April 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Before starting the regular business today, I would like to

rule on two points of order raised last week. On Thursday, April 21, 1994 the

MHA for St. John's East rose on a point of order concerning the practice of

having more than one minister speak in answer to a question. This arose from a

question posed by the hon. the Opposition House Leader which was answered in

part by the Premier who then asked the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to deal with the specific detail of the number of people who would

cease to receive benefits under the federal fisheries program. I note that no

objection was made by the questioner, the hon. the Opposition House Leader when

the government dealt with the question in this fashion. Our Standing Orders are

silent on the issue. There is, of course, no requirement that the government or

any particular member of it must answer a question. If it chooses to do so, the

government may itself decide which person will answer the question. Similarly,

there is no prohibition against the government deciding that more than one

member of government should answer the question, or parts thereof. This has

happened on sufficient occasions, in my view, to form a practice or precedent of

this House, which the hon. members have accepted over the course of years.

Furthermore, it is a practice which should assist rather than hinder our

functioning, since it avoids the reposing of the question to another government

member with the detailed knowledge to answer the question. Although the British

system is different, I have looked at Erskine May, and in that jurisdiction the

questions that are going to be asked in Question Period have to put on the Order

Paper the day before and then they may be followed with oral supplementaries.

The supplementaries in British practice can be answered by any other minister

and passed off by one minister to another. I find nothing in either our rules or

British practice that would validate the point of order by the hon. member. For

these reasons, therefore, there is no proper point of order and the government

was acting properly in answering the questions as it did.

The second point of order was on Friday, April 22, 1994 and

was raised by the hon. the Member for Kilbride. At that time, I think, he

objected to the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations who had

said that he had asked a question which he had not, or at least that was the

interpretation put on it by the Member for Kilbride. This referred to a comment

made by the hon. minister during Question Period, that the hon. the Member for

Kilbride had said on a previous occasion, "Why do you train all of these people

when there was no job for them?" There is no authority under our Standing Orders

that either requires or permits the Speaker to resolve such matters. If members

dispute what was said on an occasion, or previous occasions, we have the public

record in the form of Hansard which can be reviewed to settle such differences.

Any person, member of the public, or member of this House, may review it and

draw his or her own conclusions. Accordingly, since the record is there and

since I have no authority under our rules to make such a termination I can't do

so, and therefore there is, of course, no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I realize we don't often do this, today and this

morning I had occasion to speak to the father of Pte. George Anderson, as he is

referred to by the media, the young man who had a serious accident in Croatia,

who happens to be a Newfoundlander serving in the military. He is known, by the

way, to his family in Cape Ray as `Tommy'. His second name is Thomas; his first

name is George. The media have been calling him George but his name, as far as

family and friends are concerned over in Cape Ray, is Tommy. He is twenty-two

years old.

His father, Ralph Anderson from Cape Ray, told me that he is

presently being treated in Zagreb hospital, which is an American military

hospital. At the moment he is in stable condition. I guess everybody would be

aware, from media reports, that he lost the lower part of both of his legs in a

mine accident, and lost one of his eyes, but his father told me that he is in

stable condition and he is hopeful that Tommy will be back in Ottawa hopefully

by the end of this week, although he doesn't have anything specific in terms of

being able to say for certain.

I thought it wise to at least call the family and express our

best wishes for a recovery. In the meantime, it probably would be appropriate if

Your Honour, on behalf of all members of the House, might somehow try to

communicate with Pte. Anderson himself, possibly the family as well in Cape Ray,

and express the best wishes from the members of the House, at least, for a very

speedy recovery.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I obviously wish, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of

the House, to associate ourselves with that, but before I do so I understood we

had earlier agreed in the House - perhaps I misunderstood - that whenever a

member felt it appropriate to convey the concern of the House, he or she would

simply have a word with Your Honour and with the Clerk and an appropriate letter

would be sent. If that is to be the case, and certainly we on this side would

support that, then I think we should follow the procedure and when the

Opposition leader telephones Mr. Anderson's family to make enquiries, which he

did, and which we can understand his doing, he would simply have a word with

Your Honour or with somebody in Your Honour's office and an appropriate letter

would go.

With that said, let me go on to say that I understand a very

high proportion of the men and women who serve in Canada's armed services are

people who grew up, or were born and grew up, and live here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. A Canadian vessel that's been in Yugoslavian waters was here this

weekend and I heard a newscast that 20 per cent of her crew were Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. So we make a contribution well beyond our numbers, as to

people of the Province, well beyond our numbers to the armed services and

accidents such as befell Cpl. Anderson are an unfortunate hazard of the trade. I

think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would admire the men and women of

this Province who volunteer to serve in Canadian Armed Forces. We all express

our revulsion and our horror that accidents or incidents of this nature happen

and I know that we join with the Opposition Leader in asking Your Honour to send

an appropriate message to Cpl. Anderson and to his family. With that said I

think we should - if we've agreed on the procedure we should honour it and deal

with the matter in that way which would be appropriate and in my view entirely

fitting. Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, on this other issue. I

wasn't aware that there was any kind of an agreement on procedures. I just

checked with the Opposition House Leader and he wasn't aware that there was any

particular agreement on anything. So it's obviously a matter that needs to be

fleshed out a little bit further so that we do have a specific agreement and

understanding.

My understanding in fact - as I think I've spoke to the House

Leader one day before - was that why don't we implement the changes that were

agreed upon by the committee headed by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

some two years ago which provided for a period of time at the beginning of each

daily sitting of maybe ninety seconds to a maximum of ten minutes which would

allow members on both sides of the House to get up for ninety seconds or a

minute or whatever was required and if anybody had anything specific they wanted

to relate to their own constituency or Province-wide level, be it a

congratulatory message for somebody winning a basketball tournament, whether

it's a passing or whatever it might be. I remember mentioning that to the House

Leader one day but honestly I don't know or recall where there was a specific

agreement - hard, factual, specific agreement put in place - so it's a matter

that we should pursue because I think there should be an opportunity for those

kinds of things to occur, certainly such as the thing we raised this morning or

today.

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

MR. ROBERTS: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's

obvious there's a misunderstanding and we can leave it at that. I would agree,

we should address it. Perhaps my friend from Grand Bank and I will be able to do

that in the next little while so we can try to work out a procedure and bring it

back to get an agreement to the House. Whether the method suggested by my friend

from Grand Falls is the appropriate method remains to be seen but we'll deal

with that and come back to the House. The other way would be to notify us in

advance on this side because all these are matters of leave.

Whenever a member rises to speak, Mr. Speaker, other than

pursuant to the Standing Orders, it's a matter of leave. We raised no objection

because we didn't know what was coming but the other way would be to clear it in

advance one way or the other. In any event perhaps my friend from Grand Bank and

I will find an opportunity in the next little while to deal with this and see

what we can work out for the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: I was under the understanding that the

Government House Leader was going to actually get together with the Opposition

House Leader and myself to look at what might be done. I had suggested some time

ago, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that perhaps that

section of the

rules dealing with Oral Statements at the beginning of the Orders of the Day,

allowing perhaps sixty minutes instead of ninety minutes for whatever statements

members would want to make would give everyone an opportunity to say either

these kinds of messages or policy statements or urging the government to take

certain action, could all be done in a very brief period and wouldn't require

two or three people to get up and speak on a particular issue.

On the particular issue that we had obviously, in these

circumstances, I would want to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader

of the Opposition and the Government House Leader and it requires all of us. I

mean, I think that anyone watching the proceedings would know that all members

of the House support this, but in the circumstances that we have, it really

requires all to get up and have a say, so I think either we ought to have some

meeting of the minds on this or somebody ought to make a decision, and it seems

to me that implementing the change in the Standing Orders with respect to Oral

Statements with perhaps some modification making them slightly shorter, would

meet the requirements and avoid this kind of awkwardness at the beginning of

Orders of the Day.

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of Assembly today

about the signing of a four-year Canada-Newfoundland Letter of Co-operation on

Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy.

This letter of co-operation was given Cabinet approval last

month and on April 19 in Ottawa, it was signed by my federal counterpart, Anne

McLellan, the Minister of Natural Resources for Canada and I. I am tabling a

press release and a back grounder that are being issued in the next few minutes.

This agreement provides for the orderly planning, control and

limited funding of co-operative initiatives to boost energy efficiency and the

use of local alternative energy resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. This

follows from Action 95 of the Strategic Economic Plan, which is to implement my

department's strategic plan for energy efficiency and alternative energy.

Initiatives include: public information and education,

technical and financial assistance for appropriate projects, regulatory changes

and research.

Thank you.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the

minister that we on this side support anything that is going to have an effect

on energy efficiency in this Province. I read with interest as the minister

stated that the initiatives that they are going to include in his department is

public information, and I am just wondering if that is going to be the same type

of information that he had on the Hydro sale and it is also interesting to note

that as part of their agreement, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Mines and Energy

is leading a consultation process on the adoption of a new energy code in

Newfoundland and, Mr. Speaker, I want to really commend the minister for

starting and leading a consultation program, because from his department, we

haven't seen anything like that so far.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

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

participants in Improving Your Odds course at Bryants Cove who are visiting the

House of Assembly today accompanied by their instructors Ms. Eileen Crane and

Ms. Joanne Dalton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to

ask the Premier some questions about the application of

Part II of Bill No. 2,

which is

An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And

Labrador.

Part II you will remember, Mr. Speaker, is the part that allows the

Public Utilities Board to expropriate power from the Upper Churchill as the

Premier explained in his Province-wide t.v. and radio address on March 24, which

is basically covered by clause 8(2).

But clause 8(3), (4) and (5), as the Premier would know, also

allows the Public Utilities Board, at the request of another utility, to take

power and facilities from any electrical utility in the Province, including the

electrical utility owned by the paper companies at Corner Brook and Grand Falls.

I would like to ask the Premier, has he discussed the implications of

Part II

with the two paper companies concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question

goes a long way toward explaining why I asked hon. members on this side of the

House not to address this issue in the context of Upper Churchill. He now comes

out with the suggestion that this bill is intended to expropriate power from the

Upper Churchill. It is totally false. That is not the intention and purpose of

the bill.

His follow up question then makes very clear what the bill

says. It authorizes the Public Utilities Board to redirect any power - any

power, no exceptions - to meet the needs of the people of this Province. Not

expropriating anything from anybody. It is to manage the power that is generated

in this Province in such a manner as to first and foremost meet the needs of the

people of this Province. It makes no specific reference to Upper Churchill. It

makes no specific reference to power companies. It makes no specific reference

to any individual generator of power.

What it does is establish the principle that the Public

Utilities Board has to supervise the management of all hydroelectric power

generated in the Province in such a manner as to meet first and foremost the

needs of the people of this Province, and it sets guidelines as to what are the

principles under which they can do it.

For example, they say it specifically provides that any

generator of power that generates the power for its own consumption has a

priority access to that power, and if the requirements of the Province can be

met, and the terms of the legislation can be met, to produce the least possible

interruption with any existing contract.

So if the objectives of the statute can be met through other

means, then there is to be no interruption in any existing contract. It sets out

principles, and for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to put it forward in this

way spells out very clearly, and indicates very clearly, why it was necessary

for the government to ask members not to raise this issue because it creates an

inflammatory circumstance as far as dealings with Hydro Quebec and Quebec is

concerned that is totally unnecessary and unwarranted.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it's too bad the Premier didn't

answer the question I asked him. I asked him, had he discussed the implications

Part II with the paper companies. Obviously he has not.

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

It is too bad you weren't as self-righteous and pious in your

opinions back in 1986, when you wrote your legal opinions to the company,

Newfoundland Power, when you were the lawyer for them, when you said: The

exercise of such authority by the Public Utilities Board could adversely affect

the operations of Abitibi-Price and Kruger Incorporated.

You said it then in 1986, and I am asking him the same

question here today, so don't get up and preach, and lecture to us about how we

should ask our questions. Why doesn't he answer the questions instead of getting

up, preaching to us in such a sanctimonious way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, there is a question. When the legislation

comes into force, if you read the legislation, Kruger and Abitibi-Price will no

longer have the absolute right to the cheap power that they produce and use to

manufacture paper at Corner Brook and in Grand Falls. He knows that. That is the

way the legislation is written. I asked him a straightforward, sensible

question. Did he discuss it? He now says, `no'.

Well, isn't he concerned at all, because at the very least

this legislation injects an element of uncertainty about the future supply of

power to the paper companies, and we all know the two paper companies have been

struggling. Is he concerned at all that any uncertainty about future power

supply might cause Kruger and/or Abitibi-Price to reconsider their operations in

the Province? Is he concerned about that at all?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either he hasn't read the

legislation or he doesn't understand it. What he stated is not the effect of the

legislation. It was never intended to be the effect of the legislation, and it

is not the effect.

Here is what

section 3 says, and I suggest he read

section 3,

because

section 8 directs the Public Utilities Board to apply the power policy

set out in

section 3. Here is what

section 3 says:

All sources and facilities for the production, transmission

and distribution of power in the Province should be managed and operated in a

manner:

(

i) that would result in the most efficient production,

etc...

(ii) that would result in consumers in the Province having

equitable access to an adequate supply of power,

(iii) that would result in power being delivered to consumers

in the Province at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable services;

and here's the important one,

(iv) that would result in a producer having priority to

consume the power it produces.

Abitibi and Kruger, as producers of the power, would have

priority to consume the power it produces, so it doesn't attack their power.

Now there is one exception to that. In the event of an

emergency, if Bay d'Espoir goes down and we don't have an adequate supply of

power in the Province to meet the emergency, what do we do - close the hospitals

or shut down the paper mills for a day or two? That's the question. If we are in

that circumstance, then what the standard sets for what is to happen in the

event of an emergency clearly gives the Public Utilities Board the power to

access any power in the Province in the event of an emergency, and that includes

power generated by Abitibi, or power generated by Kruger, and I have had no

complaint whatsoever. They are aware of it. I have had no complaint whatsoever

by either one of those paper companies. I can only assume that they are

sensitive to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there may be priorities higher than the

operation of their paper-mills in the Province in the event of an emergency.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has just done is

what he so often does, he uses

Part 3 of the legislation, power emergencies. We

are not talking about that section, Mr. Speaker, of the legislation, we are

talking about

Part 2 of the legislation, planning allocation and reallocation of

power and facilities.

PREMIER WELLS:

Section 3 not

Part 3.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but you can read

Part 3. You can also

read

Part 4, you can read

Part 5, and anyway you want to read it at all, and

Clause 11, Subsection 2(a) (b) (c), which talks about contracts and all the

rest. The reality, Mr. Speaker, and the truth of the matter is that there is a

larger problem here for Kruger and Abitibi-Price, and it could very well be the

effect that this legislation might have on the market value of their assets in

the Province. The company-owned electrical utilities are a major part of the

assets of both companies, Kruger and Abitibi-Price. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker,

and absolute access to their own cheap power is perhaps the only major advantage

that they have in a highly competitive industry. The Premier must be aware of

that.

So, I am asking the Premier: does he not agree that the loss

of absolute right to use that power, and the perpetual threat of taking away

that power, which is in this legislation, and their facilities, does he not

agree that that certainly could devalue the assets of the two companies involved

in this Province, and could that not effect their continued operations? Is he

not concerned about any of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not the slightest bit concerned, Mr.

Speaker. To the best of my knowledge neither of the companies have the slightest

concern. I presume they have read the legislation. As a matter of fact both of

the companies have expressed support for this, Mr. Speaker, primarily because

the

interpretation given by the Leader of the Opposition is totally without

merit. We have met with both companies since this legislation was introduced and

tabled.

MR. SIMMS: I know you met them quite a few times.

PREMIER WELLS: We met with both companies since, and we

met with Abitibi here in St. John's since this legislation was tabled. Mr.

Speaker, they have read both

Section 8(2) and

Section 3. Now what

Section 8,

Subsection (2) gives is power to the Public Utilities Board to reallocate or

allocate the power, how?... in such manner as the Public Utilities Board

considers to be necessary to implement the power policies set out in Paragraph

3(b). Now go back and look at Paragraph 3(

b) and that is exactly what I just

read to you, Mr. Speaker, that gives a producer of power the priority to use the

power it produces. Neither Abitibi is concerned, nor is Kruger concerned,

because the bill does not do what the Leader of the Opposition says. I recommend

to the Leader of the Opposition that he now read Subsection (2) of

Section 8,

and then go back and read Paragraph (

b) of

Section 3, and if he does not

understand it, then ask somebody to advise him on the combined effect of the

two, and I think he will then come clearly to the conclusion that his

interpretation is not correct.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we are very much used to the

Premier saying it is his view and his opinion and that is the only opinion that

anybody should listen to. Let me recommend to the Premier, since he is making

recommendations to me, may I be bold enough to recommend to the Premier that he

check with the two paper companies to see if they have any concerns? That is all

I will say for now, but may I ask him this question? Can the Premier tell us

what he meant when he wrote his legal opinion to Newfoundland Power on July 7,

1986 when he was their lawyer, addressed to Dr. Bruneau, when he said: referring

to the exercise by the Public Utilities Board as outlined in this legislation,

the same thing, could adversely affect the operations at Abitibi-Price and

Kruger in the Province. Could he tell the House what he meant by that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would have to go back and read it but my

guess is yes, this legislation could adversely affect the operations of

Abitibi-Price and Kruger in the Province if there is an emergency. If Bay

d'Espoir goes out tomorrow the Public Utilities Board can direct Deer Lake Power

or Abitibi-Price to feed that power into the grid to operate schools and

hospitals. Yes, it could affect Abitibi-Price and Kruger to that extent.

What I don't know is whether this legislation is precisely

the same as the draft that we were looking at at that time. I can say that the

Public Utilities Board re-allocating power on the request of a distributor of

power cannot affect Abitibi-Price and Kruger under this legislation. Will not,

because the Public Utilities Board is specifically directed to follow the power

policy set out in

section 3, paragraph (

b) of the act, and that specifically

provides for a producer having priority to consume the power it produces.

That is what was said, that is what is intended, that is what

the Department of Justice advised us is the effect of it, that is what the

Legislative Counsel advised us is the effect of it when they drafted it, Mr.

Speaker, and I accept their advice ahead of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not surprised the

Premier wouldn't accept my advice. I'm offering him a bit of advice in the hope

of trying to improve the situation. May I tell him that in putting forth my

advice I'm using the words of the highest power in the land, the highest

authority - your own words from 1986.

PREMIER WELLS: You are misstating my words.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I'm misstating. I see: Their right of

priority to that electric power would under the proposed legislation only exist

where alternative sources of power might be available. These are all his words

but I'm interpreting them all wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier this question, because he and I can

argue this till the cows come home. All I say to him is that I am concerned that

there could be some problems with respect to the paper companies. Can I ask him

this, because not only is it because it should be a concern -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: It is not fraudulent, Mr. Speaker, it is a

sincere concern, I can tell him. He can slough it off all he wants, but I'm

telling him there is a concern out there. If he would be prepared to take this

as a serious concern, and the House too - let me ask him this, if he is so sure

there is no concern about it out there, if he is so certain, if the Premier is

so certain -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) call John Manuel. Give John

Manuel a call.

MR. SIMMS: No good to call John Manuel. If there is no

concern, Mr. Speaker, or no concern on the part of the Premier that there is no

concern with respect to this from the companies, would he be prepared to put the

legislation to a select committee of the House so that they can hold some public

hearings and in fact hear from the paper companies on this particular issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I suspect what the Leader

of the Opposition is doing is referring to the legislation as it was drafted at

that time. The legislation as it was drafted at that time - that is not this. It

is a quite different piece of legislation.

MR. SIMMS: This is Bill No. 2, boy.

PREMIER WELLS: This is Bill No. 2, but the legislation in

respect of which that opinion that you are reading from was given has different

words in it than this legislation does.

MR. SIMMS: No, not much.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, enough to make the difference. If the

hon. member knows that difference it is quite improper for him to suggest what

he has done.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) don't know that.

PREMIER WELLS: Then let's give him the benefit of the

doubt that he doesn't know it. The word that he just stated there gave me the

clue to it. That it would affect the paper companies because their right would

only apply where no other alternative exists, as is the case now in respect of

power emergency. This legislation has been changed and specifically provides for

producers of power having a priority to use the power.

Mr. Speaker, I've just sent for a copy of the opinion from

which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reading. I will give the House

the full state as soon as I get that and explain to the House, perhaps later in

the debate, the basis on which this totally wrong impression is being created by

the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me say clearly, it is the intention of the government to

put forward legislation to the House that would provide for producers of power

having priority to consume the power they produce, and we think that's what this

legislation does. If it doesn't, we are prepared to see it amended to have that

effect, but we think it does it. It does it now, and for the Leader of the

Opposition to create this confusion in this way is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker,

irresponsible.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier.

Last Tuesday I questioned the Premier on the mandate of the

Fishing Industry Renewal Boards. At that time it was obvious the Premier had

concerns about it and on Wednesday morning, I believe, he wrote a letter to

federal fisheries Minister Tobin. I am wondering if the Premier has had a

response, either written or verbal from Mr. Tobin concerning the mandate of the

Fishing Industry Renewal Boards. Has Mr. Tobin now clarified that matter to the

Premier's satisfaction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had discussions

with the minister since that time and I am satisfied that the minister and I

will resolve it in a way that will be quite satisfactory to me.

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

House Leader.

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

think that sums it up very well; it will be satisfactory to the Premier and to

heck with the rest of us, I guess. I want to ask the Premier, would he be so

kind as to table the letter to Mr. Tobin so we can see his concerns? That is

just a lead-up question, but another question to the Premier.

In his press conference last week, Mr. Tobin said that a

little over $300 million of the $1.9 billion in the new TAGS program was

earmarked to reduce capacity in Atlantic Canada - over $300 million; there were

different components, and I wonder if the Premier would have any idea how much

of that money will be spent in this Province and if the Province participates on

the Industry Renewal Boards which yet it seems still has not been fully sorted

out, will it also contribute financially to the cost of reducing excess capacity

in the fishing industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't table the letter

without Mr. Tobin's consent but I certainly have no objection on a personal

basis of tabling the letter. The minister representing this Province in the

federal Cabinet and the Premier of the Province, whatever their political

stripes, have to have the freedom to exchange correspondence back and forth

without tabling it all the time, but I will speak with the minister and if he

has no objection, I can tell the House, I don't.

Mr. Speaker, on the other question of the $300 million

allocated for capacity reduction, there is no specific assignation that I know

of - now, I say, that I know of; whether or not the minister and others have had

some discussions on this, I don't know, but I don't know that a specific amount

is assigned for this Province. I would expect that the great majority of it

would be used in this Province because, of course, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of

the overall problem is in this Province, so one would expect that the majority

of it would be used in this Province.

The third question that he asked, Mr. Speaker: Was the

Province prepared to participate? - not if we can avoid it. I don't want to have

the taxpayers of this Province have to pay out millions of dollars if the

government can avoid it. If it is necessary and fair, we will do what we have to

do to deal effectively with the problem on a fair basis, but I am certainly

going to try to avoid this Province and its taxpayers having to pay out any

money.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

The Premier and the Minister of Fisheries have taken the

position really, that government should have nothing to do with which plants you

close, either directly or indirectly. They consistently said that market forces

should dictate. It seems now that your willingness to participate in the

Industry Renewal Boards indicates a change in your position. Does that mean that

the Province is now willing to consider compensation to owners of fish plants

that will be shut down by the Industry Renewal Boards? Can the Premier clarify

that matter for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is

jumping over great chasms in coming to conclusions of that nature. We have never

said the government of the Province should have nothing to do with management or

location of plants or anything of this nature. The minister put forward a Green

Paper, I guess about twelve months ago; I have forgotten exactly when, but it

was at least about a year ago. And we put forward a proposal at that time as to

how it ought to be dealt with, and that provided for regulation and provided

very much for a joint federal-provincial board determining where the plants

should be located and what plants should be licensed and so on. That's quite a

different thing from the chasm over which the hon. member jumped when he asked

his questions and jumped to that conclusion, that doesn't follow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

Today, DFO and HRD officials indicated that the new TAGS

program payments will be delivered in a manner similar to U.I. payments, in

which the recipient will receive a cheque every two weeks with accompanying

forms. He will then complete the forms stating his income over that two-week

period. Then he will lose, as with U.I., 25 per cent of earnings he is permitted

under that program. Now will the minister confirm that fisherpeople pursuing

other fisheries and marginal fisheries will now be subject to 100 per cent

call-back on their income rather than the 50 per cent that was in effect under

NCARP, AGAP, FCTA and other such programs?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite

understands, as does everybody, and there was a further press conference this

morning, that in the effort being made under the TAGS program of incorporating

several different existing programs into a single program that will continue

forward after May 16, there were indeed some necessary changes. One of them is

in the benefit level, another, in a new eligibility determination that will

apply to everybody in the existing programs to determine whether or not they

continue on. And, in fact, there will be changes made because there are a series

of options now available to people to pursue ranging from retirement, to

training options, to job search options and so on that were not in the previous

programs. In order to put all of these options before the people, either plant

workers or fish harvesters, there were also adjustments made in the direction of

making sure that those people who are engaged in the active fishery will not be

unduly penalized and will not be in any way discouraged or encouraged not to

fish. In fact, they will be able to earn their income and also, if they need to,

during periods that they are not active, be able to go back into and receive

benefits from the adjustment program.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Retirement options

were there in the old program, training was there under the old program, inside

and outside the fishery. The minister is only beating around the bush. Let's

admit it and say here in this House that there will be a 100 per cent call-back.

Admit it and tell the truth, that's what the question was.

Now I'll ask him another question since he talked about

numbers. Under the new TAGS program, it is estimated that only 6,600 people are

now going to remain on the program after five years. Now, people who have been

employed in the seasonal inshore fisheries for the past number of years are now

going to be dropped. People who have been in fishing receiving 100 per cent of

their income from fishing are now going to be dropped before year four of the

program because they have only received a minimum U.I. qualification of ten

weeks per year. The minister knows well that ten weeks per year will get you

forty weeks; that, times five, is 200 weeks. So lifetime fisherpeople and plant

workers now, who have devoted their whole life to the industry - will the

minister confirm that they now will be dropped, before the end of year four,

from this program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, the exception I take more

than anything else is to the language that the members opposite continue to use

with respect to the program. The program is not designed to drop anybody from a

program. What it is designed to do is to provide the maximum amount of benefit

for the maximum justifiable period of time and the program is designed to say

the justifiable period of time will be dependent upon the attachment to the

industry. Those people who can show a life-long attachment with certain earnings

levels and so on, will be in the program for the maximum period of time which is

five years. Those who cannot show that level of attachment will not be eligible

for continuing compensation for the maximum of five years. It might be a shorter

period, but they will be encouraged and given every opportunity in the interim

to avail of one of the other program options. Keep remembering, Mr. Speaker,

that the two governments along with the industry representatives, both the

union, processors and plant owners, are committed to looking at the renewal of

the industry. Because everybody is taken care of for the full two-year period if

they are re-eligible. If it is determined that they are eligible, they will

continue on for a full two years after May 16. In that period of time, every

effort that's occurring will deal with industry renewal for the existing,

re-opening and redeveloping fishery of the future, as well as the economic

development initiatives that we are going to work at to make sure that there are

opportunities, not only for people who will be displaced from the fishery but

for the other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who would look forward to some

increased opportunities to find gainful employment.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious the

minister doesn't know the criteria for duration of payments. It doesn't matter

if you're in the industry 100 years, it's based on your level of employment this

past five years. So I say to the minister, in rural Newfoundland inshore

fisheries there are not 2 per cent of people in the fishing industry who have

been there for twenty or thirty years who will get payment beyond year four, and

none - with rare exceptions - will be on the program after year five. Just read

the criteria. I have a copy if you want a copy.

I will ask the minister this question: The minimum payment

under NCARP, AGAP and other programs was $225 per week. The minimum payment

proposed under the new fisheries program is $200 per week. Now, that's over 11

per cent reduction for minimum payments when it has been proposed there was only

going to be a 6 per cent reduction.

Will the minister stand and confirm that this 6 per cent

reduction only applies to the period from May 16 of this year to December 31 of

this year, and after that the real cuts will be closer to 10 per cent?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate the

question so we can have an opportunity to clarify and make sure that kind of

misinformation doesn't stand unchallenged in the public domain.

The real answer - and I really believe the hon. member

opposite knows the real answer - is that the only place where there is anything

other than a 6 per cent change is in the minimum payment. For everybody else it

has been guaranteed that they will continue on, and this has been done, as I

point out again, in consultation with representatives of the FFAW and also with

representatives in the industry completely.

They understand, with a two-year interim measure, and now

with a program that will last as an adjustment measure for up to five years,

that you can't sustain those kinds of levels of payments. It was agreed that a

drop from $225 to $200 at the minimum would not be an adverse disadvantage or

cause great harm to those people.

You can present that as a percentage if you like, but the

fact of the matter is that everybody who requalifies is guaranteed $200 minimum.

The average payment was closer to $306 - three hundred dollars a week for those

other people who were there other than the minimum, the average was there.

The reality is that for everybody who requalifies - and if

you requalify, everybody knows you requalify for at least two years - for all of

the requalifiers, they will continue getting their cheques as they do now. The

first cheque after May 16 will be delivered by a different agency, and it will

be 6 per cent less than the one they got before May 15, except that those at the

minimum will get $200 instead of $225.

The members opposite know that, and I don't think that it

serves anybody well - the public, the people involved directly, or us in this

House - to try to suggest there is going to be some kind of massive cutback,

that we are trying to boot people out of the program. We are trying our very

best to sustain people for the maximum period of time with the minimum harm to

them as individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to table -

MS. VERGE: Exceptions to the public tendering act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: The black fox again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the report of

the public tendering act exceptions, February 1994.

MS. VERGE: I knew that was going to happen, when the fox

was put in charge of the henhouse.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, under Notices of Motion it

would be standard practice today to advise members on the private member's

resolution for Wednesday, but I didn't get back into town until just prior to

the House. I'm wondering if it would be okay if I give notice either later today

or tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Certainly, there's no difficulty from us,

Mr. Speaker. If my friend would let us know as soon as is convenient so that we

can do what we have to do on our side, that would be quite in order by us - no

problem.

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

have unanimous consent of the House to file the notice later today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Unanimous consent so given.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I undertook

to get a certain document and advise the House if there was in fact any

difference with respect to the document relating to the opinion that the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition was quoting from, and there is - a marked

difference.

The document from which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

was quoting, and in respect of which the opinion I gave in the capacity I was

serving at that time, qualified specifically for any producer having priority to

consume the power it produces was also qualified to: `where alternative sources

of power are reasonably available.'

Now, the new legislation removed that entirely. That isn't

there. So there is an absolute priority, not qualified at all. There is no

limitation whatsoever on the right of Abitibi or Kruger to use the power they

consume, only in one circumstance, Mr. Speaker and that is in -

MS. VERGE: That is not what it says!

PREMIER WELLS: That is precisely what it says.

- in respect of a power emergency. That qualification, `where

alternative sources of power are reasonably available', was totally removed, and

the right now is absolute and the policy must result in a producer having

priority to consume the power it produces. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition from 189 citizens in my district, the

prayer being: `We, the undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove,

Langdon's Cove, Nickey's Nose Cove, and Silverdale strongly protest the closing

of the school in Harry's Harbour.'

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in the local paper in Green Bay

there appeared a story from the Integrated School Board dealing with the schools

in that area, indicating that in my district of Green Bay the school at Harry's

Harbour would be closed effective the upcoming school year. This came as news

and, indeed, a shock to the people of the Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Cove

general area because there had been no prior warning, no notice. Now, parents

have to look forward to students in kindergarten, and especially in kindergarten

and the primary grades, having a thirty-odd mile bus ride over gravel roads to

attend Beaumont Academy in King's Point. This is a relatively long and rough

ride for very young students and, given the climate in the area and the snow

conditions, a difficult ride, especially in the winter months.

This came about as a result of the Green Bay Integrated

School Board, under the budgetary provisions of the Wells Administration,

receiving twenty-eight less teachers this year to staff the schools throughout

the district that it serves. Mr. Speaker, losing twenty-eight teachers in one

year is a terrible blow to the Green Bay board and they have reacted according

to the priorities that they saw fit. Indeed, their actions were to close a

school on the Baie Verte Peninsula at Ming's Bight and also to close a school in

Harry's Harbour. I'm not sure if the school at Ming's Bight got sufficient

notice or long-term notice of what was about to happen, but certainly, the

residents in the Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Cove area did not.

The Department of Education has guidelines which indicate

that a school board should give at least a year's notice to a community, or

communities, regarding school close-down, and that a public meeting should be

held to ascertain the views and concerns of the parents involved. In this

particular case, maybe, because of the large number of teachers removed from the

board in this given year, the Green Bay board did not see fit to give a year's

notice and did not see fit to have any kind of a public hearing, therefore, the

parents of the area have taken to writing letters to people in authority, and

presenting me with a petition as their representative in the House of Assembly,

so that their views can be made known, and their concerns with regard to the

well-being of their students can be made known.

Mr. Speaker, sometime ago a school parents' group in the

Avondale area took their local school board to court for closing the school

without a year's notice and a public meeting. The lower court ruled in favour of

the parents, but unfortunately for those parents, a higher court of appeal ruled

for the board, that while it did not adhere to the guidelines laid out by the

Department of Education, these guidelines were just that, guidelines, and not

law, therefore, the school board was not obliged by law to abide by them.

Nonetheless, these are guidelines set down by the Department of Education, and

given the fact that the people concerned have had very little notice, and this

comes as a shock, I firmly believe that the department should intervene, if not

legally then morally, to deal with the school boards and to ensure that people

are properly consulted before such drastic measures are taken.

One also has to question, Mr. Speaker, the strength and the

viability of the small school regulations as they apply in the Department of

Education when such an occurrence can happen with very little, if any, notice

and with very little regard to the well-being of very young students in the four

to seven-year-old category who will have to drive by bus in winter over a long

gravel road. I think there is room for the Department of Education to intervene

and to talk with boards and try to mitigate the negative circumstances caused by

this move.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and support

the petition presented by my colleague on behalf of the citizens of Harry's

Harbour. The actions of the Green Bay Integrated School Board and the actions of

many school boards across this Province are indeed predictable. We are going

through a substantive period of adjustment and we will be seeing more of this in

the weeks ahead. As the minister said the other day he believes that 7,293

teachers are sufficient to offer consistent and quality programs to all the

students in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there are 362 teachers

protected under the 2 per cent savings clause. We know, as well, that the normal

declining enrolments would result in 191 teaching positions being lost this

year. The accumulative effect of these measures is to see multi-grade classrooms

being created where there were formerly single-grade classrooms, to see the

curtailment or the elimination of school programs, music programs, physical

education, home economics, and, Mr. Speaker, I noted the other day, the

elimination of programs like guidance, the services of psychologists, speech

therapists, and special education services. Many of the core programs and core

services are in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, common sense would say that if we are going to

require kindergarten children in Harry's Harbour, and other primary children, to

drive thirty miles over what might be described as less than standard road

conditions, that their learning experiences throughout the day are not going to

be of the highest quality. These young children must be on the bus by not later

than 8:00 a.m., an hour before school opens, and they will have to spend the

entire day in their school and drive back in the late afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there are situations in this

Province where there are no choices, but certainly, we ask the minister to look

at the situation that is being faced by the Green Bay school board. Losing

twenty-eight teachers in one school year certainly requires him to look at the

implementation of a small schools policy and to direct some attention to

situations that are prevailing in communities like Harry's Harbour. Of course, I

would say there are many other situations throughout the Province. I have had

copies of letters that have been forwarded to the minister from the district

represented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, from the district

represented on the Burin Peninsula, from the district of Ferryland, and from

Bonavista South and the Terra Nova district - just some of the letters I have

here now.

There is a great deal of anxiety out there, a great deal of

question about where they can look for solutions, and transporting children at

kindergarten level over thirty miles is not a solution if we are going to

preserve the integrity and the quality of the learning experience.

Thank you very much.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry; the hon. the Minister of

Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education wanted to speak

on the petition, I think.

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. minister rise? I didn't see

him.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the

petition which has been presented by the hon. the Member for Green Bay. I am

assuming he is referring to the letter that I received last week `To whom it may

concern'. Of course, he interpreted that to be a petition because there were a

number of names attached to it.

I have to say to the hon. member, it is all very well for him

to bring that petition to the House of Assembly; however, he could serve his

petitioners and his constituents much better had he taken it to the Green Bay

Integrated School Board. Those hon. members who have spoken know full well that

it is the responsibility of school boards to administer the school system in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Government has allocated to all school boards an

adequate number of teachers to carry out the duties which are imposed upon them

and they, in their wisdom, have to do that.

Now, if the hon. member believes that the school board has

done something which is illegal, then I would certainly take that matter under

advisement and check with the school board to see if they have acted illegally.

Otherwise, I would suggest to the hon. member that he take the matter up with

the school board, whose responsibility it is. In that way, instead of

grandstanding about this issue, he would be able to truly serve the wishes of

his constituents.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and present a

petition given to me by some residents of Western Labrador. Again, it is a

portion of a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It is

chapter whatever of whatever, however

many chapters will be sent in to me.

It is a result of a public meeting that I held in my district

where a committee of some twenty people were struck from that public meeting and

they went out to seek public support against the privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. The prayer of the petition:

`WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views to ask

whether or not Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown

corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, the forty-six people are part of, I would say,

well in excess of 1,600 people who have now signed the petition from Western

Labrador against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

This committee was struck some four weeks ago, and as days go

on, the people in my district are becoming even more and more opposed to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Whereas the Premier stated in

his infamous television address on NTV that he would withdraw this piece of

legislation, or not ask the House to approve it if the majority of the people

were against it, now four weeks later he seems to be changing his mind, and this

very much bothers the people of Western Labrador because they felt they lived in

a democratic country and believed the Premier to be stating the truth when he

said that he would withdraw this or not present this legislation to the House if

he didn't have public support. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had other members

suggest that maybe if 85 per cent of the people of this Province were shown in a

public opinion poll to be against it he wouldn't support it and there are some

news reports out and about the Province that suggest that the Premier has

suggested he would probably want 75 per cent to 80 per cent of public support to

be against it but he didn't suggest that, Mr. Speaker. What he said was that, no

government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policy for

which it can't sustain public support, and that he would withdraw the bill if

indeed he didn't have the public support.

There is no doubt - I know in my district that the public

support is dwindling, that public support for the privatization is getting

smaller than it was and it was over 80 per cent against, so we can assume that

some of the remaining 20 per cent hadn't decided and there were only I believe

about 6 per cent or 8 per cent of the people who were in favour of the

privatization, and now I would suggest that that's even getting smaller in my

district because they seem to have lost all sense of faith and trust in the

Premier and this particular government.

So I would urge that the government reconsider and answer the

request of these thousands of names now, Mr. Speaker, that have been suggested

to the House in petition form. Because thousands of names have been submitted to

the House, of people who have opposed the sale of Newfoundland Hydro, and I

believe that the government should, in all honesty, withdraw this particular

piece of legislation now. If they wish to proceed with the bill later on, in two

or three years time, maybe an education process might be warranted, not this

propaganda that is coming out of the bowels of the Confederation Building or

from Newfoundland Hydro, but an education process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No - I say to the Minister of Finance, what

I did was hold a public meeting in my district. I took the document that

Newfoundland Hydro sent out which some of the people had already received that

day; they had read that and I went through it and explained why I felt that I

could not support this legislation. Subsequent to that meeting, there was a

committee struck and, Mr. Speaker, the committee went out and sought public

support to sign petitions to fight against the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro because they felt it wasn't in the best interest of those who live in

Labrador, of those people, the residents of Western Labrador - may I have just

thirty seconds to clue up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, as residents of Western

Labrador, they do not want this government to proceed with legislation to

privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they ask that the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. A. SNOW: Forty-seven people as part of the 1,600

people who have already signed it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand and support the petition so ably

presented by my colleague from the great district of Menihek. I think he

mentioned forty-seven people on this particular petition who were saying that

they are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on Friday morning for half-an-hour on

the Electrical Resources bill, Bill 2, and made a few comments pertaining to the

privatization of Hydro in talking about that particular piece of legislation.

One thing I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about the

privatization of Hydro, is that when we go back and look at when Bills 1 and 2

were presented, you look at the consistencies and the inconsistencies of the two

bills.

First, when the privatization bill came to the floor it was

all full speed ahead. Members got up and presented it, the Premier spoke on,

other members spoke on it, then all of a sudden there seemed to be a sense of

urgency. There seemed to be a sense of - get it done, get it done fast before -

and as far as I'm concerned at the time I said it, is that get it done because

every day that this piece of legislation is discussed in the House, every day

that the news comes on in this Province there's going to be people against this

particular piece of legislation. It's obvious what happened, Mr. Speaker. As

people around this Province started to comprehend what was in this particular

piece of legislation they started to realize that this particular piece of

legislation wasn't all that good for them and they soon started to speak up in

different ways.

They contacted their members and so on, wrote letters, signed

petitions and they said that this is not good enough. They needed to be

consulted and we should be consulted, then all of a sudden the heat was on. The

heat was on the administration opposite to withdraw this particular piece of

legislation after it went through second reading in the House, the invocation of

closure to get it through second reading, then all of a sudden this particular

piece of legislation left the floor of the House of Assembly and there were

other matters introduced, other bills introduced.

The Easter holidays came along, Mr. Speaker, and then after

that we haven't heard a sound since but nevertheless I wouldn't be naive enough

to think that this particular piece of legislation is not coming back to the

floor of the House of Assembly and which I would probably say otherwise based on

the commitment that the Premier and his colleagues have made to certain

individuals around this Province.

Now member's opposite have gotten - over the last month or so

- a lot of correspondence pertaining to this particular piece of legislation. I

just received a copy on my desk today about a request from people in St. John's

North - the Member for St. John's North to hold a public meeting and it's

obvious that the hon. member had it. Now maybe this particular request came from

the way that the hon. member conducted his poll. Maybe that question was asked,

I don't know. I didn't see the questions on it but in any case, signed by three

taxpayers and three constituents from the hon. member's district asking for a

public meeting, plus another 279. I would say knowing the member, Mr. Speaker,

he will have a public meeting in his district. He's not afraid. He showed up at

the Member for Pleasantville's meeting down there at the Holiday Inn. I'm sure

if he went to that particular meeting - that that particular gentleman called at

that time - I'm sure, based on the reception he got at that meeting he will have

a public meeting in his district, no question.

So this is an example of what can happen as time progresses,

time goes on and people in the Province start to look into this particular piece

of legislation clause by clause. They're seeing daily that this is not a good

piece of legislation. They're saying that we need more input and so on. This is

obvious; this is a small example of all the districts in the Province and

different members in the House the kind of correspondence that they are getting

now as the information and the details of this particular piece of legislation

gets out to the people of the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few words once again I would like

to say that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: - I would like to support the petition so

ably presented by my colleague from Menihek.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from fifty-three people

from the District of Bonavista South and the District of Trinity North. The

prayer of the petition is again, asking the government to reconsider Bill 1, the

privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, continually we're seeing petitions brought

forward here on this side of the House. People continue to speak and echo the

voice of their constituents. They talk about this piece of legislation, how

negative it will be, the concern that's out there in rural Newfoundland and

people continually asking their members to represent them.

The latest case I suppose is the one that was just put

forward - mentioned by the Member for Humber Valley and I happen to have that

here on my desk as well. I don't know why all the members on the opposite side

give copies of petitions that are sent to members of the other side but there's

279 names on a petition - it's not a petition, it's a request I guess for a

public meeting in St. John's North. It seems now, Mr. Speaker, people have taken

up the cause and they're saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Two hundred and seventy-nine names from

the people asking a request for a public meeting in St. John's North, Mr.

Speaker.

MS. VERGE: Who is it addressed to?

MR. FITZGERALD: It is addressed to the hon. member, Mr.

Lloyd Matthews, MHA for St. John's North. The last comment we heard from the

Member for St. John's North - in fact, there have been two positive comments I

think brought forward on this piece of legislation. One was from the Member for

St. John's North who had conducted a poll and identified himself and told them

what the Premier's opinion was. I think there was an enormous response in favour

of privatization of Hydro. Mr. Speaker, it seems like other people have heard

the results of that particular survey and are now asking for a public meeting so

they can ask some questions and find out for themselves what the true things are

and what all the positive things are about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro being

privatized. I'm sure they will hear some negative things as well if the

questions are answered truthfully.

MS. VERGE: When is he having the meeting?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know when the member is having

the meeting but they are expecting a big crowd. I think it might be one of the

biggest meetings we've had held. Because they go on to say: If you have

difficulty in finding a suitable meeting room for 300 people please advise one

of the undersigned and we will make arrangements for you. They are expecting at

least 300 people, Mr. Speaker, who want to come forward and voice their opinion.

We continue to hear from the other side when we go out in our

own districts and have public meetings that there were only forty showed up at

this one and fifty-five at another one. I'm not so sure that numbers are all

that important as long as people are given the opportunity to come forward and

speak. Numbers speak for themselves on the open line shows and in newspaper ads.

I think the government of the day thought as people were allowed enough time

that there would be a lot of positive reaction to this privatization bill. You

would see a lot of people come forward and speak in favour of it.

Such is not the case. As time goes by more and more people

are coming out and saying that: We want more information, we want some facts and

figures, and if this is such a wonderful thing, and if you as the government are

going to take this kind of action and tell us that we are to accept it and it is

a positive thing, then let us know what is so positive about it. Give us the

facts and figures.

We saw Professor Wade Locke from Memorial University come

forward there just a few days ago and talk about the lack of information, the

lack of figures that will put this privatization bill in a positive light with

people out there. How lacking it is. This information is not forthcoming and it

should be there if government believes that it is such a wonderful thing. More

and more people are speaking out on this. I notice Professor Peter Boswell in

his latest column in the paper, his column that he had in the weekend edition of

The Evening Telegram , it seems like he is starting to change his mind

now. He thought in the beginning that it might be a good thing and he believed

in privatization, but as he gets more and more information he is finding that it

is not such a wonderful thing. Also, Mr. Speaker, I guess it is the lack of

information that is making him have doubts about this piece of legislation.

I call on members of the other side to speak to their

constituents, allow them to have private and public meetings, answer their

questions, put all the information forward, lay the facts on the table, and then

come back here in the House of Assembly and speak on their behalf, and vote the

way that they would have them represent them here in this hon. House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as persuaded as I am by the

hon. gentleman's eloquence in bringing in the third petition of the day I move,

pursuant to Standing Order 21, that Orders of the Day now be read. He can carry

on with his speech on the Electrical Power Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the hon. Government

House Leader that we move to Orders of the Day. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: We are now on Orders of the Day, as I

understand it. In that case, Order No. 4, please, second reading of the

Electrical Power Control Act. I forget which of the dreary speakers opposite had

adjourned the debate. My friend for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 4.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Point of order?

MS. VERGE: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS. VERGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There were more `nays' than

`ayes' on the Government House Leader's motion so I think Your Honour has to

allow for a continuation of petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: There were more speakers on the petitions

here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

hon. woman has been in the House, if memory serves me correctly, for fifteen

years. She ought, I would have thought to have learned the rules. If not, may I

make a submission to Your Honour, that the rule is when the Chair makes a

declaration of a vote if one wishes to challenge it there is a procedure

provided by the rules, and if there is no challenge the Speaker's ruling stands,

so I submit there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point

of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: While a motion to move to Orders of the Day

would take precedence, I realize that, over others, I think it was a little

unfair, too, where we were still on petitions and had not completed speaking on

petitions, that point was still here and that petition had not been completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: That is another point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Humber

East. The hon. member is fully aware that there is a procedure in place if

members do not agree with the decision of the Chair. When a voice vote is called

there is a procedure in place called Division. The Chair did not see any member

standing or hear any member call for division on that vote.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate on the Electrical Power Resources Act,

Bill 2, and on Friday I was indicating that what this bill is proposing to do

through the back door what could not be done through the front door, before. It

is proposing to have the right to recall power from the Upper Churchill, power

that was provided to Quebec in a legally binding agreement and that was ruled on

two occasions, and challenged in the Supreme Court. Overall, it is trying to

hide or mask the real intent, cleverly drafted, so that it could be perceived

that a public utilities board could have the right to recall the power, upon the

request even of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet. It is still the

government.

They are not going to be so naive as to think that if the

government requested it, that the Public Utilities Board is exercising a right,

it is going to have any more legal grounds or legal foundation than it would if

government had requested it otherwise, or under a Crown corporation of Hydro.

The Premier indicated that. He stated that after this contradiction on

provincial television and in the leader's debate. He came back and stated it is

not necessary now. He clarified that misleading statement made to the people two

days earlier.

In this legislation here they are trying to give the intent

that the courts will have to decide whether Hydro Quebec's right is incidental,

or the main purpose. In other words it is piff and substance. They are trying to

indicate it would be only incidental to the recall of power. The Premier

indicated that it would be unthinkable that the people of this Province would

have to provide for their future power needs through higher cost and polluting

oil-fired generation or accept the cost and risk of nuclear generation. That is

a very wishy-washy, weak argument. The Supreme Court rendered its opinion on

that statement by the Premier and said: it is not for this court to consider the

desirability of legislation from a social, economic perspective where a

constitutional issue is raised. In other words the Supreme Court stated that the

constitutional issue takes precedence over social and economic perspectives.

In only words a legally binding agreement is a legally

binding agreement and is not subject to change by this Province just because the

Province realizes that it made a grave mistake back in the 60s. The Premier who

sat in that Cabinet should have thought on that at the time, back when he made

that decision, that just because nuclear power might be unacceptable socially,

because oil-fired generation and nuclear power might be expensive, it is not a

reason for the courts to overrule that. That was the decision made by the

Supreme Court, so that argument is not going to wash.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I made it. You should have heard it. You

are a little late. I made the point. I am going to continue to talk about it.

The point I am making is that the Supreme Court has rendered a decision. You can

mask it in what you like, you can cover it in what you like, but the

constitutional issue is the one here that a decision would be rendered on, and

not whether it is adverse socially and economically for oil-fired generation,

the pollution, or the nuclear energy, the risk and potential danger from fallout

from radioactive materials.

Any interference at all with that power could lead to default

of the agreement that we have, under the CF(L)Co agreement with Quebec and this

Province, and it could result in Hydro Quebec having the option to buy or take

over the power contract to purchase or redeem those CF(L)Co bonds, and when they

do that, and if that arises, they will take equity in CF(L)Co in return for

redeeming those bonds, and that would put us in a very tenuous position in terms

of CF(L)Co and could lead to complete control of CF(L)Co by Hydro Quebec.

Now there are several points in the bill that have been

discussed that are really opening up the doors for privatization. One of the

points mentioned here is that it would instruct the Public Utilities Board to

base electricity rates on three criteria. Cost is one factor, the maintenance of

credit worthiness that is already there, and a guaranteed profit for

shareholders. That is not there now. That is not there - a guaranteed profit for

shareholders. Why would you want it there now if you didn't want a private

Hydro? It is there to facilitate and to open the door to one of the five areas

here that make it easier for the privatized Hydro, to make it lucrative for

people out in the marketplace to buy shares in a new Hydro. That's why it's

there.

This legislation, Bill 2, would direct the Public Utilities

Board to phase out the rural subsidy that is charged to industrial consumers,

and phase it out by 1999, over a five year period, and would increase the cost

of electricity to the rural consumers, or to consumers generally, in this

Province. There is $15 million allocated out of taxpayers funds to be able to

ease in those rate changes over the next five years so that consumers will be

cushioned from this blow and the full impact won't be hit in one year. We will

see it over a five year period.

That is going to have an adverse effect on the residential

consumers of electricity, not just rurally. The board may decide to put it on to

all consumers of electricity in the Province, or they may say to rural

consumers: You will pay a higher rate than urban consumers of electricity. You

will pay a higher rate because it costs more to put electricity out in a

community with 400 people than it does per capita in a city with 100,000 people,

so we will charge you the cost of delivering electricity out there.

Will that come down to where we are going to charge the cost

of a road to rural Newfoundland, charge the cost of telephone service in rural

Newfoundland, or any other type of service in rural Newfoundland? It has

happened. It has happened with this government before. They have downloaded on

municipalities where they have increased the cost per person in rural

Newfoundland as opposed to urban Newfoundland. It is part of a silent

resettlement program that is going to move people out of the communities around

this Province.

Also, they have taken another step to designate essential

employees, and they are proposing to move that from the Labour Relations Board

to the Public Utilities Board, and that is another move that is going to

facilitate and move forward toward the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The Premier said we don't need the privatization of Hydro to

be able to recall our power. If you follow his agreement, why do you need those

things I just mentioned? They are not necessary in order to be able to have the

right to be able to recall power.

I would love to see the opportunity, the avenue, to be able

to recall power from the Upper Churchill, to be able to break that agreement

without having any repercussions come back to this Province. It would be a major

victory for this Province, and would be fantastic for every single individual in

this Province, but it is only a pipe dream. It cannot happen. We might as well

get on with the business of the day, get rid of that nonsense and foolishness

that is taking up weeks and even months here in this House, that has no chance

of getting through. There are too many pressing matters out there now that need

more attention now than trying to go on a whim and hope the Supreme Court is

going to ignore because we've drafted and hid it in little phrases and other

avenues here of this legislation and hoping they are going to fall for it. The

learned judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are not that silly, are not going

to be conned by a fancy piece of legislation.

Another area they are looking at too, and it is back in the

Premier's mind, is that they are going to empower the Public Utilities Board to

be able to approve over 20 per cent. Over 20 per cent ownership can be held by

an individual or corporation. That is part of his plan to merge the power

utilities in this Province, or to have complete control. It can not come from

someone in this Province other than Fortis. The companies do not have the

financial resources to be able to own a company the magnitude of Hydro. It is

only going to be owned initially by 20 per cent by Newfoundlanders, and over a

couple of years it is only going to be owned probably 10 per cent by

Newfoundlanders over the period of time. We don't have the finances available in

the financial and business community of this Province to be able to take over

the control of Hydro. It is not there. We might as well face up to it, admit it

for what it is. This 20 per cent was 15 per cent initially. It was 15 per cent

when he talked about it last fall. When the legislation came out it was 20 per

cent. So it eased it up 5 per cent again, and give the utilities more of the

power to be able to make those decisions.

Another thing the Premier talked about that is going to make

it easier to privatize Hydro that is in Bill No. 2 here is that he has never

stated in this House or elsewhere - and I've listened carefully - how much

provincial corporate taxes are going to come from a new Hydro. All he said - it

will be a sawoff what we give up we will get back. Under PUITTA right now we get

$9.5 million from Newfoundland Power. We would anticipate getting $20 million

from a new Hydro. That is $30 million. In other words, he is saying we are going

to get $30 million in provincial corporate income tax from the new Hydro. That I

doubt very much. The new Hydro, of course, showed a profit of $24 million last

year, a profit around the same again this past year. In fact I think it was $26

million last year, closer to it, $24 million this year. On the Newfoundland -

the portion excluding CF(L)Co. - it showed this year about $12 million or $14

million, last year $16 million.

It is a very profitable company there. The taxes were going

to come in. I don't believe that for a moment. While we are on that topic, on

Hydro privatization, Wade Locke, an economist, said a while back - this was

about three weeks ago or more - he said he is challenging government to show its

numbers and prove them wrong. He was hoping that we would get more information

on the real cost. He has been asking for that but this government is not willing

to give it. The reason it is not willing to give it is because it weakens its

arguments.

Peter Boswell just recently, a very interesting statement,

said just this weekend: "Despite my initial ideological support for

privatization, I am increasingly convinced that the proposal would have a costly

and harmful effect on the taxpayers and economy of this Province. The benefits

from a one-shot fiscal fix will be more than out-weighed by the loss of an

ongoing and increasing commercial cost." Peter Boswell has changed his mind. As

the facts started to come out, I will assure you, members of the House, that the

mass of this Province who are out there now and undecided will step in line

behind the 80 per cent of the people who said no to privatization. Those who

have shown the initiative to go out and get the facts. The people who have been

willing to put the necessary information out in the public forum so people can

make an intelligent decision. To date the only decisions of intelligence we are

indicating, if it is not a decision that the Premier agrees with it is not an

intelligent decision.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said Wade Locke doesn't know

what he is talking about. That is his job, he is an economist. If he is

providing figures here I will take his figures rather than none that are

presented by government. If we get two sets of figures to judge by let each man

and woman make his or her own decision. Government has been unwilling to come

forth, unwilling to face the music and face the truth.

Here is what the Premier said: If the majority of the people

of the Province end up in the end being opposed to Hydro privatization, I would

not ask the members of this Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing

Hydro. Because I don't think any government, he said, no matter how strongly it

feels about an issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause

something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this

Province and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do this. Now when is

the Premier going to wake up and listen to the masses of people out around this

Province? When is he going to stop trying to buy them with the people's own

money; when is he going to come forth and give us figures?

In last year's Budget, the Minister of Mines and Energy could

not tell us, in last year's tabled figures, he couldn't even tell us that, in

last year's not to say what it is going to be this year. I pity him when he

tries to project when he can't tell figures that are already finalized, where

the money was spent. Well, we found out where the money was spent, after two or

three weeks of trying to find it out. We found out that $1.5 million out of $1.6

million was spent on Hydro privatization to some familiar names in Newfoundland,

very familiar names. The great financial advisers of the 60s who struck such a

rich deal for this Province, the Rothschilds, that we brought them back again to

do another great justice to the people of this Province.

So far, just the last fiscal year, $538,400 to give us the

type of financial advice we got in the 1960s, that sees over seven, almost $800

million a year go out across transmission lines into Quebec and in the United

States at exorbitant profits for Hydro Quebec, one of the richest corporations

in this country, Hydro Quebec, one of the highest percentage of profits,

consistently year in and year out, to see that going over transmission lines and

out of this Province and we call back those people again, the Premier who sat in

the Cabinet, the Minister of Justice who was in his office, the people who are

driving a deal again and going to the Rothschilds for advice?

Yes. It is, as the Member for Humber East said, like putting

the fox in charge of the chicken house. That is basically what it is, the type

of advice we have had before, we should have fired them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not foolishness, it is fact. It is

actual fact; it is here tabled, it is in the estimates, it is tabled, it is on

record here, it is a deal we have that we all would like to get rid of and then

the government members talk about Sprung, twenty-some million. Well, multiply

that by forty times a year, every year until 2041, and you see how many Sprungs

will spring then. That's a deal that was the most colossal and worst deal in the

history of this Province that we and our children and our grandchildren and our

great grandchildren will be paying for generations and generations to come.

That's what this government has done and then they have the audacity again to

stir up the same old financial advisers who took a little trip into Canada,

stopped here and spoke last year, we knew there was something in the air at the

time but they denied it, but the truth comes out, it all comes out in the wash.

They then tried to sell the people of the Province with their

own money, and put out an $82,000 public relations campaign and covered under

Hydro and then they don't know what Hydro was spending, I can't get hold of the

people there, well, they very conveniently get a hold of the people when they

want to, because they have tried and failed in trying to hoodwink the people of

this Province and the people are on to them and they might as well face and do

the honourable thing, withdraw the legislation. If passing Bill 2 needs to go

ahead with power emergencies, let's deal with them; let's deal with power

emergencies in the Province, the recall of power. Let us get on with the right

business, let's get that foolishness and trickery out of Bill 2, the one that is

proposing to access and make it easier for Hydro so we can open up the doors for

the financial communities of Bay Street and Montreal, people in Quebec, Ontario

and outside controlling a corporation now, that is making money and a very

healthy profit; a very, very, healthy profit.

In fact he is proposing in this bill and what utter nonsense

- he is saying here in this bill, we are going to supply power delivered to the

consumer at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service. The

lowest possible cost, and to privatize Hydro is going to increase costs anywhere

on the privatization from $40 million up to $70 million, not counting giving up

the debt guarantee and giving up PUITTA and other costs associated with it. It

could be a $91 million cost, we would save $25 million a year on financing the

debt, it could be a loss of $66 million, anywhere down to $40 million. Forty to

sixty-six net loss, and talking about delivering electricity at the lowest

possible cost consistent with reliable service. Well this bill they are

proposing is not going to deliver electricity at a cheaper cost. It's going to

increase it and deliver it at a more expensive price and is not going to give

more reliable service. This

section of the act is not going to give reliable

service. If service increased, consumers might be willing to accept a certain

moderate increase in electricity rates. It is going to have a very, very

negative effect and a drastic increase in electricity to be able to give the

profit margins to a new corporation along with amortizing the close to $200

million associated here carried over the next twenty-eight, thirty or even maybe

forty years if they amortize it, that we're going to be paying out of this

Province. That's only for the current cost of privatization that we're dealing

with now. So, I say to the Premier and to the government, cut out the nonsense

of this bill, cut out the foolishness, the five points I discussed, get on with

proper business here and let's deal with the power emergencies there if that's

what you're intending. Don't be camouflaging it there and think the Supreme

Court of Canada are foolish enough to fall for it. It's utter nonsense, it's not

going to work and I'd ask the government to just withdraw it and get on with the

business of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I'm pleased to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to rise and

speak on Bill 2 or the hoist on Bill 2. The six month hoist, Mr. Speaker, is

very important. I believe that we should step back as members of the Legislature

and have a look at what people are saying out and about the Province, at what

people are telling us as members of the Legislature. They're telling us, first

of all, that they aren't in favour of the privatization of Hydro. They're saying

that with this particular bill we're asking the legislators to take six months

to properly prepare the people of the Province and not through the public

relations downstairs in the bowels of Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker, or

through Newfoundland Hydro wasting $80,000 on a fancy brochure to give

propaganda to the people of this Province but to allow the people of the

Province to actually delve into what this bill and the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - what type of an effect it's going to have on

them as individuals, as consumers, on residents of the Province, how it's going

to effect them as owners of this utility company or the future generations of

people who are going to have to pay for the consequences of this very

short-sighted move by this government.

They realize, as a people - I think 80 per cent of the people

of this Province - in most of the public opinion polls that have been done so

far have indicated that 80 per cent of the people have been against the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. I believe that one of the reasons why is

that they don't want to be rushed into a quick fix deal such as what occurred

with the Upper Churchill.

If you look at exactly what happened with the Upper Churchill

contract, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that we had just completed a major

construction project in this Province, we built a national standard highway

across the island portion of the Province, we had employed thousands of

Newfoundlanders in road building. So there was an immediate need to set about to

create employment or create the opportunity for employment for these thousands

of workers who had just finished working in earth moving, highway building

across the island portion of the Province. So someone with a bright idea up in

the Premier's office - it was probably the hon. Minister of Justice now or maybe

it might have been the Premier at that particular time - said well why don't we

have a hydro development because really a hydro development is earth moving.

That's what it does, it moves earth, builds dykes and dams, builds bridges and

all that type of thing, Mr. Speaker, and employs a tremendous number of people,

but basically it is earth moving. It is very similar to mining or road building.

So I thought this scheme would be great for four or five years. If we could

employ thousands of Newfoundlanders, that would solve the problem.

Well, it didn't solve the problem. All it did, while it did

indeed create some employment for four or five years, it created an

embarrassment to the people of this Province because of the short-sightedness of

making this major, major construction project at the time, one of the largest

construction projects at the time, I believe, in the world, when that was

ongoing at that particular time. It provided, in future years, an embarrassment

to this Province, and the people who advocated it, because of the tremendous

gain that the Province of Quebec accrued from it.

The Province of Quebec, through Hydro Quebec and reselling

the power, mostly to the New York State or indeed consuming it in their own

province, a lot of economists have measured that they saved from $700 million to

$800 million of economic rent that accrues to the Province of Quebec through

Quebec Hydro because of the so-called Upper Churchill deal, while in this

Province some people feel it might be $25 million to $30 million of economic

value to this Province in Churchill Falls.

I strongly believe that if we had the public discussion back

in the sixties as we are having today that the people of this Province would not

have signed, or the government would not have signed, a deal for that type of

development.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You fellows all voted for it.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, you fellows may have voted for it; I

didn't vote for it.

What I said was that if there had been more public discussion

and public awareness of the consequences of a long-term deal that they were

entering into at the particular time, that type of deal would not be entered

into.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true. You know the difference.

That is not true. (Inaudible). You know the difference, too.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for

Employment and Labour Relations will have the opportunity to speak in this

debate, and I would appreciate his keeping quiet and not attempting to defend

his mentor, the Premier, or the Minister of Justice, on actions that they did,

because we were both just young boys then, in school somewhere in central

Newfoundland or whatever. Actually, I was up in Labrador working, but if there

had been more public awareness back in the sixties -

MR. GRIMES: Public awareness of what?

MR. A. SNOW: Public awareness of what was happening at

the particular time, and what type of contract was being entered into, because

it was only in subsequent years that people would recognize what had occurred

back in the sixties.

MR. GRIMES: What was wrong with the deal? There was

nothing wrong with the arrangement. It was the best arrangement in the world at

the time and everybody recognized it.

MR. A. SNOW: It was not the best arrangement in the world

at the time, and it was only because of the naivety of certain people such as

the present Minister of Employment and Labour Relations who still thinks it is

the best deal in the world. He still believes that, but he doesn't have any

foresight. He is taking the same approach now as his mentor, the Premier, and

the Minister of Justice and all his cronies took back there. It is a quick fix.

Make some jobs today. Get a few quick bucks and forget about tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, that is what got us into this trouble. That is

what got us into this mess, and we shouldn't be doing it because we need to take

a long-term look at this, and that is why the people of this Province want this

government to reconsider. That is why they want this government to reconsider

this piece of legislation, because they know that this is going to have even

more consequences, more direct consequences, against their children, and their

children's children, and their children's children, in the years to come in this

particular Province if they continue to live here, even though this government

is doing whatever it can to drive hundreds of thousands of people out of here,

which is what is going to happen over the next three or four years.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the government should reconsider.

They have seen the committee system when they were first elected back in 1989;

they inaugurated or incorporated a committee system for new legislation being

proposed, and I commend them for it. It was a good idea. It was a good idea

then; it's a good idea now, but what they should do is use it. If it's fitting

that the Province would send members of the Legislature around the Province to

seek public input into a name change, which really wasn't all that important,

surely to goodness that public awareness and public opinion should be sought in

particular pieces of legislation, which some people - the Premier and the

Minister of Justice - have suggested that these two pieces of legislation are

the most important legislation to be submitted to this House since

Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, if indeed it is important, we should seek the

public input and make the public more aware of aspects of this legislation and

also the privatization. Because they are inextricably linked in this bill. We

have to not get into the idea of these quick fixes curing all the ills of this

particular Province, because that is what occurred back in the 1960s and we know

the dilemma that is causing us today.

I firmly believe, as tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders

believe, that this is going to get us into more trouble than even the Upper

Churchill deal will. Because that is the only benefit - I threw out the window

that there was a benefit - a lot of people have suggested that there was a

strictly personal gain on behalf of the Premier and some of his friends in this

particular sale. I honestly don't believe it. I do believe it is a short-term

fix. It is a method of acquiring a few dollars for the next couple of years.

That is going to get the Province out of borrowing for the next couple of years

and they feel that will solve some of their problem. I think that short-sighted

mentality will get us into more trouble. I believe that is why the people of

this Province oppose this so stridently. They are right in opposing it and

asking for more input into the legislation.

When the Premier went on provincial-wide television on March

24, a Tuesday night, on NTV and attempted to sell this idea, that created more

uncertainty in the people's minds. Because the Premier went on and talked about

how the terrible wrongdoing that had to be corrected, the terrible mismanagement

or mistakes that had been made with the Upper Churchill, and talked about the

propaganda being put forward by citizens' groups, who I would like to publicly

commend for their contribution. The Power of the People and Take Back the Power,

and Cyril Abery. Rather than condemn these people I want to commend them,

whereas people on the opposite side of the House have condemned these people as

being troublemakers or have some political agenda. I want to commend them for

their contribution on making the public more aware, more cognizant of the

effects that these two bills are going to have on this generation and future

generations of people living in this Province. They have to be commended.

When the Premier went on television that evening he suggested

first of all that there had to be some method of correcting - now here he was

supposed to be on television talking about privatization of Newfoundland Hydro

and he talked about righting the wrong of the Upper Churchill deal. He

apologized to his caucus, to his Cabinet, because he had suggested to them to

not speak up, to keep their mouths shut, to keep quiet. Don't listen to anybody

and don't say anything. Because really it may harm my secret scheme, my scheme

that is going to right this terrible wrong, this slight that has been done to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He left one to believe that this scheme of his was going to

correct - and that was the reason - this wrong that was done in the 1960s, this

wrong that was perpetrated on the people of this Province by a party and a

government of which he was a member at the time it was done, and now he was

going to correct this deed of his youth, he needed the privatization and he

needed Bill 2 to do this.

Well that was on Tuesday night, he explained to the people,

and on March 24, Thursday, he again went on in a debate format with the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls, and the hon. the Leader of

the New Democratic Party, the Member for St. John's East, and in that particular

debate, the Premier had to admit that the truth that he told about the deceit

that was perpetrated on the people of the Province in the months previous about

the sale of Hydro and the merits of its privatization, was really not true. The

truth about the deceit was really not true. That too, was deceitful, because he

had to admit that you didn't have to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in

order to attempt some take-over or some recall of power from the Upper

Churchill.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province became more

hardened, they have become more distrustful, they have also become more aware,

but they need to be more aware, and the more this government attempts to ram

this through the Legislature, I believe the people are going to get their backs

up even more, and polls will indicate, I think, that that will actually grow in

opposition to this. People have, subsequent to that, learned that it wasn't

necessary to do this so really, what the Premier was saying wasn't true. It

wasn't true. He attempted to mislead the people of the Province by continuing to

deceive the people in the beginning and keep quiet because he said there was

going to be hysteria -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Carried. (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No. No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman

isn't finished, but I am sure that by the time the next election is called,

there will be a lot of people on that side who are going to be finished.

MR. MURPHY: You wish.

MR. A. SNOW: I wish and hundreds of thousands of

Newfoundlanders will be wishing. They are wishing for a vote tomorrow. They

would like to have the vote today. They would like to have the opportunity in

St. John's South, to vote, I can guarantee you. There is no doubt about it. They

would love to have the opportunity of a vote today.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this issue and subsequent

issues that have been mishandled by this particular administration in recent

months, remind me very much of what occurred federally with the Federal

Progressive Conservatives. After they were re-elected the second time, they felt

that they had a God-given right to do whatever they wished, that they knew

better than anybody else in this country, and they were going to push ahead at

anybody's peril and at all costs. And we saw what happened to that party and the

people who ran for them, Mr. Speaker, we saw what happened there and that is

exactly what is going to happen here, because people will not take that type of

governing any more. They won't put up with it and they shouldn't have to put up

with that type of governing, because that's not what a democracy is all about,

and that's what they are not going to put up with.

As the Member for Ferryland suggested earlier, when he talked

about Mr. Boswell's column in The Evening Telegram - and I quote in the

reinforcement of what I suggested earlier, that people's attitudes are becoming

hardened and that more and more people are coming to speak up against the sale,

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when he says and I quote:

"Despite my initial ideological support for privatization, I am increasingly

convinced that the proposal would have a costly and harmful effect on the

taxpayers and the economy of this Province. The benefits from a one-shot fiscal

fix will be more than outweighed by the loss of an ongoing and increasing

consumer cost."

Now, Mr. Speaker, if this government were so intent upon

getting some benefits out of the Upper Churchill, which is what they talked

about, that they want to get some benefits from it, and that is what they say

the intent of this particular bill is, Mr. Speaker, is to get a benefit - well,

they don't actually say that. The intent, I think, is to attempt to get the

power from the producers and retailers of power and control it through the

Public Utilities Board, and that is what part of this bill was going to be

doing.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity as a province to

recall 300 megawatts of power from the Upper Churchill. So far, we have only

recalled, I think, about 130 megawatts of power, and we have actually had

requests from industrial consumers in Western Labrador to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. Newfoundland Hydro has. The hon. the

Minister of Justice shakes his head in a negative manner.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is giving (inaudible)

statement - unless he carries on he is only telling part of the truth.

(Inaudible) that is correct in my understanding, but there is more to it. Carry

on.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that we've had

people seeking to establish an industrial base, an industrial complex, within

Labrador West, and have asked to recall 130, or about 100 megawatts of power,

and they've had no co-operation whatsoever from this Administration.

MR. TOBIN: That's a fact.

MR. A. SNOW: And that's a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: It is true.

MR. A. SNOW: It is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody is listening, anyway (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You must be listening, or somebody.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: A lot people would agree with that

particular statement.

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend, the Member for St. John's East

were listening, I would say nobody is understanding it.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, there have been several

attempts before to right the wrong of Upper Churchill and the previous

administrations have attempted to get partial access by means of the water

rights reversion act. In the 1970s they attempted to get partial access but in

1980 the water rights reversion act, after very much consultation - I believe,

at the same time they were doing this they attempted to - the panel of lawyers

that they had selected had reviewed the suggestions of the now-Premier, Mr.

Wells, on how to get access to this particular power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: If nobody were allowed to - I won't say

that, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, the Upper Churchill water rights reversion act of

1980 attempted to right this wrong by having complete control and total access

to that particular power being produced in Churchill Falls. The Supreme Court of

Canada declared the water rights reversion act unconstitutional and they ruled

that it interfered with the right of Hydro Quebec under the power contract to

receive an agreed amount of power at an agreed price, so it got thrown out of

court, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what the Premier is attempting to do today is to go

through the back door - what the previous administration could not do, and were

told by the Supreme Court of Canada they couldn't do. He is attempting to go

through the back door to do what previous administrations attempted to do - it

didn't work then and it won't work now. They were told at the particular time

that it wouldn't work. It didn't work then.

MR. SULLIVAN: They locked both doors at one time - the

Supreme Court did.

MR. A. SNOW: They locked both doors, my friend, the hon.

the Member for Ferryland says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Premier makes three points

in defence of his position on how this is going to work. First, the Province has

the constitutional jurisdiction to manage and provide for the use, sale and

distribution of power generated within the Province in order to meet the

legitimate needs of consumers of power in this Province. That is his first

point.

MR. TOBIN: Read it again, no one is listening.

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Finance is listening and

paying very much attention. Secondly, the legislation has general application to

all power produced in the Province and to all contracts for the supply of power,

and any effect on Hydro Quebec's right under the power contract would be purely

incidental to the main purpose of the act. Mr. Speaker, it means that it would

not be the pith and substance of the act. It is incidental, Mr. Speaker. The

control over all the hydroelectric assets of the Province is essential to meet

the needs of the people of this Province. That is what the Premier suggested.

That was his third, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree with that?

MR. A. SNOW: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker. I do not think

this can work. I honestly believe, and I have talked to many lawyers, and they

have suggested that it will not work. In the case of bringing the Hydro debate

into it, it is merely an issue to hide the real reason for selling Newfoundland

Hydro. That is all it was. The Premier said himself, he admitted himself, that

the real reason of raising this issue of Churchill Falls was to reinforce the

argument of the sale of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of people talking about how

the credit rating is going to be improved in this Province over the sale of

this. As a matter of fact we had somebody on last week, we had the Member for

Eagle River ask the Minister of Finance about how the credit rating would be

improved according to some people in this country, Mr. Speaker. In point of fact

what they did say is that it possibly would not harm the credit rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: That was what he said. That is not what you

said but that is what the credit rating agency said. They said it would not

harm, it would not have a negative effect, but it did not say it was going to

have a positive effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he said. That is being

dishonest.

MR. A. SNOW: That is not being dishonest.

MR. TOBIN: At the time of the mini-Budget you said, who

cares about the Canadian bond rating agency? That is what you said to the

Premier.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, what they said is that it may

not.

MR. TOBIN: All it did was reaffirm. It reaffirms.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, it says it may not have a

negative impact upon the credit rating, so again it is propaganda being put out.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a

release that he has there verbatim, and the member is making certain claims to

that release. I wonder if he has the courage to actually read that release in

the House so we can all judge as to whether he is interpreting properly or not?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Newfoundland's credit rating reaffirmed at

triple B. The Province of Newfoundland debentures and short-term ratings are

reaffirmed at Triple B.

MR. TOBIN: That's what it said.

MR. A. SNOW: The Province of Newfoundland debentures and

short-term ratings are reaffirmed at BBB and A-.

MR. TOBIN: It reaffirms.

MR. A. SNOW: That's all it does. That is all it says. It

just reaffirms the credit rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

MR. A. SNOW: Another headline in here says that the

rating outlook is negative.

MR. TOBIN: Now read why.

MR. A. SNOW: Because the declining groundfish stocks

continue to lower fish landings and manufacturing output in 1993. The Hibernia

offshore project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Green Bay is encouraged to

read it.

MR. HEWLETT: I have no problem with reading what is here,

because it says: If Hydro's privatization does not occur, the rating may - and I

stress, may - be reassessed; may be reassessed.

Then they talk about a certain short-term improvement in the

Province's budgetary outlook over the next year or so, and that's all. Then they

go on to talk about the fishery, the offshore oil, taxes, and all that sort of

stuff, indicating that over the long term the rating outlook is negative. So the

most they are saying is that if it doesn't occur the rating may be reassessed,

and they go on to talk about some short-term benefits. If Hydro is privatized,

it will have an immediate budgetary impact. Then they go on to say that

nonetheless the long-term outlook is bad. That is what it says: the long-term

outlook is bad.

This is all financial gibberish. The bottom line is quite

simple. The Premier came into this House of Assembly the other day with a big,

smug, grin on his face, talking about how those of us in Opposition and members

of the general public who oppose his policy position, that we are all going to

have egg over our face, that we are going to be humiliated and so on and so

forth. It sounded as if the Archangel Gabriel or someone was going to come down

from heaven and say: This is my beloved Clyde in whom I am well pleased.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that didn't happen. A credit

rating agency, one of the minor rating agencies, comes out and says: If the

privatization does not occur, the rating may be reassessed - `may' be

reassessed. This is not one of the major rating agencies, and we are supposed to

be humiliated, have egg all over our face, because of a `may be' of a

reassessment if something doesn't occur. That is hardly earth-shattering. It

certainly did not go like wildfire through the provincial media. It certainly

didn't upset the body politic. For the most part, all the meetings and groups

that the Premier has spoken to, his public debate, his private speech to the

people on television, his advertising campaign in the newspapers and on radio,

have not had one tittle or jot of impact on the mind of the body politic in this

Province.

I was at a public seminar in my district on the weekend and

everybody, without exception, who spoke to me about it, the first thing they

asked was: Is he really going to go through with this Hydro thing? Where is he

coming from? What is going on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them what Ed Smith said to you. What

did Ed Smith say to you?

MR. HEWLETT: Ed Smith was confused. Ed Smith didn't know

how to vote himself on the Hydro issue, but then again 20 per cent of the people

of the Province either are unsure or they agree with the privatization. Eighty

per cent are against. Now it's Ed Smith's perfect right to be among the twenty.

It is a democracy. Ed Smith can be among the twenty. The thing that is

significant, for the Member for St. John's, is that the 20 per cent has remained

constant. The people have made up their minds on this issue, and the Premier as

good as admitted this weekend... When I was in my district on Saturday morning,

VOCM Radio out of Grand Falls had a story on about the Premier who was out

there, I think, speaking to a Chamber of Commerce - maybe it was Bishop's Falls,

or somewhere there in Central Newfoundland - and basically the story said that

the Premier railed on as usual about those who are spreading lies and

misinformation and so on and so forth. He almost admitted that he had given up

on changing public opinion on the issue, so he said: I'm going to go ahead with

it anyway and if you don't like it you can vote against me in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, even assuming that the Premier is going to be

around for the next election, it will be too late as far as Hydro is concerned

come the next election. All of us as members in this House are subject to

ratification by the people come the next election. But if I'm elected or

defeated or I run or I don't run, I'm not conceited enough to think that is

going to shake the foundations of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long-term.

What the Premier is about, and if he does it prior to the next election, will

affect the long-term viability of this Province for generations to come. He will

undo the work of a previous generation in giving away the things which have

already been built, and will stymie the ability of another generation to develop

the resources of the Lower Churchill River by selling off the main instrument we

have to do that.

That is a long-term significant negative impact on the future

of this Province and it is not sufficient, I would say, for the Premier to say:

If the people don't like it they can vote me out of office come the next

election. That is their right anyway. The point is that if they vote him out of

office in the next election any government they put in to replace him will not

have the financial wherewithal to go and buy back that which we just sold. The

days of having that kind of money are over with. Frank Moores bought back some

water rights in Labrador at a cost, I think it was $150 million, back in the