Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 30 May 1994 (42nd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLII No. 51)

1994-05-30

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

May 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 51

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Today I received a letter from the medical

staff of the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre confirming what I

was talking about last week, and now expressing their concerns as doctors, in

writing. Their concerns are about the impact of budget cuts on health care in

that region which stretches all the way from Baie Verte to Lewisporte, down to

Bay d'Espoir and so on. In that letter the doctors say that the Central

Newfoundland Regional Health Centre has had $730,000 cut from its $33 million

budget - and this is for the Minister of Health, obviously, by comparison they

say the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's has been asked to save only

$700,000 from a $110 million budget, and St. Clare's asked to find $350,000 from

a $48 million budget. They asked the question, and now I would like to ask the

minister: why has the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre been

levied such a disproportionate share of cuts in the health care Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. The first

one is that the normal procedure for these budgetary reviews is for the board in

consultation with their staff to respond to the Department of Health's request

for this money, and to either propose alternatives, at least to discuss it. The

response from the Central Newfoundland Regional Hospital Board came to our staff

on Friday so I suggest that this discussion is very premature.

The second point I would like to make is that many of the

other hospitals in the Province, including the ones he mentioned in St. John's,

have taken considerable cuts in the past with respect to beds, and we do not

necessarily go across the board and say, take 2 per cent off everybody. We look

at the effects of what we are proposing to do.

What we want Grand Falls to do, what our proposal was, and I

have not seen the response yet, except this morning I had a quick look at what

you had there, but I have not had the official response from the board in my

hands. What we are trying to do in Grand Falls is to encourage more same day

surgery and that type of thing, and other parts of the Province are considerably

ahead of that area in that respect.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if the Minister of Health has seen a copy of

this letter or not. I understand it has gone to the Central Newfoundland news

media but I will send him over a copy because there is a

section in the letter

in particular that talks about the closure of beds when he talks about other

hospitals having to take their share of closing beds, I don't think any have had

to take as big a share as the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre.

Now this centre as he knows is responsible for primary health

care to about 70,000 people and it provides specialty services to about 120,000

people in that entire region. Services have already been pared to the bone,

whole hospital wards have been closed; there are shortages of medical

internists, ear, nose and throat surgeons, paediatrics, obstetrics and

gynaecology and radiology; this is their own explanation.

Now they say publicly, the doctors, the medical staff at the

Regional Health Care Centre: 'Efforts to recruit new physicians already quite

difficult will be made even more so by the reductions imposed by our budget'.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: This is not me, this is not the

Opposition crying wolf, this is a statement from the medical staff themselves at

that health care centre and a very serious matter.

I would like to ask the minister: Does he or does his

officials have a plan in mind about how money can be saved and how services

maintained at an acceptable level, and in their letter again, they say the

professionals don't know how to cope with the problem in Central Newfoundland.

Could the minister enlighten them?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, again, as I say, the people who

sent that letter jumped the gun. The procedure is in place. What they should do

is communicate their request or whatever their comments, to their own board.

Their own board then corresponds to the Department of Health and evaluates the

thing on a professional basis and that is how it is done.

That letter did not reach anyone in the Department of Health

until this morning or I think on Friday, and the overall reply to our request

for these cuts or whatever you like to call it, these budget adjustments or

whatever, arrived in the Department of Health on Friday past, so it is premature

for the doctors to go public; but they did, and I suppose we will have to cope

with it but we won't cope with it on the basis of that. We will examine their

requests and the requests of the board, as this may be part of a whole series of

things, and respond to it in due process. The process is in place. Everyone else

follows the process and I suggest that the physicians in Grand Falls also should

follow the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish for once the minister

would pay attention to what is happening around the Province with respect to the

delivery of health care services. I think that is the difficulty that we face in

the Province, and the medical staff at Central Newfoundland are only trying tell

the minister what their reaction is to budget cuts. We know there is going to be

$750,000 cut from their budget, regardless, so I wish he would take it more

seriously.

Now in the past the minister has referred to the shift to

same day admission surgery as a possible solution, and there may well be

something to that, and the doctors even suggest that, but they do insist that

you take the time to get the facilities and the services in place and then

assess the effectiveness in such a far flung rural area that is served by the

Central Newfoundland hospital. To me, that is very reasonable.

I would like to ask the minister: Does he think that is an

unreasonable suggestion? And will he be working out a funding arrangement then?

Does he think he will be able to work out a funding arrangement with the board

that will maintain services while alternative, maybe less costly, procedures are

being implemented or put in place?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, that is what the process is.

That is exactly what the process is. The people in the district, in the area of

the hospital, come back to the department and say: Look, what you are proposing

here is possible; what you are proposing there is a bit awkward; we should like

this. That is the process, and it is a process that is time-honoured; it has

been there for a number of years, and it is what we follow.

What I find strange is that people thought that, even before

we had our response from the board, that the physicians decided to go public.

There is no purpose in going public. It doesn't add to the thing. Hopefully it

won't get backs up. It hasn't got my back up, but it is just a very poor - it is

not the usual procedure; let me leave it like that, and it is non-professional.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason they have gone public is because this

minister continuously stands in this House and ignores the problems facing the

people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And comes back with smart comments like: The

House is burning down, and cry wolf, and Opposition fearmongering. That is the

kind of response.

The reason they have gone public is to try to wake the

minister up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That is the reason.

Mr. Speaker, the medical staff are talking about concerns

they have about health care delivery, not just about the budget cut now,

$730,000, but over the past number of years.

In this letter they say - they apologize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question, please.

MR. SIMMS: If I may ask the minister if he has seen the

letter, and is he aware of this quote:

`We offer our apologies to the people of this area for our

reduced capacity to meet their expectations for medical care,' that's what the

doctors say in writing. They are now saying the waiting lists will grow. The

minister always dismisses that kind of argument. Mr. Speaker, finally, they say,

when your doctor explains that there are no hospital beds available for

admission, please understand that, indeed, there are no beds available. Now, can

the minister assure the people of Central Newfoundland that there is no reason

for concern?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I can assure the hon. member and the people

from Central Newfoundland that decisions, with respect to health care in that

area, will be made in a reasonable way. The points that the doctors have made

and any additional points made by the other members of the team in Grand Falls,

including the administrator and the board, will be taken into account in what we

do and what they do, but as of this moment we have not been able to analyze that

because we haven't received it in time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of Treasury

Board. It concerns the ongoing negotiations between the NLTA and the Government

of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I understand that negotiators for the government

and the NLTA have been into a marathon negotiating session since yesterday about

two o'clock and it has lasted throughout the night. I wonder if he could give us

an update and tell us exactly what the status of these negotiations are?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I can't comment on the

details as to what's happening but I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he

sees me dozing off a little later to please wake me up.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. Last Thursday, the Minister of Health tabled a

report of a review on third party billings by the Grenfell Regional Health

Service. Now, on page 1 of this report, the authors of the report say they

interviewed the appropriate personnel of the Grenfell Regional Health Services

Board. I ask the minister: Did they interview the salaried physicians whose

third party billings were being retained by Grenfell? In particular, were the

doctors interviewed who have stated publicly that payments for these services

were retained by Grenfell without their consent or knowledge?

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

DR. KITCHEN: It is my understanding, after asking that

question of the three physicians, that this was done and that they had

extensive, by phone conversations, and others with people who are living in

remote areas - that is, areas that are remote from Newfoundland.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was mentioned in the previous report - not the one on

third-party billings - that they had conversations. This report does not mention

interviewing people in remote areas whose cheques and so on - mail - were opened

without their knowledge.

I spoke with a physician who was never contacted, so if the

minister is now on record as stating that they were contacted, I will accept

that, but I will ask him: It is stated in this report that third-party billing

process is -

DR. KITCHEN: What report is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: The report I asked the question on, the

third-party billing report.

DR. KITCHEN: Well, we have two.

MR. SULLIVAN: The third-party billing report.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister doesn't know what report we

are talking about.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I tell the minister, in your

statement last Wednesday, when you tabled the first report, you said:

`Third-party billings will be dealt with by the special committee,' and this is

the committee that is dealing with third-party billings, the one you released

last Thursday. So this is the one on third-party billings, I tell the minister.

He doesn't know what report we are talking about.

Now the report states that the billing processes at Grenfell

are generally accepted by salaried physicians as a condition of employment. Now,

I ask the minister: What is the basis for that statement if salaried physicians

were not interviewed? He stated they were, and the one I spoke with wasn't. Did

the report's author simply accept, I ask the minister, the word of hospital

administrators there, or does he still stand by his statement that they were

called and interviewed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, both reports dealt with

third-party billings. The doctors went into it in very great detail, and carried

on these extensive consultations that I talked about.

The other report, which dealt with the process, the audit

process, the paper trail, and the authority for doing it, that is the one that

he seems to be referring to. I don't believe that they did consult with all

these other people because there was no need to; that was not their mandate.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The authors of the report say, on page 5, that they did a

random survey of the personnel files of salaried doctors at Grenfell, and they

found no indication in any of these files of a specific assignment of

third-party billings to the hospital, and the third-party billings were not

referenced in the letter of appointment.

Now, I ask the minister: Will the minister agree that the

evidence of this report confirms the charges of doctors formerly employed at

Grenfell, and that the third-party billings were made and retained by Grenfell

without their knowledge and consent? That is what this is stating. Will he

confirm that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, if he read further, he would

see, that according to the by-laws of Curtis Memorial Hospital, that arrangement

is in place. That arrangement of third-party billings goes directly to the

hospital board, and the physicians, I think, that he is talking about, were

employed at Curtis Memorial, so this is largely a tempest in a teapot. I don't

know what the motivation is, but that is what it basically is, and it should be

put to rest and forgotten about.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

some questions relating to Hydro. This debate has gone on for some time now and

people of this Province have become very knowledgable of the issues, in spite of

the amounts of money being spent every day now in The Evening Telegram to

buy people's opinions with their own money.

Let me ask the Premier: What is the real reason - this is

what people are asking today - what is the real rationale for the Premier being

so hell-bent and determined to get this legislation through the House of

Assembly and privatize Hydro? Why is he so insistent on moving forward, in spite

of many statements by economists and others - in fact, by our own fiscal agents

- saying that the Hydro debt is totally self-sufficient? And in view of the 1993

Hydro Annual Report, which shows Newfoundland Hydro as a very financially sound

corporation, why is he in such a hurry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is a simple matter, Mr. Speaker, of

restoring the economy of this Province, and restoring the finances of this

Province.

It is important if we are to rebuild the economy, that we

rebuild our private sector that was devastated over the last fifteen to twenty

years. It has to be rebuilt. Adding a privatized Hydro to it will only add to

it. It is not going to solve all of our problems in terms of the private -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) higher light bills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the members ask a question.

I'm prepared to answer it, but I have to tell the House, I'm not prepared any

longer to stand and shout, trying to be heard over the gaggling noise that comes

from the group opposite whenever I try to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: If they want the answers, I'm quite

prepared to answer the questions, but I'm not prepared to tear up my throat any

more, shouting to try to be heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, to get to the question

that was asked by the Member for Mount Pearl, it is essential if we are to

rebuild the economy of this Province and restore the integrity of our finances

and prevent this Province from getting into the mess that we were headed into as

a result of the policies that the hon. member who asked the question and others

are responsible for.

Pretty soon I'm going to provide some detailed information of

just what kind of financial harm they've done to this Province by those

policies, and the extent to which we've moved to correct them. It is crucial for

the economic and financial future of this Province that we continue to implement

the economic and financial policies that we've identified in the Strategic

Economic Plan and we intend to continue to do so. We also intend, Mr. Speaker,

to develop and maintain an acceptable level of public support for those

policies.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, now that today's sermon is over

perhaps the Premier would like to tell us, as well, about the untold damage that

his government has done by placing payroll taxes and gross other taxes on the

private sector of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: While he is doing that, Mr. Speaker, would

the Premier like to tell us how he justifies his statements he just made, in

view of the fact that several of these economists have basically said that

Hydro's debt has no impact on our credit rating or our ability to borrow. In

fact, Dr. Mark Mullins was here a week or so ago, a noted economist

internationally, with Midland Walwyn, and he basically said that we are heading

in the right direction and that this has no impact on us.

Would the Premier like to tell us - people are wondering -

why he is so determined? Who is really calling the shots here, Mr. Speaker, who

is calling the shots? Is it some of the power brokers on the mainland, the

potential investors in this? Is the Premier being controlled here by the private

sector? That is the question people are wondering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with that last question first.

This is another sleazy attempt, Mr. Speaker, to try to colour people's

judgement. Nobody is calling the shots except the people you see sitting in

Cabinet and sitting on this side of the House. Those are the people who decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Hon. members opposite can laugh if they

like but that kind of laughter and derision, Mr. Speaker, has never been

acceptable for intelligent debate. It just demonstrates lack of judgement in the

issue, and demonstrates a lack of confidence in their own judgement on the

issue.

Let me deal with the other questions that the hon. member

raised. Why did we impose the payroll tax? Very simple - because the hon.

member's colleagues in Ottawa at the time were seeking to reduce the transfers

to the provinces, and we, like several other provinces - Ontario included -

moved to correct that reduction in transfers to the Province in the way that

caused the Federal Government and national companies to make the greatest

possible contribution.

We then, Mr. Speaker, eliminated the school tax. Remember the

school tax? Remember the commitment we made? Remember? We eliminated the school

tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we eliminated the school tax,

and the payroll tax was the substitute that was applied to business. Many

businesses are paying less in payroll tax then they would have paid in school

tax, some businesses are paying more. We don't create a perfect situation. Mr.

Speaker, in terms of tax and benefits, I'll answer the hon. members question

specifically. The reduction in corporate income tax, that we've put in place in

the last two years, has caused an increase already in business activity in this

Province and will cause a greater increase, Mr. Speaker. We're moving slowly to

overcome the effect of what the former government did.

The final question that the hon. member raised that I need to

address is the suggestion that it will have no effect on our borrowing. Well

either he doesn't read or he's misleading people, specifically misleading,

because as I read the reports from the rating agencies they made it very clear

what the effect on our borrowing is. One of them even went so far as to say, Mr.

Speaker, that if the government does not achieve privatization of Hydro it would

cause them to review our credit rating. Now I don't know what else the hon.

member wants unless he wants us to go back to the days of the destruction of our

economy which the policies that they put in place have caused.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: First of all let me say to the Premier that

his final diatribe there is absolutely false. The credit agency said they may

reconsider, possibly reconsider, they didn't say they would downgrade. Once

again the Premier is being misleading, just as misleading as this whole page in

The Evening Telegram is. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say one other comment

to the Premier, the members of Cabinet have about as much impact on this

decision now as the backbenchers over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: What I'm concerned about and what people are

wondering is why the backbenchers continue to sit there now that the Premier has

misled them into saying he wouldn't ask them to support this legislation in the

House unless the people of the Province wanted to see it go through, Mr.

Speaker? Now let me ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker, if what we're saying is

accurate, who indeed is pulling the Premier's strings? He didn't address that

question at all, he gave us another sermon. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it's the

people that paid his $50,000 salary. Maybe we're being asked now to spend $50

million a year to pay up for the $50,000 the Premier put in his pocket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that kind of statement is

beneath contempt. It is difficult to imagine that members opposite would pretend

to be conscientious members of the House of Assembly and take that kind of

approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Preaching? You're so desperately in need

of preaching that somebody should have been preaching to you for a long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to ask the

members on this side of the House what they think of privatization ask them,

they'll tell you what they think of privatization! Ask them, ask them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: You have no doubt -

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a secret vote on it and you'll find

out.

MS. VERGE: Free vote.

PREMIER WELLS: Why not have a free vote. You have a free

vote and see what would happen. Have a free vote and see what would happen.

You'd darn soon see what would happen. Now, Mr. Speaker -

MS. VERGE: Would you have a free vote?

PREMIER WELLS: - those kinds of offensive insulting

comments are beneath the dignity of any reasonable person, even the hon. Member

for Mount Pearl. Probably the same people, the people that paid Premier

Peckford's additional salary. I do not know. Those people who contribute to the

political process, many of them frequently contribute to both parties, it is not

unusual. I never know who they are and I do not know whether Mr. Peckford knew.

Maybe he did, I do not know, but I can assure you that I did not.

Mr, Speaker, that kind of approach just clearly demonstrates

their awareness that the people of this Province are coming to recognize the

extent to which they have been misled by the members opposite about Hydro and

the Hydro privatization, that they now have to resort to these kind of sleazy

tactics to try and bolster their argument that is being destroyed. Mr. Speaker,

they should know that it will not work.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the minister responsible for

wildlife, the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture, as it relates to

conservation officers within the provincial wildlife division. These officers

are hired to enforce the law of the land similar to the RCMP and the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. Could the minister tell the House what measures are

being taken to ensure the officers safety by the department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the

last part of the question.

MR. MANNING: Could the minister tell the House what

measures are taken by the department to ensure officers safety?

MR. FUREY: I guess there are rules and regulations in

place. We equip our officers as best we can with vehicles and various

communications equipment. We try our best to ensure safety for officers. I guess

that is what the hon. member asked.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: The second question concerns the vehicles

which these conservation officers have to use. Thirty-one per cent of these

vehicles being used at present are inoperable or in poor condition, while 50 per

cent have mileage in excess of 150,000 kilometres, and 25 per cent have mileage

in excess of 200,000 kilometres. I would like to ask the minister if his

department has any plans in the near future to replace these worn out vehicles

with new modern machinery so that these officers can perform their duties in a

safe and professional manner?

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

minister, when, and what type of vehicles are they planning on transporting,

because these conservation officers carry out patrols in very remote areas and

on several times have had to exercise their powers of arrest. In transporting

the prisoners the wildlife officers have very little security because there is

just one seat in their little pickups so they have to sit alongside their

prisoners. Does the minister not feel this is an unsafe situation for the

officer? I am asking a question, and when is he planning on giving them new

vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: I thank the hon. member for the question,

longwinded as it was. As I recall we started replacement of the vehicles last

year. In last year's budget we set aside - I just forget the exact amount of

money, but we starting replacing them. In fact we should have perhaps started a

little while before that, because I can remember meeting with one of the

wildlife officers in my own district, Mr. Pilgrim, on the Great Northern

Peninsula, and he was telling us about the problems they were having with snow

machines, so we appropriated a portion of that particular Budget to put new snow

machines in place, so that process has started.

I would like to replace all of them overnight but we are

restricted by the amounts of money we can spend.

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

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

I have a question as well for the Minister of Tourism and

Culture. He was absent on Friday, I think, when I asked a question to the

acting, acting, minister, about salmon fee increases for senior citizens this

year. The minister just a couple of weeks ago announced an increase in fees.

They were not paying anything and now they have to pay $20.00 for their salmon

license. I am wondering if the minister would consider phasing in the increase

over a two or three year period so that they will not have to pay $20.00 this

year, maybe $5.00 dollars next year, for the next three or four year, or even

$10.00 and $20.00?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you I have not had

a chance to review the acting, acting, minister's answer, but if the answer that

was in The Evening Telegram reflects what he said I can only concur with

what he said. I should tell members that those fees have not been increased for

fourteen years. Fourteen years is where the base rate has been and we decided to

increase it. As the acting, acting, minister said, if somebody can afford to go

out and buy - those of you who fish, pay for a rod and all of the equipment that

is required, and cannot afford $20.00? I think there is something wrong with

that. I think, as he rightly said, it is a leisure activity. The other thing I

should point out is that all of the revenues derived from this will not cost or

contribute to the Treasury one penny. It won't cost a penny in debt, we won't

have the deficit finance, new officers - and there will be at least forty or

fifty new officers - who will be put on the rivers, which will come directly

from this revenue which will come from these increased fees, something like

$250,000 or $260,000, I forget the amount right now, but I mean - I think it is

around $260,000 to $300,000 from the increased revenues.

Mr. Speaker, I will take a look back at how many seniors have

actually purchased these licences. I see them as a luxury. I think hon. members

ought to as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are talking about the seniors

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

visitors to the Speaker's gallery from the Federal Republic of Germany -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- Dr. Wolfgang Von Gelden, Chairman of the Environment

Committee of the German Bundestag and Mr. Dietmar Schutz, his German Opposition

critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery, Mr. Edgar Crann, the Mayor of Chance Cove in Bellevue

district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 105 citizens

of Newfoundland from Seal Cove in White Bay; from Topsail, Trepassey and St.

John's.

These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are amongst the hundreds of

thousands of people in this Province who are opposed to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They regard the production of electricity as an

essential service for the people of the Province and should be controlled by the

people; and these petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House to demand that

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a

Crown Corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some comments in the House

today by the Premier, referring to distortion of the facts by what he says, the

people on this side of the House, and I have had occasion to review advertising

in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, that is being paid for at public expense which is

called: THE FACTS ABOUT PRIVATIZATION, but really should be called, a DISTORTION

OF THE FACTS ABOUT PRIVATIZATION.

Now this advertising, Mr. Speaker, appears on the back page

of The Evening Telegram , I think it is a special arrangement with the

publishers of The Evening Telegram to obtain the back page, because it is

more visible than anywhere else; it has appeared on Friday's paper, Saturday's

paper, Sunday's paper and today's paper. I don't know how much money of the

people's money the government intends to spend to try and propagandize them

about this issue, but let me review some of the distortions of the facts.

For example, I am just taking them at random: Fact No. 4.

There will be no layoffs: There will be no layoffs, that's fact No. 4 and this

is apparently based on the situation in Nova Scotia, when the Nova Scotia Power

Corporation was privatized and 400 jobs were lost; 400 jobs were lost, they

weren't laid off though, so there is going to be no layoffs, there is just going

to be 400 less people working. This is distortion of the facts about Hydro

privatization, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about layoffs, they won't be

officially laid off, they will just lose their jobs and those jobs will be gone

and not replaced with anybody else.

Fact No. 8. Financial benefits will continue; and then it

goes on to say how the Province is going to save $25 million per year in

interest in perpetuity. It doesn't say that the people of Newfoundland are going

to have to pay $50 million or $60 million a year more for electricity. It

doesn't say that, Mr. Speaker. Distortion of the facts on privatization. What's

the financial benefit to a taxpayer in having savings in revenue or expenses of

$25 million on the one hand and having to pay out $50 million or $60 million on

the other hand?

Fact No. 5. Hydro remains a Newfoundland company; Well, what

does that mean? Does that mean it belongs to Newfoundlanders like it does now?

No! What it means is, its head office is going to be in Newfoundland, it is

going to be owned by somebody else, it is going to be owned by

non-Newfoundlanders, it is going to be controlled outside the Province. The fact

that some of the directors or even a majority of them reside in Newfoundland and

Labrador does not mean that it is a Newfoundland company, and that comes from a

Premier who blames the opposition for distorting the facts?

Fact No. 3. All rates will be regulated; Well of course they

will be regulated; they will be regulated by the Public Utilities Board who will

ensure that the equity owners obtain a rate of return on investment of in the

order of 13 per cent or 14 per cent, when the present equity owners, the people,

receive 5 per cent or 6 per cent, so there is a guaranteed return on investment,

guaranteed to raise the cost of Hydro power and electricity in this Province.

That is fact number three.

Fact number two, Labrador power developments are not

affected; Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The whole tie-in

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the expertise, the ability, the financial

capacity to provide the revenues to ensure that CF(L)Co has the financial

ability to continue with the expenditures that are going to be required for

Lobstick and other improvements in the near term, and to ensure that

Newfoundlanders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Need I say more, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is a new petition, so I

don't know if anybody else wanted an opportunity to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is going to speak to the other one.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay wish to speak on the petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Then I will recognize the hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise to support the member on his petition, and

I would just like to correct a couple of ministers over there who don't really

pay attention very much, but it is not usual for them to pay attention anyway.

The petition comes from all over the Province. This member

accepted petitions, like so many of us have over on this side of the House, and

who are not afraid to stand up and talk for anybody in the Province who wants to

speak against this privatization of Hydro, I say to the hon. members. It is so

shameful to look over across the House and see so many of them - I don't know if

it is revengeful or what - the way the look at us as we present petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, after seeing more advertisements

in the paper again this week, and after speaking to the people in my district,

the same question comes back time after time. When is this Premier going to take

the message from the people of this Province? He is like a man who is in a poker

game, who has put in so much money, and he is trying to call a bluff; but the

problem is that people have already got all the information. Remember one part

of the poll, the most important part of the poll that came out just recently.

Sixty-four per cent of the people of this Province say they are informed.

The Premier keeps getting up day after day and saying we

misled; the Opposition misled; you misinformed. The Greg Malones of the world

have misinformed you, the Cy Aberys of the world, don't listen to those people.

They are all telling you falsehoods about the privatization of Hydro.

When is this Premier and this government, as he turned to his

backbenchers today, going to stand up and say what they really believe? The

privatization of Hydro is not what the people of this Province want. They are

informed, I say to all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, time after time the Premier has downgraded every

influence as far as the open lines go, the petitions that we get up and present

day after day in this House. We have said it before, all hon. members on this

side, we will continue to do that until the cows come home, until somebody on

the hon. side of the House stands up and finally says: You are right; we did

inform everybody. The $2,500, is it, for -

MR. SIMMS: Each ad.

MR. SHELLEY: Each ad, $2,500. Open up your Evening

Telegram .

MR. SIMMS: Seven grand just over the weekend.

MR. SHELLEY: Seven thousand dollars this weekend.

The taxpayers of this Province, telling them: Now listen; I

know you think you made an informed decision, but we are going to tell you that

you haven't; we are going to straighten you out. You are all too stupid to

understand it. The Opposition is too stupid. So they are going to put it back

time after time.

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering, and I would like to ask the

Premier, if he would stay in the House long enough - he is gone again now,

probably in Toronto by this afternoon, if he would stay in the House long enough

- how long, that is the question, are you going to keep going, keep presenting

and wasting taxpayers dollars on something they already told the Premier that

they are informed about? That is the question.

When the Premier mentioned earlier today about a free vote, I

just wonder, as the time goes, and the polls, I don't think it should be a free

vote. I think they all should stand up in their place and say why they support

the privatization, and then have to answer to your constituents in the next

election.

MR. SIMMS: Sure he said five times, no to a free vote.

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, no; that is the word continuously

from the Premier. So I am wondering now, and the question is on everybody's

tongue, like the Member for Mount Pearl mentioned earlier today: What is the

real reason? Who is really pulling the strings on this? Who is behind it all?

The trust is not there, I say to the hon. members. People

don't believe the Premier. They certainly don't believe you when you stand in

your place and say you support it and it is the best thing that could happen to

this Province.

I think the bill will be brought forward soon again, I really

think it will be. When Hydro will be privatized is another matter, but you will

get your chance to stand in your place. There is still time, I say to the hon.

members, to stand up and say - even say it to your Premier as the pressure is

put on you in your caucus room - to stand up and say: We've listened long

enough. Time and time again it has been consistent, the polls have been

consistent. The open lines that you don't give any credit to remain consistent.

The petitions that we raise in this House are real people, whether you believe

it or not. They are people who signed their names. Yes, I agree with some hon.

members, somebody might have signed the same petition twice. Big deal.

No matter how much you discredit the open lines, the

petitions, the demonstrations, the Greg Malones, the Cy Aberys -

MR. SIMMS: The letters to the editor.

MR. SHELLEY: The letters to the editor. Who is writing

all these? Do you think we orchestrate this? We don't orchestrate it. It is

plain and simple, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what it takes. They are so

bold-headed in their way, in their.... There are so many times when we stand up

here one day and we presented a petition and somebody said: How many names do

you have? One of the hon. members said: Twenty-seven. He said: What, only

twenty-seven? We presented hundreds of them. No matter how many petitions - if I

presented one with eleven - the poll is consistent. Sixty-eight to 70 per cent,

over two-thirds of this Province, are saying no to this Premier.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to again make

a few comments with respect to the petition presented by the Member for St.

John's East and supported by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay with respect

to privatization of Hydro.

I just want again, since the members opposite don't seem to

have any hesitation getting up day after day, talking about the same bit of

nonsense in my view that they (inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) support the teachers!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to again

point out for the record, because again people sometimes, for whatever reason,

actually get a written record of the proceedings here in the House in Hansard

and look at what is said, and because of the fact that members in the Chamber

are basically pledged I guess to say what they feel and know to be true, then

people reading those things would assume that what they are reading is the

truth.

To point out again that sometimes certain aspects of the

debate don't get a lot of public play. Today again to remind that in the

questions in Question Period the hon. Member for Mount Pearl talked about - here

is the kind of thing that the Opposition gets on with as to why they are against

Hydro - maybe we are selling Hydro because the Premier has to pay back the

people who paid his salary when he was the Leader of the Opposition and the

members opposite wouldn't call an election so he could sit in the Legislature so

he could draw his salary. They wouldn't call an election so he had no job, so

there were some people in Newfoundland who put money into a fund so he could get

paid. They are saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - well, he knows who they are so he is paying

them back, that is why we have to sell Hydro. That is about as much sense as

what they say makes.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, to point out again the great

foundation to which their opposition is based - the hon. Member for Humber East

is my favourite, because she gave them some very suspect legal advice in the

beginning on which they started to say: We are giving away our water rights.

Because she read a certain

section as a lawyer and advised the caucus that: This

means you are giving away the water rights. Tried to make Newfoundlanders

believe that you weren't allowed to go up and fish up back of the dam, you

weren't allowed to do anything, something different was going to happen, Mr.

Speaker.

It was all shown to be completely false. They know the

difference but neither one of them, not one, will stand in this House and

acknowledge that they've since checked. They know the difference but they still

put out the great lie hoping that some people will be in fact scared into

thinking there is something wrong, because we are giving away something to do

with the water rights.

Here is the story I want to put out again with respect to why

it is members opposite are opposed to this group supporting the privatization of

Hydro. It is because the hon. Member for Humber East put forward in this

Legislature - you can read it in Hansard - the proposition that Premier Wells

scuttled a deal on the Lower Churchill so he could give away all of Hydro on the

Island, knowing full well that there is absolutely no relationship between

anything in Labrador and this privatization. No relationship whatsoever.

Here is the story we are supposed to believe. The Premier

went to Mr. Chrtien when Mr. Chrtien was Leader of the Opposition - he was not

yet Prime Minister - and because Mr. Chrtien happens to have a sister who is

married to Mr. Desmarais, who happens to be one of the great financiers in the

country - and last week, Mr. Speaker, I rose because they were asking the

question: Did Mr. Wells, as Premier, meet in the United States on his last trip,

with Mr. Desmarais and Mr. Chrtien? of course, the insinuation was, to finalize

this little deal they cooked up. So here was the Premier, and the rest of us

supposed to support the Premier, turning around and scuttling what's in the best

interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, having nothing to do with

Churchill Falls at all, so that he, in fact, could do a favour - so we could

sell Hydro to Mr. Desmarais at a bargain basement sale price. Mr. Desmarais

could make a fortune, Mr. Speaker, this is the proposition - and they're

agreeing, this is their proposition -Mr. Desmarais is going to make a fortune,

and because Mr. Desmarais is married to Prime Minister Chrtien's sister, Prime

Minister Chrtien is going to be so enamoured by the Premier he's going to

appoint him to the Supreme Court. Now, that's the proposition.

That speech was made here by the hon. the Member for Humber

East on at least five or six different occasions, and that was the great expose

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I believe she also gave the full story on

Open Line with Bill Rowe. And I believe she ran in the Legislature one

night around 10:30 p.m. and phoned Bas with the same story and said: We finally

found out why it is that this crowd is selling Hydro. It's because the Premier

cooked up a deal with Mr. Chrtien, whose sister is married to Mr. Desmarais,

who's going to buy Hydro, and it's all bad. Now, never mind what's in the bill,

never mind what's in Bill 1, never mind the fact that Bill 1 has nothing to do

with the Lower Churchill, never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with

giving away water rights, never mind all of that. That, Mr. Speaker, is what

we've been told in this Legislature, why members on this side are supposed to

agree with members on that side that this is a bad deal, it's bad for

Newfoundland and Labrador and we should be against it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker, the whole lot

of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

present a petition on behalf of some seventy-five parents and Level III students

in the Deer Lake area, primarily from Elwood, Mr. Speaker, the Elwood High

School in Deer Lake. There are approximately 110 Level III graduates in Elwood

High in Deer Lake, Mr. Speaker, and last night I met with them on very short

notice - a couple of hours from 7:30 - 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. - concerning the

present strike in the Province and the situation that the students find

themselves in.

The petition of the undersigned, Mr. Speaker, the Concerned

Parents and Student Committee, Deer Lake, is that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador make every effort to settle the dispute between government and the

NLTA immediately. Now, Mr. Speaker, there were quite a few concerns expressed

there last night, especially by the students and backed up, I suppose, and

echoed by the parents involved. As I said, there are some 75 parents and the

students numbering 110 graduates.

Some of the concerns expressed there, especially if there's

no deal in the next couple of days, as far as the parents are concerned, some of

them agreed last night they would go as far as not letting their Level III

students write their exams. They would entertain thought of that because, as far

as they're concerned, they don't have - they'll lose two weeks now if something

does happen in the next couple days - it would be approximately three weeks of

schooling and review work and so on, and on June 10, then write exams. So they

even entertained that thought.

They've had some real concerns from universities, especially

outside the Province and government should know the difference of it. Acadia

apparently wrote back to a number of the students and said that they would

probably accept applications from Newfoundland students - probably entertain and

accept them. Dalhousie categorically said to two students, that they would not

based on the present circumstances. So this is the kind of thing that students

are facing, Mr. Speaker, very -

AN HON. MEMBER: Memorial?

MR. WOODFORD: Memorial has already said, I think

publicly, that they would have to take another look at it, and the minister said

in the House that he would possibly ask the university to keep the - I think

it's 70 per cent this year - keep the standards for admission at 65 per cent. I

say to the minister, they also made the suggestion, if there is a settlement,

even this week, that the students be given an extra week or ten days in school,

rather than write on the 10th, they entertained and talked about dates such as

the 19th and 20th and so on, but that is a bridge that will have to be crossed

when they come to it.

They have a demonstration planned for Deer Lake tomorrow

night, and I am sure that there will be plenty of support for the parents and

students there in that particular area, calling on government to try, as they

said in the prayer of the petition, to try to settle this dispute immediately.

The students are caught in the middle. Government knows this.

I don't know what happened in the last few days. I am not privy to what goes on

around the negotiating table, between NLTA and government, but I am privy to the

information in my particular area, and it is incumbent upon me to come here and

express the opinions from the parents and students in my area.

I say to both ministers, the Minister responsible for

Treasury Board, and the Minister of Education, and the Premier who is somewhere

in the building and, I am sure, has the proceedings of the House of Assembly

turned on, to try to do everything possible within the next twenty-four hours to

have a deal struck between the government and NLTA, because the students of this

Province, and moreso, the parents of this Province now, are crying out, saying

to government: Be a little bit flexible, and come to an agreement with NLTA so

they can get back to school and salvage a full year's work that could go down

the drain for the sake of a couple of weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support the petition presented by my

colleague. This petition is bringing into focus in this House the concerns that

parents have for their children's education.

We know the concerns that teachers have for the education of

the children and the students in Newfoundland and Labrador. We wonder if the

government really shares those concerns, because the time has come to reach an

agreement. The time has come now for the tough bargaining to continue. The time

has come to get on with the job, to let teachers do what teachers do best, that

for which they are trained; that is, to teach the children of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Teachers want to get back into their classrooms. They want

the opportunity to finish up this school year. They want the opportunity to give

the children of Newfoundland and Labrador the very best chance they can have to

finish up their graduating year, their senior year, or to get ready for the next

year if they happen to be primary, elementary, or junior high school students.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the government to be flexible, to

understand the viewpoint of the teachers, to be understanding of the viewpoint

of the parents, and in the last few days the number of calls that all members of

this House have been getting from parents shows the great concern that parents

have. This very day in Rocky Harbour and in Norris Point there is a

demonstration going on, because they couldn't arrange a meeting with their

member.

Parents are ready to say to the government: It's time now to

finish up the bargaining process, do what has to be done, dot the i's, cross the

t's, be flexible, be understanding, be considerate, stand up for the children of

the Province, do the right thing, and do it today, so that within the next

twenty-four to forty-eight hours we can have an agreement in place where the

teachers of this Province can do the job that they want to do, which is finish

up this school year, get the children ready for next September, get our

graduating students examined, get the evaluations done, so that we can not have

questions from Acadia, questions from Dalhousie, questions from Memorial,

questions from any other institute of higher learning, saying: We wonder if

these students are ready.

Let's make sure the process works. Let's get a collective

agreement in place, and let's make sure it happens with the utmost haste so that

there is no more time lost. The time that has been lost will no longer be able

to be made up in the next few weeks. We have to salvage what we can on behalf of

the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, and do it now. Don't wait until next

September to get this job done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to rise and say to the hon member that we, on

this side of the House, don't think any differently about the education system

in this Province. We, on this side of the House, understand that there are

pressing demands for children to be given their final exams, and there are

pressing demands to be able to meet the standards for university this September.

We, on this side of the House, are not above being sensitive to the needs of

education any more than anybody else.

Members opposite would have the people believe, from time to

time, that we are over here in total ignorance of what is going on in our

Province, in our communities, and in our families. We would have to be

absolutely isolated from everybody, in confinement, and be isolated from our

families. It is not realistic. Be real. If you are going to say that we are not

doing something, then be fair. We have a Minister of Treasury Board who has been

in a marathon session in the last twenty-four hours, and over the last couple of

weeks he has been at the beck and call of the NLTA, has met with the NLTA, has

been conciliatory with the NLTA, has put very sound propositions on the board

for the NLTA, and we have no apologies to make for that.

We have a responsibility to govern. We can't allow a

situation where we can't manage the school system of this Province. We have to

look out for the small isolated schools of this Province and be able to see that

they have some teachers to put into them, and we are doing that. The Minister of

Education is now proposing a small isolated schools program that will see the

rural areas of this Province protected, and the people in the small schools

enhanced, but we can't do that until we get some degree of control over the

system, which we do not have there right now.

Yes, there are pressing needs for education in this Province,

but I want to assure all people of the Province that we are not ignorant of the

demands, and ignorant of the timetable that is before us. The President of

Treasury Board is an example, an exemplary minister in doing what he is doing in

the last twenty-four hours, in particular, to do his absolute utmost to get an

agreement. If there was any minister in the collective bargaining process who

has gone beyond the call of duty to get an agreement, because he considered it a

top priority of his, then he is the minister who is doing it, for the people of

this Province, for the children of this Province, and for the parents of this

Province. I know that he has as his first priority his job as Minister of

Finance and his being responsible for the negotiations at this point in time.

I think it is important for all people of this Province to

know that we are doing our part. It takes two, and sometimes more, to make sure

that things get worked out to the proper solutions that everyone wants. We can't

come in here and take away the collective bargaining right. We can't come in

here and take away the right to strike. That is something that people out there

fought for and want, and they have every right to execute. Right now, we know

the pressures that are on us but we are doing our utmost. All members on this

side are doing their utmost to try to assist the government in getting a quick

solution to a very pressing problem. I am sure and confident that will be done,

providing we get the control over the education system that everybody out there

wants us get, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition calling upon the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador not to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and

for it to remain a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier sat around a Cabinet table back in

the 1960s when the Upper Churchill was sold, the biggest sellout in Canadian

history that sees $800 million going out over transmission line, out of this

Province and into the coffers of Hydro Quebec.

Just recently, and I've said in this House on numerous

occasions, that in the last several years, Hydro Quebec has been the most

profitable corporation in Canada the majority of these years. A recent edition

of Financial Post shows that Hydro Quebec had the highest net income by

far of any corporation in this country, $761 million net income - the closest to

them being Seagrams, at $490 million - an enormous $271 million more net income

than any other corporation in this country.

The Premier sat around that Cabinet table and thought he was

making a good deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. GRIMES: So did every member in the House. The PCs

over there voted for it too - everybody in the House. Don't be so silly, boy!

Everybody who was in the Legislature voted for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations -

MR. GRIMES: The whole lot of them said it was the best

deal you could get at the time.

MR. SIMMS: What does that have to do with anything?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: It was the Liberal initiative, boy, don't be

so (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) voted for it (inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: - gets a little bit irked.

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

MR. GRIMES: It was a good deal, they said.

MR. SULLIVAN: He gets a little bit hot under the collar -

when the Premier was a Cabinet minister who sat around that table and gave away

the Upper Churchill. I ask: Are the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

and the Premier as confident about this tremendous deal today as the Premier was

back when he sold the Upper Churchill? I say we have a lot to pay for that

price.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) foolishness you get on with

talking (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We are paying in households in this

Province -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) whatsoever, not one thing.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask for protection.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Households in this Province are paying 6.5

cents per kilowatt hour for electricity consumed, while Hydro Quebec receives it

for three-tenths of a cent, and it is going down to two-tenths or one fifth of a

cent in 2015, sold at twenty-some times the value to people in the States,

turning hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of Hydro Quebec, and

making them a profitable corporation at the expense of taxpayers in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

That was a disaster and a sell-out and the Premier is trying

to undo - under the Electrical Power Control Act, he thinks he is going to try

to undo the wrong that he did. The Supreme Court of Canada told him and

everybody else on two separate occasions in a seven-to-nothing ruling that it is

not right. You can't break the contract. It is not proper. The Premier is so

naive to think that he could hoodwink the people of this Province.

Peter Boswell in Saturday's Evening Telegram very

appropriately tells the story. I won't talk about the Meech Lake and the

integrity and the high esteem in which the Premier was held across this country,

but it says: "Even those who support the privatization of Hydro" - the

supporters; there is only 26 per cent of which I think only 16 per cent are only

somewhat in favour, I think it is only 10 per cent strongly in favour - even

these people "must have had their faith in the Premier's integrity shaken a

bit..." When on the CBC Radio Morning Show on Wednesday, they asked him "...in

the face of continued public opposition and in light of his televised promise,

should he not withdraw the privatization legislation..."

Do you know what the Premier said? He responded, that rather,

he should rather withdraw his comments. That is what he said. Can you imagine?

Three times he stated it on public television on March 24. Dr. Peter Boswell

said: "For a man whose political stock... was his integrity, his honesty" -

Peter Boswell, three weeks ago or a month ago, was speaking out in favour of the

Premier! Peter Boswell has seen the light, like 64 per cent of the people in

this Province. That is right, he has seen the light. He said -

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you going to see the light?

MR. SULLIVAN: Nineteen ninety-seven. He said: "For me,

this is the Rubicon..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: You haven't seen the light. You ran for the

PCs the last time and then for the Liberals. Maybe you will never see the light

again. When the Church issue on restructuring comes forward you might never,

never see the light again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You will try to disassociate yourself from

the party when it is convenient for your own political reputation, I say to the

member. Like the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations before the last

election in Central Newfoundland, he tried to distance himself from the Cabinet

and the government decision. But he got his knuckles rapped and stood in this

House and apologized to this House, I say to the minister. Yes, and you betrayed

teachers. When you stood on the steps of this building -

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: With leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to stand and support the petition so ably put

forward by my hon. colleague from Ferryland district. I have to say, the shouts

and the hollers from across the floor - there is an old saying: `The truth is

bitter', and I guess that everybody is fully aware of why this Hydro

Privatization Act is before the House. As the member put forward a few minutes

ago, it is because of the wrong that happened in Newfoundland and Labrador back

in the 1960s and the fact that the Premier is trying to right the wrongs and

maybe, if I were sitting at the Cabinet table and took

part in the decision of

the 1960s by which $800 million a year goes to Hydro Quebec, while an insulting

$8 million flows into the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador's Treasury, I

would be on a guilt trip, too, if I were the Premier.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland just put forward the

profits of Hydro Quebec last year, just short of $800 million profit, and it is

a known fact as I just stated, that $800 million a year flows into Hydro Quebec,

so where are the profits coming from? They are coming on the backs of the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador; they are coming on the people of this

Province who are out of work; they are coming on the people who are presently in

labour disputes with this government, the teachers of this Province, the

ordinary people who go out and work every day in this Province are the people

who are paying the taxes, and that is where the profits from our resources flow

into Hydro Quebec.

I have watched over the past week, and as a couple of members

have stated already about the advertising that has been going on by the

government in The Evening Telegram and other media across the Province

during the weekend, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that this

government is spending so the Premier can get through his message. I say that

there are two sides to every story, and ask how come the government only intends

pushing forward one side, and why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars?

They state so-called facts; well, Mr. Speaker, we can come

back and touch on a couple of these facts that they have stated, and say why I

believe these are not facts, but first of all I would like to talk about the

Premier's promise that was made to this Province on March 24 on Province-wide

TV, when the Premier said, if the people of this Province showed that they were

against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, he would not use the power that

his party has in this Legislature to push it forth, but still, a few days later

he comes back into this House and says without a doubt, that he is proceeding

with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. So you have to ask yourself, Mr.

Speaker, what is the motive of the Premier, when he promised the people of this

Province - and it has been brought forward in polls.

It has been brought forward in two or three polls, as a

matter of fact, over the past couple of months, some upwards of 68 per cent to

70 per cent of the people in this Province are against the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro, and you cannot hide that, Mr. Speaker, because it is done by

independent pollsters, it is done by mainland pollsters and it has been done

with just a straightforward question: Are you for or against the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro, yes or no? and the people had said `no' and have said no

loud and clear. And still, Mr. Speaker, the government intends proceeding with

it.

Also, part of that poll, Mr. Speaker, the people were asked:

did they understand the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? The people once

again, upwards 80 per cent, I believe, said that they understand the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. But the Premier believes they don't

understand it and that's why they are against it, but the reason, I believe,

that people are against it, is because, they know too much about what the

Premier is trying to do here in the House. They know too much about what this

government is trying to push forward in this legislation and that is why the

people are speaking out against it.

As well, in that poll, Mr. Speaker, the people were asked:

How many would like to have a Province-wide vote on this piece of legislation

that is before the House now with regard to privatization of Newfoundland Hydro,

and 82.5 per cent, I believe, said that they would like to have a Province-wide

vote because of comments, I guess, that have been passed in this House by no

less than the Government House Leader, who has said time and time again, that

this is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever brought before the

House of Assembly since Confederation, and here we have the Government House

Leader, who speaks on behalf of the government, who says that this is the most

important piece of legislation before this House since Confederation, and still

the people opposite refuse to go out and hold a referendum or plebescite or

whatever in this Province, so that people can have their say.

Mr. Speaker, I find that very insulting to the ordinary

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. My hon. colleague spoke about Peter

Boswell's column in The Evening Telegram on Saturday. I won't say any

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1994-05-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	1994-05-30
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5e4c7752bf9e452639dc5f03b3b106b15e21c98a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).