March 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 15

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: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Budget

Speech the Minister of Finance changed his tone a little bit, I noticed. We are

still probing through the documents themselves. There seemed to be a little less

doom and gloom in his words, but when you look through the document itself you

will see there was as much doom and gloom as ever in the figures contained in

the attached documents. I want the minister if he will to confirm that personal

incomes will decline again this year, disposable incomes will decline again this

year, retails sales will decline again this year, that the labour force will

continue to shrink, and that unemployment will stay above 20 per cent. Will he

confirm those?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is

right in the first part of his comment that there is some hope, there is light

at the end of the tunnel at this point in time. We can see where we will very

quickly have a balanced current account and we will have greater flexibility in

the future to add to our needs and provide better service for people. He is

right there; there is hope in this Budget.

In our projections in real terms there will be these

declines, as the member mentions. They are spelled out quite clearly in the

Budget. This is the basis on which we are projecting. We are being, we feel,

realistic in light of what has been happening. If at the same time there is a

greater level of recovery then we will be very happy with that as well. If at

the same time the improvement in the economy of the United States spills over

into Canada even more so than is currently projected we will be very happy with

that because it will mean more revenues for us. If at the same time during this

next year the efforts at economic development start paying off and we start

seeing the fruits of that particular effort this year, then we will be very

happy with that. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have to steer a very careful

and prudent course for this Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the

minister that the light at the end of the tunnel he refers to will soon be gone

once they get rid of Hydro. I suspect that is probably the worst thing that we

can look forward to in the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, the downward spiral in our economy will really

only end when there are jobs for people in this Province, when people are

working and earning wages, and able to pay taxes, and when they have money to

spend in the economy.

I want to ask the minister: When does he expect the

unemployed people in this Province to be able to work again? When does he expect

those who have jobs and are employed would have to stop worrying about their

jobs futures? When will the desperation end among people in this Province,

particularly the thousands of young people, college graduates, who have to leave

this Province every single day?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the

Opposition agrees with our long-term approach in that we must strive for more

diversification in our economy, and that is the general thrust of this

particular Budget.

I say to the hon. member that the hope is there, and the hope

is that these things he is talking about will, in fact, happen, and they will

happen first of all when we solve the problems created by members opposite over

the seventeen years that they were in office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: When we finish paying for commitments that

these hon. members made, that they never ever provided funding for, when we

start handling these commitments, when we reach the point where we are paying

our own way, then this will pay off in spades. There will be dividends for

people in this Province; there will be more work; there will be a turnaround in

this economy, and I can see that happening fairly quickly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he has been saying that now for

six Budgets in a row. This is their sixth Budget and nothing has changed - not a

darn thing.

For the fourth year in a row, I say to the Minister of

Finance, public sector employees now face a possible wage freeze, possible

lay-offs, cuts in benefits. We don't know what they face at this stage, and

there is a lot of uncertainty out there.

If you read government's own economic review, the document

entitled The Economy , page 11 and page 70, the chart at the back of the

document, that will tell you that in fact ongoing restraint and uncertainty in

our economy, particularly in the public sector itself, is really a major factor

in depressing consumer spending in this Province. They say that themselves, and

they tell us that themselves, and that is having a big effect on jobs in the

private sector, so I want to ask the minister: When does he expect this

uncertainty to end? Can he tell public employees in this Province, for example,

that this will be the last year of restraint, the last year of cutbacks, the

last year of lay-offs? Can he give them some reason for hope and optimism in the

immediate future?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The description of the economy as set out in that document is

reality. This is the reality that we face, and have been facing for some time.

As have all provinces in Canada, we have been in quite serious circumstances

over the last four or five years, but this Province stands alone in best

handling the situation. And we have been harder hit than other provinces, Mr.

Speaker, in the sense that part of our fishery has disappeared, which has been

an additional blow to us. But we, alone, of all the provinces in Canada, have

for the last four years, been dealing with the problem, and dealing with it in a

way that will cause the least harm to the people of this Province.

We are at a period of time, Mr. Speaker, when commitments in

the past have been made with a view to somebody some time in the future paying

for it. Irresponsible commitments were made, Mr. Speaker, by previous

governments, with a view that some time in the future, somebody will pay for it;

but, Mr. Speaker, we have been paying for it for the past three or four years

and the hope is - we can see the point in time now, when that will be over with,

when there will be economic growth in this Province and when we have our

spending under control, Mr. Speaker, that's where the hope is in this Budget.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, government talks endlessly

about the private sector being the engine of the economy, about stimulating

growth through the private sector, but, Mr. Speaker, I say the government is all

talk and no action in that regard. There is nothing in this Budget to do

anything to stimulate small business; there is a small benefit there in lowering

corporate income tax, a slight benefit for those companies that are lucky enough

to make a little bit of profit.

Let me ask the minister, why didn't he do something with the

payroll tax which would have helped all businesses in this Province and not just

a few that make a profit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we are, in a variety of ways,

trying to create a better climate in this Province for businesses to operate and

survive, make profits, create jobs and try to pull us out of this morass that we

have been in for decades, Mr. Speaker. That's what we are trying to do, however,

I say to hon. members that in the interim, services that we provide must be paid

for; these services must be paid for. We are at the point where we can no longer

make the commitments today and not provide the funding for it. The services we

provide must be paid for, therefore, revenue has to be raised.

I was very interested in listening to the comments of some of

the members opposite, suggestions that we should eliminate the payroll tax, we

should put more money in here, more money in there. Obviously, Mr. Speaker,

their approach would be to borrow, borrow, borrow, go further in debt, for

short-term political gain today and the ruination of the Province in the future

- that is their approach.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, our

approach would be to create jobs and stimulate the economy by eliminating the

$73 million payroll tax, which is a direct disincentive to businesses in this

Province, Mr. Speaker. It is a tax on jobs, it bears no relationship to whether

or not a company is making profit. It is simply the bottom line under payroll,

Mr. Speaker. It takes $73 million out of the pockets of the private sector. It

is a direct disincentive to do business in this Province. When is the minister

going to start unravelling the damage that he has done to the economy by putting

this tax in place four years ago?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, every single tax that we collect

is in some sense a disincentive to spending money simply because we are

collecting that tax, and therefore, it is not disposable income for the people

or the businesses of the Province - that is true. I say to hon. members, though,

that if we are expected to provide a first-class health care system and

education system, if we are expected to provide services for people in need, the

social services programs and so on, then we must get money from somewhere, and

that is a lesson the previous government never did learn. They thought it was

spend, spend, spend, and to heck with the money coming in. Well, Mr. Speaker,

those days are over. We have a responsible government in this Province and we

will continue to have this responsible government for the next decade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the minister that his Budget

yesterday provides $1 million in tax breaks to large corporations that are

fortunate enough to make a profit. That is spread over all the companies that

are making a profit in the Province. He has done nothing for all of those small

companies that are not making a profit but yet he is going to provide $40 to $50

million in tax incentives to New Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power under

his silly Hydro privatization thing and, in addition to that, there will be some

tens of millions of dollars it will cost in higher electricity charges to

consumers. There is the $40 million, $50 million, or $60 million he could be

putting into eliminating the payroll tax and put away this silly privatization.

Why does the minister not use those tax dollars to eliminate the payroll tax? He

has the means - let us see some action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we are providing incentives for

new business to come to this Province, to open up, and to create jobs for our

people. We are providing incentives for the existing businesses to expand and do

the same thing. In the fall, Mr. Speaker, you will see a bill introduced into

this House that will deal with this issue much more effectively than a Budget

does.

I say to members opposite that some of their comments in

terms of Newfoundland Hydro and so on indicate their true feeling about this,

Mr. Speaker. They are proposing that perhaps the Grand Falls mill should never

have been built, that the railway should never have been built, that the Corner

Brook mill should never have been built, they're proposing all of these things,

Mr. Speaker. It is rather a ludicrous argument. There is nothing in this Budget

that indicates any giveaways that the gentlemen are talking about. I say to hon.

members again that if we are to provide the services, then we must collect the

money to pay for those services. We can no longer assume that someone in the

future will pay for it. This is the future, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

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

Minister of Finance. The post-secondary students of the Province and, indeed,

their parents, and the students who are about to enter post-secondary schools,

were saddened and shocked to learn that the government has decided to eliminate

the provincial grant portion of the student aid program. Is the minister not

aware of the significant disincentive this measure will mean to those

considering a post-secondary education and is he not aware that the government's

actions will mean that post-secondary education is now a false dream for many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any of these

things. We have been told for years - and this has generally been a complaint

about the student loan program - that it did not provide enough money for

students to pay their real costs. We have been told that too much is expected of

low and middle income parents in providing assistance for students and

therefore, the amounts credited to parents' support should be reduced - we have

been told all these things; that we must provide more money for the students

going to University. Now, Mr. Speaker, the only way we could do that is to move

from a grant to a loan system that would provide more money for students. At the

point where these students graduate then, depending on need, there could be

forgiveness of a certain portion of that loan but, Mr. Speaker, it allows more

money, in cases of need, to be available to the students so they can complete

their education. Then, when they graduate, if they get a $60,000 or

$70,000-a-year job, they have to pay the loan back, that's only right, that's

only fair. But if, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, they have needs at that

point, then they get a remission of the portion of the loan. This is the only

way that we could increase the amount of money available to students. This is

the only way. Our choices were to provide more money through grants to fewer

students, and thus cut back on the opportunities, or to actually broaden it and

provide more money for more students with remissions in cases of need. Surely

the hon. gentleman understands that this is a very fair way to do it and it is

the best way to provide the money that students need while they are going to

University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing both -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I had trouble hearing the question of the hon. member and

then I had trouble hearing the reply of the hon. minister. Perhaps if we could

keep conscious of that.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

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

has taken more than $10 million from the funds that have helped make

assistance. To that extent we are really balancing a budget on the backs of our

youth. I say to the minister that his government actions are regressive, they

are contrary to the principles that we espouse, assuring fairness and equal

opportunity in education, and will result in a 50 per cent to 75 per cent

increase in the cost of a post-secondary education. Students will graduate now

with up to $22,000 in loans before they will get any help at all. With the job

market out there this is very discouraging.

Many students now say to us that they really can't consider

going to University or post-secondary because the possibility of getting a job

at the end is so great, if they are now going to face $22,000 of loans at the

end of their program. Will the minister not consider being a facilitator of

post-secondary education rather than putting up barriers and obstacles?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that we are

very concerned about the debt level that students incur. We are very concerned

about that. The debt level that students incur should not be more than is

absolutely necessary. In other words, obviously they should not borrow more

money than is absolutely necessary for their education. We are very concerned

about that and we will work with the students in that regard. There is no doubt

about it.

The hon. gentleman, I believe, is exhibiting the same

short-term attitude that his colleagues exhibited in the seventeen years they

were in office. In actual fact, the commitment that we are making - we are

paying the interest on the loans while the students go to University, and we are

making the commitment of remission at the end that may in fact be greater than

the amount of money we are now putting in. This is probably an expansion in

terms of a commitment of money that government is putting into the students in

this Province.

I would also like to point out that the taxpayers of this

Province already pay 85 per cent of the cost of University education for

students in this Province. We already pay that. I think it is proper that

attention be drawn, as the hon. gentleman did, to the debt level of students.

That students should look upon student loans as loans and that they judge

themselves accordingly and not borrow any more than necessary. The minister, the

Department of Education, are willing to work with the students in this regard.

We are making available more money to students because that is the cry we've

heard for years, making available more money in the only way that we can, and

making the commitment in hardship cases and so on to do a remission at

graduation.

Mr. Speaker, even gentlemen opposite are surely not

suggesting that if the students upon graduation get the type of job where they

are perfectly capable of paying back whatever it happens to be they build up,

that they should in fact not pay it back. Surely they are not suggesting that.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the real inconvenience here is

to those able-bodied students, particularly those from rural Newfoundland, or

those of us who came from rural Newfoundland to go to University. We know from

experience the difference in the expense that one incurs if one is from the St.

John's region or if one is from rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the plain truth is that this action I'm afraid

will mean that our colleges and universities will become more elitist and that

it will have the effect of denying opportunity to many, many students, and the

Budget will place a severe hardship. It will mean a loss of hope, and that is a

sad commentary.

I ask the minister: Would he reconsider his approach, and

consult with the various councils of student unions before he implements his

cost-cutting strategies?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not reconsider

putting more money into the students of this Province. No, we will not

reconsider that.

I would like to also point out to members opposite, and to

anybody else who cares to listen, that we are the ones that are expanding

university courses all throughout this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: And the party opposite are the ones who argued

vehemently against any expansion outside of St. John's, and that everything had

to be concentrated in St. John's, two elections ago, Mr. Speaker. They are the

ones who argued for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Our health care system has seen an ever increasing waiting

line for surgeries of all types, and yet the minister has stated, in the Budget

yesterday, that fifty acute care beds are going to close in this Province. It

does not seem to be a very rational way to reduce waiting lists for surgeries.

I ask the minister: are those fifty bed closures going to be

concentrated in one or two hospitals, or spread proportionately throughout the

Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All that

preamble was sort of strange there, weird. The whole

question about the increasing waiting lists for all types of surgery, this is

nonsense. What is happening in the Province is that we are moving into

outpatient surgery, day surgery, and things of that nature, not keeping people

in hospital beds for weeks and months.

There is a new mode going on in health care, and what the

hon. member should realize is that this new method of providing health care

should drag him out of the nineteenth century, or the seventeenth century,

wherever he came from. So he should look at, before asking questions, the new

method of health care.

Now these beds that may very well be closed are in a number

of institutions.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Budget states that the school of nursing diploma programs

in St. John's will be consolidated. Now will the minister tell this House which

schools of nursing in the city will be eliminated, when will this consolidation

take place, and how many jobs will be lost?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in the Province. We

have five institutions which turn out nurses, and many nurses cannot obtain

employment in this Province. We are way over the number... We are turning out

many more than are required in the Province, and quite a number are unemployed -

just as a few years ago we turned out too many people in other professions - so

we don't really need four schools of nursing in St. John's, three hospital

schools and the university school. So what we have been working on for quite

some time now is a program by which the schools might come together, and where

all the government has decided is to move up the

schedule and to bring this into

account pretty soon.

We haven't decided yet just which schools would close, or

what the arrangements will be, but it will be done quite soon.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the rate you are going, closing hospital beds, I guess

there will be no need for nurses, or very few, in the future.

Now many students have already applied and are on waiting

lists for some time. I am sure the minister is aware of the last minute attempt

last year to close first year nursing in Corner Brook. I ask the minister, and

the minister should know, what the reduction in numbers entering the school of

nursing is going to be, and I ask him, when will the students be notified of

these changes?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Again, the member starts off his question

with an incorrect assumption. What is happening in hospitals is that the level

of acuity of care has gone up, because we are discharging people earlier. As

home care has developed in the various communities in the Province, it is easier

to discharge people earlier from a very expensive hospital bed to the very much

less expensive home care bed. And, with the new techniques in medicine and

surgery, it is possible to discharge people earlier, which means, that while

patients are in hospital, they are usually quite sick,

whereas years ago, people

would stay in hospital for quite a long period of time and the level of care

would not be as strong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: Now, just pay attention, and stop this silly

giggling over there; you are like a crowd of little school girls and school

boys.

What has happened is that in the acute care hospitals, there

is a heavy concentration of nurses, and there has to be a heavy concentration of

nurses, but we don't need as many as we used to need; but perhaps we will need

more in the future. We are anticipating fewer nurses in the future.

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

MR. HARRIS: My question for the Minister of Finance

concerns the grants to post-secondary students.

Mr. Speaker, the amount for the grants to student aid in this

year's Budget is $10 million less than last year, approximately, but will the

minister acknowledge that in reality, what he has done is, he has taken $15

million in grants to post-secondary students which was in the Budget last year,

and taken $15 million per year out of the pockets of students in the form of

grants. Would the minister acknowledge that that is actually $15 million on an

annual basis that is coming out of the pockets of students in the form of grants

and being turned into loans?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not taking any money

out of the hands of students. We are providing the students with the possibility

of having more money in cases where that money is needed to provide an

education, Mr. Speaker. We are providing an opportunity for students to have

access to more money, I repeat for the Member for St. John's East, to have more

money to further their university education. In terms of our commitment, the

money in the Budget this year is to pay the interest on these loans and there is

a further commitment down the road, that in hardship cases, where people find it

impossible to pay back their loans, then there will be a remission, so our

commitment is in two segments and I would say to the hon. gentleman, that our

commitment next year, in this coming year, is probably far greater than in any

previous year.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the minister is not prepared to admit that beneath

all the smooth talk, there is, in fact, a $15-million reduction in grants to

students.

Will the minister also acknowledge that he has now changed

his tune? Yesterday, there appeared to be an automatic remission upon successful

completion of university. Now he is talking about some, vague, possible

remission in hardship cases or when they are impossible to repay. Will students,

Mr. Speaker, have to be on the verge of bankruptcy after graduation before the

government might possibly consider some remission for some students? Is that the

minister's plan?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in

position. What I said - and I will repeat it again in case the hon. gentleman

didn't hear it previously - was that, in cases where a student graduates from

university and has a debt-load and if they are fortunate enough to obtain

employment in, let's say one of the professions that would provide them with,

$50,000, $60,000 or $40,000 a year, or whatever, starting, then certainly, they

have an obligation, they will have an obligation to pay back the money that it

cost them for their university education. Surely, the hon. gentleman is not

suggesting that regardless of circumstances we can throw taxpayers' money

around. Surely, that's not what he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker.

In cases of hardship, certainly, there will be remissions,

there is no doubt about that; we have made that commitment. But is the hon.

gentleman suggesting that we just simply throw taxpayers' money around like

that, and, regardless of the circumstances, throw money at it? Is that what he

is suggesting?

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting

that the minister would call grants to students throwing money around, which the

government has been providing as part of its student aid plan for many years.

When is the minister really going to commit to students as to what this program

for remission is going to be? Are we going to have to wait until four or five

years when people come begging to the government because they can't repay the

loans, is that when we're going to know and students are going to know what the

hardship cases are that the government considers worthy of remission?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we don't claim to have a crystal

ball. If a student this year starts University and, let's say, goes into

med-school, we have no concept of, four, five or six years down the road,

exactly what type of a job that person is going to have, whether he is going to

have a job or how much it is going to pay. Anybody who goes to University, we

have no crystal ball to say that in each of these individual cases now we know

what their financial circumstances are going to be like three, four and five

years down the road, we can't do that. We don't have such a crystal ball. So,

Mr. Speaker, we cannot say that automatically there's going to be a complete

remission. We can't say that, because if the circumstances are such that the

person can afford to pay for that portion of his education, then certainly, he

should pay. Those are the ones who have benefited from the $100-and some odd

million a year that it costs us to run Memorial University and provide that

education. So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot talk about automatic remission. We can't

predict right now exactly what the financial circumstance of every student is

going to be three, four or five years down the road. I say to the hon. gentleman

that in cases of need - and that's what we must do, we must provide for the need

- in cases of need, there will be remission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the event members have a

little spare time this weekend I am tabling, as required by the Statutes And

Subordinates Legislation Act, the regulations that have been gazetted since last

the House met. There is only one copy here but I would assure Your Honour, or

any member who wishes them, we would be delighted to have a copy provided to him

or her.

PREMIER WELLS: Did we do that?

MR. ROBERTS: We did that, sir, yes. You see why we need

regulatory reform in case there is any question?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 148 of the Labour Relations Act I table

the annual report of the proceedings of the Labour Relations Board for the

calendar year 1993.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the

report of the Review Committee on the Provincial Public Libraries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I should explain for hon.

members that this is marked the public version and the reason for that is, in

the original version there were some people named and it would be an

embarrassment to some employees of the Libraries Board if we were to table their

names. I discussed this with the hon. Member for Humber East and we have since

had some minor changes made. We sent it up to Justice to make sure that we are

not doing anything which in any way will have any legal implications for any

individuals. That is the only reason why it is marked, not public, and I can

guarantee hon. members there is no cover-up.

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition signed by 1011 people in the

district of Grand Falls and representing individuals from other areas

surrounding Grand Falls - Windsor-Buchans, Exploits, and so on. The prayer of

the petition is related to the Hydro issue. It is as a result of the public

meeting that I held last week which the Premier ridiculed on Province-wide

television because of the attendance, not realizing, I am sure, at the time that

the meeting itself was an hour and half late in starting as a result of my being

involved in an automobile accident, among other things, that same evening. At

least when I did get there an hour and a half later there were forty or fifty

people still there. Out of that meeting a couple of people, after they saw the

Premier on television when he played it down and said, well, obviously, there is

no opposition to this, they went our over the course of the next three days or

so and collected 1011 names from the District of Grand Falls, 90 per cent from

the District of Grand Falls, who do oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is simply as follows.

It is addressed to the House of Assembly. The petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to

whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain as a Crown

corporation. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go into a lot of reasons for

this but I can tell the House the reasons are similar to all those reasons that

have been articulated by thousands of people around this Province over the last

number of weeks, including recent communication from the town council of Grand

Falls-Windsor, which by now the Premier might have received. I have a copy of

the FAX, I think it was yesterday, who have asked government to hold public

hearings around the Province. The City of St. John's, I understand, did

something similar on Monday night past, asked for public hearings around the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me understand why the

Premier and the government will not acknowledge the fact that there are

thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who do not like this idea of

privatization. They simply do not like it, yet every time you put it to the

Premier or other ministers over there they always downplay it, oh, no, there is

not very much opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have to be deaf, blind, dumb,

and everything, not to recognize that there is very vociferous opposition to

this privatization of Hydro issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who will argue back and forth

the complexities and the details of this legislation. Of course, we only had the

legislation presented to us I think it was a week Friday. Within two or three

days - three days, I think it was - the government introduced closure on second

reading. That has brought another storm of anger and protest from people around

the Province. You will notice the government over the last few days has been

treading a little more lightly. I guess they are changing their strategy

somewhat, but we will have to wait and see what their strategy is for the coming

week.

That will be the most interesting strategy of all. When you

consider the government also wants interim supply or will require interim supply

sometime, probably in the next week or so. It depends on the government's

attitude and its approach and if it is interested in cooperating and all the

rest of it. Then it may be able to work itself out, as long as it they are not

intent and hell-bent and determined on ramming the legislation through.

If they are prepared to give the House the freedom, the

opportunity and the right to debate this clause by clause in detail, which they

should have, and they should be able to take weeks if they wish on it. There is

no reason why they should not be able to have weeks. We've had legislation much

less -

PREMIER WELLS: One clause in fourteen hours.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, one clause in fourteen hours, including a

night sitting that you added yourself. Mr. Speaker, we are on clause 2 or 3. You

weren't even here for four to five days so you don't know other than what

somebody told you.

That is their little game. Fourteen hours, one clause. We've

had legislation in this House of Assembly that has been debated clause by clause

for three and four weeks at a time. Much less important probably than this

particular piece of legislation.

MS. VERGE: Most important since Confederation.

MR. SIMMS: So, Mr. Speaker - yes. Using the minister's

own words, the most important since Confederation.

We shall see what their strategy is, if they are going to be

willing to let members of the House discuss and debate this bill, this clause by

clause review. If they are going to try to ram through -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: - clause by clause in third reading we will

see, but, Mr. Speaker, there are at least 1,011 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - petitioners in Grand Falls who would like to

see the government back off on this privatization issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

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

put forth by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls.

This is not just restricted to the town of Grand Falls-

Windsor, let me say to members of this Legislature. This concern has been raised

from one end of this Province to the other. People are requesting that

government withdraw from this privatization act and not only that, they are also

requesting that all members of the Legislature go back to their constituents and

hold public hearings.

This is not the only petition that has been read in this

House, and it is only one-fifth as large as the petitions that are supposed to

be presented in this House. While there are 1,000 people from Grand Falls who

signed that petition, and it is significant, the Member for Grand Falls brought

it to the Legislature to present it, and I'm waiting, Mr. Speaker, for the

Premier to present the 5,000 name petition he got from Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: Five thousand five hundred.

MR. TOBIN: Five thousand five hundred. Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition stood in this Legislature a few moments ago and

presented a petition on behalf of 1,000 people from Grand Falls who asked him to

do so. I'm waiting for the Premier to present his petition, and I look forward

to speaking.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: It is in your office in Corner Brook. You

should go out and visit every now and then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You know what he is doing? He is still

phoning everybody (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He hasn't got through the list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all I know, I would say to the

Premier, is that I heard radio reports, I should say, that the people of Corner

Brook signed a petition, 5,500, and they delivered it to the Premier's staff

asking the Premier to present it in the House. I didn't say the Premier had it,

Mr. Speaker, I said I was looking forward to the Premier presenting it in the

House. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, once he gets the petition, will

present it in the House and I hope that -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker. What they want to say, Mr.

Speaker, about the Member for St. John's South - they can say it. I'm not

getting involved in that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition presented by the

Member for Grand Falls, Leader of the Opposition and I believe, Mr. Speaker -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Member for

St. John's South is getting upset; no one ever said anything to the Member for

St. John's South. Is he embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, because he won't have public

hearings in his district when the people of St. John's are asking him? Is he

embarrassed that the City of St. John's have called upon their members to have

public hearings? Is that causing him some embarrassment? Mr. Speaker, why is the

Member for St. John's South telling me to stay tuned in to the radio? Why is he

so specific about a radio, Mr. Speaker? Why has it got to be the radio? Why

can't it be in the newspapers they advertise in or on television? Why does he

have to say listen to the radio? Mr. Speaker, all I'm saying to the Member for

St. John's South is that the city council in St. John's, the council in Grand

Falls- Windsor and other councils throughout the Province are calling upon

members to have public hearings. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and they're having them. As a

matter of fact there is going to be one in my district next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to

present a petition signed by some eighty-seven residents of Mount Pearl and

Waterford - Kenmount. These names were collected at a meeting we held in Mount

Pearl last Tuesday night for constituents of the districts of Mount Pearl and

Waterford - Kenmount. My colleague and I spent a very interesting evening there

talking to these - well, there's about eighty-seven names on here but there were

well over 100 people who went through during the course of the evening but about

eighty-seven of them were left at the end of the meeting and signed the

petition.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition says: WHEREFORE your

petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people

of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be

privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the prayer of the petition is

calling for a referendum. Something that became very, very clear, Mr. Speaker,

in our meeting last Tuesday night was a very sincere concern by all of the

people there that they didn't have all the information they wanted. They were

most interested in the facts that we presented to them and I say to hon. members

that we presented all of the facts, arguments made by hon. gentlemen opposite as

well as our own points of view. I challenge anybody to say otherwise because we

were extremely fair in our presentation of all of the facts and the facts speak

for themselves. All you have to do is read the documents, read the sections of

the act.

MR. GRIMES: What about the 29,000 people who didn't show

up?

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. GRIMES: What about the 29,000 people who didn't show

up? How concerned were they?

MR. WINDSOR: 29,000 people that didn't show up. What is

the member trying to talk about, Mr. Speaker? There were lots of people that

showed up. If you people want several hundred names from the district of

Exploits, I got them right here. No problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: They're complaining, Mr. Speaker, that the

Member for Exploits doesn't listen to them, won't go out and meet with them,

won't hold a public meeting. So maybe he should stop worrying about the people

in Mount Pearl and worry about the people who elected him, let him get his act

together. What the people are saying, Mr. Speaker, in Mount Pearl, Waterford -

Kenmount, Exploits and all across this Province is that they no longer trust

this government. That's the real issue that's coming forward here, they no

longer trust this government and that's quite a change.

If this same issue came up last year, a lot of

Newfoundlanders would say: Well, what else can they do? I guess they are doing

the right thing. They know better than we do. This is a complicated thing and I

don't really understand it, but if the Premier thinks it's good, and the

ministers think it's good, well I guess probably it's in the best interest of

the Province.

They are not saying it any more, I say to the Premier, and I

am glad he is listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No they will not, I say to the Premier. The

only one he is fooling is himself. The people will not, because they no longer

trust the Premier; but I say to the Premier, if he is so confident that they

will, give them the opportunity to hear all of the facts. Have some public

meetings, and then have a referendum and give them an opportunity to say that

they believe him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: If the Premier is so sure that this is a

good deal, that it's in the best interest of the Province, let's not hide behind

it. Let's get out front and be honest with the people, and give the people the

opportunity.

How can the Premier and the government of the Province,

elected by the people - and it's time that this government realized that they

were elected by the people, to govern for the people, and yes they have a

mandate to govern, but that mandate also gives them the responsibility to listen

to the people, and that is where they are failing. That is where this government

is failing. They have stopped listening to the people, and that is a sure sign

of a government that is heading for certain death.

How can a government come to the House of Assembly and force

through legislation, using all the parliamentary tactics available to them,

knowing that hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders are adamantly opposed to

this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the government may think they are right. They

may, indeed. Let's assume that perhaps they are somewhat right, that it is a

reasonable thing to do, but I say to the government, the people don't want to do

it, and the people are the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but

they are being denied a vote. That is quite different than what will happen when

new Hydro is in place. There will be shareholders - shareholders all around the

world - but they will have voting shares. They will have an opportunity to vote.

This government is denying the shareholders of Hydro a vote on whether or not

they want their assets sold.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support

the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for the District of Mount

Pearl, and to support the comments that he has been making on behalf of the

constituents in our districts, and particularly on behalf of the members who

attended the public forum on Tuesday evening, and who signed the petition.

The tone of the meeting that we had was very clear, that

people wanted to have more information. The member and I presented the

information that we had, and the questions that we had from the people who

attended pointed out the fact that people want to have all of the information.

The Member for Mount Pearl noted that citizens have real

concerns, that they have real questions. They feel that the government has not

done a very good job of communicating the issue, the positive aspects, and

people stood in their place and said that they doubted if the government had

these positive things to say, that they should have said them by this time.

Mr. Speaker, these are ordinary citizens who participate in

the elections on a regular basis. They had a variety of questions, some

financial, some dealing with the operations, some dealing with the ways in which

the shares would be sold, and some dealing with the personnel concerns of job

losses. Some Hydro employees were there, they have the real issues that deal

with their future employment and, Mr. Speaker, frankly, what came through the

meeting as well, was a significant distrust of the government. People were

saying, if this issue was so great, and they believe it is, then why have we not

had a defined public forum? Why have we not had an opportunity to participate in

the decision-making processes? The issue was much debated; the government's

actions in handling it were criticized. The people who spoke were very concerned

that something was happening in their Province; those citizens who are voters

and whose families have lived here for generations, were concerned that

something was happening and that all of the information they needed was not

being communicated.

I say to the government in all sincerity, that when you

listen to the various forums that people have, the Open Line shows, you

read the commentary in the Letters to the Editor of all the newspapers in the

Province, you listen to the petitions that have been presented on behalf of the

residents of the Province, I can only come to one conclusion and that is, that

people are saying loudly, that they want more information, they want this

process to be slowed down a little so that they can be active participants. That

is not to say that all people are saying this is a bad deal, what they are

saying is, give them a forum, give them an opportunity to participate and at the

end of the day, maybe a referendum is necessary. Some people think it is, but I

think, a proper discussion with the public would bring out the issues and at

that point in time, we could decide whether or not we will go with some kind of

referendum. People want more information and I think it is incumbent upon the

government to give them all the information that is appropriate.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, I would like to say

a few words on the petition, but I just want to remind hon. members that

forty-two hours in this House of Assembly have been consumed, and hon. members

opposite talk about -

MR. ROBERTS: Six weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that too much?

MR. MURPHY: The House Leader says it correctly and the

Member for Mount Pearl knows how the structure of this House works as well as

anybody, he has been here long enough, and says six full weeks and, Mr. Speaker,

to this day, we have had seventeen hours on second reading and all the hon.

members opposite have done is give the title of the bill.

Now, if they are so concerned about representing the people

of the Province, then let us get into the bill, itself, and debate it

clause-by-clause. That's what this House of Assembly does. The government brings

in a bill and hon. members sit down and debate the issues of the bill. But it is

incredible, what Opposition members have done to the Hydro bill. Let's debate

it.

Now, for their information, let me inform them through the

House, that there will be a meeting in St. John's South next Wednesday night for

the constituents of St. John's South and the constituents of St. John's West, a

dual meeting, and we will give opportunity, both the minister and I, to

constituents in my district and constituents in his district and also any

elected representative on behalf of those constituents, so that councillors -

AN HON. MEMBER: May I go?

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member, the best thing for

him to do is to concentrate on where he is going to run the next time. He has

four years and he needs every minute of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No. The member has nothing to do with St.

John's South nor will he, so I tell him, no, if he wants -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: That's fine, let him come. I say to the

Member for Grand Bank, you can come down and run down there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: CBC is (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I'm glad you brought up CBC, because CBC is 3

per cent of the national debt - another Crown corporation that if I had my way

would be privatized this afternoon. I can guarantee you that right now. For what

public service they are doing, they should be privatized in the next half-hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who, who?

MR. MURPHY: CBC. I'm not afraid to say who. CBC, the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that's who, I say to hon. members. Who! You

are like a bunch of owls over there - who, who! If you are not like howling dogs

you are like owls - who, who! I say to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Let the hon. members debate

the bill on behalf of the people of this Province, cut out their foolishness,

cut out their nonsense, do what they were sent here to do, and I say to the hon.

member for wherever in the next four years, he looks after his district now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Good. Hallelujah, hallelujah. You go to the

people in St. John's South and see what this member has done for them in the

last five years - a lot more than you fellows have done.

MR. TOBIN: Andy Wells is going to run against you.

MR. MURPHY: Andy Wells? Andy Wells.

MR. SIMMS: We will see (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Andy

Wells is more than welcome to run in St. John's South. I welcome the challenge.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) take him on.

MR. MURPHY: I have no problem with Andy Wells, no problem

at all with him. Let him come.

MR. SIMMS: Would you beat him?

MR. MURPHY: I would whip him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - no doubt about it, whip him! But I say to

the Leader of the Opposition, time, and only time, will tell. I welcome any hon.

member opposite to run in St. John's South. Come, I challenge you, come down

with your silly buttons and run. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are no further petitions,

I gather, at this stage, so let's go into the second stage of this morning's

debate on the Hydro bill by resolving the House into Committee of the Whole on

Order No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 1, clause 2.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words on

clause 2. I guess we all have a few words and we are going to take a serious

look. This caucus is going to take a serious look at clause 2. It may be

necessary to make some changes to that, because we have real problems with this

government dealing with a clause that is prepared to give away the land and the

property.

That is the reason, Mr. Chairman - the water rights. That is

the reason there is such an outcry by people in this Province requesting public

hearings, because of clause 2 to some extent. That is the reason why there are

people being challenged to have a public debate in this city. That is the reason

why there is a letter from the City of St. John's gone to the Member for St.

John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saying what?

MR. TOBIN: Saying: Some of your constituents have called

me to complain about your support for government's privatization of Hydro. They

do not believe that you are acting in their best interest. You apparently have

told them that they don't understand the Hydro deal. I am hereby challenging you

to a public debate on the Hydro privatization issue, to be held as soon as

possible at St. John Bosco or some other available location in Shea Heights. If

you think you are correct, show some courage and debate the issue publicly in

front of your constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: And it's signed, `Bobo the Clown'.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, what an attack - Bobo the

Clown! It is signed by the Deputy Mayor, I say to the Member for St. John's

South, who challenged him to go public. This is the most deceitful -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to the

clauses in the bill.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here,

and I have no problems, Your Honour, with you calling me there, but what we are

saying here is that part of the privatization of Hydro, and one of the biggest

parts, is the giveaway of our water rights, and that is why -

AN HON. MEMBER: What page are you on?

MR. TOBIN: Clause 2. That is why -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) strategy.

MR. TOBIN: No, the strategy here is that if you make

reference to the Member for St. John's South, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations jumps in. If you say something to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations, the Member for St. John's South jumps in.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I listened to CBC debating the

attack upon the students of this Province, and I don't know which one of them is

going to jump in, and who they are going to jump in for. Well, I can tell you,

it was pretty embarrassing for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

We are talking here about water rights, and we are talking

about having public hearings to discuss the water rights. We are talking about

challenges to members to go out and hold public hearings. We are talking about

challenges being issued to members to debate the issue, and no one can get a

response.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Grand Falls goes out and has

meetings, and the Member for Windsor - Buchans doesn't even return his telephone

calls, I have been told. The Member for Windsor - Buchans is not returning his

telephone calls on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: No backbone.

MR. FLIGHT: I get more calls from Grand Falls than the

member does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Windsor - Buchans

is getting calls and they are not being returned, getting calls relating to

clause 2, I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans. Get out and return your

calls.

They are even - no, I won't say it, Mr. Chairman. It isn't

parliamentary, what I was going to say.

MR. FLIGHT: At least I know when there is a welcoming

committee and when there is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They refer to you as the spruce budworm -

that's how they are referring to you in your district.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: That is unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to take

his seat.

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

is standing on a point of order. I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Mary's

- The Capes. I just remind hon. members that if they stand in their place, they

speak only when recognized by the Speaker or the Chair.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Who is this `Fabian Manning'?

MR. MANNING: If the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

wants to speak, I think he should be in his own chair, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members, of course, have to be in

their places in the Chamber to be recognized by the Speaker, and it is

unparliamentary to interrupt any speaker if the member is not recognized.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could continue on this without the yapping of the Member

for Windsor - Buchans. If he wants to discuss and debate clause 2, there is a

forum that he is part of. He has been elected to be part of this forum for

issues such as clause 2. Let him take his seat and debate it.

He is one minister that has not stood in this House and

debated the bill. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has stood and

debated the bill, several times. The Minister of Finance has stood and debated

the bill, but there has not been a squeak - I should not say `squeak', Mr.

Chairman, because he squeaks anyway, but the Member for Windsor - Buchans has

not stood in his place and debated this piece of legislation, at any time, Mr.

Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has no backbone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if the Member for Windsor -

Buchans wants to get involved in the debate, take his seat and have the courage

to stand up and get involved, instead of yapping from the sidelines, Mr.

Chairman, or the other hon. thing to do is to leave the Chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I again remind the hon. member that he is straying from

Clause 2.

MR. TOBIN: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

What I am trying to do, Mr. Chairman, in this Clause 2 that

is giving away the water rights, I am trying to get the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture to let us know his position.

MR. FLIGHT: I am totally (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, he gets up here and says he is against

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, can you name the hon. member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a few words on Clause 2 of this Bill 1.

I guess before I get into the contents of the Clause I say, thank God, it's

Friday morning. If everyone else looks forward to getting out of here in another

couple of hours as much as I do, a couple of days out of this, I think it will

do us all a bit of good.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I guess, one of the most

controversial clauses in this piece of legislation is Clause 2, dealing

particularly with water rights and land. There has been a disagreement over what

this Clause really means to all of us, this Clause 2. There have been members on

this side who have said, you cannot be reading the same piece of legislation as

we are, to be interpreting the clause the way we interpret it. I guess that is

an item that will have to be clarified over the next few days, I hope, as to

really what it all means. We are convinced that this is pretty wide-ranging. My

colleague for Burin - Placentia West was about to read Clause 2 (

a) what land

means. He just got started when he was rudely interrupted by the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations and then, of course, his time ran out. I think

in all fairness, to get to the root of all this, it seems from what I hear that

government is pretty determined that this particular clause is not as

wide-ranging as we interpret the clause to mean. I guess how we resolve that I

am really not sure, because we have had people give us

interpretations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say, because the Minister of

Finance, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West has said, has taken

part in

the debate and he, on occasion, has agreed with some of our

interpretations on a

number of clauses. I might say that the Minister of Finance has really been in

contradiction to some of his colleagues who are saying things were different

than the minister has confirmed they are. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of

trying to clearly interpret and define what this really means. It is obviously a

big concern. If you listen to the public airwaves about the Province, read the

newspapers, and talk to people on the street, the issue of water rights is

certainly very contentious, and I guess that is for good reason when you look at

our history and what has happened to us in the past.

People are very, very concerned that through this

privatization act, and particularly through Clause 2, they are afraid we are

going to give away something again that will not be in our best interest. They

are concerned that we are going to be burnt again and that someone else will

control our water rights, lands, real properties and all the other things, right

of ways, waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges and we might

not be able to get this back, ever. So that's the big concern of a majority of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians besides being very concerned about the

financial implications for them and future generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians about the privatization of Hydro. They're very concerned about

giving away land, water, easements, right of ways and privileges. They're very

concerned about that because they don't want to see done again now - whenever

this is dealt with - they don't want a repeat of what happened in the 1960s.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are sick and tired, Mr.

Chairman, of giving things away, of losing their resources, of not having any

resources left, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

that's why they're so concerned about this clause 2. As a former great defender

of the people's resources, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, as a former defender of the people's resources, Mr. Chairman,

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now, is not concerned about

clause 2. The Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation is not concerned

that his government - of which he is a part and sits at the Cabinet Table - is

about to give away, through clause 2 of Bill 1, more of the people's resources

of which up to a year ago he was a great defender but since then has become very

unconcerned and quiet about it, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: Not true, Mr. Chairman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's not true?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's not true? That the minister was a

great defender?

Mr. Chairman, you'll have to call the minister to order -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - just a few minutes ago - if only he

would stand in his place and participate in the debate, as he does from his

seat, then perhaps he would enlighten us all and perhaps we'd clearly understand

the implications of clause 2 but as I was saying before I was interrupted by the

minister, this is what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are concerned about.

They don't want any more giveaways, they're tired of giveaways, they don't want

future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paying the price for what

this government is doing today. A very short-term measure that will possibly

affect the financial position of the Province for one or two years and then

after that we're back in the same old boat with a very valuable asset gone, I

say to the minister. Now that's what this is all about, Mr. Chairman, and that's

why we have concerns about clause 2, when it deals with lands and real

properties and so on.

So I look forward to someone opposite now, when I sit down,

particularly the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture who's talked more than the

two members who've been recognized - has talked more from his seat than those of

us who got up - I look forward now to him getting up and explaining to me why we

are so wrong on clause 2. Would he stand in his place now and explain for us as

a man who's sat at the Cabinet Table and approved their legislation, would he

stand in his place and tell me why we're so wrong and the people of the Province

are so wrong about their concerns about clause 2, Mr. Chairman?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to

see the members opposite participating in the clause by clause debate here in

the Committee of the Whole. I would suggest - and maybe members opposite can let

me know if I'm in error in this assumption - that out of clause 2, which is

significant and it is one of the ones that there has been some confusion

expressed about publicly, I acknowledge that, but I think all members opposite

would agree with me that the only part of clause 2 that there's any disagreement

over, in this Chamber and publicly, is

Section 2.1 (

a) which is the definition

of land. I don't think there's any disagreement over what new Hydro means or

what old Hydro means, who the minister is, what reorganization means, what the

date is or the fact that the references are that the

definitions will be the

same as in the Corporations Act. I think the only item here is

Section 2.1 (a).

I recognize that in the limited discussions that I have had with constituents of

mine who have addressed this issue with me, it is that they don't really

understand or are not sure, some of them, as to what this land thing means.

They have heard some people suggest on the open line

programs, some of the repeat callers in particular, because there are two or

three people - the only time I hear the thing, I usually work in the daytime.

Sometimes in the evening when I'm visiting in my district I will be driving back

home late in the night. I find that Bas is a good thing to turn on to keep me

from falling asleep at the wheel. Because it is certainly not from lack of

excitement and so on on the program.

One of the things is this idea about land and water rights

and the giveaway phrases that I've addressed and so on. I believe just if - and

again, maybe some member opposite can stand after this and let me know where I'm

wrong, if I am. There is one member in the Chamber opposite now who was in a

Cabinet before. There are five or six of them in the front row over there who

worked in a Cabinet before for some years. The members in the back row opposite

haven't had any Cabinet experience and would have to rely on what would happen.

Basically - and I can suggest to you that I'm not a lawyer.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a school teacher by trade and training. A

politician because of circumstance at the time. The notion for myself in

particular - and I can only speak from where I stand, Mr. Chairman - that in

reference to this definition, we discussed the issues in principle. The

principle is clear. That in our discussion we said: What about this land? How

much - when you talk about a definition of land and the water rights - does the

company need to generate electricity and what kind of words will guarantee them

that they can use what they have to use now to generate electricity? Nothing

else, nothing new. That what they are using today to generate electricity, the

company has to have the right to continue using that. That is the one part of

it.

Secondly, that the general public has access to those lands

and the waters up beyond the dam, the reservoirs and so on, they have access to

it today. I use Bay d'Espoir as an example. For all that water system up behind

the dam in Bay d'Espoir. The people of Central Newfoundland and the South Coast,

they've been using that whole area ever since the dam has been there back in the

1960s.

We said: We want to make sure that Hydro for its purposes can

continue to use the water to generate electricity, and whatever it is using now

as a public utility it will need access to and use of as a private utility.

Secondly, that the people's ability to use whatever they want, for fishing,

hunting and so on in that same watershed area that feeds that dam, their rights

to use that will be protected in the future just as they are today.

The discussion goes around and said, yes, everybody agrees

that is what should be done. Then we say: Write down the words. Now let's get

some people who are legal experts, who draft legislation, who are lawyers, and

say: Write the words for us, because we are not lawyers - I'm not a lawyer -

write the words and convince me and make sure that when we say, "Is that what

these words mean?", yes, that they will back it up with every bit of legal

expertise that they have. That these words mean two very simple things.

Because there are some words in there that I've seen for the

first time. Because I've never used them in my life before. Not part of my

language. There are some words in there that my constituents have never seen in

their lives before. Not part of my language. But it is part of the legalese that

does what we want it to do which is to say two things. For Hydro generation

purposes, whether it is public like it is now, or private, they have to be able

to have access to the water to let it run through the turbines to let it

generate the electricity. Just like today. For the individuals who will go into

that whole watershed area, hunt, fish, swim and so on, they have to have the

rights to do that tomorrow just like today.

It comes back. These words in

section 2(1)(a), we are told as

the Cabinet, and we believe the legal advice that we have, that that is exactly

what that does. Nothing more and nothing less. It gives them the rights to use

the water just like they do today, privately after a certain day, just like they

do now publicly as a public corporation; and all of the individuals have a right

to access the watershed area tomorrow after it is privatized, just like they do

today when it is public. That there will be no difference.

The only other thing that was asked to be guaranteed as a

matter of principle: Give us the right words that will say that if the utility

no longer needs part of the water or the lands or whatever and the rights to

generate electricity and they stop using it for that, it will revert back to the

Crown in the name of the minister that is named in the bill.

That is what we are assured. It is on that basis that I've

never had any hesitation in supporting this particular clause, this particular

definition, this particular bill, and this act of privatization. Because I am

told by the best legal advice that we can get in the Province, the same as

Cabinet ministers opposite when they were in that role, would have had access to

any legal advice available in the Province, in the country, in the world. They

tell us that is what these words do.

They give no additional rights, they give nothing away. It

maintains the status quo and builds in the added protection that if it is no

longer needed for Hydro electricity generation it reverts back to the Crown.

Now if somebody opposite wants to come up with some - I am

sure you can get a legal opinion. That's what lawyers do. They get two different

legal opinions and run off to court to fight it. Our legal advice is that this

does what we asked it to do.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not in a position to argue

whether those words exactly do that or not, but the lawyers who advise the

provincial government convinced me, as a member of Cabinet, and the rest of our

colleagues, that that is what it does, and I have been defending it to my

constituents and anyone else who wants to hear, on that basis, that there is no

giveaway here, that there is nothing to fear, there are no additional rights

and, as a matter of fact, the guarantee is that if it is no longer needed for

hydroelectric generation, it reverts back to the Crown, and it is on that basis

that I think the continued concerns, if there are any, about clause 2.(1)(a),

should be debated here.

Then, if we are not going to satisfy each other - we might

never satisfy each other. I have been satisfied completely, and I have accepted

the legal advice given and the information. That is what it means; that is what

it is intended to mean. It doesn't mean anything else, and if it's ever proven

to mean something else, then I am sure we would come back, just like we do with

other legislation, and say: Somebody gave us poor advice. Let's get the right

words to do exactly what we want done. Give the rights that are there today,

just like they are. Have it revert back to the Crown if it is no longer needed,

and nothing else other than that.

So there is no need to talk about the great giveaway and the

great fears, because they don't exist, and it is on that basis that this

government and this Cabinet and this caucus is certainly supporting clause

2.(1)(

a) just like we support the rest of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this

clause, the water rights, because the people in my district have - I held a

public meeting, as I am sure some people have on this side of the House, and I

think there were a couple held by other back benchers, public meetings to allow

their constituents an opportunity to express their opinions and to learn what is

in this bill and how it is going to affect them.

At the public meeting that I held in my constituency, where

over 200 people came out, I explained my position. Then several people expressed

their opinion on this particular bill. While all of them didn't particularly

address the water rights issue, when I spoke to them I very briefly touched upon

it, but several speakers after I spoke - there was a microphone in the back of

the hall so the people could go and address questions to the audience - several

people there expressed their concerns over the water rights, this resource that

they felt had to have more protection.

They also were very concerned about the idea that this again

was a sell-out of our resources. They were very, very concerned, because they

remember with shame what happened in the Upper Churchill deal. The reason why

that occurred, in their minds, and they spoke about it, was that there was no

public discussion about what happened during the Churchill development. There

was very, very little public discussion about it. There wasn't even the amount

of discussion that we are having here today about the privatization bill itself

- not near that amount of discussion back in the sixties.

So what the people are really, really concerned about is that

they don't understand the urgency to get this through the House. Why do we have

to do it behind closed doors? Why is it only the Cabinet knew about this, and a

few select individuals in the Province? For months and months and months there

was denial, denial, denial about any privatization whatsoever and then, lo and

behold, yes, we are considering it.

Even the Premier denied it during the election, that it was

only silly rumours, in May. They were only silly rumours that there was going to

be a privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Labrador West.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, the impact of privatization on western

Labrador, according to the Premier now - I take him at his word - he said there

are going to be additional increases over and above the 30 per cent they have to

pay, anyway. We are facing a 30 per cent increase -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) had nothing to do with that

(inaudible) privatization. The increases in Labrador West wouldn't have

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, but the Premier said - now I don't know

if the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - I recognize that

he is next to the Premier, he is the point man on this bill - which I find

passing strange, that the Employment and Labour Relations Minister would be the

point man on this bill. He is the one who is up, defending it, Mr. Chairman, I

mean, I haven't heard a peep, not a squeak, not a noise from the Minister of

Mines and Energy; not a squeak, he hasn't been up on his feet yet. But the

minister, for some reason, I guess it is because he is such a fantastic

salesperson, I mean, this fellow could sell used cars to anybody, I am sure of

that. I am willing to bet that there will be posters during the next election:

would you buy a used car from this man? I can see that coming out in the next

election, Mr. Chairman, in Exploits.

Well, I find it passing strange that the minister, who is the

point man on this bill, next to the Premier - he is tight in behind the Premier

here, having all the public discussions about it. But I don't know why it is, I

suppose it is the aspirations of the - I admire him for that. And he is very

articulate but, Mr. Chairman, I find it really strange now that being the two I

see in this bill, the second in charge in the point, trying to get this through

the House and get it sold to the public; but why he doesn't believe when the

Premier said in the media briefing, this briefing to which people weren't

allowed to go, the special briefing that the Premier had with the media - when

the Premier said, that the residents of Labrador would face a 20 per cent to 30

per cent increase anyway, because we have to charge you more - because, for

whatever reason, he wants more money, Mr. Chairman; but, added to that, he said

was privatization, over and above the 30 per cent, you are going to have to pay

more because of privatization.

MR. GRIMES: He didn't.

MR. A. SNOW: He did say that.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, I'm glad the minister concurs with me

that the people in Labrador City and Wabush will be facing 30 per cent, maybe 40

per cent, I don't know how much, 40 per cent increase is possible, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now, the second point man in this bill, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has confirmed to the House and to

the people of Western Labrador, because they will get a copy of this, that,

because of privatization, we are going to be facing a 30 per cent to 40 per cent

increase in electricity charges.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that just doesn't affect the household and

that's what really concerned us. It really concerns people in Western Labrador

because when the power bill goes up, it is just not in your household although

most of them have electric heat now, because it has been converted in our town;

we consume the highest amount of energy of any municipality per capita in this

Province. Mr. Chairman, it also will affect grocery stores, because their energy

costs are going to go up. It is also going to affect education because the cost

of heating the schools is going to increase, so how are we going to get the

extra revenue into the school system to pay for this now, Mr. Chairman? The

hospital is also electrically heated. Health care, we know, is block-funded

through the Department of Health, so the heating costs will rise dramatically

and instead of facing a $75,000 bill in heating costs, now they will probably be

facing an over $100,000 electrical bill per year, so where does this extra money

come from?

The government says they are going to keep maintaining the

present amount of expenditure in health care but their costs are going to go up,

so the only thing they could do with that - they have to heat the hospital, so

in all likelihood, what we are probably going to end up seeing is a cutback in

services. They can't just not heat the hospital, so it affects everybody, Mr.

Chairman. Its effects will be felt throughout the community, and that is what

really concerns the people of Western Labrador, the costs, the financial costs,

that they are going to have to bear. But the interesting point that one person

raised was that, when this bill is done, when this privatization is completed,

it is going to be irreversible. It is going to be even worse and have even a

greater long-term effect, than the Upper Churchill deal, which everybody abhors,

the deal that the party on the opposite side, the Liberal party, settled -

pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, one of the problems with that

particular bill, with that particular development of the Upper Churchill, was

the fact that it is so lengthy. That deal itself, the big problem with it is

that it's so lengthy, that it won't finish until 2041.

This does have something to do - because I am using the

relationship, the fears that people have that this is going to be even a longer

term, because this is irreversible. At least, in 2041 we should, as a people,

have - well, I don't know the implications this might have for Upper Churchill.

There are also a lot of people who argue that we have implications in this bill

for the Upper Churchill, but at least in 2041 the people of this Province will

have control, or the ability to renegotiate another contract, and hopefully with

a better deal for the sale of the power to Hydro Quebec.

In this particular bill, what we are talking about here in

clause 2, about the water rights, when this privatization occurs it is

irreversible. You won't even get it back in 2050. It is irreversible.

My understanding is, well, first of all we would probably

never be able to afford, as a Province, to expropriate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It might be appropriate if I were to say a few words about

the situation with respect to power rates in Labrador. I guess my friend, the

Member for Menihek, is not interested in it, so he might want to communicate

with his friend in the gallery, whoever it is.

Let me just say a few words, because it is a matter which is

of concern to his constituents in Menihek, I accept, and it is of concern to

mine in Naskaupi. It does not have any impact upon people in either Eagle River

or Torngat Mountains districts, but it is very much of concern to the people who

live elsewhere in Labrador, if you wish, the people who live along the Northern

Gulf Highway, the road, in this case, from Western Labrador through to Lake

Melville and Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

The Premier, at second reading, tabled the calculations that

have been made for us to show the overall impact of privatizing Hydro upon the

rates throughout the Province, and either at second reading or in his subsequent

press conference - I am not sure where he provided the details, but there is no

secret about them - the Premier laid out the fact that the power rates in

Labrador on the interconnected grid will go up far more proportionately than

they will in the rest of the Province.

Now the interconnected grid is important. That is the power

that is generated from Churchill Falls and is carried westward to Wabush and

Labrador City, some of which goes into the iron ore mining operations at Wabush,

and the Iron Ore Company's Carol project, some of which goes into domestic

consumption in Western Labrador. Then, the power also comes east into Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, and into Sheshatshiu and into North West River. Mud Lake

still uses diesel power.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) diesel power?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I will deal with the diesel power in a

moment, but let me talk about the hydro-generated power, the power that goes

west from Churchill to the two cities in the west, and comes east from Churchill

into the three communities in Upper Lake Melville.

These people are the only people in this Province - the

people living in Labrador City, Wabush, Churchill Falls, Happy Valley - Goose

Bay, Sheshatshiu, and North West River - who are making no contribution at all

to the diesel subsidy. They make no contribution at all to the diesel subsidy.

Everybody else in this Province who uses electricity makes a contribution

towards the diesel rate subsidy.

Formerly, everybody in the Province made a contribution by

means of taxes. The subsidy was paid each year from the Treasury; a vote would

appear in the Estimates. The Treasury would then make a payment over to Hydro of

the order of $30 million. I will use round numbers - I don't have the precise

figures here but they are on the record and they are well known in any event.

Four or five years ago, this government properly, and for

reasons that make a great deal of sense, said the burden should be shifted from

the taxpayers as taxpayers to the rate payers as rate payers. That makes a great

deal of sense because it means one's - first of all, it is the same people. Rate

payers and taxpayers are the same people, unless there is somebody in this

Province who doesn't pay rates by not using electricity. There can't be very

many people left in the Province who don't use electricity, or

publicly-generated electricity, and if there are any, it is obviously of their

own choice. There are no areas of the Province that don't have publicly-provided

power now.

That is a change from when I came into public life thirty

years ago. The cry of `lights for Christmas' was one of the great political

imperatives of our time. That is one of the reasons we put Hydro together in the

first place, in the mid-1960s.

That was one reason we made the move. The second, of course,

is that one's contribution now by means of the rate process is proportional to

one's consumption of power. The more power one uses, the more of a contribution

one makes to the diesel rates. But when that change was made there was no

adjustment made in the rates charged to commercial and domestic consumers in

Labrador on the interconnected grid in those six communities I have named.

Hydro, being the provider of power, was going to go forward -

I asked my friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy - with a rate application at

that time, and that was put on hold.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, it was.

MR. ROBERTS: Pending the resolution of the whole rural

rates issue. So, there has been no change in the power rates in Western Labrador

or in Central Labrador to take into account the diesel subsidy. We now have the

situation that the people who live in these communities make no contribution,

none at all, to the diesel subsidy. The diesel subsidy is still at about $30

million a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: If my colleagues would - I could yell as

loud as anybody in this House, but it doesn't help anybody, including me.

DR. GIBBONS: Twenty-eight million dollars last year.

MR. ROBERTS: It was $28 million last year we paid as a

subsidy. It will be about half that if we are able to build the line down from -

where does it go - out of Hawke's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I would say that nobody has ever caught my

friend, the Member for St. John's South, at anything he didn't want to be caught

at.

Anyway, the Hydro tie-line now goes about two-thirds of the

way down the Northern Peninsula. If we are able to extend it all the way to St.

Anthony into Griquet and the communities in the northern part of the Strait of

Belle Isle district, that will cut the diesel subsidy about in half. If we are

able to have some small hydro development down in Eagle River, as my friend, the

Member for Eagle River is pressing, we will be able to cut it a little further.

The diesel subsidy, as we all know, the first 700 hours, the

so-called lifeline, is the same rate whether you live in St. Anthony or in St.

John's. After that, you pay a much higher rate for diesel power, but you are

still heavily subsidized. The subsidies are very, very heavy. They still impose

a burden upon the people who buy that power.

Now, I have difficulty in accepting that the people in

Western Labrador, or the people in my own constituency of the Upper Lake

Melville area, Central Labrador, are not prepared to pay their fair share - my

friend, the Member for Menihek rolls his eyes. I don't find people selfish, I

don't find people ignorant. I find when one explains it to people, they are

quite prepared to do the right thing.

The people of Western Labrador and the people of Central

Labrador expect support from the rest of this Province, they are entitled to it

and they will get it. I don't find, and I have great difficulty in accepting,

that people in Western Labrador or people in Central Labrador will go against

shouldering their fair share of the burden. If they disagree with me, then we

will have to agree to disagree. Because I will stand very squarely for the

principle that everybody must accept his fair share of the burden, which means,

the rates in Western Labrador and Central Labrador will have to go up, with or

without privatization. Now, that is where the increase comes of which the

Premier spoke. It will be far heavier, far greater percentage-wise, in Western

Labrador than in Central Labrador, because in Western Labrador now they are

getting power at a general rate, about 20 per cent of the rate, throughout, 15

mils opposed to 75 mils. About 15 mils compared to 75 mils elsewhere in the

Province, it's 30 mils in Goose Bay. We have three or four separate power rates

in Labrador, it makes no sense in equity, no sense in justice, no sense in

principle, no sense in anything except the historical reasons for which it came

about.

The price of power in Labrador will still be a great deal

lower because the energy that goes into the grid will still come from Churchill

Falls and is purchased and paid for at the base price of about 3 mils, if memory

serves me correctly, or whatever the base price is, that will not change. The

cost of administering it, the cost of delivery, the cost of servicing and the

operational costs will not change. What will change is that the diesel subsidy

will be added in and that's why the power rates in Western Labrador and in

Central Labrador are going to go up a very much greater amount then it will

elsewhere in the Province. The prices in the diesel area will go up by the same

percentage as the prices paid by people here on the island who are using power

drawn from the Island grid. Now it's no more than that. I realize that my hon.

friend for Menihek, if he wants, can go around saying: privatization 30 per

cent, he can say that if he wants. I will tell him if he says -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I realize that but anybody who says that

- what I said is I realize my friend can say that if he wants. They will happen

coincidentally but it would be dishonest and dishonourable of him or anybody

else to say that. The truth of the matter is - even if this bill, Mr. Chairman,

dies here in committee - the rates in Western Labrador are going to go up

substantially and the rates in Central Labrador are going to go up by a lesser

proportion simply to take into account the fact that these people have not been

paying anything towards the burden of providing people in the diesel areas -

large areas of which are in Labrador - the entire coast of Labrador from Nain

right down to the Straits, right down to L'Anse-au-Clair is diesel power and Mud

Lake, in my constituency, draws its electricity from diesel and that will not

change.

So other people in Labrador, other Labradorians have not been

paying their share towards the benefit that goes disproportionately in Labrador

because Labrador happens to have a disproportionately large share of the diesel

consumers in this Province. Now there is no more to it than that. That's the

full explanation. I don't know what the precise rates will be because that's a

matter, Mr. Chairman - I know that my friend from Exploits, my friend from Port

de Grave and my friend from Bonavista North want me to say this but they know

how loudly I can speak. My friend from Bonavista North and I have been in the

House together since 1975 and he lived in Churchill Falls where they've got a

really terrific power rate. A really terrific power rate in Churchill Falls as

part of their overall package. They pay no bills. Nobody in Churchill Falls gets

a bill for his or her domestic consumption. That's part of the deal that's been

in place, I guess, since the start between the company and its employees.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's all there is with respect to the

Labrador power rates. It's a matter of equity, a matter of fairness, to use a

phrase, a matter of balance to use another word. I have no doubt that the people

in Labrador will accept their fair share of the burden and I'll gladly go

anywhere on any platform in Labrador, with my friend or with anybody else, to

deal with this and address it as to why.

Now if I may have one more minute, by leave. I just simply

want to say I have not said what the prices will be. I have no idea what they'll

be, we have ranges but these prices are set by the Public Utilities Board after

the hearing process and in accordance with the well established principles. They

will go up in Western Labrador, not because of privatization but because of the

diesel subsidy factor.

Mr. Chairman, changes we made in moving the burden from the

taxpayers to the ratepayers - but, Mr. Chairman, the people in Western Labrador

or in my constituency are not stunned. They know full well that the electricity

rates they pay or the tax they pay, each of them makes the contribution that

way. I would say that my friend raises a concern about hospitals and schools,

the budgetary process will take care of that. That kind of increase is taken

care of in dealings between my friend the Minister of Health and his officials,

the people at the Jackman Hospital or between the school boards.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say to my friend for Burin -

Placentia West, it will be a great deal cheaper because the base power going

into the system in Labrador is the power generated from Churchill. That's the

only energy that is being generated in Labrador - Menihek is now off-stream -

other than the diesel plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Menihek is off-stream as far as we are

concerned in Labrador. It is going into Quebec. We are not using any of the

Menihek power in Labrador. Twin Falls is off-stream, it is mothballed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes we did. When Schefferville was going we

used it in Labrador. Part of Schefferville was in Labrador. The mine was

partially in Labrador, either 40 per cent or 60 per cent. Memory fails me as to

which one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? - no, the mine in Schefferville

closed - Brian Mulroney closed that ten years ago.

To come back to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, the

cost of power to a consumer consists really of three or four elements, all of

which the PUB addresses in its process. One is the cost of generating or

purchasing the power. The second is the cost of delivering it. The third is the

cost of amortizing the capital facilities. The fourth is the cost of servicing

the capital, whether it be in the form of equity which bears dividends or loans

which bear interest or, in the case of Hydro, an interest rate cover, which is a

way of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The profit to shareholders is in the form of

dividends. My hon. friend for Menihek is quite right on that. We make no attempt

to hide it. The rates will go up to take that into account. We've dealt with

that. The calculations the Premier has tabled in the House, Mr. Chairman, deal

with that and take all those factors into account. I don't have the numbers in

front of me but the price of power will go up because of privatization within

the ranges we have estimated. The precise rates will have to be determined of

course by the PUB, no question about that.

We believe the benefits to flow from this bill are far in

excess of the costs that will be there but we are not trying to pretend there

won't be costs. Of course there will be. We are not here to fool anybody; we are

not here to try to fool anybody. We are simply prepared to lay out the truth and

stand by it and do so gladly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, sitting here on the Opposition

side of the House looking at the government members opposite I'm bewildered as

to the role of the Minister of Mines and Energy. The minister nominally has

responsibility for Hydro yet the bill now before us is in the name of the

Premier. The Premier however has been absent from the debate on the bill for

more than half the time it has been under consideration. The Minister of Mines

and Energy has sat silently through most of the debate and it is the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations and the Minister of Justice who've had the most

to say on behalf of the government.

The minister designated in the clause now under examination,

clause 2, is not the Premier in whose name the bill stands, not the Minister of

Mines and Energy, who is now responsible for Hydro, not the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, who has spoken so smoothly, glibly,

superficially, not the Minister of Justice, who has spoken in such a bombastic

way, but instead the Minister of Finance. This is very bewildering.

I'm not suggesting that no other minister over there has made

a contribution within the ranks of the Liberal Party or the Liberal caucus to

the topic at hand. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has made many

interjections from his seat. Some members on both sides of the House have

ridiculed the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I think we tend to

underestimate his appreciation of what is at stake here.

Friends of mine who were delegates at the provincial Liberal

convention in Gander last November told me of the very powerful contribution the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture made to Liberal discussion of Hydro

privatization. The minister reminded his Liberal brothers and sisters that after

the disastrous Upper Churchill deal in the 1960s the Liberals were in the

political wilderness in this Province for seventeen years. He told them that if

they proceeded to ram through Hydro privatization now the Liberals will go down

to resounding defeat in the next election and will spend another period in the

political wilderness.

That was the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture speaking at

the provincial Liberal convention in Gander in November. Chairperson, that was

very wise advice and members opposite would do well to show the minister greater

respect, because after all the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is a veteran

of Newfoundland and Labrador politics, one of the most seasoned members of this

House of Assembly. Now he doesn't stand on his feet and take

part in debate very

often, but he told the truth at the convention.

What the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture said at the

Liberal convention in Gander in November, made eminent good sense. Now some

members opposite, namely the Premier and the Minister of Justice, sat in the

House of Assembly in the late 1960s when the disastrous Upper Churchill deal

went through, and they did not learn from their mistake. The Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture was elected to the House of Assembly a few years after

that, but he did learn and he has been trying his best to apply the lesson

learnt to the present situation.

Now, Chairperson, the Minister of Justice was just trying to

justify the increases in electricity rates that are going to result from the

government's plan to privatize Hydro. They are admitting that prices will go up

more than they would otherwise, although they are grossly understating the

extent of the price hikes that are going to occur and these will be price

increases both to householders and industries. Now, the government is trying to

somehow sugar-coat the price increases by saying that there will be some

jigging. They are going to spread the load in a different way, they are going to

put more of the load on diesel consumers in Labrador and on the Island, mostly

people who live in rural areas. They are purporting to give a break to

industries, but make no mistake, they are all going to be paying more than they

would otherwise, and if there is any merit in the notion of equalizing rates,

there is nothing stopping the government from doing that now.

The government has the option of keeping Hydro as a

Crown-owned corporation, thereby maintaining reasonably low electricity rates

and then make adjustments; keep down the total electricity cost to consumers

across the Province and if there is merit in redistribution of prices, by all

means go ahead and do that. You don't have to privatize, you don't have to sell

off such a valuable, profitable Crown corporation simply to make a different

distribution in electricity cost to consumers across the Province.

Chairperson, the clause we are now examining, the definition

clause, includes not only the definition of minister, to which I have already

referred, but also the definition of land, and this is one of the really

dangerous provisions of this bill. Now the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is giving his version of what this means, but I say to the minister,

in years to come, when this may end up being the subject of major litigation,

when there are millions and billions of dollars at stake for future governments

and generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to come, and the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland or the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland or the Supreme

Court of Canada are interpreting this bill, they are going to pay most attention

to what is contained in the precise wording of the legislation, and the

legislation defines land as including tenements, hereditaments and

appurtenances, leaseholds and an estate, term, easement, right or interest in,

to, over, under or affecting land, including rights-of-way..... and, and, and,

waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we have order, Mr. Speaker?

MS. VERGE: Every time the word land appears in this bill,

every time you see the word land in the insidious and dangerous clause 4, you

have to substitute for land all those technical, legal words in clause 2.(1)(a).

So clause 2.(1)(

a) is a very, very important provision of

this bill, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Clause

2.(1)(

a) makes it clear that land equals waters; land equals water rights; land

equals water powers and water privileges. So when we come over to clause 4 and

look at what is being given away, every time we see land we have to include

waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges.

Now the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is trying

to say that will just mean the water that generates the power, not the water

upstream, not the water downstream, not the water going out through the

tail-race, but I call to the minister's attention a clause that lawyers, in

years to come, will be pointing to in multibillion or multimillion dollar

litigation.

Clause 4.(7) says: "Where an interest in land..." - and

remember, land means waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges,

so, when an interest in water is or is purported to be transferred to new Hydro

by the Crown, by the government, and an earlier part of clause 4 requires that

Crown waters, Crown lands, be transferred to new Hydro. When that is done, the

legal title to and beneficial ownership of such interest shall be considered to

have been acquired by new Hydro free and clear of all encumbrances and other

interests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to have

a few comments on this very important bill that we are debating.

Before I go into the comments that I would like to offer to

you hon. colleagues, last Wednesday morning, about 11:30, I received a

memorandum from the co-ordinator of the Bay St. George South Development

Association, suggesting that I have a public meeting on the issue. This was the

first such suggestion from the district. In fact, up to that time I had received

two letters and three telephone calls opposing the privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

DR. HULAN: It is true. I have also received in excess of

100 telephone calls in favour of privatization.

Mr. Chairman, within twenty minutes of receiving that

memorandum I had set up a meeting. I went to the meeting on Saturday, as it was

set up for 1:30 on Saturday, in McKay's. When I arrived there, there were

forty-five people at the meeting, in a catchment area - in an immediate

catchment area - of 1,500 to 1,800 in the immediate catchment area, within

distance from the place of the meeting, of approximately five miles on each

side. There were forty-five people, and I know all of these people because it's

in the area that I grew up in.

There were thirty-five people at the meeting who were of the

opposite side political stripe. There were ten Liberals that I knew.

One Liberal gentleman at the meeting suggested that it was a

meeting to select the candidate for the leadership review of the Conservative

Party. I thought it might have been a nomination meeting, as my colleague for

Carbonear has suggested.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

DR. HULAN: They did. I asked the Minister of Mines and

Energy, Mr. Chairman, to accompany me at the meeting because I firmly believe,

as Mr. Smallwood said some years ago, it is better to get the information

straight from the horse's mouth. The Minister of Mines and Energy was kind

enough to accompany me at the meeting and to deliver an excellent presentation.

Unfortunately it did not appear at the meeting that the majority were even

listening to his presentation and that bothered me very much. It seemed to me

that they were giving the impression clearly that they did not want to be

bothered with the facts and the details. Their minds were made up.

I personally strongly believe in the privatization of any

corporation that can be better served for the Province and the people through a

privatized operation rather than having government corporation or government

involvement. I would also submit to you a good example of that is Newfoundland

Farm Products. I recommended three or four years ago that Newfoundland Farm

Products be privatized.

I had a visit this morning from a Dr. Vetter who wanted to

talk to me. When I used the example of Newfoundland Farm Products he said: Yes,

but that is an example where there is competition. There is no competition. I

ask this hon. Chamber, name the competition for Newfoundland Farm Products.

Newfoundland Farm Products has for the last ten years lost between $4 million

and $5 million a year. They've been running in the red between $4 million and $5

million a year as a Crown corporation. I also submit strongly that government

should, and they will, privatize Newfoundland Farm Products and other

corporations as well.

I also gathered at the meeting in McKay's that there is a

tremendous amount of misinformation out there concerning this issue. When I was

speaking with Dr. Vetter this morning he certainly urged me strongly to speak

out against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because that is

what my district was asking for. Up to this point I have seen on pieces of paper

the names of individuals from three different districts on the District of St.

George's supposedly petitions. I didn't disregard those names, I counted all the

names up. The names that were there from Kippens and Corner Brook and Port aux

Basques and so on. I counted every name that was on these pieces of paper.

When I add them up it accounts for, if I consider all of

these people from the District of St. George's, 8 per cent of the eligible

voters in the District of St. George's. Yet Dr. Vetter has strongly urged me to

speak for that 8 per cent and ignore the 92 per cent, the 92 per cent who have

not expressed an opinion whatsoever. I ask what is going on here.

Going back to the misinformation, there at the meeting we

were told that we were giving away the water rights. We all know, on both sides

of this Chamber, the water will be used for the generation of electricity either

by the old Hydro or by the new privatized Hydro. At the point that that is not

the case the water rights revert back to the people and the Province of

Newfoundland.

We were also told - because that is an area where people like

to go hunting and fishing - that if we privatize they would no longer be able to

go in to inland waters to fish and to hunt caribou or moose. We know that is

definitely not the case. The other thing, very clearly by a number of

individuals there it was stated: why are you privatizing Newfoundland Hydro,

because we own it? We've heard in this Chamber very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that

we own 18 per cent of Newfoundland Hydro. The other 82 per cent of course is

owned by five foreign countries and the mainland of Canada.

We've also heard in this Chamber that the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro will not improve our credit rating. I disagree with that very

seriously and strongly. We also have heard other misleading comments concerning

the privatization issue, and those comments indeed are confusing the people out

in our districts, confusing the people very much so. I think that is very

unfair.

One of the things that was raised very clearly at the meeting

in McKay's was a list of comments from the Leader of the Opposition from his

office. This is what they are going by, the very few people who are voicing an

objection, that is the type of information they are going by. I challenge that

very much.

We have heard the hon. Premier in this Chamber say that one

of the big problems in attracting investment into this Province is the low

percentage of privatized corporations and businesses in the Province. By

privatizing one of our major corporations that will be and bode well for

investments in the future.

Mr. Chairman, and hon. colleagues, I've had the opportunity

to live and work in six countries of this world. The United States and Canada,

and four countries in Western Europe.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

DR. HULAN: Four countries in Western Europe. I tell you,

Mr. Chairman, in all of those countries in Western Europe you have nationalized

electricity, you have nationalized hydro. Go there and enjoy their efficiency

that doesn't exist. The efficiency is so terrible and the delivery is so

unbelievable that you are very happy to come back to North America and enjoy

what you have in the United States, where you have privatized hydro-electric

throughout the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Carried? I was

about to move that this bill be not approved. Does the hon. member want to carry

it? We can do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can move all you like it won't make

any difference.

MR. WINDSOR: Make any difference. There are the truest

words, Mr. Chairman, the truest words that hon. member ever spoke. I can move

whatever I like and it won't make any difference. That is exactly what this

government is saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't care

what you say, it won't make any difference.

MS. VERGE: Graham tells the truth. You should listen to

him more.

MR. FLIGHT: Too bad you don't, Lynn. Too bad you don't.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, unless the hon. Member for

Windsor - Buchans has something to contribute to the debate I suggest that he

sit there and chew his gum.

I want to address clause 2 which is the clause that we are

debating here this morning. My hon. colleague for Humber East I think just did

an extremely good job of pointing out from a legal point of view, which she can

do far better than I can, what the

interpretation of these clauses in fact would

be. They are very clear. I will confess that there's somewhat of a conflict

between clause 2(

a) and clause 4(a), and clause 4(7) and 4(4). Clause 4(

a) when

read in conjunction with clause 2(a), very clearly states that all land,

property, assets will be transferred - complete title and rights - to new Hydro

and the definition of land is very, very clear.

What also concerns me, Mr. Speaker, not only that water

rights are very clearly identified under the definition of land - which to me is

somewhat a strange definition of land, water rights - but nevertheless there it

is. In any piece of legislation hon. members will know that the

definitions are

of utmost weight in considering the

interpretation of any clauses thereafter but

land very clearly includes waters, water rights, water powers and water

privileges. Mr. Speaker, you have to read the rest of words there to because it

says, `right of interest into, over and under.' Under, does that mean that any

mineral rights that might be under any of these waters or any of these lands,

that are being transferred to new Hydro, could possibly be considered to be the

property of new Hydro? I've read carefully through it and I find nothing that

precludes that. So maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy would like to - would

the minister like to point out to me the clause? I'm interested in the ministers

response, is there a clause here which precludes it?

DR. GIBBONS: I haven't looked at it.

MR. WINDSOR: You haven't looked at it. Now that's the

truth too, that's the second bit of truth, the minister hasn't looked at it. It

is one thing for the minister to say it's not included and with all due respect

to my good friend and colleague, who I've known for some time, but I'm not

prepared to take your word for that. This is the fact, this is the law or this

will be the law when this hon. crowd shoves it through the House.

Now would the minister please refer to the

section of this

act which says that mineral rights, petroleum rights perhaps, petroleum

resources - the minister is always on his feet talking about all the great

exploration we're doing on land, particularly on the West Coast and the

Southwest Coast, large bodies of waters - is the hon. member telling me that the

water under Deer Lake for example if that were part of - or under Cat Arm or

Hynes Lake - if the hon. member has some success with the exploration of finding

oil underneath those waters that that petroleum deposit would not be the

property of new Hydro? I see nothing here that stops it, Mr. Chairman. I say to

the hon. gentleman again, that his word unfortunately is not enough. Please,

when he gets to his feet - which I trust he will in due course - please refer me

to a

section in this act which does this, which precludes the mineral, petroleum

resources and other resources 'below' because as I read it, very clearly those

resources are included.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He's consulting now, the minister

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I'm prepared to wait and let the hon.

minister take some advice. I say to the House Leader, I was asking a very

serious question.

MR. ROBERTS: I accept that, I'm getting some serious

information from my serious colleague to answer your serious question.

MR. WINDSOR: Well I was prepared to wait for it because I

would like -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) what land does Hydro own and the

answer is not very much.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) land is defined.

MR. WINDSOR: Land is defined as waters and water rights.

MR. ROBERTS: Water rights are not petroleum rights,

they're mineral rights.

MR. WINDSOR: But I say to the hon. Minister of Justice

the definition of land specifies clearly waters, water rights, water powers,

water privileges -

MR. ROBERTS: But none of those are mineral or petroleum

rights.

MR. WINDSOR: But rights or interests into, over or under

MR. ROBERTS: That's right.

MR. WINDSOR: - those lands and waters.

MR. ROBERTS: And those aren't mineral or petroleum

rights. The hon. gentleman can take my opinion or not but that's the case.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I hope they're not but I say to the hon.

Minister of Justice, as I did