March 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all, on behalf

of all the members of the House, welcome the Member for Placentia who was sworn

in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: When I say we are glad to see him, I know

that hon. gentlemen, lady, and woman, will understand that I am speaking as much

personally as politically. We are glad to see him back with a very clear mandate

to speak for the electors of the district of Placentia.

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

MR. SIMMS: The hon. the Government House Leader is not

nearly as happy as we are to see him back, I can tell him that, Mr. Speaker.

Having participated in the campaign with the member, I can tell members of the

House that the individual was elected, and because he was elected it is a

tribute to him and the service he provided to the people for the short period of

time he was there, and a tribute to the people of Placentia for not being

overtaken by that usual election gimmick that is used by the governing party

which says, you would be better of with us on our side, and I am sure they are

some glad today that they didn't vote for the government candidate.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short Ministerial

Statement but let me just say to my friend, the Member for Grand Falls that I

agree with the government member bit. I can recall winning a very famous

by-election in 1974, which was fifteen years before the government lost office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the minister wish to give a statement at this point?

I had not called Ministerial Statements. I recognized the

hon. Government House Leader first.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, or yesterday evening, at

some point, I spoke with Mr. James Chalker, Q.C. I gave a copy to the hon.

gentleman's assistant.

MR. SIMMS: Do you have a copy of that statement?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I have no written statement. I only got

this letter about ten minutes ago.

MR. SIMMS: What time did you get hold of him? Friday

afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will hear from one person at a time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, as I was saying, I spoke with

Mr. James R. Chalker, Q.C., later yesterday after the discussion in the House

and asked him the precise details of the arrangements between him and

Newfoundland and Labradro Hydro, and he has now written to me to set out those

arrangements which are precisely the same as I advised the House on Friday and

again yesterday. I will table a copy of his letter, Mr. Speaker. I provided a

copy to my friend the Leader of the Opposition, or to his parliamentary

assistant earlier, and copies have been provided to the press, Sir.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the Premier accused

me of digging for worms. Today I am seeing some squirming from the Minister of

Justice opposite. Mr. Speaker, this arrangement stinks. I will have more to say

about it later, and I will have specific questions for the Minister of Justice

in Question Period.

MR. WINDSOR: And it's the early bird that gets the worm.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to

announce that Budget Day will be March 17th.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the minister

responsible for the Status of Women.

Today is International Women's Day, a day for women and men

everywhere to celebrate women's contributions. It is also a time to examine what

still must be done for women to be full and equal partners in our society.

Our government has undertaken a number of recent initiatives

which we hope will bring us closer to achieving equality for women in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to take a few moments to update you on

our progress.

To recognize 1994 as International Year of the Family,

Women's Policy Office has distributed copies of the

Federal/Provincial/Territorial paper Women and Men in the Workplace: A

Discussion of Workplace Supports for Workers with Family Responsibilities to

selected employers and union representatives across the Province. I might say,

Mr. Speaker, that when I make reference to various titles of documents and so

on, those are available to any member of the House who would like to have one;

just contact my office or me.

This paper is based on the premise that implementing

workplace supports for workers with family responsibilities is one of the steps

necessary for achieving economic equality for women. Efforts in the workplace

that facilitate the integration of work and family responsibilities will greatly

reduce the stress that invariably accompanies the double work day that most

workers, particularly women, shoulder. Employers who are concerned with

productivity understand that they, too, have much to gain from the development

and implementation of family-friendly initiatives in their workplace.

Gender socialization is the lifelong process by which we

learn how we are expected to behave and act as women and men in our society. By

the time children begin school, they will already have developed beliefs and

attitudes about the roles of men and women and about what activities are

"masculine" and "feminine". Feelings of inadequacy, a lack of self-confidence

and the fear of taking risks are the all too common impacts of negative gender

socialization on girls and women. With the restructuring of our education system

we must be mindful of the need to develop strategies to ensure the learning

culture is one that builds self-esteem, empowerment and social well-being for

girls and women from their earliest years. Our Province led the Working Group of

Status of Women Officials who contracted a University of Western Ontario

education professor to develop Gender Socialization: New Ways, New World ,

a paper examining the effects of gender socialization on girls and women, and

our Women's Policy Office is currently in the preliminary stages of developing

Gender Fair Parenting brochures for parents of young children.

Violence and the threat of violence are depriving women of

their ability to achieve full equality. The Consultation Process to Build a

Provincial Strategy to Address Violence is almost completed. The five regional

consultations were successful in gaining feedback from participants in the

regions and initiating an exchange of ideas. Select representatives who

participated in the regional workshops will be meeting on March 25 and March 26

to discuss the findings of the consultation process and further develop

priorities. Government will then be in a position to commence work on a final

draft.

Other initiatives on violence against women include the

recent publication of Sharing Our Strengths , a manual for volunteer

facilitators of self-help groups working with women who are survivors of

violence, and the Take Action bookmark which I distributed on December 6, which

outlines tips for men and women who want to take personal action to end

violence.

Mr. Speaker, last year at the Annual Conference of Ministers

Responsible for the Status of Women in Canada, I was pleased to take the lead in

developing and gaining the support of my colleagues for a Statement of

Commitment to Women's Equality, which we then publicly endorsed. I think it is

only fitting that I should end with a quote from that statement. "We must

continue to work towards the ultimate goal of full equality within the

priorities and resources of our respective jurisdictions. We believe that strong

government structures for the advancement of women must be maintained and

programs strengthened." In these difficult times, Mr. Speaker, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador reaffirms its commitment to the advancement of women

in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After five years in

office, the best the Minister responsible for the Status of Women could do is

list publications. Two papers, a brochure, a manual, a bookmark, a draft plan

and a statement - words, not deeds.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if any objective person looks at the record

of achievement of this government, examines the actions, a commitment to the

advancement of women will be found to be sorely lacking.

If this so-called Liberal Administration had any real

commitment to the advancement of women in the Province, the government wouldn't

now be threatening to renege on its commitment to pay equity for women in the

public service. If this Administration had any real commitment to the

advancement of women in the Province, the government would not have sat idly by

and fail to provide the small amount of money required to keep operating the

Corner Brook Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: If this Administration had any real commitment

to the advancement of women in the Province, the government would not have

allowed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - the erosion of day care subsidies for small

children with special needs. If the government had any real commitment to the

advancement of women in the Province, the Minister of Social Services would not

be subtracting dollar for dollar, single mothers, child welfare payments from

social assistance.

Mr. Speaker, women have made gains in the Province over the

past several years through their own efforts, more often than not, despite

governments and, Mr. Speaker, this is a day for those women to celebrate and on

behalf of members of the official Opposition, I congratulate women who have

brought about improvements for women in the Province. I urge them to keep up the

effort, the challenge is ever greater and, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of women in

the Province, I implore members opposite not to diminish resources available for

funding and assisting in further advances of women by selling Hydro. Don't

diminish our resources, don't give away Hydro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

public galleries, twenty-one Grade V students from the Park Avenue Elementary

School in Mount Pearl accompanied by their teacher, Miss Margaret Wakeham and

two chaperons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

gallery twenty-two individuals from an Improving Our Odds group from Dildo, New

Harbour, New Shop area, Trinity Bay, together with their teachers Mr. Chipman

and Ms. Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to defer

to my friend from Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I was rudely interrupted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: - I was pursuing last fall the reuse study in

Argentia, and in the absence of the Premier, I would like to address the

question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The Province has a

reuse study that was commissioned by ACOA, with provincial government input,

federal bureaucratic input, and local people from the Argentia Development

Corporation, who did the reuse study. The Province, like I said, has had it

since last October, and I am wondering when we can hope to have it adopted,

please.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon.

member back, as well.

That's a very comprehensive study that was done by an

independent consulting group. It lays out a whole series of issues that have to

be analyzed very carefully, the reason being, much of it has substantial price

tags attached to it. We want to help Argentia and we want to look at the

meaningful things that are in there, such as the American museum, and things of

that nature, but we have to cost all of this out. It's quite one thing to have a

study, but you have to, on the other side of the ledger, cost it out and see

exactly how much it's going to cost to put some of this in motion, and to see

where we can access the money to do these kinds of things.

One of the areas we looked at was the foreign trade zone

concept, as my hon. friend is aware. The Premier has written recently to the

Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of National Revenue,

to try to bring that back from the back burner to the front burner to see, in

fact, if Argentia can be used as a tax-free enterprise zone to lure business

into the area.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I know what you're saying because I've heard it,

but the clock is ticking, and ticking rather fast. Workers in Argentia got their

six months notice, or a little better, Friday past, from the Americans that they

will be leaving, and they got their lay-off notices, and I know that there is

money attached to it, but I was wondering: Could things be speeded up more so

than they are now, because the only ones who seem to be winning down in Argentia

seem to be the Americans, Sir.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's question

as being sincere, and indeed will work to fast track it as quickly as possible.

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

for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I spoke to your colleague, the Minister of

Justice, before the House opened, and the package that the Americans are

offering the Argentia workers, compared to what Canada is offering the civilians

who are going to lose their jobs in Chatham and Cornwallis, since the Budget of

February 22, is apples and oranges, and quite different than what Newfoundland

workers have been offered in Argentia.

I told the Minister of Justice that I'll get some material

for him on this. This goes back to a number of years ago where the base workers

wanted to get a union and it went to trial up in Canada. The notice that they

used was, `purpose and intent' which left the civilians in Argentia in a rather

different state than the Canadian civil servants who are working on bases in

Canada but there is a totally different agreement and totally 'way out of lunch'

monies. So some time today or tomorrow I'll pass you over some documents and

I'll ask both you and your colleague to get together to rectify this as soon as

possible.

Thank you.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice

tells me that my hon. friend raised this just prior to the House opening. I know

that the Premier dealt with Ambassador Blanchard, the American Ambassador to

Canada, as well as senior people in Ottawa. So we'll take it as notice and if

you have further information to supply to us that would be very helpful.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask some

questions of my good friend the Minister of Mines and Energy who by now would

have had lots of time to study all the issues that have been raised over the

last number of days. We now know that the government and Newfoundland Hydro will

jointly fund the cost of a massive advertising and promotion campaign - we have

been told that by the Premier - to try obviously, to turn around public

opposition to the sale of Hydro. I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy,

how much will this campaign cost in total, how much will be paid by the

taxpayers and how much will be paid by Hydro? In other words what is the split,

and please don't tell us that you don't know the answer because surely by now

you have been able to get that information.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the answer to

that. I don't know how much any advertising will cost relative to the selling of

the shares when we reach that stage, assuming that we do reach that stage.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. We're not

talking about the sale of shares, I am talking about the government's

advertising and promotion campaign that the Premier confirmed to me in a letter

yesterday, that's what I'm asking you. So does he know the cost of that

campaign? The Premier announced in a letter to me yesterday that the government

was also going to participate in a public relations campaign along with Hydro.

How much is it going to cost? What is the split on the cost?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I don't know what it's going to cost. I'll

check on it.

MS. VERGE: Do you know anything?

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it rather appalling

that the minister doesn't have the answer. Can I ask the minister if he'll try

to get the answer to the question today? Surely there is an estimate or a budget

put together. I hope that he'll get back to us today on it.

Secondly, a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the bill

before the House, the privatization bill, includes provisions that will allow

Hydro to include all of the costs associated with the sale of Hydro in the base

rate charged to our people, the electrical consumers of the Province. That is

under

Section 15, 4(c), page 19, and it says as the minister knows, "all costs

or expenses of any sort whatsoever relating directly or indirectly in any way

whatsoever to the reorganization or any distribution to the public of shares of

New Hydro and paid or payable by new Hydro," et cetera, et cetera.

We know that the government's share of the cost of this

advertising and promotion campaign will come out of the people's treasury. I

want to ask the minister, will he confirm that Hydro's share of the cost of this

public relations campaign will be added to the rates that consumers will have to

pay for electricity? Will he confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, I'll check on that, Mr. Speaker, and see

what is going to be in the rate base and what's not.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it gets very frustrating if

you're asking the minister who is responsible for this whole situation and he

can't answer simple questions like that. How much is it going to cost? And the -

AN HON. MEMBER: He don't know.

MR. SIMMS: - Member for St. John's South shakes his head

over there because we asked a question. My God! Can the minister tell us this,

Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary, what public relations company or companies or

firms have been given the contract or contracts for this particular campaign,

and can he give us a copy of the public tender that called for this work?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what firm and

I don't know the details.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this, but if the

minister has no better handle on these minor matters, then he should resign his

seat in the Cabinet, that is what he should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Obviously the whole show is being run and

manipulated out of the Premier's office. Let me ask him this. He should know

this because he is familiar with the legislation, or at least, I assume he is

familiar with the legislation, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the PR campaign there will also be the

campaign to promote the sale of shares, which is what he answered in the first

question that I asked. Can he tell us what is the estimated cost or the budget

for that particular campaign, the campaign to promote the sale of shares? Also,

isn't it true that the expense associated with that cost will be added to

everybody's electrical bills? Can he confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that. I

don't have the details of what that would cost at this time.

MR. SIMMS: Will you get it?

DR. GIBBONS: When it is available I will get it.

MR. SIMMS: Will you get it? Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of justice. Yesterday when confronted by Hydro financial records,

the Minister of Justice confessed that Hydro board chairperson Jim Chalker and

Hydro board member Roland Martin have both been personally profiting from

arrangements to sell Hydro. Astoundingly, the Minister of Justice defiantly said

that is normal, entirely appropriate and proper.

I ask the Minister of Justice today: isn't it actually a

gross and flagrant conflict of interest for government appointed directors of a

Crown corporation to be working for personal profit on the sale of that very

corporation? Isn't this unethical, and shouldn't the government both remove Mr.

Chalker and Mr. Martin from the Hydro Board of Directors, and also terminate

their work for profit from public coffers on the Hydro sale?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I long ago learned that the

vehemence of the question and the virulence of the words used simply indicate

the lack of substance, and this was as vehement and as virulent a question as

I've ever heard. "Confessed." I don't know where the hon. lady thinks she is -

I'm sorry, the hon. woman thinks she is.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is to repeat what Mr. Chalker

said in the letter I've tabled today. The arrangements with respect to his

retention were approved by the Hydro Board of Directors, not by the government.

Mr. Chalker is being paid by Hydro at the direction of its Board of Directors.

That is neither a conflict of interest nor inappropriate. In my view -

MR. TOBIN: Who owns Hydro?

MR. ROBERTS: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

own Hydro until and unless it is sold. Mr. Speaker, the services provided by Mr.

Chalker in connection with this matter have been all but invaluable. Hydro quite

properly has paid for them. I wouldn't expect Mr. Chalker to work for free any

more than anybody else in this world works for free. We would have been

negligent in the extreme - "we" being a very broad word to include both the

government and Hydro - if we hadn't taken advantage of the expertise of a man

like Jim Chalker. I for one am very glad we've had him, and having been through

a number of the negotiating meetings - not all of them, by any means, but a

number of them in the Cabinet level - I can tell you that we, the people of this

Province, are a lot better off because of his advice and assistance in this

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the Premier is

a lot better off thanks to Jim Chalker too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I have a question for the Minister of Mines

and Energy. Yesterday I tabled Hydro financial records generated by computer

showing substantial payments by Hydro to Jim Chalker's law firm, Chalker, Green

& Rowe, and also Roland Martin's firm in Halifax, up to early January of 1994.

I'm told, Mr. Speaker, since those computer records got out,

under orders from the top - obviously higher up than the minister - Hydro

changed its accounts payable record keeping by taking it off computer and doing

it by hand. Will the Minister of Mines and Energy now produce for the House and

the public all the records of Hydro or government payments to Jim Chalker

personally, or Jim Chalker's firm, as well as records of all payments to Roland

Martin personally or Roland Martin's firms? Will the Minister of Mines and

Energy reveal the total take right up to date of Mr. Chalker and Mr. Martin?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that

somebody was deliberately leaking information internally in Hydro, Hydro had to

take some action to change the arrangements. They have changed the arrangements

but they are not, I understand, doing it by hand, as the hon. member is

suggesting. I think I answered that question yesterday. I have no knowledge that

anyone is doing it by hand, but there is a change in the process, there is a

change in how it is being done. I am not going to say right now - I am going to

get the records. I don't have the records at this time and it will be some time

before this process is finished.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

The minister just admitted to a cover-up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that

at the end of the day it is the taxpayers of the Province and the electricity

rate payers of the Province who are going to have to pay for Mr. Chalker's work,

Mr. Martin's work, and all others in the galaxy the Minister of Justice referred

to yesterday. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Mines and Energy make available

to this hon. House and the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador all information

about payments made to date, and obligations incurred to Mr. Chalker and his

firm, Mr. Martin and his firms, as well as others in the following list given

yesterday by the Minister of Justice, law firms, the government's law firm,

Hydro's law firm, the underwriters law firm, the mainland counsel retained by

each of those three law firms, the financial advisors to all hands and the

consultants?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the Province are going to

have to pay for all of that. Will the Minister of Mines and Energy lift the

order of secrecy and open all this up to the public who are going to have to pay

for it in the end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in due course, all of this will

be appropriately accounted for through the appropriate audits and everything

else. Right now, what is being done, is done in such a way that it can't be

released by those who internally, clearly have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: - unfortunately - breaking the rules and

leaking information out that they should not be leaking out.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up.

DR. GIBBONS: It is not a cover-up. What is being done is

being done legitimately by a legitimate firm in this city and all the records

will be appropriately audited in due course, and made appropriately available in

due course.

MR. TOBIN: What a cover-up! What a cover-up!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health is not here again today for Question

Period so I will direct my questions to the acting Minister of Health. The

Assistant Executive Director of the Health Sciences Complex says that

dispatching an ambulance from St. John's was the proper way to handle an

emergency in Witless Bay. She said volunteer fire departments are not part of

the emergency response team. I ask the minister has there been a change in

policy, and are the only people who can now be dispatched to 911 calls, those

who work at the Health Sciences Complex?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that

question under advisement and pass it along to the hon. the Minister of Health,

who, I am sure, will deal with it in the appropriate manner.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the immediate past

Minister of Health and I want to now ask another question, if he would also pass

this one along: All emergency calls, both medical and fire-related, in the

Witless Bay area, are placed through the 911 system. Forty-nine calls were

received by the Witless Bay Fire Department in 1993 and twenty-one of these were

of a medical nature. I have reports of each call. If the Witless Bay Fire

Department is tied into the 911 system and has responded to medical emergencies

in the past, why were they not called on the night of the fatal death of

Sylvester Lynch?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice as

well. I should say to the hon. member, though, he hasn't been around a long

time; that is really an Order Paper question which could be perhaps more

appropriately dealt with.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) too long trying to get

answers.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) - you don't put that on the Order

Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a final

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important that this area, which doesn't have ambulance

service, are not left without medical attention. The Witless Bay Fire Department

has seventeen personnel highly trained in CPR and twelve in oxygen therapy. Now,

I ask the minister: Will he pass this on to the Minister of Health and ask him

to give a commitment that steps will be taken to ensure that qualified medical

attendants closest to the site of a medical emergency are dispatched until an

ambulance arrives?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Last week the minister confirmed, approximately $40,000 that

Jean Payne got from ENL was issued for the purchase of equipment. The minister

said ENL has been unable to locate that equipment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is standard practice for any lender to

requirer a borrower to take out a chattel mortgage on loans used to purchase

equipment, so let me ask the minister this: Did ENL follow standard lending

procedures in this case and require Jean Payne to sign a chattel mortgage?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this issue

publicly on a number of occasions. Mrs. Payne had a meeting with the ENL people

on Friday morning. I haven't had a chance, because I've been in Ottawa for other

meetings - at the CRTC and so on. I am told, though, that she had a good meeting

and that it will be worked out. We require other information, and once that

information is forthcoming then, hopefully, this matter will be dealt with.

I have also said, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to pamper

Mrs. Payne, nor are we going to persecute her. We are going to give her fair and

reasonable opportunity to deal with this properly.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister must

have on the best pair of skates available to anybody in the Province today. I

asked him a simple question. Did ENL follow standard lending procedure when

money was loaned to Jean Payne, and require her to sign a chattel mortgage, as

they do with other lenders, or as they do with other people they loan money to?

Can the minister answer that question, yes or no?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I said many times when dealing

with this issue, yes there was a chattel mortgage on stenographic and computer

equipment, supported by a promissory note and a personal guarantee - yes, I have

said that publicly; I have said it here; I have said it outside, so maybe the

hon. member should stop skating backwards.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister

that a chattel mortgage on equipment, or a chattel mortgage, requires that the

owner, or the person who borrowed the money, cannot sell, lease or dispose of

that equipment without guarantee or consent by the lender - in this case,

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

In view of that, how is it possible, I ask the minister, that

the minister could stand here last week, and again today, and say that ENL does

not know where that equipment is? Can the minister answer that question? Where

is the equipment? Why hasn't it been found?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is really

pushing it now. He is trying to play political games. I don't know if he is

dense, thick, or just wilfully stupid, but what is superseded in all cases is

the personal guarantee. This particular client has a personal guarantee and

that, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps the strongest that anybody could get in any

lending institution anywhere.

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

Kenmount.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the minister, this member is

neither dense nor stupid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: We normally give three questions to a

member. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount stood up, so it is between the two

of you.

MR. HODDER: I yield to my colleague.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology that this member is neither dense nor stupid, but this

member recognizes clearly the partisan treatment given to Ms. Payne over the

last four years, and that is what is really going on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, let me ask the minister, in view of

the laws on chattel mortgage, why hasn't the minister taken Ms. Payne to court?

The loan has been outstanding for five years. She has clearly, clearly, broken

the law of this land. She knows what happened to the equipment, and why has the

minister and his department let her fly in the face of that law?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there is definitely a display of

density and stupidity if ever I saw it. The reality is that we are trying to

deal with this particular client in a fair, decent and honourable way, as we

would with any client. We have said, Mr. Speaker, and you have heard me publicly

say this, that if it is necessary, we will exercise on the personal guarantee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, short of shooting the person or assassinating their character

or causing grief for their family, as the Opposition is doing, short of doing

that, Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything legally, morally and responsibly that

the corporation could do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Education.

A large number of the school children of the Province have

been deliberately omitted from consideration in Adjusting the Course

Part 2 , Improving the Conditions for Learning, and I refer

specifically to children with special needs and those children who require

special education services. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the children who

face the greatest challenges in the school system, should merit only a passing

comment in

Part 2 of his departmental proposals for change, and what measures is

the minister taking to include these special children in his programs to improve

the conditions for learning?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Adjusting the Course

Part 1

referred to about twenty-three to twenty-five recommendations from the Royal

Commission.

Part 2 referred to about thirty-five recommendations of the Royal

Commission. The Royal Commission contained 212 recommendations. One of the

recommendations concerning the special needs children in the system recommended

that there is a problem there and that there should be some further work done

before we deal with the problem. The process is already in place, Mr. Speaker,

developing that recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I agree with the

hon. member that it is a very important part of the system, but I would advise

him that there is a

Part 3 and a

Part 4 and a

summary coming of Adjusting the

Course .

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

I thank the minister for his commentary, however, parents are

afraid that their children, who face daily academic frustrations, have been left

out of the process and I hope that this is not the case where the minister is

looking around for, as he is for the kindergarten thing, a curriculum, and can

the minister assure parents that there will be no reductions in funding for

special education programs and that teacher allocations and teacher ratios will

better reflect the Canadian average and that there will be no reduction in the

total provincial allocation of student support services, including the number of

student assistants, guidance and educational therapists?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of this

Province that this Administration will be doing everything that it can to reform

and make the educational system of this Province better for all of our children

and that is getting more and more difficult, Mr. Speaker, because there is a lot

of opposition, and members opposite, some of whom are educators themselves who

know better, should be supporting government in our attempts to reform and make

the educational system better, but they are not always doing that and it is a

shame that they are taking the approach that they are.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Environment and Lands.

I have been advised over the last twenty-four hours by

several fishermen in my district that, while turr hunting yesterday,

concentrating in the area of Colinet Island to O'Donnells, several hundred

pounds of dead codfish have been found floating in the bay. I would like to ask

the minister, if she is aware of this problem?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I might begin, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow

me, just to sort of digress here a little but, three or four weeks ago I had a

call from the media asking me what I thought of Fabian Manning's comment on

something I was doing, and I said: who is Fabian Manning? Anyway, it is one of

those things you can interpret however you wish. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get

back to the question at hand, I am not aware of it. It is not something that in

the normal course of events would be directed to my department, it would go to

the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my grandfather had a saying

years ago; he said when you bother people, the slime and the dirt come so, I

guess that is why the other side of the House is upset today.

I would like to ask the minister, there seems to be an

environmental problem or some type of problem in St. Mary's Bay with regard to

dead codfish floating around the bay. I had fifteen telephone calls in my office

this morning from fishermen and believe me, they may be asking where is the

minister sometimes too. I would like to ask the minister, would she plan on

working with the Department of Fisheries in taking some action to find out what

this problem is and to find a solution to it? Because it seems that the problem

is spreading down into Placentia Bay this afternoon.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that my

department will find the solution, but if it would help the situation I would be

only too glad to make sure that the federal Department of Environment is aware

of the situation. But isn't that his job? He is the MHA from out there and he

should be calling the federal government about it. I've called the federal

government when there is a problem in my constituency. Since I'm so generous and

kind and not really in a bad mood, as he seems to think I am, I will do it for

him.

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

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is the

federal Department of Fisheries responsibility, and they have been notified by

my office, I advise the minister, this morning. Last week in this House she

advised us that she was responsible for the environment, she stressed it in the

questions she was asked. I say, there is the possibility of an environmental or

ecological problem here. I'm asking the minister once again, will she take the

responsibility that her department has in trying to find a solution to this

problem as soon as possible?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I will be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see

that the federal Department of Environment is called. That is as far as I will

be able to go with it unless these fish wash up on land. If these fish wash up

on land then I will be there with open arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table six

copies of an Order in Council that involves a pre-commitment of funds. I would

also like to table, Mr. Speaker, a copy of special warrants, one special warrant

relating to extra expenditures in the Department of Social Services, I believe,

Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: I didn't want to interrupt the hon. member,

Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: Public libraries report, please (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover up.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 the Member for Menihek

asked a question regarding the report of illegal kill of the Mealy Mountain

caribou by residents of St. Augustine, Quebec. Previous to this issue being

raised in the House, Mr. Speaker, the Goose Bay regional wildlife office

received an anonymous call on February 15, reporting that fifty-six caribou had

been taken from Labrador by residents of St. Augustine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: On the fifteenth there was an anonymous call

with respect to this issue. A routine scheduled helicopter patrol was initiated

on February 17, and it was extended in through the eighteenth. During this

patrol ski-doo tracks were discovered at the St. Paul's River and were followed

to the headwaters of Paradise River. Two camps which had been used were checked

and the officers checked the area that had been travelled by ski-doo. There was

no evidence of any kills found anywhere in that area, no evidence whatsoever.

Fourteen live caribou were recorded by the officers during this two day patrol.

There was no significant snowfall between the time of the report and the time of

the patrol as the ski-doo tracks were readily visible.

Considering this and the known caribou utilization of the

area, it's unlikely that the reported killings actually occurred. After this

issue was brought up in the House last Friday wildlife officers investigated the

issue further. Yesterday a helicopter was in the area all afternoon again. These

wildlife conservation officers reported that the complaint of the taking of

caribou has been investigated with no confirmation whatsoever of any illegal

activity and there appears to be no substance to these rumours. However, it

should be noted that we are compelled to investigate rumours, Mr. Speaker, and

rumours sometimes have a costly price tag. So it has cost us a lot of money to

check out these rumours and we find no substance, no illegal activity, and I can

tell you that if there were illegal activity we would use the full force of the

law to deal with it.

Petitions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition I

want to present today on behalf of - in excess of 2,000 people. Mr. Speaker,

this petition which I want to present is to be presented to the Minister of

Environment and Lands and she has left. So with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I

would yield to my colleague from Humber East and I'll get back to my petition

when she comes in. I want the minister to be here when I present it. She is gone

out for a minute so I'll let the Member for Humber East present her petition.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased

to rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf of many concerned

citizens of the Province, residents of Gander, Corner Brook, Steady Brook and

Churchill Falls. The petition reads as follows;

WHEREAS the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher

unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water

rights and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year in

dividends to shareholders:

Therefore, we petition the Premier and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown

owned corporation.

Mr. Speaker, citizens of the Province are shocked as they

learn more and more about the government's proposal to give away Hydro because

that's what people are seeing it as, Mr. Speaker, not a sale but a giveaway.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been built up through

taxpayers contributions. We have state of the art facilities at Bay d'Espoir,

Hynes Lake and Cat Arm. Bay d'Espoir was just paid off last year. It's now

mortgage free or debt free. Mr. Speaker, those facilities are fuelled by free,

eternally flowing water, water that comes from God, water that will flow

forevermore.

The government is proposing to turn all that over at a

ridiculously low price to private interests. Worse than that, and this is truly

astounding, the government is proposing through legislative measures before the

House of Assembly, to give the Minister of Finance the power to transfer to the

new private Hydro corporation undeveloped water rights anywhere in the Province.

So that water rights now owned by the people for the benefit of the people will

be turned over to private interests, many of whom inevitably will reside outside

the Province.

This is an abomination. Collectively, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are haunted by the colossal mistake of the Upper Churchill contract

in the 1960s. The Minister of Justice and the Premier were part of the

government of the day, of Premier Smallwood's government, that entered into that

deal which turned out to be so bad for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As I've

said before, few people of that era could have foreseen the startling rise in

energy costs that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s that rendered the Upper

Churchill contract so bad for Newfoundland and Labrador, that led to such an

unfairly small portion of the benefit accruing to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, for God's sake, these petitioners cry, don't

repeat that mistake! Haven't we learned anything from our history? Didn't we

learn anything from the failure of the Upper Churchill contract? People are

urging the government to back off, to keep Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If

the government has any thought of privatizing Hydro, open up the process for

public consultation and don't dare make a move without having a referendum,

because Hydro is the citizens' birthright. People don't have very much left of

their birthright. Our groundfish stocks have been badly mismanaged, our trees

have been mismanaged. The Minister of Environment must be aware of the mistakes

that have been made in resource management, but we've done a good job of

managing our water resources. Don't blow it, people implore the government.

I join with the petitioners in calling on the Premier and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro as a Crown owned corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to present a petition

myself which involves the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and she

has agreed to remain here. In the meantime it is my intention right now, to

speak to the petition that was presented by the Member for Humber East.

In doing so let me say that I hope that the Minister of Mines

and Energy will respond to the petition. It would be nice to have him in Hansard

saying something other than: I don't know. I think his contribution would be

somewhat greater if he had somewhat of a commitment. I don't blame the Minister

of Mines and Energy, I really don't blame him. The Minister of Mines and Energy

has been pushed out the door. The Premier of this Province has said: I am going

to see that Hydro is privatized, I am going to carry the load for Hydro to be

privatized, I am going to push, bull, bulldoze, whatever may happen, whoever

gets in my way- get!

I would suspect that the Minister of Mines and Energy

probably asked the Premier a few questions that the Premier did not accept. I

would think that, as a result of that, the Minister of Mines and Energy has no

choice. As a matter of fact, today, when you heard the Leader of the Opposition

ask the question about the cost of the advertising firm, the Minister of

Finance, had to turn around and say: Yes, `Rex', there's one on the way. I

witnessed it. Yes, `Rex', it is happening.

The minister did not know and, Mr. Speaker, that is abuse,

and it was embarrassing today for the minister. It was embarrassing for us as

legislators, but it was especially embarrassing today for that minister, when he

had to stand up here and not be able to respond to one question, because the

Premier had not seen fit to invite him into what is taking place.

There is the Premier, the Minister of Justice, Jim Chalker,

and a few others who are involved in this privatization, and there are a lot of

questions to be asked about this privatization and the role that is being

played. What role, Mr. Speaker? Are there some people involved today, on this

negotiating team, who are presently on the board of directors, negotiating the

sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, getting paid to negotiate that sale? I

am just wondering if it is possible that some of these will end up as major

shareholders in the new company, and will they, once again, be on the board of

directors of that new company?

Are there people here today getting paid to negotiate the old

Hydro into the new Hydro, who then will sit as members of the board of directors

of the new Hydro? And some will say there is no conflict, Mr. Speaker? There is

only one thing short, and that is the old shackles, Mr. Speaker, should be put

on half of what is over there, and half of what is outside.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What can you expect, coming from `old

conflict' himself?

MR. TOBIN: That's right. My colleague, the Member for

Grand Bank said it well. How would the Minister of Justice know whether or not

he is in a conflict when he has never been out of one himself, because for the

few years I have been around I have never seen anyone involved in a conflict of

interest like the Minister of Justice. He never got out of one. If it were any

other minister over there, he would be gone through the door so fast it wouldn't

be funny, which makes me wonder if he has something on the Premier. Because, for

the Premier to tolerate, day-in and day-out, week-in and week-out, month-in and

month-out, year-in and year-out, the conflict of the Minister of Energy, with

his shares in Fortis -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Justice - the Minister of Justice.

MR. TOBIN: - trying to buy Newfoundland Hydro from the

government that he was -

MR. SULLIVAN: He made a profit and got caught, then he

turned it over to charity.

MR. TOBIN: This is interesting, you know. We have the

Minister of Justice, who was a shareholder of Fortis and a member of government.

So, as a member of government, he was trying to sell Hydro to his company called

Fortis. What is happening now? The same thing could happen. You could have a

member of the board of directors trying to sell old Hydro to new Hydro, which

they own.

Now, if that minister had to sell his shares and donate the

profit to charity, I just wonder. You never know, charity could benefit again,

but I don't think so, because whoever the Premier of this Province is in debt to

think they can do just what they like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my time is up, and the minister

is not going to respond. I think the minister wants to go again.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition of

several of my constituents, residents of just a

section of East Valley Road in

Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, a resident, Eric Dyke, and his wife, on their

own initiative, went door-to-door on their street and neighbouring streets with

a petition opposing the sale of Hydro. They collected signatures from virtually

everyone they met as they went from door-to-door. I am now presenting their

petition.

`Whereas the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher

unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water

rights, and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year

in dividends to shareholders;

Therefore we petition the Premier, and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a

Crown-owned corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are taxpayers; they are also

electricity rate payers and they have a very important stake in the future of

Hydro, but they are being shut out of the government's negotiations. Mr.

Speaker, they have been waiting for the Premier to have a public meeting about

options for Hydro. They remember that the Premier, at a great fanfare preceded

by a piper, held a public meeting in the Corner Brook area about the Meech Lake

Accord. They expected the Premier to be consistent and on this issue, the most

important legislative matter to come before the House of Assembly since

Confederation, they assumed the Premier would have a public meeting in the

Corner Brook area, but the Premier has failed to do that. Mr. Speaker, these

people are trying to be heard through this petition. In the recital, they point

out as the first of a list of negative consequences of the Hydro sale, higher

electricity costs, and let me detail the extent of the rise of electricity

costs. The cost of the reorganization and privatization will be close to $200

million, plus the amounts being paid to Jim Chalker, Jim Chalker's law firm,

Roland Martin, Roland Martin's law firm, and all others in the Minister of

Justice's galaxy, so it is $200 million, plus, that the privatization process is

costing, and that is all going to get passed on to the rate payers. That will be

done over a period of fifteen to forty years, and we estimate that will cost

about $18 million a year, and that would be a conservative estimate, a small `c'

as well as a capital `C'.

Now, in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there will be $20

million a year because of the extra 6 to 7 per cent on about $300 million of

equity purchased by new Hydro from old Hydro; Number three, there will be about

$10 million a year, the extra 3 to 4 per cent, on the $300 million that will be

converted from debt to equity at the time of privatization; Number four, another

$5 million a year as more debt is converted to equity after privatization in

order to achieve the 50/50 debt equity ratio new Hydro will need; Fifth, another

$12 million for domestic consumers, for home-owners, because of their share of

the world deficit that will be shifted to them. That is an astounding list of

increases to the rate payers when they will get no improvement in service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are also taxpayers and they

are now realizing, as they get more and more information about this rotten deal,

that they are going to lose twice. They will lose as taxpayers as well, because

the government is proposing to give an array of concessions and tax breaks, the

$15 million rate adjustment fund, the $10 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue later.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition from my colleague, the Member

for Humber East. I will pick up where the Member for Humber East left off.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services, on a point of

order.

MR. LUSH: All hon. members know that there is a

particular procedure and a particular format for presenting petitions, unless we

have done away with that and I am not aware that we have. I think it is

incumbent on all hon. members -

MR. SIMMS: You are cutting into the hon. member's time.

MR. LUSH: Well, if that is the case, I will do it

afterwards. This is important and I will make the point after the hon. member

does his thing.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague, the Member for Humber East was commenting on

the double effect the privatization of Hydro is going to have on the people of

this Province. In fact, it is going to have a tremendous effect on the cost to

rate payers of the Province. Those who are paying the cost of electricity now

will see an increase anywhere from $150 million to $180 million in rate

increases.

We will just look at each one, for example. The debt premiums

related to the portion of Hydro's debt that is going to be transferred, the

Premier has admitted $20 million, and it will be at least in the vicinity of $20

million to $30 million. The Premier also mentioned fees and commissions are

going to amount to another $15 million to $20 million. We stand to be refuted on

any of these - even the Premier, himself, has used some of these figures.

The foreign currency exchange on the old Hydro's debt is

going to amount to from $90 million to $100 million, and this is going to be

built into the base rate of electricity that is going to be charged to the

consumers of electricity in this Province. Also, in the pension fund being

transferred to new Hydro, the unfunded liability that applies to Hydro employees

of $25 million to $30 million is going to be funded out of this Province.

As well, if you look at the other effects that we are going

to see the cost to tax payers of this Province. The Member for Humber East

mentioned the rate adjustment fund. This Province is going to take from its

provincial treasury $15 million and put it into a fund to ease the cost of

increases in electricity over the next three years. It is going to put $15

million so the consumers of electricity won't feel the brunt of this until three

years time. They are also giving up their $10 million - and I think it was nine

point some million dollars last year - that they get for guaranteeing the debt

for Hydro. That is going to be turned over to Hydro out of the treasury of this

Province.

They are also going to forego - and in the past they have

given up and refunded under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer

Act, that have seen between $9.2 million and $10 million a year that is rebated

as a portion of the federal corporate income tax, comes back to the Province

where 85 per cent is refunded. We are going to see now - have to apply that to

Newfoundland Power. That is going to mean out of the taxpayers of this Province

$30 million to $40 million a year. It is going to be lost and funded by the

taxpayers of this Province out of revenues that we would get by charging

corporate tax to any other company doing business here in this Province.

Newfoundland Power now, under Fortis, and the new Hydro, will

be exempted from this specific tax that is going to cost the taxpayers $40

million extra in this Province, or $40 million less of revenues that we could

generate in this Province. Other companies that are out there doing business in

this Province will have to pay that tax. That is very significant and many

members don't realize the impact it is going to have.

In fact, with regard to the Hydro pension fund, what is going

to happen is, this Province is going to take the unfunded liability - there is

about a $1.7 billion unfunded liability in the pension plans now. If we had to

pay out in this Province all the pensions that are due now, we would need $1.7

billion. If we apply the portion of that pension that the Hydro employees are

due, and should be matched by government, this Province is going to dip into its

treasury next year, if this bill passes, and take $30 million to $40 million -

the Premier's figure is $30 million, and we think that is low. We are saying $40

million - well, $30 million to $40 million. It is going to be put into new

Hydro, reducing the unfunded liability by $30 million to $40 million, but we are

paying it out. The Province is paying it now, not in twenty years time when they

would have to draw it if they are a member, or thirty years time, or whenever

they are ready to retire. We are paying out right now out of the treasury of

this Province.

When you total up these few little figures there on what the

treasury of the Province is going to have to pay out in immediate dollars, we

are looking at a total of over $100 million outlay right out of the treasury of

this Province in the next fiscal year. That is what is going to happen.

On top of that we are looking at an increase to consumers of

electricity in this Province, up to $180 million for costs associated with the

transfer of old Hydro to new Hydro.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: That is every single year for the rest of

our lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I'll get it next time.

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

a point of order.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could be

corrected if the House has decided to accept all and every petition in every

way, shape and form that it comes. I don't know if that is indeed the case. I

thought that last year we had decided that Petitions would take the traditional

form that they have always taken in this House and there is a format and if that

is the case, I didn't see this last petition but the one that was presented

earlier was completely out of character with what a petition should be.

Number one, the petition is addressed to the House, and I

have seen members do this deliberately, I would suggest, that the petition is

addressed to the House and it is done that way for a very specific reason. To

address it to the Premier or to the government makes it a debate and sometimes

makes it a very bitter debate and the reason why the wording is the way it is,

is to take out that kind of bitterness and confrontation in the same way as we

address members as hon. members and not as you, he, she, it. It is done

deliberately to take out that element of debate because Petition Period is not

supposed to be a time of debate. It is quite simply a period to present a

petition and one speaks to the numbers of names on the petitions, the signatures

and doesn't get into the debate.

It seems as though the Opposition is now using this period

primarily for debate on Hydro and designing their own petitions. I say to hon.

members, the onus is on all of us to follow the rules, the petitions are done in

the Speaker's office, it is only a matter of sending them out to the

constituents and doing them in the proper way instead of doing it the way we

are, which is a rejection, an outright rejection of the rules and I don't think

hon. members intend to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they do.

MR. LUSH: Well if they do, then it should be corrected,

but if the House hasn't allowed just any form of a petition to be presented,

then I think we should deal with it and deal with it now so that petitions are

presented that fall within the rules of the House.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order raised by the

Minister of Social Services, Mr. Speaker, I guess any way you try to cut this,

basically what the Minister of Social Services is trying to do, is to stifle

debate, stifle debate on the privatization of Hydro. He is trying to prevent the

wishes of the thousands of people who are sending petitions -

MR. FLIGHT: He is an ex-Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture, he might be an ex-Speaker, that may be so; there are a number

of ex-Speakers in the House I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

but, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: He was a lot better when he was Speaker than

he is now in parliamentary procedures, he is after forgetting (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, these petitions are coming

in to members on a daily basis, thousands and thousands of people are signing

them and sending them to members, and members feel that they have a

responsibility in light of the public debate around this Province, Mr. Speaker,

in light of the public opposition to the privatization of Hydro that we feel as

members on this side of the House at least, that we are going to present those

petitions on behalf of the people who ask us to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader and I have

discussed petitions on a number of occasions. We have been quite lenient I say

to the Minister of Social Services. We have had people stand in this House with

just a few signatures who felt strongly enough that they wanted to present it on

behalf of their constituents and we have agreed and given leave for those

petitions to be presented I say to the minister, so any -

MR. TOBIN: From members on both sides.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, by members on both sides, we have

been lenient because we felt that members who receive those petitions and are

asked by their constituents to present them for them, that we should not stop

them from presenting them on the floor of this Legislature, particularly when

Your Honour calls, under the routine proceedings, Petitions. So, Mr. Speaker,

this is a very legitimate petition that my colleague is presenting; all the

petitions that we presented yesterday and today are very legitimate and it meets

all of the requirements.

Now maybe the member did not say how many petitioners had

signed the petition, that maybe she does not say each time she stands how many

signed it but in other respects, Mr. Speaker, the petition certainly meets the

guidelines and understanding that have been worked out between the Government

House Leader and myself and I submit there is no point of order.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, very briefly, Mr. Speaker, both my

friend and colleague, the Member for Bonavista North, and the Minister of Social

Services and formerly the Speaker, and the gentleman from Grand Bank have made

valid points.

There is no doubt the petition procedure as we have it in

this House is not being followed, that is the point made by my friend from

Bonavista North, and in my submission he is entirely correct. On the other hand,

we have allowed to grow up over the years this really quite improper procedure

but it's been tolerated and allowed and the problem with waiving the rules, as

I've said in a different context, is there then are no rules. So we really

should address it and perhaps when things get moved forward a little more in the

House we can return to that. I may have some thoughts that I can put forward and

other members may have thoughts which they would put forward.

I want to add one other thing, when my friend from Grand Bank

says that we're trying to stifle debate on the Hydro bill, he's letting his

partisan enthusiasm, and he doesn't do this often, but he's letting his partisan

enthusiasm take over his common sense and his good judgement.

The moment, Mr. Speaker, we go to Orders of the Day I'll ask

the House to deal with four motions which will take two seconds. They're the

four bills which stand for first reading. There is nothing unusual about those.

They have all been distributed to the committees and are being looked at but,

Mr. Speaker, the moment that we go to Orders of the Day and dispose of this

motion, I shall ask Your Honour to call the Hydro bill, we'll begin the debate

and carry on with it. At the appropriate time I shall move the motion and ask

the House to agree to sit late tonight, so we'll provide another seven hours of

debate today, whenever we start.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just simply put on the record, in

case of any misunderstanding, the government is very anxious to debate this

bill. We're not going to move a Standing Order 21. If the Opposition want to go

on until 10:00 p.m. tonight, by all means, but the moment they come to the

conclusion of their petition business, the moment Your Honour calls Orders of

the Day, we shall ask the House to deal with the debate on the Hydro bill. We

want to get on with it so that people can hear the arguments, pro and con, and

come to their own decision. With that said, I agree with the point of order made

by my friend from Bonavista North.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to address

the point of order raised by my friend the Minister of Social Services. He and

my colleagues, the Member for Grand Bank and the Government House Leader, have

addressed what has occurred in the past, what the practices are, how we have

been lenient from time to time to allow petitioners the right to put forth a

petition, If they have a reasonable issue which they wish to have raised in the

House. They're not going to understand specifically the details and the

technicalities of how it has to be worded and all that old nonsense and because

of that we have all recognized that on both sides of the House in the past and

we agreed to be flexible. As long as we can vouch for the fact that this is a

legitimate petition, with a legitimate prayer in it, and this prayer is quite

legitimate.-

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the prayer?

MR. SIMMS: The prayer is:

WHEREAS the privatization of

Hydro will burden the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with higher

electricity costs, et cetera, et cetera - there is a prayer. These signatures

were attached to the petition at a public meeting and on other occasions. People

took the petitions around and got the petitions signed, with the names and

addresses of the individuals, so surely we should not be trying to take away or

diminish in any way, shape or form the right of these people to present

petitions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me add something else for Your Honour

to consider, and it's different from the arguments made by the other hon.

members, I'm talking about our practices. I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's

sixth edition, paragraph 1029, page 279 and you will see, Mr. Speaker, several

references in there that allow you to easily rule in order and accept these

petitions because it says in subsection (1) "The language of a petition should

be respectful, temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign or offensive

imputation upon the character and conduct of Parliament. Nothing there along

those lines, Mr. Speaker. On the courts of justice, nothing there along those

lines or any other tribunal or constituted authority. There is nothing in the

language of that petition, it doesn't do anything of that nature. Subsection

(3) "A petition should not contain statements which constitute charges of a very

strong character against the Minister or senior officials." Nothing in that

petition, Mr. Speaker, nothing at all covering that area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, paragraph 1030 (1) "A petition is irregular

if it does not set forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to

interfere". In this case, Mr. Speaker, this petition certainly relates to an

issue in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere in because the House is

the one - we're told by the Premier and everybody else - has to ultimately pass

the legislation. So I think, all that is transpiring here is an opportunity for

the Minister of Social Services, the former Speaker, to display his skills as a

former Speaker, and his knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and try to impress

Your Honour.

Nevertheless, the reality is we have used and followed this

practice on many, many occasions, and if there is some technical problem, I can

assure you we can adjust all the petitions we have by just writing on the top,

`To the hon. House of Assembly', but I hardly think it's worth fifteen or twenty

minutes of debate on this silly point of order.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East,

speaking to the point of order.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the former Speaker,

the Minister of Social Services, is quite wrong. There is no technical problem

with this petition. This petition is addressed to the House of Assembly. The

prayer of the petition reads: Therefore we petition the Premier, and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a first-year university political science

student knows that the government has three branches, one of which is the

legislative branch, one of which is the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, these citizens of Humber East and Humber West,

and other districts of the Province, are addressing their petition to the

government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - to the government, knowing that the

government includes the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly is perhaps the

most important branch of the government. It's the branch that makes laws. It's

the branch that is being asked to deal with, in the words of the Minister of

Justice, the most important legislative measures to come before the Legislature

since Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners want to have a say in that

process

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - and this is the only way they've been

allowed to have a say so far, through a petition.

Mr. Speaker, these people signed a petition to the

government, to the House of Assembly, and they asked me to present their

petition on their behalf in this Assembly and, Mr. Speaker, I submit there is no

technical problem. The petition, in the prayer, is addressed to the government.

The government means the House of Assembly. There is no problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members are quite right. The form of a petition has

been raised quite frequently in the House, and there is a standard form, I

guess, and a proper form that a petition should take. All hon. members have been

made aware of that, at least since I have been here, and have been asked, in all

instances, to take the proper matter and to deal with that, and that any

petition which comes to this House, if it is not in the proper order, to have it

cleared by the Speaker, or the Members of the House, I guess, can agree if they

will accept the petition.

Now I wasn't here when the hon. member presented the

petition. I had assumed that it had either been cleared by the Speaker's office,

or by agreement of the House that they were presenting these petitions. I am not

sure if that is the case. I don't know if hon. members have cleared it with the

Speaker's office or the Table.

MS. VERGE: Your Honour, because, as I just indicated, I

believe this to be in the proper form, because it is a petition to the

government, and the government includes the House of Assembly, and because I

presented petitions worded exactly the same yesterday, and the Speaker didn't

raise any objection, no member raised any objection, I had no reason to bring

any of my petitions to His Honour's office, but if that is what Your Honour now

occupying the Chair indicates, I will be quite happy to bring my petition to the

Speaker and get the Speaker's ruling on this.

MR. SPEAKER: If the House wishes to accept the petition,

I think that there is no problem with the Chair. But, I am not sure, did the

members have the consent of the House to present the petition that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Again, the issue of consent is irrelevant,

because the petitions are perfectly acceptable. The petitions are addressed to

the government.

Mr. Speaker, apart from that, the form made available through

the Clerk's office uses archaic language that is not understood by the majority

of citizens of the Province. When people want to petition the government on a

matter that's important to them, they want to talk in plain language. Mr.

Speaker, the people of Humber East and Humber West who signed these petitions

used plain language. They petitioned the government and they mean the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: This is not wasting the time of the House. The

Orders of the Day, the rules and regulations by which this House is operated, I

would say to hon. members, is not wasting time. The hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member suggesting-

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you close up the House and do

what you want to do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Opposition altogether!

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. Minister of Social

Services.

MR. LUSH: For the hon. member to suggest that a petition

addressed to the government is the same as a petition addressed to the House

shows that she is missing the entire point of Petitions. I just make that point.

That it is a very fundamental difference that the petition is addressed to the

House of Assembly and to all members assembled, and not to the government. That

is very, very important, a fundamental part of a petition, and I say to the hon.

member that a prayer is the fundamental part of a petition. A letter can't be a

prayer. A newspaper

article can't be a prayer. A prayer of a petition is a

fundamental part, and for hon. members to suggest otherwise is a suggestion that

they don't understand what petitions are all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I said, "To the point of order."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate a point

I made earlier, and that is that we have accommodated members in this

Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We have accommodated members who wanted

to present petitions for the right reason, Mr. Speaker, that they had petitions

from their constituents and we have agreed to allow that to happen. Members

who've come in here with fifty or one hundred names on a piece of paper, their

constituents have asked them to present the petitions, they have risen in their

place and asked if it was okay to present it, and we have agreed to let it

happen.

What we have now, as I said earlier, is the Minister of

Social Services is trying to stifle debate and discussion, trying to prevent the

Member for Humber East and others from presenting petitions, legitimate

petitions that have been sent here by thousands of people opposing the

government's privatization of Hydro plan. That is the problem. They don't like

that, Mr. Speaker, and now they are trying to stop the member and others from

opposing it.

If that is the way that the Minister of Social Services and

the Government House Leader, and the back benchers on the government side want

things - because before too long you will soon be in possession of petitions

yourself that will be not so properly worded, and properly formatted, as the

minister says, and we will not allow another petition to be presented on the

floor of this Legislature unless it meets all the requirements.

If that is what the government wants to do, and the members,

just remember. It is like a lot of other things. If you try to ramrod and bully

and give the hobnailed boots to people it will come back to haunt you before too

long, I say. If you people want to try and play those games we will play them,

and we will play harder than you are playing with them.

I think it is incumbent on the Government House Leader.

Because he and I were supposed to deal with this petition issue a long time ago.

We were supposed to talk about petitions and what to do. I think it is incumbent

upon the Government House Leader to get in his place and give Your Honour the

consent and the members the consent to keep presenting those petitions, and

let's get on with it, or else we will be here till 10:00 p.m. debating whether

or not and who has the right to present petitions. Let's get on with it, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, what have I done now that I am

being subjected to this? Let me say what has been the practice since my return

to the House a year or so ago.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: There have been any number of instances

where individual members have come to me - my friend for Burin - Placentia West

quite rightly says a few days ago he came to me and he showed me a document. He

asked did I have any objection to it. I looked at it and said I do not. He will

confirm that when he stood in his place I raised no objection. That is the

procedure that has grown up, and I have no problem with that.

I will say that the hon. woman - to call her what she wants

to be called - for Humber East, who assures me she is not a lady, and therefore

I call her only a woman, I don't want to be pejorative about this, she asked me

not to. The hon. woman for Humber East, as opposed to the hon. gentleman for

Burin - Placentia West did not come to me and ask my advice, and she does not

have to. She can stand up and make a presentation to the House but then she is

at risk of a point of order, and my friend for Bonavista North has made a point

of order on which I suggest Your Honour will have to rule. There is a definite

form for petitions to this House. Petitions do not come to the government. The

government in the context of the House is the group of fourteen men and women

who form the ministries. That is what one means by the government. Here in the

House there are fifty-two, as of today, MHAs, fourteen of us are in the

government and thirty-eight are not. Thirty-eight are trying to be and fourteen

are there.

MR. CRANE: Thirty-seven are trying to be there.

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty-seven are trying to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: All I can say to my friend for Harbour

Grace, Mr. Speaker, is that twenty of his colleagues will be grateful to him for

not standing in their way. There are twenty on this side.

Mr. Speaker, to come back to the point, if I may, our

procedure on petitions is hopelessly out of date and it is not being followed.

The gentleman for Grand Bank and I are delinquent, we often are delinquent,

jointly, hand in hand as we trip down the lane.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why try to exercise it now?

MR. ROBERTS: I did not raise any point of order. I am not

trying to exercise anything. My friend for Ferryland should possess his soul in

patience, either that or call 911 and see what response he gets to it.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that my friend for Grand

Bank and I are delinquent. I say to the House and to my friend for Grand Bank,

who is not listening to me, but who now is listening to me, that any time he

would like to meet I would be happy to sit with him and discuss a new petition

procedure. We could do it this afternoon if he wishes. I will be here in the

House until we get on Orders of the Day. It is now 3:34 and I do not know

whether we will go on all day today on Orders of the Day or not. We are prepared

to debate this bill. We are anxious to debate this bill.

My friend for Harbour Grace, who is not questing for the

Cabinet, is anxious, we are all anxious to debate this bill. The Opposition are

deliberately trying to frustrate debate. I do not know why. If they feel they

have such a strong case one would think they would be anxious to put it to the

House, but they are not, so I say again that in my understanding, my friend for

Bonavista North has made a valid point of order. The fact that the hon. woman

for Humber East has not sought my views is beside the point, but the fact that

she has not sought my views surely means that she does not care about my views

and therefore I am not to be held as having given my view that what appears to

be her irregular procedure is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Social Services has certainly raised a

valid point of order in that a petition has to be in a particular form, in a

standard form, however we have presented petitions in the House before that were

not in standard form yet were accepted by members of the House. I understand

that the Opposition House Leader is now asking if he has approval to continue

with the petitions whether they are in proper form or not. Is that being

considered? If not the Chair will have to recess and have a look at the

petitions. The Chair is going to recess to consider the matter.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: I have been sent in here today with petitions

containing in excess of 2000 names dealing with ATVs. I did not go out and seek

the petitions. I was called to present it the other day. I checked with the

Minister of Environment and Lands. She sat down and read the petition, looked at

it, and I gave her the covering letter. She is ready to speak on it. The

minister has other commitments and she has been the last ten minutes at least,

with a meeting supposed to take place, waiting here for me to present my

petition and all we have heard, Mr. Speaker, is a bunch of foolishness started

by the Minister of Social Services who is trying to impress everyone. He should

know that in terms of the rules of this House he impresses no one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Now I want to get on with my petition, Mr.

Speaker, and on behalf of these 2,000 plus people I would like to be able to

present it, and if the Minister of Social Services doesn't want the wishes of

these people to be heard in the House, I would ask him to leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to recess just to consider, for a few

minutes, the matter raised by the hon. the Minister of Social Services.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the matter of petitions, all hon. members are aware that

the petition, in order to be presented to the House, has to be in a proper,

standard form that has been set down in our Standing Orders, and precedent has

it that unless a petition is in standard form when the hon. member rises to

present that petition, if he or she is aware that the petition is not in

standard form, then he asks leave of the House to present that petition.

If a petition is not in standard form, and if it's not by the

leave of the House, then the Chair cannot allow the petitions to be presented

that are not in standard form. So unless the member has leave, if the petition

is not in standard form, then it can't be presented.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I believe that

my petition that I just presented, that the Minister of Social Services rose on

a point of order respecting, is in the proper form because the prayer specifies

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the government includes the

House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: The government has three branches, the

legislative, the administrative and the judicial branch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the point of order that the member has raised, the Chair

has not seen the petition, but it is my understanding, from consulting with the

officers, that the petition that she has presented is not in proper form.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some of

the residents of Ferryland in the District of Ferryland.

To the hon. the House of Assembly, in Legislative Session

convened -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The petition of the undersigned residents

of the District of Ferryland;

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

drafted and given approval in principle to an income supplementation program;

and

WHEREAS the government has presented this proposal to the

WHEREAS we believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed, and

would have harmful consequences for tens of thousands of people, and for the

economy of the Province generally;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that Your Honourable

House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

immediately to undertake a process of consultation with the people of the

Province on this proposal, and to halt any action with respect to this proposal

until the voice of the people has been heard, as in duty bound your petitioners

will ever pray.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) all that archaic language.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to

speak on behalf of this petition.

This petition originated when I held a public meeting with

members of a committee in our caucus up in Ferryland, attended by 225 people.

These people at the meeting came up with the idea of presenting a petition so

this government would listen to the wishes of the people and not as the

government had done by taking a report and putting a proposal together by Doug

House and the Economic Recovery Commission, long before the provincial election

in May, meeting secretly, report went to Cabinet, made Cabinet approval in June

the people of the Province in December. Now that is the type of tactic this

government has been practising. They have done it with Hydro, they don't even

inform the minister what is happening. The minister doesn't know, other

ministers don't know what is happening, they are not hearing the real issues and

the same thing with the income supplementation program, something that is so

important and so vital and so basic to the people of this Province as the social

security safety net that has been established and built up over the years, to

try to have it eroded by the Premier of this Province and the committee in a

matter of a few months. I think it is despicable, it is an insult to the people

of the Province.

We have seen $2 billion come into this Province on an annual

basis through transfers to individuals and to this Province and now we have a

proposal sent to the Prime Minister of Canada without the people being versed

and made knowledgeable about it. What the Premier stated is: what is the point

in presenting something to the people of this Province, if the Government of

Canada is not going to accept it. And the federal Minister of Finance stated: if

we are going to change the social security net in this country, we must consult

the stakeholders, the people of Canada must be consulted. The Premier didn't see

it that way and I say to the Premier: what need is there to present a proposal

opportunity to have input?

People are not advocating that we become more dependent on

social assistance, on UI; people in this Province want an opportunity for real

jobs and real work, they don't want UI, UI is a means of last resort. It became

nurtured in a system that failed to stimulate and provide jobs for these people,

it became their only means of survival to put food on the table. That is what UI

means to many families in this Province. It is little wonder that the federal

government turned around in their Budget and instituted step one of that plan

really. They haven't admitted it as such but they introduced twelve weeks of

work and thirty weeks of UI.

In certain parts of the Province, like the City of St.

John's, it would only be twenty-six weeks depending on the unemployment rate in

your region, so the government has failed to consult with the people; they

failed to do it on Hydro because they know they are wrong. They have failed to

inform their own ministers of this, because they know they are wrong and they

have failed to inform and educate and let people see the real issues, the

backbenchers, but it will come out in the debate. We have addressed some of it

today through petitions and we will address some very important points on some

of the drawbacks and faults in the system as it pertains to Hydro and on income

supplementation.

The Premier of this Province has asked the Government of

Canada to discontinue payments under NCARP. He has asked the Government of

Canada to substitute a fishery transition payment and he has asked them to

decrease it to 61.6 per cent this year, 49 per cent next year and be eliminated

after 1998. Now this is what the Premier of this Province has asked, to cut off

the lifeline in Newfoundland and Labrador, to increase UI, to reduce the number

of weeks you can get benefits, but what they should be asking the Government of

Canada is for an infusion of money and capital to invest and establish business

here in this Province so people can go out and get decent jobs and be able to

make a living.

This Premier increased corporate income tax and then he went

out and preached to the business community, we dropped corporate income tax; he

rose it to 17 per cent and then he lowered and then he said: what a tremendous

accomplishment, that's what the Premier did. He instituted payroll tax, the most

regressive tax on business that you can establish in this country and the

ignored the wishes of the people and their real concerns. It is quite evident

here in this paper on income supplementation.

On the petition in fact, just a little evidence, just a small

amount of evidence of what this government feels about the people in this

Province. They submitted to the public under income supplementation a

page report with I'm sure back up documents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

pleased to rise and support the petition so ably presented by my colleague for

Ferryland. An issue in the minds of the people of the Province that I guess

perhaps ranks second in importance, I would say to the members opposite, to the

privatization of Hydro. The income supplementation proposal certainly is second

in their minds today, of course, as a result of the cuts in UI as announced by

the federal minister in the federal Budget.

I want to stand today and speak in support of the petition,

because people out and about the Province feel betrayed. They feel betrayed

because the Premier of this Province with this document, took this document up

to the newly elected Prime Minister without any consultation or discussion in

this Province. Went off to Ottawa under the cover of darkness and said: Here,

Mr. Prime Minister, I agree with this, I've told my Cabinet to agree with this,

and now I ask you to agree with this, because we believe this is good for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course the Prime Minister and Human Resources Minister

Axworthy couldn't believe what the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was

presenting to them. They couldn't believe that the Premier of this Province went

to Ottawa and asked for all income supplementation programs to be decreased.

That is what he asked for. To be decreased, to roll back the UI, and in some

cases to eliminate the UI, and fisheries compensation packages to phase out over

a five year period. Human Resources Minister Axworthy couldn't believe his good

fortune. Having to bring down a severe Budget just a few weeks ago he said: My

God, how lucky am I, to have the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador come up to

Ottawa and ask me to take those measures. He couldn't believe his luck.

Of course, he couldn't believe his luck because on every

other occasion since Confederation when a premier went to Ottawa he was asking

the federal government for more for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was

telling the Prime Minister and the federal Cabinet that we can't take any more

cuts in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our people can't take any more reductions in

income or social assistance or UI.

That is what all other premiers did when they went to Ottawa,

but what did this Premier Clyde Wells do? Went off to Ottawa and asked them

really to knock the insides out of their income support. People out and about

this Province, I say to members opposite -

MR. BAKER: That's not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Finance,

it is true. I would say to the Minister of Finance that his brother George can't

believe what the Premier did either. He can't believe it. If George was to come

public -

MR. SIMMS: Come clean.

MR. TOBIN: George said he wished Wins would retire and

get the hell out of here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but I tell you. People out and about

this Province are very concerned about this matter, Mr. Speaker. They can't

believe that the government of this Province would propose that UI, social

assistance and fisheries compensation would be cut. Because that is all that is

keeping body and soul alive out and about this Province. To have the Premier of

this Province propose that - and that is very much in their minds today, and I

have no trouble whatsoever in supporting the petition presented by my colleague,

the Member for Ferryland, calling on this government to scrap the income

supplementation program. Scrap it! The economy of this Province can't afford it,

and certainly those who are receiving benefits from any of the programs cannot

afford to have their compensation reduced, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend I suspect has

another petition, and that is fair enough. I wonder, before he goes on, may I

move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., please.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again on

behalf of residents of the community of Ferryland in the district of Ferryland

to present the following petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative

Session Convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of

Ferryland:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

drafted and given approval in principle to an income supplementation proposal;

and

WHEREAS the government has presented this proposal to the

WHEREAS we believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed and

would have harmful consequences for tens of thousands of people and for the

economy of the Province generally.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

immediately to undertake a process of consultation with the people of the

Province on this proposal and to halt any action with respect to this proposal

until the voice of the people has been heard. As in duty bound your petitioners

will ever pray.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, it's related to this government's

inconsiderate approach and ignoring the wishes of the people. In fact, when they

drafted this proposal in secret, brought it to Cabinet in secret and sat on it

until November of this year, the people within their Caucus, I'm sure, our

Caucus and members of the House of Assembly and the public knew nothing about

it. In fact, I just want to read how sensitive they figured it would be in their

more detailed document. Here is what they stated, on page 125 in the report,

they said the implementation of this ISP will be socially sensitive. Although

the evaluation of the program indicates that there will be more families who

gain income from ISP than lose income, those who lose are highly organized by

industry such as the fishery. In addition, those who lose income are the more

affluent of the UI recipients and therefore have a stronger and louder voice.

The poorer members of the population who are generally disenfranchised and

unorganized are not likely to be a vocal organized lobby in favour of income

security reform.

Now that's what the Premier of the Province gave to the Prime

Minister of Canada, how he planned on dealing with the vocal minorities out

there and the different groups as he wanted to push this plan along the backs of

people in the Province as he's doing with Hydro, refusing people to get into

meetings, not giving the full facts, stating mistruths here in this House and

having to correct them outside the House when people don't hear the corrections,

usually they only hear the mistruths that are placed. That is the type of

policy, the type of strategies government has aspired to and are trying to carry

out in this program.

When you have a family who has been working long and hard

during seasonal employment and some families - and there are instances here that

show it in this report - that have been making up to $48,000 and $49,000 with

two workers working twelve and fourteen weeks and now because of this ISP

proposal, a family in that category of $49,000 would make $26,000. That's a

$23,000 decline, almost a 50 per cent reduction in benefits if the ISP is

accepted. That's a dramatic impact on a family who has a mortgage payment, who

has a car, who has built themselves into a certain lifestyle over a period of

time.

Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum. Quorum call.

MR. SPEAKER: Quorum call. Count the members.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has determined that there is a quorum in the House

at this time.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader said the important people were

there. I guess it depends on whose definition is is, of 'important'. I think

everybody in this House is important, and the people in their districts felt

they were important to put them here. That's who is important.

The people in my district are important, and I would present

a petition on their behalf anytime. I think if the people were so important they

would have an opportunity to be a little more concerned about the damage you are

inflicting on people in this Province, and it is the process that this

government has gone through with this report, and many people, I am quite sure,

on government side and in back benches, don't know what the government is doing.

They don't know what is happening on Income Supplementation, they don't know

what is happening on Hydro. They are not being informed what is happening, and

that is the shame of what is going on here in the Province. And we have the

opportunity of coming into the House and presenting petitions on behalf of

people in our districts. It was permitted before, under certain formats -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support my

colleague's petition from the people of Ferryland, who gave it to their member

to bring to this House of Assembly for discussion, to present their views. I had

the opportunity of chairing the meeting in Ferryland, and close to 300 people

showed up at that meeting.

MR. GRIMES: That's not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is not true? I ask the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations. What is not true?

MR. GRIMES: You're not supposed to multiply your

attendance figures by three. One hundred people showed up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I can say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations that at least the Opposition on this side of the

House had the sense and the decency to go out to the people of the Province to

talk about income supplementation, and he did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And if he attended the meeting he would

know there were 300 people there. And I say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations that if he took a Select Committee of this House to travel the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on income supplementation, he would be

surprised at the number of people that would turn out at meetings for him. Mr.

Speaker, I would go as far as to say that the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations mightn't get out of some of those meetings as easily as he got out of

the one in Corner Brook dealing with Barry's fish plant last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If the indications from the people at

Ferryland that night at the meeting - they were completely outraged and aghast

that a provincial government would take a such a program, such a radical reform

of social programs in this Province, and not even come to them for their

consultation or view.

Let's look at the people in Southern Harbour during the

recent by-election, who in the general election voted overwhelmingly for the

Liberal candidate - and for the federal member, but more importantly in the last

provincial election - voted overwhelmingly for the Liberal candidate. This

election they did not. They voiced their concern and they voiced their outrage

through the ballot process, through the democratic process. The Income

Supplementation Program would completely devastate that community, I say to the

minister. The people in Southern Harbour spoke loud and clear, as the people of

the Province would if this government would give them the opportunity to voice

their concern.

Mr. Speaker, just to provide an example of what this

government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, am I recognized as having the

floor, or is the Member for St. John's South?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for St. John's South

that if he wishes to speak to the resolution, then stand to be recognized in the

House and stop yapping off over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Stand up and be recognized and stop yapping

off over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If you want to say something, stand up and

be recognized by the Chair! That is what I say to the Member for St. John's

South. Stand up, boy! Stand up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: Stand and speak!

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

MR. HEWLETT: I came in from Green Bay where people

(inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to restrain themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked for order. I ask hon. members for their

co-operation. The Chair has recognized only one member, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride. If hon. members wish to speak in this debate they have to stand and be

recognized by the Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I was rudely interrupted, I was going to demonstrate

what this government has done in terms of the Income Supplementation Program.

Prior to Christmas, they released this flimsy report, fifty-three pages, to the

people of the Province, on what the Income Supplementation Program was about.

Let me show you the report that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The report that went to Ottawa was a

different report, a confidential draft report, some 125 pages long. Why wasn't

that released to the public? I will tell you why - because on the last page it

says this: `The implementation of the ISP will be socially sensitive.' That is

what they said. It wasn't released in their other report, the one they released

for public viewing. It said: `Those who would lose income are the more affluent

of U.I. recipients' - as if U.I. recipients are affluent members of our society!

- `the more affluent of U.I. recipients and therefore have a stronger, louder

voice. The poorer members of the population who are generally disenfranchised

and unorganized are not likely to be an organized voting lobby.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am finally getting an

opportunity to present my petition. I stand today to present a petition on

behalf of in excess of 2,000 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in excess of 2,000 people.

It is to deal with the proposed ATV regulations. Let me say from the outset that

I have discussed this with the Minister of Environment and Lands and she is

aware of the petition. She has a copy of the letter that was prepared, drafted

and submitted by the group of people, whom the executive of the ATV Association

on the Burin Peninsula -

Mr. Speaker, these petitions were signed by people from the

districts of Burin - Placentia West, Grand Bank and Fortune - Hermitage. It is a

petition whereby the people, basically, would kindly request that your

government extend the deadline of the proposed all-terrain vehicle regulations

from April 1, 1994 until such time as the general public has been more informed

and consultation has taken place with all affected parties.

Now, let me say that I believe that to be a very fair

request, to be a very reasonable request by over 2,000 people who signed this

petition. Mr. Speaker, this petition is put in place by people on the Burin

Peninsula who are concerned, very concerned, that they will not be able to use

their ATVs in the future if these regulations are brought in. As we all know,

there is a fear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I

signed it, as someone who enjoys the outdoors, and at the same time, I am like

everyone else prepared to protect their environment, but not prepared to have to

have to bar up our ATVs, not prepared to be denied the right to go to our

cottages or cabins, not prepared to travel where we have travelled on the Burin

Peninsula for long periods of time.

We have to realize, at the same time, that there is bog land

on the Burin Peninsula, but I don't think it has been abused, I don't think it

has been destroyed. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have acted very reasonably

and respectably towards the environment on the Burin Peninsula. But what the

people on the Burin Peninsula are asking - and I can include myself with them,

because let it be known and let it be said loud and clear, that I support every

word of this petition; I support totally the request of the people. What they

are doing, Mr. Speaker, is right, it is proper, and it must be addressed by this

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a legitimate petition, I

say to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the hon. Members of the House of

Assembly.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is. Hon. Members of the House of

Assembly, we the undersigned, kindly request that you extend the deadline of the

proposed all-terrain vehicle regulations from April 1, 1994 until such time as

the general public has been more informed and consultation has taken place with

all the affected parties. I say to the minister, that is the covering prayer.

This is a request, and I talked to the minister. Mr. Speaker,

I spoke to the minister about even coming to the Burin Peninsula, to sit down

and meet with the associations, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if her

schedule

permits, the minister would probably be prepared to do that. I sincerely hope

she will. But what we are saying as residents of the Burin Peninsula, is, don't

deny us the right to do what we have been doing. Don't deny us the right to go

to our cabins, don't deny us the right, Mr. Speaker, if we are successful in the

moose draw, to be able to haul out a moose if we are successful in the hunt.

Don't deny us the right to be able to go into remote areas if we want to fish or

pick berries or to go for a day outing with our families. And if you are, Mr.

Speaker, on the Burin Peninsula - and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage and the

Member for Grand Bank, I am sure, are aware of what I am talking about - you can

go for miles down on the Burin Peninsula in certain areas without seeing any

trees, but because we don't have, Mr. Speaker, the forest resources of the West

Coast, or some of the lands other people have, what we do have is the same

rights, the same desire and we should have the same privilege to be able to use

our ATVs and enjoy the outdoors.

MR. MURPHY: What about your grandfather?

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. MURPHY: What about your grandfather - good old

shank's mare?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St.

John's South, that how my grandfather travelled is not important in this issue.

There were no ATVs then; probably the Member for St. John's South travelled with

my grandfather, but these days we have ATVs.

I would appreciate it if the Member for St. John's South

would take this petition seriously, because what we are talking about here is

the right to travel in the wilderness, the right to be able to use our ATVs and

not have to bar them up, and the right to be able to have input. What we are

asking government here, and I am sure the minister will address it now when she

gets up to speak, is the right to have more provincial input into what is taking

place, the right to be able to have groups come in and meet the minister, as I

hope she will be able to do - I have spoken to her and she is receptive - and to

have her come to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, as I believe she did in the

Placentia area a little while ago, and then the people can tell her first-hand.

Every part of this Province, Mr. Speaker, is not the same,

and if people on the Burin Peninsula are not allowed to go out on bog lands and

wet lands then you do not use your ATVs in many of the areas. I, for one, Mr.

Speaker, have no intention, and let it be clear in this House, let it be clear

to the minister and let it be clear to the government, that I have no intention

of being denied the rights that every other Newfoundlander enjoys.

MR. MURPHY: You should walk a bit.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I will use my ATV, I say to the Member

for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: It would do you good.

MR. TOBIN: It didn't do much for you. Mr. Speaker, I will

enjoy the wilderness. I will enjoy with my family the right to go to my cabin. I

will, Mr. Speaker, enjoy the right to haul out my moose on my ATV if I am

successful in the draw. I will do that, and no government should have the right

to deny the people of this Province - how long has it been settled? almost 500

years, and now they want to deny us the right to go in the woods. It is not

about to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister, with whom I had the opportunity, I say again, to discuss this - I want

to thank her for that - to look seriously upon the request not to implement the

proposed bill on April 1, 1994, but take the opportunity to meet with groups of

people throughout the Province, and if at all possible, come to the Burin

Peninsula and meet with these people. I look forward to her response.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are several things I want to say and they are important

for the member to hear. I don't know whether I can do it in five minutes, but

here goes.

First of all, none of us has the right to use the outdoors.

None of us has the right to use it, or, as my colleague here says, to abuse it.

It is a privilege that we live in a beautiful Province like this, and with that

privilege comes the responsibility to use the resources of this Province in a

particularly wise way. Now, the area that the Member for Burin comes from, the

St. Mary's - The Capes area, parts of the Great Northern Peninsula, it is the

citizens in this area who have the greatest responsibility, because they have

the greatest number of wetlands and they have a resource there that we simply

must use in the most responsible manner possible. Now, what the hon. gentleman

is doing - and I don't think he means to be political, I am sure he doesn't. I

don't feel that environmental issues of this nature are political. I feel that

we all have to join together to preserve the environment. He made one statement

that sort of made me feel it was political, but I do not think he meant it that

way. He suggested that we are trying to ban ATVs. I say that is political,

because he is misconstruing, and probably doesn't mean to.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a slip of the tongue.

MS. COWAN: Yes, it wa