hon. Member for St. John's South I

will be happy to read the prayer for him. He could use one or two of those this

morning, I think, after last night's debate.

The prayer says: We the undersigned wish to avail ourselves

of the right to present a grievance, etc., humbly showeth it, etc.

WHEREAS we citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador seek to stop

the proposed sale of Newfoundland Hydro;

WHEREAS the sale of Hydro has not proven to be in the best

interest of the citizens;

WHEREAS the production of electricity is an essential service

for the people and should be controlled by the people;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland not privatize, not

sell Newfoundland Hydro and ensure that it remains as a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, in an unusual twist to the presentation of

petitions related to this topic I had an individual give me a little story and

they asked me if I would read it. It is suppose to be humorous. Now, members

opposite may not appreciate it because they do not have much of a sense of

humour. Let me tell this little story that these petitioners suggested I might

read as an example of moving too quickly.

Several years ago a vacuum cleaner salesman visited a very

small community out in Notre Dame Bay trying to sell his product. At the first

door he knocked on a woman answered and he was invited inside. Not giving the

woman an opportunity to say anything he said he could empty a bag of dust and

dirt on the floor and his vacuum would clean it all up or he would eat it.

Without further comment he emptied the dirt on the floor and the woman taking a

spoon from the table said, here you go, sir, we do not have electricity. Now,

Mr. Speaker, their point, and the point of the petitioners is that this was an

example of an individual moving too quickly and their point is it is a good

example for the government to pay attention to because they, too, are moving too

quickly on this whole privatization issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of some of the things that have

transpired over the last few days in particular, the debates, public broadcasts

and so on, and particularly last night's debate, it will be interesting to see,

I am really waiting to see government's next move. It is going to be very

interesting to see government's next move on this whole process because their

armor has been dented dramatically over the last few days, in particular. It has

been beaten up, says the people. I know the minister would not understand

because he is not listening to the people, like the rest of the ministers over

there. Their armor has been dented and what they have done now, over the last

four or five days, a sudden flurry of activity has transpired, the Premier has

gone on Open Line here, gone on CBC radio, gone to Corner Brook this

morning, on CFCB Open Line. He has asked for Province-wide television

time, Province-wide radio time, all in a flurry, all in a compressed time of

three or four days, a very well-known tactic by the way, used by parties, not

just political parties but interests who are about to conduct a public opinion

poll.

The reason for all of that flurry of course, Mr. Speaker,

would be to somehow soften up those who might be wavering or uncertain and

undecided, and to hear the Premier's voice on the radio and on the television

and in the paper and everything, over a compressed period of time of four or

five days, and then all of a sudden, on Saturday morning, you would flick out a

poll or you would do a poll over the weekend and then hopefully, if the

questions are crafted properly, if the question says: don't you think that

government shouldn't be involved, and all that kind of thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: - you might get a response. Anyway, I will

speak to another petition a little later on, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to support the petition presented by my

colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

I guess you might wonder when those damage controls become

damaged; I guess any time the Premier speaks on Hydro, that's when damage

control becomes more damaged; all it has been is a statement of contradictions

and on television on Tuesday night he made reference to the cost to a consumer

of electricity rates as a result of privatization. He stated $1.25 per month,

$15.00 a year, that's the figure he used which is completely distorting the real

fact.

There are 173,000 homes in this Province now served by

Newfoundland Power. Out of these, 74,000 do not have electric heat and 99,000

are served by electric heat; when you take the average consumption level of the

173,000 homes, the figure is over 1,300 kilowatts per hour and the Premier used

the figure, 700. In other words, you could double the rates for the average

consumer. They are using the figures for homes that do not have electric heat,

that is the standard on which he is basing his increase. What about the average

consumer in this Province? It will be doubled the figure the Premier is quoting

and for those who are on electric heat alone, the figures could go up by four,

five even six times that amount. Now there are the real figures; 700 kilowatt

hours is the consumption figure he is using and that is completely

inappropriate.

The average consumption is 1,300 kilowatt hours and he is

using a figure of 700. He is taking the 74,000 homes in this Province that do

not have electric heat. He is ignoring the 99,000 homes that are served by

electric heat in this Province. The figures are manipulation at its finest. The

figures are deceiving; there is complete deception in the figures and the same

as in the language that is being used.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover up, a cover up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I can tell you the Premier's chemistry

is not going over too well with the people of this Province and he is going to

try to do up his doctored poll now to see will his chemistry be a little bit

better. That's right, loaded questions and get his results and he couldn't stand

and the minister couldn't stand here today and say: we are looking at doing a

poll when they are on the telephones while he is speaking. Oh, we will get the

true answer; maybe we will get a statement a little later in the House saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - well, I didn't give any untruths but, I

didn't really tell the people the full truth. That's all we have been seeing,

statements of contradictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology wanted a few figures I think, so maybe we will have a look at a few

figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If members want to have conversations I would ask them to

leave the House because really it is awfully noisy here this morning and I

really can't hear anybody. In fact I can hear the conversations at the back of

the House better than I can hear the hon. member at times and he has a very

strong voice. Anyway, please continue.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the figures I'm using are real

figures, accurate figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Same figures? I didn't even get to use all

the figures I've been giving all along. What figures are you talking about?

Could you tell me what figures you are talking about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the same figures (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Which ones? Could you tell me which ones

you are referring to?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you don't know, that's why you can't

say. I will give you time if you can say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give you thirty seconds to stand up

and tell the figures if you want to do it.

MR. SIMMS: He hasn't got a clue!

MR. SULLIVAN: See, he doesn't know what he is talking

about - all a pile of rhetoric, just like the talk about Hydro. That's what it

is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister and the Premier, why are

they hanging the public service people out to dry in their pension fund and

committing $30 million to $40 million of unfunded liability right now and

charging it out to taxpayers today - not when it comes due, but right now,

today? that is the figure I ask for - at an amortized value of $105 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Name him! Name that minister, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations keeps squawking. He will have his opportunity when I finish to stand

up and speak. I will give him the opportunity.

MR. SIMMS: Don't be unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed. We will give another member an

opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? In closing, Mr. Speaker, one

comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, just one. In closing, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has no leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was only going to ask (inaudible) if your

call was the last call to the bar (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to

interrupt any of these great conversations across the floor of the House. I will

wait now for a moment until people finish.

I have a petition here from seventy-four residents of Cook's

Harbour in the district of Strait of Belle Isle. Now, I have been holding the

petition, waiting for a day when the Minister of Education, the Member for the

Strait of Belle Isle, is in his place, but I don't know what happened to the

Minister of Education. I'm tired of waiting, so I will go ahead and present the

petition anyway. These seventy-four Cook's Harbour residents are petitioning the

House of Assembly, to have the House of Assembly call on the government to

forget privatizing Hydro. I will read the precise prayer of the petition:

`Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

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

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, these Cook's Harbour residents, chances are,

have voted Liberal fairly consistently since Confederation. The Government House

Leader, the Minister of Justice, represented them years ago. Despite the fact

that Cook's Harbour has consistently voted Liberal, Cook's Harbour is now

against the government's scheme to privatize Hydro, the same as citizens in

every other community in the Province.

People in Cook's Harbour must have been dumbfounded watching

the Premier, or hearing the Premier on radio, Tuesday night confess that selling

Hydro wasn't simply the simple business deal that the Premier and his ministers

previously tried to convince people it was. Of course, by that stage, the

Premier realized that virtually nobody in the Province went along with the

proposition that selling Hydro was going to enhance the private sector. Nobody

believed that selling Hydro was going to improve the financial position of the

Province. People concluded that all that was in it for them was higher

electricity prices.

Tuesday night, they heard the Premier say that there was a

hidden agenda, that the Hydro privatization legislation, along with the

Electrical Power Control Act, were necessary parts of the same grand design to

recall power from the Upper Churchill for the Province.

Last night, on television, however, the Premier contradicted

that. When the Leader of the Opposition confronted the Premier with a legal

opinion the Premier wrote, back in 1986, for Angus Bruneau of Newfoundland Light

and Power, the Premier had to acknowledge, as he had written in 1986, that the

Electrical Power Control Act can stand alone, and that it is not necessary to

sell Hydro to do whatever he thinks can be done under the Electrical Power

Control Act. So, the new truth of Tuesday night was shown to be a new lie last

night. The Premier's credibility on this issue is shot.

MR. EFFORD: What? What's that again?

MS. VERGE: Now, at the end of the debate last night, the

Premier said, and I quote, I have a transcript: `No government has the right to

proceed with the implementation of major policy that it can't sustain public

support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition we

have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.'

So, people watching television were left wondering, how is

the Premier going to determine public opinion? When the other party leaders

pressed him to have public hearings, or to have a plebiscite, he gave negative

responses, but he did indicate that polling was, in his judgement, a way to

determine public opinion. The Member for St. John's South is nodding, but people

are very cynical about polling. People know that polls can be rigged. People

know that poll results can be manipulated by tricky wording of questions, and

everyone now realizes what a slick, tricky word master the Premier is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the petition presented by the Member

for Humber East. The people of Cook's Harbour, like people all over this

Province, are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. There are very good reasons

for that, and I want to outline one of them because we haven't really - we have

talked about a lot of figures. There have been a lot of figures thrown around,

and these are important figures to analyze. There are an awful lot of them, but

I want to talk about just three figures, because these are the essential ones.

First of all, on the one side, the Premier says that the big

advantage for privatizing Hydro is that we are going to save about $25 million a

year in interest payments on money that we would otherwise have to borrow, and

that is going to go on forever and ever and ever. So this is the cost benefit

that we are talking about, that the Minister of Finance won't put on the table.

The benefit, according to the Premier, is $25 million a year in savings on

interest for new borrowings. Okay, that is the benefit. Now what is the cost?

What is the cost to the people of Newfoundland?

Let's look at only three figures, and nobody can disagree

with any of these figures. Figure number one, the $10 million that the

government gets by guaranteeing Hydro's debt right now - $10 million - that's

going to be lost. So we have $25 million on the one hand; ten of that is gone.

Number two, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro makes about $20

million a year in profit, right now, that is ploughed back into Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. It is used to pay off debt; it is used for reserves; it is

ploughed back in; it is profit. That $20 million is going to be gone, gone to

the shareholders, so that's $30 million that is gone to the people of

Newfoundland.

Then, on top of that, we have another at least $30 million.

Now, the Minister of Finance will admit to $25 million, but there is at least

another $30 million, maybe more, additional cost that has to go to the

shareholders because it is extra money, because of the new equity that is there,

money that would otherwise not have to be raised at all, that has to go to the

shareholders. That has to come from the ratepayers, has to come in increased

rates. Now, what the rates will be, and when they will kick in, that is up for

debate, but there is no doubt that there is an extra $25 million needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: More.

MR. HARRIS: More.

So now we have these three figures on one side and the one

figure on the other - the benefit to the government, supposedly $25 million a

year, the cost to the government, and the people of Newfoundland, $10 million

plus $20 million plus $30 million, forever. So that's $60 million in costs, $25

million in benefit - a good deal? No way!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not counting other costs.

MR. HARRIS: Not counting other costs - the Member for

Ferryland is right. The Member for Ferryland is very good at figures, that's

probably why he's so rich. The Member for Ferryland is good at figures - he

knows more about figures then I do. He had it all figured out long ago. I don't

even know why he bothered to teach school. He is good at figures and he has a

lot more figures but I want to keep it simple. I'm not one of these financial

geniuses; I just like to keep it simple. The Premier says we're going to get $25

million over here and it's pretty clear that it's going to be at least $10

million in lost revenues for guaranteeing Hydro's debt, $20 million which Hydro

now makes which is going to go out to the shareholders instead of staying with

the people of Newfoundland, plus an extra $30 million to keep the shareholders

happy, which we don't have to pay now. So that's $60 million, cost, $25 million,

benefit - and I defy anybody over on the other side, from the Minister of

Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Industry Trade and Technology,

anyone over there to get up and say that any one of those figures is wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tax breaks.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Ferryland says tax breaks and

we know he knows all about those, he has all the analysis, but I'm just one of -

the simple figures, $25 million worth of benefit and at least $60 million worth

of clear costs, in other words, a direct lost of a minimum of $35 million a year

forever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of fifty people from the Clarenville area. The petition, Mr.

Speaker, is to deal with the hydroelectric rates, the same as the other

petitions that have been presented here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few points rather then get

into the figure situation, such as the Member for St. John's East and the Member

for Ferryland have gotten involved in. I want to say to members in this

Legislature that we are about to see something very significant happen over the

next few days relating to this Hydro bill. We are about to see this government

caving in to the pressure of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, led by the

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: We are about to see every member who has stood

in his place on the other side and said, `This is a good piece of legislation,

my constituents are for it and I'm going to support it', taking back water, Mr.

Speaker, in a big way. I am going to be very happy that day, Mr. Speaker,

because it's the right decision for the people to take. I can say to members

opposite that I will be happy and proud of each and every one of you if you

stand up and be the men and women that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

sent you here to be. Withdraw the piece of legislation, tear it up, Mr. Speaker,

it's bad. The people of the Province are telling you it's bad. And don't feel

badly because you've stood in this legislature day-in-and-day-out and said it's

good and I'm going to vote for it. People can change their minds, Mr. Speaker.

So, collectively your minds all work together, collectively you all thought it

was good, it was hunky-dory and it was great - the Premier didn't influence us,

we were doing it because it's what is best for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I

hope you'll all think individually again and come, collectively, to the same

agreement that individually you think, and you make the decisions individually.

Mr. Speaker, something will happen that when you wake up you will all have had

the same individual logic and you will withdraw this piece of legislation. It's

bad, Mr. Speaker, it's bad!

The Member for Pleasantville, Mr. Speaker, will win a

leadership in that party -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - in the matter of a few weeks.

MR. SIMMS: No, he will never beat `John Efford'.

MR. TOBIN: Because this Premier, Mr. Speaker -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) will, though - `Chuck' will.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and you'll stand up, too, with your tail

between your legs, I say to the Minister of Health, and you will say, `I've

changed my mind.' The people of this Province will know full well that the

Premier didn't have control over you. That you weren't all kow-towing to the

Premier bringing in this piece of legislation. They will know full well that you

will individually come to the conclusion. Because the Premier said on Tuesday

night, he apologized to you. He set you free - fly away, be on your own. Be men,

be women. That is what the Premier said.

Last night he said: The truth I told about this on Tuesday

night was a lie.

MR. MANNING: So I'll have to tell you the truth again.

MR. TOBIN: So now I'm going to tell you the truth again.

MR. SIMMS: He said last night, he doesn't need to

privatize Hydro now.

MR. TOBIN: Then he went on with all this kind of stuff

about why Hydro had to be a private company. The Leader of the Opposition said:

`Mr. Premier, here, look - 1986, here is a proposal that you made as a lawyer

for Newfoundland Light and Power to the government.' Do you know what it says on

the third page, Mr. Premier, in your words as the lawyer? that this can be done

by a private company, namely, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That's what the

Premier said, Mr. Speaker, that this can be done by a private company, namely

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Why did he get on Tuesday night and tell the whole world that

it had to be done by a public company and on Thursday night tell the whole world

that it could be done by a private company? Mr. Speaker, there has never ever

been such a bunch of trained seals put in any institution as what we have seen

over there. The Premier is going to get up Monday or Tuesday and he is going to

say: I am going to withdraw the legislation to privatize Hydro. Remember I'm

telling you now. Remember I said it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Remember I said it, Mr. Speaker. I will

predict that the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Where did you stand on (inaudible) the Cabinet

(inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, `Chuck', we all withdrew from the Cabinet

in 1989.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No we didn't, `Chuck', and we got kicked out

of office, the same as is going to happen to you! Withdraw the legislation

(inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my time is (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think members are cutting seriously into the time of the

hon. Member for Ferryland as a result of their conversations across the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just touch a little on some of the financial

aspects of this deal that are negative. I would like for the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology to listen very, very carefully so he won't have

to ask these questions again, and if you don't listen I will mail a copy of

Hansard to you on Monday.

MR. FUREY: Don't shout.

MR. SULLIVAN: I wouldn't shout if you would listen. Okay.

There are numerous costs associated with Hydro that would not be incurred if

Hydro weren't privatized. For example, there is a net debt of $1,028,000,000

billion. There is $283 million that is going to be paid down upon the sale. That

is $283 million net. There is $1.028 billion, and $283 million out of that is

going to be retired immediately off that debt. Retired immediately. The cost -

MR. SIMMS: How?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said it.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't even know.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said it so it must be right.

Although we will find out probably Monday it is not right, but let's assume it

is right today. That is going to be retired at a cost of $20 million, the cost

of retiring that portion of the debt. That would leave approximately then

$780-some million of which a portion of that, $270 million, approximately, is

going to be defeased over a five-year period and retired. Then the remaining

$495 million is going to be defeased over a long-term period, again. It is going

to cost another $15 million to $20 million to defease those portions of the debt

in the long-term.

By defeasing that debt - why are these costs do you say

there? Here is why they are there. Because we are guaranteeing the debt of

Hydro, even though it is a self-sustaining, self-supporting Crown corporation.

You have to go out and have a custodian, as you call it, who is going to take

the remaining value of that debt that is out there now and buy similar

securities out on the market in this New Hydro. This New Hydro will hold these

securities, and the ones that we have are guarantees against them. We are going

to spend about $35 million to $40 million between retiring the $283 million and

defeasing, over a five-year - and the $495 million over a longer term that would

not be expended if Hydro were not privatized. Now that's some initial cost.

Also, by doing it today, extra cost today - the ratepayers

are going to pay this - we are also going to have to value the securities that

are held in foreign currencies, and in foreign currencies we have tremendous

amounts of money in Swiss francs, and in the Japanese yen, and the cost with the

devalued Canadian dollar, they say on the other side of the House, because of

the strength of those currencies, because of the weakness of the Canadian

currency, it is now going to cost between $90 million and $100 million on

recognized foreign currency - the Premier says $90 million - $90 million to $100

million is also going to have to be valued, and it is a cost to the rate payers

of this Province. That is $90 million to $100 million you total up. You total up

those other $40 millions in defeasions and retiring debt, we are up to $140

million. We have other costs by allowing the new company to have a rate of

return on their investment over and above what Hydro receives, it is going to

cost another $10 million to $15 million, not counting any of the other related

costs associated with Hydro, itself.

Even by the government's admission, by piecing the figures

together they gave to the media and otherwise, they say $165 million it is going

to cost ratepayers because we privatized. It wouldn't be there if we didn't.

Now, that is the $165 million. We say it is closer to $200 million, because

Hydro is also going to accept a certain amount of the unfunded public liability,

or the unfunded pension liability that is there, and that is going to drive the

figures up close to $200 million.

Now if you amortize that just over the twenty-eight year

period, it is going to cost close to $20 million a year on the ratepayers of

this Province. Now, that's not looking at the other side of the coin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has no leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some members objecting.

Order, please!

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

public gallery seventy adults from the Association of New Canadians, including

students who have immigrated from Russia, Moldavia, China, Cuba, Central

America, as well as Kurdistan, accompanied by their teacher, Janet Kergoat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have now had our three

petitions. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now

be read.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the

Leader of the Opposition, for telling me he is finished. I agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, the House will notice that my friend, the Member

for Fogo, is not with us this morning. I am told his father died overnight. Mr.

Japhet Tulk of Ladle Cove, whom many of us would know. He had been in ill health

for some time, but I am sure the shock of his passing is no less because of

that.

I know I speak for all members on all sides of the House when

I say that the House extends its sympathy to the gentleman, the Member for Fogo,

and to the members of his family, at this time of loss, and I wonder if it would

be appropriate for Your Honour to send a suitable letter to the Member for Fogo.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would like to be associated

with the remarks of the Government House Leader. Many of us have experienced

similar tragedies, I guess, in our lives, and we can understand how the Member

for Fogo and his family are feeling right now. I think it would be appropriate

if Your Honour would send a message from the members of the House to let them

know that, indeed, there are others thinking of him and the family at this time.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition,

and I may add, the late Mr. Tulk is resting at St. Stephen's United Church in

Ladle Cove. The funeral will be tomorrow afternoon, should any hon. member wish

to send a message or be present.

Your Honour, I wonder if we could go on and do Motion No. 4,

which is the Supplementary Supply Bill. It stands in the name of my friend, the

Minister of Finance, who is just now joining us here in the House again. We will

have to go into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

The Whole on Supply to consider the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her

Majesty, Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 12.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill No. 12 involves some supplementary supply for the

Department of Social Services. Normally, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions in

the Financial Administration Act for when money is needed over and above what is

voted. There is a procedure in place whereby Orders in Council can be done and

special warrants can be issued to provide that money.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, because the House was sitting we

could have chosen that option. We could have simply done the Order in Council.

We could have simply done the Special Warrant, and three sitting days later,

notified the House. It is in perfectly good form and possible for us to do.

However, Mr. Chairman, because the House is sitting, we felt it would be more

appropriate to use another provision of the Financial Administration Act which

calls for a supplementary supply bill to be introduced. This is exactly $3.5

million, $3 million of which is to get us through the rest of the year in terms

of our social service payments and $500,000 has to do with the home support

services of the Department of Social Services.

As you can see in our Estimates, we originally had $174,500

and this included an original amount that we had put in the Budget, plus what we

had projected to be the overrun for the last few months of the year. We had

$13,120,000 in for home support services. We found, and we have indicated to the

House, that there have been some increases in demands on the social services

budget, some increased demands on the home support services which provide care

to people in their homes, and in our projections we have factored these things

in. However, due, I guess, to an oversight -and this should have been done

perhaps a month ago - but due to an oversight, we have discovered we really did

not put in about $3.5 million that we should have so this is a second

supplementary supply bill for the Department of Social Services to increase the

total amount by $3.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that hon. members support this

Supplementary Supply bill relating to the Department of Social Services.

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

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

I have just a few remarks about Bill 12. The minister, I

think, has explained the situation very well. He asks hon. members to support

this granting of supply of $3.5 million to the Department of Social Services. I

say to the Minister of Finance, there is no doubt that at the end of the day we

probably will support this piece of legislation, but it makes one wonder really

what is going on with the financial administration of the Province and in

particular, I guess, the financial administration and management of the

Department of Social Services. Because how could such a thing as this happen,

Mr. Chairman? I don't know what - maybe a condition of getting this supply might

be to demand the resignation of the Minister of Social Services, I say, because

this is a tremendous oversight, one of which I know the Minister of Social

Services now when he speaks to this legislation will apologize to the House for

- I guess, `negligent' would be a little too strong a word, I say to the

Minister of Finance, a little too strong. I don't want to be too harsh on the

minister because I know he must feel uncomfortable about the situation, not

having a strong grip on his department and on the administration, the financial

end of things in his department.

So, maybe if the minister would be willing to apologize and

confess to the House that he and his department have made a tremendous blunder,

a blunder amounting to $3.5 million, then perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we just might

be receptive to granting this bill to give supply to Her Majesty of $3.5

million.

I see the minister is nodding and grinning so I sort of

gather he is going to take my advice, get up and apologize and confess that he

has made a major blunder.

MR. EFFORD: Never! Never!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The former Minister of Social Services

says `never', but we saw him in days of confession, I say to the former

minister, and it is getting close to that time again when the former minister

might have to confess.

MR. EFFORD: Never!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `Never' is a long time, I say to the

minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note, we realize that the

money we are being asked to approve here this morning is very important, it is

for a great need, it is something that we all support in this House, something

that we all try to support in the Province within our financial means. I mean,

how could we not grant Supply to those I guess, who are most needy in our

society; those who need home care support services; those who need social

assistance allowances, we are all very reasonable about this, as, of course, is

the Minister of Finance.

I commend the Minister of Finance, when, as acting House

Leader over the last few days, he brought this matter to my attention. Of

course, as we all know, the Minister of Finance and I got along very well when

he was Government House Leader. We had a cordial relationship; we made great

progress on whatever legislation was brought before the House; very little

closure, very little closure.

In his very diplomatic manner, the Minister of Finance spoke

to me behind the Speaker's Chair a few days ago, and asked if we could possibly

get this Supply granted this morning, and I told him I would do my utmost, I

would do my utmost to get it passed this morning, knowing though, knowing

full-well that the Government House Leader was returning to the Province last

night and I didn't know what effect that might have on the agreements that we

made.

Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note and in concluding these

remarks of mine, anyway, we have no difficulty in approving this later on after

a few members have had a few words on it; it is much-needed money and it is

going to those in our society who need it most.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

while there is no doubt that at the end of the day we will approve this bill, we

cannot, Mr. Chairman, in all good conscience, let it slip through without

exposing the incompetence of the minister. We cannot, Mr. Chairman, in all good

conscience let this slip through without exposing that the Department of Social

Services is responsible for this. There is only one reason why this bill is

before the House today and that is, because the minister responsible for the

department, forgot to do, or neglected to do or for some reason didn't do what

he should have done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be too hard on the

minister because I understand some of his colleagues have already given the

minister a bit of a ride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't have to resign

for something as simple as this, but he has to be more a `hands on' minister -

he can't let this slip through. But, at the same time, I say it is not an easy

department, Mr. Chairman, I know that from experience; it is hard to keep on top

of everything. And I must say that I didn't have the staff that the minister

has, either, in terms of secretarial staff and so on, that he has in his office.

I don't think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has it either.

But, Mr. Chairman, while we are going to approve this bill, I

say to the minister, I will avail of this opportunity to say it is unfortunate

that the people on social assistance are expected to continue to live on the

measly few dollars they have been getting over the past few years.

Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not easy for the minister; he

can't flick a magic wand and increase social assistance - that has to be

approved by the Cabinet. But I don't think there is any doubt with that

minister, the same as every other minister who has brought forward a proposal to

Cabinet requesting additional money for people on social assistance - but it

didn't happen. It doesn't happen because some ministers don't really understand

to the full extent, people on social assistance, what they do and how they

survive.

In my case I've had experience as a Minister of Social

Services and I've had ten years practising social work. So I have a tremendous

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't say that I was any

better or any worst then anyone else I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. It is not an easy department to be in charge of. It is not

an easy department when every decision that minister makes affects people's

lives, I'd say to member's opposite. I say one other thing to his Cabinet

colleagues, is that you don't have a true appreciation nor do most people who

never served in that department for what really is needed to be done and for the

necessity to support the Minister of Social Services.

We gave funding this year, Mr. Chairman, for thirty-three

front-line workers. That's my understanding and the minister will probably

address it when he gets up, that they are not thirty-three social workers. They

are thirty-three financial assistance officers. What we need in this Province

today, Mr. Chairman, is social workers and it is not the fault of the Minister

of Social Services that there are thousands upon thousands of people ending up

on social service roles every day. It is the fault of this government, Mr.

Chairman, and the economic ministers, such as the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. It is their

fault, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Social Services is not vested with the

economic portfolio.

It's the Premier and his ministers of economic portfolio's

that are causing the hardship of the people of this Province and are putting the

financial strain upon the Minister of Social Services and his department because

there is no - the Minister of Fisheries is not here, that's one fellow I wish

had been here to listen - there is no excuse for the numbers to be on social

services. Never before, in the history of our Province, have so many people been

on the caseload, never before, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson, we have no

intention of delaying this bill. It's important and it's vital to people because

they are not getting enough to survive on now, let alone having to delay getting

their cheques for a couple of days, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the minister to - while he is doing this - it's

separate obviously from debating the budget - why did the government decide this

year to freeze the allocation of funding to the social assistance recipients?

Why did government refuse the allocation of funding because people today cannot

- and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows what I'm talking

about - the people today on social assistance cannot survive on what they're

getting. It's impossible, it is absolutely impossible. We've all got

constituents who are on social assistance and we all hear from our constituents

who are on social assistance time and time again. We have to increase the amount

that they're getting.

MR. EFFORD: Where's the money going to come from?

MR. TOBIN: Money going to come from? John, government has

to find it. I can tell you one place where the money can come from. If you go

through the Budget and look at the increases in minister's offices, in purchase

services, if you look at - not in yours, your's is gone down as a matter of

fact. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the money that is gone into education, health

and purchase services for one reason, Mr. Chairman, to provide a public

relations campaign for the lack of actions on the part of this government. If

you look at the money that's going to be spent by the Department of Health and

the Department of Education to promote - television ads, radio ads and newspaper

ads promoting the same type of garbage, Mr. Chairman, that this government

perpetrated on the people of this Province regarding Hydro. Now they're going to

be over there like a bunch of sheep when the Premier says we're going to

withdraw the legislation and say, `okay, Premier.' They will surrender and wave

the white flag. That's the proper thing, do it but do it quickly. You should

have done it when we asked you to do it a month ago, you should have done it.

MR. GRIMES: Do what?

MR. TOBIN: Withdraw that piece of garbage, that

legislation to privatize Hydro. You sure will sit in that seat like a little

sheep when the Premier announces he's going to withdraw that piece of

legislation. That's what's going to happen and so will every other member over

there. You have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars and

you say where are we going to get the money to give to people on social

assistance? When you've spent millions of dollars to privatize Hydro and now

you're going to come to your senses, hopefully, and withdraw the piece of

legislation.

I commend you if you do it. Mr. Chairman, you won't hear us

going around boasting about beating you to the ground or being winners or being

victorious. You've no worries. You won't hear that, I would say to members

opposite. We are not going to do that. Because we know that this is a piece of

bad legislation. We've listened to the people. We've watched you people waste

millions of dollars while the people on social assistance have to go hungry,

spending it on the privatization of Hydro.

I've heard the Member for Lewisporte stand in this House and

say it is a good deal and I'm going to support it. I heard the Member for

Stephenville saying the same thing. He went out to his constituents. The Member

for Eagle River thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. That is what

we've heard day in and day out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I still do.

MR. TOBIN: One of these days you will change your mind.

When the Premier changes his mind Danny's will be changed as well, Mr. Chairman.

Where are they going to get money for people on social

assistance? Millions of dollars gone into the privatization of Hydro. There will

be a one line ministerial statement next week saying: Mr. Speaker, we've

listened to the people and we are going to withdraw the legislation. Why didn't

they listen to the people a month ago, I ask members opposite? Why did the

Premier say last night: The truth I told you on Tuesday night was lies? Why?

Because they tried every angle. Today the Premier is in Corner Brook.

The other interesting thing. He was on the CBC radio phone in

the other day. Without conditions, he said: If the people of this Province don't

support it I will resign. There was nothing about: It was my fault because we

withheld information. Not on CBC radio. If the people of this Province doesn't

support it I will resign. It will be the best thing that ever happened to

Newfoundland and Labrador if he resigns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, withdraw it and resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do both at the one time.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance should

not be far behind him, I say to members opposite.

MR. BAKER: What am I doing to deserve this savage attack?

MR. TOBIN: It is not what you are doing, it is what you

didn't do. You didn't stand up to the Premier and say: Premier, this is bad,

this is not a good piece of legislation, my constituents will suffer, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador will suffer. When we were telling him the Minister

of Finance should have said: Mr. Premier, they are right, the Opposition is

right, the Leader of the Opposition is right, when they get -

MR. BAKER: I think he is wrong.

MR. TOBIN: We will see next week.

MR. BAKER: That doesn't mean -

MR. TOBIN: The other thing, Mr. Chairperson, we do not

want the Premier to go out and make a decision on a public opinion poll. Because

do you know why? I will tell you why I don't want the Premier to do it. Did you

ever read his autobiography and the story by Hoy, is it? When they brought out a

poll that the Premier and his cronies made up during the election campaign of

1989. Doctored the poll in 1989. Now, who can trust the Premier to come in and

say: I got a poll that shows the people are for it or against it? The Premier of

this Province has been caught as written in his autobiography.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Go back and do your crossword puzzle. Have

another nap. The Premier of this Province, Mr. Chairman, in his autobiography

shows that he was part of a scheme, part of a group, scam, that doctored a poll

in this Province for the 1989 election campaign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. We've seen in

successive budgets unrealistic estimates of spending year after year, this has

been a feature of Wells Administration budgets. Budgets brought down by the

current Minister of Health who is yammering away, budgets more recently that

have been brought down by the current Minister of Finance, the Member for

Gander.

Consistently as an Opposition member asked to comment upon

budgets on Budget Day, I've said that the projection for social assistance

spending is unrealistic. Since this government came to power five years ago

there has been a steady growth in the social assistance caseload. The number of

people in this Province now depending on welfare for their livelihood is more

than double what it was in May 1989.

I remember when the Budget came down last year, on a CBC

television panel saying the estimate for social assistance again this year is

low, it is unrealistic. When you look at the economic forecast, we have to

expect more people to end up on the social assistance caseload.

Last fall the government got - I am just reminding my

colleagues - $30 million supplementary supply for social assistance, and now

here today they are in looking for, what is it, three-and-a-half additional

million; and they have the gall to make fun of the Member for Ferryland and

suggest that his arithmetic is inaccurate. What a joke!

Chairperson, this year I am saying once again the

government's projection for social assistance spending is unrealistically low,

and sure as anything they will be back here next fall, next winter, looking for

supplementary supply. Right now staff of the government tell me that the social

assistance caseload is about 36,000 so that would mean probably 75,000 or more

individuals are depending on social assistance, but the number of units is

36,000; the caseload is 36,000.

Now in social services jargon, a case is a family unit which

could consist of a family of five, with a mother and a father and three

dependent children. It could be a single mother with three children, or it could

be a single individual, so there are 36,000 cases and I would guess something

approaching 75,000 or 80,000 individuals, women, children and men, who are

depending on social assistance.

The projection for social assistance spending for next year

is based on an estimate that the caseload will grow by 1,200 mainly because of

the UI changes.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Over the 36,000 that it is now. That is what

the staff told me when I questioned them. These were officials of Treasury

Board.

I would suggest that a 1,200 increase again is

unrealistically low. The changes in unemployment insurance which the Chrtien

government has brought in on the recommendation of the Premier, who went to the

Prime Minister just after he was elected with his grand design for reforming

income support programs, was partly implemented by the federal government in

their recent Budget.

The federal government conveniently took the negative

features of the Premier's proposal, the features that are going to have the most

adverse affect on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, including upping the minimum

qualifying time for unemployment insurance, so obviously a great many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who otherwise would have qualified for

unemployment insurance this year won't get the minimum number of weeks of work

and they are going to have to resort to social assistance. That is what has been

happening.

So this supplementary supply measure of $3.5 million has to

be examined in the light of the $30 million in supplementary supply for social

assistance the government got last fall. Now that's a pretty big margin of

error, and that's a huge difference from the estimate last year. It's a very

high percentage error.

Chairperson, I am going to raise with members opposite, once

again, an objection to their change in social assistance regulations in October,

1990 when they categorized maintenance and child support as non-allowable

income. Previously maintenance and child support had been treated the same as

income from a job, and social assistance recipients were able to benefit up to

$115 a month. In other words, the regulations provided an incentive for social

assistance recipients getting support or maintenance from a non-custodial parent

or a former spouse. Once the change was made, the incentive was removed

altogether.

Social Services now coerces clients to get a court order for

child support or maintenance. They have to go through the motions of getting a

court order but there is no advantage to them in having an order for a high

amount. They are actually better off getting an order for a nominal amount,

because whatever the non-custodial parent or the former spouse pays will be

subtracted in full, dollar for dollar, from social assistance.

Worse than that, there is not synchronization of social

assistance and support enforcement. So when support payments are late being made

to the support enforcement agency the social assistance client - typically a

single mother - has to do without. When the social assistance client is not

getting any child support or maintenance and is relying totally on social

assistance at least she can depend on her bi-monthly cheques. She is sure to get

two cheques a month regularly on

schedule from Social Services. When she has to

depend to get part of the total income from Social Services and the other part

from the support enforcement agency, and that second payment is late because the

judgement debtor, the non-custodial parent, is late paying, then obviously the

social assistance client is worse off. She doesn't have money to get groceries;

she doesn't have money to pay her light bill on time.

Chairperson, in the Premier's income support reform proposal

there is some recognition of the need to build into social programs providing

income and incentive for people to get as much as they can through their own

initiative. I've been saying for the last - how long has it been now, since

October of 1990, so it is three and half years - that the government made a bad

mistake in removing the incentive from the social assistance regime of clients

getting maintenance and child support.

I've talked about this with the staff of the support

enforcement agency and also legal aid lawyers who handle a fair number of court

applications for maintenance and child support, and they say to me the

government change is nuts. Because what is happening now is that people are

simply just going through the motions of applying to court for child support. As

low as they can keep the order the better off they will be. Because Social

Services is simply going to subtract whatever the amount is in full, dollar for

dollar.

The incentive before wasn't a large one. The incentive simply

meant that a single mother and her children could have benefitted maximum $115 a

month. If you are a single mother with two small children and you are getting

$500 a month, an extra $80, $100, $115, means a great deal. One hundred and

fifteen dollars a month is not much to anyone sitting in this House. It is not

much to members of the House or the staff of the House because we have good

salaries and generous benefits. Members must appreciate how much it means to a

single mother with dependent children. So I'm urging the government once again

to reverse that change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. Because

I think what we are seeing here is something that is not unusual, I say to the

Member for Humber East. I think it was 1982 - and members opposite can correct

me - when some of the members opposite were in government that the Minister of

Social Services of the day had to come to the House of Assembly and ask for a

special warrant because there wasn't enough in his Budget at that particular

time to fulfil the needs.

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I will find out for the member and let her

know. So it is not precedent setting, it is not something unusual. It is

something that sometimes needs to be done because of the economy, not only of

the Province, but the economy of the country as a whole. I mean, hon. members

opposite want to make hay on the Minister of Social Services and I tell you, it

is a tough time to be Minister of Social Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: And he is a good one.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and a compassionate minister I say to

members opposite because it is just the way that the economic system has a

tendency to come and go, and I am sure the Member for Humber East realizes that;

that there are circumstances and situations and you know, she makes points about

what we should and could do and so forth and so on, but she knows full well as a

previous minister of the Crown that you have a budget and you must try and live

within your budget but at the end of the day, when you have people out there who

are in need, desperate need, then obviously, it is a circumstance that needs to

be done. The Minister of Finance does not want to run off looking for $3

million-plus, but he knows that the people of this Province need it, the

minister knows that he needs it and members opposite know that he needs it.

Now you can get into the specifics about who is suffering and

who isn't suffering but I would suggest to the member opposite, that anybody on

social assistance for forty years, suffers, they suffer, right? But let me talk

about some of the rhetoric that the Member for Burin - Placentia West got on

with when he talked about - well, perhaps he may be right. Perhaps there will be

some logic seen in withdrawing the Hydro bill, but then I say to members

opposite they have to be very careful because, if the status quo or the stand

alone, or we don't change anything with Hydro because of money, what I say to

hon. members is, if the Public Utilities Board, has through no fault, because

Hydro has a larger maintenance expense or whatever the case may be, and that

hydro rates go up 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent or 8 per cent, through no

fault but the system, then hon. members opposite better be careful because Hydro

as it is today, could very well see a need for maintenance if the turbines or

the two of them wear out and there is capital maintenance or whatever, or we

need new pieces of transmission line, when that capital expense goes before the

Public Utilities Board.

I say, you know they could very well see a large electrical

increase at the domestic and commercial levels, so be prepared for that, and if

that day should come, then hon. members opposite are going to have to stand in

their place and defend why the rates have gone up. They will have to defend

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, they will have to defend it. For me, I

am three-and-a-half years now, I haven't changed my mind; I sincerely believe

that we should privatize Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well I will. The hon. member knows and I

still say and I want to go on public record as saying, regardless of what

happens or don't happen, that I believe, sincerely believe that we should

privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Nothing has changed my mind.

MS. VERGE: Don't confuse us with (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I didn't. That's not my responsibility,

I only stand in my own place, the same as the Member for Pleasantville did and

expounded upon why he didn't think that he should support the privatization of

Hydro and I totally disagree with him. I totally disagree with his format; I

totally disagree with his approach -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, I

will never change my position, never, no, no. I say to the hon. member, what

government does, government does, but for me, in all honesty, I say and I want

to go on record that if I had my way, I would privatize Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us why.

MR. MURPHY: I have already told the hon. member why and I

am not going to get into that again. I say to the member, I am tired of

DR. KITCHEN: Read Hansard. Tell him to read Hansard.

MR. MURPHY: That's right. The Minister of Health says

that if you want to know my reasons, read Hansard and if you can't, get some

help from the Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the member's opposite and for

the fifty-two members in this House because this is - what we've seen is a very

emotional debate on Hydro.

MS. VERGE: What's wrong with emotions?

MR. MURPHY: Nothing wrong with emotions, there is

absolutely nothing wrong with emotions. I can say to the Member for Humber East,

I'm just as emotional as she is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably more so.

MR. MURPHY: Let me say for the record that it isn't easy

in 1994 to find the dollars to do all the things that Newfoundlanders expect.

The reason that is is because members opposite year after year after year let

Newfoundlanders live in a false economy and the day has finally arrived when the

piper has to be paid. The piper has to be paid and the hon. members opposite

know it and this government is doing everything it can to try and hang on -

MR. EFFORD: Try to right the wrongs.

MR. MURPHY: That's right, exactly. The Member for Port de

Grave knows what I'm talking about, that this government has taken the

responsibility and did what needed to be done when your previous leaders stood

in this House - not this House but upstairs or wherever he stood - and he said

to all of you, and all of the people in this Province: I do not have the

political will to run anymore. Now that's what Mr. Peckford said because Mr.

Peckford knew full well, I say to members opposite, that this Province could no

longer carry itself on a $5.5 billion debt, he knew. Where was he going to get

the tax resource? He knew the transfer payments would come down. He fought and

argued with his own. I wasn't the first one to say that he sold the shop. All

you people know who said it and Mr. Peckford left. Mr. Peckford today is out in

BC, the most prosperous province in the country right now and good for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: The sun will shine and have not will be

no more!

MR. MURPHY: That's right and I don't want to put

prosperity down around your ears. What a dandy line that was. So hon. members

opposite can get up, beat their chests and thump and get on. What we've seen

here is a perfect example of what needed to be done, a Premier and a government

who have tried under very difficult circumstances to bring this Province around

and it's not easy, I say to the Member for Humber East. So to stand up and get

on with a whole lot of incidental things associated with social services when

she full knows, when she knows within her own mind - I mean she's not that naive

or not that stupid, she's a smart woman.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't go that far.

MR. MURPHY: She's a smart woman, she knows and to stand

up just again to thump her chest -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, she gets up and thumps her chest or her

back or something I don't know but she thumps her chest and grabs onto silly

little political points. So members opposite should stand up and say what needs

to be said. Be reasonable, be rational, I don't mind you being against Hydro.

That' fine but stop this getting on because who knows better then you fellows

and the Member for Humber East, who knows? Every time you had a problem you ran

to the bond market and you borrowed.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Grand Bank, let me do the

total, we've had twenty-one years of Smallwood administration, twenty-seven

years of Liberal administration and seventeen years of Tory administration and

you fellows borrowed 72 per cent of the provincial debt. Now I say to the Member

for Ferryland, you run out and get your calculator out and you figure it out.

That is true, you run out and get your calculator out. Seventy-two per cent of

what the people of this Province owe the bond market of this world, 72 per cent

of what - the people, not just government, not that former government but the

people of this Province owe, is on the backs of you folks. When every time you

had any kind of a situation you ran off, got the money, came back and fired the

money at the situation and said we'll get elected again. The only one that

couldn't win in the Peckford big years was, `is dat you Bas'. Dat you Bas ran

twice. He ran twice out in Bellevue and got slaughtered. Now I say to myself

after two years listening to Bas I was -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: - wondering why he was so anti-Liberal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - and it finally came to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: So I say to you if you are going to get up

now forget Hydro because we are dealing with something else. Get up and put some

reason and do not get on about a warrant going to social services because all

you are doing is demeaning a need that the minister has.

Thank you.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

not in the mood for a promotion this morning.

I just want to say to the Member for St. John's South that

those in the gallery who came in a bit later, do not know what we are doing, and

I am sure by listening to the member they would never know that the government

today is asking this Legislature to approve $3.5 million for the Department of

Social Services to pay social assistance, and for home support services for

those people out and about the Province who need it. Those people who do not

know what we are suppose to be doing here this morning would not gather from the

hon. member's comments what this piece of legislation is about because in a very

weak and feeble attempt he is over there now going back to the years of Premier

Smallwood, Premier Moores, and Premier Peckford, but quite conveniently he

avoided talking about today. He avoided talking about today and Premier Wells

because he knows how unpopular it is today to talk about Premier Wells, I say to

the Member for St. John's South, how unpopular it is to talk about his Premier,

his leader, the one who tells him that he must support the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is the problem with the member. He blames former

administrations for the public debt. Well, I say to the Member for St. John's

South, go get the records and show your government's record of borrowing for the

last five years, from your first Budget in 1989. Go get it and lay it on the

table of the House so that people can see what percent of the public debt you

have incurred in the last five years.

Getting back to the piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, Bill

12, as I said before there was a mix up, there is no doubt about that. The

Minister of Finance admits that and I am sure the Minister of Social Services,

if he stood in his place, would admit that there has been a blunder made. That

is why we are here today with Bill 12, having to approve a $3.5 million

expenditure. It has been fiscal mismanagement again and having said that we in

Opposition do not intend to hold that over the heads of those people who need

this money to survive over the next couple of weeks, to get them to the end of

the fiscal year. When I spoke originally on the bill I called then for the

resignation of the minister. Such a major, major blunder that the minister is

directly responsible for as head of his department.

MS. VERGE: That is the second blunder.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is the second blunder because they

were in the fall looking for $30 million, so I do not know how many more

mistakes the minister will have to make.

MR. GRIMES: He should resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He should resign. The Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations is correct. When one of his own colleagues, from

his seat, is calling for the resignation of the Minister of Social Services then

I think it is incumbent upon the minister to rise in his place now and tell the

House he is going to type his letter, as soon as the Premier arrives back from

Corner Brook, the West Coast, he will be waiting for him at his office to submit

his resignation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The second member of the Cabinet to

apologize this week.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. That is the advice of the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, but I want to say to the Minister of Social

Services that we will not go quite that far. If the minister would rise in his

place and admit that he made quite a blunder - can you imagine the blunder, a

$3.5 million mistake. The revised figures of the Department of Social Services,

I say to the former Minister of Social Services, is $23 million over what they

budgeted last year. At the time the Member for Mount Pearl, the Finance critic

told the government that your figures were incorrect, your projections were

totally incorrect. The Finance critic and members here, for five years, told you

when you brought in your Budgets that your figures were all wrong, and again we

see it today, Mr. Chairman.

Having said that, we are going to allow this piece of

legislation, this supply to be granted to Her Majesty so that the Minister of

Social Services can take care of those out and about the Province who need their

social assistance payments, those seniors in their homes out and about the

Province who need home care support services. We are going to be responsible

about this even though we recognize that there has been a big blunder made. We

will agree to have this piece of legislation carried now, Mr. Chairman, at your

convenience.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, the sum of

$3,500,000."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could rise the

Committee and give the bill the three readings in accordance with our procedure,

I can tell the Committee that we will then be coming back into Committee and

going back on the interim supply debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, we have a message which will be read an

hour ago.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before you deal with reports in

Committee it appears that the message as required under the Constitution Act was

here but was not read. I wonder if we might have leave of the House - the

message is here, my friend the Minister of Finance has it and will transmit it

to Your Honour, but strictly speaking, under the Constitution Act expenditures

must be authorized by the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave given to read the message at this

point and deemed to have been read before the Committee of the Whole was

constituted for debate?

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay.'

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Please rise.

I have the message of the Administrator of the Province,

signed by J. R. Gushue, directed to the hon. the Minister of Finance:

"I the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit supplementary Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the

Province for the year ending March 31, 1994, by way of Supplementary Supply and,

in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend

these estimates for the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:______________________

J. R. Gushue, Administrator

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have passed a certain

resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, Bill

No. 12.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service", read a first, second and third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 12).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that piece of work

accomplished, could we go back into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means,

Motion 1, please?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise this morning

again to address a few comments relative to the Interim Supply motion and also

to reference the fact that this is Nutrition month, and as we heard the other

day from the Minister of Health, the theme for Nutrition month is: Nourishing

our children's future.

The comments I want to make today will reference the

commitment of government to the children of the Province and, in particular, the

need for government to be aware of health needs, particularly the needs of

children who are classified as being poor or children who have very special

needs.

Mr. Chairman, the Newfoundland Dietetic Association, is

working towards creating healthy eating habits to contribute to the physical and

emotional well-being of children. Certainly, those of us who have backgrounds in

education and those of us who are involved in the community, are well aware that

some children start off life in a disadvantaged way. Therefore, as parents,

teachers and citizens, it is our responsibility to emphasize the importance of

nutrition to set an appropriate example for the Province's youth.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note as well that many of the studies

done in this Province and elsewhere in the country have drawn reference to the

fact that many children who attend school indeed do have nutritional needs that

are not met at home and the schools are facing a continuous challenge to

motivate those children to do well. For example, the 1988 royal commission on

education in British Columbia said: When a child is troubled or underfed or if a

child cannot benefit from schooling because of learning or other disabilities,

it is the teacher, the other students and the school who must live with these

difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, we also note that lack of adequate and proper

food is a substantive social and economic barrier to achievement in school. The

royal commission in Newfoundland contained some references to the connection

between achievement and good nutrition. All individuals have basic needs and the

degree to which these needs are or are not met may affect their ability to

interact successfully with their families, to interact in their communities and

their workplaces. In school, if a child is distracted by hunger or is distressed

because of other types of difficulties, or is emotionally torn between

dysfunctional family units, that child very quickly becomes unable to profit

from instruction and failure is often the result.

Poor attendance in school is often the consequence of

inadequate clothing, of insufficient food, and sometimes poor transportation. In

the royal commission report it reads as follows: The difference in reading and

related school achievement between children of high and low income families for

example becomes greater in elementary than it is at the primary level. Mr.

Chairman, what we are saying is that many children in this Province go to school

hungry every day. If you are serious about achievement in school and achieving

excellence in our school system, then the conditions for success must be

addressed.

The child poverty rate in this Province is the highest in the

country. These are not my words. They are the words contained in the reports

that are on file with the Departments of Education and Social Services. I'm sure

all members of government are aware of them. Twenty-seven per cent of families

in Newfoundland and Labrador are classified as being poor. Seventy-three per

cent of that twenty-seven per cent of poor families are headed by a single

parent.

That means that poor nutrition is a substantive factor in low

achievement in our school system. Poor nutrition contributes to poor health. Of

course, the Minister of Health, this being nutrition month, drew reference to

the connection between poor health and poor nutrition, and that is what

nutrition month is all about.

Conditions that I have been describing in families certainly

result in environments which are not conducive to learning, Unfortunately in

many cases we have what is called a cycle of disadvantaged. That means, very

simply, that we are sometimes seeing the second- and third-generation of

families that are undernourished and for whom every day is a substantive

challenge. Very often poverty in childhood leads to poverty in adulthood, and in

turn creates situations where families continue to perpetuate the kind of

circumstances in which they grew up. Of course, when these children go to school

they encounter all of the bias of the middle-class environment and most schools

do tend to operate according to a middle-class expectation and a middle class

bias.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I want to

make before my ten has expired. In this Province we have to try to address the

real issues of child hunger. Again, the Williams Royal Commission draws lots of

reference to the connection between poor nutrition and school achievement. It

reads as follows: when children are not adequately fed they miss valuable

instructional time, fail to keep up with school work, and are very likely to

drop out of school early. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to address

the educational achievements of this Province we have to look at all the factors

and poor nutrition and poverty among children is a substantive factor in low

school achievement.

Mr. Chairman, it also is to be noted, based on studies done

by the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services, and the

Department of Education, they estimate that 2000 children in 491 schools in this

Province are regularly going to school hungry, and they calculated, if the

figure is correct, that one in four children living in Newfoundland and Labrador

live in poverty and that means that approximately 32,500 children in this

Province go to school hungry every day. Now, this information is contained in

reports that are presented to the government and they are repeated in the Royal

Commission documents.

Mr. Chairman, it also says that if you have a family of four

and they are living on social assistance that 82 per cent of the allocation of

funds for that family must go to pay for food and also it says in the report if

they are to use the Canada Food Guide and to follow the minimum standards, that

82 per cent of the monies allocated to a family of four would be needed to meet

the minimum standards and expectations of good nutrition.

Mr. Chairman, let us make sure that we understand that hunger

is not the fault of the child. Children are dependent on guardians and parents.

They are dependent on governments to make sure that every child has equal access

to educational opportunities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude in a couple of

minutes.

Child hunger is also known to be a hidden problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like to welcome to the House, before they leave, the

seventy Level 1 students from Bishop O'Neil High School in Brigus in the

District of Port de Grave, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug Parsons, Mr.

Tony Connolly, and Mr. Sheldon Barry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Child hunger is also a hidden problem. Those of us who are

teachers, who have practised that profession, know that very young children will

often tell a teacher they are hungry, however, as children get older they are

most reluctant to comment on what they have had for breakfast, or if they have

had any breakfast at all, so, Mr. Chairman, there is a substantive stigma

attached to being poor. Children in the junior high school grades will not go

and tell the teacher that they are in need of food, and dealing with hunger is

not the sole responsibility of educators, but it is often teachers who have to

deal with the effects of hunger.

Mr. Chairman, it is in the interest of everybody - parents,

teachers, and the community - to make sure that all children have their basic

needs met, and certainly the school is where we find some of the most obvious

evidence that children often come to the classroom without sufficient food.

Mr. Chairman, also I want to note that in the Royal

Commission Report, recommendation 148, it reads: That the provincial government

convene a planning group with representation from business, community

organizations, churches and government departments to address the issue of child

hunger, specifically to investigate potential models for dealing with the issue

of child hunger, to explore the feasibility of developing a provincial school

nutrition fund, and to establish links among all groups concerned about the

issue, and to determine the most appropriate ways of assisting those who wish to

implement the school food programs.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility, as legislators, to

our youth. The Royal Commission Report talks about our children, our future, and

if we are going to be serious about improving achievement in this Province, in

our school system, then we have to look at the fact that 25 per cent to 30 per

cent of children go to school every day without sufficient food, and would be

classified as being poor.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the Minister of Social Services is

not here, but I am sure that he is well aware of the increases in the numbers of

people who are on social assistance in this Province. The data to which I refer

was compiled prior to the closure of the fishing industry in this Province, so

therefore I have no reason to expect that the data which was compiled three

years ago has shown any change for the better. In fact, we suspect that the

changes that have been occurring have made the problem greater than ever.

Certainly, in the St. John's area, many schools now have to

offer the School Lunch Program. While that is to be commended, we all recognize

as educators that we have, first of all, to make sure that a child is well fed

before we can try to address the educational achievement levels of that

particular child.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on

behalf of the children who have special needs in this Province, particularly

those who go to school every day classified as being poor.

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

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

I have a few remarks on this Interim Supply debate where the

government is asking for close to a billion dollars - $999,691,800 - to keep the

Province going, just about a billion - $999 million.

MR. TOBIN: How many pennies is that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I don't know how many pennies are in

it, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a lot of pennies. I would

say he would be down on one side if he had the equivalent of all those pennies

in his pocket.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is 99,999,691,800 pennies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I can't even repeat that, but it

is a fair dollar

MR. SULLIVAN: Add two zeroes on it and you will get the

number of pennies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Would you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Two zeroes. Well, that is a lot of

pennies.

It is a lot of money, close to a billion dollars, that

government is asking the House to approve to keep government operating, keep the

Province running.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it's pretty significant. It's

about a third of the Budget they are asking us now to approve. It is about a

third of the Budget for the next fiscal year which is standard practice every

year, that the House is asked to grant to Her Majesty certain amounts of supply,

known as Interim Supply, to keep the government going after March 31 when the

current fiscal year expires so they can pay their bills and run the Province.

Usually it is not a great problem, Mr. Chairman, the granting of Interim Supply.

We all know what it is for. We all know that a good portion, close to $1 billion

is justified.

MR. MURPHY: Carried.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who was that said carried?

MR. TOBIN: Murphy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is always there to distract and

disrupt, the Member for St. John's South, issuing challenges, bringing up his

fist, pointing his fingers, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Only when the Premier is not here, though.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, only in the absence of the Premier.

When the Premier is here he is so quite and mute, running for this Hansard,

running upstairs for a document, go get this and go get that, bring it in to me

Tom, underline it for me Tom. I have to say in all fairness to the member that

he is performing his duties very well. He is a good gofer. I watched him

Wednesday morning actually, after the infamous statement by the Premier, when

the Premier really made the biggest balls that any Premier ever made of anything

on television.

DR. KITCHEN: The biggest what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He made a balls of the situation,

b-a-l-l-s, I say to the Minister of Health in case he is not familiar with

balls, b-a-l-l-s. I am sure the minister has come across that word several times

when he does his crosswords as he was doing yesterday when the Member for

Ferryland asked him a question.

MR. SULLIVAN: A five letter word beginning with `c' and

ending with `l'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A five letter word that begins with `b'

and ends with `s'. What was I saying about the Member for St. John's South?

Wednesday morning after the Premier apologized and half wept to the people. Of

course the big panic was to get in Wednesday morning and meet the caucus because

he knew he was facing a revolt. He knew he was facing a caucus revolt. The

Premier knew he was facing it. I came up towards the government member's caucus

room and the Premier and the Member for St. John's South, well you talk about

two fellows going. Like Buddy Wasisname said: no you wouldn't go, no you

wouldn't, I know. The poor member, of course, with his bad knees was trying to

keep up to the Premier because he was going behind him.

MR. TOBIN: You could just see his shoes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just the taps of his shoes.

It is very difficult, Mr. Chairman, when you hear him

speaking about the government now wanting us to give them a $1 billion and you

get interrupted then by the Member for St. John's South who really diverts your

attention away.

MR. MURPHY: All I said was, carried, one word.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it is not going to be carried I say

to the member. It is not going to be carried without some good answers. The

Member for Burin - Placentia West this morning mentioned the millions of dollars

that government has already spent and the millions more t