March 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday

the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Mines and Energy for the

names of companies who are engaged as underwriters to handle the sale of Hydro

shares, now the minister replied that government had not yet finalized the

syndicate to handle the sale of shares. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Justice told the House that the underwriters had retained as their lawyers,

White, Ottenheimer and Baker who in turn retained the firm of Osler, Hoskins in

Toronto. Now, Mr. Speaker, the underwriters of lawyers, there must be

underwriters. So I ask the minister again, who are the underwriters who will

handle the sale of Hydro? When he answers, will the minister tell the House if

any of the Rothschild Companies are or will be associated in any way with the

underwriters underwriting the sale of Hydro shares?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, our advisors, our underwriters

advising us on this sale are RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod. These are

our key advisors who've helped us with the analysis work. They have lawyers and

they will be a major part of the privatization, assuming it goes forward as we

are proposing. They will not handle all this themselves, they will be the

leaders, the lead-underwriters. They will be putting together, as is normal with

any privatization of this nature, a syndicate of firms. I don't know what firms

will be on that, probably every firm that's resident in Newfoundland and others

will be on that syndicate but RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod are going

to be the leaders on it. Rothschild's are not going to be part of that

syndicate. They are not part of the selling syndicate. We have Rothschild's as

independent advisors to us reviewing what is being done for us by our

underwriters.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister didn't

know who the underwriters were going to be, today he can tell us who two of them

are but he can't tell us who the rest are going to be, Mr. Speaker. Why is the

minister covering up some aspect of this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Is it government's plan to have the

underwriters buy new Hydro lock, stock and barrel from the Province for a lump

sum payment, I ask the minister? Won't the underwriters in effect be the owners

of Hydro at the time Hydro shares go to market? Will the underwriters not be the

owners?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously

confused about the process here, totally, totally confused about the process and

I don't have to give him a list of the names of all the investment firms in St.

John's or elsewhere in Canada.

I talked just this morning to the chairman of the investment

dealers group, the investment council right here in the Province and talked

about the process. We are going to be having some detailed meeting with them as

we get further along in the process. They will all be on the list, I'm sure. I

expect they will all be on the list. Lead underwriters, we've said for months

that we've been using RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod as our lead

advisors, and they will continue to be our lead advisors.

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

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister

is wouldn't he confirm that the underwriters will in effect be the owners of

Hydro at the time Hydro shares go to market. That is the question I asked him.

Would the underwriters be the owners at that period in time? The fact is that

the minister has confirmed two of the underwriters. There is no doubt he knows

who all of the people participating will be.

You are already negotiating a price for the sale of Hydro

with these underwriters. It is clear to everyone now that the minister has been

hiding from the people, just as you've tried to hide everything else in this

shameful deal. Will the minister confirm that the Province will get $500 million

for Hydro from the underwriters, less than a quarter of the market value of

Hydro assets and businesses?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the price that we get will be

set by the market at the time the deal is done. When it is the most opportune

time we would hope that we will be going forward with the deal for the maximum

dollars that we can get. It is not for me to speculate on the number of dollars

that we will get for this and the details of how it will be done, but it will be

done to maximum benefit for the people of this Province.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Mines and Energy has told us a little bit about process. Let me ask the Minister

of Finance, who will ultimately be responsible for this, if and when this bill

goes through the House - and the conversation thus far presumes that the bill is

going to go through the House. Let's assume for a moment that it will. Let me

ask the minister: Has either the Province or Hydro or the investment brokers or

the underwriters who will be dealing with this issued a prospectus, either a

preliminary prospectus or a final prospectus for the sale of the new Hydro

shares?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if and when this bill goes

through the House and when we get in a position where we feel it is an opportune

time, at that point in time the prospectus is issued. The hon. member knows the

process. There has been no prospectus issued, preliminary or otherwise.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.

Would the minister like to tell us then why investment dealers are out today

selling shares in new Hydro? Calling prospective clients, offering them shares,

quoting them prices. Basically pre-selling. Now, there is nothing wrong with

that if it is being done on pure speculation by those investment dealers. The

question is, is it pure speculation, or do they have a preliminaries prospectus

or a copy of the final prospectus, or other insider information? That's the

question.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, they have no such thing

because it is not released. It is just not done. I would like to point out to

the hon. member that there has been discussion for quite some time now, for

many, many, months, about the privatization of Hydro. I can't account for

tactics of investment dealers. I suppose - and this is the first I heard of it

from hon. member, but if they are doing that I suppose they are calling their

normal clients and saying, if it is offered on the market would you want some of

the shares? They cannot sell shares because the shares don't exist at this point

in time. There may be investment dealers out there calling their normal clients

and saying, if it is offered would you like to buy some? But there is no price,

no shares have been offered, no prospectus. We have not gone to the market and

that is simply the situation.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that

they are selling, that they are quoting a price, and they are saying they can

guarantee blocks of shares to prospective buyers when the sale starts moving.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice a

question, Mr Speaker, I would ring his bell, but I want to deal with the

Minister of Finance at the moment.

Would the minister tell us, is there any possibility that

these firms have some insider information? If not, what they are doing is

unethical, if not illegal, and would the minister start an investigation into

that immediately and will they put a halt to this prospective sale until we see

the results of such an investigation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I say unequivocally that if there

is an investment dealer out there who is actually in the process of selling

shares and quoting prices, then he is not selling Hydro shares and no price has

been set. If that is happening then it is a very, very unusual thing, and I

suggest to the hon. member, if he has the information - and all I have is his

word - would he please either let me have the information and I will investigate

it, or would he, himself, contact the Securities Commission to lodge a

complaint?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask

the minister if the revised architectural drawings to renovate the old

section

of Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista to accommodate Level 2 and Level 3 care

residents have been approved by his department?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, all things will be revealed in

due course.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is an amount of $1.5

million carried forward from the last Budget to do those renovations. I would

like to ask the minister today if he would commit that amount of money to be

carried forward from the Budget we are about to hear tomorrow, to carry out this

much-needed work in Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a final

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is not new money and I

think we deserve an answer. This money was brought forward from the 1993-1994

Budget and I would like to ask the minister again, if he would commit that that

money would be brought forward from this year to next year's Budget?

MR. TOBIN: Stand up (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member

would realize that what he was asking was impossible to answer because the

Budget has not yet been presented. I suppose, being a new member, certain things

can be overlooked, but he should certainly know that I am not about to reveal

budgetary knowledge at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I would like to direct my question to the Minister of

Environment and Lands.

I have in my possession a copy of a paper the minister

presented to Cabinet on the controversy surrounding the ATV regulations. The

paper is titled: Issues Raised During Public Meetings. Since I am unable

to table the document here I have arranged to distribute copies to the press.

The minister identified eighteen major problems with the

regulations; I can't raise them all but let me ask the minister in relation to

issue 2, `Retrieval of Kill'. Will the government concede to the request of

hunters and allow the use of ATVs to retrieve kill from the wetland?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to

be discussing Cabinet documents in the House. If he would like to ask me what

changes were made in Cabinet, those are public now and I can reveal those but I

will not respond to questions regarding a Cabinet paper.

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

Extern.

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

With respect to the Cabinet paper, issue 13, admits that

considerable work is required to identify wetlands and to route and plot

licensed trails. How can these regulations be enforced before the work is done?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a word he said,

quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: The same question, Mr. Speaker.

Issue 13, admits that considerable work is required to

identify wetlands and to route and plot licensed trails. How can these

regulations be enforced before that work is done?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Very, very easily - very, very easily, Mr.

Speaker, and I am sick and tired of that crowd over there who begged me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

MS. COWAN: Alright, the hon. gentlemen and the hon. lady

across the way.

In particular, the hon. the Member for Humber East last year

pressed me constantly to get these regulations in place. Last year they were all

for them, and I am sure the hon. the Member for Humber East hasn't changed her

mind because she felt very strongly about it, but now, suddenly - because I

think it was the House Leader on our side said one day, you know, they get a

little flurry, so they get all excited and run out, because, my gosh, there's

somebody out there with a problem against government and they are going to

champion it, whether it goes against their conscience or whether it doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East Extern.

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

Obviously, the minister herself has never sat on an ATV, and

she certainly doesn't know the impact these regulations are having or will have.

Issue number 6 with the concerns in the Cabinet paper dealing

with enforcement date, and this is an issue that I have brought up a number of

times, points out how ridiculous it is for government to proceed to implement

these regulations on April 1, 1994.

Will the minister delay the regulations for a year to give

cabin owners, outfitters and others time to construct trails?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I have never been on a fishing

boat either, and I know the devastation that has been done to this Province's

fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: I find that absolutely appalling, that somehow

or other, because I have never been on an ATV, I have no right to set out

regulations for it. I never drilled for a well either, and I look after the

licensing of the well drillers in the Province. I have never gone out and done

scientific research on water, and yet I am responsible for that in the Province.

I mean, my gosh!

As for those regulations coming in on the first of April,

they are coming in on the first of April. We have had enough damage done in this

Province over the last seventeen years when these people were too frightened to

do it because it might cause a few people in the Province to get upset, didn't

do it, and allowed for seventeen years the destruction of wetlands in this

Province so that it is shocking, it is a disgrace, and do you know what, Mr.

Speaker? We can't blame Ottawa, we can't blame the foreigners, we did it

ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Canada-Newfoundland Rural Development Corporation

Agreement which was due to expire at the end of this month received a new breath

of life on Friday, March 11, with the announcement of a one year extension. I

would like to ask the minister that even though the announcement says a one year

extension there seems to be only enough funds to allow the fifty-nine

development associations to receive administration funding for a six month

period. Is this the case, Mr. Minister? If so, what will happen after six

months?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I didn't hear the

first part of the question, I was reading some documents.

MR. ROBERTS: It was all in yesterday's Telegram

anyway.

MR. FUREY: Yesterday's Telegram . Okay. If I can

refer to yesterday's Telegram . Basically what we've done is both orders

of government have recognized that at the end of March, this month, the rural

development agreement will be terminated. We've set in place a process whereby

we are going to extend by one year if necessary the funding that would be

required administratively for the fifty-nine associations. The amount of money

that is left from the project

section of the old rural development agreement,

which will expire in three weeks, will be rolled forward and converted to

administrative dollars, so that all of the associations will have at least 50

per cent of their administrative requirements.

We hope that the federal-provincial task force will have

reported by then. We've just developed the terms of reference. We want to go out

and see how we can manage and construct and reconstruct the seventeen economic

zones. If we require funding beyond that six month extension, beyond the $18,500

which we will disperse over the next two or three weeks, then we will take it

from the new strategic regional diversification agreement.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Minister, is there any commitment from

the federal government on a new agreement for rural development in the Province?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and good question.

No problem with that question. We don't want to prejudge whether in fact we need

to put in place a rural development agreement right now. What we have set in

motion is a federal-provincial task force. The federal government has appointed

their senior federal person in Newfoundland, Mr. Gordon Slade. I've just

appointed Dr. Doug House from the Recovery Commission. Together they are

formulating the terms of reference. We hope to involve the Federation of

Municipalities, we hope to involve the rural development associations through

their umbrella council, and others to participate, have public consultation,

come back and tell us what the seventeen economic zones should look like, and

how they ought to be funded. So there is no point in negotiating a new

agreement, Mr. Speaker, for four or five years. This is why we've extended it.

We would be prejudging the outcome of that task force.

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

Kenmount.

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

Education. In a statement to the House yesterday the minister indicated that

government intends to introduce in this session a comprehensive revision of the

Schools Act. Is it the government's intention to include in that legislation the

changes to denominational educational systems as outlined in Adjusting the

Course -

Part I ?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I said in the ministerial

statement yesterday that during this session of the House we will be introducing

changes to the Schools Act. I would ask the hon. member to be a little bit

patient and wait a few more days until the legislation is tabled. Then, rather

than having to hear it secondhand from me, he will be able to take it and read

it very carefully himself and know exactly what is in it, Mr. Speaker.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister I'm sure is well

aware of the legal opinion written by legal counsel to the royal commission on

education, Mr. George Furey. Mr. Furey's opinion is contained of course in

Appendix III of the commission's report. I won't read it, the minister is well

aware of it. Has the government, I ask, decided to ignore Mr. Furey's warnings,

and are you taking a course of action that, according to Mr. Furey, is certain

to tie up educational reforms in the Province perhaps for some years?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to George

Furey, who is certainly one of the top lawyers in this Province today. I have

the utmost respect for him. However, as good as he is, he has not yet had the

opportunity to pass an opinion on the bill which is going to come forward before

this House. When he does then of course I will be able to comment on his

statement, but to date he hasn't seen the bill and he can't make a comment on

it.

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

Kenmount, a final supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister

would consider again beginning serious negotiations with the churches who have

given some indication that they are prepared to compromise? I am wondering if he

would make another effort to reach a consensual agreement before we tie up the

educational system of this Province in legal and political wrangling that might

go on for the next four to five years?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting with the

churches which took place, I think, late last month, when we agreed, as a group,

both the church leaders and government, that there was no consensus reached, the

very last words that we said to the churches before they left were: Look, our

door will remain open forever. If you have something further you want to say, if

you believe that there is something you could add so that we could reach a

consensus, by all means come forward.

Mr. Speaker, that offer still stands, because one thing no

one can accuse this government of doing is trying to ride roughshod over the

churches. We are talking; we are leaning over backwards; we are doing everything

in our power in the interest of reforming education to try and reach the

consensus with the church leadership.

Our door is forever open; however, I must say that the people

of this Province are demanding that the educational system be reformed, and we

have to take our direction from what the people of the Province want.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

On February 22 the minister appointed a fact finding team to

look into the operations of the Grenfell Regional Health Service. Now on

February 3 I forwarded to the minister statements by physicians regarding

administrative problems as well as problems relating to the opening of their

mail and the cashing of their cheques.

I asked the minister in this House a week ago if these

statements had been passed over to the fact finding team that he appointed. The

minister refused to answer at that time, so I would like to ask the minister

again: Has this fact finding team that he appointed to look into the affairs of

Grenfell received the statements by physicians regarding these allegations?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is doing

his tempest in a teapot bit. Any piece of paper that I get from the hon. member

I forward to the appropriate place. In this particular case, I forwarded his

paper as he suggested.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he forwarded it since I asked the question last

week. I think that is very much appreciated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you forwarded it before, you should have

answered last week. It would have saved a lot of the time of this House.

I would like to ask a question now to the Minister of

Justice. I ask the Minister of Justice if a police investigation is underway

regarding Grenfell and by whom it is being conducted, if it is.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge is second-hand for

obvious reasons, given that my brother is the Executive Director of the Grenfell

Association, as the House knows.

The arrangements are that a case where I am in a conflict

position the Premier, as my alternate minister, deals with these things. I can

tell the House what has happened.

My friend, the Minister of Health, referred the papers

directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who I understand has referred

them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the extent of my knowledge.

I understand the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will conduct

an investigation in the usual way. When it comes to a conclusion, one of two

results will come. As with any criminal investigation, either charges will be

laid or the decision will be taken not to lay charges. I assume an appropriate

public statement will be made then.

It would obviously be inappropriate, and indeed improper, to

make any further comment on the matter since then. I know no more about the

matter, except I do know the papers have been sent to the DPP, and he has, in

turn, passed them on to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

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

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

the Minister of Health.

Last July, as the minister will recall, the Premier told

people in Western Newfoundland that he personally had directed an immediate

assessment of certain aspects of management at Western Memorial Regional

Hospital. The Premier made that statement in the wake of a controversy about the

government's decision to cancel intake at the hospital School of Nursing for one

year; then, in response to public pressure, a decision to reverse that

cancellation. Will the minister now release to the public the results of that

assessment? The Premier told people in Western Newfoundland this winter that the

minister would be releasing the findings and conclusions of the assessment.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report. I

have no plans at the moment to release that; it is an internal document. But

I'll have to talk to the Premier - if he has made commitments on the West Coast,

we will have to see what commitments he has really made. We will have a chat

about it and decide what to do. Thank you.

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

Humber East.

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

for the Minister of Health.

The minister and his government have announced a plan to

reorganize and consolidate health boards throughout the Province, region by

region, including reorganizing in the Western region. The time frame for the

consolidation in the Western region has been delayed repeatedly. I would like to

ask the minister when the government is going to reorganize health boards in the

Western region. And will the government, as has been proposed by health

administrators in that region, establish one super board with responsibility for

all hospitals, senior citizens homes, nursing homes and public health in the

Western region from Port Saunders to Ramea?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, since government hasn't decided

what to do yet, I can't say what we're going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It kind of makes sense. But it is true that

we have had a proposal from some, but not all, of the administrators on the West

Coast and a team of, I think they call themselves the Western Planning Council,

that they would like to have everything rolled into one. We are considering that

and discussing it with various people to see if it's the appropriate way to do

it. It's a very complex - what they are doing - you see, the proposal is, that

not only the five or six hospitals and nursing homes in the Western region be in

one area, as we are doing it in other parts of the Province but, in addition,

the public health, the home care, the single point of entry, alcohol and drug

addiction, health promotion, prevention, all the health inspectors and the

public health nurses be also given over to the same board. Since a lot of those

services in the Western region and, indeed, elsewhere in the Province, in some

areas is rudimentary. The feeling we have had up until now is that this would be

- it may be that this particular part of health may be swamped by the needs of

the acute and chronic care, the institutional side. So we have been a bit

reluctant to put it all in one, but the proposal was made and we discussed it

very genuinely when I met with that group. Not everybody, as I mentioned, feels

quite the same way about it.

We are assessing the proposal very seriously but, at the

moment, I am preoccupied with putting the final touches on the Eastern area and

when that's done we will devote our time then to Western before proceeding to

Northern - that's how we have it lined up. But we are in the process of giving

serious consideration to this proposal that was made. We have not yet made up

our minds and when government does make its decision, I will be announcing it.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I can yield to my colleague, the Member for

Kilbride, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Environment and Lands. Can the minister tell the House or tell

me how long it normally takes for an environmental preview report to be

completed by her department?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker, it varies according

to the extent of the research and so on that we ask the group. It usually is -

did you see a preview report? Yes, it's a shorter mechanism then is the full

environmental assessment process, but again, it varies from time to time and I'm

sure the hon. gentleman is concerned about the environmental assessment of the

highway out in his area of the Province. I have been going to get some

information for him and, unfortunately, haven't been able to do that yet. I can

understand his concern. So I will look after getting that information for him,

but let me just say that it varies from project to project.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador has

been devastated by the collapse of the Northern cod stock; and

WHEREAS the seal population has reached more than five

million, and clearly created an imbalance in the ecosystem; and

WHEREAS the market is now available for the utilization of

the whole animal;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse a

full-fledged seal fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MS. VERGE: Where is the Public Libraries report?

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition from 300 Pentecostal residents

of Green Bay, more particularly, in the Springdale area.

The petition is to the House of Assembly and it says:

`We, the undersigned, adamantly reject the government's

proposal, Adjusting The Course to restructure the education system of

this Province.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Pentecostals of Green Bay have a

constitutional right to their school system. As a denomination, the Pentecostals

are probably the most fiercely protective of their school system. In addition to

their contributions as taxpayers, Pentecostals in Springdale have also put

hundreds of thousands of dollars of their congregations' money into their school

system.

One of the tenets of the Pentecostal faith is that parents

have a God-given duty to take an active involvement in the education of their

children. Nowhere is this more evidenced than in Springdale where we have

Kindergarten to Grade XII and the church all under one roof.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education put off

dismantling the denominational system for a year, but he still claims to be

committed to its destruction. Maybe, petitions like this one will help slow the

government's progress towards that end. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals

didn't want denominational schools to be an election issue. Just prior to the

election, the Premier obtained the silence of most church leaders by promising

them meaningful negotiations after the election. Well, Mr. Speaker, after the

election, the church leaders found out that the Premier had tricked them; he had

no intention of meeting the churches half-way.

Mr. Speaker, Green Bay has a significant Pentecostal

population and during the election, the Liberal candidate went out of his way to

assure them that the Liberal Party had no designs on their school system. The

Liberal candidate wrote Pentecostal families telling them `not to worry',

telling them that their school system was safe in the arms of Clyde Wells.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the majority of Pentecostals in Green Bay did not

fall for the lie and I am pleased to be here today to present their petition.

Thank you very much.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the

petition and following up from Question Period today and the minister's

commentary, I am sure that all hon. members of this House are well aware of the

great levels of anxiety that are out in this Province relative to the

educational system. There has been extensive dialogue between the government and

the churches and, of course, with the school boards, of late, and with some of

the Home and School Associations as well.

I commend the government for involving more of the

stakeholders than there were in the initial phases. I am pleased to say that I

am encouraged by the minister's statement today, that he is prepared to sit down

again with the churches. I would suggest to the minister, that he avail of some

of the leading educators in this Province, some of whom are well-known to the

government and who may be able to offer a third-party intercessory role, and

probably we would be able to avoid having to proceed unilaterally to take away

constitutional rights. I say to the hon. House, if there is a way in which we

can avoid three or four years of legal and political wrangling, let's explore

all of the avenues. If there are third-party people who can facilitate a

dialogue that can lead to a resolution. I think it is incumbent on all of us to

make sure that these avenues are taken. I commend the minister for saying in

this House today that his door is still open, and I would ask, through this

House, the church leaders to avail of these opportunities so that we can have a

resolution and avoid the conflict that is inevitable. We owe it to the children

of the Province to do nothing less.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Green Bay

gets up and talks about dismantling the denominational system. Now, it is talk

like that which forced the government to spend $70,000 of our taxpayers' money

to make an information package available to the people of this Province, to tell

them that we are not dismantling the education system in this Province. It says

very clearly here in this information package: Will denominational school boards

continue to exist? Of course, they will. School boards will become

interdenominational, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HEWLETT: That is not denominational education.

MR. DECKER: Oh, he says that is not denominational

education. What it is, Communist? What is it, Russian? What is it, Rhinoceros?

We are talking about an interdenominational system. That is not denominational?

The World Council of Churches is not denominational?

MR. HEWLETT: The World Council of Churches is

interdenominational.

MR. DECKER: Exactly! By golly, I believe he has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: All denominations will have representation on

school boards. Mr. Speaker, will religious education continue to exist? Yes.

Religious education courses as well as religious observances and other

activities will continue. All churches will be guaranteed access to schools for

religious purposes, Mr. Speaker. What will be the role of the churches in the

proposed system? The churches will continue to have jurisdiction over religious

education and pastoral care, and will have an advisory role in a number of other

areas. Churches will have committees at the school boards and a denominational

commission to represent church interests at the provincial level, Mr. Speaker.

Will denominational rights be protected? It is intended that denominational

rights continue to exist with the churches acting collectively rather than

individually.

Mr. Speaker, I had to call that to the hon. member's

attention because he talks about dismantling the school system, dismantling the

denominational education system, and this is the kind of talk that went on out

in Placentia. I heard the hon. member quoted on the radio during the

by-election, about tearing the crucifixes off the walls. That is pure, utter

scare tactics, and that is why we had to put out this information document, so

that the people of the Province can get the real truth and not second hand from

members who want to make some political points and go out and tell lies about

it, Mr. Speaker. Here are the real facts.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the campaign, when

the Liberal candidate wrote a letter to the people out there and said: no way

will we do anything with the education system. It will remain as it is, have no

fear. Let us assume the hon. member is telling the truth and that is the kind of

a letter he wrote. Maybe that is the reason the people in Green Bay did not

elect a Liberal member. They did not agree with that because the people in this

Province want reforms to the educational system. If that is the kind of a letter

the Liberal member, or Liberal candidate wrote, then he deserves to be defeated

and the hon. member should think himself lucky that the people of Green Bay saw

through the scam and they want reforms to the educational system, as do 80 per

cent of the people in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 106 residents of

St. John's and environs, including Torbay, Pouch Cove, Paradise, and Shea

Heights - the Member for St. John's South will be very interested - who are

opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. These individuals say,

as citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador that they seek to stop the proposed

sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they believe that the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been proven to be in the best interests

of the citizens of the Province. They demand that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure

that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

They, Mr. Speaker, including the member for Shea Heights, and

I spoke to another resident of St. John's South last night, they believe they

have not had adequate input into this process. Some people are calling for a

meeting in St. John's South to have the member there for example to meet with

his constituents and discuss this issue. I don't know whether he has called that

meeting yet or not. I know that editorialists around the Province, Mr. Speaker,

are also raising concerns about the arrogance of certain members of the back

benches in blindly following the lead of the Premier, in following the attitude

of the Premier, and saying -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Did you read the editorial in The

Evening Telegram today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It is interesting that the Member for Eagle

River refers to the editorial in today's Telegram .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, reference is being made to the

editorial in today's Telegram . It is interesting that yesterday they were

telling us about yesterday's editorial. Maybe they knew about it but it didn't

really appear until today. They thought it was going to appear yesterday but it

didn't appear till today. That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. TOBIN: What's that, Jack? What's that?

MR. HARRIS: They were telling us yesterday to look at the

editorial in the paper but it didn't appear till today. So they must have known.

Who wrote it over there, Mr. Speaker? Editorialists around the Province are

concerned about the attitude of members. The Member for Terra Nova was called to

task for believing that she was hired by the Premier and not by the people of

her district and was called down for her arrogance in not consulting the people.

I think many members opposite have the same problem, they haven't consulted with

their own constituents, they haven't explained the deal to them. Some of them

can't even find answers to their questions, and it is no wonder that the vast

majority of the people of Newfoundland oppose the Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro sale just as do these petitioners.

I encourage all hon. members, even those opposite who have

already made the mistake of voting once in principle, now that they've had a

chance to examine their own consciences, to look at the detail of this proposed

sale, perhaps to listen to the voices of their constituents. Maybe they too

could have the courage to depart from the front benches' line and speak for

themselves and vote for themselves, and vote for their constituents, and oppose

the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro sale for the good of the Province and for

the good of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

article in the

Telegram is an

article by a person who is very poorly informed. If you

want to talk about finances -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you would just take time to listen for a

minute!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they have the courtesy to

listen for seven or eight minutes I will tell them why their figures are all

wrong in the Telegram , I will answer them.

The Telegram states that we will save $25 million a

year on the debt of Hydro. That is correct. It says that we will give up $10

million on a fee for guarantee of that debt. That is also correct. They use $25

million minus $10 million and they say that the Province is going to save $15

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having great difficulty hearing the hon. member and -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's why they are so stunned on the

issue!

MR. SPEAKER: - I would like to hear what he has to say.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to support a petition.

There was reference made to a Telegram

article and I want to explain it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Telegram has failed to recognize

that the taxpayers of this Province are putting $15 million this year, fiscal

year, into a rate adjustment fund. They have failed to realize that this

Province is giving back to Newfoundland Power almost $10 million we have been

receiving every year, in addition to that $10 million for guarantee of the debt,

under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.

Not only is it giving it away - and you could ask the

Minister of Finance about this, he had it in his Budget for the last several

years. This Province received $9.199 million this year, $9.99 million last year,

85 per cent of the federal corporate tax that Light and Power pays. We are

giving that back to Newfoundland Power. Not only that, we are saying to New

Hydro -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't interfere when they

spoke.

They are also giving back; they are giving away, the 85 per

cent corporate tax that the new privatized Hydro would pay, about $25 million to

$30 million. We are saying we don't want it in this Province. The taxpayers are

going to transfer that price onto the rate payers of electricity in this

Province. We are giving that away. We are putting $30 million to $40 million of

funds that are not there - it is an underfunded pension liability - we are

taking that fund and we are turning it over to the new company, and we are going

to take out a credit note for fifteen years, that is going to take $105 million

over fifteen years, that the taxpayers are going to pay in this Province. That

is only what taxpayers are going to pay, and if you look at what rate payers are

going to pay in this Province - and these are facts substantiated by the

Premier's documents, even though he underscored them - the rate payers of this

Province are going to pay $20 million debt-related costs for the transfer.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell the motor-mouth, the Member for

Eagle River, if he will listen, that there are fees and commissions of $15

million to $20 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having great difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for

Ferryland. If members could hold down their views until they have a chance to

speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they are having great

difficulty. They want to have great difficulty because their ears are closed and

they don't want to hear the truth, and I will challenge them at any moment, any

time, between here and forever, to stand up and debate any of these figures and

costs that are here - anybody - the Premier, or you, or anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I correct the Government House Leader,

yesterday, on an inaccuracy he stated to the Member for Humber East. When we

said, `The securities are excluded. What about all these other rights?' he said,

`We can't print the 300 and what? - 370 pages in the Corporations Act.' He said,

`That is defined in the Corporations Act.' Well, I can tell the minister what is

defined in the Corporations Act. I took time to read it. Here is how

"securities" are defined, and you led this House to believe that it includes all

rights and lands. It states, and I checked the Corporation Act, 1990, page 12 -

you can check it if you wish - it says: "security" means a share of a class or

series of shares of a corporation or a debt obligation of a corporation and

includes a certificate evidencing a share or debt obligation.

I tell the minister, it doesn't include undertakings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just one second?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't want to hear the truth, that's

why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I made a note or two to say a word with respect to this

petition, in response to some of the inaccurate statements given by the

gentleman, the Member for Ferryland, but let me deal first with his most recent

attack upon me.

What I read in the House yesterday was subsection (z), which

is the one he just read. That is all I read. Now, I don't know where he is

getting this fandango. I, at no point, said anything other than that the

securities, as defined in the privatization bill - there is incorporated in the

bill by reference as a definition, the definition from the Corporations Act.

That is what I said.

Now, if the hon. gentleman didn't understand that, I'm sorry.

I can only make something as plain as one can, and to quote the old phrase, `One

can lead a horse to water; one cannot make him drink.'

Now, Your Honour, let me go on to deal with some other

inaccuracies so that the hon. gentleman knows whereof he talks.

The $15 million he speaks of in the rate adjustment fund is a

one-shot payment - the bill makes that quite clear - a one-shot payment, it is

not a recurring payment.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was up

whining about not being interrupted. I didn't interrupt him, let him acknowledge

- let him not interrupt me.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says I am

not telling the truth. Your Honour, I ask you to rule that is not parliamentary,

and ask him, please, to withdraw the statement. He cannot stay here and say a

member is not telling the truth. I ask for a ruling, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear exactly what the member said,

but if you accuse another -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, if the hon. gentleman hasn't

got the courage to stand in the House and say openly, we will let the matter

stand. Now, let me carry on. The hon. gentleman's lack of courage speaks for

itself. He doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand and say openly what he

says sotto voce. Now, Your Honour, let me go on.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour please -

MR. SPEAKER: I heard that.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) I know it is

unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it. I appreciate

the hon. gentleman's good grace.

Now, Your Honour, let me carry on. The $15 million, as the

Premier as said, as others of my colleagues have said, is a one-time payment.

Secondly, the PUITTA payment, as the Premier has explained, and I believe my

friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy explained is more than offset by the

revenue we will get should Newfoundland Hydro be privatized to be a taxable

entity. Thirdly, and most importantly, again as we have said repeatedly over

here, all of this revenue flows directly to the rate payer in the form of

holding down the rates. All of this has been factored into the calculations that

underlie the rate projections the Premier tabled in the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other point I would make is that hon.

gentlemen opposite are consistently refusing to debate the bill. When it is

called in Committee, they do anything but talk about the clauses. So I again

repeat to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, and other friends on both sides

of the House, if they will but bring up these questions when we are in

Committee, instead of going off on paranoid fantasies of Rothschilds and - well,

paranoid fantasy or fantastic paranoia as one prefers, then we can deal with

these and we will gladly deal with them.

As for my hon. friend's outburst against the Telegram ,

all I can say is that I have had occasion to agree with the Telegram , I

have had occasion to disagree with it, but I suspect whoever writes the

editorials over there - be it a committee or an individual, I know not - is not

the least bit concerned about the hon. gentleman. It is flattering that he reads

the paper. Now, if only he understood it, Mr. Speaker, we would be one step

further ahead.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise

to present a petition on behalf of seventy-two residents of the district of

Grand Bank.

MR. MURPHY: How many residents?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seventy-two, seven two, one more than

seven one and one less than seven three, I say to the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. MURPHY: He sounds like (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I'm taking my lessons from the

Government House Leader, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is doing well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know. I'll soon graduate from

Kindergarten like the minister.

Mr. Speaker, all of those people on the petition - I've gone

through the petition with my magnifying glass, like the Premier's honchos in his

office who go through the petitions. I have taken the petition, Mr. Speaker, and

I've gone through it with my magnifying glass to see if all those people are

legitimate and after going through it, I can tell members opposite that all of

those people who have signed this petition are from Grand Bank and Fortune. I

know them all personally, I know where they live, I see most of them every

weekend when I'm in my district, I know where they work, I'm happy to report

that most of them still do work because the plant in Fortune is still working

and the plant in Grand Bank has about 100 employees, so it's a very legitimate

petition, Mr. Speaker.

These petitioners, as with many other petitions that have

been presented in this House, are really calling upon the government to not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation. Yes, I say to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, seventy-two - seventy-two very important people, I say

to him. And if it were seven or it were two, I say to the minister, I would

stand in this House and do what my constituents, who happen to be those

petitioners -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) about Sprung, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh boy, don't be so foolish!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, will you rise above the slush in the gutter? Will you

rise up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't forget about

Sprung, I say to the minister, I don't forget about Sprung, but what he is going

to do here now in the privatization bill which those seventy-two people of the

district of Grand Bank, living in Fortune and Grand Bank, who oppose, is going

to be the equivalent of fifty Sprungs, I say to the minister.

Now, if the minister finds that one Sprung of $22 million was

so bad, how does he feel, Mr. Speaker, about those petitioners who are so

concerned with the giveaway of this very important resource that they own, I ask

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture? Now that's not too complicated, it's

not too hard to follow, Mr. Speaker.

But these people asked me to present this petition on their

behalf, voicing their concern, asking this government to stop the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because it is going to cost them more as

taxpayers, it is going to cost them more as rate payers. They are both the same

people and I guess I can equate it to a gentleman I ran into on the parking lot

of the Health Sciences Complex a few minutes ago. He was sitting in his car, he

didn't want to go to the parking meter, and he recognized me and he called me

over and he said: `Isn't this parking situation really something!' I asked, `Why

is that?' `Well, here,' he said, `the people whom I, as a taxpayer, am employing

and paying their wages, have free parking, but,' he said, `the one who pays

their salaries and wages, I have to go and put my quarter into the parking

meter.'

Well, I say to members opposite, this is a situation very

similar to what we have here, because the taxpayers and the rate payers are

getting it both ways by what this government is doing -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - in privatizing Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, I say to the Minister of Education, in case he can't understand

that. They are the same - the rate payers and the taxpayers are the same people;

it is going to cost a net cost to those people in the next ten years of about

$750 million, I say to the Minister of Education, when there is no need of it.

There is no need of it.

The best option that the government can undertake with

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to keep it and not privatize it and that is

what those very important seventy-two petitioners from the district of Grand

Bank, along with the thousands of others who have signed petitions and thousands

more who are signing them and sending them in, that is what they are calling

upon this government to do, Mr. Speaker, and I am very pleased to support the

petition and to support the petitioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a man with backbone, Sir - a man

with backbone!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 3:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) House and shortly it will be

Private Members' Day.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know it is only seconds but, I respect the hon. the Member

for Grand Bank, standing in his place and putting the petition as he should and

must do on behalf of his constituents, but I say to the hon. member, that I have

great difficulty with the Member for Ferryland. We will get into this, this

afternoon with the Waterford - Kenmount debate. I don't know, perhaps I should

call him the member for H 2 O and the Member for Ferryland,

Mathematics.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, I say to the Member for St. John's East,

because before the afternoon is out - never called a public meeting in five

years, not one did the member call.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. MURPHY: I will get back to him later this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I was going to call three o'clock.

It now being three o'clock, we are into Private Members' Day.

I understand motion 6 is being called.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 6, I think, Your Honour, is the one

to be called.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this

afternoon and to move the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House, acknowledging the public

concern that government is moving with undue haste to privatize Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, and responding to the demand of the people for information and

public consultation, call on the government to hold public hearings on the

privatization of Hydro and to set aside further consideration of Bill 1 until

public hearings have concluded.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great public concern that the

government is moving on privatization with undue haste. Mr. Speaker, many people

hold the view that this bill is being rammed through the House; they have

witnessed the closure that was imposed on the House on second reading, they have

expressed great concern that their viewpoints are not being communicated in this

House or being recognized by the government.

It seems to the citizens of this Province that there are many

questions and very few straight answers. The people of this Province deserve

better than what they are getting from their elected government.

Mr. Speaker, in the last days of debate the Opposition has

repeatedly asked the government to slow down, to permit the people of this

Province to have some say. I was very encouraged this afternoon by the Minister

of Education in his statement towards the end of question period when he said:

No one can accuse the government of not listening to the people.

On the issue of education the minister has repeatedly said

that he has conducted surveys and that 60 per cent, 70 per cent, or 80 per cent

of the people have agreed with the government in their reforms of education as

outlined in Adjusting the Course -

Part I . While the government says on

the matter of education that they have conducted their surveys, they have

analyzed then, and they take from these surveys the encouragement to go ahead

and to reform the educational system in a non-consensual manner, at the very

same time on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro people are saying that they

want to have their opinions voiced and they want to have their viewpoints

listened to.

Ordinary people want straight answers. People have concerns

about the financial aspects, about taxation, about the operational proposals and

about personnel. People are concerned about jobs. They are concerned about the

future operational aspects of the proposed changes to Hydro. People have

repeatedly given to hon. members of this House numerous petitions which members

have, as they are obliged to do, presented to this House for consideration. In

some cases these petitions have been severely criticized by hon. members.

They've been scrutinized by the Premier who admitted in this House two days ago

that he had had his staff go over some of the names of the petitioners -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: Or he had done it himself, and he had taken

it upon himself to call these people to enquire as to whether or not they indeed

had signed.

I find that to be not only intimidating but a bit insulting

to the ordinary citizen. It isn't every day that the ordinary resident of this

Province expects the Premier to call up and ask them: Did you sign that

petition? Why did you do it, and et cetera. Mr. Speaker, my point is that the

petitions of the people have been criticized, scrutinized, vilified, belittled

and held in contempt by members of the government. I think that is a very sad

commentary that when people of their own freewill sign petitions and we come in

here and present them and then members of the government make snide remarks,

derogatory comments, not only of the process, but in some cases on the very

people who signed the petitions.

We've had it said here by the members of the Executive, we've

had it said by the Ministry, that this is the most important legislation to be

placed before this House since Confederation. So why the big rush? Confederation

itself took from the first Assembly in 1946 to 1949. In the meantime there had

been two referendums and the people of the Province were consulted. If this

particular proposal is more important than some of the great projects of the

1950s and the 1960s, why is it that the people of the Province cannot be

consulted?

Government has not explained why this sale is necessary, and

while members of the government a few moments ago took great joy in today's

editorial of The Evening Telegram , they should have also read today's

copy of The Express , or they should have listened to CBCs first ten

minutes of news coverage last evening. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that

today's editorial of The Evening Telegram is wrong. I am simply saying

that we have a responsibility as elected people to make sure that the whole

message gets out there. I am not saying either that the proposals by the

government cannot be rationalized or justified. I am saying to the government:

you have a responsibility to assure that a process is put in place whereby the

ordinary citizens of this Province understand what is going on.

We cannot simply say: well, we were voted in last May 3 and

four years from now the people can vote us out if they do not like it. I have

heard that argument many times. I have heard it in City Council when I was a

member of City Council, when we had members who sometimes did not want to meet

constituents, and did not want to face taxpayers. They wanted to ride roughshod

over the general public. I have heard members of my council over the years take

the same kind of attitude, but it is not an attitude that is attuned to the good

functioning of democracy. Democracy means that it is government of the people,

for the people, and by the people.

There are occasions when you have to put into place a public

consultative role, you have to put in a program whereby the people can have a

viewpoint and can be heard. I fail to understand why the government is so

adamant in its refusal to hold public hearings, why it is so adamant in its

viewpoint that it will not refer this matter to a legislative review committee,

or that it will not adopt some other process that will assure citizens a voice

before this legislation becomes the law of this Province.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, many citizens have developed a distrust

of government on this issue, a distrust that we have not seen in its severity in

the last ten to twelve, or perhaps fifteen years. When the government treats the

public with contempt, citizens feel insulted, they feel they are not full

partners in the democratic process, and they quite predictably treat the

government with the same kind of mistrust and contempt with which they have been

treated. In other words they do unto the government as government is doing unto

them.

Mr. Speaker, the question we must ask is: Why is government

so determined to ignore the opposition to the deal? We have to ask the question,

why will not the government begin a process of public dialogue? The citizens

want an opportunity to share with the government reasoned and rational

viewpoints. They want to get away from the emotionalism that is attached to this

particular issue. All they are asking for is a forum and the means to do it.

Now, the Premier of this Province was held in great respect

by the Canadian citizenry some years ago in his discussions on Meech Lake and

Constitutional reform. I do not believe there is a Newfoundlander or Labradorian

who at the time was not quite proud of the Premier when he stood up to Central

Canada. I say that with all due respect, because at that time the Premier of

this Province was the champion for participatory democracy. He was saying that

this issue was so large that it should not be decided in the back rooms. It

should not be decided by a small group in Ottawa, nor should it be decided by a

group of premiers and their advisors meeting in a conference. What he said was

that these people should meet, they should draw up their proposals, and they

should share them with the entire population.

When the Premier talked about participatory democracy he was

on very good, solid principles and he was doing what I believe to have been a

service to all Canadians. Yet, Mr. Speaker, words like participatory democracy,

constituent assemblies, these are very easy to use, but sometimes they are quite

a challenge to put into practice. On this particular issue we are saying to the

Premier of this Province: Let us restore the participatory democracy principles

that he espoused just a few short years ago, and let him take his own advice and

set in process a means whereby citizens of this Province can have some say.

A democracy functions well when the government believes it

has a trust from the people and when they have a healthy respect for the

electorate, and when major issues of national or provincial importance arise the

government believes it has not only a moral responsibility but a political

responsibility to be the voice of the people. We have made great efforts in the

past few years to involve the public in the development of legislation. We see

that with the ATV regulations. The hon. the minister has sponsored various

forums and that is the kind of consultative dialogue that we encourage. We've

seen the consultative dialogue occur in the sitting of the House just a few days

ago on changes to the certified general accountants, to the chartered

accountants, to their designation. Three days of meetings here in this very

Chamber. We've seen public forums on the changes to the smoking legislation.

We've had forums on changes to the automobile insurance legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that on this issue, the

biggest issue, by the government's own admission since Confederation, there are

no public hearings whatsoever.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) said that.

MR. HODDER: Said by your Minister of Finance.

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody from government said that.

MR. HODDER: I'm only saying what is in Hansard.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) show me the reference.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there is no opportunity at all

for ordinary citizens to express their viewpoints. Then the government wonders

why there is a mistrust out there. We all know, those of us who are in public

life, that there is a general mistrust of politics and politicians, and we do

nothing to restore that trust when we behave in an autocratic manner. We do not

do anything to restore trust when we ignore the cry of the people to be involved

in development of legislation. We cannot be surprised that in this Province

today there is widespread scepticism, a widespread feeling that government isn't

listening.

You see, just a few evenings ago, last Thursday evening,

these galleries here were filled almost to capacity with people who were here

because they cared. In the nine months that I've been here, and the many years I

visited here as a student and as a resident in the region, I've rarely seen

these galleries filled like that, excepting at Budget Day or some other special

occasion. Yet last Thursday evening people stayed here for three or four hours

to listen to the debate. Just a few days ago, two days ago, 250 citizens

gathered outside of this building here. Their point was, they wanted to be

consulted.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens who have been blocking the Open

Line shows, the citizens who have expressed their comments in the public

media, print media and electronic media, these citizens are average citizens.

They are asking to be consulted, but it is their opinion that the government is

stonewalling. They are pretending not to hear, and by pretending not to hear the

message is conveyed that they do not care. Certainly, if you want to give the

citizens the feeling that you care, first of all you assure them that you are

listening.

Mr. Speaker, citizens are really concerned with the hasty

passage of this bill that will, in a few weeks, I am sure, if we continue on the

present route, this particular issue will be passed into law and the government

then is hoping that the political storm will go away.

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for today, and the plea of

this particular motion, is that we find a way to make this House a

participatory, democratic institution. Make it really the people's House. I am

not saying this resolution to government doesn't have the legal right to do what

it is doing - not at all. The government is quite within its rights, according

to the laws of this Province, to do that which they are doing, and the way in

which they are proceeding; however, I do believe that the cry of the people

through petitions, the cry of the people through Open Line shows, through

letters to the editors, needs to be listened to, because we want to be assured

that when this legislation is passed that the people of this Province have been

heard.

You will note that I have not been saying much about the

merits of the bill. I have been trying to address the process, and in this

particular case, this resolution, has to do with the process being followed. We

are calling upon the government to halt a little, do the right thing for all the

right reasons, both political, moral and, of course, legal as well.

Of course, I have said before that the law is being followed;

however, we want to say to the government that the people of this Province want

to have a forum. They want to have unbiased, expert opinions given to them - not

opinions by the Opposition, not opinions that are totally by the government.

They want to be assured that this is the right thing to do, and the motion calls

upon the government to set in process a methodology whereby we can have the

proper consultation and, in that way, when this legislation is passed, the

people of this Province will know that their opinions have been listened to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in this debate today. I

must say at the outset that I do not support the resolution as moved by the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount, and I will outline the reasons why.

Mr. Speaker I am happy, in a way, that this issue has finally

come to the floor of this House, and indeed to the people of this Province,

because ever since we have been a party in Confederation, ever since really

there has been an association with political parties in this Province, many

people have misunderstood, or were confused, as to what a Liberal was and what a

Conservative was, because there seemed to be a wolf in sheep's clothing all the

time. People were saying: Well, there doesn't seem to be much difference between

the way the Liberal government is acting now and the way the Conservative

government was acting the year before, or what they are doing in other

jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased that this debate has come

forward in this Province because I do believe that for the first time since

Confederation we have a classic example of the difference between Liberals and

Conservatives and through the next few minutes I want to outline some of the

reasons. I want to say it particularly to the Member for Waterford - Kenmount

because yesterday he came over to this side of the House and said to myself and

other members: well, where do you come from thinking that you're a Liberal with

the way you're going on. I thought it was appropriate that I do a little bit of

research, Mr. Speaker, I pulled one of my little volumes off the shelf and I did

so and I did take up the second volume actually of the Great Political

Theories , particularly the

section on liberalism and aristocratic

conservatism.

There are two distinct philosophies at work here, Mr.

Speaker, when you look at liberalism and you look at the philosophical

underpinnings of liberalism, I have to say that the - not from, I will get to

that one - but, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very basic principles of

liberalism. One of the principles of course is the emphasis on the individual

and the rights of the individual to association, to freedom of speech and to be

able to gather and form Opposition's. There's also the principle of the

adherence to the rule of law, that's another very significant principle.

There's a very prominent principle in the respect for free

opposition to secure liberty, Mr. Speaker, but today I want to focus on the

principles as it relates to the economic theories of liberalism. They were first

annunciated by Smith, Adam Smith, a long time ago. Certainly later on the

classical liberalism was annunciated by Milton Friedman, Mr. Speaker, and at

that point in time these hon. gentlemen and great philosophers of the day would

have classified early liberalism as identified with the economic concept of

laissez-faire. The removal of restrictions or control on economic behaviour and

an emphasis with the market economy. Through some liberal's, such as Milton

Friedman, though they still hold this view most modern liberals, such as

(inaudible) have accepted the need for state intervention in the economy to a

certain degree. Now modern liberals tend to emphasize to a greater degree the

need for opportunities for people to act and thus pay more attention to the

social environment and to economic and political organization.

That is where we are today, Mr. Speaker. We have a clear

focus today on the role of government and we are now coming to the point in our

history in this Province where we have consciously and intentionally, and I

submit with great pride, reached the point where we have said, as the Evening

Telegram has said today, that - and I quote, `Hydro's public policy purpose

has now been served.' That's what the editorial in the Evening Telegram

is saying today and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that's the conclusion that this

government reached in keeping with the economic theories and the basic

underpinnings of liberalism as it relates to economic activity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you then take the opposite side and

obviously what we are seeing today, we are seeing today the classic

conservatism. As a matter of fact, under political philosophy it would be

defined as the classic aristocratic conservatism, Mr. Speaker, and I quote,

`conservatism historically has been a response to the principles and activities

stemming from the French Revolution. All conservatives theorists reject the idea

of violent change and uphold the need for order and continuity,' Mr. Speaker,

and I further quote from the Great Political Theories, and this is how

they capsulize the individuals, `they tend to be pessimistic about human

capabilities as well as political and social change. Conservatism is based

chiefly on a proper recognition of human limitation. Critics of conservatism

suggest that its real basis is an unwillingness to do anything for the first

time.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: End of quote, Mr. Speaker.

Now today, Mr. Speaker, we have before us an issue which we

have approached as a Liberal Government in keeping with our liberal principles.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House and this Province that we have the best

example of the difference between liberalism and conservatism that ever came

before the people of this Province.

We went to the election of 1989 with a program for real

change. We went to the electorate in 1993 with a program asking for the mandate

to meet the challenges of the day. We have met the challenges of the day. What

we see here today is nothing less than a government that has set its proper

priorities. For one of the first times for the last twenty-four years we have

now seen a government that is establishing priorities.

Priority number one. After seventeen years of devastation to

the private sector of this Province, where we saw, particularly since 1975, a

continuous and steady premeditated downturn in the economic activity of the

private sector that was propelled by the economic policies of the day, by the

people who did not want to do anything. They were sitting in their seat hoping

that the world would operate and unfold as it should and prayed God that it

would. Don't touch this, don't tinker with that, please don't suggest there is

going to be any change in this. If there is something that can be done then if

we don't want to do it let's cover it up, let's make sure that we put some money

at it and make people content with their way of life. Let's not change anything,

for God's sake.

We have now come to the conclusion, as I said The Evening

Telegram reached today - and I have to point out that not all the time do I

agree with The Evening Telegram . Today I think one would have to agree

that after continuous debate, after months of debate - the Member for Ferryland

got all tied up in knots. He had all of his clothing very well tied up around

him. You could see the frustration; you could see the tension that was in him

today. Because after four to five months of his exclamations about all the bad

things that were associated with this, all the hysteria that he was creating

amongst the public, all the outrageous figures that he was promising and

promoting to the people, all of that today he says: Well, they are just wrong.

They've just done a total consideration of all of this and they are just wrong.

The first sentence of this is very telling. They start off by

saying, "Privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro makes good financial

sense." Then they go on to say that, "Selling Hydro shouldn't be equated with

giving away the Province's resources. Nor is it an outright sell-off to unknown

interests." Number three - They say, "There is no reason for anyone to believe

the Province and its people will lose ownership of water rights." Number four -

and this is the one I think that is absolutely telling, the one that is the

indictment, if there was such a statement ever cast on an Opposition that was in

such a flurry to try to create a parade. They said, "An objective evaluation of

privatization can only conclude that it serves the best interests of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The debate must not become sidetracked by emotional

arguments. Desperate economic times call for bold initiatives and privatizing

Hydro is one of them." End of quote, Mr. Speaker.

I say that is it in a nutshell. We are saying that we have

come to the point where Hydro's public policy purpose has been served. We have

hydro-electricity into every community in this Province, down to Norman Bay,

Labrador, and Pinsent Arm, the last community in this Province to ever receive

it. We do not have a situation now where we have to develop more

hydro-electricity dams or put more diesel in place to give people basic

electricity. They are there now. We do not need a Crown corporation out there

going to the market to find that ability to put a new dam on some other river so

some people in this Province can get power so they can have lights, so they can

have freezers, so they can have something to be able to secure their economic

livelihood in terms of a fish plant and freezing capability. That is there now.

We know that is there now.

So the public policy purpose that was there in 1960 when we

were building this Province, when a good, solid, Liberal government started to

build this Province, I submit, when the greatest Liberal who ever lived, Joseph

R. Smallwood put together his program for building this Province, that is when

we needed it. He created it, and as he said of the day, and what a great

visionary he was, he said, I am creating this today knowing full well that it

will outlive its usefulness after the private sector is up and running and we

get electricity into every house in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he

said of the day. What a visionary he was, and how grateful we are for what he

did. I know how proud he would be today to see a Liberal government

acknowledging that his vision was the right one, his vision was the proper one,

his vision was the Liberal one.

I think this is a day when Liberals should be able to say to

the people of this Province: we have kept our mandate to the people of yesterday

in the Liberal Party, not to mention the greatest Liberal of them all, Mr.

Speaker. I say the other reason why we have our priorities well established was

the last sentence I just read, and that was, that desperate economic times call

for bold initiatives. Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we are in desperate economic

times.

The Minister of Finance tomorrow will have to deliver another

Budget. We all know now that there is a $100 million deficit on current account.

We know that our health care system is stretched to the limit. We know that our

dollar for education has been masterfully put to use to get the best we can out

of our education system. We know that. We know that the Minister of Social

Services has creatively designed his social programs so that every scarce dollar

can go to the people in need through no fault of their own, as Liberals do. We

know that these dollars are being put there but we know that indeed they are

scarce. We know that the Canadian government, one of the G7 countries, one of

the top seven economic powers in this world is saying they have to come to grips

with their economics, they have to come to grips with their spending, they have

to cut back and adjust.

We know that, and when that is happening it is incumbent upon

us to lead, it is incumbent upon us to go in concert with these powers. It is

incumbent upon us to meet our responsibilities, and to meet those challenges. We

will have a Minister of Finance stand in this House saying that first and

foremost must be the maintenance of our social programs, in health, education,

social services, in justice, and in all other aspects of this government that

the people of the Province hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, that is the situation we are confronted with. We

are being told daily. We see demonstrations every day, through the newspapers

and through petitions. All members get telephone calls about how difficult it is

going to be after May 15, and how are they going to be able to manage the health

care system. The people in Forteau, Labrador are so proud today that we now have

a chronic care facility in that community that took $1 million of very scarce

resources to put there. It took $250,000 of very scarce resources to operate and

the people who are there are so proud of that. They are so happy knowing that

they have something given back to them that they need in their time of

desperation when they cannot care for themselves. I know without one iota of

doubt that if I were to go to every house in Forteau today and say to them: do

you now want to lose the chronic care facility or do you think it is time for us

to sell Hydro to get some money to maintain your chronic care centre? Mr.

Speaker, if we asked them today there would be 100 per cent approval of what we

are doing for the right reasons, all the right reasons, which they elected us to

do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: They are going to sell the house to save the

fridge.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Here we have a situation where the Member

for Green Banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, that was a Freudian slip if I ever

heard one. The Member for Green Box, Green Backs, if ever I heard one, the

$170,000 severance man.

Mr. Speaker, here we have a situation today where we know

that we are missing an opportunity, where we have a good House. We have our

House in order, we have our priorities set within that House, but here we have a

situation today where we have the Cadillac out by the door, but not enough money

to put any gas in it, and that is something that we cannot live with.

We know the responsible thing to do is to sell that Cadillac

to get those dollars to keep our House in order and provide a few more dollars

to make the extra adjustments in the social assistance programs, to be able to

build those extra chronic care facilities, to maintain some of these small

schools, to see policing into our communities, to give people the standard of

living that they hold so near and dear, and the thing they are asking us to

deliver on after a mandate just nine short months ago.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need the aristocratic Conservatives

opposite to be standing on their high heels telling us that we should not do

anything, we should not change anything. We should not change our education

system; we should not change our financial operation of government, through the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro; we should stick our heads in the sand; we

should ignore reality; we should absolve all authority and give the people the

right to tell us, by a poll or by plebiscite from time to time, give over our

responsibility to some polling firm, instead of a government and a House of

Assembly we would have a brown box in here where people would do up a number of

telephone polls and then call the Lieutenant-Governor and say, 60 per cent says

this - execute. That is not the way to run a government. That is not the way to

respect the wishes of the people who so heartily endorsed us just nine months

ago.

So I would submit to all hon. gentlemen, and to all people of

this Province, that today we are proud to stand here in keeping with the

fundamental principles of Liberalism, as enunciated through the people that I

have mentioned. Today we are true to our forefathers in that regard, and we are

also true to the people and the generations that are coming after us, and that

is the most important thing. We have to get our House in order. We have to keep

maintaining our programs. We have to help those who, through no fault of their

own, can't help themselves. We are empowered to do that, and I submit to the

people of this Province, we will carry on under our leadership and our

government to deliver on what they told us to do. I am confident that our course

is the right one to be taking, one that is in keeping with all the tenets of

Liberalism and, indeed, with responsible government in a parliamentary

democracy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a

few words.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth, now - like (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have said more in the House

this term than the hon. member said since he got elected. Then again, he is

never here, I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't listen to a lot of what the Member for

Eagle River had to say, because the Premier came in, and if anyone was watching

the Member for Eagle River it would almost turn your stomach. It would almost

turn your stomach, the way the Member for Eagle River got on when he saw the

Premier. I wish the Premier would fill that Cabinet position and do whatever he

is going to do so that hon. members over there could become themselves, could be

their own persons.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to cause anyone any harm in what I

am going to say, because I am going to say it with all sincerity: if there is

anyone the Premier should put into his Cabinet, when he looks at the back

benches, it is the hon. the Member for Port au Port. He is the most commonsense,

level-headed individual over there in the back benches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I say I don't want to do him any harm by

recommending him, but if I were the Premier of this Province, and I were looking

for someone in the back benches who could do something to improve the Cabinet,

there is only one, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. He doesn't

say a lot in this House, but when he speaks, everyone listens.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River never

shuts up, and nobody listens. And when the Premier came in, the display that the

Member for Eagle River put on was almost unbelievable. What he wouldn't do to

get into Cabinet!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A lot, a lot! Because that is the

problem over there, boy, you are all supporting privatization.

MR. GRIMES: I think he is on the way in - one of the best

speeches I ever heard.

MR. TOBIN: All I can say to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations is, the fact that he has agreed to support you in the

leadership doesn't automatically give him a ticket to the Cabinet, because my

understanding - despite the fact that you spent pretty hefty public funds, $6

million in job creation last year, divvied it out to your buddies over there to

try to become the Premier, you may have stiff competition, I say to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. But as far as we, on this side, are

concerned, we are all rooting for you, I can assure you of that. The Progressive

Conservative Party is supporting you, if that means anything, and I hope you can

read what I mean.

We are supporting him, Mr. Speaker, and I understand the

Rhinoceros Party is supporting the Minister of Forestry. Now, Mr. Speaker, I

want to get into the meat of this debate, what it is all about. I can see

members opposite, Mr. Speaker, today flipping around an editorial that was

printed in The Evening Telegram . Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the

editorial is that the writer of that editorial, who, I assume, is Mr. Miller

Ayre, has as much right to write an editorial and to express his views as anyone

else in this Province. He has as much right to do that as anyone else in this

Province.

As a matter of fact, The Evening Telegram has written

approximately six editorials. First, they recommended the merger, they wrote an

editorial supporting that; they have written at least five others supporting

privatization and merger, and that's their right and I don't quarrel. But, Mr.

Speaker, the fact that only 5 per cent of Newfoundlanders support the

privatization of Hydro, sends a message loud and clear as to the effect that

editorials have on the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I don't quarrel,

they have every right to write it. They have taken positions before which were

different; they have taken positions before with which this government differed.

And they have the right to write it, and Open Line holds to the right of

their views.

The callers who call in, `John', who is a regular caller to

Open Line has just as much right to his opinion as Miller Ayre;

`Marjorie', Mr. Speaker, has just as much right to hers as Miller Ayre, so does

`Vera'. All the regular callers have just as much right. Miller Ayre has just as

much right - or whoever writes the editorial - to express his views as the

regular callers to Open Line , and nobody should quarrel with the writer

of that editorial. It is his privilege to write it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that only 5 per cent of the people of

this Province support it speaks volumes. I, for one, don't quarrel with it, and

if hon. members can concede and feel glee, they probably, Mr. Speaker - I don't

see them flashing this around. I don't see them flashing this around, Mr.

Speaker - that is Steve Neary, the former Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. WOODFORD: That the hon. member phones all the time.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and Steve might name them

this weekend, from what I can understand, those who are phoning. Who is the hon.

Leader's present MHA, I wonder?

MR. MURPHY: He was never elected leader of the Liberal

Party.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South

says he was never elected Leader of the Liberal Party - that does not mean he

was not the leader. Mr. Speaker, when he became Leader of the Liberal Party, no

one had to pass him out 50,000 bucks, I can tell him. No one had to throw 50,000

bucks in his way.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What did he say? Mr. Speaker, if there were any

member in this House who should not have said what he just said, it was the hon.

the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, how come I don't see anyone

flashing around the editorial in today's Packet ? How come there is no one

flashing that around? I loaned it to my colleague there a minute ago. I don't

see too many flashing that around.

MR. OLDFORD: How many Hydro letters are in it?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Trinity North

asked how many Hydro letters are in it. If there is either one in it it is

greater than the contribution that you've made to the Hydro debate, I say to the

Member for Trinity North. You've sat in your seat and haven't opened your mouth

on the issue. Stand up! At least some of them have stood up and said they

support it and why. At least the Member for Terra Nova had the courage to

express why she supported it. She had the courage to stand up in this House and

be counted. I don't agree with what she had to say, the editorial doesn't agree

with what she had to say, but unlike the Member for Trinity North, she didn't

run and hide. She didn't want to try to play both ends against the middle, say

one thing in here - and I ask the Member for Trinity North, did he phone Steve

Neary? Let him answer that. There are some other people here I will ask before

the evening is over if they phoned Steve Neary, some former colleagues of Steve

Neary, I will ask if they phoned him and discussed this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You were never a colleague of Steve Neary,

Sir. You were an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party when Steve

Neary was there. You were President of the Progressive Conservative Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) riff-raff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the riff-raff in the Progressive

Conservative Party were booted out, I say to the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Went through the door, took all the

files with him.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Took the whole lot of files and

documents belonging to the party with him when they kicked him out as president.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right, yes. He knows it, too.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I've never heard that before, I

say to my colleague. I knew that the member was involved in books - they hit him

on top of the head - but that was before we kicked him out. So imagine, we would

never have had him, he would never have been in our party if the books hadn't

hit him on the head first.

Anyway, I shouldn't be distracted by that. The fact of the

matter is that this private member's bill today calls for public hearings. What

do members have against public hearings?

MR. MURPHY: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: Well, go out and have them, I say, Mr.

Speaker!

MR. MURPHY: I am.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed you are. The only

public hearing you had was a public hearing with CBC. A public airing, I should

say, not a public hearing.

The Member for St. John's South should have a public meeting.

Because today my friend, the Member for St. John's East was up presenting

petitions on behalf of his constituents. Knowing the Member for St. John's

South, that bothers him, and he should go out and have them.

The Minister of Mines and Energy - he goes out to Jeffrey's

for public hearings. What happens? He says: I am going to refuse to answer a

question to - who was it? Someone got up and asked a question. He said: I am not

going to answer your questions.

DR. GIBBONS: I did not refuse.

MR. TOBIN: You did refuse to answer their questions and

you were told by the people out there to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker, that

is what happened, the same as you refused to answer questions the other day on

Open Line , because you couldn't answer them, I say to the minister. You

couldn't answer the questions.

DR. GIBBONS: Put the question here now, then. What was

it?

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

DR. GIBBONS: Put the question. What was it?

MR. TOBIN: What was it? The questions I asked you today,

Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer, for example. I asked him today, wouldn't the

underwriters, in effect, be the owners of Hydro at the time Hydro's shares go to

the market? I asked him that question today. You didn't answer it, did you?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go learn the process.

MR. TOBIN: I know the process, and I know that the

underwriters will own it. The underwriters will write you a cheque, and then go

out and sell it. That is who is going to own it, Dominion Securities.

MS. VERGE: Make no wonder they advise them to sell it.

They are going to make a killing off of it.

MR. TOBIN: Right on! That is what is happening here. The

underwriters, Dominion Securities and others, come in and advise the government

on Hydro, and I would suspect that they advised them to sell it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the people of Newfoundland understand

what is taking place here. I really hope that the message can get out. What is

happening here is that you brought in Dominion Securities and other groups,

Standard and Poor's, whatever the case may be, asking for advice on the

privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got your advice from Dawn Sprung.

MR. TOBIN: It is too bad they didn't put you over in the

greenhouse for awhile.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that they recommended to the

minister and to the Chairman of Hydro that it be sold. I would assume that is

what they did, and now what happens? Who are going to be the underwriters? The

minister said today, Dominion Securities and Standard and Poor's are going to be

the underwriters.

AN HON. MEMBER: And ScotiaMcLeod.

MR. TOBIN: And ScotiaMcLeod, I am sorry.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I made a mistake there. ScotiaMcLeod

and Dominion Securities. They are the ones who recommended that it be sold, and

now they are going to sell it. How much money did they get to do the study, to

advise government? I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he speaks in this

debate, how much money were they paid to advise the government? Or is that part

of the non-tenderized shredding machine that you brought in there? Is that part

of that?

How much money will they make now when they become the

underwriter, when they write the cheque and then sell the shares?

MS. VERGE: They get a cut, a percentage.

MR. TOBIN: A big one, too, on the backs of

Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues. My friend from

Ferryland, when he spoke on a petition today, talked about the $15 million rate

adjustment fund that is going to go into it. He says it is for one year, and

sure it is for one year, but it is $15 million of taxpayers' money that is going

in there. I notice the editorial didn't carry that today.

Ten million in debt guarantee fees; we all know government

guarantees a 1 percentage fee, I believe it is, on Hydro's debt, so they got

about $10 million there that they are going to lose. Twenty-five million there,

Mr. Speaker, that it sort of strikes-out the $25 million that the editorial was

talking about today. Thirty to forty million a year transfers under the Public

Utilities Income Tax Transfer, or better known as PUITTA, I didn't see that in

the editorial today, I say to members opposite. Thirty to forty million

contributed directly by the Province to new Hydro's pension plan, I didn't see

that in the editorial, I say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You know who is taking a great chunk of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The pension plan.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here, I say

everyone in this Province is entitled to a pension plan. I believe very strongly

on that, and they are entitled to a funded pension plan, in my opinion.

What I say to the Member for St. John's South is that

government is going to put -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am not sure yet. I was before you became a

movie star, but I am not sure about you since.

Thirty to forty million dollars is going to go into a pension

plan of a private company, I say to the Member for St. John's South. New Hydro

becomes a private company and the government is going to put $35 million to $40

million in it, okay? But what are you going to do to the pension plan of your

own employees, the governments own employees that is underfunded?

MR. GRIMES: We are trying to do it now.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you are trying to do it now, but you are

not transferring $30 million to $40 million of taxpayers' money.

What's happening here, Mr. Speaker, is a cosy deal being set

up for the buddies of some people who will become the shareholders of new Hydro,

that's what's happening.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry I interrupted you.

MR. TOBIN: No, that's no problem.

Mr. Speaker, that's what's taking place here, a cosy deal. A

new company is going to come in, Mr. Speaker, we all know who they're going to

be. There's more we're going to bring out one of these days. There will be more

tabled one of these days, Mr. Speaker, we had a document tabled last week by my

colleague from Humber East. A document dealing with an agreement that was 98 per

cent complete on the development of the Lower Churchill, 98 per cent complete

that's what the document says and the Premier scuttled it. He scuttled it, Mr.

Speaker, because instead of the peasants in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador making a few bucks from the development, the new shareholders, Mr.

Speaker, the bag money of this country, that's who's going to make the money

now.

So the Premier scuttled the deal, privatized Hydro and said:

now my friends here is your chance, and I bet you the first thing they'll have

is a copy of this. The first thing they'll have is a copy of this, Mr. Speaker,

saying here's the agreement, I got 98 per cent done for you, you got 2 per cent

left to do, the money is yours and to hell with Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, that's what's happening, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this deal is

scuttled and that is why Hydro is being privatized, I say to members opposite,

no other reason. No other reason except to look after their buddies.

MR. GRIMES: What was it again? Say it again (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations has nothing better to do than to listen to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture then he deserves to miss what I said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what's happening here. Today the

Member for St. John's East Extern tabled a document, Mr. Speaker, there's more

to come I can tell members opposite. There will be more stuff tabled in this

House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Dirt?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no it won't be dirt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: No one can say that's dirt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I'll ask all

members opposite to stand up, when the vote is called, and vote to have public

hearings and let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have input.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for

me this afternoon to rise on this private members motion and to tell hon.

members, you Your Honour and the people of this Province that there's no

possible way that I could support this particular motion. There are so many

reasons; you can run all over the place. I suppose it is difficult and I say to

hon. members they may be somewhat confused. As a matter of fact, most times

they're confused but that's not really the issue. The problem is that hon.

members know that if we were debating today, clause-by-clause of this particular

bill in third reading, we'd be able to inform the people of this Province,

through the media, exactly the viewpoints that hon. members opposite have on why

Hydro shouldn't be privatized and the viewpoints of hon. members on this side as

to why it should but we haven't done that. We've sat in this House day in and

day out and we've heard nothing only rhetoric, we haven't gotten down to the

meat and potatoes of the bill.

Now this public hearing issue, I just want to remind members

- and sometimes we all need to be reminded because God knows I'm constantly

reminded of what I do and say and that's fine, that's fair but let me say to the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount, who was a member of the Mount Pearl council,

when the residents of Newtown said to that hon. member, 95 per cent of them said

to him: we don't want to become part of Mount Pearl, we want our own little

town. Now, did he hear them? Well, if he heard them he sure didn't heed them,

because if the hon. members opposite get in their places and say: oh, 95 per

cent of the people in this Province want to retain Hydro, then I say to the hon.

member, he has to be ready to remember the yesterday and that is what his motion

is all about, the public hearing issue. Did he hear the public outcry in

Newtown? I say to hon. members opposite: N O, no, he didn't hear it, so now, all

of a sudden he has a new sense, a refreshed and awakening conscience.

Now, let me ask the other question, because it was while he

was the Mayor of Mount Pearl, did we have any hearings on the $28 million that

we spent on cucumbers? Where were the public hearings, were there any public

hearings, I ask hon. members opposite, N O, no, so why -

AN HON. MEMBER: Red herrings.

MR. MURPHY: Red herring, that's right, not public

hearings, red herrings. I thank the Member for Pleasantville.

The Member for St. John's East gets up today and the Member

for Burin _ Placentia West reaffirmed it: I have petitioners here from St.

John's South, well, I say to the Member for St. John's East, I didn't get every

vote on Shea Heights, I got most of them I didn't get them all but I got most of

them, but the only member who had the courage, three-and-a-half years ago, I set

out the first press release and I meant it and I will say it to this day and I

will stand in this place and I will say it forever, because I am a true believer

and government has no business in the private sector. We are not here to do that

and my colleague from Eagle River said it loud and clear today, government's

responsibility is to provide the essential services to the people of this

Province.

Education, when the minister stands up tomorrow and reads out

the Budget, the $800 million that is required by this government to educate our

young people, is that more important I ask the hon. members opposite, the $800

million that is going to be budgeted into health care, where is that coming from

I say to hon. members. Where is it coming from? What about the $625 million that

this government needs on April 1, to service the debt, I say to the Member for

St. John's East Extern, to service the debt of which 79 per cent was accrued by

the former Tories, when the then Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber

East, would say to her colleague from Mount Pearl: Well, Neil, run down and get

some more money, get a loan of more money. We have some problems, throw the

money at it, fire the money, throw it out, dish it out. But who is going to pay

for it? Oh, somebody will come along and pay for it.

But as the hon. Member for Eagle River said and said loud and

clear, and never mind I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West what his

intentions are; I have known the hon. member now for six years and he is an hon.

member because he has nothing, nothing on his mind, only the people of Eagle

River. Let me tell the hon. member that and you can talk about your motivations

and talk about all the old foolishness you want, and I say to the residents and

the constituents of St. John's South, ask them, you ask them, go up on Shea

Heights and have a look at what's up there. Go up and look at the community

since this member has had an opportunity to represent them and I thank the hon.

ministers who supported me. That is what I say to him, go up and look at the

seniors complex up there; go up and look at the new health care facility up

there, go up and look at the recreation centre up there, go up and look at the

60 per cent provided by this government for asphalt and paving and sidewalks, go

up an look at it.

DR. KITCHEN: What about St. John's Centre, when are we

going to get something there?

MR. MURPHY: The Member for St. John's Centre has done

fairly well, he hasn't done as well as the Member for St. John's South, but I

say to him, in the New Budget, his turn is coming, probably.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I knew the Member for Ferryland was going to

open up sooner or later. He could not sit there. He had to say something. Now,

this new Calvert Math is after befalling this hon. House of Assembly. The member

has so many figures in his head and he has brought in so many documents and so

many pieces of paper in his brown folder over there, that he does not know what

is right, what is wrong, what is good or what is bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I cannot take anymore I say to the hon.

member. I say to the hon. member he will drive me to Holiday Inn. That is what

he will do. It is beyond human comprehension to listen day in and day out to the

Calvert figures.

MR. TOBIN: I am inviting you to Holiday Inn (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Pleasantville drove me out. I

have to be honest with you. My meeting would not have been on that evening if I

had known that his was on, I can assure the hon. member, but that is alright.

Let me come back to that public meeting issue. I have had my public meetings, I

say to the member. Did the Member for Humber East say anything about Hydro

during the campaign? Did she say she was against it? Did you say to your

constituents in Humber East: I think government should buy back Newfoundland

Power? Did you say that? You did not say it, because that in essence is exactly

the reverse of the position this government is taking.

Now, she knows full well, because she was a member of

Cabinet, what $6 billion worth of debt in 1994 is and what kind of a yoke it is

around the shoulders of the people of this Province. She knows it and she knows

that the Minister of Finance - and I say to you in all honesty, as fine a

Minister of Finance since 1949 as this Province has ever seen will deliver his

speech tomorrow. Now, she knows that that $6 billion and the unfunded - never

put a dime in -the Member for Burin - Placentia West talked about the pension

plan that government has to take up. Government has a responsibility and it is

not going to walk away from it. I say to the member that we are not walking away

from it. There are people who have worked for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

and this government is going to protect them, the same as we are protecting

every citizen of the Province. We are going to protect these people because for

seventeen years, I say to the Member for Ferryland, the party that he is a

member of did not put a penny in, took all the money, took all the pension

funding and threw it into general revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, in tough times, I say to the

ex-teacher, we put $21 million in the teacher's pension fund. That is what I say

to the member. It was a tough decision and I would not want to be in Cabinet to

try and find the money.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you do not want to be why are you trying

so hard?

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. member he is entitled

to his foolish response. I openly admit it, if the call comes I will take it,

but I have no ambitions to be the leader like the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Scuttle the leader. Shove the Member for

Burin - Placentia West down a seat, trying to nudge his way up every chance he

gets. When the Member for Grand Falls is not here he has himself perched in the

chair trying to figure out if it fits good. Do I feel comfortable?

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

of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no one scuttling our leader. I say

to the member opposite that it is that party that knows how to scuttle leaders

and not our party.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I say if Ottenheimer, who is a very close

friend of the hon. member, were here he might tell him something different.

Now, do you want to get up again?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member if he gets up for

nine minutes it is not east I am going, it is west, in the new district. He

knows, in by Bowring Park, that is where he is going to drive me. He is going to

drive me into a psychiatrist's office. I cannot take anymore of his figures. He

has poor Basil right out of his head every night. Basil does not know what page

to turn.

The Member for Ferryland gave me a set of figures, Kay, or

Audrey, or whoever is calling in. I say to the hon. member, how in God's earthly

name, if the people in this Province are not confused it is beyond me.

Because the hon. member, and other hon. members, ex-CEOs,

deputy mayors, whoever, are throwing these numbers at poor old Bas. Every night

Bas is there and he is trying to get through all of this, and it is incredible.

Because now you have poor Bas confused.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about Bill? His numbers are pretty

high.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I would say to the hon. member, you

know. What has happened in the last five months is obvious. I say this

sincerely. The reason - and the editorial said it today in The Evening

Telegram , and they were quite right. That the government hasn't got the

message out to the people. There is a reason for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are afraid to give them the message!

MR. MURPHY: There is a reason. No, they are not afraid to

give them the reason. The member knows the reason. It is that we cannot get into

the fine detail because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be on the stock

market very soon.

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: It will be on the stock market - well, I

would say to the hon. member, she was told today, or her colleague was told

today, by the Minister of Finance. He has a responsibility as a citizen. Not

only as a member representing Mount Pearl, who tried to represent the people of

Central Newfoundland in the federal election but forgot to read the act. The

Member for Mount Pearl has a responsibility to go to the Department of Justice

and report it. The same as the Member for Humber East. If she knows - and she

claims to know everything, she has all kinds of documents, God knows where she

gets them - then she, not only as the ex-Minister of Justice, she has a

responsibility under the law of the land to go to the Department of Justice and

report the specific brokers who are quoting fixed prices on the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is why all the numbers are not out there. Because this

government is trying to get the most it can for the people of this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) a share, just watch.

MR. MURPHY: I will say to the hon. member, $147 million

interest. The Member for St. John's East gets up and he takes the $147 million

and he turns it into $182 million. Nobody in this whole discussion - because it

is not a debate, because we won't, you won't, on behalf of the people of the

Province, put the bill on the Table and discuss it. Not this government. This

government is prepared to go through the bill clause by clause, and you are not

prepared to do any of that. You are just prepared to stand in your place and get

on with the same constant, continuous rhetoric.

The Member for St. John's East is down there and he said to

me today: The Member for St. John's South should hold a public meeting. The

Member for St. John's East, who never held a public meeting in his life, not

one. Where do you get the gall, I ask the member? Mr. Speaker, this pious -

well, probably he doesn't have the time to hold a public meeting because

everybody knows he is very busy. He is busy with the same kind of robe Your

Honour has on. Running around with his little white collar on and doing the best

he can for - guess! The people of St. John's East? Well, maybe, I don't know. We

will have to see. Time will tell.

The Member for St. John's East doesn't need to dictate to me

that he got a few names from St. John's South, because as I told the member

before, and I tell the member again, in my campaign literature when I handed it

out to every household in the District of St. John's South, that I advocated

privatizing Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Your leader didn't.

MR. MURPHY: I advocated privatizing Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Your party didn't.

MR. MURPHY: I have been advocating the privatization of

Hydro for three and a half years, I say to hon. members opposite, and I will

(inaudible) -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) still not in Cabinet.

MR. MURPHY: That doesn't matter. I will continue, I say

to the hon. Member for Humber East, to advocate it. Because we cannot afford to

carry on with this debt any longer. We have no option. As I said to the member

last night, if we could buy Newfoundland Light and Power for $500 million

tomorrow, by example, it might be a good deal; that might be the way to go. Then

the people of the Province