May 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of

the President of Treasury Board. Can he confirm that contrary to the statements

he was making over the weekend, that he was not prepared to meet with the NLTA

to further discuss, or hold negotiations, until the NLTA backed off on its

instructions to its teachers not to submit the evaluations to the Department of

Education, that in fact the President of Treasury Board has backtracked from

that position, and has he now said that he is prepared to meet with the

President of the NLTA, Peter Sutherland, in an attempt to get negotiations back

on track?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our attempts have been to get

negotiations started, not necessarily back on track. There have been meetings

held in the last two weeks and there is an exchange of correspondence this

morning which indicates to me that we may be meeting in the very near future to

pursue some options that we discussed last Thursday night.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if I could ask

the President of Treasury Board what transpired in the last little while, the

last few hours, to allow this positive, I might say - I agree it is positive to

get both sides back together, but what has happened? A lot of damage has been

created, I think, because of statements made over the last couple of days by the

President of Treasury Board that he would not have such discussions and not go

back to the table. Can he give us some indication of what happened over the

last, say, twenty-four hours?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the situation is not as the

Leader of the Opposition describes it. About a week-and-a-half ago, I guess two

weeks ago today, I asked for a meeting with the NLTA. We had such a meeting late

at night and the object of that meeting was to determine if there was any way to

avoid a strike, and I left that meeting with the view that there probably was no

way to avoid a strike. We had a further meeting on Thursday at the request of

Mr. Sutherland. I attended that meeting. It was a meeting where we ended with

discussing some options that could provide for the resumption, the start of

collective bargaining. On Friday, I indicated to Mr. Sutherland that I thought

the Thursday night meeting was productive and that the discussions could provide

the basis for further negotiation.

However, things were being made difficult by the fact that he

was directing his teachers not to provide marks which is, Mr. Speaker, in

reality, a job action. I was very concerned, in a collective bargaining sense,

that a job action was starting before it was allowed to start. So, Mr. Speaker,

I asked the NLTA to change its position with regard to the marks. They've

clearly indicated now that they have not changed their position with regard to

the marks but, Mr. Speaker, a solution through collective bargaining would be an

equally acceptable solution and I have indicated that to them. The situation

with the school boards and the NLTA with regard to the marks I guess will become

obvious later today and the marks will either be provided or not be provided.

The position of the teachers' union is that they not be provided. Mr. Speaker,

obviously, they haven't changed their minds so we're now ready to pursue the

other options that we discussed on Thursday night. This is a situation that is

changing hour by hour and quite a bit has changed in the last day or two.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I owe the President of

Treasury Board a deep apology. I, like many, many other people in this Province

thought for certain that I heard the President of Treasury Board over the

weekend saying there is no way that he would ever negotiate or go back to talks

with the teachers, because they had sent out this directive to their teachers.

He is saying now that he never ever said that. Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He is saying he never said that. That's fine,

if he says he never said it I'll accept his word. I don't know if the people in

the news media will accept it because I think it was they who carried it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) on the way in listening to

it.

MR. SIMMS: It was on the news today, apparently.

Anyway, let me get off that angle and just ask them a

specific question. The total compensation package of the teachers, NLTA,

represents less than a quarter of the total compensation for all public

employees. I think he would agree with that - the Member for St. John's South

will certainly agree with it, I think. So the question I would like to ask the

President of Treasury Board is this: How much of the $44 - $50 million or

whatever that amount is, dollars in savings in public sector compensation, do

you intend to take from the teachers? Can you tell us that? And can you tell us

if in fact it's true that you plan to take about half of what you want, which

would amount to $22-$25 million from the existing teachers' contract? Is that a

fact?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again, to comment on the members

introduction, I indicated that a job action like this makes it extremely

difficult to carry on negotiations, and it certainly does, and I don't mind

saying that to anybody.

Mr. Speaker, as to the question that was asked about the

amount of compensation, there are two points I would like to make. Number one,

the process is not one of government going in and taking something. We are still

trying to find a solution through collective bargaining. It is not a matter of

government saying: We are going to take this or else. I've pointed out time

after time in the last two months that that has not been government's position.

Government merely tabled an opening position for negotiations with all unions,

and that is a normal thing. It is unfair to go on characterizing an opening

position as simply take it or leave it. That is not our position, never has

been, and never will be our position.

With regards to the numbers the hon. gentleman is mentioning

the answer is no, his numbers are incorrect. We are not asking the NLTA to come

up with half or over half of the reduction measures. This is one of the items

that is under discussion with the NLTA. Whatever the proportion, whatever affect

this has, that what we are asking for, whatever affect that has on the NLTA

collective agreement will be similar to the affect on the other units in

proportion, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the President of Treasury Board for

providing the House with that information, Mr. Speaker. If we had had that

information earlier it would have made things much easier. It is better for us

to understand what is going on. I still say to him though however that the

perception out there was that you had basically said: No way - my way or the

doorway. Anyway, we will worry about that in the end. We will have to depend on

some other people I suppose to try to decipher that out.

Let me ask him this. He now says that you are not looking for

what would amount to $22 million out of the existing teachers' contract. You

just said that no way, you are not looking for that kind of money. That is good.

Good information to have. Let me ask him this.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He didn't say that.

MR. SIMMS: He didn't say that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, (inaudible), can't trust him.

MR. SIMMS: He said my numbers were wrong.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, but (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Does that mean that they might be looking for

more? Oh, I see, okay. Perhaps he could give us an indication of the total

amount of compensation from teachers you are looking for. That would be very

helpful.

Can the President of Treasury Board answer these couple of

simple questions, Mr. Speaker? Has, or have you, the government, the department,

or whoever in Treasury Board, whoever is responsible, have you already directed

board superintendents to issue lay off notices to teachers covered by the 2 per

cent clause, which certainly would be in violation of the current collective

agreement? Somebody can answer that. Either the Minister of Education or the

hon. the President of Treasury Board.

Secondly, is it a fact that you've already told the NLTA that

you will bring in legislation to do away with that 2 per cent clause whether

they like it or not? If so, what kind of bargaining would he call that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions there

that one of them should be answered by the Minister of Education. Maybe I could

answer on his behalf, but there have been no directives given to, as he put it,

lay off teachers and so on, none as a result of this happening in the last

couple of days; there have been none.

MR. SIMMS: Not lay-offs issued, directives issued, to the

board superintendents to issue lay-offs.

MR. BAKER: Because of a response to the mark issue?

MR. SIMMS: No, no, no. (Inaudible) Minister of Education.

MR. BAKER: Oh. I only know about the collective

bargaining issue, so I will have to let the Minister of Education answer that

one. The other question had to do with -

MR. SIMMS: The 2 per cent clause. Are you going to bring

in legislation (inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: - the 2 per cent clause and the three year

protection letter.

Mr. Speaker, that is part of what we are now in the process

of discussing, through collective bargaining, and I would like to comment on the

numbers issue again. That is also part of the negotiation, but I can assure the

hon. member and the House that the effects of the compensation reduction and so

on will be evenly and proportionately spread, in terms of our request,

throughout the public sector.

MR. SIMMS: Can the Minister of Education respond to that

directive on the issue of lay-offs?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is coming at

this one the wrong way. What we did in the Department of Education was look at

the whole system. How many teachers do we need to deliver the curriculum?

Now I have made this perfectly clear to the House on several

occasions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister in his reply.

MR. DECKER: We looked at the whole system and determined

how many teachers were required to deliver the educational programs of the

Province. Being aware that there is a 2 per cent rule, we gave an interim

allocation of teachers to the boards. In our opinion, we have given sufficient

teachers to the boards to do what teachers are supposed to do. If at the end of

the day there is a 2 per cent rule in the teachers contract, then we will have

to find half-a-dozen or more, or a few more, teachers. If there is no 2 per cent

rule in the new contract, then we will continue on with the allocation. I don't

understand what all the confusion is about. It is perfectly clear to me.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, one has to question the intent

of the minister's answer to that question, because the impact in the teaching

profession is that superintendents have indeed issued lay-off notices and intent

to discontinue services to great numbers of teachers as a consequence of the

initiatives that have been taken by the minister.

I say to the minister that many Level 3 students who received

grades in the 40 to 50 per cent range at mid-term have worked very hard to

improve their academic standing and are therefore now able in all probability to

meet the requirements for graduation. How does the department's contingency plan

for potential graduating students assure that these students are fairly treated?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I made that clear when I

announced that the department was looking into the option of grading students

based on the overall year's performance and their mid-term exams. I also said at

that time, recognizing that there are students who will say: on the day my

mid-term was written was a bad day and I did not feel up to it, or I did not

study as much as I should have, and recognizing that just as the present

regulations have an appeal process in for a student who feels he or she did

badly, we will make an appeal process available for any student who feels that

the system failed him or her. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Many students who were enrolled in honours

math 3201 and who wrote a failing test at mid-term switched to math 3203. The

academic record for these students will show they do not meet the requirements

for graduation. Would the minister comment on the methodology to be used to

assure a fair assessment of the knowledge achieved by these students?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring

to the exception. Now, if all 8000 students were to fit in that category we

would have a problem, but chances are there would be such a small number of

people it would be very simple to deal with each one on an individual basis.

There is no major problem.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister's

statement the number switching from honours math to academic math is not a small

number and it is a persistent problem in the high school system.

Since the minister is directly responsible for the academic

and administrative functions of the school system, and since the President of

Treasury Board has consistently maintained the Department of Education has no

place at the bargaining table between the NLTA and government, how can the

minister justify his consent to use the marking system, therefore administrative

and academic function, and the evaluation of students as political leverage by

the President of Treasury Board?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there may or may not be a

strike. If there is a strike, then prior strike, before strike is business as

usual, and in business as usual the Department of Education has the right, has

the legal right, to ask the school boards at any time to come forward with the

marks, evaluation or whatever - the schools act is quite explicit - in the

Department of Education until and if there is a strike, and we don't want a

strike. Ideally we would like for the students to be able to finish out their

term, write their exams and it would be everything as usual but in the event

that there is a strike we are doing the prudent thing, Mr. Speaker, we are

taking precautions so that the students will be protected. Also, Mr. Speaker, we

are very mindful of the teachers in this too. The teachers in their classrooms

find themselves in a very difficult situation. The law of the land requires that

they would do a certain thing and their union tells them not to do it. I have a

lot of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for a teacher who finds himself -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister.

MR. DECKER: I have a lot of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for a

teacher who finds himself caught in the middle in that situation too.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour.

Under the NCARP program earnings from employment are reported at the end of each

quarter and adjustments are then made to the benefits paid out by the NCARP in

the following quarter. In some cases people owe money to NCARP which is clawed

back from the benefits and in other cases NCARP owes money to the fishermen and

plant workers which is paid out by cheque. I would like to ask the minister if

he is aware that some people who have returned to temporary and even part-time

work have been told that their NCARP payments are now suspended and there will

be no reconciliation done until after May 15?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to

either confirm or deny that statement.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the

minister that this is a true statement. Many people went to work in the morning

and came home for lunch and were told that there was a phone call received from

NCARP or DFO telling them that their NCARP payments will be suspended until

after May 15. Since this is the case, I would like to ask the minister if he

would talk to his cousins in Ottawa and ask them if they would make sure that

those surprises are not sprung on those people and allow the process to work, as

it was supposed to be done in the beginning, where the payments were made and

reconciliations will be looked at, after May 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, everybody understands that the transition from

NCARP to the TAGS program will take place in the next few days or so, in the

next week, and that to the very best of everyone's ability an orderly transition

has been put in place so that problems or difficulties will be kept to an

absolute minimum. The officials who are here operating in St. John's, in the

Newfoundland region, are doing the very best that they can to make sure that

they finish up all obligations under NCARP and begin all new and continuing

obligations under TAGS as smoothly as possible.

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

MR. CAREEN: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment and Lands. Since our meeting some time ago with local

representatives in the area of the Come By Chance refinery and personnel from

your department, regarding improvements they needed or they felt that should be

made down there, and in light of the fire in recent days at the refinery, has

your department stepped in to talk with them about making necessary improvements

at a time when it's not in operation, please?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to report that we

are. Letters have gone out from me to Mr. Mifflin and from my officials at a

different level to officials of that plant at a different level and I expect to

be meeting face to face with Mr. Mifflin some time this week.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you,

Minister.

For your information, I don't know if you know, I only heard

it a few minutes ago but a person from that company told some local residents

there last week that they intend to have the sulphur recovery unit in place when

they are ready to start up, so if you could make sure that they have that

promise taken care of - because I have been talking to the people down in that

area over the past weekend, in between other meetings, and they want to know

exactly what is going on - and I urge you again, and I thank you for wanting to

get on top of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is your question?

MR. CAREEN: That is a question and a statement. The

question is -and she answered in the first place, but I wanted to make sure it

was going ahead. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the

Premier.

As part of the Strategic Economic Plan, the Premier

established a separate Department of Tourism and Culture. I would like to ask

the Premier: Does he intend to maintain Tourism and Culture as a separate

department, or are there any plans in the near future to merge it with the

Department of Industry, Trade and Technology?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The policy position on that issue will be

announced in the reasonably near future, not in the next few days, or perhaps

not even in the next week or two, but not very long from now.

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

Capes, a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the department has not had its

own minister since February 22. The tourism season is upon us, and many people

within the industry are concerned about the absence of a full-time minister. I

would like to ask the Premier: When does he plan to appoint the new minister for

the Department of Tourism and Culture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer I just gave is still the same.

It hasn't changed in the last thirty seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes.

MR. MANNING: I am surprised that so many, especially in

the front benches, find it laughable when the tourism industry in this Province

is one of the engines of growth that this government talks about all the time.

Mr. Speaker, many people throughout the Province are

wondering why the Premier has been so slow in appointing a new Minister of

Tourism and Culture. I would like to ask the Premier: Isn't the real reason he

has not made the appointment the fact that he wants to hold this coveted Cabinet

position in front of his caucus members, especially the backbenchers, to make

sure they stay in line and give their support to the likes of the Hydro

Privatization Bill and the educational reform. Isn't that the real reason, Mr.

Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I recommend that the hon. member get a new

question writer.

MR. SIMMS: In other words, `yes'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the

President of Treasury Board or the Minister of Education, whichever one would be

able to answer it best.

Has government responded to the proposal put forward by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students regarding changes to the

student aid program made in the Budget of 1994?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there was some concern expressed

by students about the new provincial student loan program. We were waiting to

hear from the Federal Government before we had a full meeting with the students.

There is a Student Loan Advisory Committee. We have been

working through that committee with the students. Now, it is my understanding

that they either met the latter part of this week past, or will be meeting this

week coming, but we are consulting with the students on pretty well a daily

basis.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I find it laughable, from a minister who

didn't even know he had a Student Aid Advisory Committee that he never met with,

to say that he has consulted with the students. Consultation is not something

that this government is noted for.

Let me ask the minister this: Why are you waiting to discuss

this issue with the Federal Government when you can sit down and discuss issues

right now on the provincial loan program? For example, what role will the banks

play - has that been determined - in determining eligibility for student aid?

Can the minister answer that question without consulting with Ottawa?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to ask what role does the

federal government play? is indicative of the kind of government we had for the

past seventeen years, when they went off half-cocked and spent our taxpayers'

money like drunken sailors. It doesn't give me much comfort that the future

generation of young Tories over there is any better than the former generation.

They still think exactly the same way, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that at no time, through grant or any other

process, did the Province pay for the full education of our people. There was a

student loan program in place where students went and borrowed. Now, the Federal

Government have made some significant changes to the student loan program. As a

result the student loan program will only pay 60 per cent of the cost of tuition

for a year. That left a 40 per cent gap. The old grants system that the Province

had could cover about 18 per cent of the cost of university tuition, so there

was a 22 per cent gap left.

The Province was left with various options. One, we could

have left the grants in place, at the rate they were, $20 million per year, and

we could have made available to half the number of students that money, and, of

course, we would have had half the number of students out. We chose to make

available a provincial student loan program to cover that 40 per cent gap, to

make a university, post-secondary education available more readily to all of our

students. I'm proud of what we did, Mr. Speaker. I take great pride in it,

because now it is possible for any Newfoundlander and Labradorian to get a

post-secondary education.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister what role

the banks would be playing in determining eligibility, and I got a great

soliloquy from the minister, dealing with the grants system and the Federal and

Provincial Governments. Let me try a simpler question for the minister. How will

government deal with students who are refused student loans by the banks because

they have a bad credit history, if the banks are going to be involved? Maybe he

could answer if the banks are going to be involved, and then answer the

question, how will he deal with students who have been denied a loan because of

a bad credit history.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has to

remember is this. When he asks fifteen or twenty questions I might not get down

to all of them. I managed to answer fourteen of his previous questions. The last

one he asked was whether the banks would be involved or not. Yes, the banks will

be involved, but the student loans division in the department will still remain.

The loan will be dealt with within the department. The bad risk is something we

are very much aware of. In Nova Scotia, for example, the way it was dealt with,

the province actually guarantees bad risks, a very small number of them. We will

discuss that with the banks as to whether or not the Province will take

responsibility for the very small number of bad loans.

But here is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the

day, no student will be refused admission to any institution because of a bad

credit record or whatever the case might be. We will make sure the process - and

to quote Joey Smallwood some years ago, nobody will be denied an education for

the sake of mere money, Mr. Speaker. That still stands.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On May 2, the

Minister of Health tabled a discussion paper for board restructuring in northern

Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister stated that he was going to distribute

that widely to interested groups and individuals in the Northern region of the

Province, and he plans to meet with interested parties to discuss that. I ask

the minister: Is it part of his plan to hold public hearings so that the people

who are mostly affected, the people in that area, will have some input?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the exact format of these

meetings hasn't been thought through yet but the basic idea behind it is that

anyone who wants to have anything to say about the structuring of boards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: - in that area will have the opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member. I hear talking on this side and

that side and I can't hear what the minister is saying.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: I will start again, Mr. Speaker. While the

details haven't been worked out yet, the intention is quite clear. Anyone who

has anything to say on this issue, I would like to hear what they have to say

and before we make up our minds we would afford the opportunity. We've

identified certain interested groups who have written and certain individuals

who have written indicating that they want to participate. I have sent out these

discussion papers to all these individuals inviting them, if they wish, to

submit their views and also to tell them to me directly. If there are other

people who are known, then I would be very glad to meet with them as well. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there are

roughly 45,000 people served in that area. I'm quite sure they haven't had an

opportunity to see a copy.

In one of the proposals, scenario two, it looks at doing a

restructuring of Labrador under one board and Northern Newfoundland would depend

on the Western region of the Province for certain aspects of secondary health

care. Now, there has been a cost analysis done on all five scenarios as they

presently affect the current region of northern Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask

the minister, what effect has his committee or has this study - I know this

study hasn't looked at what effect the Northern part, in scenario two, is going

to have on the Western region. Are we going to need new beds in Western

Memorial? Are we going to face other extended costs and the availability of

specialists because of the impact that is not addressed here in this report?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding after talking

with people is this will have a minimal effect on the situation in Western

Newfoundland. It will have some, but minimal effect.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a report of the Resource Committee.

Our committee has reviewed and approved, without amendment, the estimates of

expenditure of the following departments: Fisheries; Forestry and Agriculture;

Mines and Energy; Tourism and Culture; and Industry, Trade and Technology.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies".

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

Kenmount.

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

tomorrow, ask leave to introduce the following Private Members' resolution:

WHEREAS the government has announced in the Budget Speech its

fiscal plan to further reduce the compensation of the public sector employees by

an additional $50 million; and

WHEREAS the President of Treasury Board and the government

have deliberately poisoned the collective bargaining process through the use of

ultimatums; and

WHEREAS honour and trust have disappeared from the collective

bargaining process for public employees in this Province; and

WHEREAS the government of the Province deliberately and

maliciously displayed a confrontational, dictatorial, and mean-minded attitude

towards collective bargaining in recent months; and

WHEREAS the current threats to disruptions in public services

are causing severe anxiety for many citizens; and

WHEREAS the threat of public sector strikes is having a

profound and negative effect on the Newfoundland economy; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED this House deplore the confrontational

approaches of the government in its negotiations with public sector unions, and

that this House direct the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin

meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public sector unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MS. VERGE: Where are those Western Memorial Hospital

reports?

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to

present a petition on behalf of 194 residents and constituents of the Minister

of Education, from the communities of Englee, Bide Arm, Roddickton, and so on. A

copy of the petition has been sent to the minister. This is the original. I have

been asked to present the petition, and I am proud and pleased to be able to do

it. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`In the Throne Speech on February 28, 1994, the government

stated that it will introduce legislation to reform the Province's education

system in accordance with Adjusting the Course,

Part I . Thus, government

has made official its intent to restructure the denominational school system.

Such action will be in violation of the Constitution.

We, the undersigned, call upon the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to: 1) reverse the decision; 2) in the event the legislation

proceeds, to allow a free vote in the House of Assembly; 3) We ask the Members

of the House of Assembly to vote against any legislation that violates the

constitutional rights of the Pentecostal class of people.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition expresses the views, of course, of

many people in the Province. We have heard similar petitions over the last

number of months. We have certainly heard news stories and coverage of public

meetings where parents of the Pentecostal systems, as well as parents and

children of the Catholic educational system, in particular, express similar

concerns.

We have expressed reservations in this House on behalf of

those people who are protected under the Constitution about the government's

intent to pursue aggressively or arbitrarily a move that would see the removal

of constitutional rights of classes of people. As a matter of fact, I believe

the government - or at least I thought the government - had come to its senses

about a week or so ago, and finally recognized that route would be a very costly

one and the possibilities at the end of that road were that they would run into

a dead end after spending millions of dollars. So it seemed as if they had taken

another look at it and, in an attempt, through the use of Phil Warren, former

Minister of Education, and a lawyer by the name of Browne, I think it was,

Dennis Browne, Chairman of the Labour Relations Board, a former Liberal campaign

manager, a former constituent of mine - through their efforts, Mr. Warren's in

particular, I suspect, it looked like they may be moving back on track, and

government did present some modifications, or changes, which would allow for

denominational education to stay in many parts of the Province, and it looked

like we may finally have a way of resolving this without confrontation and get

the much needed educational reforms that all of us have sought in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we hear - if the

Minister of Education is being quoted out of context, well, then I wish he would

stand in the House and correct it or clarify it. I could not believe my ears

with the reports. Mr. Decker, the Minister of Education is quoted as saying that

it doesn't look like this is going to go anywhere, and all that kind of thing. I

was really disappointed to hear that because only a few days before that it

looked like there was a way.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I was very disappointed. We don't need this

issue, I say to the Member for Fogo, to win the next election. You watch out for

the next election. It won't have anything to do with the denominational

education reforms, you wait and see. We don't need to do anything, as a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker - members on that side are doing it all for us and we

appreciate that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to the important issue, I say to

the Member for Fogo, the education reform issue. In view of the fact there is

only five minutes to speak to the petition, I wish he wouldn't interrupt me

because I do want to try to express the views of these people in the few limited

minutes we have.

I say to the Minister of Education, I hope he speaks to this

petition because I would like to see him clarify exactly what it is that's going

on - whether the media reports which say that the Minister of Education has now

thrown a damper on this thing again are accurate, which would not surprise me

because the Minister of Education has occasionally gotten himself into

controversy and hot water because of statements and then spent three months

trying to clarify his statements. So I hope he speaks to this and clarifies for

these petitioners who happen to be constituents of his, all from the district of

the Strait of Belle Isle, from the communities I mentioned, Englee, Bide Arm,

and Roddickton.

I hope he speaks to it and has something positive and

encouraging to offer to his constituents and to the thousands of others around

this Province who want to see education reform take place, but they don't want

to see their constitutional rights attacked, as was the intention of the

government at least six months ago when they talked about adjusting the course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak

in support of the rights of the citizens who have petitioned the House, and to

say to this hon. House that many of us were very disappointed a few days ago

when we heard the minister categorically and without any conditions attached,

say that the negotiations between the church authorities and the Province to get

a consensual agreement had indeed broken down. To hear the minister say that

after months and months of dialogue, he was now determined to pursue his

interpretation of what he believes to be the right approach, and while we, on

this side, believe that there has to be many, many reforms in the educational

system we also believe, and our party campaigned on the premise that they should

be consensual agreements reached to implement reform. We were very pleased, in

fact, we were very delighted, a few days ago when we found out that Dr. Phil

Warren, whom I have known for many, many years, and Mr. Dennis Browne were

involved in the negotiations.

I said to somebody at that time that with the involvement of

Dr. Warren, having known him many years and knowing of his compromising

approaches and ability to be able to find the common ground between groups which

don't seem to see eye to eye on issues, we thought for sure we would have our

best chance to reach a consensual agreement. However, each step forward that we

make in resolving these difficulties, we seem to go one step backwards.

I say to the minister today, let's have real dialogue, let's

involve outside groups, Dr. Phil Warren or anybody else that we can find in this

Province so that we don't have our students, our parents and everybody else

involved in three or four years of political wrangling, of legal problems. In

all that process, for whatever reason we arrive at that process, the people who

will be most seriously affected are the young children. While we struggle here

or while the government struggles and the churches struggle to find some way,

the people who are most directly affected by our inability to find a consensual

agreement are the children of this Province. So therefore, we implore the

minister and the government, go out, find the people who can seek the common

ground and let's get an agreement reached that is going to meet the educational

needs of the youth of this Province in the next decades. Thank you very much.

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

Extern have another -

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

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

MR. DECKER: I want to say a few words to this petition

which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government has been very

reasonable, very understanding in our discussions with the churches in our

desire to reform education in this Province. I believe we've put forward a model

which will be renowned throughout North America. It will, by far, be the best

educational system in all of North America and I would put it up against

anything in the world.

The key to the model that we have put forward is that it is

first and foremost a denominational system of education. Now, it is an

inter-denominational system in most cases. One of the basics of any democracy in

the world is freedom of religion and very often this freedom of religion has

been interpreted to be freedom from religion. So that if any person - supposing

ninety-nine people in a particular school, if ninety-nine people in a school are

of a certain religion and want certain religious rights and one person says,

`no' then, Mr. Speaker, the school is no longer allowed to offer their religious

course and this, of course, is freedom from religion.

We have put forward a model for religion for educational

reform which will give true freedom of religion, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a

model that we should be proud of and I'm quite happy. Now, the unfortunate thing

about this is that we have not yet been able to reach consent from the churches.

We don't have consensus. I believe we have bent over backwards; we've done

everything in our power. The hon. member talks about Dr. Phil Warren, his good

friend and mine, and it is a known fact that Dr. Warren may be of a different

temperament from mine and Dr. Warren - if there is a compromise, my friend and

former colleague, Dr. Warren, could find it. However, unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, even he was unable to find that compromise. So it still doesn't exist.

Now, here we are - talks haven't completely broken off. We're still available to

talk to the churches. I heard Mr. Fallon say over the weekend on the media, if

he was quoted properly, that I probably misinterpreted the tone of his last

letter. Well, if I misinterpreted it, let's sit down and explain it to me. Maybe

I was wrong on my

interpretation and we're certainly open to see - we'll sit

down and if I made a mistake, we'll certainly interpret the letter the way it

should be interpreted.

So the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this, that

we are trying our utmost to reach consensus. We have said that we would prefer

to make these reforms with the full blessing and the consensus with the

churches. However, if we don't reach consensus then we feel that it is our

obligation to the people of this Province to go ahead and find some way to

reform the system anyway. Well, we're trying to do that. But what I have not

heard members on the other side of the House say is, what they would do in the

event of not reaching a consensus. I hear them get up and say, it is our policy

that we should reform the system only after we reach consensus. They admit that

the system should be reformed; they admit that the system is not performing as

it should; they admit that the whole world and all of North America is making

reforms, and they are saying they would do it by consensus. What they have not

said, Mr. Speaker - and I'm hoping the hon. member at some future time in this

House when he gets the opportunity, will get up and tell us what he would do if

he were in a position where they did not reach a consensus.

It is alright to take the easy political route and try to be

all things to all people, to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds. It is

alright to say that, but what would they do when they reach such a time? Would

they let the system alone and be the worst, the most under-performing system in

all of North America? Or would they go ahead and live up to their obligation as

government, if they happened to be - and God forbid - if they happened to be

government in this Province?

It is not good enough to say: We would do it by consensus.

They have to answer the question: What would they do if they did not reach

consensus? I haven't heard them say that yet, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hoping that

before the day is out I will hear them say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern have a petition?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I'm pleased

to rise and present a petition on behalf of thirty-six residents of Pilly's

Island, Beaumont, South Brook and Robert's Arm area. The petition has to do with

the privatization of Hydro and the prayer of the petition is as follows:

`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;

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. As in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.' Mr. Speaker, I have, of course, signed the

petition.

The Premier and the government have continually said that the

reason why they wish to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to reduce

the debt of the Province. By privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, of

course, we would not only be reducing the debt of the Province but we would also

be reducing the assets of the Province by much more than we would be reducing

the debt. Where is the logic and common sense in this move? I ask the Premier,

who is not here in the House right now, where is the fairness and balance in

selling something off, giving it away, and reducing our assets by much more than

we would be reducing our debt? And for whose benefit? There would be very few

people who would benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro compared to the numbers of people in this Province who would lose.

Over the past month to six weeks, or whatever, since this has

been ongoing, debated in the House, I have listened to the debate very closely.

I have mentioned once or twice that I'm still very interested in hearing what

many of the members opposite have to say on this privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. A few have gotten up and spoken in favour of it, of course,

but there is a great number over there who have not spoken yet on this issue and

it is because they are being muzzled by the Premier. If they are not being

muzzled, if they don't have the guts and gumption to get up and speak on this

issue, let their constituents know where they stand on this and don't go hiding

behind the Premier's muzzling of individuals.

I'm sure there is a number over there who are in favour of

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but I'm sure there is a good

number over there who are not. As I said before, those members' constituents

want to hear. They want their views represented in this House. There is 80 per

cent, I believe now, of the decided vote against the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and I have some suspicions that the 80 per cent

is gradually increasing. It is probably closer to 90 per cent at this point in

time.

We have seen the Premier and the government opposite spend

tens of thousands of dollars on the ads in the paper and on the radio with

respect to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, trying to

convince the public that their views are wrong. It is not working. If anything

it is working against the government on this issue. The government recently,

too, have backed off on the promotion of the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. You don't see as many ads in the paper, you don't hear as much

on the radio these days on that. I have to ask the question: Why are they

backing off on the advertising of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro? Is it because it is finally starting to sink in that the majority of the

people of this Province are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, last week we were discussing Bill No. 2 which

dealt with the privatization of Hydro, actually, and the six-month hoist, and

again no one spoke opposite on that very important issue. Also, when this issue

first came to the floor and was made public I had to question it. Should I, as a

Conservative, oppose such an endeavour, of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro? Because being a Conservative of course we should be looking at those

things. I've looked at the NLCS situation and the Farm Products, and I'm still

waiting for the facts and figures to know if I should or should not support the

privatization of those enterprises.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a utility and a monopoly.

It is quite a different situation than compared to any other commercial

enterprise. Of course we have Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. We

have people and companies in private industry that are in that business selling

computers, in the information fields, information technology, which is the way

of the future I (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: - firmly believe that. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad today to

stand and support the petition put forward by my hon. colleague for St. John's

East Extern. I'm pleased to support the petition on behalf of the people who

signed it.

The Hydro privatization just won't go away. It is here to

stay and people want to have their say on it. It is without a doubt one of the

most major items that has come to this Province over the past number of years,

and as the Government House Leader spoke on earlier, one of the most important

pieces of legislation brought forward to this House of Assembly in recent times.

People are still asking a lot of questions about it, people are still concerned

about it, and people are still in doubt with a lot of exactly what Hydro

privatization means.

There have been several meetings held throughout the

Province, mostly by members on this side of the House, in regards to the

privatization issue. People have been coming out and voicing their concerns and

asking their questions. We are trying our best to give the answers and we are

still getting calls for meetings. As a matter of fact I had a request last week

to have a meeting in another part of my district next week in regards to the

Hydro privatization bill. We have it scheduled; I believe it is for next Monday

night. Because like I said before, people are still asking questions and people

have concerns. I had a meeting back in - must be a couple of months ago now in

my district when first the privatization bill came before the House. People were

out and now they are still asking for more meetings. There certainly is a

concern out there.

I guess one of the most important items that has been brought

forward is the fact that the Premier went on Province-wide television and told

the people of the Province more or less that if they didn't want the

privatization or they didn't agree with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro,

that it wouldn't be. Then he comes back to the House a few days after and says

he is proceeding as planned. I guess the doubt is not so much in the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro as the doubt is in (inaudible) exactly the

Premier is telling the truth when he does try to tell the truth to the people of

this Province.

The public relations campaign that has been going on is

mostly one-sided. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on trying to

push the government side, the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. There is no

opportunity there for the other side to have their say. It is all what the

government thinks is right and more or less once again trying to push down the

throat of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the fact that this is a good deal,

when there are many people who say it is not. Again, the people are getting the

opportunity through the government dollars to only hear one side.

I question sometimes, as many others have, about the

importance of other people's opinions in a democratic society and how important

it is that everybody get the chance to have their say. It seems like if they

don't agree with what the government wants to do they are not going to get the

chance to have their say, and that the Premier and some of his colleagues are

more or less going to bash the likes of the Power of the People and those other

groups, and more or less that their opinions and their concerns don't matter

because they don't agree with what the government plans to do. Therefore the

only way that we can handle it is to lash out at those people and tell them that

they don't know what they are talking about.

Then we go outside this Province and bring in people from

outside, such as Mr. Comeau from Nova Scotia, to try to push and to go along

with - and he is welcomed with open arms because he agrees with what the

government is at. I think he should go back and review what happened in Nova

Scotia before he comes over trying to tell us what to do with our Hydro. He

should go back and review what it has done to the Province of Nova Scotia. Just

last week we saw how the people over there are under such stress and they are

getting upset and they even come into the Legislature over there. They didn't

even get to read out their Budget because the people have been sick of being

pushed down.

The same thing is going to happen in Newfoundland, I would

say, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and all

the other things that this government is trying to force on the people.

This privatization issue was never mentioned during the

campaign of last year. I think the Member for St. John's South had it in his

literature, but that was about the only mention about the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro last year during the election campaign, so the people were

hoodwinked; it was a cover up; it was a hidden agenda by the Premier and his

colleagues. They knew what they wanted to do, but they didn't mention it because

they knew if they brought everything out forward that they would be sitting on

this side of the House. Still, they come along and never mention the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and then they come out and offer it to the

people just like it's a good deal.

They say that Newfoundlanders would be given the first

opportunity to buy the shares. I have to wonder sometimes what Newfoundlanders

will buy the shares in Newfoundland Hydro. I guess it won't be the many people

who are unemployed in this Province.

Then I wonder why some people haven't spoken out on the

issue, especially on the other side of the House, and I raised a question

earlier today in Question Period that received some laughter from the other side

of the House, and I was intrigued by the fact. Then we wonder why many of the

members don't speak on it. Well, they don't speak on any issue so why should

they start to speak on this issue when they are not allowed to speak on any

other issue that comes up before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Nobody on this side has spoken to the petition. I would like

to say a few words, having heard the malevolent whines of the gentleman from St.

Mary's - The Capes.

This petition prays that the House address the issue of

privatization. We on this side believe that is a message that should be heard;

the House should address it. Accordingly, I move -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You should withdraw it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Grand Bank is

dyspeptic. I would have thought he had a good weekend. He shouldn't be

dyspeptic. He should be his normal, jovial self. He should not be dyspeptic. My

hon. friend from St. John's East is being pathetic, not dyspeptic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from St.

John's East had his convention on the weekend. It was down, as I recall, in a

phone booth on the waterfront.

Mr. Speaker, let me move, pursuant to the Standing Orders,

that the Orders of the Day now be read, and we will give the House the

opportunity to carry on. It will be the tenth day of debate on the Electrical

Power Control Act.

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

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Your Honour's

consideration in this matter. The Government House Leader rose to speak to the

petition. Then he gets up and makes a motion that we move to Orders of the Day.

Really, be up front.

If the minister wants to rise in his place and move that we

move to Orders of the Day, why does he do -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is dyspeptic.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Dyspeptic.

MR. ROBERTS: It's not a bad word, is it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know what it is, antiseptic, or

oral-septic, or some kind of septic.

The minister should be more up front than that, to rise in

his place, saying he was going to speak to the petition and then making a motion

that we move to Orders of the Day.

You are going to have to bring the Government House Leader to

order, Mr. Speaker. He can't be allowed to take the place on his back and go on

like this day after day after day. He can't be allowed to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I simply

cite Standing Order 21, which says: A motion for reading the Orders of the Day

shall have preference to any motion before the House.

I believe I was in order when I made the motion. Should Your

Honour rule otherwise, sobeit, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, one of the rules of the House

is that when a member is recognized by Your Honour, he or she has the floor. I

commend it to my friends opposite. From time to time they might find it useful.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion to be in order, and

accordingly I would ask Your Honour to rule upon the point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognized the hon. Government

House Leader, not for any particular purpose, but there have been two speakers,

I believe, on this side, including the member presenting the motion.

MR. SIMMS: He said he wanted to speak on the petition,

Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, I didn't hear him say that he

wanted to speak to the petition. I think he said he had a few words to say.

In any event, Order 21 clearly states that the motion for

reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the

House, and that would include the reading of petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but my view of it would be that the

motion for reading the Orders of the Day takes preference over the ordinary

business of the House, and it certainly has been used in the past to foreshorten

petitions.

I believe it was decided on by a previous Speaker in December

of 1984 as well, so I would rule that the motion is in order and I would now,

accordingly, put it.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, that's fine but I

believe that we should take a look at it for a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. In any event the motion is that the

Orders of the Day be now read.

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, for now with Orders of the Day

could we call Order No. 5, Bill No. 2? My friend from Eagle River has the floor.

I understand he has very few minutes left but I'm sure that he will say more in

those few minutes than gentlemen opposite have said in the ten days that they've

consumed on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I understand I just have a couple of minutes to have a few

words on this very important issue, Mr. Speaker. I was going to talk on last

Thursday about the second historic anniversary of the day but since it's now

Monday and that historic anniversary has passed I'd like to say a couple of

words, Mr. Speaker, on the significance of this particular piece of legislation.

I'm sure all hon. members were all very, very distressed on

Thursday when the Premier rose in his place to indicate that the credit rating

for the Province had been down-graded, Mr. Speaker. I guess if there wasn't one

thing up to last Thursday that should have hit home to all hon. members in this

House and to all people in this Province about the need to revitalize our

private sector and the need to be able to get some cash into the coffers of the

Minister of Finance and the need to be able to improve our credit rating was the

fact that Standard and Poor's have now said that Newfoundland is now going to be

down-graded, for the first time ever, below the A level.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very serious issue indeed and I

would like to ask all hon. members to look at this particular aspect of it

because there is absolutely no doubt in our minds over here - that's one of the

prime reasons why we undertook to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, one

of the prime reasons why we undertook to put this piece of important legislation

in place. As on opening day, when the Government House Leader indicated that

these two pieces of legislation are by far the most important since

Confederation. It was only last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the

Province were told how important these were. They are so fundamental to

restoring our financial integrity, they are so fundamental to trying to find the

scarce dollars that we must have to meet the pressing needs of our social

services, our health care, our education system and all other services that the

people of this Province have taken for granted.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to stand here

and support this initiative. I think it is something that is going to be

recognized in many, many days and years to come, as a very much watershed piece

of legislation because it was during these times when we talked about

revitalizing our economy, when we talked about getting the private sector going,

when we talked about taking our responsibility, as far as disposing of assets

that the government are involved in and returning them to the private sector

because there's no longer a public policy for service being provided, Mr.

Speaker.

That's the kind of initiative that I believe the people of

this Province are welcoming. They are welcoming, in our time of financial

crisis, a stewardship of the Province by this government that is taking a look

at our assets, taking a look at our role in the private sector and saying to the

people in this Province, now is the time to move forward. Now is the time to

take advantage of an opportunity to get some very much needed cash for our

government and to provide the services. A chance to be able to show the credit

rating agencies of the world that indeed we are being courageous, imaginative

and willing to put in place the kinds of financial policy that indeed will give

us the respect that everybody wants and be able to maintain our standards of

living that everybody so much cherishes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my time is up for today. I

will certainly look forward to having another opportunity to further elaborate

on the points that I just raised. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members

must think twice about what they are saying in this House at this particular

time because all ears of the financial market, and indeed the people of the

Province, are upon us, and they want us to carry on with the kind of responsible

government that they gave us with a resounding election victory last year.

With that I close these comments.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 2 that we are supposed to be debating here will revise

the Electrical Power Control Act to extend the existing law by providing for the

planning, allocation, and relocation of electrical power and power emergencies.

Actually, part of this bill is alright, but there are other parts that have to

do with privatizing Hydro and for that reason I cannot support it, nor can the

people of the District of Placentia who have spoken to me all along, that they

cannot support a thing that is planning to sell one of their own assets out from

under them.

Now, the Member for Eagle River earlier, I do have to make a

comment on it - when I saw the Premier here the other day reading out what

Standard and Poor's had to say, and I am an easy going man, but I did not like

the way Standard and Poor's have put the handcuffs on Newfoundland, because we

all know when you are downgraded to a B, God knows, whoever the government is in

this Province of ours, what they will have to do again to get back up to an A

rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The government did it over the years. The sad

part about it is, what do we have to do to get back up? It would have to be more

than Hydro to get back up. They have put the handcuffs on us, them, outside this

Legislature and far, far away.

As a Newfoundlander I do not like to be interfered with by

them, no matter who is across there. I felt a kinship with the Premier the other

day when he had to read that out. I really did.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will not tell him.

MR. CAREEN: You can tell him. I do not care who tells

who. I do not go around ratting and talking inside doors and windows. What I

have to say anybody can hear, but when others downgrade us, and God knows what

we have to do to get back up again, it is going to cost us to borrow and borrow,

because that is the realm we are into.

MR. TOBIN: No economic policy is the problem.

MR. CAREEN: That is part of it, but we are sick and tired

of saying that because it lands on deaf ears. There are some people over there

and the only thing that stays in their head longer than an hour is a head cold.

You cannot continue on and prate and try to make suggestions when they are not

listening.

The credit rating has really affected this Province and the

proposal of the sale of Hydro is only a short-term effect that will have

extremely long-term, painful, repercussions for the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here is the culprit coming now.

MR. CAREEN: That is part of the gang.

In all seriousness I cannot, nor the people, who supported me

overwhelmingly there a while ago, cannot support a measure that will not have

long-term benefits for this Province, and those who can invest will largely be

people from outside this Province. We all know that the poor devils on social

services cannot invest in such a sale for private shareholders, neither can the

people who will be on the TAGS when it is all settled down, nor the thousands

who will be thrown on the heap when they cannot avail of the TAGS program, nor

the people who are trying to scratch a living out of Newfoundland and Labrador

now. They will not be able to invest in such a private enterprise when Hydro is

gone. Neither will the people of this Province, and people I know personally in

the District of Placentia, who when NCARP came out signed in for Option 1, for

training within the industry, and while that was never afforded to those people,

training was never afforded, they have been penalized and penalized going back

for months.

One hundred and eighty-odd dollars a month some of these

people are being penalized for. Because they opted for option one and it was

never provided. We are working on getting that reinstated, that money that those

people lost, and we will get it. They will get it. Because it is theirs. They

did the honest thing.

They cannot invest. They will not be investing in Hydro. If

the majority of shares of this enterprise when it is privatized, and if our

people can't take advantage of it, I'm not for it. I'm dead against it. The

people I talk to of all walks of life in this Province, those who phone and

those I meet, from all districts, I support them, as I've supported and stood

here in this same position to support the position taken by the hon. and the

fair and gutsy man for Pleasantville. Newfoundlanders like people who stand on

their feet, stand on their hind legs and stand up against numbers. Here there

are not very many, sad to say. They've turned into metal men.

I said that to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, who was a great man out there in the field attacking those -

them! - who were interfering with the people of this Province. He has been

silent as well. While he is not here with us physically, at this present moment

I will not say anything about the gentleman. We all admired what he was doing

two years ago.

This bill that is - the word "planning" is highlighted here,

and planning, from what I see in this bill, is to sell one of our last important

resources out from underneath the people of this Province. It should not go

ahead, ever. We should have public meetings on it. Let people know, let them

know the proper way. Go into their homes, areas, and talk to them and make sure.

If the government doesn't believe the polls that have been taken out all over

this Island and into Labrador, they can't go on for years because they are

trying to - in a game of charade to get it sold by any other means. It should be

shelved, postponed, taken back, thrown in the garbage, this bill.

Because the other problems within this Province cannot be

taken of if the people inside this building here are spending time on a bill

that can be taken care of at a later date. The problems in the District of

Placentia and other districts are very numerous. We have strikes looming on the

horizon. We have people trying to scratch a living in a place where it is

getting more difficult to scratch a living. We have the federal government in

its changes taking $262 million out of the economy of this Province by toying a

little bit with the UI changes. Making it longer -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and sixty-two million dollars

a year.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, $262 million a year. Making it less

money for a shorter period of time, and making it harder to get, for people of

this Province who are having a difficult time getting what it was under the past

system. The business people are not saying anything. Because people who are

drawing UIC in this Province we know are not investing. They can't. That money

is being spent. Stores, convenience stores, all kinds of stores. That money is

being spent. I didn't hear the president of the St. John's Board of Trade open

his yap about it once.

We are losing because every action has a reaction, and the

reaction that we are getting from the feds in some of their decisions - it might

be a slight cold in Ontario when their changes are made, but it is a raging flu

when it hits here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. CAREEN: Carried. Thank you. No, this Bill No. 2.

If they delete the items here that take in Hydro, no sweat at

all, we support it, but I cannot, ever, proceed with supporting anything that

has to do with the sale of Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. CAREEN: You heard the reasons why. You heard them for

weeks and weeks and weeks. Now, I am saying, shelve them. There is another

fellow who can't keep anything in his head longer than an hour. He doesn't even

know about phone calls - phone calls that were made over five decades ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I can read. It was well-publicized at the

time, my friend, the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, the call went out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I understand what the Member for Eagle River

had to say about trying to revitalize. Wherever you stand or sit in this

Legislature, what happens in our Province is very important, because if it is

not important to any of us, then it isn't much odds, we shouldn't be here,

regardless.

What I am saying is that I, personally, will be satisfied

with the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro five minutes, guaranteed, after

Ontario Hydro and Quebec Hydro privatize theirs - only after that time - because

they are the mechanisms of growth within their provinces. They brag about them.

They boast about them. And we, who have an asset here, are willing to let it go

for short-term gain to some people who will gain in the long run, while the

majority of the people of this Province will lose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not in favour of it. I know members

opposite who are not in favour of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: On Hydro?

MR. CAREEN: On Hydro. I know them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. CAREEN: No, Sir, because I don't betray a trust.

People who know me over there know I am that way - know that for a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I said it; you should have been listening.

You should have been listening, because the Lord gave us two ears and one

tongue, which means you should be listening twice as much as you are speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I think it sometimes, too, hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I told you. The Member for Fogo has - what

they said years ago about empty barrels really brings it out here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) here if you don't listen.

MR. CAREEN: They don't listen.

The Member for Fogo will have a chance to speak. He has been

beating his gums in here for years, and when I sit down he will get a chance

again.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the money they spent on advertising.

MR. CAREEN: There is no money. Yes, all the money on

advertising, lawyers, consultants -

AN HON. MEMBER: Friends.

MR. CAREEN: Friends, oh yes, their friends, not the

friends of the people of this Province - never the friends of the people of this

Province who count the most.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your friends.

MR. CAREEN: No, not that way. It never was that way. If

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations wants to speak, he should get

over in his own seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You will have your chance. Get up. You talk

about anybody selling out anybody, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations knows about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: What? The patronages?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot

pole. He disgusts me. He sold out the teachers, and now he wants to sell out

Hydro. Well, it's amazing! He has a face on him like a robber's horse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, man! Minister, outside this Legislature

you seem like a decent man. Why don't you act decently when you are in here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: The clock is ticking on the minister

opposite. He has loftier ambitions. He will be gone before the next provincial

election.

This bill - Hydro, planning. The word in it, "planning" - is

planning to sell us all out. For those reasons I cannot agree and I thank you

very much.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to say

a few words on

An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland

And Labrador, part two of the equation to sell out Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm sure it is the unanimous decision of members opposite to sell it out.

The purpose of the Electrical Power Resources Act is to

provide for the supply and management of all power produced in the Province. I

guess the Premier has his own agenda for what he wants to do with the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hidden agenda.

MR. MANNING: - his own hidden agenda, I should say, Mr.

Speaker, for what he plans to do with the Electrical Power Resources Act of the

Province.

He believes that this piece of legislation will give him the

opportunity to take back I guess the millions of dollars going out to Quebec -

the $800 million, I believe, going to Quebec every year, while Newfoundland

receives an insulting $8 million. The Premier in his own guise believes that

because of these two bills being passed in the House that he will be able to

gain control or get back some of the power, I guess, that relates to Hydro

Quebec and bring it back into Newfoundland and Labrador's power.

This is only the Premier's own estimation that he can do

that. I believe the people of the Province don't want the Premier and this

government to take a chance on that, and therefore they are speaking out and

trying to have public meetings, trying to have public hearings, trying to have a

referendum. But this government keeps repeating: No, no, no. Why? Because this

was a hidden agenda by this government in the May election of last year. It was

never mentioned and they wanted to continue on and see if they could sell out

Newfoundland and Labrador through the whim of the Premier.

The Premier went on Province-wide TV a few weeks ago and said

that if the people of this Province were against these bills, if they were

against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that he would not

proceed with it. I say to the Premier that the people are against it, 80 per

cent of the people are against it. Independent polls have shown that 80 per cent

of the Province is against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, but still

the Premier stood up in the House last week saying he plans to continue on and

push it forward even though the people are against it.

Some members on the opposite side of the House and many

members on this side have had public meetings in their districts to learn that

the people are against it. People are asking questions. People are concerned

about the future of this Province, the future of the children of this Province.

They are not concerned about a couple of year's time; they are concerned about

the future beyond that. Last week one of the bond rating agencies said that it

would be a good idea, maybe, to look at it. They are only concerned about the

next year's credit rating or the year after that, two years.

I say today that if we sell Newfoundland Hydro, yes, we may

be better off next year, we may be better off for half of the following year,

but what about the years beyond that? What about ten years time, fifteen years

time, twenty years time? I say we can't sell out what we have now, the last

resource that we have, for gain for a couple of years. I plan to stay around

Newfoundland longer than two years. I'm sure some members opposite don't intend

to stay around that long. This is short-term gain for long-term pain, I say, Mr.

Speaker. I'm afraid that if we sell out this last natural resource that we have,

the people of this Province will pay dearly for decades to come, and I say it is

a shame.

Mr. Speaker, people are concerned that electricity rates will

rise. I say they will. We have to remember what happened in Nova Scotia. The

electricity rates rose over there and they'll rise here. The people of this

Province can't afford to pay one more dollar, Mr. Speaker, on their electricity

bills, not one more dollar. This government is going to continue on with this

regardless of what the people say. I guess that's the part that really upsets

the people most, is that they have not had a chance to have their say. The

people of this Province have not had a chance to have public hearings with the

people who make the decisions. They've had public hearings with members

opposite, they've had public hearings with several members of the Opposition but

they haven't had the chance to have public hearings with the people who make the

decisions in this Province. Why? I ask, why? I can't get the answer why. I ask

why the people in the back benches don't speak out; I ask why the ministers

don't speak out. Is it because there's a Cabinet shuffle coming? Is it because

there's a Cabinet position open? It was laughable earlier today in Question

Period but I say to the people opposite that the reason they are not speaking

out is because of that coveted Cabinet position. I say that's a shame, because

we will pay dearly in the years ahead for their taking care of themselves.

Members opposite, Hydro, if it is sold, and it will be -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: - if the government proceeds with the

legislation on Newfoundland Hydro, it can't be reversed. I say to the minister

opposite, that is something I'd like to stress, it cannot be reversed. If we

change the education system in this Province and we don't like it, next year we

can change it back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MANNING: If we bring in regulations for the use of

ATVs, or whatever the case may be, and we don't like it, we can change it again.

If we bring in changes to any piece of legislation here that the Province

doesn't like, or it is proven in a couple of years time it wasn't the right

thing to do, we can change it back again by bringing it back to this House. But

if we privatize Newfoundland Hydro, Mr. Speaker, it's a done deal, it's a

finished deal. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, as

he shouts from the other side about the defender of the people -the defender of

the fishermen and plant workers of this Province, where is he now? when the

future of every Newfoundlander, every man, woman and child in this Province, is

at stake because of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and the minister

sits silent and does what he's told. I ask what's wrong? There's something

wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fisherpersons' Association.

MR. MANNING: The Fisherpersons' Association - we should

have a Hydro persons' association that would affect everybody in this Province,

but the minister decides he is not going to speak on that.

We talked about the rural benefit. The people of this

Province have enjoyed the rural benefit over the past couple of years. Under

this new privatization, Mr. Speaker, the rural benefit will be phased out over a

period of time and that will increase the light bills in rural Newfoundland to

exorbitant heights over the next few years, and I say that's a shame. People in

rural Newfoundland are suffering enough, Mr. Speaker. They are suffering enough

because of the cod moratorium, they are suffering enough because of the

situation of the economy, they are suffering enough because of unemployment in

rural Newfoundland. The many people who have to now be on social services and

the like, are suffering enough. I say, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot be allowed

to suffer any more and I say that the government should not continue with the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Through the discussions on the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro, it has been said that we can buy shares, that Newfoundlanders will be

given the first opportunity to purchase shares in Newfoundland Hydro. I ask

members opposite, Mr. Speaker: Who is going to buy the shares in Newfoundland

Hydro? Is it the thousands of people in this Province now who are suffering

because of the cod moratorium -are they going to buy shares? Is it the thousands

of people who have been forced on social assistance in this Province because of

the economic policies of this government - are they going to be buying shares?

Is it the thousands of people who have given up looking for work in this

Province - are they going to buy shares? I say not.

The people, who are going to buy shares, Mr. Speaker, are the

people outside of this Province. Newfoundland Hydro will be controlled by people

on Bay Street and in other parts of the country because the people of

Newfoundland cannot afford to buy shares at this time. Now there are some

people, Mr. Speaker, who can afford to buy shares. There are a few, but then,

there are lots of other opportunities on the market for people to buy shares. I

don't agree that this is a golden opportunity for Newfoundlanders to buy shares

because there are lots of opportunities. This is a golden opportunity to sell

out one of our last natural resources. I say it's a shame that people are being

offered to buy shares in this Province - when they are having trouble putting

food on the table, are having trouble putting clothes on the children to send

them to school, and they're going to offer them shares in Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province haven't had an opportunity to have

their say. I tell the Premier and his government that they should go out in this

Province and invite people to have their say, and the only way they can do that

is to have public hearings.

I have been asked to have a public meeting in my district

next week. I had one a couple of months ago, and people came out to the meeting.

I have another coming up next Tuesday night, in another part of my district, to

discuss the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: I think they're more worried about the fish

up there than they are about Hydro. It's too bad you're not discussing that.

MR. MANNING: As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, I am waiting until the House closes this

evening and I am heading out into my district for a meeting on the new TAGS

program, another schemozzle by your cousins in Ottawa.

We are going to talk about TAGS, and we are going to talk

about Hydro, but I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, at

least I am going out into my district to talk to the people. Where is the public

meeting you held on Newfoundland Hydro? the defender of the people.

MR. TOBIN: He had his chance on the fisheries the other

day when there was a vote taken in this House, when he voted with the government

on a private member's resolution.

MR. MANNING: You had a chance the other day, Mr.

Minister, to vote on a private member's resolution brought before this House,

but you sat down as you do now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: You sit down now, because you have - the

defender of the people, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the defender of the little guy, where are you now when the

people need you most?

He was there to speak out for the fishermen and plant

workers, and I have to say, with all honesty, as I watched it on TV from outside

this Chamber, I was proud of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

at the time, for speaking out for the fisherpersons and plant workers, because

it affected the people in my district. But I ask: Where is he now? Because

Newfoundland Hydro affects every man, woman and child in this Province, and

still you sit and don't open your mouth, Mr. Minister. Why? Because you have to

do what you are told. There is a Cabinet shuffle coming up, and you have to do

what you are told, right?

MR. EFFORD: I am worried about where my next meal will be

coming from!

MR. MANNING: No, you're not worried about where your next

meal will be coming from, but there are a lot of Newfoundlanders worried.

This is only a part of the poor economic policy of this

government. My question is: Do we have to decide here, in the next few weeks,

about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro?

MR. EFFORD: We should be talking about the future of the

Province.

MR. MANNING: We are talking about part of the future. It

is all part of a puzzle. We have to talk about Newfoundland Hydro; we have to

talk about the fishery; we have to talk about educational reform; we have to

talk about the teachers' strike. Anything you can come up with, we have to talk

about, that concerns the people of the districts of this Province.

Newfoundland Hydro is an important issue that we talk about.

That is not to say it is more important than any other issue, but we have to

talk about it. We have to discuss it, but we don't say, sell one and save

something else.

We have a very important topic on the discussion papers here

that has to do with the future of this Province. We look back on decisions that

were made years ago and we are still paying for them. Our children will pay for

them for years to come. We signed the deal back in the 1960s that we will be

paying for until the year 2041. Until 2041 we will be paying for decisions that

were made here before. Why? Because Mr. Smallwood at the time - and I give all

respect to Mr. Smallwood - that he made a decision that he thought was in the

best interest of this Province, and I have no problem with that, but like I said

here before in the House, Mr. Smallwood got bad advice at that time. Who from, I

wonder? We don't have to go too far to see who he got bad advice from. They are

here in this House today. But the one thing we won't be able to say about the

Premier of today is that he got bad advice, because he listens to no one else;

he only listens to himself. Look in mirror. Should I sell Newfoundland Hydro,

Clyde? Yes, yes. That's it. That's the way she goes.

He won't listen to the people. He won't go out into the

Province and talk to the people. He hides from the people. There are no public

hearings being held in this Province. There is not a chance of a referendum -

not a chance for the people of this Province to have their say on Newfoundland

Hydro.

Now, the first thing that government members will come up

with is that they have a right, as the government of this Province, to give away

our last natural resource. Well, I say to the members opposite, you do not have

a right. You have a privilege to govern this Province - not a right, a

privilege, and your privilege will be taken away in three years time, I say, if

you keep on the road you are on now.

The people of this Province haven't had an opportunity to

have their say on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Why? Because the

people across the floor from us didn't go out and let them have their say. Have

a referendum, I say. Have a free vote in the House of Assembly, I say to the

Premier. Have a free vote where the members opposite can get up and say what is

on their minds and speak freely without having to be persecuted afterwards.

Don't hold a Cabinet position open in front of their eyes and make them make up

their minds on what they want to do with the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro.

The people of this Province are hurting, Mr. Speaker, because

the economic policies of this government are not in touch with, especially,

rural Newfoundland. I represent a rural district and I can't see one positive

thing that this government has done in the past year for rural Newfoundland. Now

they are talking about going out and upsetting our education system. Our

teachers may be on the streets tomorrow. Our people in Grade XII, Level III

students here, their future is on hold. Still this government proceeds to keep

on confronting the people of this Province. If it is not the teachers today it

is the fishermen tomorrow, it is the plant workers.

The new TAGS program that was announced is a schemozzle

again, I say, Mr. Speaker. There are very few people who will be able to partake

of that program for five years. But why - the Minister of Human Resources and

Development, Lloyd Axworthy, and the Minister of Fisheries came into the

Province and announced the TAGS program. A fellow out at the airport told me the

other day, they never even shut off the plane, they kept her started. They just

came in, five minutes, here you go, out again, we are gone. They kept her warmed

up. They didn't even shut her down when they came into the Province, because

they were on the run, Mr. Speaker.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador are on the run now. Their front benches are on the run, the back

benches are on the run, and they are on the run. We are on the hustle, they are

on the run, I say. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has, over the past

few weeks, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro; I say the Premier has because it is his pet - selling his

side of the story to the people of this Province. We all received our little

fliers in the mail. The people have heard the radio ads; we've seen the

newspaper ads, as they try to sell their side of the story. I ask once again:

Where is the opportunity for the people of this Province to give their side?

Instead of all one-sided propaganda, why not sell both sides

of the story and then let people decide? Let them have an informed opinion. Let

the people of this Province hear both sides of the story, the pros and the cons

of both sides, and then let them sit down and make up a decision based on what

they have heard on both sides of the story. The problem is, the government here

is only trying to sell one side of the story, their side. And if anybody speaks

out - and I mentioned Power of the People, or any of those groups that speak out

- they don't know what they are talking about. The first thing is they don't

know what they are talking about because they don't agree with what the

government plans to do.

We have a right to express our opinion. I say, don't stifle

the people when they try to express their opinion. When you bring this up, the

members opposite say: They expressed their opinion on May 3 1993. Sure they did,

and I agree, the people spoke on May 3 1993. But they spoke on a hidden agenda

of this government. Where did Premier Wells speak about the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro in the twenty-eight days that he was campaigning before May 3

last year? Where, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, did

he speak of it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: He never spoke of it, never in your

district. He never spoke of it in your district, Sir. You were elected because

you stood up for the people. The reason you are going to go down is because you

are not standing up for the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) last Saturday night.

MR. MANNING: You should have been at the dinner in Gander

on Saturday night, I say to the minister. You should have been at the revival.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, When did the Premier speak of the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? The Premier never spoke because it was part

of his hidden agenda, the same hidden agenda that includes the changes to the

education system in this Province that he agreed last year, before the election,

would be done in consultation with the churches of this Province. When they

received the mandate from the people they proceeded with their own agenda on the

education systems. They proceeded with their own agenda on Newfoundland Hydro.

None of this was discussed during the election.

Then the government feels free to stand up and say: We have a

mandate from the people of this Province. They have no mandate from the people

of this Province for what they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.

They never mentioned it. It was never spoken about. The Premier is off on his

own little tangent effort to try and bring forth what he believes will be the

way of straightening out Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this Province now needs something that this

government is not giving us, and that is hope. Hope in the future. Hope that

there is something better tomorrow, something better for our children, and

something better for our children's children, and not been selling out

everything we have. We are famous for that in Newfoundland, sell-out, close it

down, pass it on to someone else and they will make the bucks off it, Mr.

Speaker. We have people all over this country who are making dollars off

Newfoundland and Labrador while our people sit here and continuously try to

struggle to make a living. I say the time has come when we stand on our own two

feet, and that is why when the poll was taken in Newfoundland and Labrador 80

per cent of the people of this Province spoke out and said, no, to the sale of

Newfoundland Hydro.

Like I mentioned before, the Premier went on TV and said if

the people were against it he would not proceed with it, but then that does not

matter because they do not agree with him. I say if he wanted to clear up some

mistruths or misleading statements he made I say, Mr. Speaker, we are being

mislead. We are being led down the garden path by the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro and we will pay for it for years to come, and I say that is

wrong.

We are giving away one of our most important resources under

the Privatization Act and that is our water. Now, people will argue that the

water is not included. Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if we sell away the

distribution rights what is the good of having the water in Labrador if we do

not own the distribution of it? You cannot take the water from Labrador and use

it if you cannot distribute it across this Province. We are selling the

distribution right therefore we are selling our water. We are not selling our

water under the (inaudible) we are selling control of our water and that is more

important than anything.

I say that the people of this Province have not been informed

enough. The people want answers to their questions and they want more

information because they cannot see why this is a good deal, and if the Premier

and his colleagues are not prepared to put the facts on the table for the people

of this Province I say they should scrap the deal. I say they should scrap the

Hydro Privatization Bill and send it back from whence it came.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are concerned about

who is going to benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Is it the

taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Province who are out in all areas? Are they

going to benefit? No, Mr. Speaker, they will not benefit. Will the people who

come behind us benefit? No, they will not benefit either. The people who will

benefit will be the major investors from outside this Province who come in and

buy up the shares. Right now they say they can only buy up to 20 per cent, well

that is fine, but what happens two or three years down the road when two or

three of those 20 per cent people get together and end up owing 60 per cent.

They are then going to come down to Newfoundland and tell us, they are not going

to ask us, they are going to tell us how much they are going to charge us for

our electricity. We will have no choice.

What will the Public Utilities Board be able to say to a

private company who comes from outside this Province, who controls everything we

have, and tells us what we are going to pay for our electricity rates? Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro will be the only way that we can get electricity in

this Province so they are going to tell us what to do. We are not going to tell

them. The Public Utilities Board is going to be useless with regards to setting

electricity rates in this Province.

Under the present system the Public Utilities Board serves a

great cause, for the simple reason it is there and it more or less blocks,

whenever it can, or at least it gets both sides of the issue when it comes to

raising electricity rates, but the Public Utilities Board will have no say when

this Newfoundland Hydro is owned by 60 or 70 per cent outside this Province. The

people of this Province cannot afford to buy it, Mr. Speaker, and why should be

buy it, we own it. We own Newfoundland Hydro so why should be buy it?

The Premier knows, Mr. Speaker, that he is in a bind on this

issue. When he goes out around this Province now, he got people from all walks

of life coming after him because he knows he's in a bind on this issue. That's

why he's more or less putting it on hold or semi-hold, I should say and trying

to buy some time and hoping that people will forget. In two to three weeks time

when these bills come before the House of Assembly to be discussed or to be

voted on I should say, the Premier thinks that it will go away, that people will

forget about it. Well I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is sadly mistaken if

he thinks that the people are going to forget about what he plans to do with

Newfoundland Hydro. The Premier has become a target for people. Once again

they're trying to sell out - people are trying to hold on, trudge along here and

live in Newfoundland. I say the economic policies of this government add up to

one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that's resettlement. Resettlement is a word I'm sure

that some members opposite don't like to hear but it's a word that this

government is using in all its economic policies - but the one thing I say about

the last resettlement program that we had, the Premier of the day told us that

he was going to resettle us but the Premier of the day, the Premier present is

not telling us. He plans to do what he likes.

Mr. Speaker, I say that it's time that the government of the

day went out - had an opportunity to go out and talk to people of this Province,

have public hearings, let the people have a say on these two important bills. As

mentioned before, the most important pieces of legislation ever brought before

this House in recent time and the people will not have a chance to have their

say when the deal is done and I say, Mr. Speaker, that's wrong. That's wrong for

the people who elected this government, who put faith in this government a

little over a year ago today and that's wrong. I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation that it's wrong for him to sit down and not open his

mouth either when this deal is being sold away. He stood up and spoke out when

the time was right, he stood up and spoke out and people were proud of him but

people are not to proud of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

these days when he sits down and does exactly what he's told by the Premier,

nothing, `don't open your mouth, John.'

MR. EFFORD: Are you finished?

MR. MANNING: No, I'm not finished. I say, Mr. Speaker,

the only people finished are on that side of the House. We're just beginning.

We're not finished, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

we're only beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've only just begun.

MR. MANNING: We've only just begun, I say to the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. I say finished will be stamped on your

forehead before it is stamped on mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Fragile will be probably stamped on him

too.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say finished is going to be

stamped on your forehead, Mr. Minster, before it's stamped on mine.

I'm not against privatization, Mr. Speaker. I come from a

family business that agrees with privatization, agrees with good competitive

industries and good competitive business all around this Province. There's

nothing wrong with healthy competition but I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker,

why privatize Newfoundland Hydro? There's no one here to compete with us. It's

not competing with anybody else. We're getting the best bang for the buck now.

If we sell it off and somebody else runs it, somebody else tells us what we're

going to pay for electricity in this Province. So why even sell it? I say it's a

shame that this government doesn't hold a referendum on it in this Province.

It's a shame that there's not a free vote held in the House of Assembly because

I'm sure that there are members opposite who don't agree with the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro but still, Mr. Speaker, they can't have a chance to have

their say because they have been told under guard that they must follow the line

and especially be quiet now.

The Premier told them all to be quiet, not to talk about this

because it could interfere with something later. Therefore they decided not to

talk about it but, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province will talk about it

in a couple of years time when they have the opportunity to mark pass or fail on

the report card of this government. Then I guess most members opposite or some

of the members opposite are not to worried about that because they don't plan to

be here anyway. Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that we're going to stand by now and -

it seems like we can do nothing in regards to trying to stop the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro. It's too bad that we stand here and our last natural

resource is sold away by the same people, Mr. Speaker, who I say sold away

another part of that major resource in the sale of Upper Churchill back in the

late 1960s.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it's time that this Province - and this

Province will speak out and they're trying to speak out but they're being

stifled by this government. They're not having the opportunity to have their say

but they will continue to try and we will continue to try. The thing about it is

they will be reminded every month of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

They will be reminded every month when they receive their electricity bill in

the mail, and the people of the Province will not forget, over the next couple

of years, as their electricity rates increase and the life in Newfoundland and

Labrador gets much more difficult because of the revenue coming in and what has

to be paid out, and we will have no say in what we pay for electricity in a few

year's time. I say that is wrong. It is not fair to the people of this Province.

It is not fair to the people, who elected this government, who were under the

impression - did not know about the planned privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Like I said before, it was part of a hidden agenda of this government, and I

think it is wrong, and I think the Premier should at least have public hearings

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make some comments on Bill 2, "An Act To

Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador".

Mr. Speaker, there are parts of this bill, as speakers before

me have said, that the members on this side don't have any problem with

whatsoever.

Part III, I don't think you will find anybody over on this side of

the House who can't support

Part III of Bill 2.

Part II, with some amendments, some changes, I think most of

us could live with what is happening in

Part II of this bill. Some minor

changes, some minor wording there to be changed, especially as it relates to the

power produced by the paper companies, should be changed, should be clarified.

Another part there, it looks to the right to access power

from the Upper Churchill Falls, if the Premier feels, and he is much more in

tune to what is happening in the courts and with the laws of this nation and the

constitution than I am, and if he feels that he can go forward and win in a

court of law, convince the Supreme Court of Canada, that would give us more

control of the power in Upper Churchill, or take back power, there is nobody

over here who would dispute that. Not a person here on this side would dispute

it. In fact, we would encourage him to go forward and do that, as long as he's

got a realistic chance. When you look at what has happened in the past, I am not

sure you would have a realistic chance. When you look at, I think it was two

occasions that we went before the Supreme Court of Canada looking to do exactly

the same thing, and on both occasions we came out seven to nothing - shutout -

both occasions.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier feels, in his wisdom, that if we

put this act into place that it would give him leverage, and that some

amendments can be made in

section 2 of this act, you don't have to touch

section

3, we can live with some of that. We can live with it, but we can't support

Part

I of this act,

an act to support the electrical resources power act.

There is a very good reason why we can't support it, and the

reason is because it refers right back to Bill 1, the act of privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that is something that we, over here on

this side of the House... We went out, listened to our constituents before we

made up our minds if we were going to support it or not, went out, listened to

our people, the people who elected us, the people who sent us here in this

House, and when we stand up and speak, we speak on behalf of those people. When

we bring forward our thoughts and our ideas and our concerns, they are the same

thoughts and ideas and concerns that were expressed to us out in the little

towns and communities of rural Newfoundland. They are their thoughts and ideas,

and that is why we can't support

Part I of Bill 2, and that is why we can't

support the act of privatization, which is Bill 1.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of electricity, (inaudible) raised by

$25 million per year, and that is the government's figures. Everybody else out

there, the people who are putting forward figures, and are analyzing this sale,

feel it would be much, much greater than that. In fact, some people are

estimating as much as $50 million - twice the amount of money that the

government is saying the act of privatization will cost the rate payers of this

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when government members speak - and there are a

few of them over there from time to time who have been flushed out to get up and

speak on the privatization act - they get up and talk about the rights of

Newfoundlanders to be able to go out and buy 20 per cent shares in the sale of

Hydro. No problem with that - if the people in Newfoundland and Labrador wanted

to go out and buy shares in a utility, we don't have to privatize Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, they can go down on Water Street and purchase shares in

Fortis Inc., which is a utility. They can purchase shares down there today.

MR. EFFORD: What!

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not allowed.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is allowed, yes, sure it is allowed.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - I suppose he

can't relate to the people out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because

he continues to say how successful a businessman he is. I'm sure he has been

successful over the years. In celebrating that success he has lost touch with

the common people out there. Every time he stands up and speaks he talks about

the numbers that elected him here into the House of Assembly - and they were

impressive numbers. Mr. Speaker, the minister, himself, was an impressive fellow

then. He was out there with the people. But he has changed as well.

The shame of it all, when I watched him a couple of weeks ago

being interviewed by Rex Murphy, he continued to call Rex Murphy his friend.

Almost every time he commented he said: `My friend, Rex, we've known each other

for a long time, you are my friend.' In other words, don't ask too hard

questions now. Don't put me in the hot seat, don't put me in a position where I

may have to disclose what I think of the Premier. Mr. Murphy, ask me some easy

questions. Then on the end of it I think Rex Murphy asked him: `Mr. Minister, do

you support your Premier?'

He hung his head in shame - didn't know what to do. In fact,

it was an embarrassment to him, didn't want to disclose the Premier because he

was slapped on the wrist, made a mistake a few months ago or a year, two years

ago, got slapped on the wrist for it; came back into the fold again. Last March,

the Premier said: Well, maybe I should give him another chance. The people in

Port de Grave went out and voted for him. He is suffering over there, he is

bleeding. He wants to get back into the decision-making process. Maybe I should

give him another chance.'

His answer was: `I support all the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.' He didn't say: I support the Premier - `I support all the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.' What a weak comeback for this great champion of the

people who was out there jumping from boat to boat a few years ago! Ordinarily,

if you go to a fish plant and they have a watchman on nighttime and they have to

go out and visit the draggers, on a stormy night there are always two for fear

that one person would fall down between the boats and be hurt. The champion of

the people was there himself jumping from boat to boat, out there talking with

everybody, telling them what a great fellow he was, and how he was going to

improve their case.

All the negative legislation that is coming forward now

through the government on the other side of the House, all the negative things

that are coming down from Ottawa, the same gentleman now speaks out in support

of the whole thing. No wonder - over the weekend in Newfoundland and Labrador we

had this giant revival meeting in Gander where over 450 people - in fact, I went

to look for a ticket on Saturday night and the manager of the hotel told me: I

don't think we can sell one extra ticket because we don't have enough food here

to feed anybody else. All those people came forward and I think that is a good

indication of what they were trying to tell the people here.

It is a good indication of what they think of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, a good indication of what they think of the legislation

being brought in from the other side, and it is surprising how many people there

were interested in running in the new district of Port de Grave. That's the one

district that everybody talked about, the one place where everybody wants to

run, because they can see there is a very good chance there, especially when the

minister got up the other day in the House and talked about all the people from

Upper Island Cove who were in his office. They took that as a slight, him

saying: My office is full of the people from Upper Island Cove.

Well, he has to go back to Upper Island Cove the next time

around and knock on doors there, and look for their support, because the next

time around that is one of the communities that is going to be involved in his

district. And they don't forget that - they know what is being said, and they

listen.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the shares of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, sure, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can

go out and afford to buy shares, and he probably will invest some money there,

whether it's in a blind trust or whatever. I am sure that he will do very well,

but the common Newfoundlander out there today who is trying to find a job, who

is trying to find out if his job is going to be there next year, if he is

fortunate enough to have one, those people are not going out and buying shares

in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I can assure you of that, because they don't

have the resources to do that. Those people are struggling to put bread and

butter on the table, they are struggling to educate their families, they are

struggling to feed their families, and when September rolls around, instead of

going out and buying shares, a lot of them have to count their money to go out

and buy clothes and be able to put their children back in school, not buy

shares.

Mr. Speaker, this privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro is a dream of two people. I suppose the Premier wants to make amends for

what has happened in the past, and I can understand that. If I made a mistake in

the past, I would want to make amends, too, especially if I thought I was the

Messiah of Newfoundland and Labrador. I haven't made any mistakes - yes, I have,

`Bill'. I have made a couple of mistakes in the past, sure. I am only human. I

will make mistakes in the future. I can understand that part of the Premier. I

can understand him wanting to go out and make amends, and take his case to

Ottawa and come back a hero, and if that happened, we would all be there to

support him, but he is not doing it very convincingly. He is not doing it very

convincingly, and we fear that it will cost us a lot of money and we will end up

right back where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, many people have come forward to express their

views on the privatization of Hydro. We don't have to get into the figures

because all hon. members in the House know the figures. They know the results of

the polls that have been done by both sides. They have been done by independent

people. The meetings that have been held in our districts, some of them haven't

been attended by thousands of people, but everybody that has come out has come

out in support of the stand that we have taken on this side. They have come out

and said, slow down the process.

Mr. Speaker, right now, the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador is in full control of what is happening with Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro - full control, and by the look of this report, this glossy report that

was put out, a pretty blue colour, handed out on Wednesday - I don't know what

it cost, but I am sure it must have cost a fair dollar to print - shows that the

people who are running Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro up until now haven't been

doing such a bad job. In fact, I will just read the first paragraph, the

President's Message. It says:

`In 1993, Hydro continued its commitment of service to

customers through the dedicated effort of employees, and by further improvements

to generation and transmission facilities. Record production and consistently

strong financial results reflected our success. Hydro pledged not to increase

electrical rates in 1993, and this objective was achieved by our employees

carefully controlling costs.'

That is the first paragraph of the President's report, and if

you look at some facts and figures over in the financial review and analysis

pages, you will find out that those same people aren't doing such a bad job. The

long-term debt of this company has been reduced