March 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 5

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome to the public galleries, on behalf of all members, Mayor Augustine

Rumbolt of Bird Cove with council members: Lawrence Caines, Dale Kennedy and

Pius Gould.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question today is to the Premier. I ask the Premier:

Was he aware that there were severe cost overruns on the two supply vessels

being constructed at Marystown, when he was in Marystown on February 6, during

the recent election?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been aware that every

shipyard in Canada, and indeed, just about every shipyard in North America, has

been having trouble operating in a manner that allows them to compete with

shipyards elsewhere in the world. To the extent that Marystown is one of the

shipyards in North America, yes, I was aware that Marystown has, for many years,

in fact, for decades, through many administrations, including administrations of

the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland, had difficulty. So yes, Mr.

Speaker, unless one was totally out of touch with the state of shipyards

generally in Canada, I would have to say that I was aware that Marystown and

every other shipyard, has been having difficulty functioning and competing with

shipyards in Asia and elsewhere around the world. No, I was not aware of the

specifics of Marystown Shipyard versus any other shipyard.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier was aware, I guess, that there

was a $6 million surplus or profit supposed to be made on those boats.

My next question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. I assume the minister has read the recommendations of the Nelson

Report that were presented to government and to the Marystown Shipyard Board of

Directors. Mr. Minister, in just two weeks, the Nelson Consulting Group, along

with Argyle Corporation, analyzed the Marystown Shipyard, and I can tell you,

the report is not a nice one. Can the minister tell this House how many of the

identified major recommendations have been implemented?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister

will give the House, and all those who are interested, a full report on the

state of play with respect to the recommendations in the report that is in the

hand of the Leader of the Opposition. But I was expecting the Leader of the

Opposition today to continue with the line of questioning yesterday, because

yesterday he ended the day charging a cover-up, and severe problems - a cover-up

by the government, and questions as to the integrity or the competence of Mr.

Ruelokke. I issued a caution and a warning yesterday that these kinds of

comments - because I believe the Leader of the Opposition to be a fair man -

ought not to be made casually in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have checked the record since yesterday, and I

want the record to show that there is nothing in the employment history of that

individual whose name was bandied about yesterday on this floor, which would

warrant or justify his reputation being called into question, directly or

indirectly, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw these

suggestions of yesterday of cover-up and impropriety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back to my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology; the Premier has a habit of answering my questions a day late. I ask

the minister now: Will he stand in this House and tell us how many of these

major recommendations of The Nelson Consulting Group have been implemented?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, many of these recommendations

have been implemented. All of them, I think, have been acted on in one way,

shape or form; but I would have to get the detailed answers from the board on

that particular question, and I will provide same to the House when it is

available from the board, with a detailed report on exactly what has transpired

on each recommendation.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: My next question: During a recent meeting

the minister had with Marystown Shipyard, he discussed several options with

regard to the future of the Marystown Shipyard. One of the options was the

closure of the Marystown Shipyard. Now, can the minister confirm that the Nelson

Report states that the Marystown Shipyard could reach a break-even point by

April 20, 1996, just twenty-four days away? Can the minister report exactly how

far we are now from that break-even point?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if I didn't know any better, I

would think that the Leader of the Opposition would want this yard closed. This

government, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Grand Bank,

are working diligently with this minister, with this department, with this

board, with this management, to turn the shipyard around. That report lays out

some projections. That report also is the basis of the board providing a new

business plan forecasting into the future a break-even period.

We want the workers down there, their families and everybody,

to have a healthy prosperous future, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot do it so long as

the bottom-line is bleeding large sums and leaving large debts on the

bottom-line. This new board, this board of men and women who run their own

businesses, are giving us projections for the future, and they are giving us a

plan to turn the yard around. I want to give it time and this government wants

to give it time. We are worried sick about the families and the workers on the

Burin Peninsula and we want to give it every fair chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, another question unanswered.

If the minister, Member for Grand Bank and the Member for Burin - Placentia West

were working so closely, why was he not briefed yesterday on what was happening

and had the information? He knew nothing about it. There is no consultation

going on. Now, since the minister has always talked about how heavy we are in

debt at the shipyard, can he explain why the recommendations were not

implemented immediately? This report was dated April 20, 1995 - and why, because

of this, did we lose a woman of the calibre of Ms Peggy Witte?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I hope there

is an opportunity for the public of Newfoundland and Labrador to hear the

exchange today on the floor of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador about the future of the Marystown Shipyard. We have the Leader of the

Opposition spending two days of valuable House time to finally come to the

conclusion, come to the matter that really concerns him. He is concerned about

the welfare of a helpless, weak, and undefended individual who cannot defend him

or herself, in this case, Ms Peggy Witte, and not at all concerned about the

workers at Marystown or the future of the shipyard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have nothing but praise for Ms Witte. I am criticizing the

lack of this government's responsibility to do something about the operation. In

this House yesterday I asked the minister, and he indicated here, that the

financial advisers advised Marystown Shipyard to circumvent the normal

purchasing procedures and to purchase equipment which was the Ulstein design

without buying futures to hedge against any fluctuations in currency, and

costing this Province, taxpayers $3.2 million. Now, I ask the minister, who were

those financial advisers who gave that advice and, have they been fired?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the answer that I gave

yesterday. I gave an honest answer, it is recorded in Hansard. We have advisers,

these advisers are in the financial community, they make recommendations to the

management of the board and the management takes the recommendations and acts on

them or they don't. In this particular case they didn't because the Norwegian

kroner was strong against the Canadian dollar and they decided not to hedge. It

was a costly mistake. We admit that up front.

Mr. Speaker, let me clear something else up for the record

because it seems to me that the media or some media are just reporting that

somehow the minister is stating that the only viable option left for the

shipyard is closure. I have never, ever, said that that was the only option; I

laid out a range of options, Mr. Speaker. I said the status quo is possible; it

is not probable but it is possible.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that privatization, an aggressive

privatization plan is possible. I said that the board's recommendations in

consultation with the Argyle Group and the new business plan forecasting a

future where we will break even is possible. I said, Mr. Speaker, a scale back

is possible and I said, Mr. Speaker, a final conclusion could be suggested but

closure is possible. That is the wide range of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I can't answer.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Mines and Energy, but first of all, the news continues to break about the

enormous potential of Voisey's Bay. Of course, the latest bidding with

Falconbridge and Inco confirms the magnitude of this project. There are many

Newfoundlanders with our track record over the years in resources and so on,

that we do the proper job - and, of course, during the election we talked about

getting our full share, so we will have many questions on Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, to start, I would like to ask the minister: In

the last session of the House, the previous Administration introduced amendments

to the Mineral Tax Act which have specific implications for Voisey's Bay. Can

the minister tell the House if those amendments will be brought back in this

session and when, and, if he expects any new amendments or changes to those

amendments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, given the member's interest

and, I know, the interest of all of the members of the Legislature and indeed

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in what is developing over last night

and again today, with respect to the counterbid by Inco for the assets of

Voisey's Bay, and this indeed has been raised by the Member for Baie Verte. I

want to inform him and through him and through the House - inform the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that today I have spoken with Mr. Mike Sopko of Inco,

the President and Chief Executive Officer, and I have confirmed for Mr. Sopko

that the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is quite clear,

that whomever at the end of the day emerges with the controlling interest to

Voisey's Bay, the only acceptable development plan for the government and for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is one that sees a mine, a mine mill, a

smelter and a refinery built in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am delighted to report - and I thank the

Member for Baie Verte for his question - that Mr. Sopko has agreed fully to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand the election

is over now, and I heard the Premier say that many times during the election

campaign. The question was: Will the amendments come to the House again this

session with any change or not? Of course, you didn't answer that question. So I

will ask the next question now, and of course, we have to relate it again to the

election campaign because I am sure we all heard it then; and that is the

question on the smelting and refining in the Province, which you just referred

to. But now we are going to ask - of course, one of the solutions, they said,

was to put the smelter on wheels.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. Could he get to his

question?

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister of the procedure of the

deciding on the location of the smelter, and when does the minister expect to

have it at least down to a short list on some potential sites, seeing as

everybody in the Province has been promised a smelter.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if anybody has

been promised a smelter. In particular, I know I have received lots of calls.

Everybody wants the smelter, it seems; everybody has the best place in the

Province for the smelter and the refinery, it seems. My position is that there

has to be a thorough evaluation of the sites starting with sites in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Because this mineral deposit is in Labrador.

That has to be assessed first. Secondary, look at sites around the Island and

evaluate all the potential sites. I know that the companies involved have some

consultants who are doing some work on site selection. I don't think they have

issued any particular public proposal call with regard to this but they are

doing some background work on it and there are a number of sites around the

Province that are good potential sites.

MR. J. BYRNE: Forty-eight.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, there could well be, as the hon. member

opposite from Cape St. Francis is saying, there could well be forty-eight. There

could be one in every district; in some districts I know there are more than

one. So in due course, in the next few months, we will probably see a short

list.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I say Port de Grave is on the last of the

lists, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister just one direct question

again, the same amendments that were tabled in the last session of the House,

will those same amendments be brought forward in this session of the House, the

amendments to the Mineral Tax Act?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, at this time the new government

has not gone back to review these amendments. At the time that the House of

Assembly was dissolved, at the time of dissolution the amendments had been moved

to the committee stage of the House of Assembly and a large list of people had

submitted an interest in appearing before the committee. We have to consider

where these amendments were at that time and determine whether or not we want to

go through a consultation process first before we bring them back in. We have

not yet done that but I know that there is a lot of interest in having some

comment from the general public and from various industries.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the

minister is looking for public comments on this and the fair and full share I

guess is the bottom line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the last question for the day and of

course this is also a burning issue with this particular project, with respect

to native land claims, could the minister tell the House the status of

negotiations between the Innu and Inuit with respect to Voisey's Bay and does

the minister foresee any delays with development of this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it falls under my

responsibility as Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the land claim negotiations are a priority for

the government. There is no question about that. I have already had preliminary

discussions with the leadership of the Innu people of Labrador and we will be

meeting shortly with the LIA as soon as a full meeting can be arranged. We have

said many times that this project in Labrador is sufficiently rich, that is

Voisey's Bay, that everybody should be a winner, starting with the people of

Labrador but including our aboriginal people and that is the basic approach of

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is an approach that is

non-partisan and one that all members of the House can support and indeed all

the people of this Province. So I can only say to him, it is a new

administration but we will proceed to negotiate quickly but responsibly, full

and fair benefits for all of those affected and in particular, aboriginal

people.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Would the minister inform the House

of the latest reports on the condition of cod stocks in Newfoundland and

Labrador or more specifically the stocks as it relates to 4RS and 3PS?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a clear

understanding from everybody in the fishing industry, according to the latest

scientific reports, that the cod stocks are at a low state everywhere in the

waters around Newfoundland and Labrador, not just in one division. The stocks

are at a point where the scientists have a great deal of concern. The only place

where they are showing any significant improvement are in the 3PS division where

there are some stocks that have been shown in the inshore sector to show some

substantial amount but it is one of the things that they are concerned about, in

the stocks that they have shown in the different areas on the testing that they

have done, is that there is some renewable resource taking place but the concern

is over the age of the stock. So what we are saying is that time over time, over

the next few years the cod stocks around the island, that we have a confidence

that will regrow but right now we have a deep concern about the stocks, how low

they are, the age of the stocks and it is going to take a long time before we

are satisfied that they are growing at the renewable rate that we would like to

see.

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

Bonavista South.

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

ask the minister if he has been briefed on the new policy of DFO as it relates

to cod by-catch with pelagic and shell fish gear? This new policy is zero

percent by-catch. All cod caught must be thrown back in the ocean dead or alive.

This new policy, Mr. Speaker, is something that has been just recently brought

forward. I would like to ask the minister if he agrees with this policy, and

would he explain the conservation in releasing or throwing back dead codfish.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is

asking the question but he is putting it in a manner in which it is perceived to

be that all fish caught - now that is the issue - dead or alive will be thrown

back in the water. Conservation is a number one thought on everybody's mind.

What the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is saying is

whatever possible measures can be taken in all fisheries, that the type of

equipment that can be used in all fisheries would eliminate, in a lot of cases,

the catching of any cod into a by-catch. That is our number one goal. It is not

to catch the fish and release them dead or alive. Our number one goal is to have

the proper equipment into the nets, whether it is into the cod traps or whether

it is into the type of mesh size that we use, or whether it is into the trawling

gear, to minimize the catching of any cod whatsoever. It is not to put dead fish

back in the water as the hon. member is trying to point out.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he

was briefed on this latest policy. I say to the minister very simply that I made

a phone call before I came to the House and talked to a gentleman in DFO, and

these are the rules and regulations. That any fish caught now in pelagic gear or

in shellfish gear has to be thrown back whether it is dead or alive. Up until

now there was a 10 per cent or a 5 per cent, whichever fishery was taking place,

allowed as a by-catch. That now is not allowed to happen.

I ask the minister again: Does he agree or does he disagree

with the policy of not allowing fishermen to bring ashore dead codfish, or

should they be thrown overboard like he made so many funny remarks here about

the salmon fishery a couple of years ago?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't put a whole lot of

confidence into the phone calls that the hon. member makes. Because I can assure

you, over the last two or three sessions of the House and many times he talked

about phone calls and the answers and the points that he brought to this House

of assembly, and we found out later that there was not much substance to the

information that he had brought to this House.

The question on everybody's mind is simply this. Gear

technology, the type of gear that is used in implementing a fishery, is the key

thing to conservation. Now if the DFO is bringing in a management plan that

requires fishermen as a deterrent that you will not be able to take advantage of

a by-catch of cod, it would be on the emphasis of conservation only, a deterrent

not to encourage to catch by-catch, and to place the proper gear facilities in

your equipment that you will catch the least amount of cod whatsoever. It is

proven out already in many instances where in the otter trawl last year on the

Grand Banks in the catching of skate. Not one cod was brought in out of that

fishery last year in the fourteen or fifteen boats that were fishing that type

of gear because there was no by-catch of cod allowed in that fishery.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister still doesn't

answer the question, he skates around it, but I can assure him that is the

policy of DFO. I would like to ask the minister if he has made any

representation to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Atlantic

Province with regards to monitoring and conserving those cod stocks that could

be in jeopardy through the provincial food fishery taking place in the Maritime

Provinces and Quebec. Has the minister made representation to those other

provinces so that they may be treated exactly as Newfoundlanders?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, what, two weeks right now. I have had one full half

an hour of a conversation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have been

to his office; I have spoken to his people here in St. John's. The one thing

that is on my mind as my responsibility as the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and the further development of our fisheries in this Province is

conservation for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What is going to

happen to the fish stock here in this Province?

My main interest is that whatever measures can be put in

place to conserve the stocks here, to ensure that we are going to have a viable

fishery in the future is my interest to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: What I discuss with the federal minister at a

later date will be determined by the agenda that will be set. My main interest

now is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if we all put our

heads and our thoughts in the right direction it is going to be for all of our

best interests, and that is what I intend to do as minister as long as I am in

the office.

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

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

Last Friday I asked questions to the Minister of Mines and

Energy regarding the Newfoundland Power increase. He indicated, he said, that:

We, as a government, do not interfere with the operation of the Public Utilities

Board. We will allow it to operate.

In view of that answer, I would like to ask the Premier: Last

week the Public Utilities Board denied the Consumer Advocate information related

to the power increase, denied information that Newfoundland Light and Power

should have provided and should provide to the Consumer Advocate. In view of

that, does the Premier support the process of the Public Utilities Board? And

will he actively intervene, as all members in the House have an opportunity to

do, to indicate that he stands against any power increase, or request for one,

at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the process

in this Province and, indeed, it is a process that is used elsewhere all around

the world of having a Public Utilities Board which is arm's length from the

Opposition, arm's length from the Government, consider these kinds of questions

and, without any partisan or political interference, come to a conclusion. But

because it is an arm's length process from government it means that all of us,

as members of the House of Assembly, are free to express our views.

I think that I speak for all of the members on this side when

I say that we respect the process, we insist it be independent from government,

and we express on behalf of our constituents the wish that we have a regime in

this Province that offers all of the people of this Province the most efficient

and lowest priced electricity that we can possibly have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what we have just witnessed is

a typical political song and dance. The reality is that this is a non-partisan

issue. Newfoundland Power has asked and requested a 4.9 per cent increase. The

government has appointed a Consumer Advocate. The Public Utilities Board has –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now making a speech. I ask the hon. member

to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.

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

The Public Utilities Board has disallowed information to the

Consumer Advocate. Will the Premier intervene? Will Cabinet take a second look

at this process to ensure that no increase happens at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was giving a

song, a dance, and a speech.

Mr. Speaker, the simple reality is that we have a Public

Utilities Board, a process which allows this kind of application as brought

forward, all of the interveners to be heard by an independent panel. That is

fundamental to functioning with respect to public utilities in any kind of free

and democratic society where governments ought not to intervene at the drop of a

hat.

We have confidence in the process. The process has to be

allowed to proceed without interference by the government. Having said that, it

is the role of government to provide the funding necessary to have an intervener

take an action on behalf of those who are concerned about rate hikes. A lawyer

is now in place and is doing his job, we hope, and does it very well. We hope

that the result is that consumers in Newfoundland, those we represent, face the

most efficient and lowest electricity costs that are possible in the

circumstance. But if the member is suggesting that the government should

interfere in the courts when the courts meet, that we should interfere with the

police when the police do their jobs, that we should interfere with any

regulatory agency before the hearing is even held, then I have to say to the

member, he does not believe in a proper democratic process, and I would ask him

to re-examine what he is asking the government to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I, like many other members,

understand that a process is in place, so let me be clear to the Premier in what

I am asking the government to do.

Let the Public Utilities Board proceed as it should; let it

call expert witnesses as it should, but will the Premier of the Province go to

the Public Utilities Board, as this member is going to the Public Utilities

Board, and request of the Public Utilities Board that no increase from

Newfoundland Power take place at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this, in my judgement - and

if I use words that the member finds rather harsh, I can only say I regret that

his question, his posture, has brought me to this point, but this is so

transparently a tactic on the part of the member that it is not difficult to see

through. He says I respect the independent process of the Public Utilities

Board, and I respect the fact that it has to be able to do its job without

interference from the government that provides, through a regulatory legislative

structure its independence, but will the Premier tell us in advance of the board

having the hearings, will the Premier tell us in advance of the board doing its

work, that government is going to overturn whatever they do if the government

does not like the conclusions it comes to? That is not an independent process.

This government, and the members on this side, are as

concerned about the state of play with respect to the cost of electricity as

anybody else in this Province, and our members individually are concerned that

we have the lowest priced electricity possible. We share that concern, but we

are not prepared to destroy an independent process in order to respond to a

partisan question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct an answer to

the question that the hon. Member for Bonavista South just asked during Question

Period. I have the answer now in front of me that I didn't have a few minutes

ago, but this is what I am talking about when I did not place a whole lot of

confidence in the type of phone calls that are made and information brought to

the House, and I will read the answer to the question of by-catch: By-catch

limits of 10 per cent or 5 per cent depending on species and areas involved

remaining in place for 1996, DFO will close fisheries in which the by-catch of

closed or prohibited areas species exceed these limits. Fisheries with potential

by-catch problems will also be closed if they cannot be effectively monitored

and controlled. A by-catch of 10 and 5 per cent in the areas where the by-catch

- no fish thrown away, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

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

a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

What I was referring to, and I made it quite clear when I

asked the question, and I want to say this for clarification, that I talked

about cod stocks caught in pelagic and shellfish gear, and that is not what the

minister is referring to at all. I am talking about cod fish caught in those two

types of gear which, up until now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - they were allowed to catch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. Clearly, he has not

raised a point of order. There is, I guess, a disagreement between him and the

hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as to the allegation of fact but that

certainly doesn't constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to a question from the Member for - as a matter

of fact there was a good minister before me, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, a very

good Minister of Employment and Labour.

A question asked the other day by the Member for Kilbride

pertaining to CN property where there was some concern -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's South.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, sorry, St. John's South. - where

there were some concerns about rodent population in a building. We have had the

officials check that out and there is a company contracted to deal the situation

there by CN, and they have applied for a permit with the city to tear down the

building. There is a process underway to deal with it so in the next few weeks

we should see some progress made. The officials have also been on site and

inspected the property and it appears to be in order but they are going to keep

monitoring the situation for the next few weeks.

Thank you.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this honourable House today to present a petition

on behalf of the people of Marysvale in the District of Harbour Main -Whitbourne,

Harbour Road. It is a rather old road but in the past fifteen or twenty years

the number of houses that have been constructed on that road and the number of

people that have moved there and the number of children who are going back and

forth there on school buses mostly during the winter, has increased drastically.

Road in the District of Harbour Main - Whitbourne is in great need of extensive

upgrading and paving; and

WHEREAS the above-mentioned road is used as a bus route for

transporting children to and from school; and

WHEREAS the people of this area of the Province feel that

safe passage of their children cannot be granted due to the poor condition of

WHEREFORE this House of Assembly should call on the

Road in the Town of Marysvale in the District of Harbour Main - Whitbourne, and

as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 160 names on this

petition and I would strongly urge the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to give very serious consideration to their request. I live

fairly close to that particular road and I know that during the winter there are

numbers of times when the road becomes soft and you have ruts there and freezes

again, the road is practically impassable and makes a rather dangerous set of

circumstances for children in the area especially school children, a number of

very small children.

I realize that the restraints on the particular department we

are talking about are very serious, however I believe that the condition of the

road, the set of circumstances with regard to this particular road, are such

that it would warrant very serious consideration, and I strongly urge the

minister, as I mentioned before, to give serious consideration to the request

made by the people of Marysvale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support

of the hon. member's petition and say that I certainly do hope that the minister

takes that road, as well as many other roads across this Province that are in a

very deplorable condition, under advisement, and hopefully when the Interim

Supply and the Budget comes down there certainly will be money, not only to do

this road but a lot of other roads in this Province as we go into 1996 and 1997.

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to

thank the member for the presentation of the petition, and obviously the people

who have made this petition to the House. I would like to say to the House that

the department is in the process of reviewing all of the road requirements

within the Province on a region by region basis, and that is something as a new

minister that I will be looking at over the next few weeks.

Members are aware as well, of course, that we at the

beginning stages of the Budget process and that any decisions that get made on

the capital allocations for roads, and for the specific decisions that are made

will be made based on the most objective information that we have on urgency

requirements in this area. We will be looking at all of the requirements around

the Province very seriously over the next few weeks, and in addition to that I

have made available, myself and members of my department, for consultation with

as many representatives from different regions of the Province as is possible.

The matter of funding is part of the Budget process and the

actual decisions will be based on the most reliable information that we are able

to obtain, both from my department officials and from people around the

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

As all members in the House know, and certainly people who

are in the gallery, every Wednesday is Private Members' Day, and it is an

opportunity for a private member to put before this House a resolution to be

debated amongst all members in the House, and ultimately to either be passed,

modified, or not passed before the House of Assembly.

The resolution that I put forward on Monday deals with

Newfoundland Power and the requested 4.9 per cent increase they are looking for

this year in electrical power rates. It is too bad the Premier has left, but let

me say first and foremost, that I understand fully, and I do not think for a

moment that every member in this House wishes to see zero increase in power

rates. I believe that. I believe that each and every one of us would like to see

a zero per cent increase in electrical rates right now. I believe that each and

every member who represents their constituents have gotten calls requesting that

that may happen.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker, nor have I tried

to make it one. I have asked simple questions of government, questions dealing

with what is within government's power to decide. In questions asked of the

Minister of Mines and Energy he indicated that the Public Utilities Board has

been put in place, government has appointed a consumer advocate, and we should

not prejudge what will happen through that process, and to some extent I agree

with him.

If history proves correct, Mr. Speaker, then what will happen

after the Public Utilities Board makes its ultimate decision on whether or not

there will be an increase, then I can assure each and every member of this House

that we will look at an increase in Newfoundland in the electrical rates in this

Province. Historically, over the past twenty years, each and every time that

Newfoundland Power has gone to the Public Utilities Board for an increase one

has been granted. They may not have gotten the increase that it requested, but

the fact remains that it did get an increase.

I think that is what is up for consideration today. If you

look at the private member's resolution, and we get to what I'm requesting of

each and every member today, it is simply this: "Therefore

be it resolved that

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do whatever is required to ensure

that an increase in electricity rates does not occur at this time." It does not

request of the government to squash the Public Utilities Board and throw that

process out the window. It doesn't ask that. It simply leaves the door open for

government, Cabinet and all members to do whatever is necessary or required to

ensure that there is no increase in electricity rates at this time.

Mr. Speaker, there are many good and solid reasons why I put

this private member's resolution before the floor. Many reasons why Newfoundland

Light and Power in my opinion should not receive an increase. Many reasons why

the Public Utilities Board should squash and should not grant an increase to

Newfoundland Power.

One certainly deals with that Newfoundland Power has a

monopoly in the delivery of an essential commodity in this Province. It is not

at risk in any way, shape or form of becoming non-competitive. Secondly,

Newfoundland Power, having made about $27.8 million last year I believe in

profit, in my opinion is not in need of extra revenue from its consumers. It

should be pointed out that this profit margin was made after shareholders were

paid and after all expenses.

Newfoundland Power in passing on corporate income tax

increases to consumers again would be defying government's intention of ensuring

that corporations dip into their own profits to help bear the cost of public

fiscal responsibilities. We live in a time of restraint. Municipal governments

are cutting back services; taxes that we pay are going up. We see social service

recipients who are now getting claw backs on income tax that they have coming

towards them. The Department of Social Services is clawing back. Public servants

have not received increases in wages. Services offered by provincial governments

have been cut. Capital works programs have been down scaled. The amount of

capital works in terms of road and construction, not as much happening. Federal

government operations being down scaled, centralized. Everywhere in society

today we are operating under restraint and cutbacks.

I think that Newfoundland Power as a corporation in this

Province has the same responsibility to each and every one of us -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I would say that the minister would have

his opportunity to speak to the private member's resolution, and if he wishes to

I'm sure that the chair will recognize him.

Each and every one of us, Mr. Speaker, in society today

across the country, I remind the minister, not just in this Province, is

operating under restraint. I think that Newfoundland Power has the opportunity

to show some leadership from the business community and not claw back or request

for an increase in electricity rates.

The other overriding reason is that the expanding low energy

use market is a situation Newfoundland Power helped create itself. Over the past

three to four years it has consistently advised consumers to reduce their demand

for electrical energy. We have seen the commercials, we have heard the

advertising, it has come into our homes: Seal windows, reduce your heat costs,

save money. It would be wrong I think for the Public Utilities Board to try and

alter this situation by penalizing consumers like ourselves and people out there

who did exactly what Newfoundland Power asked us to do. We heeded its advice, we

reduced the amount of energy required, and now we are being penalized for it.

Another reason that many Newfoundlanders who do not use

Newfoundland Power delivered electricity to heat their homes, but instead use

wood furnaces because they cannot afford to do otherwise. There are many people

in that situation.

Over the past couple of days in presenting petitions before

this House some member I believe shouted out: For those people who find

themselves in a bind, Newfoundland Power's Share the Light program is there.

What most people do not realize or do not know is that that Share the Light

program is not extended to social service recipients whose light bills are back

two months, that it is not open or accessible to those people, the poorest in

our society, that the Share the Light program is open to what we would call the

working poor, and that the amount of money that Newfoundland Power contributed

to the Share the Light program is not astronomical, as some people believe, but

was a mere $15,000 last year. It did not pay a lot of light bills, I suspect,

but the majority of the Share the Light program came from donations from

consumers of Newfoundland Light and Power, came from taxpayers, rate payers, who

need this essential commodity.

Mr. Speaker, differential rate increases, while penalizing

the poor for not using electric heat, will do nothing to provide them with the

money they need to pay for electric heat so as to increase the company's

competitiveness, but will force, in my opinion, many people, the disadvantaged

especially, to dip into their food budgets to pay for electricity that they need

for lights.

I have attended a couple of public meetings on the issue now.

I have about, I think, close to thirty letters from constituents. I have one

that is pretty touching, one that came from a single mom, three kids, on social

services. Right now she is three months behind in her light bill. They are

threatening to cut her off. I think she receives - the amount of money from

social services, as we all know, provides the bare minimum. She is doing the

best that she can with the amount of money that she has, but this is the person,

and the type of person, who is going to be hurt by these increases. It is

impossible for her to keep up with the cost of electricity during the coldest

months of the year right now, let alone be forced into a situation to pay an

additional 4.9 per cent. I think these are the individuals who we must consider,

as members of the House, in debating this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are Newfoundlanders, I submit to this

House, on low and fixed incomes who use the smallest amount of electricity,

since they have the fewest electrical-run amenities. It is therefore, in my

opinion, the poor who will bear the brunt of a differential rate increase at

this time.

Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource crisis, the

general economic downturn and deep government spending cuts can ill afford

increases in essential commodities like electricity at this time. Newfoundland

Power's assertion that not having a rate increase since 1992 is no justification

for them to get a rate increase in 1996.

Now, `What can the government do?' is the question. What

power do they have? The Public Utilities Board is governed by

an act that this

Legislature put in place some years ago. The Public Utilities Board - maybe when

this dispute is over with, maybe when this comes to a close, maybe I can make a

couple of suggestions - positive ones - for government to look at. Maybe it is

time for us to review the role of the Public Utilities Board in how it responds

to requests from corporations such as Newfoundland Power for rate increases.

Maybe it is time for us to have a more open debate about that very important

board that affects all of our lives. The decisions emanating from that board,

from time to time, affect each and every person in this Province.

The rules and regulations governing the Public Utilities

Board have not been changed, in my understanding, since 1950. Maybe it is time

for Cabinet to have a look at the rules and regulations governing that board.

Mr. Speaker, when government did what it should have done, it

appointed a Consumer Advocate, the Consumer Advocate then, on behalf of all of

us, requests information from the Public Utilities Board. Then, last Friday, a

release comes out from the Consumer Advocate, Mr. Denis Brown, and I would like

to read it into the record:

Late Friday afternoon, the Public Utilities Board denied the

Consumer Advocate an application which would have required Newfoundland Power to

produce documents relevant to the power company's application for a rate

increase. The Consumer Advocate is required by law to review, investigate, and

make appropriate recommendations to the PUB concerning the reasonableness of the

rates proposed to be charged by the power company.

The Consumer Advocate argued, Mr. Speaker, during the

application and still maintains that these documents are essential in order to

ensure the power company has made a full disclosure of all relevant information.

He went on to state that it is critical that Newfoundland Power co-operate

unconditionally - which it is not now doing - with the investigation that he is

launching. The Consumer Advocate will decide, after meeting with council,

whether to appeal the PUB's order to the Province's Court of Appeal, which I

think he has done.

Mr. Speaker, that act unto itself, a Consumer Advocate

appointed by government, requesting information from the PUB so that he can get

on with his investigation, that he sees as being relevant to the case that he

must put together on behalf of all consumers and being denied, I believe is an

example and exemplifies the situation that needs to be corrected at the Public

Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we will see many petitions continue

and I trust that members opposite will do whatever is within their power to

ensure that an increase, in an essential commodity like electricity, an increase

or a requested increase by the power company does not occur at this time and

that Newfoundland Power be a responsible corporate citizen and tighten their

belts, as all of us are expected to do. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down

and hear from other members. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East

and Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to stand in the Legislature today and add

my voice as one who is very concerned in terms of what the rates and the rate

increases being proposed by Newfoundland Power will do to the poor, and indeed,

the working poor of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is easy for us to simply stand here

and to state our own cases but I know from my own history of dealing with this

issue, I can go back some ten years ago when a similar rate increase was being

called for and there was a very strong outcry in the Province at the time. And I

added my voice to it, in those days as a business man, saying that this should

not happen. I say the same thing today.

Ten years ago, I convinced my business associate at the time

that we should do more than simply say, this is wrong, that we should put our

own money where our mouths were and that we did indeed, at that time, do as was

suggested at a public meeting that the hon. the Member for Kilbride attended the

other night, that everybody should turn their power off at a given time in order

to send a message to Newfoundland Light and Power. I stand here today as a proud

individual, saying that, to the best of my knowledge, we were, at the time, the

only business who actually did that. We actually held a candlelight vigil on the

parking lot of our Kentucky Fried Chicken store on Elizabeth Avenue, served hot

chocolate and literally pulled the plug on what is - well, the tax department

might be listening - one of the most profitable stores in Atlantic Canada. But

we pulled the plug for that hour to show our concern and our protest. I

understand at the time that we were the only business in Newfoundland who did

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: So the chicken dried up?

MR. WALSH: No, actually we gave it away rather than serve

it. We would never serve anything an hour later.

Mr. Speaker, there is a shell game taking place here at the

Fortis Corporation that has not been talked about this afternoon. The shell game

is that some years ago Newfoundland Light and Power became Fortis. Fortis, with

its profits that it received from Newfoundland Light and Power, created a number

of different companies, one being Fortis Trust, which is now in the banking

business; another, Fortis Properties, which is into everything from hotels,

office towers to shopping malls. Fortis Trust became a major shareholder in

Maritime Electric, all from the profits of Newfoundland Light and Power.

Now, these new companies may today be standing on their own.

They may today be making profits unto themselves. Part of the shell game also,

Mr. Speaker, that I believe is taking place, is the fact that many of the senior

officials within Fortis Trust received most of their income, not from the new

companies that were formed but indeed are receiving it from Newfoundland Light

and Power. Twenty-seven point eight million dollars has to be enough, when every

other company in this Province in this Province and, indeed, across Canada, have

had to tighten their belts.

Some concern has to come to all of us here today when we are

standing - and others will this afternoon to discuss this important issue -

other concerns have to come to us. There are people I see in the gallery today,

some of whom have taken the time, I know, to call members of the House of

Assembly. Some whom I see in the House today took the time to write letters to a

number of us, and I myself received one of those letters, saying that they are

concerned. The hon. the Member for Kilbride said that many members of this House

of Assembly are concerned, and indeed we are.

When one has the opportunity to hold a monopoly, one has to

be very careful how one exercises that monopoly in dealing with individuals and

groups of people. All of us in this Province know full well that at the end of

the day it will be the working poor and indeed, the poor, who will bear the

brunt. Those whom we see on the side of the road on many weekends when we are

travelling, who are hauling logs out from the woods in order to have firewood to

get them through the winter will now see an increase, ironically because they

have been saving, ironically because they have been cutting back on their

consumption. If this goes through they will bear that brunt.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do what we can to ensure that

Newfoundland Power has to hold the line, that they have to do as the rest of us

have to do in this Province, and that is get by on what we have. I am not sure,

as part of their argument, that the bonding companies they have to deal with may

look unfavourably upon them should they not maintain that profit level. I heard

that argument ten years ago when it was in the $18 million to $19 million profit

range. We have gone up by $11 million, but the argument is still the same one

that they are continuing to use.

The differential rate that was mentioned by the hon. the

Member for Kilbride I think was 4.8 per cent. I am not sure if I am correct but

I thought I heard Dennis Browne say something on a newscast in the last couple

of days that that may, in actual fact, be 5.5 per cent or 7 per cent when it is

actually worked through. We have to be concerned. We have to also stand in this

Legislature and do everything we can to protect the people whom we represent -

six months ago, fifty-two of us, today, forty-eight of us. The number of people

whom we represent are the same, it is just that in some cases the districts have

gotten a little larger.

We also have to have respect for the process. We also have to

have respect for the institutions that are in place that are being asked to

monitor and review what it is that Newfoundland Power or other public utilities

wish to do. Today we have the PUB in place to do that. We have to show some

respect for the process, simply because without that process, then it all may as

well come back into this Legislature for us to deal with on an individual basis,

regardless of whether it is electrical or trucking or anything else. So we have

to have respect for them. In doing so, we also cannot make a mockery of the

process that was put in place I believe by the predecessors of this government;

I am not sure whether it was Mr. Moores or Mr. Peckford, but someone who gave

the strength to the PUB to carry out the job that they have.

So, Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the fact that Newfoundland

Power's demands are stronger on the public than they should be, recognizing the

fact that there is a process in place, and recognizing the fact that we should

not now look to make a mockery of that process, we also have to give the PUB an

opportunity to carry out the job that they have been asked to do.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Conception

Bay East and Bell Island, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista

North, I want to amend the resolution by deleting all the words after: `rates'

in the first

WHEREAS, and adding:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has a monopoly in the delivery of

an essential commodity in the Province; and

WHEREAS there is a great deal of concern about the proposed

electrical rate increases being sought by Newfoundland Power;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador ensure that the recently appointed Consumer Advocate use every

possible means to bring the concerns of the consumer to bear on and be reflected

in any decision forthcoming from the Public Utilities Board on the rate

application by Newfoundland Power.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today discussing what we believe is

a crucial issue to all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand the hon. member has moved an amendment?

MR. WALSH: So moved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to have an opportunity

to see the copy of the amendment so that I can rule as to whether the amendment

is in order or not. And to do that, of course, the Chair will briefly recess the

House. I have not seen the amendment so I would like to take an opportunity to

have a look at it.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had the opportunity to look at the amendment

put forth by the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, and

the amendment is in order. It meets all the standard requirements of the

amendment plus on any amendment, the object of any amendment may be either to

modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or present to

the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question,

and I think the amendment does make it perhaps more acceptable to the House.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, in conclusion, in terms of the remarks I was making

earlier, it is good to see a resolution of this type come to the House of

Assembly. I remember, back in 1991, there were three of my colleagues on this

side of the House of Assembly who were standing strong at that time as well; the

Member for Pleasantville and the Member, at the time, for St. John's South and

I, were some of the three or four lone voices on this side supporting the fact

that these issues had to stop.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WALSH: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WALSH: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying

is that we have to honour the process that is in place and, indeed, we cannot

allow ourselves today to make a mockery of the process that is in place.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to all hon. members that if the

process at the end of the day is not one that we believe is fair, if it is not

one that we believe is just, and if it is not one that we believe is giving the

best results to the people of this Province, allow me to assure you that our

voices will be heard yet again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today and

support the resolution put forward by the Member for Kilbride. I know the Member

for Conception Bay East and Bell Island has moved an amendment, and I accept the

ruling of the Speaker on that although my personal view is that the proposed

amendment does change the intent of the resolution put forward.

It is generally assumed, I would imagine, that the Consumer

Advocate who would be appointed by the government to intervene on behalf of the

consumers in the Province would put forth the best case possible. That, to me,

is just a basic assumption, so to me, this is hardly worth the paper it is

written on. I think that it is, again, one of the moves of government to try to

not support the resolution put forward by the Opposition.

As I said, I support the resolution put forward by the Member

for Kilbride. Mr. Speaker, I remember growing up in Torbay. I grew up in a big

family, twelve children, nine boys and three girls, and we heated our home, when

I was growing up - which was thirty to forty years ago type of thing - with

wood, coal and oil. We had wood, basically, in the summertime and in the fall of

the year, and coal and oil in the winter months. We had an oil furnace, or a

floor furnace at that time they were - in bungalows that is normally what they

had back then, I think, oil furnaces, floor furnaces. We had to purchase oil

during the winter months when we were growing up, my family did, my parents, and

I remember on Saturdays in the winter months going into the woods in the truck

with my brothers and my father, cutting wood, lugging it from the woods to the

side of the road, piling it up, and bringing it home in the truck, then standing

it and letting it dry, and cutting it the next summer, and junking the wood up

by bucksaw. We didn't have chain saws back then - you may have had them, but we

didn't have them. So we cut the wood up, sawed it up by hand, myself and my

brothers, piled it, and used it in the winter months, with the floor furnace,

and the wood stove for cooking.

But the part that I remember most about being in the woods,

of course, is the boil-up on Saturdays at lunch hour. You would have your

`mug-up', your tea; you boiled your old pot or kettle type of thing. And then we

would have maybe some bread and molasses, some beans warmed up in the frying

pan, and what have you, and have a fine feed. This is all coming to a point down

the road, now, as I continue on.

I remember, too, growing up, that we had to bring splits to

school to get the fire going, to get the old pot-bellied stove heated up. During

the winter months, also - we lived in a long, long laneway, probably a quarter

to half a mile from the road, and we had to shovel the laneway in the winter

months so the oil truck could get in probably once a month type of thing, or

once every two weeks, to give fuel for the furnace. Now, today, you are being

limited as to how much wood you can cut in the winter months, and actually, the

time when you can cut wood is limited. I think today you can cut six cords. And

people in different areas in my district, even in Pouch Cove and Torbay, still

cut wood to heat their homes.

I have to wonder if there is a plan afoot here by Fortis, by

Newfoundland Power, and actually by the government, to a certain extent, I

suppose, if they are going to support an increase, which is obviously what they

are going to do - the Premier basically said today that he supports a rate

increase for Newfoundland Power. I wonder if there is some kind of plan to limit

the amount of wood people can burn so they will be forced to either purchase oil

or use electricity, Mr. Speaker. That is the concern I would have.

Mr. Speaker, in 1974, actually before 1974, I found a nice

little woman for myself; we were married in 1974 and I started building my own

home which I still live in today. At that time, of course, the big factor was

electricity. We had the Churchill Falls situation not long underway and there

was a big promotion on, and the question was whether we should heat our homes

with electricity, or go with an oil or a wood furnace. I listened very

carefully; I researched, and then decided that I would go with electricity. Of

course, with the promotion that was on the go, and being a young fellow at the

time, and listening to the promotions of Newfoundland Power, I decided I should

heat my home with electricity.

I had reasons for that, of course. They said it was a clean

source of fuel type of thing and it would be cheaper in the future. You put in

the big long electric radiators. Some people did not like the heat, they thought

it was too dry, and more people liked it, that type of thing. I built my home,

put electricity in the home, and I have been paying the price ever since 1974

for heating my house with electricity.

Now, I am one of the fortunate ones in the Province. Since

1974 I have been generally always employed, and have always had a reasonable

income, I suppose, compared to a lot of people, and I have been able to keep up

with the increase in rates from Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland Light and Power

back at that time. But there are many people in this Province who are not so

fortunate as I have been in being able to make the payments to Newfoundland

Power.

I have had situations since I became an MHA where I had to

contact Newfoundland Power on behalf of people in my district who had their

electricity cut off by Newfoundland Power, and people who were threatened to

have their electricity cut off by Newfoundland Power. I must say, though,

generally speaking, that Newfoundland Power has been very co-operative in this

matter and we usually work out a deal somehow or other. The people who seem to

be getting their power cut off more and more these days are the people on social

assistance. I mentioned that the other day.

Once your electricity is cut off by Newfoundland Power it is

much more difficult to have it hooked up once again. It is easier to work a deal

with Newfoundland Power before they cut the electricity - and I sure a lot of

members in the House of Assembly have had experience with that. Anyway, as I

said, it is easier to work a deal with Newfoundland Power before your

electricity is cut of, rather than have it cut off and then try to work a deal,

because they want so much money up front. I have had people who owed

Newfoundland Power $1,500 to $2,000, who were on social assistance. And you

would go and try to get a deal worked out for those people. Then Social Services

will come and say, well, we allow only so much money; so it gets harder and

harder all the time to get some kind of co-operation with the department. But it

works sometimes.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, the people on social services rolls

are growing and growing all the time - since 1989 from 30,000 up to over 70,000

now. We have stated here in the House before - a lot of members have said it,

and we are getting tired of saying it - it is about time this government started

doing something to create jobs and get people off social assistance. Sometimes I

wonder if there is some kind of plan afoot to actually put as many people on

social assistance as they can and force them out of the Province so we will be

rid of them. That is kind of cruel and cynical, but it is the way I feel

sometimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is shocking.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is shocking - that is right.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Power have a system put in place

which they call Share the Light. I am not quite sure on this figure but I

believe it is $15,000 that Newfoundland Power put into Share the Light last

year. Now, Newfoundland Power last year made $28.7 million profit after they

paid their dividends to the shareholders and had their expenses and maintenance

completed.

Now, maintenance is a point I want to get on to at this time.

I do now know what Newfoundland Power, or Newfoundland Hydro, is doing but every

time we have a little snowstorm, a little windstorm, or a little bit of sleet,

it is getting to the point now where, if you have fog, the electricity goes -

electricity is lost in different areas of the Province at different points in

time, Mr. Speaker. Fog - it is getting to that point now. I don't know what they

are doing with their maintenance.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister for - the Member for Humber

Valley. A Freudian slip, then. I said minister for Humber Valley. I was

expecting the Member for Humber Valley to be in Cabinet over there. I am

wondering when he is going to be in Cabinet. I am sure there will be a few upset

people over there when he does end up in Cabinet. The Member for Humber Valley

said that the light should be gone out here all the time. I don't know why he

would make such a statement but he has his own reasons for that, I suppose.

Anyway, the money that is being spent on maintenance in this

Province by Newfoundland Power is something - it certainly appears, I can't say

for sure - to be, what's the right word? Pathetic, I suppose. Because as I said,

every time we have a small bit of wind, a bit of sleet or a bit of a snowstorm,

we lose electricity, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland Power made $28.7 million last year in profits.

If you take the $15,000 and see the kind of money they put into Share the Light,

if an individual for example, pays $200 a month, say, on average, or $250 a

month to heat his house, general electricity for the house, and heat and light

type of thing, and he gives $5 or $10 a month, well, that is probably what,

five, $200, 2 per cent type of thing. Newfoundland Power made a contribution, I

think, of $15,000. That works out to be 0.0005 of 1 per cent of Light and

Power's profits last year, which is really five ten-thousands of 1 per cent.

That is the kind of money that Newfoundland Power put into Share the Light last

year. And they expect people in the Province to put money into Share the Light.

To me, it shouldn't be `do as I say', it should be `do as I do'. They should be

setting an example and putting in much more money than that, themselves.

Now, as I said earlier, people in this Province are hurting.

I have stood in this House a number of times and said it before and I will say

it again, and I imagine I will continue to say it for a while to come: There are

people in this Province who are hurting. There are people in this Province who

do not know where their next loaf of bread is coming from, where their next

pound of butter is coming from, or their next bag of sugar, type of thing. There

are people hungry out in this Province. And it is not going to help in any way,

shape or form if this rate increase is permitted to go ahead.

Newfoundland Power, as I said, are looking for a 4.9 per cent

increase which I believe is morally wrong at this point in time. The Member for

Conception Bay East and Bell Island was on his feet and he said that the

Consumer Advocate mentioned that it would be anywhere from 5 per cent to 7 per

cent when it works its way through the system. Again, that is just playing with

numbers. Newfoundland Power is playing with numbers. I honestly believe that it

is just morally wrong. It may be legally right or legally correct to do it, to

have the rate increase. The Public Utilities Board may decide that they are

legally justified in getting the rate increase, but I believe personally that it

is morally wrong.

Newfoundland Power, for a number of years, had promoted

conservation in this Province when it came to electricity. We have had ads in

the paper, little pamphlets coming out in the billing envelopes, ads on

television promoting conservation. And people listened to it with the best of

intentions. What happened? Now, we come around and we see Newfoundland Power

trying to nail the people who listened to them in the first place, trying to

nail the people who are conserving energy by putting, maybe, those plastic

sheets up to their windows in wintertime with the tape around the windows, and

get your hair dryer or whatever the thing is, and you heat up the plastic and it

becomes tight. People went out and spent money on that and listened to

Newfoundland Power. People put insulation in their ceilings at extra cost,

people insulated their basement walls over the years, did all kinds of things to

conserve energy, and what do they have now? Newfoundland Power going after those

very people who were trying to save a few bucks.

I know an individual, Mr. Speaker, in Flatrock who was paying

out a lot of money in electricity rates every month. I asked him: `Do you have

your basement floor insulated?' He didn't have a basement but I asked: `Do you

have your floor insulated?' He said, no, he did not. So I asked: `Why don't you

try to get a few bucks together and insulate your floor, it will save you a lot

of money monthly,' and that is what he did. He went out and scraped together a

few bucks, enough to insulate his floor, and he started to save a few dollars.

What do we see now? Newfoundland Power is saying because you did that, now you

are going to pay more, anyway. I think it is absolutely ridiculous!

Then, Newfoundland Power, when the people started to kick up

a fuss about the differential rate increase, they said, Well, maybe what we

should do is come up with a seven-dollar or eight-dollar-a-month across the

board type of thing. Now, that gets me wondering, did they do this deliberately?

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, but since I came in here, I think I have become

pretty cynical. I am saying to myself, well, was this their plan in the first

place? Did they want to get the people upset and then they will back off and

come up with a flat across the board rate increase, Mr. Speaker? That is what we

see this government doing a lot, this very, very same thing. So I am wondering

are they getting their voice from the same people. So we see this government - I

should not say this government, I suppose, because technically they are a new

Administration as of February 22, but when you look at the front benches you

think it is the same government, Mr. Speaker, because they are all the same

faces. So I would say this Administration, in the past, has brought down

budgets, type of thing and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

This Administration has brought down budgets or this -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know you are wonderful, yes. I have to

say one thing to the Government House Leader, I would rather see him sit there

than the guy previous to him, I have to tell him that. It is nice to see him

promoted, it was long overdue.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: And the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology confirms and he agrees with me himself that he would rather see the

member -

MR. FUREY: If you are starting to get nasty about my

former colleague I am going to withdraw leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not getting nasty. I saw you up the

other day going around - you were up in Opposition offices the other day with

the former Government House Leader and -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I would not do that.

Anyway this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I know the

tactics of the people opposite, Mr. Speaker, trying to get me to digress from

this very serious issue that we are dealing with here today.

The Member for Kilbride put forward this resolution and some

very serious concerns. Basically, what the bottom line is from my perspective -

I had all kinds of notes here, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to get into but my

time is up, so I won't abuse the leave of the members opposite. But the bottom

line on this is very simply put: there are people in this Province who cannot

afford to pay this 4.9 per cent rate increase, which is anywhere from 5 per cent

to 7 per cent, in actual fact. They cannot afford it. People today are having

less disposable income over the past eight or ten years, Mr. Speaker, and they

cannot afford it. If they are going to pay more for electricity and not have

their electricity cut off they are going to be taking away from food on the

table, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and other very important services that

they require in their families.

So the bottom line for me is this: I believe the Premier

stated today that the Member for Kilbride wanted the government to basically

overturn any rulings that the PUB may make. That is not accurate and it is not a

fair comment for the Premier to make. All we are saying and asking for - and I

think most members in this House would ask for - is that the government make a

presentation themselves. From my perspective they made presentations before to

commissions, on the Boundary Commission, and they should make a presentation to

the Public Utilities Board that they believe whatever they believe. If they

believe in a rate increase, sobeit. If they believe that they should not have a

rate increase well, then, make that presentation, but at least let the people

know in the Province where they stand on this, not appoint - I mean it is a good

idea that they appointed a Consumer Advocate, sobeit, and they can make the case

for the consumer, but the government itself should be up front and say where

they stand on this issue and that, basically, is all I am asking at this point

in time. With that, thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few

words on this particular motion put forward by the Member for Kilbride. A very

good motion, Mr. Speaker, a very good and timely resolution, one that I would

submit that, if there was a referendum held in the Province today, I would say

it would be a landslide, 99.99 per cent and the only vote that would be against

it would probably be the shareholders in Fortis or Newfoundland Power. Those are

the only people who would vote against this particular resolution, those are the

only people in this Province who would have anything negative or anything

positive I should say, to say about this particular resolution or an increase.

The same goes, Mr. Speaker, for all the other utilities really. Up until a few

years ago, the phone companies in this Province used to have to go to the PUB,

now they go to the CRTC, a little different. Newfoundland Hydro, Newfoundland

Power still go to the PUB for increases.

The PUB has been there for some time, Mr. Speaker, and one of

the things that I would like to say before I go any further is that, I don't

think there has been any changes or amendments or anything else made as it

pertains to the PUB since 1950. My recollection over my eleven years in this

House is that there has been none since and I don't think there has been any

previous to that, maybe some slight amendments to the act but nothing

substantial, nothing that would say to them or give them the powers that they

should have, as far as I am concerned, over and above what they have today.

I was astounded, Mr. Speaker, last year when I went to have a

talk to the PUB concerning No Fault Insurance in the Province, with a couple of

my colleagues. I asked them the question: what information do they get from the

insurance companies before they make their submissions, before the PUB make

their rulings as it pertains to insurance, and asked them if they get specific

information with regards to profits and losses and so on. No, we can't get it.

So, what do they do? They have actuarials done. The companies have actuarials

done by the actuarial people, have their accountants look at it, have their

corporate lawyers look at it and what do the consumer have? Absolutely nothing.

The board, to their credit at that time, had an actuarial

done by a US firm -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, very familiar - they based their

studies on trends in the insurance industry in the Province. Now, there was no

trouble to do that, anybody in this Province today who is in business or have

anything to do with insurance companies or had anything to do with running your

household could have done that. All they had to do is look back over their bills

for the last eight or ten years and tell the difference, and that is what it was

whether it was an increase in straight insurance rates or whether it was an

increase in just liability insurance. I don't want to get on to that subject,

Mr. Speaker, because that could take some time as well according to some of the

submissions I am getting from my constituents with regard to the increases in

liability rates of the last two or three months.

Coming back to this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland Power and other members have stated here today already, that in the

past and especially as this past winter has been on television and in the

papers, no matter what station you turn to, talking about switching to

electricity versus oil. Now, the people of the Province, if this increase is

granted, are about to pay a heavy price if they did just that and even if they

didn't, they are still about to pay a heavier price. Whether it is 4.9, whether

it is 1.9, one, five, six, seven, regardless of what it is, they are paying an

extra burden, Mr. Speaker, which they cannot afford at this time.

What other company in this Province has a monopoly on

something and especially a company that is guaranteed a 13.5 per cent rate of

return to its shareholders, that is into real estate, that is into the

generation of electricity, that is into the distribution of electricity? A

necessity. You know, it is up to yourself whether you go for a holiday or

whether you buy a new car this year or next year. We are talking, Mr. Speaker,

about a necessity of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and now we are

about to pay an extra price for it.

Usually, as the Member for Kilbride said, over the past

twenty years every time it goes it gets its increase. It usually knows what to

ask for. If it wants 5 per cent it will ask for 13 per cent. If it wants 1 per

cent it will probably ask for 2 per cent, or 2.5 per cent. This time it asked

for 4.9 per cent, and I would submit it is looking for probably around 2 per

cent or 2.5 per cent to be approved, to cover its costs and everything else.

What other company in this Province, what small business in

this Province today, can go out and ask the people in their constituencies, ask

the people in their communities, or tell them: Come in, we will give you a loan

to insulate your windows, we will give you a loan to insulate your home, we will

give you a loan to do this at fairly low rates. But at the same time come back

and ask for an increase to cover the cost of all this financing. Because that is

what it is all about.

How stunned do they think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

are? We were so-called sucked in and suckers for long enough. It is about time

the people in this Province took the bull by the horns, through their members in

this Chamber and through anybody else who has an interest in it, to do something

about this particular increase, and increases. Because I submit this is not the

end of it all.

I would say that over the next while one of the things that

would have to be looked at would be the act itself which governs the PUB. We can

intervene all we like. I can intervene, members opposite can intervene, we can

have consumer advocates intervene. We did this before when there was a different

political stripe in power in this Province, intervene on behalf of the consumers

in this Province through the Federation of Municipalities, but it still got its

increases. What did we do then? I asked members opposite and I asked other

people around this Province about the PUB. We did absolutely nothing. We

intervened, politicians intervened, everybody else intervened: we did absolutely

nothing. When it went for its rates it got usually a percentage of what it went

for.

I ask today to people who criticize the PUB, and I'm one of

them: What really is the answer to this particular problem in the Province

today? I questioned it before and I question it today. Why should a company

which has all kinds of holdings - and I'm certainly not against profits; profit

is not a dirty word with me, but there is a limit - why should something like

that be guaranteed a 13.5 per cent return to its shareholders and be able to

come back and ask for an increase on the backs of the consumers of this Province

when they are just making ends meet? They have a job to put food on the table.

Just before I came to the House today I had a letter from a

Salvation Army officer in Deer Lake about three calls people had just yesterday,

their electricity had been cut off. They cut off their electricity. They are on

social services. There is no compassion, there is absolutely none. Every now and

again you will call, and if an individual can come in, in three or four days

with something, a substantial amount towards the bill owed, they won't cut him

off. But it doesn't seem to matter whether it is February, July, whether it is a

snowstorm or whether it is fifty below, when they say they are going to cut off

they are going to cut off. That to me says something for the corporation itself.

Now, granted, just like everything else, we have certain

people, I suppose, who could very well pay and are probably not, who are

supposed to pay $50 at a certain date and are not doing it, which makes it bad

for the other person who is making a real effort to do something - we have that

in everything - but they should not all be put into the one pot. They should be

given some courtesy. They should be given a chance, especially in the winter

months in this Province, to pay their bills and to do what they do, what

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians always did, and that is to be up front and

honest; and, like I said, we have a few who do otherwise. The rate payers of

this Province - I didn't say taxpayers; I say the rate payers - the rate payers

of this Province, as far as I am concerned, should be afforded a little more

courtesy.

I said before that we can have interveners go up, we can have

every member on this side, and every member on that side, forty-eight members,

go up to that room, all at one time, and make a submission, and we could have

one person stand on behalf of the forty-eight members in the House of Assembly,

and I would say that it won't make a bit of difference at the end of the day

when they deliberate to see exactly what percentage Newfoundland Power will get

- not one bit - because those people have their homework done in more ways than

one.

I sat there before when they waltz into the room. We would

walk in, representing communities in this Province, we would walk in with our

so-called homework done with the people and the resources that we had, and in

they walked with their corporate lawyers and their accountants, I suppose the

highest in the country - not in the Province, in the country - and what chance

did you have? You talk about an increase, you talk about profits, you talk about

small communities; they didn't know but it was fit to eat. They knew one thing,

and one thing only, and that was bottom lines and bottom lines as they pertained

to profits and bottom lines as they pertained to extreme and very generous

profits.

The question I asked earlier about: How are we going to

approach it? What are we going to do about it, besides appointing a consumer rep

to intervene and try to get across the point that every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian out there is saying today, to try to get across the point that we

just cannot take any more - we just cannot take any more - especially in those

times when everything is so expensive, everything is going up. We always seem -

like, for instance, now there is Newfoundland Power, or Fortis. Then we look at,

just a few weeks ago, or late last fall, the profits by the banks. We look at

just the first quarter profits from the banks in this country just a few days

ago, and where are they? You walk into the bank for a loan today, just a term

loan or something, anything to do with small business - walk in for a term loan

to pay your light bill and you will see what kind of a look you will get. In

through this door and out through that one. If your bill is $1,000, give me

$5,000 worth of collateral and we will sign, no problem. Put up your house worth

$100,000 and we will give you the $1,000 to pay your light bill. That is the way

it is done. They are guaranteed; they cannot lose.

Everywhere we turn today, when you are looking at those large

institutions that we have to use - we have to use - except for every now and

again we hear tell of a few people around the Province, I suppose, who tried to

keep their little bit of money home. We just heard and saw an example last week

here in this town - it was sad - a lady just burned to death down here in a

house using a wood stove, but clutching $25,000 or $26,000 in cash. It is sad

when we look at those things, and one of the reasons, God knows, might be that

she figured she just could not afford to turn up her electric heat - she

probably didn't even have it - but she did get her little bit of wood, I

suppose, to use her wood stove and so on, but look at the sad, sad irony in it

all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with those few short comments

I would just like to end by asking members opposite and all members: what else

do we do beside use the PU Board and an intervener? What is the other answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: I told you.

MR. WOODFORD: Well the hon. member said he told me. I

would like to just clarify something now that the hon. member said - he

mentioned about the fog. He said the electricity is out for everything those

days, including fog. I said: Well then, Mr. Speaker, it should always be out

here. And I was referring to the Avalon Peninsula when it comes to fog. So I

would just like to clarify that with the member before I sit down but, Mr.

Speaker, there is no easy answer with this. Regardless of what members say there

is no easy answer. I would just say that I am just as concerned as members

opposite or anyone else in this Province when it comes to increases in lights,

telephones, anything that has to do with how a person tries to survive in this

Province today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in support of the motion. I come from a district

where a lot of people cut firewood almost on a daily basis, especially during

the winter months. Most of these homes are heated by wood. A lot of them have

wood and oil stoves and there is a great deal of it that goes on in my district

from Long Pond right through to Holyrood. I think it is ludicrous for

Newfoundland Power to be back again looking for another rate increase.

I read with some interest a brochure that Newfoundland Light

and Power have put out which says; `Important customer information on proposed

increase in electricity rates.' It is very interesting to read some of the

points in here as it relates to why they should have an increase. I won't go

through them all, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly touch on some of them. They

talk about they have to pay more income tax, they talk about depreciation and

they talk about finance charges. I guess probably at this time, from a finance

point of view, finance charges in this Province or probably with the banks with

the exorbitant profits they make is probably one of the lowest times that

interest rates have been for may be some time.

They talk about, `How will this increase affect the

electrical bill?' They go on to say if you pay sixty dollars a month it will

only cost you another eight dollars a month but, Mr. Speaker, during the month

of February, when I covered most of my district, I found an awful lot of people

who could not afford that eight dollars a month. I found a lot of people on

social assistance, fixed income and a lot of people who were living on

unemployment insurance. A lot of these people certainly could not afford to pay

any increase to Newfoundland Power at all. It galls me no end to know that they

have made $27-plus millions in profits and they are back again looking for more.

They even go so far in their brochure to say that really what

they want to do is punish rural Newfoundland. In their brochure as it relates to

their proposed information on why they want increases they talk about: Is it

true that part of my electrical bill goes to pay Newfoundland Hydro's rural

customers?' Of course they answer yes. Then they go on to talk about the

millions of dollars that they spend because of rural Newfoundland and I think,

Mr. Speaker, that this is an utter disgrace. We have enough trouble in rural

Newfoundland now. Some of the problems, hopefully, over the next two to four

years, this House is going to be able to cure. Newfoundland Power customers pay

$24 million they say to subsidize Hydro to rural customers. This subsidy is in

effect a tax so they are back again crying that they now have another tax added

on to them. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, they are not taxed enough.

So I think it is time that the PU Board gave this crowd

nothing. I think maybe it is time that this hon. House looked at changing the

rules as they relate to the Public Utilities Board to see what we can do to

maybe have things such as power rates come back before this House. Maybe this is

where the final decision could be made.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it galls me no end to know that it has a

monopoly and it can pretty well do what it likes to all of us. From a small

business background where I come from this increase is devastating, and it is

devastating to a lot of small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It goes on to say that it won't increase its profits. If it

doesn't increase its profits what does it want the increase for? What is it

going to do with the money? It has talked about how it has laid off people, it

has talked about how it has down sized. My friend across the way mentioned a few

minutes ago about power rates. There is a

section in my district sir, in

Kelligrews, that every time the wind blows at all the power is gone. Not only do

the businesses but the residents of that area suffer a great deal because of no

electricity.

I think it is time that some part of this House took the PUB

to task. I don't think that this crowd should get anything. I don't think they

should get 1 per cent, I don't think they should get a half a per cent. I think

it is time we looked at the PUB, the rules and regulations that regulate the

PUB, and maybe it is time that we put something in place to put a stop to this.

I remember one time calling the PUB about a rate increase and about - not

necessarily a rate increase, but something that would affect some business that

I was involved in at the time. I finally ended up by saying: I didn't really

believe that we lived in Russia. No matter what way you turned or no matter what

you tried to do as a small business person in this Province, these guys had you.

There was absolutely nothing you could do, these fellows had you.

I think it is time we stopped this. There is a gentleman from

my district who is out right now circulating petitions all over this Province,

from Labrador right to Conception Bay South and into the city. These will be

presented by him and myself at a hearing of the Public Utilities Board, and I

hope in the near future maybe in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will close to say that I think it

is ludicrous again that these people are looking for an increase, and I think

that the PUB should turn them down.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: They were very successful actually, to the

hon. member. One of only two Newfoundland teams to become Canadian champions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you the coach (inaudible)?

MR. RAMSAY: The answer is, no, I was president of the

organization. We ran a half million dollar semi-pro hockey team on the side, if

you wanted to look at (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak to this resolution and the

amendment put forward by the hon. member formerly of Mount Scio - Bell Island,

now the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. The hon. Member for Humber

Valley did say, and it was interesting, it was a point about what do we do if we

want to uphold the process that we have in place and hold up the credibility of

the process of the Public Utilities Board as a means by which the utilities in

this Province can seek rate increases and what have you. If we want to hold that

up - and it seems there is an agreement on the other side along with us here in

government that that process has to remain. Maybe it needs to be modernized

somewhat, maybe the support that we offer through consumer advocacy by legal

counsel or others has to be improved somewhat, to make sure that the public's

interests are well represented before this body.

The other thing we have to look at is what exactly is it that

we are discussing? We are discussing the fact I think that the average person

does not want to see an increase in his or her electricity rates. On that basis

the issue becomes one of emotion. It becomes one where people who are having a

difficult time economically want to be assured that any increase in rates is a

necessary increase in rates. They would prefer to see that Newfoundland Power

and the profits made thereon, because of the monopoly that it does have and the

guaranteed rate of return, are in fact for the right reasons.

Who can say what the right reasons are? The regulatory regime

and the legislation that allows utilities to operate in the way that they do in

this Province is a matter of fact. It has evolved to a point where Newfoundland

Power, or Newfoundland Light and Power as it was one time called, now have a

parent corporation called Fortis Corporation, or Fortis, Incorporated, and

Fortis acts as the agency which utilizes the profits made over and above any

amount that is required to pay the shareholders of Newfoundland Power in the

bonds and the shares that are held in the marketplace.

Based on that situation, any excess of profit goes to Fortis

Corporation, so looking at Fortis Corporation it is a good locally run company

that has utilized the money that has been made available to it, and as a result,

no doubt, because of this monopoly that has been had, through the process of

government regulation, Fortis has been a good steward, I suppose, as far as

their involvement in the community, their involvement in the Newfoundland and

Labrador business community, investing in local enterprise, investing sometimes

in things that did not work out that well, but in a lot of cases investing in a

way that made good money and good sense for the shareholders.

These are the efforts that company has been allowed to

undertake as a result of the regime that we have in this Province with respect

to regulation and legislation. Now, that is one way of doing it, I suppose, but

what is another way, what are the other answers, how do we see that we can do

better things for the consumers of this Province, the electricity consumers? One

possibility is a total deregulation of the electricity sector, and another would

be a partial deregulation. You could deregulate it so that there would be

competition, competition for the consumer's electricity contract. That is now

seeing the light of day as far as another side of the utilities spectrum goes in

Canada, and that is the telecommunications side.

We have telephone companies competing for long-distance, a

regulated marketplace but there is now competition allowed in the long-distance

sector. Soon, we will see competition in the area of local phone service. It is

just a matter of time before that kind of thing happens, and with the

preponderance of wireless communication for cellular phones, wireless for other

means, basically your regular telephone service will eventually become almost

certainly a wireless system, and on that basis we will see a total deregulation

of local phone services.

It only goes for us to think that eventually we will work

towards a deregulated and a competitive marketplace for electrical services.

This monopoly will not last forever, nor should it. The monopoly is there

initially to protect the people of the Province by making sure that the

electrical service is there to service the customer, and that protection allows

them to operate and allows the overall operation of the electrical utilities to

provide benefit for the people of the Province.

Do we allow competition? I think competition would be a

tremendous thing. Eventually you would have the low cost producers, which is the

hallmark of a piece of legislation passed here last year, that low cost producer

is the one who will be chosen to provide new electricity sources for the benefit

of the people of the Province, so that low cost producer aspect of the

legislation should eventually work its way into what the consumer can demand.

In the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of

years, since the advent of Margaret Thatcher's changes to the systems over

there; we have an evolution of the electricity sector in the United Kingdom

which has seen a complete competition for electricity in the marketplace.

MR. EFFORD: Did you know Margaret Thatcher was a Tory?

MR. RAMSAY: She was, yes, but she had some good ideas.

MR. EFFORD: I don't know.

MR. RAMSAY: You see, the only opposition over here is

from within, as you can see.

Anyway, as the hon. member points out it was a Tory

government over there which was very outstanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good government.

MR. RAMSAY: I do not know about good government. They

have their problems to deal with over there now, and they are dealing with their

cattle problems and everything as well, the mad cow disease and that.

If you have a marketplace for the production of electricity

and you make it similar to a commodities market, if you compare it to the

commodities market that exists in the United States for example, and if we see

electricity as a commodity that the people of this Province have to consume, the

commodities of food, the different commodities and the futures that are traded

on the open marketplace, eventually, if electricity is allowed to be traded off

that way, we would I would hope - now maybe the Newfoundland market is too

small.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well, there you go, that is another aspect of

it. The Lower Churchill, I had a meeting recently -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Upper Churchill.

MR. RAMSAY: - or the Upper Churchill, but also the Lower

Churchill. What you will see eventually in the United States because of the

deregulation of the electrical industry down there, and I have this from good

sources - I don't profess to be an expert on it myself - but is a complete

deregulation of it so that it is an open-market system where the low-cost power

will see the light of day. Only that low-cost producer will be the one able to

sell.

The Lower Churchill, if we manage to get the Lower Churchill

on line, there are companies that will buy that power no matter what the cost

because it still ends up being cheaper than the actual electricity that is being

generated by generation plant, oil-fired or coal-fired generation plant in the

Eastern Seaboard of the United States. We could sell every bit of that Lower

Churchill power down there at a lower cost than the actual power that is being

produced there at this point in time, so there is ultimately a reason if you can

get the power through Quebec at all, for the creation of the Lower Churchill

Hydro dam, and likewise with the Upper Churchill.

All of this power is just able to be sold at a lower price

and what I am coming around to, actually, Mr. Speaker, is that, if we allow

competition, if we allow the small hydro plants that have been suggested, the

Star Lakes of the Province that have been suggested as a good position put

forward. Another one would be the co-generation of electricity by Abitibi-Price

in Stephenville using peat as a power source. If you allow these to come on line

and the avoided cost prices as low or lower than the existing, eventually that

should pass on to the consumer an improvement in electrical rates as long as

there is no problem with the delivery of it.

Now, if you look at why are Newfoundland Power and Fortis as,

I suppose together, looking for this specific rate increase. They maintain a

number of reasons why; they say taxes is the main reason. They have said that

most of the extra money is going to pay taxes and it was a good point made by a

member of the opposition who stated that: well if it is not going to contribute

to the bottom line, why ask for it? So you can say that any specific amount of

increased revenue is going to pay for any specific part of your overall bottom

line, then that allows you to free up money for profit somewhere else. You know,

it is just a matter of being I suppose, crafty with your figures, your

statistical analysis of why you are offering these different reasons to the

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities.

So, Mr. Speaker, speaking about the actual amendment that has

been made here, the government at this stage, has supported the hiring of a

Consumer Advocate who will take the case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: - who will hire the necessary experts and I

submit that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi - it depends on who you

talk to - but that hon. member will not be consulted as an expert so I don't

fear for the necessity of having him make his comments on this particular issue.

But the experts will be sought and we have to make sure that the arguments

against the increase are equally well researched to the expertise that is hired

and sought by Newfoundland Power in this application before the Public Utilities

Board, and on behalf of the people of the Province, the government must support

this process to assure the people of the Province that it is done fairly and

maybe we have to take a look in the future at a deregulation of the electrical

marketplace somehow or other, to see to it that the competition - Maybe someone

knows how to do this easier, maybe one of these days electricity won't be

carried on poles, who knows?

When the electrical companies were first coming into play

here in Newfoundland and Labrador there was a fear that they were going to put

all the candle makers and the kerosene lamp makers out of business and that

wasn't too long ago, that was within this century. So, looking at that, that

fear is there; maybe electricity will be generated through the air. It seems

like a funny thing right now, but we send radio and telegraph signals through

the air; so, therefore, why not think that eventually electricity may be

generated in some other means than by wire, and it will throw the whole process

up for review, and the idea of monopolies in the delivery of this service will

be a thing of the past, I would think.

With that I will sit down and allow a member of the

Opposition to have a say. Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond briefly to this very important issue

that we are debating here in the House this afternoon. I feel that some of the

history is relevant, and from that point of view, I would like to discuss some

of the history leading to why this motion, and indeed the amendment to the

motion, is being discussed by hon. members on both sides of the House.

This matter originated in an application of the company to

the Public Utilities Board to fix and determine the rate base, to determine a

just and reasonable return, to determine any rates of depreciation, to approve a

revised

schedule of rates, tolls and charges, and to approve any revisions to

the rules and the regulations. So that, indeed, was the original application

before the board as set forward by the company in the hopes of obviously having

the requested increase take place.

Mr. Speaker, on an order of March 8, 1996, a Consumer

Advocate was appointed, by the name of Mr. Dennis Browne. He was appointed by

government to obviously represent consumers' concerns, and to represent the

various points of view at the hearing.

It is interesting to note, and I would like to point out

briefly, what the role is of a Consumer Advocate. A Consumer Advocate is defined

as follows: `A person who represents the interests of consumers in relation to

services provided by public utilities in this Province'; secondly, `to review,

investigate, and make any appropriate recommendations to the board with respect

to...' And it is interesting to note that the definition of a Consumer Advocate

in what the role or definition of the Consumer Advocate is, addresses the very

issues that were put to the Public Utilities Board by the company.

What is the role of a Consumer Advocate? `To review,

investigate, and recommend to the board with respect to the reasonableness of

rates, the reasonableness and adequacy of the services furnished with respect to

any proposal by any public utility to reduce or abandon service to the public,

to review, investigate, with respect to mergers and consolidations of public

utilities.'

So, clearly, this is the mandate of the Consumer Advocate, to

represent the public, to represent the very issues when, in fact, when you

analyze today what is being said by members on both sides of this House, to make

representations to the board of the very things that we are saying here in this

Chamber this afternoon.

To continue with the history of this matter, this same

Consumer Advocate who was appointed felt that he had inadequate information to

deal appropriately with the issues and questions that have been raised on behalf

of the public of this Province. So, what does this Consumer Advocate do? Quite

appropriately, he brings an application to the board for the production of

documentation and information which would assist this person in dealing with the

representations before him.

Now, there is a list available, and I certainly do not intend

to through the list of all the information that was requested by the Consumer

Advocate. However, I will mention just a few of them.

This Consumer Advocate requested of the Board that all

application material and related documentation by Newfoundland Power be

forthcoming. This Consumer Advocate requested of the Board any documentation

relating to the described new initiative of the power company with respect to

the reduction of cost as implemented in mid-1995. This same Consumer Advocate

requested of the Board any documentation relating to the most recently conducted

Dominion Bond Rating report on the power company's bond rating; requested a new

depreciation study and any/all related documentation; requested the power

company's commissioned study on mark-up percentages on related party

transactions and all related documentation.

This individual appointed by government, the Consumer

Advocate, requested much more - requested all reports, memoranda, opinions,

documents, directions, notes, necessary in the opinion of this Consumer Advocate

to conduct a proper and thorough investigation. In addition, the Consumer

Advocate requested detailed financial reports on environmental costs for 1994 to

the present; financial reports on increase in communication costs; financial

reports on all remuneration earned by senior management; all draft reports, all

relevant memoranda and information.

The list goes on and on. I have only repeated approximately

one-half of what the Consumer Advocate, again in the interest of

Newfoundlanders, put to the Board as being essential information to conduct a

proper examination of the issues.

To continue with the history: The Board, on March 22, 1996,

last Friday, made its decision, and amongst other things in its final statement

said the following: The application for order for production of documents made

by the Consumer Advocate is hereby denied. So this Consumer Advocate, in an

effort to put forward to the people of this Province the issues important to the

people of this Province, in seeking all of the information relevant to this

issue, in putting forward this application to the Board - the application is

denied and turned down.

Thought is therefore being given by the Consumer Advocate to

put before the Court of Appeal, the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of

this Province, an appeal of this very decision. It is my understanding that

decision has not been finalized; however, a news release as referred to earlier

by my colleague, the Member for the District of Kilbride, in that same news

release it was being considered that the appeal of this Board would be put to

the Court of Appeal of this Province. As indicated, I am not sure if there has

been a finalization of that decision.

We now come to the amendment to the resolution we are

discussing here this afternoon. Although, in my own personal view, there is a

slight deviation in the spirit of the original motion and the subsequent

amendment, nevertheless, I can live with the amendment. Because I feel the

amendment gives to the people of this Province a commitment to use its ultimate

authority and influence in assisting this Consumer Advocate, to whom I just

referred, in carrying out his role, his prerogative on behalf of the people of

this Province. Let me just read from the amendment;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador ensure that the recently appointed Consumer Advocate use every

possible means to bring the concerns of the consumer to bear and be reflected in

any decision forthcoming from the board on the rate application by Newfoundland

Power.

The key words here, Mr. Speaker, `Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador.' It shows the source, it shows the authority. The next word,

`ensure' and that to me, as a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, gives me some

assurance that the Government will indeed ensure that the appointed Consumer

Advocate be able to perform his role sufficiently on behalf of the opinions that

have been expressed by the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It can be done briefly in the following way; by allowing

publicity, by allowing legal services, Mr. Speaker, by allowing the Consumer

Advocate to have the necessary and essential resource personnel, by allowing the

Consumer Advocate to have adequate office space to ensure there is an

opportunity for this individual to have adequate public consultation and the

space provided to do that, as I indicated, research and resource personnel to

ensure that government intervenes in any legal hearings and proceedings,

including any court proceedings and the -

MR. SPEAKER: If I may correct this, the hon. member's

time is not up until 4:20. I had made the comment in error. The Chair

apologizes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I see, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: However, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will be pleased to know that I am at an

end. I will just conclude simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment does

not trouble me. I feel comforted by the fact that the wording of the amendment

is such that we can put our faith in the hon. members opposite so that the

assurance is given to all of the people of this Province, that the tools, the

individuals, the resources, the personnel, the funding is in place to give the

necessary ability to this Consumer Advocate to do his work properly and

thoroughly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am going to be taking my time. I will

totally ignore any calls from the other side. I am going to pretend there are no

Tories opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take what time is allotted me in this

hon. House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We don't have a whip. I am going to use the

time allotted to me to be able to speak to the motion and to the amendment put

forth by my good friend and colleague from Mount Scio - Bell Island -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Conception Bay East & Bell Island now, it is

changed is it? Conception Bay East, I cannot keep up with the changes.

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by my colleague over on

the other side of the House - which I said I was not going to mention - I read

it over with great interest. I guess if you look at it from a consumer point of

view you cannot argue with the intent of what the members opposite want to

accomplish. Any burden placed on individuals in this Province now, with the

lower income, we all have to be deeply concerned about it.

I know my experience of living in rural Newfoundland gives me

the level of understand from the incomes of people in rural Newfoundland who

have to depend on a heating system in the form of electricity or I guess, we

take it beyond that to oil or to coal, some coal, in fact I burnt some coal

myself this winter and some wood, but no matter what the form of heat that you

use in your House, the level of income that great numbers of people have to live

within our Province, gives them not much opportunities or leeway where they

spend that money. The greater portion of their income goes into heat and the

little bit of food that they can buy from the income that they get, and I am

talking in particular about the low-income people, the working poor as referred

to in many instances, those people on the minimum wage.

I think we could say very clearly that those people are

disadvantaged more than even the people on social services and we know full well

that the people on social services, with their amount of income, they don't have

many luxuries that they can purchase with the amount of money that is available,

and we have to understand under today's economic conditions in this country of

ours, there is not a whole lot of choice in being able to supply or to give

enough funding that they could sustain the type of environment or the type of

livelihood that most of us would like to see them on. We are all not capable of

earning higher wages, we are, through different circumstances and our own

abilities, our disabilities or whatever they may be, reduced to a