April 29,

1994 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 33

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Before beginning proceedings today I will just deal briefly

with the point of order raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader the other

day. Actually, it was a point of privilege. I think he indicated he was using it

as an opportunity to make the point that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs had not attended and to draw it to the attention of members

that attendance at the Estimates hearings was, of course, requisite.

There is no point of privilege, as I mentioned on an earlier

occasion in response to a point raised by the Member for Mount Pearl, and a

subsequent one, that privilege resides not in the relationship of members in the

House, except in very rare instances, but rather vis--vis our privileges and

those of the general public. So, for the reasons I earlier stated, without going

through those again, there is no point of privilege as such.

Oral Questions

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

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

today to a topic that I raised yesterday in the House in questions to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Specifically yesterday, he will

recall, I asked him some questions about the so-called workfare programs, I

guess, for fishermen and plant workers who lost their jobs and their livelihoods

because of federal mismanagement of the fishery in particular.

I want to ask him today about another 30,000 people in this

Province whose livelihoods will be affected by the recent changes to the

unemployment insurance program initiated under the federal Budget. I'm sure he

is familiar with it. There will be 16,000 seasonal and part-time workers who

will no longer qualify for unemployment insurance at all because of those

changes, and there are another 15,000 who will receive U.I. benefits for a

shorter period of time. So there is a lot of people affected here. That massive

loss of income, which is estimated, as he knows, to be $262 million a year by

the federal Department of Human Resources, is obviously going to place

impossible demands on the job market.

I would like to ask him, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations for this government, does the Provincial Government have any

plan, or does it plan to have any special programs, similar to the TAGS package

and program for fishermen and plant workers, to provide jobs or retraining for

those other people who will be affected by those changes in the unemployment

insurance program that I talked about.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not to be in any way

argumentative or whatnot, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in asking

the question again quotes some numbers as if these are definitive numbers. They

are not, and I think everybody should understand that they are not. There have

been some estimates made. Again, with things like the TAGS program, with the

unemployment insurance program, there really is no definitive way to tell from

one year to the next. As long as everyone understands that those numbers are not

firm numbers - but there have been estimates made in which some people have

quoted those numbers and some people have quoted numbers which are significantly

different from those just mentioned, depending on which assumptions and which

estimates are used.

But the question, I guess, in terms of what we do about it,

we have acknowledged, ever since the Federal Government announced the

unemployment insurance changes in the federal Budget, that there has been a new

need created in Newfoundland and Labrador because of two particular

circumstances: one being an acknowledgement that a certain group of people who

would have qualified by meeting the previous minimum qualifications will not

qualify - that is a problem - and secondly, because they will qualify for a

shorter benefit period, they will have a gap in their full year's income support

system, and we are looking at those two needs.

We don't have anything definitive ready to be announced at

this point in time, but again all of the discussions in that area that have been

continuing between ourselves and the Federal Government are in the vein of

trying to target as much as we can of the $800 million that was also announced

in the federal Budget by Mr. Martin, at the time, as the Finance Minister, and

subsequent to that by Mr. Axworthy as the Minister for Human Resource

Development, that we will try to target, because it is almost possible, in

checking with federal officials, to even name the people, because these are

regular U.I. claimants. The officials indicate to us that they could almost

identify by name who it is that they expect might have an income need as a

result of the change, and we are trying to put in place programs that can be

targeted as nearly as possible to fill that gap by accessing some of the $800

million jointly with the Federal Government so we can try to fill in that new

need.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

minister for his answer. Not to be argumentative either, but the numbers I am

quoting are directly from the federal Department of Human Resources. I

acknowledge they are estimates - obviously, they are estimates, but in his

answer he just provided he indicated that they can almost identify those who

will lose out, so I would suspect that the estimate of 16,000 losing altogether,

and 15,000 who will lose because of the shorter benefits, is probably a fairly

good estimate. Certainly the $262 million loss is.

Just to follow up on what he talked about, accessing other

programs, I want to ask him, first of all under the TAGS program the Federal

Government, for example, will pay relocation costs for fishermen and plant

workers who wish to leave their communities or the Province to go elsewhere to

look for work. Can I ask the minister this: Does he have any plans, or is he

giving any consideration, for example, to the Provincial Government either

funding, or jointly funding with the Federal Government, some sort of similar

relocation program for the thousands of others - I am sure we will agree the

number is in the thousands of others - who will no longer have U.I. or the U.I.

safety net?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that particular option, that's a

part of the Atlantic Ground Fish Adjustment Strategy I guess, to which everyone

is referring by the acronym of TAGS, has not been on the agenda in any expanded

form for the population, the rest of the working force population, the labour

force population at large. There is a smaller version of the relocation option

that has always been available and in fact, maybe its a good time to point out

that several of the options that are in the TAGS program, were not dreamed up

brand new. Actually, they have been borrowed because similar features have

already existed in either the UI program for people who are UI recipients, or in

the social services program in the employment opportunities and community

development. Similar types of arrangements, not exactly the same criteria, but

those modified slightly have been moved into the TAGS program.

The relocation option is on a smaller scale than anticipated

and suggested in the TAGS program and a version of that has always, Mr. Speaker,

been available through the unemployment insurance system when people themselves

can go to an area where there is a job waiting and when there isn't competition

in the area that they can actually get some assistance to go to where the job

is, so it's that concept and idea which has already existed for quite a period

of time now under the UI program that led to the development of that as a

possible option for people to consider in exiting the fishery; but we haven't

discussed it in any expanded form other than the fact that there is a similar

type of thing already in the UI program that other people could access to go and

get a job if they wanted to.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand all of that. I guess the real point I was trying

to make is that you now have suddenly, 30,000 other people outside the fishery

who are suddenly, you know, going to be facing all kinds of problems and I am

sure the minister would acknowledge it.

My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is related to the loss of

income to which I referred, and I would like to go to the Minister of Social

Services. I note in his budget estimates and documents, and those gone by, that

the social assistance cost for his department have gone from $137 million back

in 1991 to an estimated, this year, $204 million this fiscal year, which is a

whopping increase in a little over three years of 50 per cent. I would like to

ask the Minister of Social Services this: when you estimated your department's

$204 million for social assistance this year, did you anticipate that your

department would have thousands of new clients during this fiscal year, because

of the changes in unemployment insurance that I just referred to and of course

because of the problems with the fishery issue? Did you include and take into

account all of those factors when you estimated your $204 million?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition alludes to the fact that there's been a tremendous growth in the

caseload over the past two years and that's unquestionably correct. It's pretty

difficult to sort of judge what's going to happen in the future in terms of any

specific planning with respect to the things that have happened economically.

It's my opinion, with respect to the figure that he quotes of $204 million for

this year, that that took into account the current situation in as much as we

can predict that. I believe that the figures re UI came after the budget was

submitted and I don't believe that figure was reckoned but I'll check that

further for the hon. member.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would suggest to the minister he should do that and do

it quickly because, Mr. Speaker, the federal budget came down two months ago. So

a fair bit of time has passed since then. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty

certain that his officials have in fact been looking very closely at this

matter. So I'd like to ask him, when he can, as quickly as he can, if he would

come back to the House and give us his revised estimates because the likelihood

is that he's going to need a revised estimate for that social assistance figure.

Specifically, I would like to know, how much will those changes to UI and the

fisheries compensation situation increase the social assistance caseload and his

department's budget? Those are the two specific questions.

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

MR. LUSH: With respect to the caseload, again there's so

many figures coming at one from day to day that it's difficult to keep a handle

on all of them but my recollection is that as a result of the UI changes that

officials have speculated, it could add a caseload of somewhere between 2500 and

3000 additional to the caseload. Again, these are just figures that I'm pulling

out of the air kind of thing but I'll check it to ensure that the figures are

correct, but to my -

MR. SIMMS: Will you table an answer?

MR. LUSH: Yes, certainly.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President

of Treasury Board I would like to direct my question to the acting minister. It

is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that government is trying to isolate teachers of the

Province to provoke them into a strike to save money and get even, perhaps, for

past political skirmishes. Will the minister today assure all teachers of the

Province that the government is ready to begin collective bargaining, to come to

the collective bargaining table without ultimatums on the 2 per cent savings

clause, the three year protection letter, and the threat of legislation to

remove current language from the collective agreement?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of Treasury

Board let me say that there is no attempt on the part of this government to

isolate any group. We are dealing with every group as openly and as fairly as we

possibly can.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the real truth is that the

teachers across this Province today believe that the government is out to get

them. I ask the minister as a gesture of good will, will he remove from the

government's opening proposals all non-monetary items, and if not, why not?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize

that negotiations are carried on between two parties, and he is not one of them,

and I am not one of them.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: The minister should realize that his

government has a well deserved reputation for ruling by intimidation and

provocation, and that they treat their employees as if they were dirt under

their feet. Does the minister and this government care about the effects this

collective bargaining atmosphere is having on the economy, to say nothing about

the direct effects on the students of the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about

these questions and the atmosphere that is there. We would very much like for

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association to come to the table and

bargain with us.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is directed to the Minister of Health.

Can the minister confirm that the Council of Nursing

Assistants, when registering new nursing assistants, are requiring those nursing

assistants to pay dues back to 1985? If he can confirm that, can he explain to

the House why this situation is happening?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of certain things

that are happening, and certain other things which are under discussion.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the minister's

answer. I wonder if he could repeat it before I ask my supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member can ask another question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, no, I have it. From what I understand

the minister said that he is aware of certain things that are happening, and he

is aware of certain things that aren't happening. Let me inform the minister

that this is certainly one thing that he should have been aware of what was

happening.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, of Bill No. 44 which was passed in

this Legislature in the fall of 1993 it required that all nursing assistants be

registered with the Council of Nursing Assistants. It made it mandatory. As a

result of that, nursing assistants who signed up, who were not part of the

Council before, were required to pay back dues to 1985. The minister should have

been aware because in the act it states that the Council may, subject to the

approval of the minister make regulations prescribing the registration fees

payable, including fees for renewal of registration and prescribing other fees

that the council considers necessary to defray its expenses.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Why did the minister

sanction the Council to collect dues off people coming into an association for

up to seven to nine years who had no - who were not members of the Association?

Why did he approve it and why is he taking more money out of the backs of people

going into the workforce?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Nursing

Assistants has certain statutory powers and as long as they stay within their

statutory powers I shall not be interfering.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the minister of

this. That as a result, some nursing assistants have had to come up with $800 to

$900 more. The Council of Nursing Assistants does have statutory powers, but for

them to do this, to collect dues retroactively, they had to have the approval of

the minister according to the act. Why did he let it happen? Can he explain it

to the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when you set up organizations

to operate, when nursing assistants are represented on that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Hold on now.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't hear the hon. minister. The member

who asked the question and the Member for St. John's South are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister with members speaking back and

forth across the House. I'm sure if the hon. member wants his question answered

he is having equal difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health. One of the cost-saving measures

announced in the Budget was the consolidation of the diploma courses in the

three schools of nursing in St. John's. I know the minister and his officials

have had some discussions with hospital administration on this matter. Could the

minister tell the House if this consolidation will go ahead as planned in

September, or will the three schools continue to operate separately for another

academic year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been

discussions ongoing with the schools of nursing in St. John's as to how they

might implement the budgetary requirement. These discussions up until now have

been at the officials level but there is an arrangement where which I will be

meeting them in the very near future.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is over six

weeks since the Budget announced the consolidation. The hospital and the school

of nursing have no idea when the consolidation will happen and how it will

happen. I ask the minister, was any planning done before the Budget

announcement, and when will the schools of nursing - and the people who are

waiting to find out if they are going to be accepted - know of their fate?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exercised as

usual. It must be this Friday morning problem he has. There is no problem. The

schools of nursing are having no problems. They are not beating on my doors for

an interview or for discussion, so I would suggest that he relax a little bit

and let the people who are in charge of the health system continue to operate

it.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the person who was in charge of the health system was

doing a proper job, I wouldn't have to ask these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the problem happened in Corner Brook

when student were not informed about their future.

I ask the minister, if government is not going to get the

savings that it budgeted in consolidation of nursing schools here in the city, I

ask him, will hospitals be expected to achieve those savings in other areas of

their budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer to

the first part of the question, before the supplementaries came, these matters

are under discussion. We will be living within the budget as far as the Schools

of Nursing are concerned. There is usually some flexibility as far as the budget

is concerned in the manner in which the money is raised, and in this case the

Schools of Nursing will be discussing with department officials, and shortly

with me, about their response to our budgetary requests, and what modification,

if any, would be necessary to meet that.

We are expecting that the amounts of money that we

anticipated saving will be realized.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

I would like to ask the minister if government has approved,

or given any indication to Petro Canada that it may be willing to approve, the

use of a floating platform to develop the Terra Nova oil field.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have had numerous

discussions with Petro Canada and its partners about the future after Hibernia -

Terra Nova in particular. Petro Canada has made several public pronouncements

about how it sees the future moving, and it has made public presentations on

various modes of development, various types of floating systems in particular.

That company has done analyses of the various floating types as well as

gravity-base.

We have done similar analyses, and the discussions are

ongoing. We have not given any final decision on this particular matter, but we

have had ongoing discussions off and on over time, and they will continue.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Petro

Canada has looked at floating production platforms in several areas, including

the North Sea. I also understand that recently they have been involved in

discussions, let me say, over in Italy with an Italian firm regarding the use of

floating platforms.

I wonder if the minister can tell me the extent of the

interest

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister can't hear my

question with the people yapping over there next to him.

I wonder would he tell me the extent of the interest in the

Italian platform. Is it being built for Petro Canada? Is it being constructed on

spec? Is it speculation that Petro Canada will have an interest in buying it

after it is finished? Or does Petro Canada have any purchase or lease through

other contractual agreements with that company?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the

particular unit in Italy that is under construction, that the hon. member is

talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: No, I have not been there. I have not seen

it. I am familiar with it, aware that it is under construction, that it is

nearing completion. It is not being built for Petro Canada. My understanding is

that it is being built on spec more than anything else, and we would call it, I

guess, a vessel of opportunity that is looking for a home.

I know that they have looked at various places. A year or so

ago they were proposing that it might come to the Grand Banks and be used on the

Grand Banks for some future development. I am aware that Petro Canada has been

approached by the people who own this rig as well. I don't know what will happen

in the future relative to that rig or something else, but clearly it is a vessel

that is looking for a home.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a coincidence,

I say to the minister, that Petro Canada is dealing with a company that is now

constructing one on spec at the same time that we are talking about developing

the Terra Nova oil field.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government had a policy regarding

job opportunities, in the construction stage, for these platforms. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that if there were a concrete platform GBS, there would be a

significant amount of work for Newfoundlanders. There was talk of building

concrete floaters, there was talk of steel floaters, Mr. Speaker, of purchasing

second-hand ones that would have to be brought to Newfoundland for modifications

and changes, which would create work. Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If

Terra Nova is developed with this new floating platform that is being

constructed now in Norway, what economic benefits in terms of jobs and revenues

does the government expect will occur to this Province in that stage?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to speculate

on what might or might not be if something might or might not happen. Clearly,

it is our interest, too, to get the maximum benefits for this Province from any

development in our offshore. We would like to see maximum benefits -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Hibernia.

DR. GIBBONS: - and we are getting lots of benefits from

Hibernia.

Hibernia - if the hon. the Member for Humber East is

interested in knowing, at this time 40 per cent of the expenditures on Hibernia

are coming directly into Newfoundland and approaching 60 per cent of the

employment on Hibernia is right here in this Province. So we're getting major

benefits from Hibernia with the gravity-base.

I'm not going to speculate on what might or might not happen,

if something might or might not happen, but we, as a government, are certainly

interested in maximizing the benefits on any future developments. We're going to

be prepared to sit down and negotiate that on any future development when a

development plan comes forward, when some facts come forward for discussion, and

we await such facts.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations in his capacity as minister responsible for human rights. Would the

minister acknowledge, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the significance of the all-race elections in South Africa as bringing about the

end of apartheid and a new era of freedom for blacks in South Africa? Mr.

Speaker, the previous Government of Newfoundland and Labrador removed South

African wines from the Newfoundland Liquor Commission stores, as a protest

against apartheid, even before the official world boycott.

Will the minister also acknowledge the contribution of Oxfam

Canada to this process in sending three election monitors to South Africa from

our Province; Carol Anne Furlong, Ted Walsh and Joyce Hancock? Mr. Speaker, it's

a very significant event for world democracy, a giant step forward for human

rights, and a new era of freedom and challenge for all South Africans. Would the

minister acknowledge this significance on behalf of the Government of this

Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to do so, particularly because the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of political stripe, over the years have

always supported initiatives in human rights that on the international scene

have been in concert with efforts by the Canadian Government. Any efforts

before, with respect to South Africa, have been in concert with actions that

have been suggested by the Canadian Government in trying to bring pressure to

bear, to get to the outcome that's in South Africa today.

The other part that we're always very pleased with is that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as the people just mentioned by the hon.

member, have always made a significant contribution on the international scene.

Any time that there are Canadian delegations, they often and regularly look to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be part of those groups. I am very pleased

this time that three Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had a chance to have

a significant involvement in this very historic event.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question will be for the acting Minister of Finance. Some

time ago now the government announced it was actively pursuing the privatization

of Newfoundland Farm Products. I would like to know how far along preparations

are, to sell that particular Crown corporation?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question. I will take the matter under advisement and have it reported upon in

due course.

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

Baie Verte -White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I was expecting some earth shattering

answers from the minister but I will continue on. Has the government received

any indications of interest from buyers as of now? I'm interested in knowing in

particular, if there has been any expression of interest from buyers as of now,

and I am interested in knowing in particular if there has been any expression of

interest from potential buyers in this Province? Can the minister answer that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes people get programmed and they must carry on even

though they have the answers to questions, they must continue to ask their

second supplementary; so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would

continue with his robotic performance.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister responsible for Human

Rights.

The minister, quite properly, in response to the comments by

the Member for St. John's East, talked about the importance of protecting human

rights in South Africa. I would like to ask the minister, when is he going to

protect the human rights of gays and lesbians in Newfoundland and Labrador, by

initiating an amendment to the Province's Human Rights Code, to prohibit

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That issue is under consideration currently and has been for

some time. The position of the government has been very clear in that, when it

was last reviewed a while ago, the government position, stated publicly, has not

changed since that point in time, that if and when the Canadian code is changed,

or if some circumstance arises - some people are suggesting that the recent

ruling in Alberta may be such a circumstance - then we would look at the issue

again.

We are currently analyzing and assessing that, and if that

change were made to include sexual orientation in the national, the federal

code, that we would look at the issue again in Newfoundland and Labrador. And in

fact, I guess it may very well have been the hon. member who asked the question,

who might have been minister responsible at the time when the code was last

changed and who had an opportunity at that time to make that very inclusion and

for some reason didn't put that before the Cabinet of the day, or didn't succeed

in having it passed. But it is certainly an issue that we are still discussing;

it's a current topic that will be dealt with again and we will certainly advise

everybody of the outcome of the most recent discussions as soon as we can.

MS. VERGE: When?

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking forward to next week with the Budget Estimate

Committees. I know the Government House Leader may not be aware of this, but

last week in the Estimate Committee of Mines and Energy the meeting was

adjourned without passing the heads of the department. I am just wondering if it

is planned to reschedule a further meeting for that department sometime next

week? If so, I would like to know what the

schedule is, please?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that the committee

had not concluded the discussion. I believe my friend, the Member for Harbour

Main, actually moved the adjournment - I only got the Minutes of the report

yesterday - and I think the Member for Humber Valley seconded the motion. The

committee will obviously have to conclude its work. I guess there are two

parameters. One is the fifteen-day period, although we said we are not

particularly hung up, give a day or so either way. The committees are moving on

very smartly with their work.

Secondly, my friend and colleague, the Minister of Mines and

Energy, has a long standing commitment for him to lead a large delegation from

Newfoundland and Labrador to a major international conference in Houston next

week.

DR. GIBBONS: I am due back at mid-day on Thursday.

MR. ROBERTS: It is an important event for the energy

industry in the Province.

MR. DECKER: If I could go in his place?

MR. ROBERTS: I wouldn't mind so much my friend, the

Minister of Education going, but I know those on this side would be concerned if

he came back.

MR. DECKER: On the other side, too, I would think!

MR. ROBERTS: We don't want to ask the people on the other

side, Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, where I should go.

To come back to the point raised by my friend, the Member for

Grand Bank, I had a note to myself this morning to speak with the Chair of the

committee, and with the minister, to see what we can work out. Obviously, the

minister has done such a superb job of defending his estimates that we want to

make sure he has the opportunity to finish that, so perhaps next Saturday

morning at 6:00 o'clock, or something, we will do it. I am sure we will get it

worked out.

Is the Member for Humber Valley the Vice-Chair of the

committee? That committee is chaired by the Member for Lewisporte who is here.

Perhaps the two of them could have a word with me behind the Speaker's chair

when we get into the dreary debate which the Opposition will offer us this

morning when we get into Orders of the Day.

If that will deal with it at the moment we will let it stand.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to ask the House

to continue to deal with the Electrical Power Control Act, but before we do, may

I raise a matter? My friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay came to see

me just before Your Honour took the Chair to say that while he had adjourned the

debate yesterday, and accordingly, would normally pick it up, he hadn't spoken.

He just stood up and said, `I adjourn the debate.' The Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, I believe, wishes to favour us with one of his orations, and the

request that my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay made of me, was,

would we on this side consent to allow him to stand aside for a moment and let

the Member for Waterford - Kenmount speak for his thirty minutes - and, no

doubt, he will take every second of it, and then let the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay resume.

My response is that it is like going to the dentist to have a

root canal done, you have to put up with it anyway, so we might as well. So, if

Your Honour is amenable, my colleagues, I understand, will -

MS. VERGE: You just can't help it, can you?

MR. ROBERTS: When I look at people opposite I can't help

it, I have to disclose everything, Mr. Speaker, and I commend it to hon. members

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Your Fortis shares - why didn't you disclose

that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I disclose the existence of my

Fortis shares every time. If hon. gentleman and woman opposite want to look at

the public filings that I made, they will find I have disclosed Fortis shares.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I ask my friend, the Leader of the

Opposition: How many of his colleagues hold Fortis shares?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have looked up some of them and some

of them do. There is nothing wrong with that. They, too, have disclosed, as have

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) payments from Halley, Hunt,

(inaudible), $10,000 a month (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, any payments I got from Halley

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say the hon. gentleman is

wrong. He is not telling a lie because he does not know what he saying, but he

is wrong. If he looks at the statement I filed under the old Conflict of

Interest Act -

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

MR. ROBERTS: - the public statement, he will find the

disclosure was full and complete.

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

West, on a point of order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to a point of

order. The hon. gentleman should sit down and possess his soul in patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down, sit down!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all of which - given the

hectoring by my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, what I am trying to say

is, we, on this side, would be quite prepared to let the hon. gentleman, the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount begin his root canal work. There is nobody

around better at boring than the gentleman, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

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

Kenmount.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague,

the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Government House Leader for

permitting the change in the order of speaking this morning so that I can have a

few comments on this bill.

The motion before the House is for a six-month hoist to the

piece of legislation. We are debating the reasons why this piece of legislation

should not be dealt with by the hon. House at this time, but should be hoisted,

postponed, or moved to a time at least six months from now. The effect, of

course, would be that this would facilitate dialogue with the citizens of the

Province. This would mean that the proper consultations, the time for public

hearings, the times when people of this Province can have a proper cost analysis

done, all of these things, could be accomplished in that six-month period.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some aspects of the Electrical Power

Resources Act deserve support from the people of this Province and the members

of this House on both sides. However, those aspects of this piece of legislation

which are included deliberately to facilitate the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro cannot be supported by members on this side of the House. Indeed, they

cannot be supported by the citizens of the Province.

Government has inserted in the Electrical Power Resources Act

five measures that are intended to make the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro more attractive to private investors. Those measures will have

the effect of disguising the real cost of privatization by dispersing the cost

to ratepayers and taxpayers and will pave the way for a merger between

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power. More precisely, these

sections in the act - that is, the Electrical Power Resources Act to which I

refer - would have the effect of instructing the Public Utilities Board to base

electrical rates on three criteria only: cost, maintenance of credit-worthiness,

and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. In effect, that would mean that the

cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this Province would go up.

The act would also direct the Public Utilities Board to phase

out the portion of the rural subsidy charged to industrial customers by the end

of 1999. That would be in order to cushion the impact of privatization on the

cost of electricity to major industries in the Province. We know that this

subsidization to - or call it the rural subsidy - is in effect going to have a

very negative impact on the rural parts of this Province. Of course, we know

that the rural parts of this Province certainly can do without these changes in

the rates that they pay for the cost of electricity.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this act would have the effect of

transferring responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the

Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board, and that would certainly

give these employees less protection than they would now have. There is nothing

in this act which will guarantee that the Public Utilities Board will assure

that employment, as it now stands, would remain at the level it is now. We know

from the Premier's statements that privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro will result in 175 jobs being lost.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that in this Province we can do

without fewer jobs created by any kind of happening, particularly if that

happening is a result of legislative initiatives by the Government of this

Province. What happened in Nova Scotia is a lesson to all of us. In Nova Scotia,

the government of the day said that there would be few jobs lost; in fact, they

said there would be hardly any jobs lost at all. The effect after a year or so

is that there are 400 top-paying jobs lost in Nova Scotia as a result of

privatization of Nova Scotia Hydro.

Now, that is a lesson to all of us, that we should be aware

here of the need for us to preserve job opportunities and job possibilities for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly when those jobs are among the

highest-paid positions in our Province. Mr. Speaker, fourthly, The Electrical

Power Resources Act will empower the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership

of more than 20 per cent of the shares of electrical utility, which paves the

way, of course, for a merger between the privatized Hydro and Newfoundland

Power.

Fifthly, the act would have the effect of refunding federal

taxes paid by utilities and rebated to the Province under PUITTA. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it has become quite clear that the whole intent of these five sections

is to facilitate, to make more attractive the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro; therefore, as I said before, to disguise the real intent of this

piece of legislation and to have the effect of disbursing the cost of

privatization directly to the ratepayers, directly to the taxpayers of this

Province. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province do not want to pay higher

rates for their electricity. They do not want to pay higher taxes, simply so

that out-of-Province shareholders can make more profits.

We need to be assured that every measure is taken by this

government and all future governments, to keep taxes as low as possible in this

Province. We now have some of the highest taxes in this country and this measure

will only have the effect of putting taxes up, putting the cost of electricity

up. And we know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do without that

measure, only for the effect to be, as the government has admitted, that

out-of-Province shareholders would make more money on the backs of ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are fortunate today if they can get a job

that's paying six dollars an hour. Many people who are unemployed in this

Province would be happy to get a job that pays six to seven or eight dollars an

hour.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to constituents who, a few years

ago were making $75,000 to $100,000 a year. I had one gentleman in my office

just a few days ago, who several years ago, his company was able to rent out the

main foyer of Newfoundland Hotel for a reception for his clients. That gentleman

today is living on his unemployment insurance benefits resulting from a job he

had last year that paid $7 an hour. This gentleman is now unemployed, and a few

days ago came to tell me that he has three weeks of unemployment left, and he is

willing to take a job that pays $7 an hour.

Mr. Speaker, people who are receiving $7 to $8 to $10 an hour

have great difficulty understanding why any government, of whatever stripe,

would even consider for the slightest time, introducing legislative measures

that would result in their having to pay higher electricity rates. It is that

fear they have when they think of what is happening to them that causes them to

say to the government: Wait, we don't want you to do this if it's going to have

a negative effect on us.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have read

and heard the government's propaganda. They have listened to what has been said,

and they, some time ago, as a result of their input through public opinion

polls, voted 80 per cent to tell the government to reject the privatization

concept because it simply doesn't make any sense to them.

Mr. Speaker, people have, therefore, fears and trepidations.

They have high levels of anxiety about the proposal to privatize Newfoundland

Hydro. They are perhaps better informed on this issue than they have been on any

issue of government policy in the past decade. This particular issue has been

the subject of numerous letters to the editors, numerous guest commentaries in

the public press. The government, itself, has spent $150,000 in a print and

electronic media propaganda campaign. The government and Newfoundland Power have

spent tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The minister's estimates the

other day said that they have spent $1.5 million on privatization initiatives.

We have to ask ourselves all of the things that we could do

with $1.5 million - how many schools we could repair. We could have $1.5 million

spent to make sure that children don't sit in classrooms that are at best

described as unsatisfactory, and when it rains children get wet, when their

classes have to be moved from one site to another. We have classrooms in this

Province which are more well-known for how many buckets are on the floor

catching the rain water than we care to really acknowledge, but it is happening.

We have the closure of hospital beds. We have people on

social assistance who would love to go to work, and we have spent $1.5 million

on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. How many jobs could

that create in this Province this year for ordinary working Newfoundlanders who

would be happy today if they could get a job that paid $7 or $8 an hour.

The people of this Province do not want to be on unemployment

insurance. The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador want to be employed. They

are not happy with what is happening in many of the job initiatives of this

Province. They are sending out resumes to hundreds of places looking for jobs,

and what do they get back? No jobs available.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what we are doing with the

taxpayers' money, if we can find $1.5 million to spend on a privatization

concept of the Premier to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but we

can't find any money to be able to put into job opportunities for the students

who are graduating from our school system this year. Students who are graduating

from the post-secondary institutions have so few job prospects. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, we can find $150,000 to carry on a propaganda campaign, and we can find

$1.5 million, but we can't find the necessary $10,000 to be able to keep

families in food and necessary clothing and shelter so they can maintain some

kind of dignity.

Now, we know that 80 per cent of the people of this Province

have made up their minds to reject the privatization concept. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier says he doesn't believe that the people of this Province understand what

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro privatization is all about. You see, Mr.

Speaker, governments of whatever stripe, whatever province, whatever nation, the

very thing they will do and the leaders will do when people vote against them,

when people's opinions are turning against them, they will blame everybody else.

The Premier is very good at blaming people. He's blaming the media because - we

know that the people of this Province do not believe what the Premier is saying

on the benefits of privatization. The Premier has blamed the Opposition for

telling the people things that he believes are not the truth or are not

according to his

interpretation of the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, people are responding. They responded a month

ago, 80 per cent of them, saying they didn't want to have Hydro privatized. A

few days ago a little poll was done again in which the numbers seem to be very

consistent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the people know that privatization is wrong

for them; they know that it's wrong for their children and it's wrong for the

future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wells, as the Premier, wants to

convince the people of this Province that his view of the world is the only

correct view. Mr. Wells, as the Premier of the Province, has a long reputation

for believing that his view of things is the only view that really has merit. He

believes he's a fountain of all knowledge on this particular initiative of the

government. He believes that things like the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro should be left to the lawyers, to the business people and

therefore, by saying that, he believes that the population are unable to

understand the implications of privatization, or worst still, he believes that

the public really don't care.

Mr. Speaker, the public do care. The public are totally aware

of what the government is trying to do. You see, the Premier would have us

believe that privatization should be left up to his Cabinet. Leave it up to my

caucus, he would say. Let the Chambers of Commerce and the business people -

listen to what they have to say, they have the experience. Leave it up to the

Boards of Trade, they'll express the viewpoint of the business community and if

they decide in his favour and share his view of the world, then all is well.

However, the Premier is having a difficult time convincing ordinary citizens of

this Province that wrong is right. The people know that it is wrong for the

Premier to spend $1.5 million on privatization. It is wrong to spend $150,000

trying to convince them to change their minds about something on which they've

already made up their minds.

Mr. Speaker, ordinary citizens, months ago, were asking for

public hearings. They were asking for an opportunity for their viewpoints to be

heard and they had asked for this matter to be a topic for a Legislation Review

Committee to consider.

The Premier does not want to have public hearings; he doesn't

want this topic to be a subject for a Legislation Review Committee to consider.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier only wants to hear from people who share his

viewpoint. He was not happy with the Chamber of Commerce in Baccalieu, in the

Harbour Grace area. Why? Because they, representing that part of the Province

where, of course, there are five constituencies, all represented by members

opposite. That Chamber, having heard of the merits put forward by the Minister

of Mines and Energy, having had the demerits as put forward by the Member for

Humber East, they held a closed session, voted by secret ballot and 62 per cent

of them decided that they did not agree with the privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier certainly has had some support

from some other business people in the Province, but the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador have a long history of distrust - one of the things that any

government has to be aware of, is that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

have a long history of distrust of the viewpoints put forward by the Board of

Trade, by the business community, when it comes to things that directly affect

them. Mr. Speaker, let me explain.

For many, many generations, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador held the Water Street merchants in contempt. The viewpoint of the

residents of this Province for many, many generations is that if things were

good for the Water Street merchants, they were bad for the people, the ordinary

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and many of us here who sit in this House

today, grew up in families where there was not a very positive view or a very

positive commentary about the viewpoints of Water Street merchants. I grew up in

one of those houses, so today, my philosophy of the world, and my philosophy of

politics, is moulded by that kind of viewpoint. Therefore, when the Premier of

this Province goes out and says the Board of Trade agrees, and when he says the

Chambers of Commerce agree, well, let me tell the Premier, when he says that the

lawyers of St. John's, when the merchants of St. John's, when the business

people of St. John's, all say something is good for business, there is a

contempt in the minds of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador which says,

well, it might not be good for the ordinary citizens. So, the fisherperson up in

Placentia Bay, the logger in Central Newfoundland, when they hear the Premier

say that the Board of Trade is on their side when it comes to privatization,

immediately, immediately there are questions that arise in the hearts of these

people.

They wonder, whose side the Liberal Government of this

Province is on, on this issue. Are we out to make money for the citizens or for

the merchants of this Province, for the people who can put in the money to

invest in Newfoundland and Labrador or, are we going to have a policy here which

is going to take money out of the pockets of people who are making $10 and $12

an hour; people who are making as low as $4.50 an hour? Are we going to transfer

money from the pockets of the poor so the rich of this Province can get richer?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious as to what the government should do. The

Premier of this Province is trying to convince people that wrong is right, and I

can tell you right now, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not fooled.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but on this issue, 80 per cent

of the people are not willing to be fooled any time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying today is that it is time for

the Premier to listen to what Professor Wade Locke has been saying. Again, when

the Premier has viewpoints expressed contrary to what he believes to be his view

of the world, he dismisses them in an arrogant, contemptuous, condescending,

egotistical manner.

Mr. Speaker, in an

article published just a few days ago, on

Saturday, April 23 1994, in The Evening Telegram , an

article by Professor

Peter Boswell, we read the following quote - second paragraph. It says: "We were

told by the Premier that public hearings were unnecessary because he and the

Liberal party were going to `educate' the public during the Easter recess of the

House of Assembly." Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not living in Communist China. We

do not want to have a revolution whereby we have to educate the people and we

have to say to them: You have to go through a re-education program. The people

of Newfoundland and Labrador have been educated. They know, and they hold in

contempt what the Premier is saying to them.

Further in the

article Peter Boswell writes: "In a

comprehensive paper" - and he is referring to the presentation by Dr. Wade Locke

- "backed up by copious spreadsheets, tables and computer analyses, Locke

provided what the government should have made public months ago."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

There is too much conversation here. The Chair can't hear the

hon. member.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Understandable, Mr. Speaker, that members

opposite may be not too interested in reasons why this bill should be given a

six-month hoist, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are interested in

why this bill should get a six-month hoist. They believe it should be flung

right out of the Legislature altogether. It should be dismissed, and they want

it dismissed. They don't want this kind of legislation passed in this House.

Referring again to the

article by Dr. Peter Boswell, who is

quoting from the references by Dr. Wade Locke, he said: "While Locke chose to be

cautious by always giving the government the benefit of the doubt, few of his

listeners could have left the seminar without seriously questioning the

government's wisdom. In fact, during discussion it became evident that a number

of negative assumptions of privatization, such as inevitable salary increases

for senior Hydro executives, had not been included" in the government's

analysis.

What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying is:

Show us how this will benefit us, and show us how this will help out the people

who today are unemployed. Show us how it will help the people who today have to

go to social services and say: Would you please give us enough money to pay our

rent? Would you please give us enough money so we can feed our children? People

of Newfoundland and Labrador today who are unemployed, people who have no

prospects of finding a job, people who have been trained for jobs that do not

exist in this Province, these people want to know why would a government spend

$150,000 trying to convince them of something that they don't want to be

convinced of, and spend $1.5 million on privatization while they see their

hospitals closing, their schools in disarray, children who have their libraries

in their communities closed down.

I just want to refer again to the

article by Dr. Peter

Boswell. He says: Unless the government can convincingly demonstrate that Locke

has made inaccurate assumptions or used erroneous data it would appear that the

proposed privatization of Hydro would be nothing less than an irreversible

economic disaster for this Province.

Then Dr. Peter Boswell concludes his own opinions. He writes:

Despite my initial ideological support for privatization, I am increasingly

convinced that the proposal would have a costly and harmful effect on the

taxpayers and economy of this Province. The benefits from a one-shot fiscal fix

will be more than outweighed by the loss of ongoing and increasing consumer

costs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day here, the Liberal

Administration, dismisses Dr. Peter Boswell. They say he doesn't understand what

he is talking about. They say that Professor Wade Locke didn't have all the

information. If that is the case, it's the government's job to make sure that

they get the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I might ask

leave of hon. members to respond to a question that was asked of me today by the

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

DR. KITCHEN: I have ascertained, with respect to the

privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, that an advertisement has been

placed for the privatization, and that proposals are being requested, and the

proposals should be in by the end of June.

Also, I have ascertained that there is considerable interest

in this privatization and we look forward to a very successful completion of our

endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, to a point of order,

my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay yielded to the gentleman from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The Member for Placentia will get his speech

yet. We look forward to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Could I speak to that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: To answer the Government House Leader's

question, basically we had three people lined up to speak this morning on this

debate, which were the three of us. I just substituted my time for the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount. He was set for second, so I would go third, but if

there is opposition to that, then we -

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

point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, there are only three members

left to speak on this amendment, and they are all going to be speaking in

succession, so if there is a problem, I guess we will have to follow the

procedure, but there are only three, and they are intended to speak, and we just

ask leave to be able to have these three people speak. I can't see what

difference the order would make.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

What I have to say is that I wasn't aware of this. My friend,

the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, came to me and asked, would we agree to

change the order and let the Member for Waterford - Kenmount speak ahead of him,

and I said, `sure'. I have no problem with this, and the best news I have heard,

if my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and my friend, the Member

for Placentia speak and that's the end of it, we can -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Well, my friend, the Member for

Ferryland, can we agree to put this thing to a vote before noon today?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It's now 10:15 a.m. We have three speeches.

That's an hour-and-a-half at most.

MR. SULLIVAN: On the amendment?

MR. ROBERTS: On the amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: Of course.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Well, then, with that understanding

we will be entertained by my friend, the Member for Placentia, and then whenever

the fans of my friend, the Member for Baie Verte come, we will hear from him,

and so forth.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally! It is

amazing!

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about how Bill 2 would revise

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

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

If that was all the case, it would be easy; this would have been over with; it

would be done. But I am here now to support the motion that was made on an

earlier day, to ask and demand and request a six-month hoist so that the people

of this Province would have the opportunity to have public hearings, to have a

say, to let the government hear what they were doing with the power resources of

this Province.

Public hearings have fallen on government ears. Polls done by

individuals, corporations, have fallen on government ears. The only ones they

are interested in really are the polls that point a yes to what they are doing,

and they are very, very, limited, only in the cases of a couple of Chambers of

Commerce in this Island.

The bill would also make Hydro very much more attractive to

privatize, and while we have debated the privatization bill for weeks, we have

debated last fall on a merger with Fortis, and for that reason I cannot support

it, and side with my colleagues against the passing of Bill 2 and request a

six-month hoist.

It is as ludicrous as what is being advocated by my friend

for St. John's South to get the ferry to run into St. John's instead of

Argentia.

MR. ROBERTS: There is not much support for that

suggestion in the Placentia area, I guess, is there?

MR. CAREEN: No, on all sides, my friend.

The monies from the federal government, their subsidies, are

getting less and less and the passengers have to pick up more and more of the

charges, so with a ferry running from North Sydney to St. John's you would not

see very many passengers. It was a good intention by my friend for St. John's

South, to try and get a swipe at Marine Atlantic for what they did downtown in

favour of Lewisporte. Anyway it is not going to work.

Getting back to the bill, the bill to make Hydro more

attractive is wrong, and I am advocating a six-month hoist, as other gentlemen

and our lone female here have advocated for weeks.

MR. ROBERTS: Our lone woman, now. The hon. member insists

on being called a woman.

MR. CAREEN: Well, I have nothing against women, my mother

was one, Sir.

MR. ROBERTS: My mother was a lady as well as a woman.

MR. CAREEN: That is right, Sir.

We are not here to attack anybody's mother.

If we stick to what is here, we can all walk out of here and

talk after, as long as we do not get into any of the personalities, or the

jugglers that go with it.

Anyway there is no consultation with this government with the

people of this Province, and in a democracy such as ours the people must always

come first. The majority are supposed to be always heard, the majority are

suppose to be always the winner, but not so now. Starting last fall when the

proposal first came to light about a merger, and then privatization, and now an

idea coming through the back door to make something more attractive so they can

sell it off. That is not good enough, and it will not fly, because out in rural

Newfoundland, and here in St. John's, in our urban centres, people are more

knowledgeable than they ever were at any point in Newfoundland history. They are

not interested in some elected officials making decisions for the majority on a

bill, or a matter, that effects so many.

The Premier himself can be thanked for doing that on the

Meech Lake debate, when he went after the Mulroney government and other

governments across this country for not listening to their people, for not

having public consultation on a matter of so great an importance. Then it is

strange that a number of years later the same Premier, with his own people -

because he is the leader of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians regardless of

our political stripes - the very same man now is not prepared to have public

hearings around this Province. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot

attack one political group or another or some other sectors of this country on a

matter and then turn around and fly right in the face of it because it's

affecting you and your government.

The disguise that's in this electrical power act is not going

to fly. It has never gotten past the eagle eyes of the gentlemen over here and

it has not and will not get past the people of this Province. They - more so

today - will have more of a say then they ever had before. Other people outside

this Legislature have taken an active role in making people aware of what's

going on in this Province of ours. Talking about meetings, about people spending

their own money, about this act, this bill and supporting the six month hoist of

what we are advocating. They do not agree with the privatization. They do not

agree that people, the majority of our people cannot invest and cannot hope to

buy shares. The number of people that have been affected by the fisheries, the

number of people that are unemployed, the number of people who are just doing it

on their old age pensions, youth who do not have the money to invest, where are

they going? The majority of our people and what has been said and thrown around

is that 80 per cent are against it in the polls. That's too high to be fooled

with, that's too high for any government to be toying around with.

While the Premier is in Ottawa now - we're told that he's up

like other governments ahead of them no matter what their political stripes are,

on foreign overfishing. It's probably a good opportunity for him to raise his

level of popularity again because this past number of months it has started to

gradually wane. I hope it's not just for his popularity, which he's trying to

build up again, that he's gone to Ottawa. This fishery matter -these people who

are being cast adrift will not be able to invest in Hydro. These are the poor

people of this Province, our own - because we come from that stock ourselves. No

matter which side of this House we are on, we're of the same stock,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We might not have the same relatives but we

are here attached to this rock trying to eke out a living and we tend to forget.

Sometimes if I forget hon. members and friends opposite should remind me too

because we're here for the great or good of this Province.

The people come first and so they should. Democracy is the

best form of government that we know and until they find another, we got to

protect this one and protect the citizens that we are elected to represent and I

do not see that happening on this bill. The six month hoist should be raised up

at the flag where it should be and let people see that the people of this

government will listen to people.

Some members opposite have said they have only gotten a

couple of phone calls from people in their district. Well I've had the privilege

of going around this Province for a good many years and I know a lot of people.

While there's other concerns on their plate at this time about their children

getting grants to go to university, they're not going to be there. The chances

are, who's going to be employed this year? The twelve weeks the federal

government is advocating now is going to drastically affect the people of this

Province. It is also going to affect the purse of the Minister of Social

Services. More time and less money. There is `Marine Atlantic' just came into

the Chamber.

It is going to affect us all. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, as good a man as he is, but the money he had last year is

not going to go as far this year because of all these differences that the

federal regulations are going to make. I sympathize with him and his department

on that matter because it affects people where I live and where he lives and

where everybody else lives in this Province.

If we forget where we are, a people cast out in the North

Atlantic, well, none of us should be here. Because I enjoyed it the week before

last here when the Member for Eagle River got up on a private member's bill

about the seals, supported by people on both sides of this House. Because it was

us - us - from Cape Chidley to Cape St. Mary's, representative, that was against

them, and "them" were those who were outside of this Province. That is the way

it should be. Not tearing each other up or wasting time in this House when there

are so many other important things that are affecting the people of this

Province. Every one of us has people out there who are being affected by one

element or another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: I cannot support my friend for St. John's

South on the matter. He knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Yes, but if he wants my help to go after

Marine Atlantic for what they are doing to downtown St. John's he has my support

on that. He is a good man and hopefully, for what we are saying over here, we

will take the blinkers off the good man's eyes, because he is a good man. You

are not allowed to smoke in this building, and one time I used to walk a mile

for a Camel, but I would walk a mile to see my friend for St. John's South. We

could have a Camel together.

MR. MURPHY: Us Irishmen got to stick together.

MR. CAREEN: Newfoundlanders got to stick together. We

have to stick together like we never stuck before. Because there are so many

things coming down the pike after all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Labrador, yes. Labrador to me is

Newfoundland. I make the distinction in certain areas, but as a province it is

the Province of Newfoundland.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is not the Province of Newfoundland.

MR. CAREEN: It is the Province of Newfoundland. You don't

know the difference.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. CAREEN: You were coming aboard the boats looking for

apples when I was on the Labrador Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Listen to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him again.

MR. CAREEN: No I won't. God, no, he can ask.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What does that have to do with the name

of the Province?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) tell you what it has to do with

this bill, and what you are trying to disguise here. You are trying to hoodwink

the people of this Province by making it attractive to sell something out from

underneath the feet of the people of this Province. No matter where you live in

this Province. Whether it is in Southern Labrador or it is in Placentia Bay.

MR. EFFORD: You really don't know what you are talking

about, do you?

MR. CAREEN: Now, did you hear the metal man?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The middleman.

MR. CAREEN: He is turning into a metal man. The man who

advocated all the fisheries, who attacked the present Minister of Fisheries, the

present Premier, Mulroney and all the rest of them, on what is happening to the

fisheries? All of a sudden they put the zipper on it, across his lips. I know.

I've been watching him. When people over here question the Minister of Fisheries

and question the Premier on what is happening with the fishery in the Province,

he is very attentive. He is the man who doesn't pat and wave to what the Premier

is at.

I am afraid to say, he is turning into a metal man. He has

silver in his hair, brass on his tongue, and lead in his backside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: We can't have that, sir. We can't have that.

There are things very important happening in this Province. I supported you.

When you attacked Cashin and all of them on the fishery I was supporting you,

and I will support you again. Because you want someone outside this Legislature

now who is taking a swing at the whole works of them. You need a John Efford

type out there now and I support the idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: What used to be John Efford.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, what used to be. The element, the man,

the heart and the swing. You have to have that. That is sadly lacking outside

this building today.

AN HON. MEMBER: He voted against that resolution

(inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, he voted against the resolution.

He could have made a point of order but he can come back. We

are a forgiving people. All you have to do is admit you're wrong and you're back

in the fold, that is all. No hallelujahs, no big sermons. I went wrong, I erred,

but I am back, and you are accepted by people.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lost sheep.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. I have been forgiven for lots of things,

and I have had lots of help in my forty-nine years by different people in this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: There are lots of fine people down your way -

fine, hospitable people.

Anyway, I am not getting in any poems on you today, by the

way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer his own questions.

MR. CAREEN: You will have to answer to yourself, Mister,

when you go beyond - a man selling out his little country up here to the ones

who can purchase stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Not you. Not you. I am talking about all

over. Anybody who sells out something that is endeared to them, that is their

own.

I don't blame people in Labrador for having some of those

reasons. I spent a good deal of time on the Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to support it?

MR. CAREEN: Yes, I support you getting a fair shake.

For all of the riches that came out of the Labrador, there

wasn't very much money that went back into her, and that's a fair assessment of

it.

The bill to disguise, the bill to put it over on people, the

bill to get rid of something that belongs to us - and there is not very much

left that belongs to us. A family reunion in this Province now is a wake or a

funeral. Just think about it - a wake or a funeral. Our children, no choices.

Our nieces and nephews, our brothers and sisters, no choices. I know members

opposite in here have been away themselves and come back, and I am delighted to

see you here, because there are only a handful of us, a little over 500,000 -

less than the population of Edmonton - and what are we at? Fighting among

ourselves.

This bill should be shelved, and the other one, Bill 1,

should be shelved, and let us get at the matters that are tormenting the people

of this Province. Let us get at it right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: That was alright until they got them.

Anyway, this bill is being cleverly disguised to make the

sale of Hydro more attractive than it should be, and on that matter alone I

cannot support it.

I have been up here before on the Hydro Privatization Bill,

and I was against it. I am still against it, and the people I know out there in

rural Newfoundland, and here in this city, have not changed their minds one whit

of what they said weeks ago, of what they said last fall when they were talking

about a merger with Fortis. The people of this Province, the ordinary working

stiffs

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. CAREEN: The working stiffs of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: The working stiffs?

MR. CAREEN: Stiffs. Ordinary Joes. Do you understand

terms? Learn your dictionary. Look at the old Newfoundland dictionary.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got Port de Grave slang. He doesn't

understand it.

MR. CAREEN: But he has been out of there for awhile. He

has been here in the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a city slicker.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, he's a city slicker - and you talk about

someone slick! Oh, he is getting a bit too slick.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's losing his accent and everything.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. My old grandfather used to say: You can

make a pet out of a weasel, but you never let him sleep in the henhouse - and

there are too many in the henhouse over here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I am telling you, for a good man, you are

letting yourself be dragged in by that man who -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) working stiff (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Is a person who works. I will talk to you

after this is over today. I will explain it to you. I am not wasting my time

here. Espaol.

The new Minister of Fisheries, go from education, what he did

to health, what he did to education, and now he is going to cast us all adrift

because Smallwood said, `burn your boats', and he is talking about putting that

sign over there on the south side of Cape Breton that Newfoundland is closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, you've got to be one to know one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, working still.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Labourers working as if - the man with a pick

on his back, anybody who's working. Now what I was leading up to is the number

of other people who are just making it. We are fairly comfortable compared to

other people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They cannot invest. They got less chance to

invest in Hydro then some - people in here are more comfortable then a lot of

the people they represent. They're more comfortable and they can invest. There's

people here who are going to be investing in the privatization of Hydro but the

majority of the people that they represent outside this building, cannot and

that's not fair. It's not fair and it's not going to be tolerated. The people of

this Province are saying loud and clear, Sir, they're saying that they do not

agree with what is being advocated by the Premier and the people who are just

saying yes to him with the exception of the great, the good man and the proud

man that I'm associated with from Pleasantville. A totally different element.

The man, like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation used to be - he

used to be like that. He used to be like the man from Pleasantville. He's gone;

he's disappeared right in front of our eyes. He blended into the sealskin chair.

He's gone, not to come back. You're getting testy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: They're getting testy over there when you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Rather jumpy, he must have taken Mexican

jumping beans after.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm advocating and supporting the

members on this side of the House who want a six month hoist on this bill. It

should be ten years, it should be shelved, it should be allowing us to get back

as members and representatives of the people of Labrador and the Island of

Newfoundland to get to the business at hand. This should be shelved and allow us

to get down to the business of doing what we should be doing. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy today to stand and speak on the motion

put forward for a six month hoist on the Electrical Power Control Act, Bill No.

2. Once again I think that we're being tried - legislation being rushed through

and people of the Province are not having the opportunity to have a say and

therefore that's why this side of the House has put forward a motion to have a

six month hoist. The Hydro issue has been on the plate of many Newfoundlanders

now for quite some time and a fair amount of people have spoken out. We've had

several polls taken across the Province that have shown that many thousands and

thousands of people oppose the act of the government on trying to put forward

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and bringing in the Electrical Power

Control Act.

If I thought for a moment that we could gain power back from

the Churchill with any of those pieces of legislation, I'd be fully in support

of it but I believe that the chances are against us and because of the Hydro -

because the government has put Hydro front and centre against all other issues

of the Province, many things that are very important to this Province are being

put on the sidelines while we debate for hours and hours the Hydro issue. I'd

certainly step back and have a look at the whole economy of the Province and

what's happening here. It seems that we are not - as far as I'm concerned -

giving it the justice it deserves in this House. We are here to represent the

people of the Province on every issue.

Our fishery has collapsed over the past couple of years and

people are hurting all over this Province. We have families who are breaking up,

we have fishermen who don't even know what the future holds, we have plant

workers who don't know what the future holds and we sit here for hours and hours

and debate Hydro. I have no qualms in saying that it's an important issue but I

believe we have a lot of other important issues here and I believe that instead

of rushing something through that we should give the people of the Province an

opportunity to have their say on it.

Give the people an opportunity to have their say on it, and

that is why I supported the six-month hoist. Maybe the government would propose

to put a committee in place to go around the Province and hold some public

hearings.

I held a meeting in my district to discuss the Hydro issue

and I had a hundred people out to the meeting. I was going to hold another one

but then they went into Bill No. 2. People in my district, the parts of the

Hydro issue that they are concerned about are the electricity rates and in

regards to who will own it and who will control it. I guess we come back to the

old saying about Newfoundlanders, that we usually sell ourselves out for the

mighty buck. We've done that short-term gain for long-term pain.

I think that we should look at some of the things that are

coming forward and put our priorities in place. As far as I'm concerned the

priority at this time is not the Hydro issue. The priority in this Province now

is what is happening to the economy and especially to our fishing industry and

the effects that it has on everybody in the Province.

As I looked through the Electrical Power Resources Act it

seems that the reason the Premier would like to put this through is that he

believes he has some, I guess, back door strategy to try to gain control of

Churchill once again. Like I said earlier, I support that 100 per cent, if I

thought that we would have the opportunity to get some control back from

Churchill. I believe that Premier Wells may be taking a shot in the dark,

because this has been tried before by a couple of premiers who have gone before

us and it seems that we always come back to square one again. We signed a

contract. The former premier, Joseph R. Smallwood, signed a contract with Quebec

that more or less sold us out till the year 2041, I think - I stand to be

corrected - about 2041. I don't think that the premier at the time felt he was

doing anything wrong. I think Premier Smallwood was doing what he thought was in

the best interest of the Province at the time, and that more or less he was

trying to create jobs and trying to improve our economy, something that I

believe the present government isn't doing.

I don't think Premier Smallwood at the time did anything

wrong, it is just that he received some bad advice. One thing that we won't be

able to say about the present Premier is he received advice, because he listens

to nobody but himself. When you go across this Province and you talk about the

Hydro issue and you talk about the education issue, you talk about any issue or

any policy that this government is putting forward, most people will say: We

don't have a say. A fair amount of those issues were not even part of the last

election campaign. Once the government came into being after May 3 last year

they decided to proceed with changes to the educational system. They brought

forward the Hydro privatization act and several other pieces of legislation that

were hardly mentioned during the election campaign, because they knew if the

people knew what their plans were last May 3 that they wouldn't be sitting on

the side of the House they are sitting on now.

It is kind of a camouflage act by the present government.

Like I say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people

all of the time, but you won't fool all of the people all of the time. I guess

your day of reckoning will come like everybody else. Because once, I believe,

that you lose touch with the people of the Province - and as far as I'm

concerned the present Premier has lost touch with the people of the Province. He

has certainly lost touch with the people outside of the overpass, there is no

doubt about that.

I refer to the hon. Member for St. John's South, the hon.

member I will say, who is trying to take something out of the area of Placentia

and move it into St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, I mean, right? The way I look at

that, the hon. member would do anything to get in the media. Basically that is

what it comes down to. That is an old story. That one has been rehashed before.

You have no more chance of getting The Joseph and Clara Smallwood to dock

in Argentia now than you have of getting -

MR. MURPHY: A seat for you.

MR. MANNING: I should say he had more chance of getting

The Joseph and Clara Smallwood to dock in St. John's port than he has of

getting up in the front row of the opposite side of the House. So I say he

should pin his hopes on The Joseph and Clara Smallwood because he better

not, right? Every now and again he steps up to the front and sits down and lives

in his little dream world and that's fine. Everybody has to have dreams, but I

think you have been doing a great job as the gofer for the Premier, so I think

you are going to be kept on while I am here on this side, so that's okay -

AN HON. MEMBER: You will never get that job.

MR. MANNING: No, I don't want that job; I am going to be

in the front seat when we go across, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, we will, I guarantee you, we will.

Your Premier, I say to the Member for St. John's South, has lost touch I am

sure, with the people of the Province especially the rural people as far as I am

concerned and it seems that this Hydro issue is the big issue, it's a major

issue for the Province but it is not front and centre when you have people out

in this Province who are out of work and have problems in seeing what the future

holds for them. You have young people in this Province who are concerned about

what type of education they should do, what courses they should take in order to

find a job and I believe these people will be referred to later on as the lost

generation, Mr. Speaker, because I have talked to a fair amount of young people

over the last few days in my district and they really don't know what to do or

where to go or really, what the future holds for them and I am very concerned

about those people.

But getting back for a minute if I could to Bill 2, the

Electrical Power Control Act and Bill 1, the Privatization of Hydro Act, it is

very important I think that we have a six-month hoist. It is very important I

believe that we put this on the back burner right now and that the government

put the priorities in place for the economy of this Province, that's why I

support the six-month hoist, and will continue to push forward for the simple

reason that this is a very complicated issue and many people are calling in

asking questions and have concerns put forward and that is why I believe that if

we held public hearings across the Province, that people will get the

opportunity to come out, ask their questions, voice their concerns and explore

the issues a bit more before they could make a detailed assessment of the acts

themselves.

I believe that there is a grand plan as far as I am concerned

to put this forward now and to bring it forward in a complicated manner so that

people, more or less would just pass it on and that the Premier would have his

own day in court with the legislation as he sees put forward. Mr. Speaker, many

people with whom I talk in my district, have asked questions concerning the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and especially as it relates to the waters

of Labrador and the rights and who controls these, and the concerns put forward

by a lot of people is that the Public Utilities Board will still have some say,

but the say they will have with a private company from outside the Province,

because most of the shares as you all know, will be owned by people outside the

Province.

Unemployed Newfoundlanders, the Newfoundlanders who are on

social assistance, the Newfoundlanders who are on the cod moratorium, the

Newfoundlanders who have no work won't be buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro.

It will be people from Bay Street, the people outside this Province who have

dollars to invest and it won't be owned by Newfoundlanders.

Now it is easy to say some day we may own - Newfoundland

Hydro is a long ways away but still some day we may own it, but if we sell it

out now, as far as I am concerned, it is a sell-out; if we sell out now and put

the shares up on the market for sale, that many Newfoundlanders can't afford to

buy the shares therefore the shares will be sold outside the Province, therefore

we sell the control outside the Province; and the control then goes from us and

the Public Utilities Board will have very little to say when it comes to

controlling a company that wants to increase their rates or do whatever they

want to do with the Newfoundland Hydro after they have the power.

Mr. Speaker, the public hearings is a way that

Newfoundlanders right across this Province can come out and have a say on the

issue of privatization, and on the whole issue of selling out one of our

resources and to me, that's a very important issue and I believe that people in

the Province should have a say and that is why I support the six-month hoist.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise here today and have a few comments

on this six-month hoist.

AN HON. MEMBER: My bowling partner, right?

MR. SHELLEY: Bowling partner is right. The Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation asked a little while ago for a definition for

a hoist. I say there are two

definitions. The one that we are talking about

right now, which is the hoist when we can have more time to debate this and

hopefully it will be a six-year hoist as opposed to a six-month hoist. There is

also another meaning for hoist, which means, robbery and in this case that might

be exactly what I mean I say to the minister in this particular bill, in this

particular issue that we might end up -

MR. WOODFORD: Bonnie and Clyde.

MR. SHELLEY: Bonnie and Clyde situation. We have to think

about, we should have had the time, more than six months, I say to the minister,

I say more like six years that we should have taken to give the people of this

Province a chance to speak on probably one of the most important issues that we

would ever get a chance to speak on in this Province, and they have not had that

chance to speak.

As far as the definition of a hoist, I'm glad the Opposition

House Leader brought forward the hoist. To say that in six months we would have

the chance - and I would like to see somebody on the other side of the House

today when we get a chance to vote on this to search their souls and to stand in

this House and say: We will give the six-month hoist. Vote for it. Say: If it is

such a great thing, this privatization of Hydro, then maybe we should give the

six-month hoist and give people a longer opportunity to have input on this

particular issue.

I understand that the Member for St. John's North soon will -

I'm not sure when exactly - but has indicated that he will actually give a

public meeting. Imagine a member on the government side finally going to say he

is going to listen to the people. I wonder what the Premier is saying about

that. I would like for the hon. member to let us know when he is going to have

that meeting. I think one of our colleagues over here has already indicated that

he would like to go to that meeting, to a public meeting given by somebody

finally from the government side. A public meeting so that people can tell the

person who they elected in this House of Assembly what they think about Hydro

privatization.

I applaud the Member for St. John's North in giving the

people that opportunity because obviously people, except for the Member for

Pleasantville who I will speak about in a second, had the guts, I say to the

hon. members, to go out and hold a public meeting. From what I understand - and

I'm sure the Member for St. John's North will correct me when he gets a chance -

I think that he was basically, I think it is safe to say, pressured into having

a public meeting, the truth is. He was pressured into having a public meeting.

For months people have been calling open lines. We've been

standing here in this House with petition after petition. Time after time

government members, one by one, including the Premier, would stand up and say:

You are just throwing up petitions, that doesn't mean anything. People calling

the open line, that doesn't mean anything. Then he talked about the groups that

have been organized like POP, Power of the People, and Take Back the Power, and

the Greg Malones of the world, and these people. Then they tried to tell us or

convince us that we orchestrated all this. The Opposition set all this up.

I don't know what the politics of Greg Malone is. I don't

know what the politics of Mr. Vetter is. I really don't care at this point.

Maybe I will care during an election but I really don't care at this point.

MS. YOUNG: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: There is some babbling going on in the back,

Mr. Speaker. I hope you protect me from the hon. member over there. If she can't

take it maybe she should leave.

I can't understand why anybody on the government side would

say that the Opposition party were the ones who orchestrated Mr. Malone, Mr.

Vetter, and these types of groups, and that we orchestrated these demonstrations

that you see outside every now and then, and we organized all the people who

come to the galleries to talk on it. Imagine, we orchestrated Bill Rowe's show.

Bill Rowe, the staunch Liberal that he is. Imagine, we orchestrated that. I

would say that Mr. Rowe can orchestrate a lot of things that happen on his own

open line. I will say so, Mr. Rowe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I can't see where the hon. members would

think that Greg Malone or Bill Vetter, or Bill Rowe's show or Bas' show, that we

orchestrated anything. I can tell anybody over there on that side in all honesty

that I certainly didn't have anything to do with open line shows or Greg Malone.

The argument goes on, and the Premier says that the

Opposition party - quote now from The Evening Telegram and CBC, the

Premier says that we were the ones who misled. The only reason that 80 per cent

of Newfoundland is against Hydro privatization, he says, is because the

Opposition party has misled and gave the wrong information.

Imagine. With our shoestring budget - I should say that -

compared to $150,000 wasted in propaganda for this beautiful brochure that comes

in the mail all glossed off, all looking so great, and then for me to drive home

to my district on weekends as I usually do and to listen on the radio for six

hours of driving about one hundred times on the radio as some advertisement

comes on telling us how great Newfoundland Hydro is, according to the Premier.

How great it is.

I say to all hon. members in this House on both sides, if it

is so great why are you so scared of the public meetings? If it is such a great

deal for Newfoundland you people, the government side, has had the best

opportunity to educate the people. The people are not misled at all. As a matter

of fact the people educated themselves. The instructor at the University, Mr.

Wade Locke, is it, the professor at the University, Wade Locke. Who instructed

him? I certainly didn't go down and instruct him. I didn't give him the numbers

he came up with. I didn't give them the numbers they came up with. I certainly

didn't give the Member for Ferryland all the numbers he comes up with. And every

time the Member for Ferryland brings up the numbers, and shows them in black and

white on paper, and has offered them to government members, and calculated it

out, nobody on that side of the House can dispute it. As a matter of fact, he

has challenged them time after time: `Here are the numbers. If you say we are

lying or misleading, then here are the numbers and you prove me wrong.' And not

once in the last three months of debate has anybody, including the Premier, come

to the Member for Ferryland and said, your numbers are wrong. Here are the right

numbers.

A six-month hoist is what we are debating today, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a six-month hoist that would

give us more time and more opportunity, than, if this is such an important

thing, to rush it through.

The best definition of a hoist is this case - it's robbery, I

say to the minister, robbing a resource from this Province as was done many

years ago. Then time after time in this debate, again - I am so tired of it,

especially for my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, who was

eight years old, when they keep referring to seventeen years of the Tories;

seventeen years ago, Sprung greenhouses. I mean, I don't give a darn about

Sprung greenhouses. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, and I never

would support it. It was a mistake. So, what? This member was only eight years

old when you bring up seventeen years ago. What if we stood here every day and

talked about Churchill Falls? Sprung greenhouse is like a pocket full of change

compared to that, I say to the minister, compared to what we are going to give

away with Hydro. Sprung was nothing compared to the mistake of Churchill Falls.

What bothers me about this particular deal on Hydro, is that

first of all, the forerunners of all this, the Premier and the hon. House

Leader, forerunners again. Who were the forerunners when Churchill Falls went

through? The same thing. Especially the other day when I looked at the release

and it said the Rothschilds, the great investors that were so responsible and so

involved in the Churchill Falls boo-boo, which it was, and everybody will agree

to that. I suppose you will agree to that, will you? Thank you, very much, for

agreeing to that. That $1.5 million spent so far on the privatization of Hydro -

now, any hon. member over there who can stand up and justify - and maybe it is

not going to go through now. Maybe it won't. The Premier, on Province-wide TV,

said: If the people of this Province are against this, and I see a significant

number against it, I will reconsider the Hydro privatization.

(Power failure)

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. SHELLEY: We have problems with Hydro already. I told

you it was a big mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is in Ottawa this morning selling us

out again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Now, there is an omen for Hydro, I say to

all hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Baie Verte mines.

MR. SHELLEY: As soon as I finish talking about the $800

million that we have wasted on Churchill Falls, I say to the hon. member.

People worked in Baie Verte and that was an investment in the

future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $800 million a year.

MR. SHELLEY: Eight hundred million a year - we shouldn't

even be able to burp on what happened in Baie Verte. At least people went to

work. We lose $800 million a year on Churchill Falls. Do you want to bring up

seventeen years of Tory government? I keep thinking about it. I am one of the

victims of that mistake, and so are you. Our children, especially, are still

victims of that mistake. We shouldn't even be able to mention it. You talk about

wasting money, well, let me give you a couple of quick examples. You are always

saying the Opposition are opposing.

Let me give a couple of quick examples that I have just noted

lately. I go to our offices, and you know what our offices are like, the worst

in the building, with the stucco falling off -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Let me finish. I saw your suite, I say to

the minister, and our offices - but the point I am making is that I really don't

care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am having difficulty hearing my

colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay due to the continuous heckling

and interruptions by ministers opposite. If they wish to stand up and speak on

the six-month hoist, they, like every other member, will have the opportunity to

do so. I request of the Speaker that he quiet down his ministers so I can hear

my colleague.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon.

member. Several times I have called hon. members to order. I ask hon. members to

not interject and interrupt the hon. member when he is speaking, and afford him

the courtesy of being heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We heard somebody

speak from the other side yesterday and we didn't bother him, I don't think. I

think we let him speak and have his say. I certainly didn't, I know that. I

can't speak for everybody.

I would like to make a couple of more points here. For

example, I was just going to talk about waste of money. The government people

always ask us: What would you do? They say we don't give solutions, and we

always oppose, and we never compliment. As a matter of fact we do compliment. It

was just a few days ago that the Premier - well, actually, just before the last

session closed -that the Premier talked about his trip to Asia and looking for

investors in Asia. I stood in this House during some of the comments on my

debate and said I applaud the Premier on doing that, on going looking for

investors. The truth is that we can't control the media. The media is not going

to say the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay complimented the Premier. They only

talk abut what we oppose. As far as the media go, we play that game.

To get back to the point that the minister brought up a few

minutes ago. I talked about our offices up there, and you've seen them. I have

no problem with them. I watch the stucco come off the ceiling and paint come off

the walls day after day. As long as I have a phone and I can work out of there

and work with the people in my district, I have no problem.

MR. EFFORD: From 1985 to 1989 I occupied (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on about your business (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, let him make the point.

MR. EFFORD: - (inaudible) coming down on the desk, so

don't you complain about your office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not.

MR. SHELLEY: Exactly. That is why I wanted to let the

minister finish what he was saying. I am not complaining. I am just telling the

reality that it is there now. To finish my comment, I have no problem with it.

As a matter of fact, as long as there is a light bulb up there and a telephone

and I can communicate with people in my district and work with my constituents,

I have no problem. I agree with the minister, and I am not going to complain.

Here is my point. Then, I see in the Budget $2.3 million to

be spent on this building again this year for renovations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going to create jobs.

MR. SHELLEY: Can anyone over there - going to create

jobs. What about the $2.3 million that could have been given to students for

grants? What about when the homes were closed down? Very simply, instead of

going into detail, $2.3 million - and I think all hon. members have to be honest

about it - we could have spent $2.3 million in these very hard economic times -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That's right, and I disagree with that, too.

Two point three million dollars - especially this year, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

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

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

Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I may be corrected on a point of

order, but I will explain it and then I will leave it up to the Chair's

judgement.

If I am to understand the hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay correctly, he is suggesting that we not spend any money for

renovations on the offices that they occupy this year. Because I just had a

letter from his Leader requesting us to completely renovate the offices on the

government side. I'm quite satisfied to cancel all renovations on the Opposition

floor offices from here on in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order. The hon. member took the

opportunity to give an explanation after a comment there by the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay, but there was no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I didn't think there was a point of order.

He was just cutting into my time again and trying to get his two cents worth in,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Now, I will respond to the point that you

did make. If you, as a government, can guarantee me that that $2.3 million that

is not going to be spent on renovations to our office or anything else will be

spent on something like government -

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

I just want to remind the hon. member that we are debating

the amendment on the six-month hoist for the Electrical Power Control Act and

that he should keep his comments relevant to that bill.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue

with the six-month hoist, but there were comments made over there about the

millions of dollars spent and this building here and everything else. I was just

responding to the questions from there.

As far as the six-month hoist goes, I would hope that some

government member, besides the Member for Pleasantville today, could stand and

search his soul - and really, you are not turning down Hydro privatization. What

you are saying to people in this Province is: Maybe you are right. All this

propaganda that is going on, maybe they don't have enough time to educate.

I say to them again, on that argument alone, that you, the

government, have had the best opportunity to educate the people on Hydro. If it

is such a good thing - you just sent out this beautiful flyer, these messages on

the radio every day, you had the opportunity. The Premier had a half-hour on NTV

and later cried because he could only get fifteen minutes; then he engaged in a

Province-wide debate. All of this happened, and lo and behold, still, 80 per

cent of this Province are opposed to Hydro privatization.

Now, are you telling me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Eighty per cent, I say to the minister.

Every poll that has been done, by us, by independent, by Decima, by phone-ins,

by petitions, nothing is credible to the government members, especially the

Premier? I mean, he had his blinders on, he doesn't believe - I don't think if a

whole mob rushed through this House and said: No, we don't want it - What does

he want - the whole population of Newfoundland to walk into this House? What

does he want? What does it take for the Premier to stand on the word that he

said - I think he was caught on CBC, I think he was caught when he said on CBC,

`I would take back, I would reconsider Hydro privatization if I could see

indications, significance, substantial indications, that the majority of this

Province was against it.'

Now, the Premier of this Province, sooner or later, will have

to live up to that commitment - I say to all hon. members, he will sooner or

later have to live up to that commitment, and if some hon. members over there

think that this is being smoothed out, the people are starting to look at other

issues - `Boys, don't worry, we are on our first year mandate, don't worry about

it'; you are telling your backbenchers, `Don't worry about it because, you know,

in three years time, the public will forget, they have short memories.'

I want to remind a few of the backbenchers that every time a

Newfoundlander gets his Hydro bill, his electricity bill and sees the increases

go up year after year, after year, he will be reminded month after month of the

mistake that this government made concerning Hydro. He will be reminded month

after month of a decision that was made without consultation and against the

public interests of this Province. They will be reminded, and I say to hon.

members over there, the same as the federal PC Party got the message, you will

get the message. When you go against the wishes of the people who voted you in -

I remind you again, in the back benches, you were elected by your constituents,

you weren't elected by the Premier; you weren't elected by the front benches.

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

Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been here in the House of

Assembly since Orders of the Day was called and I have been sitting down

listening to the members opposite about the six-month hoist motion put before

the House, and I understood, and I may be corrected on this by the Chair, but I

understood that motion was in relation to the Electrical Power Act; and I

understood when speaking to that motion, that was the basis on which the

speeches should be made, but all I have hear from the member opposite is the

privatization of Hydro, and unless I am misunderstanding it, they are two

separate bills.

MS. VERGE: They are interrelated.

MR. EFFORD: They are not interrelated.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the minister's point of order, what the minister is doing

this morning - it is obvious now that he is standing up trying to interrupt the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, trying to distract him, trying to take away

his time, and I want to say to the minister, you are partially correct, but in

the Electrical Power Control Act, there is a part of that bill that deals

specifically, that facilitates the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, I say to the minister.

Now, if the minister had been here yesterday afternoon when I

spoke to this control act, he would know that the only concern we have about

that bill is the part that facilitates the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. So, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is quite correct in

referring to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro in this debate because a

part of this bill deals strictly with the privatization issue, I say to the

minister. So, in debating the six-month hoist resolution to delay this bill for

six months to get public input for public hearings, the member is quite right in

being able to refer to that particular aspect of privatization, I say to the

minister. So the minister is wrong and the member is right.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, to the point of order, Sir, the

minister is entirely correct, in my judgement. The gentleman, the Member for

Grand Bank is partially correct and I will just leave aside the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay for the moment because he is really inconsequential in this

discussion.

The bill deals with the regulation of Electrical Power

Resources in the Province. There are a number of sections that are consequential

to the Hydro privatization; when the Hydro privatization becomes law, then those

portions of the bill, assuming the Electrical Power Control Act also becomes

law, will come into play, but the Electrical Power Control Act goes a long way

beyond that and if the Hydro bill does not become law, unlikely, but certainly

possible, then the sections will simply be of no consequence, they will have no

force.

The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, in his anxiety to try

to show he is as good as his colleagues - that's what he is trying to do in this

debate, and that's not difficult, I say to him, it is not at all difficult. He

is up making a speech about the privatization bill and, of course, he is out of

order. If he wants to say we should have a six-month hoist on this bill for any

number of reasons, that's what it's all about. I wouldn't object to that, nor

would my friend, the Member for Port de Grave, who has not only been in the

House a long time, but participates enthusiastically and very effectively in the

debates in the House. So all I want to say to my friend, the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay is, `Get on with it'.

Let me say one other thing to him. He keeps saying `you'. Now

one of the things we don't say in the House is `you'.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, that every

remark in this House is addressed to the Chair, but he keeps saying `you'. I

don't know where he thinks he is. Maybe he thinks he is addressing a mass

meeting of some sort. That is fine, but in the House, we address our remarks to

the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I say to him that he should heed the rules of

order of this House. He should not say `you', `you', `you', `you'. He should

say, `Mr. Speaker', `hon. gentlemen opposite', `hon. lady opposite', `hon. woman

opposite' in my case, if we wish.

Mr. Speaker, the point of order, in my view, is well taken by

my friend, the Member for Port de Grave.

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

the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think some members are getting

a bit carried away with this point of order. We are talking really about

relevancy. The only issue on the point of order is whether or not the statements

of the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay are relevant to the issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the six-month hoist - there could be many,

many reasons why you would want to delay for six months the passage of this

bill, and the member was explaining some of them. I think he wants, like most

other members on this side of the House, and perhaps some of them on the other

side who aren't saying it yet, to get the privatization issue off the decks. Six

months will allow us to do that - delay this bill, get the privatization off the

decks, and then we can come back and debate this bill and talk about the other

things.

So, if the member wants to talk about privatization in that

context he is perfectly in order, is totally relevant to the motion before the

floor, and should not be declared to be out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I remind hon. members

that they were in second reading of a bill, and an amendment in a second

reading. The bill, itself, is in reference to Hydro, and the controlling of

Hydro in the Province, and second reading is approval in principle.

Second reading of bills is normally a wide-ranging debate,

whereas when we get into Committee, we are at the clause-by-clause study, and in

the clause-by-clause study of the bill, the debate has to be relevant to the

clause-by-clause. But in this House - I have been here for five years -

normally, the debate in second reading is a very wide-ranging debate, so I rule

that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank

you for that ruling, for using common sense.

I mean, I can't believe - how testy are they over there this

morning, I wonder! How testy is the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation! They were all sitting back so quiet until I started to speak and

all of a sudden, bang, bang, bang, they are popping up like ducks over there -

everywhere I look.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lame ducks.

MR. SHELLEY: And lame ducks at that. What a silly, silly

tactic!

I say to the front ministers here, the fellows who have been

around so long - the House Leader is quite right, you have been around a lot

longer than I have, and it's easy to tell that you have been around for a lot

longer than I have, in a lot of different ways, I say to the member.

MR. WOODFORD: They've been around that long now, they

think they're pillars.

MR. SHELLEY: They think they're pillars.

I think what we see here is what has been happening in this

whole debate, inside the House and outside the House. I think it is just an

indication of exactly what has been going on, and that is, all members over

there are trying to evade the whole issue. That was their first tactic, to try

to get around it, to try to smooth out the whole issue. Now, their next tactic,

what they are doing over the last few weeks, is have the two-week break from the

House, hoping the public would forget this, `We will just slide it