April 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

public galleries four groups of individuals. The first is, eighteen participants

of the Improving Our Odds group in the Bonavista Campus Eastern Community

College accompanied by the facilitators: Mrs. Linda Fraser, Mr. Jeff Green; the

second is a group of sixteen people involved with Improving Our Odds group from

the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde with instructors Donald Blundon and Kay

Lane. The third is a group of thirty-one students from Point Leamington Central

High School in the District of Exploits, accompanied by their teachers, Tom

Stockley and Murray Loveless, and finally, a group from The Keyin All Centre in

Cape Broyle accompanied by their teachers Helen Broders, Michelle Fizzard and

Wanda Gilbert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I questioned the

Minister of Mines and Energy; specifically, I asked if the $1.7 million in the

Budget put in last year, after the estimates had come forward and the Budget had

come forward, was spent on Hydro privatization, and he said, it was very much

less than anything like that and he also said: 'It is such a tiny amount of

money we are talking about that it is almost trivial and irrelevant', and, Mr.

Speaker, we now know that was a complete falsehood, because yesterday the

Minister of Finance tabled a document which showed that government had in fact

spent nearly $1.5 million last year under that subhead on Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of many, in the months

that we have debated this issue the last five or six months, the minister has

shown an abysmal ignorance of the facts related to privatization of Hydro. He is

either attempting to cover up information or he is completely out of touch, or

he has been left out of the picture completely by the Premier, so I ask the

Premier today: will he demand the minister's resignation and put someone in that

portfolio who has command of the information, who can answer questions

truthfully and who can explain government's policy properly to the people of

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon.

member honestly believes what he just said. Maybe he does. I was not in the

House on Monday, but I will get the Hansard now and check, as soon as I get a

copy of Monday's Hansard, that the question was about promotional expenses. We

will see what the question was.

This is what the minister now tells me he was answering, and

his answer in that respect is totally correct, but we will get the Hansard and

see exactly what the question was.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the question was very specific,

$1.7 million in the subhead called Purchased Services under Treasury Board,

Executive Council, Mr. Speaker, and I asked how much of that $1.7 had been spent

on Hydro privatization? That is what I asked, and he said - well, I do not need

to go through it all again. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier will take my

question as a serious question because I meant it in all sincerity.

We now know, in any event, that the government spent, last

year, the last fiscal year, 1993-94, at least $1.5 million on Hydro

privatization. The government has also admitted, Mr. Speaker, that Hydro itself

has hired a galaxy of lawyers, Tory and Tory in Toronto, O'Reilly, Noseworthy

here in St. John's to deal exclusively with this issue, that is Hydro. In

addition we know that Hydro engaged ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion Securities as

financial advisors on privatization. All of these companies have been on Hydro's

payroll for months and they do not come cheap.

Now, I have asked this question time and time again, Mr.

Speaker, but no answers have been forthcoming. I would like to ask the Premier

today: will he tell us how much Hydro has spent in the last fiscal year,

1993-94, for these lawyers, financial advisors, on advertising or on any other

matters related to the privatization of Hydro? Would the Premier provide that

information to the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal first with the comments about

the question the Leader just asked me, the former question. Here I am reading

from Monday's Hansard, 18 April. Here is the Leader's question: "How much has

government and Hydro budgeted to promote the sale of Hydro and how much has been

spent to date?" Now, the minister answered honestly. Now, I ask the Leader of

the Opposition if he is willing to apply the same standard to himself as he

asked me to apply to the minister and tender his resignation because of his

misleading statements?

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other question, I believe the

Minister of Finance has tabled the expenditures of government and that's done. I

will get the answer to the question that he asked about the expenditures by

Hydro and provide that as soon as I have it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we've seen another example of how

the Premier selectively plays with words. The first question I asked was the one

he just quoted. I did ask that question but why didn't he go on to read the next

question that I asked, Mr. Speaker, where I said the $1.7 million in their

budget under Executive Council - the amount wasn't there when the budget was

passed - it's on page 846 if you'd like to look, it's on page 19 of the

estimates. Will the minister now confirm to this House that the $1.7 million was

the amount spent last year by government on the privatization of Hydro? `No, Mr.

Speaker, I won't confirm it. It's very much less then anything like that, if I

know the figures that were spent last year.' Now, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier

stop playing games with the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - will he answer the questions?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You're not recognized yet (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I'm still recognized as far as I can see. I'm

still recognized.

Mr. Speaker, the document that the Minister of Finance tabled

yesterday - I ask the Premier, the document that the Minister of Finance tabled

yesterday shows that government made substantial payments to five companies for

legal and financial advice. I ask the Premier: What were the specific dates that

these companies were engaged by government to work on the privatization of

Hydro? When did they start? Will the Premier table the invoices submitted by

each of those companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will get the information.

I'll lay full information before the House. I don't have it with me in the House

at the moment.

With respect to the question that the hon. member just asked,

the minister didn't say $82,000. Here's what the minister's answer was to that

question. He said: `no, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm any such thing. It was

very much less than anything like that if I know the figures that were spent

last year.' The Minister of Finance then got the figures and he's tabled the

information in the House. Now the minister was speaking off the top of his head,

expressing his view that it was very much less then the $1.7 million. If he was

in error, it was in error on a judgement - he gave the House his honest view of

it at the time. I don't know what else the House can ask of any minister.

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

MR. SIMMS: At the very least, why didn't the minister get

up and apologise to the House for misleading the people of the Province? He

could have done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well you just apologised for him. You said he

was speaking off the top of his head and didn't know what he was talking about.

Why don't you make up your minds over there? Now the Premier avoided answering

the question that I asked him.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I answered him first.

MR. SIMMS: What did you say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I answered him explicitly, that I would

get the full information and lay it before the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, also, the tabled document by the

Minister of Finance yesterday relates to work done in the 1993-'94 fiscal year,

from April to March. I want to ask the minister, or the Premier, were any of

these companies, or any others, engaged by the government in the 1992-'93 fiscal

year for advice on work related to the privatization of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will check and see, but my best

recollection is no, I don't think any of those were involved in that year.

It is possible that - I don't know about Mercer, actually, I

don't think so; no, I don't think anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not related to privatization.

PREMIER WELLS: No. William A. Mercer does work as an

actuary for the government on terms of advice with respect to the operation and

management of the pension plans, but in relation to privatization, my best

judgement at this time is no, they were not, but I will check specifically to

find out.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier. I look forward to getting the

information. I would like to ask him one final question. We were talking about

government's expenditures. Now I want to ask him about Hydro's expenditures once

again. I have already asked about information related to all expenses by Hydro

itself. Can I ask him specifically: When were ScotiaMcLeod, RBC Dominion

Securities, the law firm of Tory & Tory in Toronto, the St. John's law firm that

we have been told about, O'Reilly, Noseworthy, engaged by Hydro to begin work on

the privatization project? Could we have those specific dates, and were payments

made by Hydro to those companies or any others in the 1992-'93 fiscal year? -

the same question I asked for the government expenditures.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Here I am only guessing, so I will have to

check and find out for sure, but my guess is that ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion

Securities may have been engaged as early as November or December of 1992, I

would think, which would take it into that fiscal year to which the hon. member

referred. I believe they may have been doing some work, or they were engaged by

Hydro in connection with the initial proposal that came from Newfoundland Power

with respect to purchasing a part of the assets, and this is how this whole

discussion about privatization arose - where the recommendation with respect to

privatization came from in the first instance as far as Hydro is concerned - and

I think they may have been engaged as early as late fall of 1992, or around

about that time, but I will check it and find out.

MR. SIMMS: And will you provide the House with the

answer?

PREMIER WELLS: I will provide the House with the answer

as to the time.

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

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

Now, it has become perfectly clear that the federal Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans did not have the guts to inform the people of the

Province, and those attending his press conference, of the criteria that have

been established for the new TAGS program. Because the federal minister, of

course, attempted to let everyone believe that there would be consultation over

the next several months on the criteria that would be used to qualify people for

benefits under TAGS.

What the federal minister did was come in, and then, once he

flew off to Ottawa, the criteria became - is starting to become known. The fact

is, Mr. Speaker, that officials from the Department of Human Resources in this

Province have had a twenty-page document specifying the criteria in detail since

Monday. They were called in from all the regional offices around the Province

and briefed on the criteria. The criteria for plant workers and fishermen will

exclude thousand of people from benefits as of the end of this year, December,

and thousands more will be dropped off from the end of December through until

I want to ask the Premier, would he undertake to table a copy

of the criteria that were developed by federal and provincial working groups?

And I ask him: Why have you participated in this cover-up and this charade with

the federal minister in trying to deceive Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that

the criteria were not yet developed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, those excessive and totally

false additional commentaries add nothing to the debate. They are without merit.

Nobody is participating in any cover-up or avoiding anything. The hon. members

yesterday suggested that the criteria was 75 per cent and $20,000. That is

something that is totally related to a proposal on another matter, as far as I

understand it. I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to get

the answer for me today and he will table it at the appropriate time on the

Order Paper to those questions that were raised yesterday.

In terms of the criteria, I wasn't present at the press

release that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had so I don't know precisely

what he said. As far as I know, he provided the full information that was

available. Individuals - officials and, on occasion, ministers, have been

involved in discussions relating to this, but the details of those discussions,

no, I won't table in the House. The results of the discussions, yes, I will

table in the House.

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

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

believe the Minister of Fisheries gave the Premier a copy the day that I

questioned him - it was on Tuesday, I believe. I saw the Minister of Fisheries

bring you over the particular

article on the renewal boards. I saw him bring it

over to you and you read it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial working groups

that designed and fine-tuned the tags program has set targets for the reduction

of the numbers of people who will receive benefits under the program. As we know

there are approximately 23,000 people who will draw benefits for the fist eight

months ending December 31 1994. Three thousand people will be dropped off at the

end of December. The Premier the other day confirmed that figure, between 2,800

and 3,000.

I would like to ask the Premier, can he now confirm that an

additional 7,100 people will be let go in the first four and a half months, from

January 1, 1995 to May 15, 1995? In other words, Premier, isn't it a fact that

both the federal and provincial governments - because there were federal and

provincial working groups, and I'm sure you and your ministers were informed -

that both the federal and provincial governments have agreed to reduce the

number of people on the TAGS program from 23,000 people to 12,900 people in the

first year? That is from May 15 this year to May 15 next year. Ten thousand one

hundred people will be gone after the first year. Can you confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

figures are out to lunch but let me set something else straight first. Neither

government - certainly not this government; I will have to let Mr. Tobin or the

Prime Minister speak for the federal government, but I can certainly speak for

this government - neither government to the best of my knowledge, and certainly

not this one, has targeted any specific number to be taken off. That is not the

approach. The approach in developing this was to deal with a circumstance. Our

objective is to try and deal with it by way of providing compensation for so

long as is reasonably necessary to provide that compensation, but also to deal

with it from two other points of view: fishery renewal and economic

diversification.

The planning has been done on a go forward basis in the

expectation that we would be able to find alternative employment opportunities

and that numbers will come down. This government has clearly stated to the

federal government that if those numbers are not realized, if those objectives

are not realized, then we have to revisit the proposal in the future in order to

deal with the consequences that exist at this time. So to suggest that there is

a targeted number to come off is wrong. No, that isn't so. I will confirm that

this isn't so.

As to the suggestion that another 7,100 comes off between

January and May of 1995, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has a

good deal more detail on this, so I will ask him to deal with that aspect of the

question.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the

opportunity as well, because I think that kind of information should be put

straight from the very beginning so that people aren't unnecessarily alarmed.

The reality is, as stated by the federal minister, that 2,800

to 3,000 will not meet the new eligibility criteria. The new eligibility

criteria for either fish harvesters or plant workers and processors will be made

public either before the end of this week, meaning tomorrow, or very early next

week by the federal minister for everybody to see. Still about three weeks or so

in advance in terms of anybody being impacted on May 15.

The input from the provincial government - also from the

industry, by the way, and the fishermen's union - was clearly along the lines of

establishing that there would be principles agreed to to see that the maximum

number of people would qualify for the maximum period of time up to five years.

Then the eligibility exercise would be gone through some time after May 15 in

that first six months. Everybody is going to be extended to the end of this

particular calendar year and then the criteria will see everyone that is then

deemed eligible through the exercise - 2,800 to 3,000 admittedly will not meet

the new criteria - everybody who is deemed eligible will be entitled to two full

years of compensation at an absolute minimum. There is nobody else going to be

kicked out of the program.

What the projections are all based on is the fact that the

other components of the program may be voluntarily exercised by some of the

people rather than just continuing to accept compensation. If these people

exercise the other options that we laid out in the public statement - a number

of them, the retirement ones, the wage subsidy ones and so on - then some people

may decide of their own volition and voluntarily may decide to leave the program

to exercise the other options.

That is why there are some numbers that are in some of the

documentation that has been exchanged with all the officials, with the two

governments, with the fishermen's union, and with the industry, with FANL and

others, so that everybody understands and has a good knowledge of what to expect

over the next couple of years while the other two components of the program, the

fishing industry renewal and the whole economic diversification question, is

worked at to the greatest extent that the governments can do it.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to say to the minister that he should tell the full

story, because there are a lot of people in this Province - I would say most,

because they haven't been told like they haven't been told the rest of the

criteria, is that the two year period commences May 15. It doesn't commence

January 1, 1995, I say to the minister, and that, of course, ties into the

equation and the numbers that I am bringing out here.

I want to ask the Premier or the minister - whoever is going

to answer for the government - if they can confirm that both governments have

agreed to reduce the number of people getting benefits from TAGS to 9,960 by May

15, 1996, which is two years from now, and to 8,080 by May 15, 1997, which is

three years from now? Can the minister confirm this, because those figures are

coming from the federal/provincial working groups, I say to the minister.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, while those figures may very

well be in some documentation that has been exchanged, there is no predetermined

agreement by the governments or anybody else to remove people from the program.

There have been some estimates made as to how many people might possibly

exercise the other options under the program, as I spelled out in the previous

answer, and that doesn't change, so there are some estimates and some

assumptions made for planning purposes, but there is no agreement by anybody to

predetermine a date on which a specified number of people must exit this

continuing compensation program. That is not the plan; it has not been agreed

to. There are a number of options that people may exercise, and the rate at

which people exercise those options, which the individuals will chose over the

next few months, will determine how many people stay in the compensation program

and how many people go on to other different enterprises and activities.

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

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

the Premier.

Given the apparently intentional vagueness and the

uncertainty of the consequences of the announcement by the federal Minister of

Fisheries, and the Premier's endorsement of that approach in the House

yesterday, I want to ask the Premier why he supports giving less money to fewer

people? Why does he support the gradual unloading of federal responsibility for

destruction of the fishing industry in this Province, and the gradual dumping of

people off the program? Why does he accept that we are to be treated as a

charity case by the federal government, as people who need to be weaned from

federal dependency? Why does he accept those positions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: All his leading again is without merit.

`Given the intentional vagueness'; I don't know of any intentional vagueness,

other than what was created in the member's mind, or what he is trying to create

in the minds of others.

I thought the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was pretty

explicit in all of the circumstances and, as the minister just explained, he

will be even more explicit within a week or so. If he hadn't been making the

statement then, had waited, the hon. member would be rising and complaining

about why he hadn't stated what information he had available at this time, so

let's be reasonable and fair to the federal government in this matter.

Then the question as to why we accept a reduction, why the

government of the Province has supported a proposal that would see some

reduction, and a proposal that forecast that in the future there would be a

reduction in the numbers of people relying on it. There are several good reasons

for that.

responsibility for the consequences of their mismanagement of the fishery. That

is true, but we also have to act reasonably, and be seen to be reasonable people

with our fellow Canadian taxpayers.

The Canadian taxpayers are in a position where they have a

$46 billion deficit in this current year, and we want our people, as fellow

Canadians, to be demanding that they pay even more and greater increases to

citizens of Newfoundland... that we don't take any share of the responsibility

of helping to deal with this massive financial problem? I am not prepared to

lead the Newfoundland people in taking that kind of a position with their fellow

Canadians. They are more sensitive, and the fishermen who are getting these

benefits are more sensitive than the hon. member. They have responded with far

more understanding and generosity and appreciation for what the Canadian people

this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the editorial writers of the Globe and Mail

will be pleased with the answer of the Premier, but the fishermen and people of

Newfoundland will not.

Mr. Speaker, one of the statements released by the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on Tuesday, was that the capacity of harvesting

and processing would be reduced by 50 per cent, but he said on the one hand that

it may not mean the reduction of 50 per cent in the number of people involved in

the processing and harvesting.

In the Industry Renewal Boards being proposed, no criteria is

set forth for choices being made about the renewed or revised fishery and I want

to ask the Premier whether he is prepared and his government is prepared to

insist that the fundamental principle of a sustainable rebuilt fishery would be

the re-employment of the maximum number of our fishermen and plant workers? Is

the Premier prepared to insist upon that as a fundamental criteria of a rebuilt

sustainable fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the

government of the Province took the position that it did with respect to

participation in the Industry Renewal Board, namely, that we would not

participate in a board that simply had as its mandate or its objective the

downsizing of the fishery. Our interest is in renewal of the fishery and

continuation of the fishery as a successful economic activity in this Province,

the objective being in part to make sure that as the fish stocks recover, it's

the fishermen and the fish plant workers of this Province who have priority

access to those fish stocks. That's why we have maintained the position that we

have done with respect to having an effective role for the government of the

Province in the future management of the fishery.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question I have today is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Minister, with the latest foray by Marine Atlantic into their

possible laying off of shore-based workers in Port aux Basques, stevedores that

is, which could possibly affect Lewisporte later on and definitely Argentia when

the season opens, about lashing automobiles aboard the vessels, have you been in

contact with that company of late to try to rectify the situation that they have

started?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not been in personal

contact with the company. I think it was early as yesterday morning I was first

made aware of the proposal, and at this point in time it is proposing changes to

the stevedoring in North Sydney, Port aux Basques and Argentia. I received a

copy of a letter that was sent from the union. I have instructed my office to

arrange a meeting between myself and the officials of Marine Atlantic and I

would suspect that that meeting would convene early next week; either Monday or

Tuesday of next week.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, for your information, I am going to share this with

you. Back nearly two years ago, Marine Atlantic - Mr. Ryder, who is now

vice-president of the company - wrote the union regarding the unlashing of

vehicles; that they were advising their commitment that there will be no

reductions to members in that union related to the unlashing by seamen which may

occur from time to time in the event that good customer service so dictates.

They were not going to do it and now they are toying with people, they are

toying with Newfoundlanders because in Port aux Basques as well as Argentia,

people are down on their knees looking for work and I am asking you sir, as an

honourable man, to evaluate what Marine Atlantic is doing to the services of

this Province and what they are doing to the people of this Province as well,

sir.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not only the people of Newfoundland who are affected

here, it is the people of North Sydney also, but the point that you are making

that the people are going to be affected, yes, that's true. I had to make a

decision in my department recently, where I had to lay off thirty-five people in

my department because of the financial restraints placed on government as a

whole and my department.

From the conversations I have had with Marine Atlantic over

the last week, these are the reasons why they are looking at them; no final

decision has been made. I am aware, at least of the union's side of the story. I

haven't personally talked to Mr. Ryder out of New Brunswick yet. I will be doing

that new week. The union says it was made there but I will be checking into that

and yes, you are quite right, any person who loses a job, it is devastating, not

only to the individual and the families themselves but to the community and to

the area as a whole. We do not want to see anybody lose work but with the

financial times that the Province is under and the country as a whole, these

decisions are being made. It's our job to try to curb it, if it's possible, and

I will be doing that.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The

minister stated some time ago that his department was moving away from the

policy of placing young offenders in group homes and the Department of Social

Services was availing of the services offered by open custody community homes. I

ask the minister, if past character references is sought by his department

before these community home owners are allowed to take those young offenders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in determining the appropriateness

and the credibility of people involved in dealing with youth in this Province,

the department undertakes to try to find out, in as efficient and adequate a way

as possible, how well these people are equipped to be able to look after all of

the people that we deal with in social services, be they in the foster situation

- but there is no question; I don't mind admitting here that there are some

inadequacies in the system but it's something that the department is working

towards, to ensure that all of the youth of this Province are assured maximum

protection - protection with care and understanding.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: From my understanding, Mr. Speaker, the

Department of Social Services policy on being considered as an acceptable open

custody home is that at least one parent must work outside that home. I would

like to ask the minister to confirm this requirement and advise the House if

those regulations are being enforced.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the

department works very diligently to ensure that all of the youth in this

Province, when they are assigned to foster care, are given the best protection

possible. Again, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to point out that there are occasions

when there are cracks in the system but we are making every effort to ensure

that all rules and regulations are followed with respect to maximum care for the

people we serve.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising

from Question Period. I didn't want to bring it up at the time. I would like a

ruling from Your Honour, not necessarily right now, but I wonder whether the

practice of having more than one minister speak in answer to a question is, in

fact, in order? During Question Period, the Premier was answering a question and

gave a fairly lengthy answer, and then it was passed on to another minister for

him to answer the question and to carry on. There are a number of commentaries

in Beauchesne which would suggest that this is not an appropriate practice. The

requirement of brevity in the response to questions is to avoid taking up extra

time, of course. It is my understanding that certainly it is up to government to

choose who will answer a question, and it may not be the person of whom it is

asked, but once a minister is answering a question on behalf of government, then

it is that minister who must answer the question and not pass it around from one

to another and take up the time of Question Period. I would like to have a

ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, because it seems it unduly takes up the time

Question Period and gives an advantage to government in the use of that time if

that becomes a constant practice.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, government has to deal with

questions as it finds them. If members opposite ask questions with two or three

different parts and one minister knows the answer to one part and another

minister knows the answer to the other part, the sensible thing to do is for the

first minister not to waffle around and pretend that he knows but to answer what

he knows and then let the minister who has the more extensive knowledge provide

the answer. Now, if the House is really interested in information, they would do

that, otherwise, if we want to go through the charade, I could have simply said,

well, here is my answer to the comment about targeting. It is false for this

reason. Then I would just sit down and say, I am not going to answer another

question because another minister has the answer. Now, ask it of another

minister. Surely, it is more efficient in the interest of time during Question

Period to treat it the way we did, but if members opposite don't want it that

way, well, that's alright, we will take up more time and go the other route.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to make a short comment, Mr.

Speaker. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it. I realize at times

that the Premier has to pass off questions to other ministers, particularly over

the last few days, because he doesn't have the answers. I can understand that.

We can't expect the Premier to know everything, but we do expect him to know

something, I say to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In this case, of course, this minister

was no more forthcoming than the Premier, so I don't know if there was any

advantage today. Most times the Premier does refer to another minister and we do

get an answer. I have no great difficulty with that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word as well? I

won't take objection to the fact that my friend, the Member for St. John's East

didn't raise a point of order immediately, although the rules are quite

specific, that a point of order must be raised immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, there is no rule to that effect.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he might wish to refer to some authority if, in fact,

there is some authority. I will say simply that in looking through the

Beauchesne commentaries, I have not seen anything directly in point. I did,

however, find a reference which is 418 on Page 123 of the current issue of

Beauchesne. This is a quotation from the debates of the House of Commons, March

4, 1986: The Speaker has stated, "Members may not realize it but questions are

actually put to the Government. The Government decides who will answer." Now, it

would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that would be broad enough - although it is not

specific, that would be broad enough to say that where one minister has specific

knowledge of one part of the question, he or she shall answer, and where another

minister has specific knowledge with respect to a second part of the question,

then that second minister shall answer. Now, I may add that questions are so

broadly phrased that it is sometimes difficult for any one minister to speak

with knowledge on all of them. Secondly, the practice has grown up in this House

- and I don't object to it but it is there and we must acknowledge it and must

accept the consequences, of asking a multiplicity of questions.

PREMIER WELLS: In the one question.

MR. ROBERTS: In the one question. It is not a matter of

standing up and saying: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, here it is. Which would

be the proper parliamentary procedure. What we've grow up with is a speech,

usually with assertions in it of cover up and this sort of garbage, and then a

shotgun of questions written out with great care by Mr. Wheeler or one of the

researchers in the Opposition office.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) for you, Ed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend the Leader

of the Opposition, if he asked questions as well as I did when I was in the

shoes he was in, he will be there even longer than I was, and I've been there

longer than he was, and will have been there when he is gone in a few months, I

will have been there longer than he was.

The point is, with respect to the point of order, that our

rules as I understand them permit the practice. Should Your Honour wish to make

a ruling to the contrary of course we will honour it. It would help if the

Opposition could ask questions a little more specifically and we will do our

level best to try to answer them as quickly and as precisely as we can.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to make a brief

contribution to the point of order raised by the Member for St. John's East, and

not to get into the trivial childish matters that the Member for Naskaupi, the

Government House Leader, raised about his years back in opposition, about 500

years ago or whenever it was he was here. On the specific point raised by the

Member for St. John's East and on the counterpoint raised by the Government

House Leader with respect to a point of order, that is the only point I want to

touch on.

Beauchesne's... what is this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four fifteen.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, 415. It says that it "... ought to be

taken up after the Question Period...," which is contrary to what you tried to

argue a moment ago to the Speaker. So it has certainly been the practice in this

Legislature - lectured by Speaker after Speaker after Speaker, beginning back

before I was Speaker, continued when I was Speaker, and subsequent to that by

former Speakers in this House today - that if anybody has a point of order to

raise during Question Period, raise it after Question Period. You might raise it

during Question Period but it wouldn't be dealt with till after Question Period,

because we only have thirty minutes in which to ask questions.

In terms of how the questions are phrased and all that

nonsense, I won't add anything to what the Government House Leader said, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will consider the points and make a ruling

that is appropriate.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS social and lifestyle factors are having and will have

a tremendous impact on food production and purchasing practices of consumers;

and

WHEREAS an increased flow of food of food and nutrition

information and a greater emphasis on dietary advice and more awareness of

environmental issues are making significant dietary behaviourial changes among

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS food selection and lifestyle of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are having a detrimental impact on their nutritional and physical

well-being; and

WHEREAS the eating habits of our young people are

nutritionally poor for the nation as a whole; and

WHEREAS it has been established that a high incidence of

health problems of individuals attended by family practitioners in this Province

are diet, nutrition, and lifestyle related; and

WHEREAS furthering preventative health care through proper

dietary eating habits and nutrition while practising a healthier lifestyle will

significantly reduce many diet related chronic health problems and obesity at

minimal cost to the treasury; and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN:

WHEREAS governments need to set guidelines and

encourage the food industry to make nutrition a primary consideration in the

development and marketing of foods;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorses the

continuation of efforts of the present Administration and the development of a

public policy on food and nutrition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry it is too

complicated for my friends on the other side, but I'm very pleased to present

this resolution to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a follow-up again to the question asked yesterday by the

hon. the Opposition House Leader, and the undertaking given by the Premier to

provide the information about eligibility criteria, just to state once again, so

that everyone is clear, the federal minister has indicated that the details will

be provided to every person currently receiving compensation under any of the

programs, because we are merging in this instance three different programs into

one.

The eligibility criteria will be made public either tomorrow

or very early next week, as I indicated in the answer earlier. The criteria that

the hon. member was speaking about yesterday are a different set of criteria

altogether for defining a core fisherman for future consideration. It has

nothing to do with eligibility. All of those matters will be made clear in a

structured, fashioned way by the federal minister, and in advance of that, so

that you can save yourself, probably, the trouble of a question, did the

Province have input? Yes. Does the Province agree that the criteria that will be

announced in a day or so are fair under the circumstances? The answer is yes.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition on

behalf of some twenty-eight residents of my district, as a product of a public

meeting that I held in my district back some time ago, and parts of the petition

have been continuing to come in over the last several weeks. This is part of the

original petition that I did present. It contained some 1,500 to 1,600 names, I

believe, and this one here is one part of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is just part of a petition.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it is continuing to arrive at my

office because there are still more and more people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that a

committee was struck from a public meeting that I held in my district, where

over 200 people attended, and that committee went out about the community and

collected petitions, and they are now arriving at my office. I have already

presented petitions totalling over 1,500 names on the petition. The prayer of

that petition is:

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 as to

whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are continuing to sign this

petition, that have signed it, and are even signing it today in different

businesses and in public buildings in Western Labrador, because they have a

very, very heavy concern about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and the

effects it is going to have on them in Labrador City and Wabush.

This particular government hasn't handled the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro... I guess it is probably the most bungled attempt of any

government to present any piece of legislation, or any offer of any type of

change of policy of a government that has ever occurred in this Province. The

people honestly believe, I think anyway, that this government is attempting to

pull a fast one. They are attempting to be tricky by a half, I guess is a common

Newfoundland expression. They are attempting to deceive the people. They are

attempting to make a deal with some of their rich friends.

That is what people believe, and the reason they believe that

is because the story keeps changing on why this should be privatized. The story

keeps changing why the people of this Province should have to lose their Crown

corporation, Newfoundland Hydro. The story keeps changing on the benefits that

are going to accrue, or what it is going to cost the people in the long run, or

how the people in this Province are going to lose money, whether you are an

individual with a family and a home, or whether you're a business, that because

of this privatization the people who operate small businesses realize that they

are going to have to pay more for their energy that is going to be consumed

within that small business.

They also recognize that one of the things that this is going

to do with the small amount of capital that is available to small business in

this Province to the private sector, which I totally agree with in the essence

that it is going to be with the idea, the premise, that the private sector is

indeed a very important and the most important factor in the development of our

provincial economy, and naturally, the extension of that is the national

economy. But, Mr. Speaker, this, I believe, will be a detriment to the private

sector, and so do most of the businessmen when they stop and look at it, because

they realize, not only are they going to have to pay more for the everyday

consumption of power, they also realize it's going to remove the opportunity to

raise more capital, because it's going to be invested here. They feel that a lot

of capital in this Province is going to be invested here because the return is

going to be greater, because the major shareholders are going to be people from

outside the Province who will be able to get more return on their investment,

thus, people here are going to be removing capital from the Province in that

manner, Mr. Speaker. Those are a couple of the reasons why small businesses and

consumers -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Finance is nodding his head

in agreement with me. He says, `Yes, that could be a factor.' I'm glad that he's

finally seeing the light and that he's starting to break away from the sheep

that was in Cabinet who were deceiving the people of this Province. The Premier

admitted it back some three weeks ago when he apologized to the people that he

had some super scheme -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: No leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the petition

presented by my colleague, the Member for Menihek, on behalf of a number of

constituents in his district. The member held a number of meetings in his

constituency whereby the people down there, on their own, circulated a petition.

What is coming through loud and clear, Mr. Speaker, from the people of Labrador,

from one end of Labrador to the other - from one part of Newfoundland to the

other - is that is they do not agree with privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Blanc Sablon right up to L'Anse-au-Clair.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into that.

If the Member for Eagle River wants to choose to rent a car in Quebec I would

suspect, Mr. Speaker, if he's spending his own money, it's his business.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Offering good relationships with Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Western Labrador shopping

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. It's strange when the people from Western

Labrador can't bring back a package of cigarettes and yet the Member for Eagle

River can bring back a car.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are

very concerned about the way that government is approaching, number one, the

sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the fact that government wants to

sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now, we have seen a lot of things

happening regarding the attempts - the way that government is grasping at

straws, Mr. Speaker, to try to sell, get rid of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

You know when the government puts an ad in the paper and all the answers -

taxpayers' money by the way, a 1-800 number. But when the registered Liberals of

this Province get a letter two days before it appears in the weekend edition of

The Evening Telegram , Mr. Speaker, telling them to be ready, it's coming,

the number will be public, Mr. Speaker, what does that tell you? If it's `yes',

call in. If that is not grasping at straws, when a Liberal goes into the

post-office and reads his mail and says, `Ah, we got it here boys, it's coming

out this weekend.' He shows his buddies and he checks his post-office box and he

says, `there's neither one in mine.' Oh, he said, `No, you're the wrong colour,

it's only the registered Liberals.' `My dear Liberal friends' or whatever it's

called. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what's going on in this Province and then, as

we heard today, $1.5 million spent to privatize Newfoundland Hydro - $1.5

million - yet you can't keep open hospital beds in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and if you have a conscience, Sir, you

will not be supporting a government that would waste $1.5 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro

when there's hospital beds over here, when there are people dying in this

Province because they can't get into the hospitals. That's where the money

should be spent. That's where the money should be spent, looking after the sick

and the suffering, never mind the bag money, Mr. Speaker, in Quebec and other

places, those who want to get their hands on the property of Newfoundland Hydro

so that they can tax the ratepayers in this Province to pieces, I say to the

Member for St. John's North. That's what is going on. What did the Minister of

Mines and Energy refer to it as? What is the word he used?

AN HON. MEMBER: Trivial.

MR. TOBIN: Trivial. The amount to be spent is trivial.

Well, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that that trivial $1.5 million

could keep a few hospital beds open in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The people

who are dying in this Province because of lack of medical care do not consider

it trivial. And what about $886 million in one year on the Churchill Falls

Smallwood-Wells deal? What about that one, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SIMMS: And $100,000 for the working group on child

sexual abuse.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, $100,000 for the working group

on child sexual abuse. `I am sorry,' the Minister of Social Services says, `we

don't have any money.' Yet, the government can give a trivial amount of $1.5

million to the Rothschilds and another group in this Province to privatize

Hydro. Is that the concern of this government? Are those the priorities? To the

Rothschilds, $538,400. Who are the Rothschilds? The same crowd who were involved

in the giveaway before, Mr. Speaker, of the Upper Churchill, that's who the

Rothschilds are. The crowd who were in bed with the BRINCOs of the world and the

John C. Doyles of the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Ferryland was on his feet.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of residents on

the West Coast of the Province, in Kippins, in Stephenville, in several

districts on the West Coast. There are thirty-four names on this petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: The prayer?

The prayer: they are asking that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize Newfoundland Hydro.

The Premier states that this Province is open for business,

and when the Member for Eagle River takes it to heart and gives his business to

Quebec - yes, he rents his cars from Quebec. He doesn't spend taxpayers' money

in this Province. He pays retail sales tax and all other taxes in Quebec when he

could be spending it here in the Province, and is probably obtaining taxpayers'

money to do that. This Province in open for business in terms of Hydro. It is

open to the business people on Bay Street in Toronto and it is open to the

business people -

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: He only has five minutes - don't be

interrupting.

MR. MURPHY: I understand how many minutes we have, I tell

the Leader of the Opposition. I am quite aware of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Listen to the writer of Andy's letter.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and our standing rules

are quite emphatic, that the member must read the prayer, and the prayer of the

petition must be distinctive, as per our Standing Orders. I didn't hear the

prayer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no requirement that the member actually read the

prayer.

Please continue.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He is only trying to take up valuable time and he doesn't

want to hear the real facts. I usually read the prayer of the petition, but I

just didn't want to take time because there are so many important things to be

said. When the same Premier of this Province who sat in the Smallwood government

when they gave away the Upper Churchill and consented with the Rothschilds, and

the Government House Leader, the Member for Naskaupi, an assistant, an advisor

in whom we confided at the time, participated in the sale of the Upper

Churchill, did you think it was a good deal then, back in the 1960s when you

sold the Upper Churchill to Quebec? No, and you think Hydro is such a fantastic

deal now, and you have hired the same people to give you financial advice.

Well, the simple finances of privatization of Hydro is that

this Province will spend probably an extra $70 million a year that it will cost

us, the taxpayers and ratepayers to pay for the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro. All the Province will save is $25 million a year and they spend anywhere

from $70 million up to $91 million a year with privatization; and still, the

Premier goes out and spends taxpayers' money, $1.5 million on privatization last

year that the Minister of Mines and Energy wouldn't even admit to said it was

trivial; it wasn't worth considering, it was so minor. And they budget another

million-and-a-half this year on the privatization of Hydro that he doesn't

acknowledge.

The people who are going to pay are the ratepayers of

electricity of this Province. The average consumption of electricity is over

1,300 kilowatt hours, and the bill that is coming up in this House today, the

Premier stated when he introduced the bill that an equitable amount of

electricity for a household would be 700 kilowatt hours. Now that's forty-five

dollars-worth of electricity. Anything beyond that we will start paying an

ever-increasing price for the rest of our lives so the investors on Bay Street

in Toronto and eastern townships in Quebec, are going to be able to take 80 per

cent of the profits of that company out of this Province, and it is estimated

that the most money the investment community in this Province could spend on a

privatization is $150 million, which would represent only a maximum of 20 per

cent ownership in Hydro initially, and many people, within a couple of years, it

is projected, would sell their shares and get a return quickly, so it may

decrease to what Newfoundland Power is now, Fortis, owned by probably 10 per

cent of the people of this Province for a resource that we own now.

AN HON. MEMBER: I believe you are wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: You think we are wrong - prove I am; I

would prove

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And we'll never get a chance to prove it

because the Premier will probably do the honourable thing and withdraw the bill.

We haven't seen it in a while and I don't expect to see it anymore. I don't

expect to ever see that privatization bill again in this House for discussion

and I hope I am right. For my benefit and yours, and for the benefit of

taxpayers and ratepayers in this Province, let's hope I am right, because if

not, in 1998-1999 we will be seeing exorbitant increase in electricity when that

three-year cushion has been used up.

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in support of the petition presented by the

Member for Ferryland. He raises a number of very important points related to the

sale and privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The question that we

have - I mean, the $1.5 million that we are talking about is only a fraction of

the money that has been spent to date by the government, and by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro to pursue this deal. And what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,

is, what did the Rothschilds get half-a-million dollars for? Did they get

half-a-million dollars for telling the government that privatization was a good

idea, is that what they got the half-million dollars for?

I am looking at a book here, the one that the Member for

Eagle River likes to quote from about privatization in Britain, and this book,

written by someone named Perry, in the U.K., talks about - he is a great

exponent of privatization, he talks about how the British Government was roundly

criticized in 1984 for giving 3.2 per cent of the sale of British gas to

Rothschilds, over $200 million they gave to the Rothschilds in connection with

the sale of British gas and the government, of course, there was criticized for

that.

Now, this financial organization is involved in this kind of

financial deal and they stand to benefit from it, they gain from this type of

activity and they are very happy to get involved with privatization because they

make a lot of money from it. It is like asking Colonel Sanders whether he thinks

Kentucky Fried Chicken is good to eat. Would you give Colonel Sanders

half-a-million dollars to answer that question for you? You know what answer you

are going to get, so what did the government give half-a-million dollars to the

Rothschilds for? that's what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker. I see the

Minister of Finance smiling over there and grinning and he thinks it's a great

joke that the Rothschilds could make half a million dollars from the people of

Newfoundland for a bit of advice as to whether or not privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a good thing. We know what they are going to

say, Mr. Speaker, because we know what their attitude and their opinion is.

What we have going on here is a big scam by this government

designed to pursue some sort of ideological policy and goal that is not for the

benefit of the people of Newfoundland, but is for the benefit of that portion of

the people of Newfoundland who think that the captains of industry ought to tell

everybody else what to do, how much to pay for their electricity, how much money

they should make and send out of the Province, and how much people like Angus

Bruneau should receive on an annual basis for presiding over a utility that has

its income guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board from the people of

Newfoundland!

That is the kind of the people that this government is

serving by its efforts to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Why is the

Minister of Finance, as President of Treasury Board, sitting down and presiding

over a grant to the Rothschilds of half a million dollars to give him advice

that he wants to hear so that he can somehow fool the people of Newfoundland

into trying to think that this is in their best interest.

Mr. Speaker, the only independent economic study that has

been made public on the cost benefit analysis done by the economist Dr. Wade

Locke at Memorial University, using very generous assumptions - more generous

than even the Member for Pleasantville would give to the government on the

results of this Hydro sale - but using very generous assumptions has concluded

that the net cost to the people of Newfoundland as rate payers will be about $50

million to $70 million more than the benefit to the taxpayers of this Province.

That spells volumes about the wisdom of this idea. Never mind

the ideological pros and cons because there are differences of opinion on that,

says Dr. Locke. He says: I'm not going to deal with that, that is for

politicians to argue about. When I look at the economics of it, he says, on the

cost benefit analysis based on the government's own figures, I see a net cost to

the public of Newfoundland as rate payers far, far greater, to the tune of $50

million or $60 million or more, than the benefit it is to the taxpayers.

MS. VERGE: Per year.

MR. HARRIS: Per year! Forever and ever. As long as the

rivers flow, as the Premier says, into the sea. For every year $50 million or

$60 million or $70 million more of cost to the people of Newfoundland than if

the company was retained as a part of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we've had two petitions and it

is obvious that the members are anxious to get to the debate on the Electrical

Power Control Act. Accordingly I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the

Orders of the Day now be read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. minister that the

Orders of the Day now be read.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against? Carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know what the Government House

Leader has done and all that kind of stuff, but during his absence we presented

two and three petitions, never no more than three and all that. I don't know why

the member decides to cut it off at two. When the acting House Leader was here

there was never any problem. A lot of work was achieved, everything was done,

petitions presented. All of a sudden he is back and he for some reason likes

bringing in the gag order on petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Is the hon. Minister of Justice speaking to that point of

order?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. We've

had two petitions today, I would say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West. He

may be somewhat confused by the fact that they all sound the same. In fact, they

are simply the same petition being presented over and over.

Notwithstanding the advice of my friend for Gander, who is

resisting the `Bring Back Baker' movement, who advised me to suggest to the

House that we couldn't do any real work in my absence, and that is why he let

the petitions go on, the fact remains that this is simply a time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: - that hon. - that is what my friend advised

me. That is why I am leading the `Bring Back Baker' movement and supported by

colleagues on all sides of the House. That this is simply a device to delay the

House. We announced yesterday we are going to call the Electrical Power Control

Act. Everything that has been said with respect to the petitions has been said

before, that is point one. We don't mind people saying it again if they think

that will help. So be it. It is in accordance with the rules.

Secondly and importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is at least as

relevant to the Electrical Power Control Act as it is to anything else, and

therefore we should get on with the business of the House in the legislation.

Accordingly, I made the motion.

My hon. friend didn't really raise a point of order. He is

the first to acknowledge it. All he has done is waste time, and here I am

playing into his hands by doing it.

In due course the hon. gentleman's prevarication will lead to

a prolongation of the session, and he will bear the responsibility for that. Let

it be on his head; except, the trouble is, by then he will be swanning down the

Jamieson highway to Burin - Placentia West to carry out further researches into

the status of tax-paid product, as he does, he assures me, from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, actually the motion

put by the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the motion put by the Government House

Leader was clearly in order. It was carried, and we now move on to the Orders of

the Day. There was really no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could we call Order No. 4, which is the second reading of the

Electrical Power Control Act. My recollection, subject to correction, is that

when we adjourned my friend from St. John's East had the floor. I think he had

just begun his remarks, and we are on a six month hoist amendment moved by my

friend, the Leader of the Opposition, again if memory serves me correctly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 4. The hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader is correct. I had just begun my

remarks when the House adjourned, and I am pleased to have an opportunity today

to speak in this debate on Bill No. 2 and the six month hoist.

The six month hoist we all understand to be for the purpose

of allowing legislation to be further considered and reviewed, and it has asked

that the bill not now be read a second time, but be read a second time this day

hence six months.

Mr. Speaker, given the recent debate, I was going to say

`hysteria' about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but I don't think I will say

`hysteria' because I think that certain members of the government have acted

rather hysterically about the opposition to it. They were rather upset that the

people of this Province have had a say, and have an opinion, and have an idea

what they want and what they don't want, and are not afraid to express it. Some

of the members of the government, and particularly the Premier, have gotten

rather hysterical about that notion of democracy which they had thought that

they had put surely to rest last May 3.

Some people of this Province, in fact not only some, perhaps

the majority, perhaps the vast majority - not enough to satisfy the Member for

St. George's, because he needs 85 per cent, maybe 90 per cent, maybe 95 per

cent, before he will consider changing his mind, but let's say the overwhelming

majority of the people of this Province have taken a stand on the issue of the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now that's not the Electrical

Power Control Act. Let's be clear about that. The Premier hasn't been quite

clear about it, but let's be clear about it. That is on the privatization of

Hydro.

On the privatization of Hydro the people have made their

wishes known and clear, and that is why you may have recalled my suggestion on

the public televised debate that perhaps what we should do, if the Premier was

willing, to withdraw Bill No. 1, if we could just tear that up and come into the

House the next week and pass Bill No. 2. That was what I suggested to him. He

didn't take up that suggestion, and if he had I might have been willing to say:

Well, let's pass Bill No. 2. Let's see if he is right. Let's see if there is

some potential here for doing the impossible. Let's see if there is some

potential here for doing what very few people think is possible, and that is to

turn back the clock, back before the Upper Churchill deal and the legislation

accompanying it gave rights to the sale of electricity until the year 2041 to

the Province of Quebec and Hydro Quebec.

Let's see if we can turn back the clock and see if there is

some way that we can go about doing that. I might have been tempted to do that.

The Premier hasn't said that. The Premier has said: Well, we are going to see,

and we are going to debate Bill No. 2 anyway. We are going to debate it because

we think that it is good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't really until the week before the

Easter break that we really were told what the purpose of the Premier was in

producing Bill No. 2. It wasn't really till the debate got going that we

realized that this was part of some other strategy. It wasn't until public

minded people who had knowledge of these matters were able to assist the public

in understanding what had gone on in the past over this. We now know that the

intention here is to pass a piece of legislation that will have the effect of

allowing the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador to order the

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, or any other utility producing power in

the Province, to sell that power to someone else.

I think - and perhaps the Government House Leader can correct

me, because he is very good at correcting people when he thinks they are wrong -

but I think the Premier said that he would expect that the Public Utilities

Board would be able to direct CF(L)Co to deliver power to a private corporation

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should simply read the

bill.

MR. HARRIS: - at the same price that it is now being

delivered to Hydro Quebec. I think the Premier said that. The Government House

Leader says read the bill. The bill doesn't say that. The bill says that the

which that power shall be delivered.

MR. ROBERTS: And does it not - will the hon. member yield

for a second?

MR. HARRIS: I will yield, yes.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend. I simply ask him

rhetorically, does not the bill also specify the principles and the elements

that the PUB is to take into account into calculating the price, and the other

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping for an

answer, because the Premier is the one who said that that would be an

opportunity for the people of Newfoundland to receive power from the Upper

Churchill at the same price as is now being received from Hydro Quebec. Who is

to say that the Public Utilities Board would think that is a proper price? Do

you think that the fact that CF(L)Co. is going to start losing money in the near

future would not be taken into consideration? Do you think that the fact that

the rebuilding of the Lobstick Dam as required to be undertaken and has to be

capitalized would not be taken into consideration?

Do you think the right of Hydro Quebec to get that power at 3

mils and therefore have to replace it some other way, through atomic generation

or through other hydro sources, would not be taken into consideration? That none

of these factors will have any influence whatsoever on the Public Utilities

Board if ever faced with a decision of that nature? I think not.

What we've really got is some sort of simplistic idea that

the Premier has devised - and it is a long-standing idea, we seem to have found

out, going back to the days when he was chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power

Corporation, as it was then called - that he had this great idea that if you had

a piece of legislation that allowed a private hydro corporation to call for

power from the Churchill Falls contract, that the Government of Newfoundland

could pass legislation that would allow that to happen.

Nobody else seems to accept that. It may be arguable. The

government tells us that we have legal opinions to that effect. Maybe they were

prepared by the Minister of Justice's former law firm. I'm sure these legal

opinions say: Yes, Premier, or yes, government, you have an arguable case there.

It is a case that can be argued. It can be brought to the court. You won't be

laughed out of court. You won't be told that you can't be here. You can present

your arguments; you can make that arguable case. You could put that to the

courts. You can make an argument that will support that, but that's not the

question, Mr. Speaker. The question is, is it a case that can be won? First of

all, is it a case that can be won, and secondly, are there not other

implications for taking that position?

Now, Mr. Speaker, as part of all of the debate about the

Hydro privatization has come this whole Churchill Falls thing and I think

they're two separate issues. They're joined in some ways, but I want to talk

about this act by itself. I'll talk about it in some detail as to how we, in

fact, regulate power resources and prices in the Province. But before I do that,

let me deal with the issue of how -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They are connected. There is a connection

between the privatization of Hydro and the development of the Lower Churchill.

That is, by having an intact Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation, we

will have on our staff, on our team, on the people's side, loyal to the people

only who are the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a group of men

and women whose dedication, whose loyalty, whose expertise, whose experience is

all driven by one desire, and one desire only, and that is to serve its

shareholders, the government and people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Those people, Mr. Speaker, those experts, those

knowledgeable, experienced people who know - from an engineering, from an

economic and from an environmental view - how to deal with projects of this

nature, will be part of our team who will be able to work out, as they have in

the past, arrangements and deals to develop the Lower Churchill power potential

when the time is right, when the economics are right, when the aboriginal

interests have been satisfied, when the project can produce the revenue that it

needs to look after the financing costs, when the engineering work has been done

- and most of it has been done.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, it will be our experts, not ones

that we paid for like the Rothchilds at $1.5 million along with others, to give

us opinions, when we don't know what their conflicts are, what other interests

they have in this type of idea; that we have our own experts, and that's what is

important, Mr. Speaker. That's what is important when a Province like

Newfoundland is negotiating with the Province of Quebec, negotiating with the

power moguls down in the New England States.

We need our own experts who can tell us - and that we can

count on their loyalty and their expertise on our behalf, not on behalf of some

other third parties or on behalf of making fees and generating revenue for their

consulting firms, for their legal firms or for their international financial

firms, but people who are salary, dedicated, loyal people committed to their

employers and their compatriots in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's what we want by keeping Hydro together and that's the connection that I

see between it and the Churchill Falls issue.

Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker, I see as being totally different.

The Premier, himself, has said that in order for Bill 2 to be able to operate,

you don't have to have a privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He said

that on public, Province-wide television, live on CBC, you don't need to have

it. So let's talk about Bill 2 by itself. Let's talk about the principles of

power generation and pricing. In doing so, I want to read firstly from the

Annual Report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the year ending December

31, 1992. In that report, Mr. Speaker, on page 3, as part of the corporate

profile of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it says as follows, `The mission of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro group of companies is to provide electrical

power and energy on behalf of the people of the Province at the lowest cost,

consistent with reliable service, due consideration for the environment and the

safety of our employees and the customers which we serve.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I

support that mission statement. I support that as the goal and the mission of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. TOBIN: You support all of that?

MR. HARRIS: All of that. I support the corporate profile

and the mission statement of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which says that its

mission is to provide, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, at

the lowest cost consistent with reliable service, power, due consideration for

the environment, and the safety of our employees and the customers which we

serve. That is what I support, Mr. Speaker. I don't even see that in Bill No. 2.

What I see are a number of competing principles set out here and there, and a

role for the Public Utilities Board to balance those - not the Government of

Newfoundland, not the people of Newfoundland, but the Public Utilities Board, to

make the decisions to balance those competing interests, the competing interests

of private enterprise who want to make a return on their investment and pay off

their shareholders, to have what is called here a just and reasonable return,

revenue to provide a just and reasonable return, as construed under the Public

Utilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, hidden in those three or four words, `a just and

reasonable return', under the Public Utilities Act, therein lies the problem

with private utilities and the distribution of power in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is recognized by

economists, that in regulating private utilities using the principles of just

and reasonable return that is being used by private utilities, there is a method

of corporate behaviour, or a corporate behaviour that is encouraged, that

incentives are given to under that system.

There are a couple of things that are set. The rate of return

is set. The rate of return is set by experts giving evidence on the stock

market, experts giving evidence on how much rate of return you would have to

guarantee to make sure your shares would continue to be sold and maintained, its

return on investment. All of that goes in, but what happens to price? We have to

start understanding the behaviour of these corporate enterprises which we are

allowing to control our lives.

In the corporate world of regulated industries, an incentive

is given for companies to over-capitalize their operation. The more capital you

employ in your operation, the more money you make. The rate of return is the

same. The rate of return might be 13.5 per cent or 13.75 per cent, but the more

money you can put on the rate base, the more money you can call capital

invested, the more money you are going to get back.

Mr. Speaker, we do have a responsibility to try to understand

that and understand how it works, because that is the major failing, aside from

cost, of the regulated public utilities instrument. Any efficiencies in

operation that show up as a savings to the customer are no good for the utility.

They are no good for the utility, Mr. Speaker, because they don't make any more

money for the utility. If they go to the Public Utilities Board and tell them

how `we made our operation more efficient last year, we cut the following costs,

we cut out $200,000 here, $300,000 here, $400,000 there, we saved in operating

costs, a million dollars,' the Public Utilities Board is going to say,

`Wonderful. You saved a million dollars, now we will take a million dollars off

your rates and we will reduce the power to the consumer.' That's what would

happen.

But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't benefit the utility at all -

it doesn't benefit the utility at all. The chairman of the board doesn't get any

extra marks for that, doesn't get any bonus, doesn't get any extra share options

on top of his $300,000 or $400,000 salary for that because all he has done is

save money for the ratepayers. But he is working for the shareholders, and the

shareholders want more money for them, and if anyone thinks, Mr. Speaker, that

regulated industries or companies like this don't behave in response to

incentives, then they don't understand how the real world works.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The benefits - If the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation wants to learn, then he can listen. If he wants to

speak in the debate, then he can get up and speak afterwards and say his piece,

but if he wants to say that privately regulated utilities don't behave in such a

manner as to maximize their profit, then he is living in a different world than

I am, Mr. Speaker. It's a natural thing for people to try to maximize their own

returns for themselves. So when governments are looking at how to regulate these

things, what we have to start doing, Mr. Speaker, is making the rules in such a

way that the benefits to the company also benefit the consumer, and I don't

think, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing that when we say to private utilities, we

will give you a return on your rate base for every dollar of capital that you

can invest.

We see it happening now in this privatization discussion,

when the Premier and the government are quite satisfied to allow the kind of

cost that we are talking about; the million-and-a-half that the government spent

to the Rothschilds and these people, the other, untold hundreds of thousands,

untold because we haven't been told yet, maybe into the millions. There may be

the `drop in the bucket' or the `What's a million?' Minister of Mines and Energy

- it's only a trivial amount, the million-and-a-half dollars to the Minister of

Mines and Energy, but there may be another couple of trivial amounts; if there

were three or four trivial amounts like that, Mr. Speaker, we would all be

broke. Maybe there is going to be $4 million or $5 million in the Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro books that they will go to the Public Utilities Board next

year and say: `Hey, by the way, we spent $5 million on this privatization, not

counting the commissions onto the stockbrokers, another $10 million or $15

million at least, so we have another $25 million or $30 million, we want to put

that in on the rate base. We want to capitalize that, and in addition to getting

our 13.75 per cent revenue return on investment for all the other capital we

have invested, we want to get 13.75 per cent on this $20 million or $25 million

or $30 million,' or whatever it turns out to be. And when you go to a Public

Utilities Board hearing, Mr. Speaker, you will see the private utilities coming

in, saying, `Oh, we spent $5 million on a new computer system. Now, it is not a

computer system that we are going to use in one year, we are going to use it

over ten years or fifteen years or twenty years, so we think we should amortize

it over that period; we think we should add that $5 million or $10 million to

the rate base,' and the Public Utilities Board will say: `Well, is this capital

or is this is not? and if they can decide it's capital, yes, they will say:

`Okay, you add that to the rate base and we will give you 13.75 per cent on

that, too.'

Now, what does that do, Mr. Speaker, that encourages - I see

the Member for La Poile is listening and he tries to understand these business

principles. Maybe he will respond to this. Every chance that a public utility

will get they will go the Public Utilities Board and make new excuses for

capital expenditure because they know that every cent they can spend as capital,

they will get 13.75 per cent on it. That is what drives public utilities, that

is what drives the salaries of the Angus Bruneaus of the world. The more money

they can pile on to the capital, to the rate base, the more the shareholders get

and the more Angus Bruneau and the chief executive officers and the other

officers are going to get by way of salary and bonus and dividends and stock

options and everything else that they get.

That is a how private utilities operate, Mr. Speaker. That is

how the world of corporate enterprise works. It doesn't work by providing on

behalf of the people of the Province, electrical power and energy at the lowest

cost consistent with reliable service. It is not there to do that; the role and

the job of the chief executive officer and the board of directors of a private

utility is to maximize the profit for its shareholders - two entirely different

things.

On the one hand, public service - delivery to the people of a

basic essential need that provides heat and light and ability to cook at the

lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service, taking into account the

environment and the safety of the customers and employees. That is what the job

of a public utility is that is owned in public hands like Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

What is the mission statement of Fortis Inc.? It is to

maximize the return to its investors and shareholders. The providing of

electricity, that is only the means of making the profit that goes on on the

other side. It could be widgets. Anyone who went to business school or ever did

a business class, they don't care what you produce; they don't care what you

manufacture. It could be widgets one day, it could be watts or kilowatt hours of

power the next. It doesn't make any different, the principle is still the same:

maximize the return on investment, maximize the amount of money that goes back

to the shareholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I have three minutes left. The Member for

Port de Grave says I haven't said anything yet. Well, if the Member for Port de

Grave and his colleagues are prepared to give me another thirty minutes, I will

be quite happy to educate him some more if he wants to listen. But I only have

three minutes left.

I wanted to use the time that I had to outline my views on

the distinction and the difference between electricity and the goals of a public

utility such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as set forth in its mission

statement which I support, and the goals and the operation of a private utility,

such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and what drives them, what motivates

them, and how our Public Utilities Board and how the Electrical Power Resources

Act, how that acts to further the interest of the private enterprise and not the

public good that is set forth in the mission statement of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

I would suggest that the previous piece of legislation we had

more closely guards the public interest in the production of electricity by -

this is: "An Act To Control The Rates Of Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro And To

Declare A Provincial Power Policy" - as being more in keeping with the power

needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I've said before, if I had

my druthers we would be finding ways of nationalizing Newfoundland Light and

Power, not trying to find ways to pass over to private enterprise, Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro Corporation with a mission statement that I support and that

is for the ultimate benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on the

motion as well, as put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, where he moved the

six-month hoist on this piece of legislation.

I believe that is a fair request, to ask the government to

provide six months whereby they can go out and meet with the people, to go

around this Province and to hear what the people have to say, rather than

implement this piece of legislation.

I believe that the people of this Province should have some

input into this legislation, the act to regulate the electrical power resources

of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I believe very strongly - I wouldn't want to

disrupt the Minister of Health, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wake him up.

MR. TOBIN: I don't want to wake him up. He can continue

to do his crossword puzzle that he is famous for doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that's right. You put up your head and

you react.

At the same time, I say to him, I hope today he dealt with

the -

DR. KITCHEN: My colleague said to ignore you totally.

MR. TOBIN: Your colleague said - which colleague was

that, now?

I say to the Minister of Health, what he should have done was

ignore the former Minister of Health, because it was the former Minister of

Health who set up on the Burin Peninsula the deal with the former chairman to

become regionalized on the Burin Peninsula, and nothing else would happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) helicopter?

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the helicopter.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know anything about the trip he made

with the helicopter. I don't know what that is about. Who was that? Which one?

The Hydro helicopter - the Hydro plane.

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition was requesting

was six months for the people of the Province to have an opportunity to have

input into this piece of legislation, and I don't believe that is anything but a

very fair and reasonable request. Why shouldn't the people of the Province have

input into this piece of legislation?

I would suggest that most members opposite don't even know

what this piece of legislation is about. I would suggest that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They didn't know about the other one,

did they?

MR. TOBIN: They didn't know about the other one. The

Minister of Finance admitted he didn't know about the last one. He got up in the

House and said - he was contradicting himself one day and the next day, and he

finally said - the Minister of Justice said something was in it, and

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He said I should read this.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell him that I have read it, and

I hope he is listening, because he is going to hear it now.

`The Electrical Power Resources Act provides for provincial

control of all powers produced in the Province to meet the energy needs of the

customers in the Province at the lowest possible cost. By the Premier's own

admission, its real purpose is to gain access to the low-cost power that flows

to Quebec under the Churchill Falls power contract. The legislation will

certainly be challenged by Quebec, and will eventually come to court, probably

to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Capturing some or all of the power locked up in the Churchill

Falls power contract has been central to the economic energy and political

policies of Newfoundland governments since the Smallwood era. Under the

contract, the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation agree to supply virtually all

of the 5,225 megawatts of power produced on the Upper Churchill to Hydro Quebec

at an agreed price until 2041. Newfoundland can recall only 300 megawatts to

meet its energy needs, which is virtually a worthless option since it is less

than half the power needed to warrant the cost of building a transmission line

to the Island.'

So the situation we have is that in order, as I understand

it, for a transmission line to be feasible to come to the Island, we need 800

megawatts, and under this agreement, the Smallwood/Wells/Roberts agreement of

the development of the Lower Churchill in the past -

AN HON. MEMBER: SWR.

MR. TOBIN: SWR - Smallwood, Wells, Roberts, John Doyle,

the Rothschilds, all the same crowd, Mr. Speaker, the only one missing is John

Doyle and we all know why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why didn't they name you? Mr. Speaker, if I

had been Speaker I would have named you a long time ago but unfortunately I

wasn't and I'll tell you something, it'll be some often you'd want to name me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, some often he came close to naming

you. He only named one member I believe, while he was Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: That's right and I can tell you - I say to the

Minister of Social Services that the member you named had a lot of firsts in

this Assembly.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Electrical

Power Resources Act returns to the (inaudible) policy of the 1970s but with a

slightly different strategy. Previous governments used the front door, that is

legislation and Order in Council's aimed directly at gaining access to the Upper

Churchill power. Mr. Wells proposes to use the back door. That is legislation of

general application and orders issued by a quasi arm length agency, the Public

Utilities Board.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government in their attempts to get

their hands back on the agreement that he was a part of - he advised the

Premier, as a minister in his Cabinet. The Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker,

at the time was a parliamentary assistant to the Premier, advising the Premier.

Both of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Government House

Leader were members in this Legislature when Smallwood decided to give away the

Upper Churchill. They voted to give away the Upper Churchill. Now, Mr. Speaker,

I don't know but the Minister of Health - no he wasn't at that time, no. He was

not involved, he was not in politics - but they were there and what happens?

What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that the present Minister of Mines and Energy is

not involved in this piece of legislation to the extent that he should be.

The present Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker, went

to debate a couple of weeks ago in Corner Brook, number one, with the Member for

Humber East and before they got to the debate the executive - and I want to

point out the executive of the Corner Brook Chamber of Commerce decided they

were going to agree with the privatization. I only wish the Member for Humber

East had debated it with the person who made the most - it may be more

interesting to see what knowledge they base their decision on. When they had the

debate in Humber East, in Corner Brook, while the executive had already approved

it the members of the Humber East Chamber of Commerce that night appeared on TV,

Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear anyone who supported the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro. There was one, Mr. Speaker.

Then the following week the Member for Humber East and the

Minister of Mines and Energy were invited to participate in a debate by the

Baccalieu Chamber of Commerce in the great district, I believe, of Trinity - Bay

de Verde, in Green's Harbour. Now I want to point out that the Chamber of

Commerce was not strictly a Bay de Verde Chamber of Commerce. There were people

there, Mr. Speaker, from - it's made up of people from several districts;

Trinity - Bay de Verde, Bellevue, Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Port de Grave, five

provincial districts. Mr. Speaker, are they five Conservative districts? Are

they five NDP districts? No they're not. They are five Liberal districts.

What did they say after the debate took place between the

Minister of Mines and Energy and the Member for Humber East? What did they say

when the ballot box was put on the table and a secret ballot given? Two-thirds,

Mr. Speaker, of the membership present, not the executive, two-thirds of the

membership present voted against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. We ask why? Because like everyone else in the Province except the

Premier, they opposed it.

The Member for St. John's South went out and had a meeting in

his District.

MR. MURPHY: I did.

MR. TOBIN: Yes he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: When he went out and had a meeting, he went

out and had a meeting. The Member for St. John's South went out and had a

meeting and he has to be given credit, and I will give it to him. Everybody was

talking about having meetings in their region. The Member for St. John's West,

the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for St. John's North, they didn't

go out and have meetings with their constituents. The Minister of Mines and

Energy has not gone back to his own constituency with this horrendous piece of

legislation. He has not gone to explain it to his own constituents, and one must

ask why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You didn't have one either. You didn't have a

public meeting either, I would say to the Member for St. George's.

DR. HULAN: Sir, I had three public meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. TOBIN: No you did not.

DR. HULAN: Yes, I did.

MR. TOBIN: No you did not.

DR. HULAN: Sorry, I did. I had one in McKay's, one in St.

George's, and one in the Codroy Valley. I'm sorry.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I don't know what the Member for Port au

Port is talking about. If you had three meetings. I'm not sure what he was

talking about.

DR. HULAN: You won't get him up. (Inaudible) meeting in

the Codroy Valley with 250 people.

MR. TOBIN: How many?

DR. HULAN: Two hundred and fifty.

MR. TOBIN: On Hydro?

DR. HULAN: On another meeting (inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that was during the election campaign!

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

MR. TOBIN: That was during the election campaign you are

talking about now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognised the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is probably -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, but to be fair to the

Member for St. George's I was probably - I'm responsible for getting him

involved in that debate and I want to apologise to the House for doing so.

The fact still remains that he never went out to his District

and had a public meeting on Hydro!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are misleading the House!

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

I want to remind the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West

that he is now debating the bill on the Electrical Power Control Act and that he

should be relevant in this -

MR. TOBIN: The six-month hoist.

MR. SPEAKER: The six-month hoist, yes. The Chair fails to

see (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why it should be done. I agree. Why it

should be done. And why the six-month hoist should be -

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

The Chair fails to see the relevance of the direction that

the member is going in, so I ask the hon. member to be relevant.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. The

point of the matter is we are debating a six-month hoist and that is to give

people an opportunity for six months to go back to their districts and hold

public hearings and public meetings. The Member for St. John's North hasn't done

it. The Member for St. George's went out and had public meetings, but he never

had them on Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, he is misleading the House

(inaudible).

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

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell you one thing about it, I

would say to the Member for -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: St. John's North.

MR. TOBIN: I know. I can't say what I want to say.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Better judgement.

MR. TOBIN: Better judgement, yes. What this bill is

about, what we are debating now, is the six-month hoist, I say to the Member for

St. John's North. That is six months to give people an opportunity to go back

and meet with their constituents, if they haven't had time already, to debate

what all this is about. What I'm saying to the Member for St. George's is that

he now has six months to go back to his constituents and he should avail of the

opportunity. That is all I'm saying. That is all I'm saying to him.

The opportunity is now there for the Member for St. George's,

and all other members - the Member for St. John's North - to go back. You talk

about he had 250 people at a public meeting. The Member for St. George's says he

had 250 people at a public meeting. I would say to the Member for St. George's

that myself and my colleague for Grand Bank and my colleague for Waterford

Kenmount attended a meeting last week with 2500 people, a public meeting, at

least 2500.

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for St. George's, far be

it to take advice from the Minister of Mines and Energy. What was it he said?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Trivial.

MR. TOBIN: Trivial was the word he use, that $1.5 million

is a trivial amount to spend. I say to the Members for St. George's and St.

John's North that you would be well advised not to take his advice because I am

sure you do not believe that hospital beds in this Province should be closed

while the Minister of Mines and Energy refers to $1.5 million as being trivial.

What the minister was doing was not being honest in this Legislature. That is

what he was doing.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, you would not know anything about your

information, I say to the Member for St. John's North. How would you know? I

tell him one way he can put a price on it, and that is if he had a meeting in

his district.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you told the truth we would not have

to spend the money.

MR. TOBIN: What a sick argument. How would you know, a

man living in Florida half the year and then comes back here and tells us what

is going on. The Member for St. George's should leave. He should leave. That is

what this act is about, trying to get an opportunity. Why the rush, I say to

members opposite, when we have six months? If you approve this today we have six

months to debate it and let people have their say. We know what people are

saying. Seventy per cent of Newfoundlanders are opposed to it. Now, there may be

some changes, the Premier would like to think, when he has a 1-800 number. The

clerk is now phoning the 1-800 number to say he supports it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, withdraw it, he is saying.

MR. TOBIN: I hope he is, Mr. Speaker. The clerk phoned

the 1-800 number. It is here for us all to witness, but he could not get an

answer. There is no one there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He had some important questions but they

would not answer them.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the hon. member take his seat for a

moment while I inform the House of the questions for the Late Show?

The first question is: I am not satisfied with the answer to

my question by the Premier regarding the new Atlantic groundfish strategy, TAGS,

and that is the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

I am not satisfied with the answer to my question to the

Minister of Education concerning the decrease in the number of teaching and

administrative positions at the end of the current school year. That is the hon.

the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

The third question is from the hon. Member for Kilbride to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning the cut to the UI

system and the impact on the Province.

The hon. the member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I was saying that the Premier decided to write

all the registered Liberals in this Province. Now, I do not know how many

registered Liberals there are.

MR. REID: Hundreds of thousands.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs said hundreds of thousands. Well, if there are they all got a letter

asking them to phone 1-800 and say, Mr. Premier, I support it. I will table the

letter one of these days at the appropriate time. What does that tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, it is the truth. It is fact. It is not

my fault. He is never here, is he?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who?

MR. TOBIN: The Premier. He brought in this piece of

legislation, introduced it in the House, and was gone for eight days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right.

MR. TOBIN: Here asking questions, and if he wasn't I was

here asking them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: No, it wasn't twelve times, it was three

times.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Premier has written to all

registered Liberals in this Province. The Premier admitted it yesterday. He said

that government didn't send out the letters but the Liberal Party sent the

letters, may have sent the letters. The fact of the matter is that registered

Liberals in my district got a letter from the Premier of this Province regarding

all the information that was - the Premier of this Province sent out letters, I

say to the Member for Terra Nova, to all registered Liberals in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get one?

MR. TOBIN: No I didn't, but I tell you something, I know

someone very well who did. I know someone in Marystown who very well did. Got

his on a Wednesday morning. The Evening Telegram came out on Thursday. On

Wednesday he got the letter from the Premier. I'm not sure - wait now. I will

table it one of these days and we will all - most of you have seen it anyway.

Probably you have one.

The Member, Mr. Speaker, from Port de Grave. His constituents

were the people who got up the other night and voted to reject the privatization

of Newfoundland and....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Ask the Member for Humber East. The Member for

Humber East went out on the debate -

MR. EFFORD: That must be Doug Moores.

MR. TOBIN: No it wasn't Doug Moores.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Doug Moores supports you, boy. Donates

to you every time.

MR. EFFORD: Yes!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Big donation.

MR. TOBIN: He doesn't?

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: Doug Moores doesn't support you?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, yes.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is the

Member for Humber East went out the other night to the Baccalieu Chamber of

Commerce, the largest in the Province by the way, and they just won an award, I

understand, a major award, for the achievements that they have made. There were

people there from Port de Grave, Carbonear -

MR. EFFORD: Nobody from Port de Grave.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Humber East, there were people

there, weren't they, from all over the district.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Now, including Port de Grave.

MS. VERGE: Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay, and Upper

Island Cove.

MR. EFFORD: No way.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people who were there from

Port de Grave together with the other group, 66 per cent, two-thirds of the

people there, voted against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

MS. VERGE: All business people and all from Liberal

districts.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why is privatizing Hydro wrong?

Why are the majority of the people in this Province opposed to the privatization

of Hydro? Why are they -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: What did you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is nobody opposed to (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, boy. Seventy per cent in every poll done.

What is going to happen is that this government here, Mr. Speaker, by cosying up

to the federal government, by all members opposite agreeing with the

compensation package that is going to eliminate 20-odd thousand people in this

province from NCARP.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is true and I would say to the

Minister of Finance, I find one Baker extremely conspicuous by his silence on

this issue. 20,000 plus will be eliminated from the NCARP package.

MR. BAKER: We will eliminate them all.

MR. TOBIN: No, you won't eliminate them all, that's what

coming off, 20,000 plus.

AN HON. MEMBER: About 18,000 (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, in this Province it is 18,000 but

throughout Atlantic Canada, 20,000 -

MR. EFFORD: That's Tory numbers.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are accurate numbers and you know

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: 17,000 in this Province (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, what are your numbers, I ask the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, what are your numbers?

MR. EFFORD: Ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

AN HON. MEMBER: 17,300 in this Province alone.

MR. TOBIN: 18,000 in this Province alone. Mr. Speaker,

where are these people going to get the money to invest in a privatized

Newfoundland Hydro, a new Hydro, where are they going to get the money to buy

shares, $50,000-unit shares in Hydro, I ask members opposite?

AN HON. MEMBER: $50,000?

MR. TOBIN: I said unit.

MR. BAKER: Ten dollars.

MR. TOBIN: Ten dollars, the Minister of Finance says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten dollars, six and four.

MR. TOBIN: No, you said ten dollars a share. There are

people looking out who are going to invest in units and they are talking about

$50,000; that's what someone said here one day, I believe I heard it. But, Mr.

Speaker, where are these 18,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are coming

off the package going to get money to invest in new Hydro? Where? They are not

going to get it.

The government brought in legislation a few weeks ago banning

the use of All Terrain Vehicles, basically. Now, they can't get to haul the wood

out of the woods, so that wasn't enough, they brought in legislation whereby

they can't cut wood anymore, except six cords and you must have it out of the

woods two months from the time the permit is issued.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I only have eight minutes left. They would

probably include, Mr. Speaker, ten cords and it would be good I say to the

Member for Trinity North, but the fact of the matter is, that people who use

wood today to heat their homes to cook and to do all the other things will not

have enough wood to operate and will not be able to afford to use electric heat

because of the cost involved when this company becomes private.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I wouldn't say that you are the only fellow to

use it. You don't want to sell it to someone who is going to use it, do you, for

$200?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know I have only a couple of minutes left

but I would say to the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, that the people who are coming off the package in this

Province, the 18,000, that this government of which he is a member has agreed to

eliminate from the fisheries, will not be able to afford to heat their homes

when this company is privatized. The Member for Port de Grave and all of the

Cabinet, we have to remember, all of the Cabinet were involved in the decision.

MR. EFFORD: What decision?

MR. TOBIN: The decision to accept the package or the new

package

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: By telling you that fishermen in your district

and my district and all over Newfoundland and Labrador will not be able to

afford to heat their homes, that's what I am saying, and you, sir, were part of

the Cabinet, that the Minister of Fisheries or the Premier brought in a

recommendation and said they are going to strip 18,000 people from the package

and you supported it or you would be out of the Cabinet.

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you that the people who voted for

you (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: So do you support the 18,000 coming out of the

fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Do you support the 18,000 coming out of the

fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to expose the Member for

Port de Grave. Will he give me leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hesitated there for a moment because I was sure that the

Member for St. George's, or the Member for Port de Grave, or one of the other

members opposite who heckled my colleague from Burin - Placentia West would want

to stand in his place and speak for twenty or thirty minutes on this bill, the

Electrical Power Control Act.

This has been put forward by the leader of the members

opposite, and his cohort, the Member for Naskaupi, as the most important

legislative initiative, along with Bill 1, since Confederation, so I was sure

that members opposite would be vying with each other for a chance to have their

say on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is interwoven with Bill 1. Bill 1, the

measure to privatize Hydro, has been resoundingly rejected by the citizens of

the Province, and members know it. The Premier, on March 24 promised, on

Province-wide live television, that if in the end a majority of the population

are opposed to Hydro privatization he would withdraw the legislation, so we have

to assume now that Bill 1 is dead and that the government will not be proceeding

to privatize Hydro. Therefore, it seems quite inappropriate for us here today to

be debating Bill 2.

Now Bill 2 has several measures which relate to the

privatization of Hydro. If those measures were deleted, this measure could stand

on its own, but what would be sensible would be for the government to withdraw

formally Bill 1, the privatization act, and then to pause and revise this bill,

to amend it, reflecting continued public ownership of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier did speak on second reading of

this bill, the Electrical Power Control Act, he gave the House of Assembly false

information. At any rate, it was information inconsistent with what he later

said on his Province-wide TV address.

In the first week of March, speaking in this Assembly, the

Premier answered questions from the Opposition about the impact of provisions of

the bill empowering the Public Utilities Board to reallocate power, indicating

that he didn't know if it would affect the Upper Churchill. Three weeks later,

after feeling the wrath of the public, after realizing that selling Hydro was

hugely unpopular, the Premier asked for free Province-wide TV time. He got it,

as he requested, from NTV, and during his NTV address he made the startling

admission that he had withheld information from the House of Assembly and the

people of the Province about one of his real reasons for wanting to pass Bill 2,

the Electrical Power Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier said, speaking to the House, he

later contradicted in his TV address, so we, having heard an incomplete or a

false account of the government's purposes for this bill from the Premier, it

seems to me the Premier and the government should start from scratch, and the

Premier should give us a revised, corrected explanation. At the very least this

should be delayed for six months for the measure to be put out for public

hearings.

The Premier's remarks have been inconsistent. The provisions

of this bill themselves are inconsistent. One of the principles laid out in the

bill is the provision of electricity to consumers at the lowest possible cost.

That's found in one of the early sections of the bill. On page 8, clause

3(b)(iii), which says, `it is declared to be the policy of the Province that'

and then (b) `all sources and facilities for the production, transmission and

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

manner,' (iii) `that would result in power being delivered to consumers in the

Province at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service.'

Well, Mr. Speaker, the other provisions of the bill which

have to do with privatization of Hydro and which dovetail with Bill 1, will lead

to higher cost electricity generation and higher costs to consumers then would

result from continued public ownership of Hydro. Mr. Speaker, the government

themselves have admitted that over the first five years, despite subsidies and

tax breaks, the cost to consumers would rise by 11 per cent with private

ownership versus 7 per cent with public ownership. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

government, in making those projections, used the best case scenario for private

ownership and the worst case scenario for Crown ownership.

Yesterday, I attended Memorial University Economics Professor

Wade Locke's briefing on his analysis of the cost of Hydro privatization. Dr.

Locke used what I consider to be very conservative, small `c' conservative,

assumptions in his model. He pointed out that he has not been able to get the

government's assumptions, their figures or their calculations because the

government has withheld from the public it's calculations but Professor Locke

and others who've analyzed the Hydro privatization question, do have quite a

great deal of relevant information. We have the financial statements of Hydro -

some of us haven't been able to get the most recent statement, the minister is

withholding that but I gather from listening to Professor Locke that the Hydro

officials recently gave him the most recent Hydro financial statements or some

information contained in those statements.

So we have Hydro financial information, we have Public

Utilities Board rulings and records, we have the bills, Bills 1 and 2 of course,

and we have information about utilities throughout Canada, Newfoundland Power,

Light and Power here in the Province. Based on all of those sources Professor

Locke developed a model for analyzing the effects of Hydro privatization. The

effects on the provincial economy in a comprehensive way. Professor Locke's best

guesses or assumptions which he considers to be the most reasonable, lead to the

conclusion that there will be a significant annual and on-going cost to the

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador resulting from privatization of Hydro.

Just for academic purposes he plugged into his model

different assumptions and he had to inject assumptions that most knowledgable

people would consider to be ridiculous to end up with anything like the numbers

the provincial government has been publishing but the pro