March 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 10

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the Premier to an

article that was in Wednesday's Evening Telegram , two days ago, March 9.

Headlined, "Hydro chairman denies law firm worked for utility." I'm sure he has

seen the

article by now.

In that

article Mr. Jim Chalker, the present chairman of

Hydro, describes his involvement with the $50,000 annual salary supplement that

the Premier received from the time he was elected leader of the Liberal Party in

June of 1987 until the time he became Premier.

The Premier has said on many occasions in this House and

outside that the fund from which his salary was paid was set up by the Liberal

Party. But in a startling revelation in this

article Mr. Chalker tells a totally

different story. Mr. Chalker tells us that the Premier approached him when he

was preparing to seek the Liberal leadership and asked him to perform some legal

work and act as a trustee.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to get to the truth of this matter

I want to ask, will the Premier now confess that he personally - not the Liberal

Party - made the arrangements to set up a fund to pay himself that $50,000

annual wage even before he became a candidate for the Liberal Party leadership?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is utter tripe. I

haven't seen what was in The Evening Telegram but I will take a look at

it. I reaffirm for the House exactly what I've said before is precisely the

case. I asked Mr. Chalker and two other people to make sure that anything that

was done was done in a proper way. I left it entirely to them to ensure that it

was done. The basis on which it was done was paid generally out of the Liberal

Party general funds, and no special services or anything were necessary for

anybody else. So it is utter tripe, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. That

certainly isn't what Mr. Chalker has said publicly, because he said the Premier

asked him to do the legal work and to act as a trustee for the fund before. Now

I say to the Premier, neither him nor anybody else would ask a lawyer to set up

a fund and act as the trustee unless you've already got the money to put into

that fund. We now know from Mr. Chalker that the Liberal Party wasn't involved

at that point. So I ask the Premier, where did the money come from, who raised

it, and did you yourself ask anybody to contribute or donate in the same way as

you made the other arrangements according to Mr. Chalker to look after that

fund?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I've no idea what was in

The Evening Telegram . I don't know what Mr. Chalker said but I will

certainly check and find out. I will only tell the House what I've told the

House is absolutely accurate and there is no variation from that.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, Mr. Chalker has

publicly said - I urge the Premier to read this

article - that the Liberal Party

was not involved at the time the fund was set up, he says the party took it over

after you were elected the Leader but by then of course the fund was already fat

with contributions, so I say to the Premier, if you didn't raise the money

personally you certainly would know who did it according to what Mr. Chalker

says and those persons or person did it at your request, so I want to ask you:

How is that any different from what you have accused the former Minister of

Tourism and Culture of doing? We were told by you that he asked somebody to

raise $5,000 for his campaign and now, according to Mr. Chalker, you obviously

must have asked a person or persons to contribute $50,000 to your campaign or

for your personal benefit and it was paid into a trust account, set up by you,

so what's the difference between that situation and the other situation I

referred to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the

Leader of the Opposition is deaf, dumb or deliberately trying to confuse; it has

to be one or the other or all of them combined and it may well be all of them.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again, there never was a fund, none

was set up, none was asked to be set up, none ever existed, any supplement that

was paid - because he and his then leader conspired to make sure that I had no

income, that they would thwart democracy while his leader sat there and was paid

a supplementary salary by his party, even as Premier, he sat and approved it and

now he has the gall to fabricate this guff and nonsense, Mr. Speaker, give me a

break.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I won't be diverted. I can tell the Premier I will not be

diverted by those other little comments that he is trying to make, that has

nothing to do with the issue I am raising.

It's an issue raised by Mr. Chalker himself, you are now

calling Mr. Chalker a liar, that is what is occurring here. You have

consistently refused to name the people who contributed that $100,000 to you and

there are people asking questions out loud - have they been rewarded for their

generous contributions?...and now, Mr. Speaker, there is more than just a

suspicion of wrong doing, there is, at the very least, strong circumstantial

evidence, so I want to ask the Minister of Justice: will the Minister of Justice

turn this matter over to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a full police

investigation, the same way he did for the Minister of Tourism?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is contemptible

and I will treat it with the contempt it deserves, but I will say that if the

hon. Leader of the Opposition or anybody else in this Province has the least

evidence of any wrong doing against any individual, a newspaper publication is

not evidence, I am not saying if Mr. Chalker is right or wrong, I have no

knowledge at all, what I do say is a newspaper evidence is no more evidence of

wrongdoing than an open line show, idle chatter, or slanted questions by members

opposite. What I do say, Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General of this Province is

that if any individual, if any person has any evidence of wrongdoing by any

other person in this Province, including any member of the government, the

Premier, the Minister of Justice, or what have you, if they will take that

forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or to any police officer in the

Province, that evidence will be investigated fully and dealt with on its merits,

and whatever should be done will be done. I am not going to get into this

contemptible character assassination by innuendo, rumour, and slanted leading

questions. It is absolutely contemptible, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier.

Two years ago, in March 1992, an executive of Hydro Quebec

told the Quebec news media that talks with Newfoundland on the development of

the Lower Churchill had broken off. The Hydro Quebec executive said an agreement

had been close at hand and left the clear impression that the negotiations had

foundered because of a change in Newfoundland's position. I want to ask the

Premier this morning, two years later, about the agreement he left on the table

when he broke off the negotiations? As everyone knows we are getting three mils

per kilowatt hour going down to two mils for the Upper Churchill. My question

for the Premier is, did the Premier, two years ago, walk away from a thirty year

deal that would have paid an average rate of about 75 mils per kilowatt hour for

electricity from the Lower Churchill and generate billions of dollars in

revenues and profits for the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that, too, is a complete

fabrication. The Minister of Mines and Energy, and I, have both on several

occasions stated fully for this House exactly what occurred, exactly where those

negotiations were, why they ceased, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the

inability of the two parties to come to an agreement, but rather it had

everything in the world to do with the fact that the hydro electric situation in

the whole of Northeast North America had changed in the meantime.

The power authority of the State of New York were cancelling

its options to buy 5000 megawatts. Just last week they were talking about

reducing their obligations under another contract to purchase power from Quebec.

Ontario Hydro had suddenly found itself with power running out of its ears and

it did not know what to do with all the excess capacity that it had. Ontario

Hydro is in substantial difficulty because of all that. That was primarily the

problem. No, we did not change our position. Our position at the end of it was

exactly the same as it was when we went into it, except to the extent that it

had been adjusted all along to accept moderations or changes suggested by the

other side.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that I have solid evidence to the

contrary. I ask the Premier, didn't you walk away from a construction project

worth $14.4 billion that included a transmission line to bring 800 megawatts of

power to the Island and would have provided 24,000 work years of employment, a

project bigger than Hibernia? Didn't the Premier walk away from side

arrangements to the Upper Churchill contract that would have paid the Province

at least $4 billion in royalties and rentals over the remaining life of the

Upper Churchill contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only guess that this is more of Mr.

Abery's asininity. He was at Hydro at the time. If she has solid evidence, put

it on the table and let's examine it, otherwise, what we have is solid bunk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, you are the one with the facts and

figures and you've hid them from the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier scuttle those

deals that were on the table in late 1991 and early 1992? Didn't the Premier

scuttle the deals because he wants the billions of dollars in revenues and

profits from the Lower Churchill and the $4 billion in royalties and rentals

from the Upper Churchill to go to his corporate buddies, the people he's served

all his life, to the private owners of new Hydro and the owners of Newfoundland

Light and Power? Isn't that why the Premier is privatizing Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the member has something

of substance, make it public, lay it on the table of the House and we'll deal

with it - otherwise, I'm not even going to bother dealing with the junk that she

is raising.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Premier. Now, the

Premier has sweetened the Hydro deal with $100 million in tax breaks and

subsidies to new Hydro and to Newfoundland Power. Will the more than $100

million in tax breaks and subsidies from the taxpayers of this Province reduce

the rate that consumers now pay for electricity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Every single dollar of federal tax rebated

under PUITTA goes back directly to reducing costs of electricity. Every single

dollar of tax rebated goes back precisely to achieve that.

The only additional is the $15 million additional fund. That,

too, would have the effect of reducing the rate increase that would otherwise

occur. So yes, it goes back directly to the rate payers.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what I asked the Premier, and I would like to ask

again. Let me ask the Premier this, and make sure he understands what I ask. I

will ask it in another way. Will privatizing Hydro force consumers to pay more

for electricity, even after new Hydro and Newfoundland Power are going to pocket

more than $100 million in taxes and subsidies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the Hansard.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, the Hansard.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will just read the same thing you

read before.

PREMIER WELLS: Exactly.

Here is the answer to it, Mr. Speaker. It can be found on

page 148 of Hansard: Honourable members will find three or four sheets of

tables, and I emphasize again two things: these are estimates only and they are

estimates that took into account an assumption that there would be no

improvement in productivity.

So, in other words, we assumed the worst possible. The worst

possible scenario was what was assumed. Now, frankly, I also said to the House,

I don't believe that is what the result will be. I think it will be better than

that. I think there will be improvement in productivity, and it may well be that

there will be little, if any, additional increase because of privatization. But

assuming no improvement in productivity whatsoever, the statement goes on to say

that you will see from the tables that any potential increase because of

privatization would be in the neighbourhood of seven-tenths of 1 per cent on

average over five years.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my initial question, he wouldn't confirm that consumers

are going to get a reduction in rate. In my second question, he didn't confirm

initially that consumers would pay more.

Now, the Premier admits - he admitted on Friday - he did

indicate seven-tenths of 1 per cent, he said, 'I think'. The Premier admits that

electrical consumers in this Province will pay more for electricity as a result

of privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, he gave the figures to a closed

meeting of the media last Friday that they are going to pay more. Now, those

figures are about as truthful and as reliable as the Premier's statement that

privatizing Hydro would be positive for this this Province's credit rating.

Now, regardless of the amount, the Premier admits it will

cost more. I ask the Premier, why should anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador

have to pay more for electricity simply to feather the pockets of investors on

Bay Street in Toronto or the eastern townships of Montreal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will go over again some of

the key reasons why citizens of this Province should pay more if it does in fact

occur. Here is why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It will eliminate - if it occurs. Hear it

all. If it occurs. Here is why. We reduce immediately over $1 billion worth of

the debt for which this Province is ultimately responsible. We get a very

substantial return on our investment that will reduce the need for us to borrow

and save us tens of millions of dollars every year, year after year, as long as

that hon. member or anybody else in this House is alive. It will save us tens of

millions of dollars year after year after year, as long as any member of this

House is alive.

It will significantly strengthen our private sector, which

the hon. members opposite when they sat here dragged down to its lowest depths

in fifty years. We need some strengthening of our private sector. They dragged

it down to its lowest depth of strength in fifty years. We need some policy

changes that give us some strength in the private sector.

Hon. members should have been with me in Ontario and listened

to the President of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, who happens to be

the Chairman of Canadian Kodak, talk about what is happening in this Province,

and why his company is developing a business proposal that will bring jobs to

this Province, because of the changes we are bringing about, because of what we

are doing with privatization. Because we are giving private enterprise an

opportunity to prosper. You should hear Margaret Witte, the President of Hope

Brook, of Royal Oak Mines, say: Newfoundland and Labrador is the place to be in

Canada for business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is about time! When those so-called

conservatives who people thought were the supporters of strong economy activity,

of private enterprise, so I don't know how they could have allowed the economy

to deteriorate to the extent that they did. It is utterly unbelievable, Mr.

Speaker.

Look also at a variety of other benefits. They are all listed

- many of them, or most of them, at least - are listed in this sheet. I could

take the time of Question Period and read it all in answer to the member's

question, but I won't abuse Question Period in that way.

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

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

the Premier. Since I raised the issue of gambling casinos in the Province on

Wednesday I've encountered numerous concerns about the existing video gambling

machines operated in bars on behalf of the government. The stories are of

financial disaster, family hardships, ruined lives, lost homes. Isn't the

Premier concerned that the $46 million that the government receives in revenue

from gambling is a kind of blood money, Mr. Speaker, gained at the expense of

people who can ill afford to lose it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I've voiced those

concerns many times. If I had my personal way - and here I hope I'm not

breaching Cabinet solidarity. I hope I'm not breaching Cabinet solidarity too,

too seriously. If I had my personal way I would outlaw the gambling altogether.

I would not permit it. Because I disagree with it as a matter of principle.

MS. VERGE: Why did you bring them in? We didn't have any

until you brought them in!

PREMIER WELLS: If the noise would just stop maybe she

would hear something that might be a bit intelligent for a change. I know she

would have difficulty recognizing it, but she would hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I've expressed my personal views. The views of

the government - and the government was persuaded that this is so on the basis

of the advice that it got from everybody, the public servants and everybody

else, and on the basis of the advice, of the information we got from New

Brunswick, primarily, other provinces as well - the government was persuaded

that if we didn't allow video lotteries on a controlled and restrained basis -

and they're confined to bars, are they not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: They're confined to bars in this Province.

If we didn't allow it on some kind of a controlled and restrained basis it would

be there by the criminal element that want to do it anyway much like the same

argument that applies with respect to cigarette taxes, the same kind of

argument. Now we haven't conceded on the cigarette taxes yet, I don't know that

we're going to. I hope we don't have to but we have to watch what happens. It's

a similar kind of argument and nothing that has happened since I've been in

office has caused me as much concern as having to do that. So I don't disagree

with the comments that the hon. member has made. If I knew what was absolutely

the right answer I'd do it. I find it utterly disgusting that we get more

revenue from lotteries then we do from private sector corporate income tax in

this Province. I think that that is a shocking condemnation of our system. What

we're doing, Mr. Speaker, through privatization amongst other things, is

struggling to reverse that and turn up the revenue that this Province will earn

from its business activity.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier might

concede that the advice that he received was wrong. A lot of people in this

Province are calling for the elimination of these machines. I want to suggest to

the government that perhaps the government should strike a select committee of

the House to hear from the people of this Province as to the effects of this

gambling on their lives and hear from the advice. The Premier is saying that we

have to have government sponsored gambling in order to eliminate this from other

sources. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Premier should take action on that and not

succumb to suggestions that the corporate greed or the illegal gambling will

take over our country. That's not been established, Mr. Speaker, and I think

that we should go back at that and have another look and see if we can get rid

of this scourge.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't dismiss it out of

hand. The government will give it consideration.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Last fall in the federal election, Mr. Speaker, the federal

government at that time promised that there would be an infrastructure program

to create jobs in Canada and especially in this Province, they're much needed.

At that time it said, and since then, it said there would be a cost shared

agreement between the Province, municipalities and the federal government. Could

the minister now tell the House and confirm to the House whether Newfoundland

Hydro as it stands today - about to be called new Hydro I would say, and

privatized - has submitted an application to his department for approximately a

$13 million application to improve the power grid on the Great Northern

Peninsula?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro has

proposed to extend the island service in the areas of the Northern Peninsula

that are presently under diesel generated power. The proposal was made to the

infrastructure committee some three weeks ago, its being actively considered and

when we get all the other applications in from around the Province from both the

private sector, municipalities and all others, then I'm certainly sure that will

be considered like all other projects.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the

minister tell the House, the applications that are going to be sent out to

municipalities around the Province, will the private sector in the Province

receive applications and could the minister confirm to the House that the intent

of this infrastructure program is to create jobs in the Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Applications, Mr. Speaker, will not be sent to

the private sector. It would be almost impossible for us to send out

applications to every company in the Province but if the private sector wishes

to get involved in this and they ask for applications - I think the agreement to

be quite honest about it, and I'll say to the member and as the member knows,

the criteria is basically that we'll look at almost anything in the Province,

any applications but when I say we'll look at it it doesn't necessarily mean we

are going to approve it but we'll certainly look at any proposal that comes in

from almost anyone, I suppose, in the Province.

The question of employment, yes, as the hon. member knows,

initially during the construction stages of water and sewerage projects, for

example, that is basically the only employment that will be created - the

construction phases of water and sewerage - but when you start to think about

some of the other things that will hopefully go on in the Province, I am hoping

that there will be some municipal infrastructure in regards to buildings and

recreational facilities that will employ people over a longer period of time.

I can't tell the hon. member right now how much will actually

be generated, but I think that maybe when we look at the program, when the

applications are made and approved, maybe in six months time I might be able to

give him a better estimate of what long-term jobs will actually be created.

I am certainly sure the hon. member knows the impact that $75

million will have on the construction industry this summer in this Province, and

we certainly need every job that we can get, regardless what industry it's in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

Would the minister confirm that if this application is

approved for Newfoundland Hydro to do this expansion on the Northern Peninsula,

that between sixty and seventy permanent jobs will be lost immediately on the

Northern Peninsula, especially supplies to the two plants of Newfoundland Hydro?

Could the minister confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to confirm any

such thing, that sixty or seventy jobs would be lost immediately, but if this

project does go forward I think it will be a great benefit to the Northern

Peninsula, an immense benefit. There are twenty-three towns up there now that

are in the diesel area with high cost electricity, and if these twenty-three

towns get connected to the grid, and get interconnected rates, there is going to

be a great boost in economic development in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Figure it out, Mr. Speaker. A great

boost, lose another sixty jobs.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday's news

items, particularly in The Evening Telegram , has caused a fair bit of

concern around the Province, and a fair bit of concern amongst members of the

House on both sides.

I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries: Could he tell us how

many fishermen will be driven from the fishery as a result of the proposed

licence buy-out by the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Tobin? Has his department done

an estimate on the number of fishermen that will be driven from the industry as

a result of the new program being implemented by the federal minister?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that number has not been arrived

at yet. As the hon. member knows, the whole business of the post-NCARP program

is now under negotiation in Ottawa, and there has been no decision made yet on

precisely how many fishermen will be affected by the moratorium. We all know

there would be less fishermen in the Province, but precisely just how many less

I don't think anybody knows at this point in time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

There is also reference here that the program is going to

reduce early retirement, I guess, from fifty-five to fifty, and that was a bone

of contention before, as we all know, with the Province, I believe, refusing to

participate in the fifty to fifty-five age category.

Could the minister inform the House whether or not the

Province will be participating in the early retirement program, and will they be

supporting that component of the program dealing with people between fifty and

fifty-five?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Province's position, of

course, has been consistently that we should not go below the age of fifty-five,

and I don't think there is going to be any change in that. There are groups that

are pushing for the age limit to be reduced, but certainly to date there is no

decision on the part of the government to go along with that.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister inform the House - because the federal

minister indicates that both the minister and the Premier have been very much

involved in the new program, consulted extensively and so on -can he inform the

House what we can anticipate by way of reduction in benefits to individual

receivers of compensation, and how many less people will receive benefits under

the program? Those who are left in, how much less will they receive, and how

many less will there be left in the program altogether?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, no, we

cannot inform the House of that.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the minister,

Mr. Speaker.

Will the Province be participating in a program to

restructure the processing sector? If these reports are accurate, as the federal

minister is saying, that there must be a significant infusion of funds from the

provinces and, of course, they are not just talking about Newfoundland; they are

talking the other provinces as well. Has there been any discussion with the

Province about the amount of money that they should put into this program

regarding processing, restructuring and plant reduction and so on, has there

been any commitment from the Province to put in money and if so, how much?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Province's position with

respect to restructuring the procession sector has been stated publicly on many

occasions and I can repeat it here now. The Province does not have any plan to

provide funding or to bail out the processing sector, none at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to revert

to Statements by Ministers?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister have leave to revert to

Statements by Ministers?

Yes, leave is given.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform Members of the House of Assembly that

applications have gone out in the mail today, for parties interested in

participating in the Canada/Newfoundland Municipal Infrastructure Program.

As well, we have forwarded detailed information to all

municipalities with respect to the criteria for these programs.

As hon. members know, this is a federal, provincial, and

municipal initiative designed to revitalize and stimulate the economy while, at

the same time, providing badly needed employment. Additionally, it will provide

our municipal infrastructure and create new assets that will be of value to the

Province and our country in years to come.

Approximately $75 million will be spent this year under the

program and over a two-year period it will mean an total expenditure of

approximately $150 million - a significant amount of money.

Already, there is widespread interest in this program and we

have asked all interested parties to respond by March 31, because we are most

anxious to get this program moving and get people employed and doing meaningful

work.

The initiative is especially important to Newfoundland and

Labrador due to the collapse of our fishery.

On its own, Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program will not

solve all our economic problems. It will, however, have a significant impact

with respect to revitalizing and renewing economic activity.

As the minister responsible for the implementation of the

Infrastructure Program in Newfoundland, I am excited and optimistic about this

initiative. In these recessionary times, we cannot over-emphasize the importance

of every new job that can be created in the various communities throughout this

Province.

As we know, this program does not preclude investment in

other local facilities - education, health and social infrastructure, and we are

optimistic that the private sector will get involved and take advantage of the

funds that are available under the program.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to

be associated with our federal counterparts - the Atlantic Canada Opportunities

Agency (ACOA) in such an exceptional positive job creation program.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree, Mr. Speaker, with the minister when he

says that he hopes this program will - and it certainly will I would say -

create much needed employment for this Province. However, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to qualify that by saying if there are no new monies in the program, if the

government is going to use the regular capital funding that they use every year

for capital programs in this program, well, then, there are no new jobs; they

would have been created anyway. I hope the minister can get his Cabinet

colleagues to go along with putting more money into that particular program so

they can approve the applications that are going to be submitted under the

program.

Mr. Speaker, I also reiterate again some of my concerns,

especially in the last sentence, that Atlantic Canada's ACOA is going to be

involved in the program. I am still concerned, and a bit suspect, Mr. Speaker,

of where the Federal Government's contribution is going to come from. I suspect,

Mr. Speaker, that the contribution from the Federal Government is going to come

out of the allocation of funds for the Province of Newfoundland contained under

the ACOA program. That, again, will not be new money, Mr. Speaker, so I hope

that members opposite, and Cabinet ministers especially, are cognizant of what

is happening with regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I submit,

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Just one second, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: The $13 million application in from

Newfoundland Hydro, I think, that courtesy should be afforded every business

person in the Province if they want to participate in the program and get

applications in. If not, Mr. Speaker, this is another $13 million subsidy to

Newfoundland Hydro, or after next week, new Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

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

MR. HARRIS: We welcome the start of this program and

hope, as well, that this will result in more new money being spent to create

more jobs than would otherwise have been created. The minister didn't release

the criteria, but from what I have been seeing in the papers during the last few

days it may be there are different rules for different people, particularly St.

John's, which has greater increased needs as a result of the forced

amalgamation, having to suffer and having the additional burden. I hope the

minister is not going to do that and punish St. John's for being economically

sound.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, by leave, if I might?

An officer of this House, Mr. Mark Noseworthy, is the skip of

the rink that is representing Newfoundland in the Canadian Brier and they are

doing extremely well. They are now in fourth place with a record of seven to

three. Mark Noseworthy is the Research Officer of the Public Accounts Committee,

and with the agreement of my friend, the Member for Eagle River, I will be

sending this morning, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, a message of

encouragement to him and his rink in the play-offs they are heading into.

Perhaps the House might like to send or, ask Your Honour to send a message on

behalf of the whole House of Assembly to a Newfoundlander and his colleagues who

are representing us well, but also an officer of this House who is bringing some

credit to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy to give

leave to the hon. gentleman as a courtesy which he has not shown the members on

this side, I would remind him. We would like to be associated with this and we

would ask that either Your Honour, send a letter, or the Clerk, as Your Honour

describes, and we wish Mr. Noseworthy and his three rink mates the very best of

success in the competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of

privilege, I guess it is probably the only way that I can get to say what I want

to say or get some point of clarification.

On Tuesday night here, I was presenting a petition on behalf

of thirty-seven residents of the district of St. George's, and when I rose in my

place to present the petition and identify the number on the petition as I had

to do, the Member for St. George's shouted across the House: It must have cost

you thirty-seven dollars, and at that time, I was bewildered, I didn't know

really what the member was talking about; he said it the second time and I

asked: Where are you coming from, what are you talking about - thirty-seven

dollars? And, of course, those of us who were here know the events that followed

later that night, where the member rose in his place, and accused a political

party of paying people to sign petitions.

Of course, it didn't just stay here in the House, the media

picked it up and the next morning continuously, throughout that morning, the

news media played it, clips of the hon. member saying that there was a political

party paying to have petitions signed, and they carried me as saying that the

hon. member should be careful if making accusations, allegations and all this

stuff.

It is my understanding that we have had calls at our office

about it, Mr. Speaker, and also my understanding that the member has had a call

or two as well, telling him that people were quite willingly signing petitions

without anyone paying for them. It is my understanding that the member informed

a caller that it was a mistake, that what he had said was not correct. You know,

there are three political parties here and I don't think the member was

inferring that the Liberal party was paying to have the petitions signed

opposing Hydro, so it kind of left either the Progressive Conservative Party or

the NDP or one of the federal parties, Reform or Rhinoceros or one of the

others. So I felt that what the member did was unfair. I think it is a

reflection on all of us and I can only say, that this party certainly hasn't

paid anyone to sign petitions and we don't need to; people are signing the

petitions very readily. And I would just like to bring it to the attention of

the House because I thought it was unfair and I would like to give the member a

chance to correct what he did and hope that the media would carry his retraction

or correction or apology, whatever he offers.

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get up and

respond to the hon. member's comments. I reported to this House what I had heard

in the district of St. George's, that some political party was paying for

signatures on petitions. That stands.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you accused him.

DR. HULAN: That stands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: Maybe - I said it was some political party,

that stands. Furthermore, I have not had any calls and the hon. member is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Indeed you have!

DR. HULAN: I have not had any calls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: I have had, Mr. Speaker, some other calls

saying what I reported in this House, so, don't you tell me to apologize; I have

no apology to make, and I said, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and Hansard will

recall: if the shoe fits, wear it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) no apology - I know what you

said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) and he told the woman he made a

mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to recognize the Member for St. John's East,

but I can't hear him, so it is going to be difficult -

Order, please!

I want to hear the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: What the Opposition House Leader said, was

that the member said: It must have cost you thirty-seven dollars. That is a

direct accusation that the member was bribing people to sign petitions. Now,

that strikes me more as a question of privilege than a point of order. The

member hasn't responded to that. He hasn't responded to this question of

privilege and if he doesn't take it back, I suspect that the Opposition House

Leader will have a question of privilege before this House.

I think he was very generous in giving the member an

opportunity to retract that personal attack of bribery on another member in his

job, and he hasn't retracted it. Perhaps he didn't hear exactly what the

accusation was. If he hadn't heard it, perhaps he will now take back the

accusation that the Member for Grand Bank actually bribed people to sign a

petition.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may say a word

to the point of privilege raised by my friend, the Member for Grand Bank. My

friend, I think, acknowledged in opening that he wasn't certain he had a point

of privilege. I think he said it may even be a point of clarification. I can

certainly understand the reason why he wanted to raise the issue. It is my

submission, having heard what the hon. gentleman said, and having heard the hon.

gentleman, the Member for St. George's, and the hon. gentleman, the Member for

St. John's East, that there is no point of privilege here, either personal

privilege or privilege of the House.

I can understand why my friend, the Member for Grand Bank

wanted to make a statement on the record. I can understand why my friend, the

Member for St. George's wanted to make a statement on the record, and I have no

difficulty in understanding why my friend, the Member for St. John's East wanted

to make some more mischief.

The real message out of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is a lesson

for all of us. Some of the charges and language used by members, particularly

opposite, during this debate, they have been very ready, Mr. Speaker - we saw it

today in Question Period - very ready to impute motives, to make slanderous

charges, to make allegations without any substance, without any reason to make

them at all. They have been very ready to make them. That, as I have said

before, not only demeans the member, it demeans the House and it demeans the

Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I should ask the Opposition House Leader whether or not he

wishes me to make a formal ruling on it, in the sense that number one, I wasn't

present in the House when the comment was made. We don't have a transcript of

Hansard. As you know, the evenings are not typed and won't be available till

Easter, so I would have to review the record. I understood the Opposition House

Leader to indicate, to some extent, he was taking the opportunity to make his

point and put it on the record. So, for those reasons, I might not be able to

render a formal decision on it for some time. I don't know if you feel that the

point has been sufficiently made. Because the other problem, of course, is that

it has to be brought to the attention of the House as soon as possible for these

reasons that are systemic, moreso than anything else, and I just don't have the

Hansards available.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said what I

wanted to do when I rose. I mean, it caught me off guard on Tuesday night when

the member said what he said to me - that, you know, really implied that it

probably cost me $37 to get thirty-seven names. What disturbed me more was on

Wednesday morning when I listened to it a number of times. I think the member

knows that there is no political party in this Province, out-and-about, paying

people to sign petitions. There may be somebody else out paying people to sign

petitions, but I don't think there is a political party doing it. I say that

sincerely to him.

I think it was rather unfair, I say to the member, and that

is why I rose here this morning -

AN HON. MEMBER: A cheap shot.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - a cheap shot.

- to raise the issue and clear the air on it. Because people

out and about this Province, you know, believe that there is a political party

out paying people to put their names on petitions. It is like if you are I are

in a group of people today and I say to you: Bud, why did you rob that bank last

week? There would be those who would leave there saying: Bud Hulan robbed a

bank. And, regardless of what you say afterwards, you can get on the media, you

can get in the papers and on television, and say: I didn't rob a bank. But there

would be those amongst them who will believe that you robbed a bank.

That is my point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A good point.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't want to put Your Honour through

any undue process. I know it is difficult getting Hansard in the night and all

this stuff. I will leave it there. I don't want any more. I just wanted to do

this morning, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has probably heard enough on it

unless there is something different that the hon. member wishes to add to it.

The hon. the Member for St. George's.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me

to say in this hon. House that I did not hear the rumour, I cannot do that.

That's all I have to say.

Petitions

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: The comments that he has made so many times, I

would not lower myself, as a professional, to respond to his comment.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand Your Honour called petitions?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to present a petition on

behalf of people in Labrador, in Goose Bay, and from Lab City, mostly in Goose

Bay, in the district of the Government House Leader.

I will just read the appropriate parts to condense it, the

prayer of the petition: To the Newfoundland House of Assembly, we the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to avail themselves of

their right thus to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly, in the

certain assurance that the House will therefore provide the remedy, we submit;

and

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, and as duty bound your

petitioners will every pray.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I indicated that most of these are from

Goose Bay.

I would like to first address a point that was made in this

House yesterday by the Premier in which he made a misleading statement regarding

Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What the Premier said relates to the

petition.

The Premier said, in the House last night, and he read from a

transcript of a statement by Stephen Defoe of Standard and Poor's. Now I

listened to that program. We saved a tape. I played it over again last night,

and the Premier misled the House in giving just one part of that statement. Here

is what the Premier said last night in the House, and I will deal with the

question that Jeff Gilhooly asked Mr. Defoe, and I will also deal with the other

side of the issue that was asked prior to that, that the Premier did not relate

to.

MR. TOBIN: Jeff Gilhooly.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that's Jeff Gilooly. This is Jeff

Gilhooly. There's quite a difference.

Jeff Gilhooly asked this question, and then I will give the

Premier's response. He said: Let me ask you this, and I hope I'm not getting too

far along here in analogy, but I guess what I am trying to think of is, if we

look down the road, four or five years down the road, and whatever cash the

Province got from selling Hydro was, say, used in other ways, stopped us from

borrowing for a year or two, whatever the bottom line is, four or five years

from now that cash that they got is gone and Hydro's debt, contingent as it is,

is off the books, what effect would that have on how you see our credit rating?

Here is what Stephen Defoe said: Well again it depends on how

much cash is received and, of course, the benefits of that are immediate in the

sense that it would reduce the Province's borrowing requirements -

Could I have some order, Mr. Speaker? I can't hear what I am

saying myself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are talking back across the House, and it's difficult

to hear the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Stephen Defoe said: It depends on how much

cash is received and, of course, the benefits of that are immediate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - in the sense that it would reduce the

Province's borrowing requirements. Now this is the part the Premier stated, and

the Premier went on to say: But because that would reduce the Province's direct

debt level, it would reduce to some degree the debt service cost of the Province

going forward. That would have marginally a beneficial effect, yes, but is

really a question of degree, and is hard to assess before hard numbers are

brought into play how big an effect that would be. I don't think people should

expect an immediate upgrade in the Province's credit rating as a result of this.

In other words, he is stating that he didn't expect an

upgrading in the Province's rating now because of this, that's what the Premier

read. Now Jeff Gilhooly also asked Stephen Defoe -

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with the petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: The petition asked not to privatize Hydro.

The Premier has given the reasons for privatizing, one of the reasons, to reduce

the debt burden of this Province and I'm giving the reasons that he gave and

that's appropriate too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister.

MR. LUSH: Over the past number of days we've seen the

Opposition using this petition time to carry on debates in the House. All hon.

members know that petition time is not a time for debates. I have no objection

to members presenting the petitions and doing it properly, speaking to the

material allegations in the petition but what we've had here, Mr. Speaker, is

full fledged debate. I would suggest to this hon. House that either we're going

to have to change it - we have the most obsolete and the most archaic system of

presenting petitions in the British parliament. We're the only House that

carries on in this particular manner and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

Opposition has made a scam and a sham of presentation of petitions. There is an

onus on all hon. members to see that the rules of this House are adhered to,

that the parliamentary procedure is adhered to, it doesn't do this House any

good to have going on what is now going on. There is no difference of opinion,

when our Standing Orders say that there's to be no debate, I rest my case with

the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The past Speaker didn't practice what he now preaches when he

was in the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And, the reason against privatizing

Newfoundland Hydro, as in this petition, one of the reasons against it is

attacking the reason that the Premier gave for privatizing and that is within

the scope of this petition. He indicated it will improve our Province's credit

rating, that's directly the reason we raised this petition we're discussing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm speaking to the point of order, it's

related to the petition which I'm stating, it is the whole crux of what the

petition is all about, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the point of order really refers to Standing Order

Order, please!

The objection refers to Standing Order 92 which requires a

member to confine himself or herself - although it doesn't say that - to the

material allegations contained in the petition. It's been my observation that

that is a rule that's not strictly enforced. Members are generally allotted five

minutes to speak in the general area of the petition. You may be stretching it

somewhat to refer to what may or may not have been said on a radio show, since

the petition doesn't refer to it but I don't think the hon. member has done

anything substantially different then members on both sides of the House have

done. If the House wishes I'll certainly strictly enforce the Standing Orders

but I'll do it against both sides of the House and I think it would work to the

advantage or disadvantage of both parties. So unless I get a specific objection

at any time, I think members should be allowed the five minutes to speak as he

sees fit, in the general area of the petition. I point out that the hon. members

time expired when the point of order was raised, there was about four minutes

and thirty seconds elapsed so -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No, leave.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't want to hear what Stephen Defoe

said.

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

petition.

I would like to speak to the petition, Mr. Speaker, presented

by the Member for Ferryland from the District of Naskaupi. It gives me a great

pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to stand up with my colleague from Ferryland to represent

the wishes of Naskaupi who have sent to this House, Mr. Speaker, their concerns,

their disappointments and their utter disgust with the process of the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The people of Naskaupi, Mr.

Speaker, who signed this petition signed it because they're concerned that Hydro

is being sold. I don't know why their member never presented it, Mr. Speaker,

but I guess he'll have to answer for that to his constituents.

The fact of the matter is, that the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not being done with the blessing and support

of the people of this Province. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it is done with

the blessing and support of the people of this House. Some, I would suspect,

know why they are doing it, and others, Mr. Speaker, don't have a clue why they

are doing it. I am sure the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, doesn't know why he

is doing it, and I am certain the Member for St. George's doesn't know why he is

doing it. Any man who admits in this House that he visited his district three

times in a year - three times in a year he was out in his district. And he is

expected to come into this House and know what the people of St. George's are

saying.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Social

Services that we don't need any advice from him.

MR. LUSH: I suggest you do.

MR. TOBIN: I suggest we don't, Mr. Speaker. He was

advising this House for the past three years in Your Honour's seat, and look

where it got us. Look where it got him.

Mr. Speaker, his advice, I say to him, I don't need. I tell

him one thing, though: if I wanted it I would certainly request it, but I ask

him to keep it to himself until I ask. I say to the minister that I will be

governed in this House by the Speaker and I will listen to the Speaker and abide

by his ruling. I can tell you that in the thirteen or fourteen years that I am

here -

MR. ROBERTS: It seems like forever.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it does, `Ed', but I will be here longer

I say to the member. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I have always

respected the position of the Chair and never more have I respected anyone who

occupied that position than the present Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I say that sincerely, not in a political

sense, because I have been here with Speakers when we were in government. I say

that, and I commend the Premier for making that choice. I don't want to

embarrass His Honour by throwing accolades in his direction but that is how I

feel and I have no difficulty in saying so.

I want to get back to the petition now, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Naskaupi have asked this House not to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I guess, second reading of the bill is done and

it will be in Committee, but I say to members opposite that you do not have the

support of your constituents to ram this through the House. The Members for

Fortune - Hermitage, Trinity North, Eagle River, St. George's, Port au Port, and

St. John's North do not have the support of their constituents on this issue.

The Member for St. John's North the other night was on television, Mr. Speaker -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Nor, I say to the Member for Eagle River, does

the Minister of Fisheries, provincially and federally, have the right to wipe

out the fisheries in this Province and in particular on the Coast of Labrador

which will happen if what was reported in The Evening Telegram is

correct.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Eagle River, he should

never be quiet because Crosbie is gone and Tobin is in there. The issues haven't

changed, they have only gotten worse, and when you read that, when they are

prepared to sell out your constituency and you haven't opened your mouth, I have

lost some respect for you, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

To get back to the real issue of the petition, you do not

have the support of your constituents. The constituents of the Member for St.

John's North told him the other night on the public airwaves: Don't vote for

this, but he said, yes. They said: Tell us why, and he said: It is my decision.

Mr. Speaker, it is not your decision. There is nobody here to make a decision

unless it is the wish of your constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word or two with

respect to the petition which is signed by a number of people who give their

address as being Goose Bay and a number who give their address as being

elsewhere in Labrador. Let me first of all say to my friend - I think it was my

friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West who asked, in his accusatorial

tone, why I did not present it - the reason is very simple: it wasn't sent to

me. That is the reason why I didn't present it. I suspect it was sent to those

who solicited it, because this is no more a spontaneous petition than the Queen

of England is the King of France. This is just another of these manufactured

petitions we are seeing.

That doesn't make any less valid the views of the people who

signed it. But nobody on this side of the House, or elsewhere in this Province,

is the least bit fooled by this rhetoric by hon. members opposite that this is a

spontaneous uprising. We saw the spontaneous uprising last night in Grand Falls.

According to the C.B.C., forty people came out. I would have thought the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition had more relatives than that in Grand Falls - in

fact, he probably does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Forty - 4-0; not thirty-eight, not

thirty-nine, not forty-one, not forty-two, but forty - F-O-R-T-Y.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, now, remember who you are. You are

not who you are sounding like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Premier was the only one here

who got the message. I can go on and say to him, cat, C-A-T, not a dog, not a

rat, not a bat, not a hat, not a mat, but a cat!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these

petitions don't fool anybody - they don't fool the people who signed them, they

don't fool the people who received them, and they don't fool the people of the

Province.

I want to make two other remarks. First, I would like to say

to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West that I was amazed that even

with his thespian gifts - and he is a great thespian - that even he was unable

to keep a straight face when he said that he had the utmost respect for the

Chair of the House. If there is a member in this House who believes in snide

sniping of the Chair it is the gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Your Honour, I know, does not hear it, because my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West doesn't have the courage to stand in this House manfully -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't take it, can't take it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: I want to say to the minister who made that

charge, Mr. Speaker, that there is not one word of truth in what he said. I have

the utmost respect for this Speaker when he occupies this Chair, I say to the

member opposite.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman's conduct

shows respect, then not only is the Queen of England really the King of France,

she is also the Emperor of China and the Tsar of Russia.

Let me come back to the substance of the petition. With

respect, I must disagree with the people who have signed this. Let me make a

point that hon. members opposite seem somehow to overlook in this whole debate.

We are sent here by the people who elect us to speak for them and to exercise

the powers vested in the House of Assembly and to answer for them. I'm not sent

here simply to reflect everything my constituents want, even if I knew what they

wanted on every issue. On most issues there are wide diversions of opinion. On

most issues there are. In fact, on the issue of whether I should be here there

is a wide diversion of opinion. I won the election handily, but not everybody

voted for me in Naskaupi district. Even in the old days of White Bay North only

85 per cent voted for me - which meant I had only met 15 per cent, before

somebody else says it.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to bring our best judgement to the

affairs of the Province. We are not here to reflect the whims and wills and

willies of every petition that is taken around by those with a vested interest

who are mistaken, who are wrong, in my judgement, who are either seduced by

false information or guilty of false analysis. I speak not of those who signed

the petition, but those who have led them down the garden path, for whatever

motive.

Mr. Speaker, I, with respect, disagree with the people who

signed this petition. I shall be in touch with each of them as soon as I can to

let them know of my view, to let them know why I feel this way, and to say that

I would be happy to meet with them to discuss the issue, and see where we go

from there. But I am not here, Mr. Speaker, simply to reflect every whim of any

person in this - I am here to bring my best judgement as a member of this House

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: So soon? By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. FUREY: No leave? We gave you guys leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if there is no leave, sobeit.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition representing people from the districts of Port de Grave, Harbour Grace,

and Carbonear.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must have done some scavenging to get

that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't do any scavenging. Petitions came

to us, I mean, the members themselves are not willing to partake and present

petitions so somebody has to present them and see that they get to this hon.

House.

I would like briefly to get back to the real things that

Stephen Defoe said, that they wouldn't give me leave to say, and now, Mr.

Speaker, they are trying to stall it points of order, they don't want to hear

the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for

St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: I want to ask Your Honour, is it not

appropriate that the hon. member read the prayer of the petition and tell how

many names are attached to the petition?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do that.

There are fifteen names on the petition, and the prayer of

the petition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary that I read

the prayer of the petition, it is the same as the previous one and I could

dispense with reading the prayer of the petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you read the prayer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will read the prayer.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no requirement in our rules that

the prayer be read each time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Defoe answered a question relating to

the credit rating of this Province on privatizing Hydro, and the Premier read

the answer to the second question, he did not read the answer to the first

question and I am just going to make reference to that.

First of all, here is what Stephen Defoe said, and I will

read one statement he made initially before we get into a question that was

asked. He indicated that Hydro has not, in recent years, presented a burden to

this Province. It is able to meet its own debt servicing costs and, for that

reason, we don't include it in our measure of tax-supported debt. And he went on

to say, Jeff Gilhooly asked him this question - and that is a question the

Premier did not mention to this House; he asked: What, if any, effect would

there be, then, on the Province's credit rating system, that you said, if Hydro

were privatized? In other words, it wasn't there for consideration - would it

have any effect?

Now, Stephen Defoe is a member of the team of Standard and

Poor's who rates the credit rating of this Province - he is a member of that

team, and here is what he said: That question is very difficult to answer and it

really depends on how the Province went about privatizing Newfoundland Hydro.

And he said: It would depend on the price received initially, it would depend on

expectations of whether and how much of the corporate income tax Hydro would pay

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - that is what he said - or, whether there

were other levies assessed on Hydro that would continue to generate income for

this Province, and potentially, a number of other factors that would have to be

addressed, but are very hard to address at least from our perspective before the

fact. What he has said in that statement is that the tax concessions that those

companies get could be a determining factor in our future credit rating. If we

give considerable concessions, what we are doing is, we are returning $9.2

million to Newfoundland Power that we have always kept, we are foregoing $25

million in corporate income tax that would come to this Province - $35 million

to $40 million, we are foregoing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If they would, you would probably be a lot

better off today.

That, I advocate, is going to have the potential only of a

negative effect on our credit rating - that statement he made would have a

neutral or negative effect. I am not advocating negative, it would be neutral or

negative. The other statement he made, was that reducing the debt burden in our

Province would have a neutral or a marginally positive effect by lifting the

burden of Hydro's debt on our Province. It is not a tax factored in when they

established the debt of our Province, they have never done it in recent years,

and it is wrong for this government to try to get up here and say, in this hon.

House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman, the Member for Ferryland has made it

obvious he is no more debating petitions than he is curing fish. Accordingly, I

move, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now

be read.

Motion, carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we do Motions 1 through

4. I will then ask if we can go into Committee, and if my friend, the Member for

Ferryland wants to carry on with his nonsense he can do so.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Regional Service

Boards Act," carried. (Bill No. 6).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill

entitled, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association,"

carried. (Bill No. 5).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," carried. (Bill No. 3).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act," carried. (Bill No. 4).

On motion, Bill Nos. 6, 5, 3 and 4 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in asking that you put the

House into Committee, we will deal with the privatization bill. Let me advise

members that in accordance with our understanding, we will not ask the House to

sit beyond noon today - we will ask the House to meet on Monday at 2:00 p.m.,

and we will carry on from there.

If Your Honour would leave the Chair, please, we would put

the House into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on said bill, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

Bill 1: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few short

minutes, and I believe it's ten and ten?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Ten and ten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to talk for a few minutes on the privatization of

Hydro, and to correct for the people of this Province the misleading information

that is going out from this hon. House of Assembly.

Early this morning, in my office, just before coming to the

House, I talked with my executive assistant who had been out last night to meet

with my executive, my association, in my own district. And I learned, the one

question he was asked on behalf of the people who had talked about the

privatization of Hydro in my own particular area was simply about the

information that they couldn't understand, that the news media was carrying out

from the House of Assembly, the information coming from the Opposition.

They asked: Could you explain to us why this is the most

devastating thing, as being put forth by the Opposition, that has hit the

Province in history, or in a number of years? I don't know exactly what words

were used: They put all the economy and the way the economy has collapsed and

has been going down, turning down in the last number of years, that

privatization of a company that is going to stay in Newfoundland and going to be

operating - no doubt more efficiently - and improving the quality of service in

the Province, how could that be the most devastating thing that has hit this

Province in the last twenty-five, thirty years or whatever?

The other thing I wanted to address is the numbers of people

that are supposedly upset and really angry at the government in the

privatization of Hydro. Now we have had a lot of issues facing the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in its history. I can tell you from where I'm standing

and the people I'm talking to, it is not the most critical thing that's at our

doorstep. I'll give you an idea - I probably misled the House yesterday when I

said there were only two people in the District of Port de Grave that I was

aware of, I said that I was aware of, who had called me and who were concerned

about Hydro. One of those people was an employee of Hydro who called me, I have

known him for years, and said - now this was months ago when he first heard

about it - it's the right thing, go do it. The second person was a Mrs. Eddy who

is a person in my district who wanted an explanation and I gave it to her but I

didn't know there was a couple of other people.

This petition presented by the hon. Member for Ferryland just

a few moments ago - from three districts, the District of Carbonear, my

colleague the hon. Mr. Reid, Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, my

good friend John Crane from the District of Harbour Grace and myself from the

District of Port de Grave, we have a total of fifteen names from three

districts. In the three districts - voters alone in the three districts, you're

talking about 24,700 people. Voters 24,700 that's approximately what?

MR. REID: That's about 50,000 people.

MR. EFFORD: Now I remember having a little rally out

there a couple of years ago when I wanted to get some people to support me, we

had 4,000 in the Bay Arena.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: 4,000 in the Bay Arena and we got fifteen -

and one of them by the name I recognize here, is a law partner of a well known

Tory supporter out in the district, that's number one. The other two names - and

I know just about every person in my district - I won't comment on the other two

people, it would not be fair but I recognize the first name but three of these

fifteen are from the great District of Port de Grave. I know now I will not have

any fear - I haven't been home since last weekend in my district, so I will not

be afraid to travel to Port de Grave District tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I don't think at Roaches Line overpass there

will be a string of cars waiting to turn me back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about

government involvement in business in this Province. The reason why I personally

- seriously because I'm an individual and I like to speak on what I believe is

to be right and wrong and I don't mind shouting out about it but I believe in

the privatization of businesses for the simple fact that government should not

be involved in private industry. Should never have been and should never be in

the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, I'm going to ask a couple of questions

and I'll try to qualify it with a little bit of an answer as to what I believe

is right. Let me ask you, how many chocolate factories do we have operating in

the country of Canada today - never mind the United States - that's operating

successfully? Ten of thousands I suspect. We had a chocolate factory in Bay

Roberts operated by a government, never mind the political stripe, by a

government. Where is that chocolate factory today? Imagine, a government

couldn't operate a chocolate factory to sell chocolate bars and candy to make a

profit and we say government should be involved in business.

Let's talk about the rubber factory in Holyrood. There are no

rubber factories operating in the country of Canada that is making money. A pure

example of government involvement in private industry. Let's talk about

Newfoundland Farm Products, how many ten of millions of dollars over the history

of Newfoundland Farm Products have gone into this organization from the

taxpayers of this Province? I hope we will privatize Newfoundland Farm Products

and when private industry gets hold of it, we'll see how Newfoundland Farm

Products can make money. That is where the proof will be.

How much money has this government and the taxpayers of the

Province and the previous government put in Marystown Shipyards? How many

multi-millions of dollars? Are you telling me that if a private industry had had

Marystown Shipyards for the last twenty-odd, thirty years, that it would not

have made money? I will argue with you till the cows come home that they would

have made money, if it had been in private hands.

How many fish plants operated by a government in this

Province have lost money? I can take you out to my own district where there are

nine plants in my district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone.

MR. EFFORD: Gone, but let me explain first, just to

understand what I'm going to say. Several of those fish plants were private

entrepreneurs a hundred years old. The only reason they are slowed down now -

not closed permanently - is because of the crisis in the fishery. Compare that

to the fish plants that were operated directly by government and see about the

history of operating and the loan guarantees and the money that had to be out up

there.

Let me talk about the middle-distance fleet. The

middle-distance fleet who that group over there, a lot of those people over

there were involved in a government, how many multi-millions of dollars of the

taxpayers money went into the operation of a middle-distance fleet which

Scandinavian countries and governments did away with and we paid more

multi-millions of dollars to bring over here to turn around a whole new fishery

in the Province. Where are they now, and how much have they cost the taxpayers

of this Province? Would you tell me that any private entrepreneur would have

bought all of those vessels and paid the multi-millions of dollars that was out

there?

What I'm trying to do here is point out -

MR. TOBIN: What does this have to do with it?

MR. EFFORD: It is privatization of a company. Government

should not be involved in operating a company, a business. Leave that to the

private sector. The basic principle of profit and loss should be left to the

private business. Government should be setting policy and direction.

Let me talk about the Salt Fish Corporation. That is another

prime example of government involved in private business, and how many

multi-millions of dollars was lost by the taxpayers. All of those businesses -

and I could go on and on.

I spoke about the chocolate factory in Bay Roberts. Not to

make fun or to ridicule any particular government or any particular individual.

The chocolate factory in Bay Roberts was just a complete failure. Purity

Factories in St. John's, private business, how many years has Purity Factories

in St. John's been in operation? Make jams, but we can't make chocolate bars. We

can make jams and sell them. Private business. Right? Newfoundland Hardwood,

another prime example. Brookfield Ice Cream, one of the most prosperous

companies in all of Canada for its size.

Let's take it one step further. We are talking about Purity

Factories, we are talking about Brookfield Ice Cream, and we are talking about

the small, independent farmers around this Province who've made multi-millions

of dollars over the years. Let's take it to the most recent thing, the cucumber

farm and the pickle factory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Let's take it to the most recent thing.

Cucumbers and pickles. Imagine. Government couldn't even make a bottle of

pickles and sell them for a profit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Just imagine. Couldn't even make a bottle of

pickles. You talk about entrepreneurs and making of profits and government

should be involved in private business, when a simple bottle of pickles couldn't

be cooked, jarred, and put on a shelf and sold for a profit. If I were sitting

over there today I would hold my head in complete shame. I would never rush out

and brag about that we should be involved in operating companies and private

business, and we should be encouraging the people of this Province to waste

their taxpayers money with a history like I've just read off here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Well, I don't want to take away - I only have

ten minutes. I will probably bring up Bev's dip when I get up the next time, Mr.

Chairman, because I intend to get up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: My hon. friend for Harbour Grace asked me

this morning would I go put to accompany him to a meeting in Harbour Grace this

evening. I thought about it first and I said yes, I would. I tell you to my hon.

friend for Harbour Grace, I will be there before he will be there this evening.

He better get there quick because I'm going to be there, and I'm going to be

there with this list of historic businesses that government has been involved in

with all the money that they've generated in the economy and why we should keep

on being in private business. Because the whole economy of the Province of

Newfoundland is going to turn around with a history of pickles and chocolates

and rubber boots and everything else.

Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, many of the things the

minister stated, in fact, I agree with very much. I believe very strongly in

private business, and privatizing many Crown corporations that do not serve the

public interests. It is very easy to get up and sensationalize and discuss many,

many issues.

MR. EFFORD: I didn't sensationalize those were facts.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't interrupt, please.

I believe that private business can be competitive and can

survive in a marketplace where governments cannot. I believe strongly in that. I

believe that businesses are in business for profit, and that's what businesses

are about.

Government is not in business for profit. Government is only

in business where there is a perceived public interest at stake, and do not kid

yourselves that delivering of utilities in this Province is not like any normal

business. You are not competing against a store down the street, or against a

company in Nova Scotia, or the rest of Canada, or the world. You are delivering

a service to the people of this Province with a guaranteed rate of profit and

controls under the Public Utilities Board.

The companies the minister talked about are not regulated by

the Public Utilities Board. The chocolate factories, or hockey stick factories,

or whatever type of factories you have, are not regulated by public utilities.

They have to survive in business out there, and I have been a part of business -

small business if you want to call it. I have been there for the past nineteen

years, and we never had a government guaranteed loan in nineteen years, I can

tell you that, in a company I've been involved in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You should have been listening to the

earlier part of my statement, and I believe strongly in it. We didn't have to

come cap in hand to government to guarantee loans because we had to make the

necessary steps to be able to cut costs where necessary if the price, the

market, wasn't there. We had to be able to expand within our means when the

profit was there, and we have here in this Province a public utility company

that regulates electricity in this Province, and the rates that Hydro and

Newfoundland Power can charge to their consumers. It is unlike any other

business here in this Province.

There are two ways you can cut this. One is from a taxpayer

perspective, and one is from a rate user perspective. Just compare before and

after privatization. Before privatization, Hydro has been operating efficiently.

It has state-of-the-art equipment. It is a corporation the envy of utility

companies across this country. It is, I believe, the fourth largest utility

company in this country. It is working, and any monies that it is making are

going back to invest, to bear the burden of cost either on taxes or rates, to

subsidize to the householders of this Province.

When you get a private owned utilities company, that company

will be expected to get a return on their investment like any other private

company that operates and does business in this country, and certainly in this

Province, and the utilities board will ensure it. They have done it with

Newfoundland Power. They have given them an average of 13.74 per cent over the

last five years. Hydro has only taken from 5 per cent up to 8 per cent. This

extra level of profit - and do not kid yourselves - is going to go to the

shareholders of this company. Any extra profits or reductions to rate payers, or

savings on tax on this Province, are now shared - whatever form you want to

share it - in rates, by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The return on investments to shareholders in a corporation,

wherever they may be, go back to the shareholders of that corporation, whether

they live in Japan or the United States, or other provinces of Canada. There is

no hope that this Province can buy a controlling interest in a new privatized

Hydro.

In fact, if you look at Fortis Company, that is a much

smaller company, we only have 10 - 12 per cent or so ownership, if we have that,

and we're going to have even less of an ownership, only a few percent. Ninety

some percent of the profits, revenues and investments in this company are going

outside the Province. Right now they are staying inside the Province to be

shared to reduce the burden to taxpayers and rate users in this Province. The

company is operating efficiently, it's a good corporation. What's going to

happen now is we are going to have an increase in rates so the utilities board

can give the investors a return.

The Premier said how happy they were up in Toronto. If I was

living in Toronto and had money to invest I'd be dancing on Bay Street and

dancing in the eastern townships in Montreal, I'd be welcoming with open arms

what Newfoundland is doing. It is an investment opportunity of a lifetime. It's

a great opportunity and I've been out in private business - I would jump if I

was from Ontario or anywhere else at the chance to buy shares in this company

that is going to give them a guaranteed profit and take dollars and so on out of

the pocket of Newfoundlanders and put them into the pockets of investors across

Canada, I'd be delighted. No wonder the people up in Toronto are saying what a

fantastic job they're doing. The business community are delighted with it,

they're delighted. They welcome the Premier with open arms because it's going to

put dollars in the pockets and the coffers of investors and don't think for a

moment that this corporation is going to, in any way, have any control and

ownership by Newfoundlanders.

This corporation is going to be owned by people like Paul

Desmarais, the power corporation, Hydro Quebec or subsidiaries, Caisse Poplaire

of Quebec. The Teachers Federation of Ontario are owners and other major

multi-billion dollar funds and their affiliated investments, that's who's going

to own the new privatized Hydro, members of this House and do not kid yourself,

every dollar that goes out of this Province is a dollar out of the taxpayers

pocket, a dollar on your electricity rate in this Province, that's the real

facts. You can hide this under any screen you wish, you could talk about private

business. This is not a private fish plant business or a Brookfield Ice Cream,

it's not a chocolate factory, it's not a Sprung, it's not any of these types of

businesses.

Let's be realistic and talk some common sense here in this

House. That is a pile of hogwash and anybody who tries to tell you that a

company owned over 90 per cent outside this Province is putting tax dollars and

profits back in this Province, don't kid yourself. I was in business for almost

twenty years, businesses are to make profit. We're in business to make profit,

that's what private companies are in business for. The more profit, the better

for their investors and the more money for the company. To do otherwise would be

an insult to the investors who invested in the corporation. They are the

masters, the people who invest and buy shares in that company.

Now we have seen fallacies put forth here by this government

on why you should privatize Hydro. The Premier used all last year the great deal

in Nova Scotia. The deal in Nova Scotia stinks and everybody knows it and the

facts are there to prove it, it's history, it's done and we know the fallout in

Nova Scotia. We know of 400 job losses in Nova Scotia, increases in electrical

rates in Nova Scotia and increases in taxes to the people in Nova Scotia. They

wanted to get rid of their Premier, their own party almost, after what happened

in Nova Scotia and 90 per cent of power in Nova Scotia is generated by a

non-renewable resource. That's a lot different situation and the people in Nova

Scotia are still reeling from those effects.

Mr. Chairman, we are losing the ownership of a right and a

resource that has been ours from the beginning of time. The rights and the

ownership of water rights in this Province, as it's built into Bill 1 and you

can read it there, will remain with this private company owned by people outside

this Province for as long as that is used to generate power and make profits

anywhere else. Where do you think they are going to stop generating power? That

is their's free of all encumbrances that's what it states, free of all

encumbrances. The Premier even made an admission on the

section dealing with

excluded assets as determined by the Minister of Finance. He even indicated

maybe an amendment could be entertained on that issue. He even feels the wording

there leaves a lot to the imagination. There are many dangerous things here and

as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes said last night, we don't want to look

back in thirty, forty or fifty years and realize the devastating effect that's

happened.

Look at the Upper Churchill. Do you realize that within the

next few years our losses on Upper Churchill are going to be mounting

progressively? Hydro Quebec has the right to subsidize those loses by buying up

shares in CF(L)Co from 34 per cent. We do not have that right so with the loses

that are occurring it is estimated to run up to $200 million a year. Hydro

Quebec can keep buying shares to cover those loses and in fifteen years time, or

at least twenty years, Hydro Quebec has the option to own 100 per cent on

projected losses occurring in CF(L)Co. That is in the contract. They can cover

the shortfalls.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Member for

Ferryland would observe Your Honour's ruling perhaps I could make a short

contribution to this. We are on Clause 1 of the bill, a more general discussion,

and I suspect we may be here for a little while. I want to say, having listened

to the hon. Member for Ferryland, as I just did, and there is no other way to

put it, I must say I seldom heard such a - with all due respect to him, a

mishmash of confused thinking. Now there are many reasons why one can use the

economic power of the state to achieve certain ends, and one can believe if one

is a socialist that public ownership is a good in itself. There are those who

believe, I suppose this is the orthodox Tory line, that public ownership is bad

in itself, that we should privatize the hospitals, the prisons, and everything,

but those of us in the middle, the Liberals, believe that public ownership is

neither good nor bad in itself.

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman for Green Bay would

possess his soul in patience, as I have no doubt his mother told him for many

years, he would be further ahead than he has ever been before. Mr. Chairman, the

hon. gentleman for Green Bay can either remain silent and have us suspect the

true state of his mental knowledge and his mental ability, or he can open his

mouth and have us know it. I would invite him to remain silent. I have not

interrupted him. In fact he was not even here last night to speak. That is how

much he cared about the debate.

Mr. Chairman, let me come back. Those of us who are Liberals

believe that public ownership is neither good nor bad in itself, neither is

private ownership. We rather look at the resources we have as a society,

expressed through this government, the government of the Province, and what we

can do with them. The most powerful argument in favour of privatizing Hydro is

contained in the answer to the question: Why should we as a people be investing

in Hydro? Why should the very scarce fiscal capacity of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, very scarce, be used to invest in Hydro? Why? What is

magic about Hydro? Using a natural resource - the Premier exploded that last

night for the myth it is. We should equally logically (

a) take over Fortis at

once because they are using a natural resource, (

b) take over the Iron Ore

Company and Wabush Mines, Kruger, Abitibi, and we should also nationalize

whatever is left of the fishery, when it comes back. We should take back Fishery

Products which was owned by the public and then went back to the private sector

in a privatization deal.

PREMIER WELLS: And all farms.

MR. ROBERTS: And all farms, simply because it is a

natural resource. Now, that is the logic in that argument. That does not hold

any water. Now, maybe we should look at return on investment. Maybe we should

use our scarce fiscal resources and put them into Hydro because we would make a

lot of money on it, but the truth of that is it is just not true. We have been

making nothing on Hydro, a guarantee fee of 1 per cent, a little under $10

million a year, if memory serves me correctly at current rates.

PREMIER WELLS: And we had to give for that.

MR. ROBERTS: Agreed, and we get no dividend. We have once

only taken a dividend out of Hydro, in fact we have had to assign to Hydro the

income flow, the dividend and royalty flow from the CF(L)Co shares which the

Tories under Frank Moores purchased in the 1970s. They spent so much for that,

that it has never paid its way and we have had to assign back the royalty and

rental flow that came to the Province under the original deal, good or bad as

the deal may have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman says

because we gave it away. That has nothing to do with anything. Mr. Chairman, the

hon. gentleman obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. I made a

statement which is factually correct. Now, there is no merit in being in an

investment if we want to take $1 billion of the public credit and $250 million

or whatever the book value of the equity now is and go and invest it, we can get

a far better rate of return than we get by putting it in Hydro, so there is no

natural resources issue, that is a false one, the idea that this is somehow an

economic issue is a bad one.

Now, why was Hydro there? There was a public policy reason

why the Liberal administration in the 60s put Hydro in place. There were two

very good ones, both of which the Premier spoke on. One, private industry could

not have built Bay d'Espoir or the grid across the Province. It didn't exist in

the mid-60s, Corner Brook and the West Coast had fifty cycle power generated by

the old Bowater Power Company, now Kruger or Deer Lake Power whatever it is

called. Here on the eastern half we had sixty cycle and they were the little

systems down in Port Union and elsewhere. There were four to five small electric

systems which could not have put in place the Bay d'Espoir generating capacity

or the grid to carry the energy generated there throughout the Island. That was

one reason.

The second, was to put in place the rural electrification

programs that could not have been done by any private sector because they

weren't economic, so if it hadn't been for Hydro we would not have had Bay

d'Espoir, we would not have a grid, we would not have had the lights in the

rural communities in the more remote parts of the Island and on the Coast of

Labrador. That's why Hydro was built and it served that public purpose

magnificently, but it doesn't any more. It doesn't any more because the needs

been met, the needs have been met, any more than the railway that was built

across Canada by the Tories, by John A. and the national dream in the 1870s, no

longer serves that purpose. It served it magnificently but we don't need to keep

a Canadian Railway now to keep Canada together, so that reason no longer exists.

Mr. Chairman, these are the reasons that have led us, the,

government, to take this bold step forward. Here is an opportunity to take an

investment, to cash it in to get a return, and in a Province that is strapped

for cash, no secret about that, no shame about it, it is a fact of life. We have

very scarce fiscal resources; we need capital for schools, for hospitals and

what have you. Do we instead, put our money into Hydroelectric? No solid reasons

have been advanced from those opposite.

Now let me just make two other points because I have only ten

minutes. The first is, this talk of job losses. If Hydro is operating

efficiently, as we are assured is the case, and I have no reason to question it,

then there will be no job losses. The private sector can only operate it

efficiently. If Hydro is not operating efficiently, and I do not suggest that it

is, but if that be the case, then, Mr. Chairman, there probably will be job

losses, and I say, if there aren't, we all pay for them because whatever wages

Hydro pays out whether it is publicly or privately owned, those come right back

on our light bills, so if they say keep jobs simply to keep people working then

that's a great theory, we can put the whole Province to work, our 20 per cent

unemployment rate or whatever it may be this month, can disappear tomorrow. We

will hire everybody for about six weeks until the Province goes bankrupt. We can

put everybody to work. This nonsensical theory that hon. members opposite seem

to advance in their urge to try to attack a deal that they cannot attack on the

merits, is simply put people to work whether there is a job to be done or not.

If Hydro is run efficiently there will be no job losses, if it is not, not only

will there be, there should be because we are all paying for it in our electric

bills.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me go on to one other point. We talk

about control. The hon. gentlemen opposite have yet to realize that ownership

does not equal control. This cost us ten years development on Hibernia, this

same shibboleth, one does not have to own something to control it. The city

council doesn't own very much of the land in St. John's, it controls what is

done with it. The Public Utilities Board, under authority of this act, and the

Electrical Power Control Act, and the Public Utilities Act, will control what a

privatized Hydro does. The company will stay in Newfoundland by legislation. It

cannot move away. The very simple but very strong language in the privatization

act will prevent it moving away.

Dividends will go where the ownership goes, yes. Because if

one wants to attract capital one must pay for it. One will have to pay a

competitive rate. That doesn't bother this government. We happen to believe in

profit. We would like nothing more than to see endless profit made by people in

this Province because that would create endless jobs. That is the way to make

jobs, we believe. Let the private sector do it.

MR. FUREY: It's a Conservative view.

MR. ROBERTS: It happens to be a view that sometimes the

Conservatives share when they're not simply trying to oppose for the sake of

opposing. Look, all that has happened, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for

Ferryland has made up his mind he doesn't like the deal. I don't know why,

because he hasn't told us so in any articulate or reasoned way. Once he made up

his mind he then went looking for his reasons. He comes up with this mishmash.

I've already dealt with most of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is quite true. He makes up his mind

and he looks for his reasons. it is not a matter of -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: So soon. Well, another time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I have never heard such a bunch, to use the

hon. Government House Leader's quote, mishmash, fact and fiction, in all of my

life. The hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stands up and

compares the Crown corporation of Hydro to chocolate factories, rubber

factories, Sprung factories, and says that the privatization of Hydro is like

any other business within the private sector. That is simply not true. The

reason that the private sector works on behalf of society and works for society

is based on a simple philosophy. It is called competition. By where people who

are involved in the same business compete. In a nutshell, it lowers prices, it

gives the consumer the best rate of return or the best services provided.

What will Hydro provide? Where is the competitive marketplace

for Hydro? There is none. There is no competition. The government right now is

proposing to turn over a profitable Crown corporation that works for the people

of this Province, that does not cost the government a penny out of its treasury

every year, not a penny, and turn it over to the private sector and say: You can

have it.

What will the privatization of Hydro bring? It will not bring

new investment to the Province, not one penny. Not one extra cent of new

investment will it bring to this Province. As a matter of fact, the outflow of

dollars from this Province is what we will see. Will it bring any new

technology? No, it will not. No new technology, or no new technology transfer as

a result of the privatization of Hydro. Will it bring any new jobs to this

Province? I submit to the House that it will not bring any new jobs to this

Province.

It is my understanding that we - meaning the people of the

Province - will receive somewhere in the order of $250 million to $400 million

or $500 million for the sale of Newfoundland Hydro. That is basically the book

value of the equity built up in Hydro, plus perhaps a small bit more. I have

never ever heard of a profitable corporation being sold without making a

significant profit on its shares, never. The hon. Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, a businessman himself, has never heard of it, and would not

even consider being involved or selling any of his private businesses without

making a significant profit or a fair profit above and beyond the share value.

We are not going to see this with the privatization of Hydro.

The privatization initiative itself, generally has been

discussed at length, I agree with the members opposite. There has been a general

discussion at length about the privatization initiative of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro in Newfoundland and Labrador for the past six to seven months,

but what has not happened is that there has not been a significant amount of

discussion on this particular deal. There has been very limited discussion.

Now, let me tell you why I believe the government is

operating this way. It was clear when the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, was interviewed by a paper in his own region, and he being questioned

on public hearings, the paper reported: `As for public hearings, Mr. Grimes said

Wednesday that he believes a structured debate on the bill is required in the

House of Assembly, rather than public hearings, on a complex business deal.'

But, more importantly, he said that this privatization bill is not the kind of

thing that you send out to every householder, not the kind of thing for every

home to have a look at. Most people, the minister said, unless they had a

business background, or someone there to explain everything, don't understand

the complex arrangements. My god, Mr. Chairman!

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

Labour Relations, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just for clarification on that issue, because I know that the

hon. the Member for Kilbride used the exact words that I used with the reporter.

It was reported precisely and accurately, and there are members of the

Opposition, and I believe the Member for Kilbride is one, who said that he

doesn't understand what is in this bill. And I said it, as did the Member for

Baie Verte - White Bay, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, and several

others. The point that I made to the reporter, which was reported accurately and

just stated accurately by the member, is that it would not serve a purpose to

send this bill out to the people of Newfoundland and say: Look at that and see

what you think of it. A discussion about the principles of privatization will be

sent out, and we will discuss it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, let me explain to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled on the point of

order. There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let me explain to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations that this is one member who clearly understands

the implications of that bill, and the negative impacts it would have on this

Province, and this is one member who has never stood in this Legislature and

said I don't understand it, because I clearly do.

Now, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

that the attitude reflected here is that the majority of Newfoundlanders are

ignorant.

MR. GRIMES: Are you going to send this piece of paper out

to every householder in Kilbride?

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister's statements here say that the

majority of people in this Province don't know for themselves what this is

about, and I say to the minister, he is right. The Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations is absolutely correct, and by that very logic that he expressed

here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that I identified the hon. the Member

for Kilbride. He rose in his place to speak in this House, and I remind hon.

members that he has the right to speak. If other members want to be recognized

when the hon. the Member for Kilbride is finished, I will recognize them, but I

would suggest that they stop shouting across this House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and

all government members, that this is the type of attitude, the type of logic

that is going to lead us down a path and we won't know where we are going.

The Member for St. John's South stood here earlier this week

and said, haste makes waste, and I agree with him, but why are we in a furious

hundred yard dash, a mad dash, to privatize Hydro?

The discussion of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has been

ongoing in the public mind and in public debate for some six or seven months,

but the discussion on this particular piece of legislation, and the details

contained therein, have not been ongoing for the last several months. It hasn't

even had a chance to get going.

Mr. Chairman, if we, as a people, have any hope whatsoever to

develop economically, to be a prosperous people, then privatization generally is

an initiative that we should pursue but when it comes to a resource such as

hydroelectricity, a resource that is now owned solely by the people of this

Province, operated by the people of this Province, does not cost the provincial

treasury one penny each year, then I think that we should sit back and take a

long, long hard look at the economic policy that is being pursued here in the

privatization of Hydro.

Now, my friend, Alex Snow, the Member for Menihek, talked

last night about the public policy purpose and the public -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: When I decided to throw my hat in the

political ring, I promised the people of the district of Terra Nova that I would

serve them to the best of my ability. So again, I rise here in the House of

Assembly to state that I support the privatization of Hydro. I feel it is in the

best interest of the people of my district and, indeed, of the people of the

Province. I am a resident of this Province, so why would I be in favour of

something that is going to jeopardize the well-being of myself and, I guess, my

descendants? The people of this Province will not be led down the garden path by

the Opposition. The people gave us a mandate last May, knowing full well that

privatization was recommended by the people of this Province when they had had

input into the Strategic Economic Plan. So, today, we are here discussing the

privatization of Hydro.

I stated on Tuesday night and I state again, that if my

decision is wrong, the residents will send me a message in the next provincial

election. Now, my statement was carried on the Open Line show that

evening. Unfortunately, I was in bed asleep and didn't hear about it until my

constituents called me the next morning and told me about it, and they also

supported my stand, but apparently, the moderator had asked me, and, I guess,

the residents of the district of Terra Nova, to call in. How many people from

the district of Terra Nova called in? How many? None. The next morning I did

receive a call from a resident of another district, telling me that she opposed

it. I asked her why, and she said, `Because it's turning money into

Newfoundland.' I asked, `How much money?' She said, `I don't know.' `Well, I

said, `I'll send you out the package,' which I did.

As I said, I've had many calls of support from the district

of Terra Nova and also from the district of Bonavista South. These people have

told me that they want this deal to go through, and they thanked me for

supporting it. They believe in me, that's why they support it, and I believe in

the Wells Government.

I also said on Tuesday night that the Opposition is using the

Open Line show to fearmonger, and I said something about hearing rumours

or hearing nonsense on the Open Line show. Actually, on Monday morning, I

did hear the Member for St. John's South talking intelligently about the

privatization of Hydro, but then, on Monday night, I turned on the radio as I

was driving away from here and I heard such nonsense about what he had said - it

was ridiculing the member, and that's the kind of nonsense I was referring to. I

certainly didn't say that the people calling are silly, because there have been

some great debates on that show by some very, very knowledgeable people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mostly Liberals.

MS. YOUNG: My friend says it must have been Liberals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mostly Liberals.

MS. YOUNG: Therefore, I did not say they were silly. As a

matter of fact, I've phoned in, myself, a couple of times.

With regard to holding meetings in my district on Hydro, I've

had meetings in my district on other important concerns. The people have

summoned me to come to these meetings, and I have gone. I have listened to their

concerns and have told them that I would react to their concerns.

Now, I had a good offer from the Member for Kilbride. He

wanted to come out to my district and he wanted to explain Hydro. Well, I say to

the Member for Kilbride, maybe you should be looking at your own district. Just

last week, one of his constituents came to me and asked: `Where is the Member

for Kilbride? He promised me last September that he would have a meeting with me

in October and I haven't heard from him.' I said: `Well, it has taken him a year

to prepare for that meeting.' So I say to him, look after your own affairs.

Also, maybe he is spending a lot of time down around Trinity and he just

couldn't get back.

The Member for Bonavista South criticized me because I wasn't

at a meeting last Sunday. I will tell you why I wasn't there last Sunday - I had

a previous commitment. But where was he a couple of Saturday nights ago when a

resident of his district asked him to meet with him? He was up in my district,

and that is why he couldn't attend a meeting with his own people. And that is

probably why I am getting so many calls from Bonavista South asking me to work

on issues for them. Either they don't trust him or they can't reach him. Maybe

that is why they are calling me. They are also telling me that they support

Hydro.

Now, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes wants to hold

meetings on Hydro everywhere. I was informed that the residents out there are

more concerned about the collapse of the fishery than about the privatization of

Hydro.

I keep hearing more and more from the Opposition that

Newfoundlanders can't afford to buy shares in Hydro. Do you have access to all

of the bank accounts of the residents of this Province to know what they can

afford and what they can't afford? Surely, they must realize the danger of

portraying all this doom and gloom. There are Newfoundlanders out there who are

asking to buy shares and they are not just the wealthy. These people want to

help this Province lower the debt and, at the same time, they are showing that

they have pride in this Province and they have faith in the future of this

Province.

So, I say to you in the Opposition, don't destroy that pride

and faith by your fearmongering. The people will have an opportunity to buy

these shares, and buy them they will. They are insulted by the people who say

that Newfoundlanders can't afford to buy shares. This Province is currently

getting $10 million a year to guarantee a $1.2-billion debt. When government

privatises that asset we will not need to borrow money for the next fiscal year,

and it will probably lead to a reduction in the following year. This would save

the people $25 million every year on the money we would have to borrow if Hydro

is not privatized. To me, that is a good business decision.

I come from a small business, a farm. You talked about over

there - one of the members talked about competition. Well, when we were

regulated we couldn't compete. We were told what we had to do. I say, too, that

there is a fish plant out in my district that takes no money from government. It

operates successfully and I am pleased that when I went to their Christmas party

I was able to talk about the importance of private enterprise.

Now, I have listened to what I consider fact and much more

that I am sure is not based on fact.

MR. TOBIN: I hope you are not reading a speech.

MS. YOUNG: Well, at least I can read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: I do know that the people of this Province are

fed a lot of information and unfortunately, like I said, much of it is not

factual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Copious notes.

MS. YOUNG: You are spreading fear to accomplish an

objective and that objective is to try to make this government look bad. But the

Government of this Province will not look bad, I can assure you, because when

Hydro is privatized and people know what a good thing it was for this Province,

they will look at you people and say, `You led us astray,' and when the next

election comes we will remind them who it was that tried to sabotage the

privatization of Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I think I heard the Member for Terra Nova use the word

`Clydro' and that is probably an apt name for what is going on here now. The

Member for Terra Nova, as well as others opposite, are first-term members. They

are part of a team, or a caucus, and there are powerful forces at work on them

which lead them to surrender their own independent thought, to subordinate their

own intellect to that of their leader.

Now, one of the main arguments put forward by members

opposite, in defence of privatizing Hydro, is, `Trust us, trust "Clyde", trust

the Premier, he knows what he is doing.' Mr. Chairman, this Province has had a

sorry history of major mistakes in resource development - major mistakes - and

there haven't been very many instances when politicians have broken with their

groups, or their leaders, over the mistakes. There was one example in the 1960s

over Come By Chance, when the present Premier and John Crosbie broke ranks with

Joey Smallwood. We saw an example of it here last night when the Member for

Pleasantville had the courage to stand up for his convictions and stand up for

his constituents. Now, apart from saying, `Trust us,' members opposite are

saying, private is better than public. The government has no role in business.

Mr. Chairman, Hydro is not a business in the usual sense, it is a

publicly-regulated monopoly. It is not competing. It is guaranteed a good rate

of return. As a private utility, it will get the same as Newfoundland Light and

Power, over 13 per cent. Mr. Chairman, privatizing Hydro is not the same kind of

a proposition as privatizing Newfoundland Farm Products or the Marystown

Shipyard.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MS. VERGE: Why? I thought the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation had some experience in the private sector.

MR. EFFORD: You need not think it, I have.

MS. VERGE: Well, in that case, the minister should go

home and do some thinking and reflecting.

Mr. Chairman, an electrical generating utility that has a

monopoly and gets a guaranteed rate of return from the Public Utilities Board is

not a business in the sense of the businesses the minister has been involved in.

It is not a business the same as Farm Products or Computer Services. So the

argument advanced by members opposite, that the government shouldn't be

operating Hydro, just doesn't wash. There are good, sound public policy reasons

for the government continuing to own Hydro, one of which is keeping down

electricity prices, another of which is using electricity as a lever for future

economic development, a third of which is getting the best possible deal for the

citizens of this Province, all of the people of the Province on the Upper

Churchill and the Lower Churchill and, Mr. Chairman, we made a tragic mistake in

the 1960s in entering into the Upper Churchill contract. We are getting 3