March 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

gallery the former Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, Loyola Hearn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the

public galleries four different groups of individuals, three are from Improving

Our Odds courses, one from the Eastern Community College at Bonavista together

with their instructor's Linda Fraser and Jeff Green, the second is from the

District of Ferryland accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Rosemary White, the

third is from the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde with their instructor

Donald Blundon, the fourth group is a group of people representing the

Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, it's a force of habit.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, since the

issue I am about to debate is regarding the state of emergency in the community

of Rushoon.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs. I want to say to him that yesterday the community

council there had to declare a state of emergency because the Rushoon River

rafted. For the past three weeks, Mr. Speaker, the council and my office have

been pleading with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to go down

there, provide funding to put an excavator in so that they could trench that

river which they have done for the past two or three years causing no problems.

I want to ask the minister, why did his department not act and in doing so

caused the flooding of several homes and causing several men, women and children

to have to flee their homes and move in with neighbours and friends?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this problem started roughly

twenty-two years ago. Maybe I can redirect his question by saying, why didn't

you do something my fellow colleague about the problem when you represented the

government and was in Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance displayed by the

minister is of small consolation to the people of Rushoon. I'd say to the

minister, Mr. Speaker, that yes there was a problem and the matter, we thought,

was corrected. What we did as a government was went down, lifted up the homes,

Mr. Speaker, and put concrete walls under them - that's what we did with about

twenty homes down there. For the past two or three years, Mr. Speaker,

government has been providing funding to put an excavator in to dig a drain down

there to break up the ice so the water could flow. They asked for that to be

done this year, Mr. Speaker, and they were told that government would not deal

with it unless it became an emergency and people had to leave their homes. Why

does the minister want to cause that kind of grief to the people of Rushoon?

Will he start acting and put some sanity into the people who make these crazy

decisions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, do I have your permission to

explain to this hon. House what has happened in the past, sometime, in regard to

Rushroon?

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Government House

Leader, related to the occurrences yesterday in the House of Assembly and the

government's initiative.

It was only three days ago - three sitting days ago, at least

sitting days from government business perspective - on Friday last, on March 4,

that the Premier introduced second reading of Bill 1, the Hydro privatization

bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since that day the Premier hasn't shown his face in

this Legislature.

Now at that time, on Friday, he spoke for an hour; I spoke

for an hour; the Leader of the NDP spoke for his half hour, and that's all the

debate there has been on this particular bill - about two-and-a-half hours.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader tells us, and tells

the people of the Province, that this is the most important piece of legislation

since Confederation. Yet, he is shutting down the debate after only three days.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, there is something rotten about

this deal. Something stinks. We are not being told the real story behind

privatization, so I want to ask him: What is it that you're afraid of? Why are

you using the tactics of the Third Reich to ram through this legislation before

the people have a chance, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like an

intelligently conceived, calmly stated question to give one the true flavour of

the Opposition's approach to this.

Now I am not going to engage in the kind of pseudo

histrionics that my hon. friend engages in, this mock outrage, this charade,

this play acting. The matter is very simple. Government get seven-and-a-half

hours a week for government business, if the House sits from three until five

for four days, and nine to noon on the fifth day - seven-and-a-half hours a

week.

The House, at our request, with no objection - there was no

division; there was no voice raised that I heard to the contrary - sat late on

Monday and on Tuesday to deal with a bill which I have described as being one of

two which together are among the most important ever dealt with by this House

since Confederation.

Honourable gentlemen opposite, and the hon. woman opposite -

she doesn't want to be called a lady, so the hon. woman opposite - true to their

stated intention of using every trick in the book to delay it, took advantage of

procedure and wasted two days on petitions. What we saw was a petition with say,

ten or twelve pages on it, which would normally be presented here with one

presentation, the same petition, in some cases being signed by the same people,

being presented ten or twelve times. Now, fourteen hours, two days at seven

hours a day, is equivalent merely to two full weeks of debate in this House. So,

Mr. Speaker, what happened, very simply, is that the members on this side, the

thirty-four of us who sit on this side, decided we would give the House the

opportunity to bring this matter to a vote - so we could say what had to be

said, and then we could bring it to a vote. We have put in place a proper

parliamentary procedure that will enable us to do so. We are determined to bring

this matter to a vote and we shall stand or fall by what happens. If the

government lose this vote there will be an election call. This will be a matter

of confidence. Hon. gentlemen opposite may want to welcome that. We would look

forward to it. Given the most recent poll results, with the staggering

improvement in the Opposition standing, they should come back with at least half

as many seats as they have here now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to draw his remarks to a close.

MR. ROBERTS: I shall, Mr. Speaker. The trouble is, the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition didn't ask a question, he simply wants to get

up and make a speech. So I have been tempted - but the answer is we are acting

properly, we are acting in what we believe to be to the best interest of the

people of this Province and we shall gladly stand and answer for what we do.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Justice, this

Government House Leader is now trying to accuse the Opposition of preventing

debate on this piece of legislation, yet, I say to the Government House Leader,

you are the one taking the shortcuts, you refuse to hold public hearings, you

refuse to send the bill to the Legislation Review Committee. You are the one who

has said, and did say during the election that rumours of Hydro privatization

are all unfounded rumours, and you are the one who, on the very day this bill

was introduced, called for night sittings. And since then, over the last couple

of days, members of the Opposition have stood, member after member, presenting

petitions and speaking on petitions that have been given to us by the people of

this Province who oppose this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we have used the rules to give

the people a chance to make their voices heard. I want to ask him again, did he

not tell this House and the people, there is no rush? Did he not tell the people

and this House that there is no deadline, no timetable? Why are you trying to

silence the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have said in the

House and outside that there is no deadline and I repeat that. There is no

deadline. What there is, is a desire to stop the frustrating, time-wasting,

prevaricating tactics of the Opposition.

Let me, before I complete that, make a reference to the

Premier. The hon. gentleman made a snide remark about the Premier not showing

his face in the House. The Premier has been away from St. John's, outside

Newfoundland and Labrador, for the last three-and-a-half days on a public trip -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROBERTS: - a trip that was long planned. The Premier

is on his way back to St. John's, will be in the House, I am assured, in good

time for the vote, and in good time to speak again, if hon. members opposite

wish to hear him again. I'm sure he would be delighted to speak for a further

twenty minutes on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. gentleman saying they

are using the rules to present things and to frustrate us, that is fine. All we

are doing is using the rules to allow the House to come to a decision -

perfectly properly. I suggest the hon. gentleman's ire is fuelled in large

measure by the fact his own tactics have blown up in his own face, Mr. Speaker,

and that is his problem, not ours.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He says the

Premier's plans to be away were long planned, made a long time ago. I suggest to

the Government House Leader, his plan to get rid of Hydro is certainly a long

plan, too. It has been on the go for years.

The Government House Leader is not willing to answer my

questions as to why he is silencing the people, why he is not permitting the

debate. If he is not aware of it, there is a rage building in the people around

this Province. People are organizing meetings, rallies. They are going

door-to-door with petitions. They want to try to stop this act of treachery. I

say to the government that the closure motion, Mr. Speaker, is not aimed at the

Opposition in the Legislature but at the opposition that is seething and burning

throughout this Province.

I want to ask him: Why did the Government House Leader not

move the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day, as he could have done any time

during Monday and Tuesday sittings, if he was so interested in getting on with

the debate? Answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer

the question. The reason I didn't move it was the same reason none of the other

fifty-one members of the House who were eligible to move it chose not to move

it. Any member of the House may move a motion under Standing Order 21.

I am not allowed to ask a question of the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition because he has no responsibility of office and accordingly he

does not have to answer for his conduct of office, but were I allowed to ask him

one, I would say: why did he choose deliberately to try to prevent the debate

coming? I chose not to ask people of the House to move to the Orders of the Day

for the same reason that I assumed that everybody on this side chose not to move

it. We wanted to expose the Opposition for what they are; they don't want to

debate this bill, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to discuss it on its merits, they

simply want to obstruct, to prevaricate, to delay and generally to try to stymie

the work of this House, well we are not going to put up with it, Sir, we are

going to act within the rules of this House and ask the House to debate, to

discuss and to decide; that is our role, Sir, and we will give the members a

chance to do it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is about the biggest bluff I

have ever heard from anybody on that side of the House with one exception, and

that is possibly the bluffs that the Premier puts forward in this House from

time to time.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader knows full well he

could have had the debate any time he wanted, all he had to do was move the

motion, he knows it, his colleague sitting to his right there could have showed

him the Hansards where he did it many times before, Mr. Speaker, so all it is is

a bluff, a weak explanation, because the reality is he did not want a debate,

you want closure and that is what is happening here today, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to ask him this: Wouldn't he admit that all he is

doing and all the government is doing is hiding and cowering behind the closure

motion, because the reality is he wants to force the closure before the people

can get to his backbenchers in order to get them to speak up in favour or

against privatization?... isn't that the fact, and, is the closure motion being

introduced because you are afraid of what the people of the Province are going

to say to you around public meetings and the phone calls that I know members are

getting because they are calling me; isn't that what is really happening here?

He is hiding from the people, he is hiding from the rage that the people are

showing out around this Province because they are betrayed by their government.

Is it because of the foul stench of corruption that is

seeping out around the Province in the nostrils of the people of this Province,

is that what is wrong with him?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are getting a calm, dispassionate

reasoned approach fuelled by honest emotion and I really appreciate that for

what it is.

Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were asked all beginning

with `wouldn't it'. This is the sort of thing like - has one stopped beating

one's spouse lately?

The answer to the questions, Mr. Speaker, is no, no, no, no

and no. I think there were five. What I will say, the reason the answer is no to

all of them is there is not a shred, not a jot, not a tittle, not a scintilla of

truth in anything that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can the minister confirm that

the government is proposing significant changes to the Workers' Compensation

Commission dealing mainly with the appeal process, in that he is confirming to

change the appeal procedure which is now three people to a single adjudicator

process? If he can confirm that, can the minister explain his reasoning why

government is making such a move?

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

Labour Relations.

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

appreciate the question and an opportunity to address the issue.

I have in fact had discussions with representatives of the

Workers' Compensation Commission itself, the board at the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal as it exists today. Also, it was a matter raised in a public

meeting with representatives of the Injured Workers Association. In that

particular meeting it was raised in the context of the issue that one of several

frustrations that the claimants and injured workers who are impacted in the

system and impacted by the system that Workers' Compensation have is that if

they don't get a satisfactory resolution from the Commission in the first

instance then, Mr. Speaker, they have to launch an appeal through an outside

tribunal. One of the overbearing frustrations is the length of time that appeal

process takes.

I indicated to all three groups that the concern for the

government is to clearly try to find ways to shorten those time lines so people

could get a resolution to their appeals more quickly than they do now. Because

there are some disturbing stories about how long that takes. One of the options

that I indicated that I would be looking at and possibly proposing to the

government would be moving from a tribunal of three members to hear the appeal

to single adjudicators, so that the single adjudicator could hear the appeal.

I have not at this point in time taken that issue forward to

Cabinet for consideration, but I have had the discussions in those three groups.

At some point in the future it is quite possible that I may very well take the

proposal along those lines to the Cabinet for consideration, but that hasn't

happened yet.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister that he and I have had discussions on this very issue, and that it is

not the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal that is the problem when it comes

to time lines in terms of turning over appeals or rectifying appeals. The

problem, I say to the minister, is in the Workers' Compensation Act itself. It

is that the Appeal Tribunal does not have the teeth in terms that its decisions

are not final and binding. In those terms the Workers' Compensation Commission

has then the legal right to overturn the Appeal Tribunal's decisions, to

reassess the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board decisions, and in most cases, I

say to the minister, in most cases the officials of the Workers' Compensation

Commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, could I have some order in the

House, please? I am trying to ask a question of the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead. I can hear the hon. member.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister that the very

officials who review the case are the very officials who have turned them down

in the first case. Let me ask the minister, will he through his department look

at giving the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal the very teeth and impact

that it needs and make their decisions final and binding in law so that injured

workers do not have to suffer unduly in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to address one

part of the issue in the hon. member's presenting the question. It is true that

under current legislation the Workers' Compensation Board of Directors can in

fact reconsider and have the Appeals Tribunal reconsider its decision, but only

in the case where the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission

feels on a legal basis that the Appeals Tribunal has made a decision that goes

outside of existing policy. Because that is beyond the mandate of the Appeals

Tribunal.

However, one of the things that we are looking at in the

review - and again, none of this has gone forward to Cabinet as government for

consideration yet, but it is in the discussion stages - is the notion that the

injured workers would probably be much better served if the relationship between

the Appeals Tribunal and the Commission was spelled out more clearly, and if in

fact what you propose were to become the case, that the decision of the

Appeals Tribunal would be the final decision.

You are right in describing that in certain circumstances, as

the law currently exists, that is not the case, and that is the way it has been,

by the way, since the Appeals Tribunal has been in place, I believe, since 1987,

because it was in the latter stages of the government of the previous

administration that the Appeals Tribunal external was put in place, and one of

the things is now to review the whole appeal process to decide whether or not a

single adjudicator, rather than a panel, might help speed up the process.

The point that you raised in your second question, to

consider as well whether or not it makes sense that as long as the decisions

don't violate existing policy, that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal be the

final decision. We are certainly considering both of those items.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me explain for the

minister how the Workers' Compensation Act works.

The Appeal Tribunal cannot rule in favour of an injured

worker, or make decisions on behalf of an injured worker, outside existing

policy. The law, as it now exists, gives complete discretion to the Workers'

Compensation Commission, which has become more of a punitive system on injured

workers than a system that represents, or takes care of, their needs.

So I say to the minister: Will he today commit to reviewing

the legislation and bringing forward legislative changes to this House giving

the Appeal Tribunal, as it now exists, the teeth and the impact that it needs in

terms of making their decisions final and binding so injured workers can get on

with their lives?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's not a matter of making a commitment today. We have been

working on that for a period of time now, and I believe that it's unfortunate

that some members representing the injured workers association, and also

representatives of the media, last weekend when I gave notice of motion that we

were introducing a bill to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, assumed that was

the amendments we were bringing in.

We have not addressed that issue at Cabinet yet, but we will

in the near future, and we will consider these two items in particular. They are

two of several items that are on the agenda in terms of how the Workers'

Compensation appeals system in particular, should work in the context of the

whole act.

I wouldn't make any comment one way or the other as to

whether or not Workers' Compensation works in a certain way to be punitive. All

I can tell you is that the act is in place to make sure that any injured worker

in Newfoundland and Labrador receives some benefit and entitlement if they are

injured on the job, and are not left without some kind of benefit.

Then, as the members opposite would know, I don't know how

they have dealt with it - I have some personal suspicions - but when we have

been dealing with things since we've been the government since 1989, once a

commission like the Workers' Compensation Commission is set up independent from

government, not using taxpayers dollars, not one penny of taxes in it - it's

paid for by employers of the Province through premium assessments - then, in

fact, once the board is put in place they make decisions about policy. They run

the commission, and if people want the legislation changed, as is the question

today, we will deal with those issues. We have been for some time discussing and

dealing with the issues of the Appeals Tribunal, and we will bring that forward

to Cabinet some time in the near future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

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

for the Minister of Finance.

Last Friday the Premier, in his private briefing session for

the news media, said that the main reason for selling Newfoundland Hydro was to

eliminate the debt that is guaranteed by the Province. Now the minister knows as

well as I do that selling an asset that is worth $2 billion to $3 billion to

eliminate $1 billion in debt will have a negative impact on the credit rating,

not a positive impact.

Would the minister like to tell us why the Premier is making

these false statements?

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

MR. BAKER: An interesting question, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose, if the hon. gentleman's assumptions are correct -

I believe what he said, and he can correct me if I am wrong, was that we are

selling an asset worth $2 billion or $3 billion for $1 billion.

I should inform the hon. member, and this hon. House, that

that is not happening. If we have an asset that is worth $2 billion or $3

billion, then we would expect to get $3 billion or $4 billion for it.

So, Mr. Speaker, in this process we will see what it brings,

but I say to the hon. member that some of his figures are grossly inflated. I

would be glad to provide him with a proper briefing if he so requires.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the asset were sold properly

we may indeed get $4 billion to $5 billion for it, because that is probably what

it's worth.

Mr. Speaker, last fall an official of the Dominion Bond

Rating Service of the Province said, we have always considered Newfoundland

Hydro to be self-sustaining so we have excluded its debt from our debt

calculations. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a Mr. Stephen Defoe of Standard and Poors

made a statement while being interviewed on CBC radio. He said Standard and

Poors looked at Hydro's debt separately, it was self-supporting, it was not a

burden on the Province and had no bearing on the Province's credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister knew that and

I am sure the Premier knew that, so why has the Premier being lying to the

people of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: The simple fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is

that he has not. There is a combination of two things working here. One is the

elimination of approximately, it is not quite, but approximately $1 billion of

debt from the books of the Province. That is one side of the equation and the

other side is taking out our assets, and we hope to get, for these assets, much

more than the book value. It is taking out these assets and so reducing the cost

of our borrowing in the years ahead, reducing every year from now to eternity,

every year reducing the cost of our debt servicing. Mr. Speaker, if you ask

these same people both sides of that equation they will indicate that if our

debt servicing costs are less then that would certainly have a very positive

impact upon our credit rating.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the

minister, that eliminating some debt servicing costs will have a positive

impact, but Mr. Defoe went on to say yesterday that the sale of Hydro could have

a negative impact on the Province's credit rating if there was a loss of

revenues resulting from tax breaks, so on the other side of the equation we find

that in this proposal there is something like $100 million in tax concessions

and subsidies to new Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power. Would the minister

now like to tell us how it is going to have a positive impact on the credit

rating of the Province or is it not a fact that the Premier is feathering

somebody's pockets? Who paid the Premier's salary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is kind of unfortunate that the member opposite, for whom

I have always had a great deal of respect, has to stoop to character

assassination. It indicates that the strength of his other arguments simply do

not exist. It is kind of unfortunate that he would stoop to character

assassination. I have not seen him do this before and it is disappointing.

In terms of the crux of his question, Mr. Speaker, I would

say to you that if you were to ask a question of a financial expert, a person in

the financial world, and you were to say to him: if you were to do this

transaction and it would have a totally negative impact on the Province would

that be bad? The financial expert would say certainly it would be bad. I suggest

you can ask a question to elicit whatever response you want to get. If you ask a

question to a rating agency -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: My mistake, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps that I am

trying to deal with the issue sensibly. If you were to ask the question that if

we go ahead with this sale, and in order to do it we have to make inordinate tax

concessions in order to make the sale, would that have a negative impact on the

Province? If you asked me that question I would say, certainly, it would have a

negative impact on the Province. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that

the assumptions that the hon. gentleman is using, and the assumptions that must

have been put to this expert he is talking about, the assumptions are absolutely

hypothetical, and I would say to him, totally, completely, 100 per cent false.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines

and Energy. Now, the Premier has sweetened the Hydro deal with over $100 million

in tax breaks and subsidies to new Hydro and Newfoundland Power. I ask the

minister: Will the more than $100 million in tax breaks and subsidies from the

taxpayers of this Province reduce the rates that consumers now pay for

electricity?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point first that

there are no tax breaks and subsidies to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a

result of this. There are no tax breaks and subsidies to the corporation. The

Province is going to be about revenue neutral in this. There will be

approximately an extra $1 million in taxes paid by the new utility to

municipalities throughout the Province. There are no big tax breaks at all, none

at all. The plan is to put in a rate adjustment fund of $15 million that will go

straight to the ratepayer, right to the bottom line of the ratepayer to keep the

rates down. That is not a subsidy to the companies at all, it is not going to

the companies, it is going to the rates and it is going to the people who pay

their electricity bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

DR. GIBBONS: The new company, like Light and Power today,

will pay provincial corporate taxes and it will pay federal corporate taxes.

However, under the tax transfer agreement between us and the federal government

we will receive back about 85 per cent of the federal taxes from both companies,

the government will from the federal government, and we are putting those

dollars straight back through the two companies, both Hydro and Light and Power,

to the ratepayer again to keep the electricity rates down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: That's right you were told that already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the Annual Report of the

Pippy Park Commission for the year ending March 31, 1993 and also the Report of

the Public Tendering Act Exceptions for January, 1994 -

MR. WOODFORD: Exceptions?

MR. EFFORD: Exceptions.

MR. WOODFORD: None for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: None for Port de Grave, absolutely not.

- the Report of the Public Tendering Act Exceptions for

November, 1993 and for December, 1993.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS outside St. John's, school bus transportation is

provided by the Provincial Government through the Department of Education to

students who live a long distance from their school at no direct cost to

students or their parents; and

WHEREAS in the City of St. John's, where the St. John's

Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the

Department of Education may not operate and students or their parents must

directly pay the total cost for school bus transportation; and

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many

families resulting in lost school time, lack of safety and other problems for

students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares; and

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in inequality of

treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on

record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their

families regarding school bus transportation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to

provide school bus transportation to students within the city of St. John's on

the same basis as is provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MS. VERGE: Where is the Public Libraries Report?

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of

residents of my district and I will just read, in short, the prayer of the

petition: `To the Newfoundland House of Assembly, we, the undersigned residents

of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their right, thus

to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly in certain assurance that

the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit' - and I will get down very

quickly to - `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.'

Now, the minister said today in the House: We are not giving

tax breaks and concessions to people and companies involved in the transaction

of Hydro. He is certainly giving no concessions to the taxpayers and the rate

payers of this Province. He is foregoing the $9.2 million that the Minister of

Finance has budgeted this year that he is receiving from Newfoundland Power; his

government has decided to give that $9.2 million back. He has also decided - the

Premier and the government, that the $25 million that you would receive in

he is giving back, the Premier, himself, on Friday, released to the media.

Apparently, the Premier didn't notify the minister that considerable tax

concessions are being given to companies, especially the new Hydro and to

Newfoundland Power.

Now, the Premier, himself, in a media release, stated that

there is going to be a minimum of $30 million that this Province is going to

forego in tax concessions under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.

Now, that's $9.2 million we have received this year and we are going to forego

the $25 million, this newly-incorporated company would normally pay to the

minister, the $15 million he referred to, a tax adjustment fund that you are

going to put in, that is for a three-year period, that is going to cushion the

increases to residential consumers of electricity in this Province, and after

three years, when they have cushioned in the increases and carried them, by the

next election, rates will have hit the roof in this Province. That is what they

are doing with the $15 million Tax Subsidization Fund.

Also, the Minister of Mines and Energy admitted in this House

yesterday that the unfunded liability portion of the pension plan of the current

members of Hydro is going to be transferred and that's $25 - $30 million he

indicated is going to be transferred into the pension plan of new Hydro, not as

a one-shot thing but is going to be on a credit note for fifteen years. That

money, I'll inform the minister, is going to be over $100 million to the

taxpayers of this Province over the next fifteen years, and that is based on the

actuarial figures that are provided -

MR. MURPHY: By whom?

MR. SULLIVAN: by actuaries. In fact, above -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It's normally 4 to 5 per cent, and I'll

explain to the Member for St. John's South: here's what is happening: this

government is taking $25 million - $30 million - he said, `say it slowly'

because he doesn't comprehend very quickly.

MS. VERGE: You should have gone to the meeting last

night, you might have heard (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll inform the House what's happening: the

$25 million - $30 million that this government is talking about with respect to

the people at Hydro - and they have that right; they are transferring the

unfunded liability and this Province is putting into new Hydro the $25 million -

$30 million unfunded liability. At the same time, they are saying to the Public

Service pensioners and potential pensioners, Newfoundland Teachers' Association

employees and all other public pension people, that we are not going to make the

same compensations for you in a pension plan that is underfunded by $1.725

billion - that's what they are doing. And it is going to cost over $100 million

on this item alone and the minister stands and says, `no concessions'. Taxpayers

are paying $100 million on this item alone. That new company plus Light and

Power are going to be paying up to $40 million less -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: - that the Province is giving away under

this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a minute to finish up?

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

his remarks?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to rise to correct some false impressions given by

members opposite, particularly by the last speaker. He mentioned the situation

with regard to the unfunded liability of the pension fund. I would like to point

out to members of the hon. House that all of the government pension funds have

an unfunded liability. It is an obligation that government has. On the books of

government there is an obligation for an unfunded liability in the public

service pension plan, there is an obligation for an unfunded liability in the

teachers' pension plan and these are the two largest of these plans. This is an

obligation that government has, let's get that clear first, and at some point in

time, these obligations have to be met, there is no doubt about it.

In terms of the people who, if Hydro is privatized, will be

leaving the Public Service Pension Plan and going into a private plan, then

certainly,we must make some arrangements over a number of years to live up to

our obligations as a government that we have, no doubt about that. Whether Hydro

is privatized or not that has to occur. So that isn't something that is

occurring simply because of the privatization of Hydro, it is an obligation that

we have as a government to all of our employees.

Mr. Speaker, previous to 1980, the governments of both

political stripes took the pension money - did not invest it, did not match it -

took the pension money and spent it on roads and other public works. Government

has an obligation to make sure that that money is put back into these plans and

that obligation is there regardless of privatization or no privatization; that

is not an effect of privatization.

We have taken steps, so far, Mr. Speaker, to correct that

problem, the most serious problem that we have, in terms of the teachers'

pension plan. Three years ago we put $21 million in and we are now holding

discussions with a view to correcting that problem in the long term. That

pension plan is not funded adequately. Steps also have to be taken over the next

eight or ten years to correct the problems in the other large plan that we have,

the Public Service Pension Plan. This is an obligation that government will

meet, that government must meet.

It is the result - unlike in many other provinces - of past

governments making commitments to get out of a short-term problem that they may

have had, making commitments to get out of trouble, political trouble, in the

short term, and burdening the taxpayers of the future with what may be an

insoluble problem, simply because they had no long-term planning. Mr. Speaker, I

will tell you now, that the decisions that were made in the 1960s and the 1970s

are now at the stage where these problems must be solved.

The commitments made of governments throughout the 1950s, the

1960s and the 1970s, these commitments that were made without any thought to

long-range planning, now must be met by the people of the Province today and the

taxpayers of the Province today. These obligations must be met. Mr. Speaker, we

can no longer afford the short-sighted attitude of previous governments in these

regards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition presented by the Member for Ferryland. The points that he made

concerning the passing on of the assets of Hydro through this legislation and

keeping to the Province the liabilities in this regard are valid. I don't care

whether they arise from a previous government or from this government, they are

still there. If the government proposes to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

and is going to transfer the assets, and if with those assets go certain

liabilities for pension entitlements, then they have to take the warts, too.

What they are trying to do - and the Minister of Mines and

Energy in his speech in the House today in response to questions said that we

are going to pass over, supposedly, to the rate payers, $15 million. Well, that

is only for four or five years, Mr. Speaker, that is not passing on the

obligation to the new Hydro corporation to meet the obligations that currently

exist with respect to rural electrification that are now being met by the people

who pay their Hydro bills. They are now already being met. What the government

proposes to do is have the taxpayers pay for that and pass it over to this new

Hydro corporation.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not true, `Jack', and you know it.

MR. HARRIS: That is what is being proposed. That is what

the $15 million is all about, Mr. Speaker. If it is not for that, what is it

for, except to allow this new Hydro corporation to meet the obligations that are

now there without any cost to the shareholders, the people who are going to make

the mega-dollars by buying these shares and having a guaranteed rate of return

on those shares, guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South wants to have

something to say. He didn't want to have very much to say last night at the

Holiday Inn, Mr. Speaker, because he wouldn't go into the room to talk - he

wanted to stay out in the bar. He wouldn't go into the room when he was invited

to do so. The people from his district don't know where he stands. He is going

to send them a memo, we are told. So the Member for St. John's South, if he

wants to participate in this debate, perhaps he should get up and speak.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, in support of the Member for

Ferryland is that what the government is doing here, is it is doing everything

that it can to sweeten the pot for the new shareholders, the people who have

lots of money to buy shares, most of them out of the Province. Most of those

shares will be going out of this Province and the dividends and the value added

will be following them outside the Province.

What the government is doing through this legislation - you

have to read it very carefully and see all the bits and pieces - they are

passing over the assets and they are not ensuring that all of the liabilities go

with that. That's what is happening here. The President of Treasury Board can

say what he likes about unfunded liabilities, generally speaking in the public

sector, but if they are passing on, or proposing to pass on, which they

shouldn't be doing in the first place, if they are passing that on they are

quite obviously trying to sweeten the pot for the shareholders, and are not

passing on the liabilities with it. The Member for Ferryland is absolutely

right. That is what is happening in this matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of a number of individuals from several different districts. These

petitioners are opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the

privatization. They are from St. John's, and from St. John's East Extern, from

Port au Choix, in the District of St. Barbe and the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology, from Naskaupi, in Labrador, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, in the

District of the Minister of Justice, and others from St. John's as well. All of

these petitioners, like others before them, want to have this deal stopped.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice rose in the House

today and mocked the petitioners, and mocked the Opposition for bringing the

petitioners' names to this House.

Now the Speaker ruled on this point the other day. On Tuesday

evening you ruled that every person in this Province has the right to have their

petition presented in this House, even if there is only one, and that is the

only way -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I feel an obligation to correct the hon. member. I

specifically said, I didn't rule on that question. I drew it to members

attention that that apparently had been the practice to have three signatures. I

said under our rules it doesn't appear that is the case, while I reserved the

decision on the question for another day, and it wasn't necessary to decide it

in order to allow the member's petitions from Humber East to be presented. I

said Erskine May was an authority on it, but I did not rule for the purpose of

our Session and our House that you needed either one or three signatures, but I

pointed out the difference in

interpretation, and I specifically said I left the

question aside because our practice, or rulings, which we didn't have a chance

(inaudible) other Speakers might be or otherwise.

I take the hon. member's point, but I didn't want to leave a

misunderstanding on the record that I ruled on the point, although I might

eventually do so.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood what the Speaker just said. He clarified that

perhaps the ruling wasn't that even a petition with a single name on it, he

wasn't ruling on that, but the general tenor of the remarks was that the people

of this Province have the right to have their petitions presented to this House

with at least one name. Perhaps three might be required. Nevertheless, all of

these petitions have more than that, but that is the way that the people of this

Province want to have their voice heard, by signing petitions, and to have them

presented to this House, and to have them, each individual petition, to be given

credence in this House, is the way the people of this Province want to be heard,

because they are very concerned about this and they want to stop it. They want

to find a way to stop it. They know they have the support of hon. members on

this side of the House, and they are looking for the support for their petition

from members on that side of the House.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, they may have one so far. We are not

sure yet, but are there others over there who are ready to listen to the voice

of the people of this Province? That is the big question, and that is why this

debate, and that is why these petitions are being presented in such a way, so

that the voice of each and every one of these people gets heard in this House,

because that is what's required - no closure motion to cut off debate, no

attempts by government to stifle debate and prevent the voice of the people

being heard - there must be a full and fair debate.

I have been getting calls, Mr. Speaker. Today I got a number

of calls from people asking for a referendum on the issue. They don't have faith

in the government's ability to handle this issue in the interests of the people.

They want a referendum because they don't have faith in hon. members opposite,

and unless there are more hon. members opposite than the Member for

Pleasantville, who is prepared to stand up and be counted, then there must be a

referendum in this Province in order for the people's voice to be heard.

This was not a part of the government's mandate. When the

government was asked, before the election, whether or not there was any scheme

afoot to privatize Hydro we were told it was wild speculation on the part of our

members here on a question asked by this hon. member in the House. It was wild

speculation, it was only speculation. What do we find, Mr. Speaker, right after

the election in the fall of this year? A scheme afoot, it didn't come up in two

or three weeks, Mr. Speaker, it was a plan afoot for many months and many years.

That plan, Mr. Speaker, is now before this House the people of this Province

want to have their say, they didn't have it in the election and they want to

have their say now with a referendum. So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue - at

least on my behalf, I will continue to present petitions as long as I have them

so that the voice of the people will get heard in this House and hopefully the

voice of the people will be listened to by hon. members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition by the Member for St. John's

East to stop this senseless act of privatizing Newfoundland Hydro. Now this

government denied all last year that they had any intent to privatise

Newfoundland Hydro. They went into the May election and denied it, denied it in

the House in May until everybody found out that secretly there had been

negotiations going on for some time. The Minister of Justice was aware of it, at

the same time he held shares in Fortis, the company they were negotiating a

merger with, and the people of this Province didn't find out about it until many

months later. They finally admitted they had no mandate from the people to give

away a right that was given to every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian in

this Province, a right which we were born with and a right that they have to die

with.

The water power and resources of this Province should not be

given to people on Bay Street in Toronto or the eastern townships in Montreal.

In fact, I'll inform the hon. member, that this act empowers the Minister of

Finance - Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's South would like to speak he

should stand and be duly recognized and stop shouting and interfering with other

members when they are speaking. He's been doing it since I came into this House.

He didn't have the guts to go into a public meeting last night and give his

opinion instead he stayed and hid but the media found him. The media found him

much to his chagrin.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a public meeting called by the

Member for Pleasantville.

Now I'll say again, Mr. Speaker, that this government is

spreading innuendos to try to convince the people of this Province - they're

mounting a big tremendous public relations campaign with the taxpayers dollars

of this Province to try to convince the public that Hydro was best for that,

they've used the Nova Scotia experience. They were told that Nova Scotia's

credit rating was going to improve, it got worst. They were told with Nova

Scotia Hydro that there would be no job loss and there were 400 jobs lost. Nova

Scotia was in a much better position to be privatised because 90 per cent of its

supply of energy is a non-renewable resource.

This Province has a fully renewable resource, the water and

the rains from heaven can be recycled and provide energy for generations to

come. It would take away and give the Minister of Finance powers to decide what

water rights in this Province are going to be excluded without ever coming back

to the Legislature of this Province and that's improper. We are going to lose

ownership in an important resource that we now own, 100 per cent, lock, stock

and barrel and the least we can hope to own is 10 per cent of the new company.

That's all we own in Fortis, in the public company of Fortis. It's owned by

Ontario municipal employees retirement fund, it's owned by investment companies

in Montreal and Toronto and now the rights to our water - and never again will

these water rights, as long as they are used for electricity in this Province,

will ever, ever go back to the people of this Province again and that's in the

act.

If the company that receives them decides not to use them for

the generation of power, they're saying they may be repossessed by this

Province. That will never, never happen. We will see, over the next ten years,

$1 billion committed by this Province in tax concessions to Fortis, the parent

company of Newfoundland Power, tax concessions to the new Hydro, in extra costs

to the rate payers of this Province, while at the same time the Premier states

that $25 million a year we are going to save on paying debt charges, for $250

million over ten years. If you took the difference in those two it is $750

million. Divided by the households in this Province it will cost every single

household in this Province over $300 per year immediately. If you factor

households, what the taxpayers are paying, and concessions to the companies.

After three years the cost will be substantially more.

By their own admission, the Premier has admitted, rates in

Labrador are going to increase by 30 per cent. Rates in this Province are going

to go through the roof. Because the Premier is using an example of 700 kilowatt

hours, enough to run a household without electric heat, in a $60 or $70 a month

bill. When you look -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: I find I must stand again to comment on the

`information', if I can put it in quotation marks, coming from members opposite.

First of all, the Member for Ferryland talked about some PR

campaign of taxpayers money that we are going to spend, and so on. I would

suggest to him that he stood in this House not too many days ago and asked us to

get information out. Then, when you try to get information out, Mr. Speaker, he

says we shouldn't get any information out. He can have it one way or the other,

but he can't have it both ways. I would suggest that all he is doing is

posturing politically. It has no semblance, no resemblance to sensible, reasoned

debate. None whatsoever.

He talks about the fact that we own Hydro 100 per cent lock,

stock and barrel. On the surface that might be right. I would suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that if you were to buy a $100,000 house and have an $82,000

mortgage on it, that you probably could make the same claim, that you owned it

lock, stock and barrel. But if you go to try to sell that house I would suggest

you would have to pay the $82,000 to the bank which owns most of your house. So

it is a deceptive comment. Eighty-two per cent of the amount of money that is

into Hydro is held by bond holders, most of them in New York. It is as simple as

that. So just a stretching of the facts.

He then tries to relate a rate increase in Labrador to the

privatization of Hydro. Everybody knows - the member for Labrador West knows,

and the people in Labrador know - that regardless of privatization there

probably will be a change in the rate structure. There have been comments from

the residents of Lab West long before this privatization issue came up that they

didn't like the change in the rate structure, the plan was that no longer would

extremely low price electricity be available for one area of the Province and

not for the other areas of the Province. That was a change that was taking place

anyway, and it has nothing to do with the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Then the Member for Ferryland goes on to say -

I'm trying to have a reasoned debate about the Hydro issue - that in the Island

part of the Province, because of the privatization, the rates will go through

the roof. I am using his own words.

Mr. Speaker, these are scare tactics and it really surprises

me that the Opposition is using them. I don't mind some members of the general

public who don't understand the situation using these emotional arguments, but

what I can't understand is the member opposite, who is to stand for re-election

four years down the road - and if this deal goes through, at that point in time

everybody in the Province will know that is a false statement. The proof of the

pudding is in the eating. I would say to members opposite to be very careful

about their untruths and exaggerations. To be very careful about them. Because

they tend to come back to haunt them years down the road.

I am anxious to have a debate about this deal, and I have

been prevented by the Opposition for the last two days in doing so. I am very

anxious to have a debate about this particular prospect of privatizing Hydro,

but I would like to have a debate based on common sense. If we get emotional

about it, that is fine, it is all very fine, but a solely emotional argument is

going to get us nowhere. We still have to look at the pros and cons of the deal,

and there are pros and there are cons, absolutely, but let's debate them

sensibly. I would like to suggest to members opposite, as well, that the level

of the voice does not improve the quality of the argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you talking so loudly?

MR. BAKER: I am talking loudly because I have to. I would

like to see a reasoned argument of the situation point by point. I have tried to

deal with two or three points. I first of all dealt with the point about the

unfunded liability in the pension plan, a total untruth that is being spread.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has elapsed.

MR. BAKER: I will deal with the other issues as they

arise.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of

the district of Windsor - Buchans. Since they could not rely on their own member

to present this petition on their behalf, they have come over and asked us to do

so.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition: `To the

Newfoundland House of Assembly. We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their right, thus do present a

grievance common to the House of Assembly in the certain assurance that the

House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit:

Whereas, we, citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, seek to

stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro;

Whereas, the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not

been proven to be in the best interest of the citizens of the Province;

Whereas the production of electricity is an essential service

for the people of the Province, and should be controlled by the people;

Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, and as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.'

MR. FLIGHT: Did he say I would not present the petition?

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Minister, I did not say you would

not present it. I said the people couldn't rely on the minister opposite because

he has to do what he is told. He is in Cabinet and he has to follow the leader.

He has to join with the people across the House and sell Newfoundland Hydro,

sell the water rights of this Province, and without a mandate, I say, Mr.

Speaker, from the people of this Province. Back in April, during the election

campaign, the people of this Province asked several times about the plans to

sell Newfoundland Hydro and they were told that it was only a rumour. The

Premier, himself, said it was only a rumour, groundless rumours brought up by

members of the Opposition. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the plans were in the

works to sell Newfoundland Hydro. They sought no mandate in April. They were

given no mandate in May, and they have no mandate to do what they are doing here

today, and to follow on over the next week and sell Newfoundland Hydro.

I challenge all members opposite to have the backbone of the

Member for Pleasantville, to go out into their districts and hold public

meetings to see what the people have to say about this. Listen to the people. Go

out and ask the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: You didn't get a mandate in May. You didn't

tell the people what the plans were. You had a hidden agenda in April and May,

and you proceeded with the sale of Newfoundland Hydro after you fooled the

people. I say to you, have the guts to go out and have a meeting like the Member

for Pleasantville had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Agriculture, on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon.

member indicated when he stood up that he was presenting the petition because

the people on whose behalf he was presenting it had asked their member to

present it and I had refused to do it. Now, the fact is, that hon. member did

not have a petition to present. The fact is, he walked over to the Member for

St. John's East, the NDP member, and got a petition to present. He got the

petition he is presenting right now, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for St. John's

East. Then, he stands up here in this House and tries to show some credibility.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in this House nine months and any chance

of his having any credibility, he has blown it these past two days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, how it smarts when you get close to the bone, Mr.

Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the point of order?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour already recognized me, I thought?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I say, oh, how it smarts, Mr. Speaker!

Oh, how it smarts! The hon. member is presenting a petition with a prayer - it

doesn't say, to the Member for St. John's East. Who cares where he got it from?

What difference does that make? It is signed by residents of your constituency!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That's the point. That's the problem, Mr.

Speaker. It is signed by people of Windsor - Buchans, and I have more here. I

have more here, signed by people of Windsor - Buchans district, Grand Falls

district, Exploits district, and the Member for St. John's East has all kinds of

them. So what? What kind of a silly point of order is he trying to raise? There

is no point of order in that exchange, Mr. Speaker, not one parliamentary,

procedural rule being broken, not one. All it is, is an opportunity for the

Member for Windsor - Buchans to somehow, sheepishly get up and explain away why

he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - the big, bold Cabinet Minister has to try to

take on a young rookie member who is not even here a year in the House, and the

minister is here for seventeen years - that's all it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is speaking

again to the point of order and I ask him to be brief.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I contend - and Your Honour will

make the decision - that there is a genuine point of order, I have no objections

to the hon. member presenting petitions from Windsor - Buchans or Badger or

Millertown or Buchans Junction. I do object to that member indicating that the

reason he is presenting the petition is because I was asked to and refused to do

it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a deliberate misinterpretation and the member

shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. That is a genuine point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, there may be a disagreement between

hon. members on what has been said, but that doesn't constitute a point of

order. There is no point of order.

MR. SIMMS: What an embarrassment!

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to continue dealing with some of the points that have

been raised. I didn't have a chance last time to deal with the comment about the

Nova Scotia credit rating.

Mr. Speaker, there is a kernel of truth in what the hon.

member says when he mentions that drop in the Nova Scotia credit rating. In

actual fact, the credit rating of the Province of Nova Scotia did drop, however,

Mr. Speaker, that was a result of the Province of Nova Scotia being in a

position where they were within a year or so of an election and they refused to

deal with their deficit problems. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they went a

full year-and-a-half without bringing in a budget. Mr. Speaker, the lowering of

the credit rating of Nova Scotia was a result of their deteriorating financial

position over a number of years and their seeming unwillingness to deal with the

deficit problem, that was why the Nova Scotia credit rating dropped, I would

suggest to hon. members.

I don't know - and I am trying to be totally honest here - I

don't know, but perhaps if they had not gone through the process of

privatization, their credit rating may have, indeed, dropped three or four

points rather than the one or two that it did drop, so they had tremendous

problems in terms of their rating agencies and they are not bringing in measures

to deal with their current account deficits. Since then, Mr. Speaker, they have

brought in measures to deal with their current account deficits, as have most

governments in the country.

The Nova Scotia credit rating argument - and that is why

these arguments are difficult to counter because there is a kernel of truth

there, that the rating did drop, but for totally unrelated reasons. It is

unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that these untruths are being dragged into this debate

and that there is no opportunity given by the Opposition for sensible and

reasoned debate. And I would suggest to them again that perhaps we need to have

a sensible and reasoned debate and deal with the issues one at a time. It is

unfortunate that the last member who got up didn't have a chance to complete his

speech, and the reason he didn't, Mr. Speaker, was that he immediately launched

into a personal attack type of thing rather than deal with an issue. He launched

into a personal attack to try to attack a member rather than deal with the

issue, any of the issues having to do with the privatization of Hydro. I think

that does a disservice, Mr. Speaker, to the people who signed that petition.

The people who signed that petition wanted a reasonable case

made on their behalf, and if they feel that Hydro should not be privatized, they

have every right to feel that, but I think it does a disservice to these people

if, in the presentation of the petition, a reasoned argument is not made. It is

simply ad hominem arguments, attacking individuals and, as we saw in Question

Period, trying to smear character - character assassination.

Mr. Speaker, we should get out of that, and when we talk

about this issue, we should deal with the issues, and get away from character

assassination.

MS. VERGE: Why (inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: Why get away from character assassination? It

is not becoming, I say to the hon. member. Get away from the character

assassination, get away from untruths that have nothing to do with the deal, and

let's debate, as I said, the pros and cons - there are both. Let's debate the

pros and cons of the deal sensibly and logically.

MS. VERGE: We know about the cons but what about the

pros?

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise and support this petition, and support this

petition again, and support another thousand petitions if they come in.

I keep listening to the Minister of Finance over there, and

everybody else, for the last couple of nights, coming in here and people saying:

Oh, it's a waste of time! Why are you putting off debate? All of this, to me, is

debate. I have only been here for ten months, elected, in this House. I can tell

you, I can stay here until the cows come home, and present petition after

petition, because you people are certainly not going to listen to... The hon.

members opposite are not - well, most of them, I can say, except for one, thank

god. Hon. members opposite are certainly not going to listen to people here, and

it almost sickens me to hear one after another of the hon. crowd - as the

minister told me I should call them - the hon. crowd next door here, to get up,

one after another, except for one with a bit of backbone, and say: Why are you

delaying this? Why are you doing this?

I will tell you why. Simply put, it is the only tactic we

have left because of your attitude on that side. The only way that the people of

this Province have one chance to speak, is through the names I have seen on my

list, from the district of Baie Verte - White Bay. And I am very proud, any time

I stand over here as a member elected by the people - not elected by my caucus;

I represent the people who elected me - to stand here and say: Thank you for

sending your names on a petition. You have all the right in the world to have a

say on this, and I am going to give them every right and chance to say it,

because those were the people who elected me - not my caucus, not my leader. He

won't tell me to sit. I will have my chance to have a say, and if we have to use

the tactics, as you people say, of petitions, that is the only way the people of

this Province have a chance to speak.

On that note, I ask all people in this Province, all

residents of this Province, to go after your MHAs - us, and hon. members on the

other side. Go to your MHAs, write letters, go to their offices, phone them, go

on open lines, and do whatever you can do to convince eight more over there to

come up with some backbone so we can stop the biggest disaster that ever

happened in this Province, which is another giveaway, next to Churchill Falls.

I ask anybody from my district, and districts all over this

Province, to contact their MHAs. Do whatever you have to do, so that somebody

will come to their senses, as did the hon. the Member for Pleasantville, so we

can put a stop to the next biggest disaster since the 1960s in this Province.

We talk about facts, and the minister asked us to throw out

facts when we stand up. I didn't plan on personal attacks. We are down to that

level - if we have to get to that level, sobeit, but we have to have a chance to

stand up and speak on it.

Two first facts I come up with: there is the loss of jobs. Is

that not a fact?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SHELLEY: Not a loss of jobs? Very well - like Nova

Scotia wasn't going to lose 400 jobs; they're gone. Are we going to lose 400

jobs?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, we're not going to lose 400 jobs? I hope

the people in the gallery remember what the hon. Finance Minister said, we are

not going to lose any jobs.

Is there going to be an increase in electricity rates, I ask

the Minister?

MR. BAKER: Probably a small one.

MR. SHELLEY: Probably a small one. Very good. That's a

good answer from the Minister of Finance.

Those are two facts, without going any further, if you want

us to talk about facts when we stand. There is going to be a loss of jobs. There

is going to be an increase in electricity rates. If anybody over there in the

hon. crowd can argue that, then come and tell me. Show me some facts where that

can be true.

Can somebody else over there - we will stick to facts -

assure me, because the Premier is never here to assure anybody of anything. As

the hon. House Leader said to us in this very House, this is the most important

piece of legislation to go through this House - we are a part of history here -

the most important piece of legislation to go through this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be here.

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier is not here!

Now, can somebody over there in the hon. crowd tell me and

guarantee me, in all honesty - I ask any minister there - to guarantee me that

in two, three, four years from now we will not be crying about this when some

company in Quebec, when they join with their 20 per cent, 20 per cent, 20 per

cent, can they merge? Can they take over this whole Hydro altogether? No? Well,

let's get that on record, that the hon. the Minister of Finance said it cannot.

Because I can tell you something, it is a real joke to me

when I go out to my district and say: Listen guys, by the way now, you can all

buy shares in Hydro. Well, what a laugh I had in my district! They can barely

afford to feed their families, and we are offering them shares in Hydro? What a

joke that is! The elite again, I would say, the Premier's friends, the hon.

House Leader's friends, it is they who are going to buy the shares in Hydro.

Newfoundland investment - the guy who won the million dollars maybe can buy some

shares in Hydro, but I can tell you that a very few in my district - and I say

to you, very few in your districts around this Province - are going to jump up

and down and say, We'll buy your shares, we'll take over Hydro.

It is not going to be Newfoundlanders, I say to all hon.

members, it is not going to be people in this Province who will take over those

shares, it is going to be people in Quebec, up in Montreal, and Toronto. And

sooner or later down the road, we are going to see a merger and the people who

own the big bulk of shares for Newfoundland Hydro -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: - are going to be outside of this Province,

not inside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, I think, to the

House now that the members opposite want to continue their tactics of delay and

obfuscation.

MS. VERGE: We want to save Hydro.

MR. ROBERTS: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant

to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now be read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been moved that we now proceed with Orders of the Day.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

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

believe that I -

MR. SIMMS: No, no, it is Orders of the Day, is it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. It is (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What are we doing? Could you tell me,

inform me, what we are doing?

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

moved a motion to move to Orders of the Day. The motion was put and carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: So where are we now?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour will now call Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Motion 5, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, that the debate not be further

delayed.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. SIMMS: What is Motion 5, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5 is on the Order Paper. It is,

"...pursuant to Standing Order 50 that the debate on Bill No. 1 entitled, `An

Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric

Corporation', standing in the name of the Honourable the Premier and any

amendments to that motion for Second Reading of Bill No. 1 shall not be further

adjourned and that further consideration of any amendments relating to Second

Reading of Bill No. 1 shall not be further postponed."

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I guess if the Government House

Leader put it in plain terms, what we are debating here is the gag order, is

closure, is that right?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I realize what the

Government House Leader did, and I realize Your Honour put the vote, but I just

want to, if I could, refer Your Honour to Standing Orders, on page 18,

section

It goes there that, "Immediately before the order of the day

for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee...,"

and so on, that the Government House Leader could only move then. I want to

submit to Your Honour that we were in Petitions, which was not immediately

before Orders of the Day. So I think the Government House Leader has breached

procedure and I think he is out of order.

I know what Your Honour did, but I think the Government House

Leader here was a little trigger-happy and a little premature, because we are

still into Petitions. Immediately preceding the Orders of the Day, as I see it,

is after Petitions were finished and then the Government House Leader could have

risen in his place and moved the appropriate motion. I think he is completely

out of order, Mr. Speaker, in what he has done.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were at the stage on the routine proceedings

called Petitions. I was recognized by Your Honour, I then moved Standing Order

21 motion, which Your Honour accepted, put to the House and I understood Your

Honour ruled that it was carried.

Your Honour then, pursuant to the direction of the House in

that motion, called Orders of the Day. I then stood, was recognized by Your

Honour and asked Your Honour to call motion No. 5, which Your Honour did, which

was then put to the House and it was my understanding Your Honour declared the

motion carried.

Standing Order 50 says, "Immediately before the order of the

day for resuming an adjourned debate is called". Now, when Your Honour

recognizes me again and the point of order is disposed of, I will ask Your

Honour to deal with Order No. 3, on the Orders of the Day which is the one

dealing with the privatization bill. So I suggest that the procedure we have

followed is entirely in order and appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader

is correct in that Standing Order 50 says, "Immediately before the order of the

day", not the Orders of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate and the

adjourned debate has not been called yet. So there is no point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough,

please, to call Order No. 3, which is the privatization act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, I believe - did he

conclude his debate or did he adjourn the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the

debate Tuesday night - just about time, only a matter of a few seconds, I

believe, if my memory serves me correctly, I was up on my feet at that time.

Yes, maybe the Clerk could tell me.

MR. SIMMS: It doesn't matter, boy, the gag order is on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I know the gag order is on, Mr.

Speaker, but I am just wondering if - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just adjourned, yes, that's why I was

wondering. I know we weren't quite to 10:00 p.m. and I just rose in my place to

adjourn debate, but I don't know if we used up much time or not, at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you.

MR. FLIGHT: Talk away, boy!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture, that's exactly what I am going to do, talk away as much as the

minister, all the other ministers, the Government House Leader and the Premier

would not want anybody in this House or outside this House to talk in this

debate.

I will just ask the Minister of Health now to control his

exuberance and read his book that he has there. It must be something about Tom

Thumb or Dick and Jane because it must be very elementary, I say to him.

Certainly, he is not reading the privatization bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the

Minister of Health is not reading through this horrendous piece of legislation,

Mr. Speaker, that this government is trying to ram through this House without

proper debate, trying to keep the issue hidden from the people of the Province,

trying to get it through before people really - I guess information flow is

sufficient enough to let people know how bad this piece of legislation is. Now

that's what the Government House Leader, the Premier and the ministers are

trying to do with this piece of legislation. Because, Mr. Speaker, I submit to

you, that most of the ministers in the Cabinet have not read the legislation and

if they have read the legislation they don't understand it, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker.

All this week, for the minister - can you imagine for the

Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, has been responsible up until this piece of legislation is

passed and then, of course, the old Minister of Finance has it all in his back

pocket. This minister has not been able to stand in his place for a full week

and answer one question that has been put to him on the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - the minister responsible for the corporation.

Now, I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker, that says it all. The Minister of

Finance has stood in his place a number of times, both in Question Period and in

response to presenting of petitions, and the Minister of Finance has not known

what he has been talking about on this piece of legislation. And that is what's

wrong with it all, Mr. Speaker. I submit to members opposite and the ministers

of the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, who have to take ultimately responsibility, that

we, on this side, have scrutinized this piece of legislation. We knew what was

in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Long before it came to the floor of this House

we had seen the draft legislation. Our leader had a press conference on it a

month or so ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course, the Minister of Mines and

Energy says: How would he know anything about that? We knew, and we have been

proven to be correct, and we have been scrutinizing this legislation for at

least thirty days, and I can tell you with great confidence, and with sincerity,

that we on this side know more about the privatization bill of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro than 99 per cent of members opposite, and I think the proof of

the pudding is in the eating. Who are the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

listening to today and believing? They are believing the Opposition. They are

believing the power of the people. They are not listening to the Premier or the

Government House Leader, or the Minister of Finance, because as of last night, I

can tell members opposite, the overwhelming opposition to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is bigger than it was when we saw the poll

published in The Evening Telegram weeks ago.

As of last night the opposition to this move by this

government is even stronger, and members opposite know it, even those who are

standing in their places on a daily basis and putting up a very weak defence of

what they are doing, because you now what? You can see it on their faces. You

can hear it in what they say. They are not committed or convicted, most of them,

to what they are doing.

So why are they doing this, Mr. Speaker? Why are they pushing

this piece of legislation through? Why are they ramming this down the throats of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who don't want it, who don't want to do away

with a very valuable asset that they own?

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, out and about this Province

every day people are asking: What is behind all of this? There must be a hidden

agenda. What can it be? Why, why does Clyde Wells want this through so quickly,

when it's so bad? Why do they want it so badly? Why does he want it?

There is a hidden agenda, and it is starting to be exposed.

It is starting to come out what is really behind all of this, because there have

been scandals in this Province before, there has been corruption in this

Province before, but once all the facts are revealed on this issue, I say to the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, there is going to be such a kerfuffle in

this Province like you have never seen before, and we have had some good ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydrogate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Hydrogate; there's no doubt about

that. It will be Hydrogate, because we will have some other things to reveal

over the next number of days in this House, I say to the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture - more things that he is not even aware of, even though he

should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will do it when the coward comes home

and takes his seat, I say to the Minister. When the coward comes back into the

House and takes his seat we will do it, but we are not going to do it while he

is away because that has been his plan for this week. I will flick off to

Toronto and Ottawa, and I will disguise some meetings with Tobin and others, and

I will come back late in the week and you will have the dirty work done for me.

It's not going to work, I say, because he thought that by the time he got back

here today that most of this would be rammed through this House - not so. He is

going to have to come back and face the music right from his seat in this House

of Assembly, I say to the Minister, and he is going to get it good when he comes

back, I can assure you of that. He is going to get it good.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Your Honour, if I could, we

are now stifled, and limited to twenty minutes, and if the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture has the intestinal fortitude to get on his feet, he can get on

some other time and take up his twenty minutes - not when I'm doing mine. I only

have twenty minutes, and I want to say what I want to say.

Now I can tell the minister and others that there have been

more phone calls come into our offices on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, you

can't go anywhere in this Province where people are not opposed to the

privatization of Hydro, and members opposite know it. They are getting the same

roots as we are getting.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't say anything.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They won't say anything. Why? They are

here to represent their constituents. They are not here to represent Clyde

Wells. How they can stay behind and pretend to support something as devastating

to Newfoundland and Labrador I will never understand.

This is going to cost the people of this Province hundreds of

millions of dollars - hundreds of millions of dollars - taxpayers and rate

payers, hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they listen to the Premier

saying: I will get $300 million or $350 million for Hydro and apply it against

the debt, which will be gone this time next year. It will be gone this time next

and then we are back in the same boat. It is probably worth $3 billion. The debt

is $1.2 billion. It will be gone for $300 million and generations of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to pay for it by way of tax increases

and higher electricity rates. Now, anyway you try and cut the pie that is

exactly what is going to happen. Subsidies, tax concessions, you name it, this

government is giving to new Hydro. Now, we have enough FAX sheets done on this I

say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and if he wants to

take them and read them, then maybe he might revolt in the Cabinet.

The arguments of credit rating have been shot down today, as

before, by the Member for Mount Pearl. The Minister of Finance squirmed but the

bond rating agencies are telling the Minister of Finance and the Premier that

what they are saying is not true. There will be higher electricity rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: You provided us with the numbers, boy. Go read

your own documents. It is right in your own documents and you cannot even see

it. That is how stunned you are.

Why don't you shut up or go outside. That is the best thing

you can do, Graham.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has admitted

himself that there will be higher electricity rates. Mr. Speaker, this is a man

who is supposed to have approved the legislation and he asks me why.

In the first year or so there will be a modest increase in

electricity rates, but after the third, fourth and fifth year I say to the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture it is going to cost you a lot more to heat

your home and light your house, a lot more.

MR. FLIGHT: I have already -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you should get in the furnace

yourself, I say. You are a bit like a junk of wood to me the way you are

behaving over there. Higher taxes, Mr. Speaker, which our people cannot afford.

We are the highest taxed people in Canada now and why should we, because we are

selling off the most valuable asset we have left, sell it off, give it away, and

then impose higher taxes on our people? It is nothing short of criminal, Mr.

Speaker. I give you another thing, Mr. Speaker, that there will be loss of jobs

at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There will be loss of jobs in an economy

that already has an employment rate that is escalating on a monthly basis. There

will be job loses, Mr. Speaker. The loss of ownership, something that we own,

that the people own, we are going to give away.

MS. VERGE: Bay d'Espoir (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the last bond paid on the Bay

d'Espoir project within the last year, and here we are going to give it away. We

are blowing it, Mr. Speaker. We own it outright.

Loss of economic opportunities, Mr. Speaker. No mandate, we

have talked about any number of times, any number of times. I come back again

to, why are we doing it? Did any of the ministers ask the Premier why he wanted

to do it? He has been wanting to do it since 1986, I tell members. Since 1986 he

has submitted papers through the systems calling to do the same thing which he

is now doing in this Legislature. He was Chairman of Newfoundland Light and

Power at that time. The very same piece of legislation we are debating here

today Clyde Wells put together in 1986 when he was Chairman of Newfoundland

Light and Power, and at that time, thank God, neither the Board of Directors of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, nor the government of the day, would give the

proposal of Clyde Wells the light of day. That is the only reason it was not

done then.

Do not shake your head at me and tell me I do not know what I

am talking about, Minister, because I do. I have the information in my files

since I was a Cabinet minister, I say to him. The very same piece of legislation

we are debating today Clyde Wells initiated in 1986 when he was Chairman of the

Newfoundland Light and Power.

MR. SIMMS: Did you know that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, do you know what he did? It was not

two weeks after he became Premier, do you know what he called for?... he

couldn't find his documents. What did he call Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

looking for?... the package that he had put to the system that had been rejected

by the previous government. He said: send it over, send it over; and he said

there is no one in the system who can stop it now, I am Premier. That is what

Clyde Wells did. You talk about an agenda and a hidden agenda, Mr. Speaker, and

as I said, over the next couple of days, we are going to tell you a bit more to

just show what the agenda is.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Social

Services, you can joke about this all you like, but you are part of it. You are

part and parcel of it, you are supporting it. If you are not supporting it you

are pretending you are supporting it and that is even worse, and you can cut

your losses with Clyde Wells one of these days when he walks out of this House

or he goes to a press conference and says: I am going to resign. Don't sigh and

say then: Wells is gone, we weren't party to it, because every last one of you

over there, are as damn bad as he is on this issue. You are just as bad as he

is.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Sprung, Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that could be right. Yes, you could

say that, I won't duck behind Sprung, I say to the minister, I won't duck behind

Sprung. If Sprung was a mistake, I will say it was a mistake but I will tell you

one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker,

Sprung did not cost the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sprung did not cost the taxpayers and

the rate payers of this Province about a billion dollars which this deal is

going to cost us. $1 billion I say to the members, $1 billion in tax breaks, I

am telling the members opposite, you may as well listen to me because what I am

telling you is correct. The taxpayers and the rate payers of this Province, you

are going to cost them about $1 billion for what you are doing now and that is

besides Hydro being gone. That is Hydro gone, that's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is their strategy trying to

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - shout us down.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have got the gag

order and now we have the cronies and the lap dogs who will try to suck in,

trying to suck into the seat vacated by the hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture, trying to suck into it. You should stand up for your people; put the

interest of the people before your own interest, I say to the Member for Fogo.

Now, Mr. Speaker, any way they look at this - most of them

haven't looked at it, but once you do a thorough analysis -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the

Member for Fogo, that he should just be quiet and speak when you are recognized

MR. TULK: I will speak when I am ready.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go off and try to find some more

questions for one of the ministers so you get yourself flicked out of another

job, that is what you should do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have done a very

thorough analysis of this piece of legislation. We have talked to people who

know the industry inside out; inside out, Mr. Speaker. We have talked to people

who know the industry inside out. People who were in the industry, people who

are now there who have looked at this legislation. We have looked at people who

are very good at finance and I can tell you now that what you are doing with

this piece of legislation will cost the taxpayers and the rate payers, Mr.

Speaker, $1 billion. That is with Hydro sold, and you are getting $300 million

or $350 million to put against the debt, it is going to cost another $1 billion,

Mr. Speaker, over a ten-year period.

Now, I say to the Member for St. John's South, for whatever

you do, don't you question Cy Abery's credibility, don't you ever because that

is all I hear coming out of you. Don't you ever question Cy Abery's credibility

on this issue because he can smother you on this issue. He can smother anybody

over there on this issue I say including the Premier. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is

where this all is, that is what it is all about. It is the biggest sellout, the

biggest give away, the biggest scandal that this Province has ever seen and we

have had some beauts. We have had some beauts, Mr. Speaker.

Now I see ministers looking, some of them are looking very

serious; some of them look like they are taking the matter seriously and I say

to them, so you should. I say to those private members from the government

benches, you better come clean and come clean soon, because we are running out

of time on this issue. There are enough people over there, Mr. Speaker, there

are enough members that if they voted according to their own convictions this

piece of legislation would be defeated here. If they listened to their

constituents over there it would be overwhelmingly rejected.

I say to them, familiarize yourself with the facts. Go out to

your people and ask them what they - you already know - but go out and confront

them, go out and face them like the Member for Pleasantville did last night. He

didn't hide away, he went down and faced them. They told him in no uncertain

terms what they thought of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

the same way the people in the District of Grand are telling me. He didn't hide

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Meech Lake (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the minister - don't you

have the face to bring up Meech Lake to me with the charade that Clyde Wells put

on in this country, He has come now and he is giving away the most valuable

asset owned by the people of this Province, in a corporate boardroom with five

or six of his closest buddies who have been cronies of his for the last ten

years. Giving away the most valuable asset that we have, and you have the nerve

to bring up Meech Lake, where Clyde Wells cried because there is so much

negotiations going on in back rooms, I say to the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just say to you, if you only knew what

the Premier has been up to the last six or eight months you wouldn't mention

Meech Lake or anything else. You wouldn't mention anything else.

Mr. Speaker, I think I'm pretty well out of time. I just want

to conclude by saying this. There is no doubt where I stand on this issue. I

stand foursquare behind all those who are opposed to this privatization bill. I

stand foursquare with the people of the District of Grand Bank, who are deadly

opposed to it. I am opposed to it because it is a bad deal, it is not in the

best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and why give away our

most valuable asset for a short fix? Because that is what it is going to be. It

will be a short fix for the next fiscal year, and after that we are back in the

same state, Mr. Speaker, with no Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order. What is the purpose of

the motion not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.? We've already got a closure motion under

way, haven't we, already passed? Have we not?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is right. The motion is not in

order, it is not necessary.

MR. SIMMS: So it is a silly motion, and it is redundant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take my

time allotted in this hon. House of Assembly to express to the people of this

Province my opinion on the privatization of Hydro, and as a minister in this

government, I am speaking for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the questions that has been put forward by the members

of the Opposition today is the mandate. I can very clearly say, before the last

election privatization of Hydro was a topic of this government, a topic to the

people of the Province, and the people of the Province voted this government in

last May. That is a mandate to government. If the argument was to be said that

the topic wasn't talked about all over the Province, the people voted this

government in to govern the Province. To make decisions on behalf of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the clear thing that we want to talk about. I talked

about the privatization in my district. I have employees, I have people who work

with Hydro living in my district, and in fact I've had two calls from the

District of Port de Grave since all of this started. One is an employee today

with Hydro. One said very clearly: The government is on the right track, you

should do it and you should do it immediately.

The second and only other call I got was from a senior

citizen in my hometown who asked me to explain some of the things that she was

hearing over the news media because she didn't understand it, that's the only

two calls I received from my district.

Now I understand very clearly what the Opposition is trying

to do, I served four years on the Opposition, they're trying to make political

points. I have no problem with that, you have a right, but when I look around

the gallery this afternoon, since 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, and saw the gallery

full, I suspect a lot of those people are here to hear from both sides of this

House, from all speakers, the information that should be given to them, why or

why not should the Hydro bill proceed.

I can tell you up until now and the past two or three days, I

personally haven't heard anything from the Opposition on why it should not

proceed and if I haven't heard it sitting here in this House what have the

people out in the Province heard? The purpose of the House of Assembly is to

debate issues and get information out to the general public regardless of what

side of the House you are sitting on. That is the people's right and that's what

we as members of this House of Assembly were elected for and it's imperative

that we get that information out - but political posturing? I just heard the

Member for Baie Verte speak to a petition and not one word came out explaining

to me, to anybody, to the people in the gallery or the people in the Province,

why Hydro should not be privatized.

The Opposition House Leader just spoke a few minutes ago, he

stood for a full twenty minutes and he never said one word, never gave one fact

or one reason why it should not be privatized, except to accuse ministers on

this side of the House, MHAs on this side of the House, or the Premier for not

sitting in his chair. Now that makes a whole lot of sense! Let's suppose I am

out of the House, I stay out, John Efford the minister stays out of the House of

Assembly for whatever reason, what has that got to do with informing the people

of the House or the public why Hydro should not be privatized? Give them the

facts and give them the information - the one comment I also heard this

afternoon: this is the most devastating thing to hit this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wake up.

MR. EFFORD: Boy's look in the paper, look in the mirror,

look in this Province for 550-odd years we have tried to survive on the

resources of this Province and the waters around this Province.

The Member for Ferryland should hold his head down because he

was one of the people who said: the most devastating crisis to hit this Province

is the privatization of Hydro and he's from the largest fishing district in this

whole island. In all of his district we have seen this totally wiped out. The

lost of 40,000 jobs in this Province gone and I'll say to the people in this

gallery and the people in this Province, if we would only put our energies all

together. I spoke for two years across this Province saying what's going to

affect every man, woman and child in this Province, regardless of where you

live, the closure of the fishery will be the total destruction of Newfoundland.

If we had put the same energies into that as we have into this Hydro bill, which

the Opposition crowd are kicking up, we'd be a lot better off today then we're

going to be in the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We're talking about money, $1 billion lost on

Hydro, they can't explain it but they keep repeating the number, over the next

ten years. $700 million coming into this Province in value added product from

the fishery, multiply that by fifty years, how many billion dollars is that? How

many hundred thousand people will not be working in this Province? Never mind

not being able to pay a light bill that may increase 2, 3, or 4 per cent. There

will be nobody who will need a light bill because there'll be no houses there to

heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pick your priorities.

MR. EFFORD: You think I'm crazy? Look at the paper. The

problem, Mr. Speaker, is they don't know what the real issue is here. Why should

government be in the business of operating companies? Why should government ever

be involved in private industry? It's the silliest thing ever anybody could

possibly talk about.

I heard a comment on the news this morning, people talking

about Hydro, and what Hydro is turning in to the Province. When was Hydro formed

in this Province? Name me the year, and name me the amount of money that has

been turned back in to the people, to the taxpayers, since the day Hydro opened

its doors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one cent.

MR. EFFORD: Not one penny.

Now, let me tell the people in the gallery, the people in the

Province: I was in private business a number of years before I got into

politics, and when I went to a bank and borrowed money, I had to pay interest on

it, and that interest was taken out of the profits, and if the interest was as

great as the money that was coming into the company, on my profit sheet, it

meant I got no money out of it.

Now, Hydro owes $1.2 billion, and I suspect on that money

they must be paying interest. They must be paying interest. Do the people in the

Province know how much interest is being paid on it? Last year they profited

approximately $120 million. Out of that $120 million, approximately $100 million

went in debt charges, and we say that Hydro should not be privatized? That

government should keep paying those debt charges out to the financial markets of

the world? That if that was privatized and that debt was no longer there, that

$100 million would not come back into the Province?

The Member for Menihek smiles. You are a private businessman

today, and you know what the profit and loss sheet means in a business, so don't

stand up in this House of Assembly and say anything else, it would be

hypocritical for you to repeat that the bottom line at the end of the year

doesn't mean to the owners, and the owners of Hydro, and the taxpayers, the

people in this Province, and the money that comes back is to their benefit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. EFFORD: Tell the truth. The problem is, I'm telling

the truth and you don't want to listen to what is happening in this Province.

I just can't imagine. I look right around at all the tables

over there. I look at the Member for St. John's East Extern, the Member for Baie

Verte, the Member for Placentia, and the what-d'you-call-it from Green Bay, and

all the other people, from Ferryland, every one of you affected by the industry

that is most important in this Province, and I have been here for the last four

or five years listening, and not once have I heard any really strong debate on

trying to do something to save the future of this Province. Not once have I

heard you. Yet you saw it sufficient enough yesterday, on the Hydro bill, to

walk out of this House of Assembly. When have I heard people get out?

We have had demonstrations all over this city for two years,

and not at one time did I see an Opposition member there. My friend from

Pleasantville was there, and members on this side, but not one member of the

Opposition was there, and did that matter to this Province? That mattered to the

whole survival of this Province, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I agree totally. I was one Member of this House

of Assembly from 1985 to 1989 who believed in the rights of oppositions to have

an opportunity to speak, to debate, in the House of Assembly, and to get the

message out to the general public. I spent night and day at it. We cried day

after day, and we shouted day after day, to keep this House of Assembly opened,

and how little did it accomplish. A short session in the spring of the year,

close it, and no more until the next year. You talk about blindfolding and

muzzling the people, and gagging the people.

MR. FLIGHT: Operate on special warrants. A full year on

special warrants.

MR. EFFORD: A full year on special warrants, rather than

open the House of Assembly so that the people of the Province could hear what

was going on. Only for we were aggressive in our manner in Opposition, and no

matter whether the House was opened or closed, we got the message out to the

general public.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, let me tell the people of this

Province, we just talked about the money that was paid on the debt that Hydro

owes, that Hydro is paying, collecting in Hydro fees, the money that they sell

their power for, collecting back from the people of this Province to pay that

thing.

Let's use a figure, and I don't know if the accuracy is going

to be there; I will just use it for an example, when Hydro is sold, and the

money that the Province will receive. Let's use $300 million for a figure. I

can't tell you if that is going to be accurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hundred million!

MR. EFFORD: I said, an example, $200 million, $300

million, $400, million, $500 million. I don't care what the figure is used, but

let's use it for an example. If we get $500 million or $300 million for the sale

of Hydro and it comes into the revenues of this government, we will not have to

borrow that amount of money on the bond markets.

AN HON. MEMBER: One year! And it's gone forever!

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder they got rid of you. I can

tell you, the private businessman from Labrador wouldn't agree with you. Let me

explain. If we borrow $300 million or $400 million this year, think about it,

that will be a long-term debt, forever and ever, as long as -

MR. MURPHY: Every year.

MR. EFFORD: Every year that money will be there. We will

have to pay - let's use the figure of 10 per cent interest. That will equal

about $30 million a year in interest that we will pay - you, not we, you, the

taxpayers of this Province - will pay forever and ever and ever. Remember what I

said earlier. Hydro to date has not turned any money in to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Have returned no profits to us as of yet. If that

sale goes through $30 million will be derived from it each and every year from

here on in.

Do the people of the Province know that? We just talked about

$100 million being paid out that is not going to be (inaudible) once that debt

is paid off, and we will be receiving $30 million more into the revenues,

interest paid on a $300 million loan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), explain that one!

MR. EFFORD: That $100 million is going out in interest

charges every (inaudible) the financial markets all over the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, they are on that

side of the House of Assembly. Make no wonder this Province is in debt almost $7

billion. With an idea and a brain like that, make no wonder. One hundred million

dollars interest and debt payment. What is that? You are not paying for it, so

it is there. The debt is paid off and it is there. You don't have to pay that

out any more. Then you -

MR. TOBIN: Let Beaton give you the answers.

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. FLIGHT: No, you provide the answers. You are going to

be called on to provide the answers, don't worry.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on. Mr. Speaker, I will stand in this

House of Assembly, I will stand anywhere in this Province. I took full

responsibility as Minister of Social Services for the accusations that were made

and the perceptions which followed. I resigned from that position. I stood out

in the general public for two years and I fought for the fishery of this

Province, and the people of Port de Grave gave me the largest majority ever in

this Island and re-elected me to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I hold no shame. If you think that you can

get me insulted or insult me by saying that I received questions, or somebody

has received questions, you can stand on the tallest building of this Province

or in this country and you can shout it. I will hold my head with anybody in

this Province, including you.

MR. TOBIN: Who cares, who cares?

MR. EFFORD: Well then, don't say it. If you don't care,

don't repeat it.

MR. TOBIN: Who cares? You are getting up and you are

asking questions, I say let Beaton get you the answers. I will say it again too.

MR. EFFORD: And you are representing those people? You

should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up too

much more time in debating, because other hon. members want the opportunity to

speak. All I want to do is for the rest of this evening, as long as this House

of Assembly remains sitting, I am sitting here to listen, as well as the people

of this Province, to listen to the true facts. It is time now, today - closure

has been brought into the House of Assembly. It is time now for the people of

the Province to hear both sides of the debate on what the values, what are the

pros and cons of privatization or not privatizing Hydro. That is what this

debate is all about.

I can honestly tell you, as I said at the beginning of my

remarks, that the people of Port de Grave District, who I have a very close

relationship with, as all other members do, I've had two phone calls. Two simple

phone calls and that is it. I know that it is costing the taxpayers of this

Province - the rate payers, I should say - of this Province $100 million a year

in debt charges. I know that if we don't borrow $300 million and we put it into

our revenues, we will pay $30 million less next year on interest charges, and

forever and ever and ever into the future. So that is $130 million that will be

gained there.

There are all sorts of reasons, Mr. Speaker, but the main

factor I conclude is that government should not be involved in private business.

Leave that to the private entrepreneurs of this Province, and this country, to

promote and develop. Let private industry do it. Governments should be in the

position of setting policy and providing support, providing a good business

climate in this Province so that private industry can go ahead, people will have

jobs and pay taxes, and when people pay taxes government can provide the

essential services that the people of this Province require. That is the extent

to which government should be involved. As far as privatization being the worse

crisis of this Province that is utter nonsense. The biggest crisis that hit this

Province, Mr. Speaker, started a number of years ago in the fishery. It is here

today and that is the thing we should be looking forward to straightening out in

this Province. Let us stop this silly nonsense in this House of Assembly and

tell the people of this Province the truth as to what is really happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the presentation by the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I listened to the comments

earlier during the presentation of petitions by the Minister of Finance who was

pleading for some details in this debate. Members opposite constantly

interrupted the Opposition House Leader while he spoke in the debate and asked

for details as to why. I thought for sure when the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation got up to speak he was going to give us all kinds of reasons,

and the people of the Province, all kinds of reasons why the privatization of

Hydro is such a great idea. Now the only thing I heard him mention was the same

thing that the Premier talked about since last October, the idea of the

short-term gain, the one shot $450 million, or whatever, and the fact that we

would save $25 million in interest over the coming years. Now, that is the only

two points the hon. minister made, nothing else.

MR. BAKER: That is per year.

MR. SIMMS: I understand, per year. The Minister of

Finance can speak afterwards but I would appreciate it if he would let me carry

on without interjecting because we only have twenty minutes since he put on the

gag order. We only have twenty minutes to begin with.