March 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 6

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the

public galleries twenty-eight students and four teachers from Eastern College,

Carbonear, who are involved in a program called Improving Our Odds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of privilege. This is the first opportunity

I have had to rise in the House on the point of privilege since receiving

documents to support my point. Members will recall that on Friday morning past I

asked the Premier the following question, and I quote from Hansard, "Yesterday

the Premier admitted that Jim Chalker, now the Hydro board chairperson,

controlled the purse strings of his $50,000 a year salary supplement. Will the

Premier confirm that Jim Chalker's law firm has been doing work on the Hydro

privatization, explain the nature of the work, and tell the House how much the

law firm has billed to date and will be billing in the future? Members will also

recall that the Premier remained seated and stayed silent while the Minister of

Justice gave the following answer, again I quote from Hansard. "Mr. Speaker, let

me simply say to the hon. lady that in this case, as is unfortunately too often

the case with her, her premises are completely wrong. Mr. Chalker's law firm,

which is Chalker, Green & Rowe here in St. John's, a very fine law firm indeed,

I may add, has not been retained by anybody, to my knowledge, certainly by

neither the government nor Hydro, in connection with this transaction."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the same as all others in the

Chamber on Friday morning, even the Member for St. John's South, heard the

Minister of Justice give that answer. Now since I had directed my question to

the Premier in the first place, surely the Premier should have answered it or at

the very least corrected his minister when the Premier heard him give a false

answer.

Mr. Speaker, I have documentary proof that the Minister of

Justice gave an incorrect answer to the House of Assembly. I wish to table the

following copies of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro financial records relating

to expenditures on Hydro privatization. First, Exhibit A, a computer generated

summary document headed "Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Newco Costs",

indicating a total outlay of $387,830.07 at the end of 1993; second, Exhibit B,

a computer generated accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green

and Rowe indicating $24,977.47 - paid $9,312.08; third, Exhibit C, a computer

generated accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe

showing $7,216.83 - paid $9,312.13; fourth, Exhibit D, a computer printed

accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing

$5,059.81 - paid $9,307.16; fifth, a computer printed accounts payable document

naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing $11,645.85 - paid $9,304.30; and

sixth, an accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe

showing $3,964.76 - paid $9,302.01.

These documents exist, Mr. Speaker, yet when I asked the

Premier about work Jim Chalker's law firm has been doing on Hydro privatization

he sat in silence while his henchman, the Minister of Justice, denied Chalker,

Green and Rowe had done any such work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, Chalker, Green and Rowe is a

firm very well known to the Premier, very well known. It's his paymaster law

firm. The law firm that laundered his $50,000 a year salary supplement.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Premier and the Minister of

Justice breached my privileges as a member of this House on Friday when they

denied - the Minister of Justice orally denied, the Premier denied by his silent

acquiescence - that Chalker, Green and Rowe has been doing work on the Hydro

privatization and has billed substantial sums for the work and has been paid

substantial amounts for the work. Mr. Speaker, Chalker, Green and Rowe is not

just any firm. Chalker, Green and Rowe is Jim Chalker's law firm, the law firm

that administered the Premier's salary supplement when he was Leader of the

Opposition and a member of this House and the firm of the Chairperson of the

Hydro Board of Directors, that firm, Mr. Speaker.

If Your Honour rules that I have established a prima facie

case, that my privileges have been breached, I will proceed to make the

following motion: I move, seconded by the Member for Grand Bank, that the

Premier and the Minister of Justice be expelled from the House of Assembly for

two weeks for breaching a member's privileges by knowingly and deliberately

withholding information from members of this hon. House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

before I'm to be hung, drawn, quartered and executed, the hon. lady should know

that snooping at keyholes gets you nothing but an eyeful of dirt. This is where

she is with respect, Sir. I submit there is no point of privilege. What I said,

according to Hansard, page 137, was that Mr. Chalker's law firm "...has not been

retained by anybody, to my knowledge, certainly by neither the government nor

Hydro, in connection with this transaction." That statement was correct, that

statement is correct.

Mr. Speaker, it is that simple. The hon. lady has apparently,

by whatever means -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. the Opposition Leader would

control -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trying to trick (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not trying to trick anybody, Mr.

Speaker. I answered a question. I made a statement. The statement -

MR. TOBIN: Come clean! Come clean!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from Grand Bank wouldn't

know the truth if he stumbled over it, because what he is getting is the truth,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Who?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West. I apologize to my friend for Grand Bank. My friend for Grand

Bank's problem is not knowing the difference between 1,000 and $6 million, but

that is another story.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the point. Mr. Chalker has

been retained personally by Hydro. My friend the Minister of Mines and Energy

said this in the same exchange. He said - I am reading now from Hansard, page

138. This is the Minister of Mines and Energy speaking. "Mr. Speaker, I tell the

hon. member" - the lady from Humber East - "that I have never, ever said that

Jim Chalker's law firm was involved. I have said that Jim Chalker has been on

our negotiating team. He's the best person we could have for it and I am pleased

to have him there."

What has happened, I said that Mr. Chalker's firm - Chalker,

Green & Rowe - has not been retained. That was correct, that is correct, to the

best of my knowledge as of now. What has happened is Mr. Chalker has quite

properly been submitting bills for the time he spent on the negotiating team.

He has done a splendid job for us, and I am told that he has

assigned to his law firm, the right to receive payments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite may

interrupt or cheer or do as they want. What I have said is correct. There is, in

my estimation or in my judgement, no point of privilege, in my submission, no

point of privilege. I stood in this House and told the truth; I am telling it

now. Mr. Chaulker's law firm, Chaulker, Green and Rowe has not been retained,

Mr. Chaulker has. Mr. Chaulker gets paid because he does his work and he does

his work very well as a member of the negotiating team, and those of us who have

been involved in dealings with the negotiating team, will give eloquent, ardent

and continuing testimony that Jim Chaulker is of very great assistance to us in

putting this together.

Far from making an apology for that, I would say we are very

fortunate to have his services. And, of course, we are paying him for it. Hon.

members opposite, as far as I know, don't work for free - whatever their

services are worth, they get paid the same stipend as every member of the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, there is no point of privilege.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: To the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) if ever there was one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a prima

facie case, then we have one here, because what the minister has just done today

he could have very easily done on Friday morning. As my colleague for Burin -

Placentia West said, he could have come clean with the House, he could have

given the information as asked by the Member for Humber East, but what did he

do? He stood in his place and denied what the hon. the Member for Humber East

has shown very clearly today, has happened.

Now, I say to the Government House Leader, if ever there was

a blatant conflict of interest in this Province, it has just been outlined by

the Member for Humber East and confirmed - confirmed by the Government House

Leader, that for Mr. Chaulker, who is Chairman of the Board of Directors of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and as outlined a couple of days ago by the

Member for Humber East, administered, really administered the Premier's salary

supplement fund, to have cheques issued to the law firm for

$300-and-some-thousand, Mr. Speaker, I mean, how -

MR. SIMMS: No, that is not quite correct - $300,000 is

the amount of cheques issued.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, the total amount.

MR. ROBERTS: Not all of them (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, a substantial amount of money, I

say to the Government House Leader, but that is beside the point, if it were one

dollar, I say to the Government House Leader, it is still a conflict of

interest.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that what the Government

House Leader, the Minister of Justice did Friday morning, was, he misled members

of this House, not only the Member for Humber East but all members of this

Legislature. That member asked a very straightforward question which the Premier

refused to stand and answer, but gave the nod to the Minister of Justice, who

stood in his place and misled all members, because the Government House Leader

could have told us on Friday morning what he told us today, I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Now, perhaps the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable, but we don't, and I doubt very much

if anyone else does, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East has very clearly

outlined the case. It is a definite prima facie case that has been established,

and I would ask Your Honour that in your deliberations, when you come back, that

you take under consideration the motion as put forward by the Member for Humber

East, and that the Premier and the Minister of Justice be expelled for two

weeks, being ten sitting days.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are seeing here is an abuse of the rules of the

House, essentially, to simply make a point. The Opposition has made it clear

that they will use every trick imaginable to try to delay the process that we

are now going through in this House, and what we see here is a deliberate use,

or misuse, of the right to bring up a point of privilege, just to take the

opportunity to make a speech or two and to reiterate something that has already

been said, and a total waste of time, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that this obviously is not a point of

privilege. Your Honour is quite familiar with the regulations and rules

involving privilege in the House, Mr. Speaker. A question was asked during

Question Period. An answer was given, and I think the Minister of Justice has

indicated that the total answer was given by a combination of his answer and the

answer of the Minister of Mines and Energy. The information was given

accurately. The information that was given is totally accurate, Mr. Speaker, so

this is the fact of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, essentially, this involves a dispute over

allegation of fact, and I refer Your Honour to Hansard, paragraph 31, page 13.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry - Hansard?

MR. BAKER: "A dispute arising between two Members, as to

allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary

privilege."

So obviously, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the minister referred

to Hansard. Is that Beauchesne?

MR. BAKER: Oh, I am sorry, Beauchesne.

MR. SPEAKER: What was the reference again?

MR. BAKER: Beauchesne, paragraph 31, page 13.

"A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of

facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

Mr. Speaker, also, I would like to draw to Your Honour's

attention that if the bone of contention that the member brings up in her

preamble was that the Premier didn't answer the question, I would like to also

remind Your Honour that the same paragraph indicates that: "The Failure of a

Minister to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege." -

may not be raised, even.

The same paragraph indicates that failure of a minister to

answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege, may not be

raised even, as a question of privilege. So, Your Honour, I submit that the

whole thing is a charade being played out here by members opposite simply to try

to drag red herrings across this whole issue of privatization of Hydro and to

use every trick in the book to fill in time and to delay our consideration of

this process. It's obviously not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the

Government House Leader may try all they want to whitewash this but this is a

serious allegation. It is not a question of just simply trying to raise some

fuss over the Hydro privatization. The point that the Minister of Finance made

about the question asked by the Member for Humber East is not the point of

privilege at all. The point of privilege relates to the misleading answer that

the Minister of Justice gave to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now that is what the point of privilege is all

about. He very carefully mentioned an example of matters of no privilege and he

is correct, a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact but,

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that in this particular case there is no dispute as

to the allegation because it has all been proven there and the minister himself

in fact admitted some of it here this morning.

What we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that your role, the

Speaker's role as you well know, is not so much as to determine whether there is

a breach of privilege - we will have to determine that ourselves in debating the

motion that the Member for Humber East indicated she would lay down - the

Speaker's role is to determine whether this allegation and this matter is

serious enough so as to require the Speaker to allow us to debate that motion

over everything else that might be coming up during the course of the rest of

the day. Now that is the point of privilege that the Member for Humber East is

raising.

Now in terms of the details, I think, Your Honour, that the

Member for Humber East has very carefully laid out - as she should or any member

should in putting forth a case of privilege - a fair bit of material for Your

Honour to consider. She has documentation to put forth with her allegation and

of course we have the minister's answer from Friday, and now his answer today,

to clearly indicate that this House and the privileges of all members of this

House were breached, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that minister, the Minister of

Justice, not telling the people the truth but trying to hide the truth by

misleading, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may with respect to the procedure, I am

not the least bit concerned with the hon. Leader of the Opposition's

histrionics, which I suspect, not even he believes. The answer I gave was the

truth and the full truth. I answered the hon. lady's question, if she is so

incompetent in asking questions, that's on her head.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriate procedure - should Your Honour

conclude there is a prima facie case - is to have a motion before the House

either to refer it to a committee or to the House to debate it. Then there's the

matter of the priority to be given to it. At the very least the House might

want, I suggest, to do something the hon. lady hasn't done and that is to hear

the facts of the matter instead of documents that say that she's got - I won't

say she's got them surreptitiously, she's presumedly got them honestly and

honourably - but documents that she's got by listening at a key hole.

MS. VERGE: You're just sorry I got them.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sorry you got them at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just briefly to this

point of order.

First of all, the Minister of Justice gets more like his

boss, the Premier, every day. When he gets himself in big trouble he tries to

defend himself by attacking somebody as he just tried to attack the Member for

Humber East. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he wishes but he can't

deny the fact that the information he gave the House on Friday was not the

truth, it was just the opposite, it was an untruth. He tried to hide the fact

that the Chairman of the Board, who holds a very authoritative position in

Hydro, is now being paid to do legal work on behalf of that board. Now, Mr.

Speaker, outside of the fact that we had a breach of privilege here in this

House, by the misinformation given to the House, that is a clear conflict of

interest. One would have thought that that firm would have automatically been

disqualified from even being considered to do that type of work.

Indeed, we will find there are only three or four law firms

that have the expertise within those firms here in this Province to deal with a

large share offering in the public market. One of them is John Green, who is a

partner of Chalker, Green and Rowe, a school buddy of mine. In fact, I grew up

with him all my life. The other one is Mr. Doug Black, who is a partner in a

firm that my hon. friend was involved with, and I believe his good wife is

probably involved in. The other one is, I think, associated with the firm that

used to be Marshall, White, Ottenheimer and Green. I am not sure what's left

there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) firm.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another Liberal firm.

MR. WINDSOR: Another good firm.

Anyway, they are the three people that I am aware of, in this

Province, who have the legal expertise to deal with this issue, and the bottom

line, Mr. Speaker, is the firm, one of the principles of which is the Chairman

of the Board, should have automatically been disqualified, and the minister is

certainly in breach of privilege of this House by trying to hide that and to

skate around that on Friday morning.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there is clearly a breach of privilege here in the

House because the documents tabled today show that payments show invoices to

Chalker, Green and Rowe. Had they been made to Jim Chalker in person there would

be no grounds, but they are made to the law firm, and that is the reference that

the minister made. He made reference specifically to Jim Chalker and the

possibility of doing work, and he intentionally avoided reference to Chalker,

Green and Rowe. The documents show that, and it's clearly a prima facie case of

breaches of privileges of the Members of this House.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I might add a few words to this

point of privilege, the thrust of the point of privilege appears to be that the

Minister of Justice misled the House.

Your Honour will know that there are many authorities which

say that misleading the House doesn't make a point of privilege. I refer

specifically to Maingot. Since I have been away from Maingot for some time, and

don't have the authority with me, I am sure Your Honour would be familiar with

it, and the people of the Table.

It's somewhere around page 200 where Maingot makes reference

to the fact that misleading the House is not a point of privilege, or to

deliberately mislead the House is not a point of privilege. It might be a point

of order, but to deliberately - that's an accusation - an accusation made by

somebody that somebody deliberately misled the House is not a point of

privilege.

If the member admitted to the point that he or she

deliberately misled the House, that is a different matter. The hon. the Minister

says, of course, that what he said was the truth. Therefore I submit for Your

Honour, on the quotations of Maingot - I am sorry that I wasn't able to quote

the page and verse - but Maingot very clearly states that misleading the House,

or even deliberately misleading the House, doesn't a point of privilege make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will take the point under advisement and, if the parties

consent, address -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would like to raise another point of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member - on the point of

privilege, I think obviously I need some time to review the record and documents

filed, and review the rulings that have been made, and I will rule on it as soon

as possible, hopefully within the next several days.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of

privilege because of the fact that a matter has come to my attention, only

today, that throws into disrepute, I guess, the answers given by the Premier to

me last Friday and, by his own admission, in a letter to me today, that did

actually occur.

I think, for the benefits of Members of the House of

Assembly, who should be aware, and who laughed, and who did all the other kinds

of things when he gave the answer, they should be very much aware of this, and

the media, and the public, through the media, I hope.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday morning past, I

asked the question whether or not the government was planning an extensive

public relations campaign to try to sell the idea of privatization of Hydro to

the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. I alleged that we understood they were

about to put together a campaign of brochures, radio advertising, newspaper

advertising and the like, and the Premier got up and essentially denied that was

occurring. He wasn't aware of anything going on like that, which was rather

surprising, because we were aware of it, and certainly members in his own caucus

were aware of it, because I could see them nodding when I was asking the

question.

So, Mr. Speaker, we were thoroughly misled, I now find out,

and I want to enter into the record the answer by the Premier: "Late this

afternoon" - which was Friday afternoon, the Premier says - "I became aware that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, acting in concert with the Government are in

fact planning to carry out some radio advertising to inform the public as to the

reasons why Government feels Hydro ought to be privatized."

Second paragraph and final paragraph. "When I answered your

question in the House this morning, I sincerely did not know that this programme

was in the process of being developed," Mr. Speaker. "As indicated in my answer,

I expected that Hydro would in fact be doing some promotion and advertising, but

I did not know that the Government would also have some involvement and that it

would be done in the form of radio advertising, explaining the basis for

privatization. I have just now been shown drafts of scripts for radio spots and

I felt I ought to forthwith advise you that, inadvertently, the answer I gave

you this morning was not correct.

"Yours very truly, Clyde.

"P.S." - handwritten - "Since dictation I have now been

advised there will be newspaper advertising as well."

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter that on the record because

clearly it is a breach of privilege to give false information to the House and

that clearly is what happened. It has now been confirmed as a result of the

letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are stretching it now.

MR. SIMMS: I'm hardly stretching it, Mr. Speaker. It is

very clear. He didn't give the proper information in the House on Friday, and

rather than get up in the House today and admit it he writes a little letter to

me, knowing that he was going to be gone and out of the Province he could have

had the Government House Leader or anybody else respond to it.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may. Late Friday afternoon

the Premier telephoned and asked if I would come to see him, and of course I

did. Just as when Mr. Peckford telephoned the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he

went to see Mr. Peckford, or when Mr. Rideout telephoned, he went to see him, or

when Mr. Moores telephoned, he went to see him. I would think it is only a

courtesy when the Premier of the Province asks to see an individual an

individual goes, if he or she can.

The Premier said to me, would I make a statement in his

behalf in the House on Monday, today, because he was to be away from the

Province on business. I said, of course. What is it to address? He gave me a

copy, which I have here, of the letter he had just written to the Leader of the

Opposition. Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition may ask: why have I not made

the statement?... the answer is: when the Speaker called "Order," indeed, before

the Speaker called "Order," the hon. lady from Humber East was on her feet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No, if the hon. gentleman can possess his

soul in patience for a minute. That matter was discussed for thirty minutes.

Your Honour then took the matter under advisement. Before Your Honour said

anything further the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls was on his feet, fair

enough, was recognized and went on.

I don't have a written statement. What I have here is a copy

of the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have that.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course the hon. gentlemen have copies of

the letter. I have forty on the way down here for any other member who may want

them and for the press.

MR. SIMMS: They already have them.

MR. ROBERTS: That is good. It is a well-written letter.

It too, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Where is your statement?

MR. ROBERTS: I am about to make the statement, if the

hon. gentleman will simply cross his legs and possess his soul in patience -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Jim Chalker? (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady from Humber East

can be irritating, she can be very irritating, in the same way as any other

minor irritant can become irritating over a period of time.

I would like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, simply to address the

substance of it. The matter is very simple. When the Premier made his answer in

the House - I can read it from Hansard, the hon. gentleman perhaps did - the

answer he made was full and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. He

returned upstairs to his office later on - I don't know when, I don't how long

he was in the House that day - but at some point after he went back to his

office after the House had adjourned he was made aware that the information he

had given was not complete. He immediately did the proper thing. He asked one of

his secretaries to come in, dictated the letter to the Leader of the Opposition

- which I understand was delivered by hand that afternoon - the letter was

typed, it was signed. The Premier added a note, as the gentleman has said, in

his own hand, and sent it off. Then he telephoned me and the message he gave me

during the discussion was, would I come to the House on Monday and at the

appropriate time make this be on the record as I am doing. There is no more to

it than that. I realize that hon. gentlemen and lady opposite tend to think the

Premier is omniscient but I must, on behalf of the Premier, say that he is not

always omniscient. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, even the Premier doesn't know

everything there is to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. Mr. Speaker, one can say many things

about the present Premier of this Province; what one cannot say is that he

deliberately, or intentionally, or knowingly misleads. He does not. We all, on

occasion, make mistakes. The Premier made a statement which he believed to be

correct, which, to the best of his knowledge, was correct, and my statement, in

fact, is correct and was correct. Jim Chalker's law firm has not been retained

by the Government of this Province nor by anybody else.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why did he pay him?

MR. ROBERTS: Why did who pay what? I ask my friend for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked, why is (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I have already told the House that. Mr.

Chalker, himself, told me that he had assigned his right to receive payments

from Hydro to his law firm. Now, that is a matter between him and his law firm.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. ROBERTS: I have no idea when the assignment was made,

Mr. Speaker, none at all. I haven't seen it, don't know it, I am relying on the

information given to me by a gentleman who is honest, honourable and, in my

experience, speaks the truth. What I have said about the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

is that he asked me to come here to make the statement I made, and I make it,

and leave it with the House. In my submission, there is no question of

privilege. Far from there being a question of privilege, the Premier has acted

honourably, honestly, responsibly, openly, and quickly. What more could a person

do, Mr. Speaker? So I let it stand on that. I can table copies of the letter and

I ask the table clerks to distribute copies to the press gallery so that they

have them as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a word on

the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, from listening to the Leader of

the Opposition and the Minister of Justice, it is very obvious the Premier knew

that the people of the Province were going to hear the radio ads and they were

going to read the newspaper ads. He couldn't hide behind that, but very clearly,

on Friday when asked by the Leader of the Opposition, he said, "No, Mr. Speaker.

To the best of my knowledge, none is planned." Now, that was his answer to the

questions about the advertising campaign. Now, of course, the Premier did not

know, I say to the Government House Leader, that the Member for Humber East was

going to get the records of payments to Chalker, Green & Rowe, or maybe we would

have had a letter from the Premier about that today. Of course, I want to say to

the Government House Leader, that you have become so used to not being honest

that you don't know now when you are or when you're not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, of course, if you do something like

that often enough, eventually you will get caught, and you have been caught

today, I say to the Government House Leader. We saw more of it on Friday, Mr.

Speaker, when they threw a gentleman out of the lobby here, out of the confines

of the House, one of the Premier's staff booting Mr. Vetter out and he wasn't

allowed to be interviewed, then the press conference where some of the people

from Power of the People went to get in and they locked the doors in their

faces. That's what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Then the Government House Leader

gets up and talks about how honest and honourable they all are. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier has been caught. He didn't tell the truth to the House on Friday and now

the Premier and the Government House Leader are trying to cover-up. So again I

submit that a prima facie case has been established.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is away, and I

expected the Minister of Mines and Energy to be here, but he isn't here, either.

MR. ROBERTS: He is on the Cross-talk program on CBC.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I guess we won't wait for that because

we have some other matters we want to address. I will ask the Minister of

Finance, I guess, the questions because, under the privatization legislation,

Bill No. 1, the minister in the legislation referred to is really the Minister

of Finance; so I want to ask him a few questions, if I may, about this

legislation.

Now, in the closed-door briefing referred to by my colleague,

the Member for Grand Bank, just a moment ago, that the Premier gave to the press

on Friday - which we were not allowed to have anybody attend, by the way, in our

role as the Official Opposition - we understand that the Premier stated

categorically that new Hydro would not get any of the undeveloped water rights

on the Island and in Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister:

Isn't it a fact, that the undeveloped water rights are not specifically excluded

under this privatization act, and is he aware that, in fact, the act gives him,

as Minister of Finance, in the future, the power to give away any or all of the

undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador? Is he aware of that

fact?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the comments about the press briefing and so

on. Hydro and the government gave a briefing to the press and we would also give

a briefing to the members of the Opposition if they so desire; we would give a

briefing to Mr. Vetter if he so desires. We will give briefings to anybody who

feels a need to receive a briefing in terms of the Hydro privatization bill. So,

we are quite open on the issue of briefings - anybody who wants to, can have a

briefing; however, Mr. Speaker, what we can't have is to arrange a briefing for

the press and then, all of a sudden, have an extra 100 or 200 people pile in. We

will arrange briefings, exactly the same briefings, for anybody who wants them.

Mr. Speaker, let's get that clear first. There is no attempt to not brief

anybody, to hide anything; this is a method of being open about anything and I

say to members opposite, if they want a complete briefing in terms of the Hydro

privatization, then I would be only too glad to arrange it for them. The same

thing goes for any other group who would like a briefing on that topic.

With regard to water rights, Mr. Speaker, obviously, if power

is going to be developed, then certain conditions have to be attached to the

water that provides that power and, Mr. Speaker, these are the only rights that

any company will have in terms of the production of power in this Province,

whether the power is being produced by a private company, by a small company, by

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or new Hydro or by Newfoundland Light and Power,

certain conditions have to be attached before a hydro development can take

place. And that involves the use of that particular bit of water and control

over that water that runs through the facility, otherwise, hydro development

anywhere in the world, is impossible. Hydro development anywhere in the world is

impossible unless there is a certain control over the water that flows through

the facility because, Mr. Speaker, if there is not, then you can't do a hydro

development.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Minister of Finance, if he would

confirm remembering that the Premier made a statement publicly that new Hydro

would not get any of the undeveloped water rights in the Island and in Labrador.

My question to him is this: Isn't he aware, in the legislation, that in fact,

undeveloped water rights are not excluded from the legislation, and that in

fact, the act gives the Minister of Finance the power to give away all or any of

the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador, at the stroke of a

pen any time in the future, without ever having to come back to the House of

Assembly. Will he confirm that?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that and I am

a pretty reasonable person, and have no intentions of giving away anything that

is not supposed to be given away, I will point that out. As to his point about

exclusion, Mr. Speaker, we also didn't exclude the use of Hudson's Bay or the

North Atlantic or anything else. There is no exclusion in there, certainly, but

that is reasonable.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important

point that has been downplayed by the government.

The act gives the minister extraordinary powers to give away

lands, waters and water rights at any time. That is what the legislation says.

Now, over half this Province is covered with water. The minister could give all

that away if he wish to, Mr. Speaker, because that is the way the legislation is

written and we wouldn't know it until the bulldozer showed up to demolish all

the summer homes and everything else around the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is

the reality I say to members opposite; that is the way the legislation is

written and, Mr. Speaker, you would expect that to happen only in Banana

Republics or dictatorships, but it is now clear, this could happen right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. So I want to ask the minister again - well, not

again, I want to ask him a new question. Why has the government - he has now

confirmed, by the way, for members opposite, in case they didn't hear him, that

in fact, that could occur - why has the government given those extraordinary

powers to the Minister of Finance? Why should one person, the Minister of

Finance, have the power to give away our birthright, if he wishes? Why should he

have that right? Can he tell the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously, ministers don't, by

themselves, make decisions of that nature, and I should point out to the hon.

gentleman that as the legislation goes through the House, and the detailed

examination occurs in committee stage, they can make all the kinds of

suggestions they want as to how to change conditions of the bill, and we will

talk about, in detail, everything that's in the bill.

I say to the hon. gentleman that one of his tactics was

obviously to eat up time through points of privilege, and I guess you will see

more of those in the days to come, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of his tactics is the great scare tactic. All of

a sudden, this privatization bill is going to mean that we are going to give

away all the land and all the water in the whole Province of Newfoundland, and

there's going to be nothing left there.

Mr. Speaker, scare tactics like that are simply not

believable, and a word of advice for the Leader of the Opposition, if he is

going to base his opposition to this purely on scare tactics, that is a losing

proposition.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't need any lectures from the Minister of Finance about

how to lead a losing proposition, because they are doing it very well themselves

on privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister can use all the

verbal trickery that he wants. He can hide behind words, and he can talk about

other issues. The point and fact of the matter is, he has now confirmed that

this legislation does not specifically exclude undeveloped water rights, which

is contrary to what the Premier said in the press conference on Friday - totally

contrary and misleading.

Secondly, it does give the Minister of Finance the

opportunity and the right to give away anything - any undeveloped water rights

in the future. It does. So, Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Minister of Finance:

That is wrong. You should not have that power, no Minister of Finance should,

unless - and I ask him if this is, in fact, what is in their mind - unless these

is a two-part stage to give away the water rights, firstly, unless the

government intends to give away all the lands, waters and water rights used by

new Hydro at this time - at the time new Hydro is formed; secondly, after Hydro

is privatized, and the risk of a public backlash has diminished, maybe the

Minister of Finance would then be able to sign over whatever undeveloped water

rights it wants to the new company, new Hydro, come hell or high water. Can the

minister tell us if that's in their plans, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. It wouldn't surprise me if

his next suggestion would be that I would give all the water rights away to

myself. Mr. Speaker, the line of questioning is simply outrageous.

No, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to give away this Province.

We have no intention of giving away all the water rights of this Province. There

are no nefarious schemes involved here. This process is open. We have the

legislation in front of us. We are going to have a full debate on that

legislation. There will be full explanations given at all stages of the

legislation. We have no intention of secretly and nefariously plotting to give

away this Province. That's not the reason we became the government of this

Province. Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Justice.

A few minutes ago, when I smoked the truth out of the

Minister of Justice, he confessed to a worse, a more flagrant, and a more

abhorrent abuse of public office and conflict of interest than I had imagined.

Will the government put an immediate end to Jim Chalker, the Premier's paymaster

and the Hydro board chairperson personally profiting from Hydro privatization?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady uses the verb

`smoked'. The only thing I can suggest, with all respect, is that she is smoking

something that is not sold in stores, and is not subject to tobacco tax.

Mr. Chalker has been retained to advise with respect to the

privatization proposal. He gets paid for his services. So do the galaxy of

people - law firms, the government's law firm, Hydro's law firm, the

underwriters law firm, the mainland counsel retained by each of those three law

firms, the financial advisors to all hands, the consultants -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chalker personally gets paid. Not only

do I not make any apology for that, I would say that what we are paying him is

money well spent. I don't even know what his hourly rate is - I think I was told

at one stage - but it is money well spent. He is entitled to it. He gets paid by

the hour, which is a perfectly appropriate, accepted, normal and widely used way

of paying for lawyers. Some people get paid by the each. Some people get paid by

the hour. Lawyers often work by the hour, and in my understanding, that is how

Mr. Chalker is billing for his services, and that is how he is being paid. So,

far from being improper, I think it is entirely appropriate.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is an atrocious

statement for a Minister of Justice. Another question for the Minister of

Justice. Will the government put an end to Hydro director Roland Martin's firm's

work for profit on the Hydro privatization?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Martin's firm, whatever it

is called, has not been retained by Hydro nor the government in connection with

this transaction. Now, I will save her the trouble of a second question. Mr.

Martin has been retained. I assume he is getting paid by the hour -

MR. WINDSOR: By whom?

MR. ROBERTS: It is my understanding, by Hydro, but I'm

not even sure of that.

MR. WINDSOR: And he is on the Board of Directors of

Hydro, too?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes - what is wrong with directors being

paid by their companies?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) a whole board of directors to do

what they are supposed to be doing anyway!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, directors of companies are paid

all the time.

MR. WINDSOR: Not when they are working on a project

(inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Of course they are. Mr. Speaker, I don't

know what sort of dream world the hon. gentleman lives in. Members of boards of

directors who are working for the company get paid. They get paid all the time.

MR. WINDSOR: He gets paid to be on a board of directors?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. WINDSOR: He gets paid to be on the board of

directors?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is correct. They are paid

a - whatever it is, I don't know what it is - usually a retainer and so much an

hour to be on the board of directors, then in addition, if directors work beyond

that, they get paid. Now, the hon. gentleman may find that astonishing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I find it not only normal, but entirely

appropriate.

MR. WINDSOR: No wonder you (inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: The amount of time that I understand Mr.

Martin is devoting to this, and I know that Mr. Chalker is devoting to it,

because I've seen Mr. Chalker far more at the meetings in which I've been

involved than I have Mr. Martin, although I've seen Mr. Martin, a fair amount,

but the amount of time -

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you get paid?

MR. ROBERTS: What I get paid, I say to my friend, are the

huge dollars that are paid to a minister of the Crown and a member of the House

of Assembly, and I get my cheque every two weeks, like he does, and it is

reduced by 4.5 per cent, as is his.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Fortis shares (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't have any Fortis shares any more. I'm

not allowed to invest in Fortis.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. ROBERTS: I tell my friend how I know. I directed my

trustee, with the Premier's permission, to sell the shares. I have a letter back

from him saying he sold the shares.

MR. SIMMS: That was after you said you weren't going to

do it - three days after (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't say I wasn't going to do it. I said

if I was told to do it I would. I was, and I did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin

is providing advice on this transaction. He is being paid for that advice. I

have no doubt it is worth every penny we pay, and probably a great deal more.

MR. WINDSOR: He should resign from the Board of

Directors! He can't serve two masters.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman, the Member for Mount

Pearl, who knows a great deal about a lot, obviously has never come across the

real-life situation where directors are paid over and above their director's

fees if they do work over and above their work as directors. That is where Mr.

Chalker is, and that is where Mr. Martin is. Not only is it a proper thing to

do, I would say, speaking for the government, we are darned lucky to have their

advice and it is worth every cent we pay for it.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice calls these transactions normal -

normal in a giant transaction that stinks to high heaven, perhaps.

I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy who

just took his place. Will the minister confirm that since the government and

Hydro discovered that the computer-generated Hydro records showing large

payments to Chalker, Green & Rowe and Roland Martin's firms were leaked, Hydro

has changed its accounts payable record-keeping so that transactions are now

done by hand?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether Hydro

payments are done by hand; I have no idea at all.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can he tell the House when the

Provincial Government made the proposal on the Income Supplementation Program to

the Federal Government, specifically the Prime Minister? And, can he tell the

House what the initial and official response of the Federal Government has been

to the proposed Income Supplementation Program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know, I can

check and get the exact dates because that is not information that I ever

considered to be that important to carry around in my head, as to exactly what

day. I can indicate quite clearly that it was back before Christmas, in

December, 1993 that it was released publicly. Shortly after that, the Premier

had an opportunity to discuss the matter directly with the Prime Minister and

shortly after that - and again, all of it before Christmas, we had an

opportunity to have a discussion, the Premier and myself, with Minister Axworthy

about the general principles contained in the Income Supplementation Program,

whereby then a commitment was taken that officials would have a look at it and

that Mr. Axworthy, as the minister responsible federally, would give us an

indication as to the level of interest and what possibilities existed. It was in

the last week or so that we received a letter from Mr. Axworthy, to the Premier,

indicating that they are still very interested in the principles but there may

be some difficulty at this point in time, in terms of implementing the Income

Supplementation Proposal in its entirety as we proposed it.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the

minister this - it is very important when the dates are. I know and I'm fully

aware of what was released publicly, a 53-page document that was released to all

members of the House of Assembly, since that time and after Christmas, we are in

possession of a document of some 130 pages that was a document presented to the

Prime Minister, that outlines in more detail what the Income Supplementation

proposes or what the program proposes, what groups will benefit but, in

particular, what groups will be hurt in a negative fashion by this proposal. So

let me ask the minister this: Are you considering implementing parts of that

program as proposed, and if so, what parts are you considering implementing in

conjunction with the Federal Government? Is there is a pilot project somewhere

in the Province where you are seriously looking at implementing the Income

Supplementation Program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to the

first part of the question, since I wasn't personally at the meetings between

the Premier and the Prime Minister, I couldn't tell you exactly which pieces of

paper changed hands at those meetings. Other than that, I do know that the

Income Supplementation Proposal of the Provincial Government was discussed with

the Prime Minister by the Premier. Following that, the Premier and myself as the

minister, discussed it with the federal minister responsible and continuing

discussions have gone on. The response, as I indicated, from Minister Axworthy,

most recently in the last week or so, is that of the entire program, which is a

major significant reform, they agree with the gist of it, the intent of it and

the idea of moving from disincentives to incentives and so on, that there are a

lot of characteristics that were described in that reform that they agree with

the direction and the principles.

They are not in a position now, for a couple of reasons, to

go ahead with the complete program in Newfoundland and Labrador using the

Province as we had indicated as a possible pilot project for testing to see

whether or not it could be implemented on a national scope later on. They are

not in a position to do that but they have asked us - and we haven't responded

to them yet - to consider if, in fact, we would do as the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker, asked in his question, if we would look at any one or two component

parts of it, to do on a pilot project basis in the short term, and we haven't

responded to that at this point in time.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever

that the Federal Government is considering and likes the principles outlined in

the Income Supplementation Program. All one would have to do is look at the

federal Budget and the negative impact that that will have on this Province as

well as the Income Supplementation Program and the negative impact that that

will have. So let me ask the minister this clearly, so he will understand it

clearly: Will the minister say now that he is prepared, as the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, charged with the responsibility of spearheading

the Income Supplementation Program, will he commit to holding public hearings in

the Province to give the people a chance to have input and to voice their

opinion on this program, which as in the case of Hydro they had not done and

denominational education they had not done? Will he commit to do it today so the

people of the Province can have a chance to voice their concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, with respect to the first part of the question, the

comment made about the federal Budget changes with respect to the Unemployment

Insurance Commission, it was made quite clear by the Premier on the day that we

released the Income Supplementation proposal publicly in the Province, that it

was concerned over the fact that everything at the political level and at the

official level, that anyone representing the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador had heard in the last couple of years, showed quite clearly, with the

previous administration and then with the change of government in October, there

was no doubt, because of the difficulties the federally-administered

unemployment insurance plan is encountering, that there were going to be changes

in that plan, and we knew that those kinds of changes would have negative

impacts on a fair number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who rely on that

system for their income maintenance. And it was because of that, that we were

proposing a replacement scheme as outlined in the Income Supplementation

proposal. So we have recognized that.

The problem is that the Federal Government have found that

they had to move on the unemployment insurance thing to maintain the integrity

of that plan without the replacement that we suggested should be there for the

people who would be left without income. The other part of the proposal and the

question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to public hearings, as part of the overall

two-year agenda that Mr. Axworthy has spelled out as the federal minister

responsible for social security reform in the country, they want to participate

with the Provincial Government in Newfoundland and Labrador, on parliamentary

hearings on their part and legislative hearings on our part, hopefully done

together, so that we can talk about the need for social security reform

generally, and Mr. Axworthy has asked that the Provincial Government also

include discussion of the Income Supplementation Program in that public

discussion, which hopefully, federal politicians and provincial politicians will

do in the Province together, rather than having two different sets of

politicians running off with two different sets of hearings.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I should ask the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, is he the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in the

Province or is he the executive assistant to the federal minister, Lloyd

Axworthy - which are you? Now, I asked you a question: Are you committed, as a

minister, to holding public hearings across the Province, so that people in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, can have a chance to have input into the

Income Supplementation Program? a fairly simple question, yes or no. I can tell

the minister that we, on this side of the House, are holding public meetings and

people want to have input, so will he commit today to hold public hearings, yes

or no, Mr. Speaker?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand

more fully, I guess, that you would have to answer very simply like that so that

they could understand, because I really thought I answered the question

previously, adequately, for anyone to hear.

What we have is a request, Mr. Speaker, that, rather than

burden the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with two sets of politicians,

just because one happens to represent the Federal Government and one happens to

represent the Provincial Government, with two different sets of hearings,

talking about the same thing, that, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the

people and also to conserve some of their money to send one group around to talk

about the general nature of income security reform which is going to happen in

the whole country in the next two years and in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in

that context, give people an opportunity to talk about now that they have some

view or will have some view of the overall social security reform, will they

then be able to discuss publicly as well, how they think the Income

Supplementation Program might fit into that overall context, so there will be an

opportunity as I see it, Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of when it makes sense

to go forward and discuss the Income Supplementation Program in the context of

the overall reform that is going to occur in the next two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

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

The Throne Speech made reference to the Federal and

Provincial Governments jointly developing and implementing a fisheries industry

renewal agreement, a restructuring agreement for fish plants, and there is

reference there to the renewal boards, as referenced to Mr. Cashin's report. I

am wondering if the minister could inform the House whether or not governments

are looking at mothballing maintenance programs for fish plants throughout the

Province to maintain the infrastructure just in case the fishery comes back?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, his reference to the Fisheries

Industry Renewal Board as recommended in the so-called Cashin Task Force Report,

I believe, I indicated to the House that is something that is being considered

by the Province but the terms of reference as we know them certainly do not go

far enough to accommodate what the Province wants in terms of something close to

joint management, but the matter is being considered. With respect to his

question as to a mothballing fund being established I can only tell him, Mr.

Speaker, that there is no provision at the present time to engage in that kind

of an exercise or to provide those funds.

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

Leader.

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

Let me ask the minister if there will be any money allocated

or provided for plants to modernize or to convert to secondary processing of

value added products? Will there be any money allocate by the provincial

government or provincial and federal governments for that purpose?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of

sources from which plant owners can access funds, ACOA, of course, Enterprise

Newfoundland, but at the present time we do not have any such fund, my

department does not, but there are, like I said, avenues through which those

kind of funds can be accessed, like I said, namely ACOA and Enterprise

Newfoundland Limited.

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

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

Let me ask the minister when government will be making a

decision, or an announcement on what plants will remain open in the Province?

What plants will stay in the system? When can we expect the minister to inform

the House, and the public consequently, what plants will remain open in this

Province and what plants will be closed? There is a lot of anxiety out and about

the Province, as I am sure the minister knows. People have been calling for

decisions for a period of time as to plant restructuring, so can the minister

inform us when he will be announcing that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as the Throne Speech indicated

we have plans to introduce in the House during this session, a White Paper in

which we will be outlining government's policy on the fishery of the future.

This White Paper came about as a result of a discussion paper that was tabled in

the House and discussed publicly last fall, at which time I conducted, I think

it was sixteen public meetings around the Province, sought input from community

leaders and stakeholders in the fishery, and stemming from that we are now

putting the finishing touches on the final policy, at least the government's

policy for the fishery of the future. I am hoping to introduce that in the House

of Assembly certainly before this session ends.

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

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

Speaker. I am wondering if the minister could inform the House what measures he

or government are taking to counter the advertising that we see again today in

the Globe and Mail by the International Fund for Animal Welfare? I am

wondering if government is going to undertake a campaign to counter this

advertising we see on the front page today of the Globe and Mail , very

compelling advertisements about the seal hunt and seal organs, and really, I

guess, false arguments, as I see it, of really what the Province has been

promoting and the markets they have been trying to develop? I wondering if the

minister or the government has any plans to counter this?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the ads that appeared in the

national newspapers, including The Evening Telegram , two page ads,

contained nothing but a pack of lies and deceit shamefully being spread by the

IFAW. I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is being done for self-serving

reasons because every year at about this time they start their fund-raising

campaign. I have no doubt that the ads that appeared in the Globe and Mail

today, and those that appeared in other national newspapers will result in

millions of dollars pouring in to replenish the coffers of the animal rights

people.

It is rather strange that these same people who supposedly

are concerned about conservation, the environment, and the ecology have been

totally silent when it comes to taking a stand on the side of Newfoundland in

trying to protect our fish stocks that are being ravaged now by foreign

countries. They have not seen fit to raise their voice to utter a word in

support of the position Newfoundland has taken.

Let me say for the benefit of hon. members that the project

that is referred to in the newspaper articles, that of a 50,000 animal harvest

being done by a local company in collaboration with a Chinese company, is being

conducted along the lines as stated by the policy of this government, that the

entire animal must be utilized. We would not support a seal harvest for any

particular organ, except where the entire animal is being utilized, and that is

the case with respect to Terra Nova Fishery. That is why I say that the ads, and

the content in the ads, is nothing but a pack of lies.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with Your Honour's leave, since

Newfoundland artists made such a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. member. Question period has

expired. I take it you're not raising another question? Okay.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am rising with the indulgence

of Your Honour and other members to bring to the attention of hon. members a

fact of which they may be aware, that Newfoundland artists made an outstanding

showing at last night's Gemini Awards ceremonies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I would like to propose that Your Honour, on

behalf of all hon. members, send congratulatory messages to the Newfoundland

Major winners were, for best performance in a comedy series,

CODCO - Cathy Jones, Greg Malone, Tommy Sexton, and Mary Walsh. I propose

that Your Honour, on behalf of all of us, send messages of congratulations and

praise to Cathy Jones, Greg Malone, and Mary Walsh, and a message to Tommy

Sexton's parents.

Also, I propose that Your Honour send a congratulatory

message on behalf of members of this House to the producer of The Boys of St.

Vincent , which was given awards in several categories. A film that was

largely made in St. John's, based on the Mount Cashel story, and which involved

several Newfoundland artists.

Thank you, Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that the message

be sent?

Carried.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

in the House the annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the

year ending 1993.

Also, some very important documents. The Province of

Newfoundland pooled pension fund financial statements, year ending December 31,

1992. The report on the evaluation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Pension Plan as of August 31, 1993, prepared by William Mercer Limited, and a

report on the evaluation of the Public Service Pension Plan for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador as of December 31, 1992.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is Budget day?

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would give leave to the

minister. Is he ready to tell us the Budget date, is that what he is indicating?

Or he would rather wait till tomorrow?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting to

the House a petition from 182 students at F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate in

Grand Falls - Windsor. The petition was submitted to me during the break, when

the House was closed for the Christmas break. I spoke to the representatives out

there and indicated that as soon as the House reopened I would present that

petition.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you I have several petitions

from several parts of the Province dealing with the issue of denominational

education. In fact I have several here from the Minister of Education's own

riding. One from Port au Choix, one from Hawke's Bay, and one from Port

Saunders, which I hope I will get a chance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: In his seat mate's riding, I guess, is it?

Yes. Mr. Speaker, it may be in his riding next election maybe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There will be nothing in his riding next

election.

MR. SIMMS: Of course, there won't be anything in his

riding because the minister won't be running.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Government

House Leader who may jump up at some point and say: Oh, here we are, we are

going to present a whole pile of petitions, this is all part of delaying. The

fact of the matter is these are five petitions that I have received over the

Christmas break all related to the issue. I made a commitment to these people

that I would present these petitions at the appropriate time. I will be

honouring my commitments. In view of the fact especially I believe we are

sitting through till 10:00 p.m. as I understand it, no break for supper, so

there is no panic, no rush.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Today I can. If the minister would like me to

I would. Not all together.

MR. DECKER: I'm just wondering, will I respond?

MR. SIMMS: No, individually. I would like you to respond

individually to each of the five. Now some other of my colleagues may have

petitions on the same topic, I don't know, or some other topics, but I can tell

the minister I have five, three separate ones from Port au Choix, Port Saunders

and Hawke's Bay. Those three, I would like to present separately, obviously.

MR. DECKER: You are presenting all three today?

MR. SIMMS: I may, yes. If the minister would like me to I

will do it that way. I will present them all today. It doesn't matter to me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get on with it. The students at F.G.

Bursey Memorial Collegiate are saying of course that they disagree with the

government's proposal, or at least the way the government is proposing to

reorganize the educational system. They have their own reasons for doing it. I

would just like to read, if I might, a couple of paragraphs from the

accompanying letter:

We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate - and, by the

way, this petition also went to the Minister of Employment, the Member for

Exploits, in whose district this school will be, I guess, after the next

election, if the boundaries changes are made. He has a copy of it, and I know my

friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans has a copy, so they may, too, stand up

and speak to this at some time. I don't know; I doubt it very much. I suspect

they won't, but anyway, Mr. Speaker...

We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate, would like to

tell you that we want to keep our Pentecostal school system because it

influences our lives in a very positive way. We understand that it may cost our

government a little more money; however, we must get our priorities straight.

Our future in Christianity is far more important than any amount of money.

Our understanding of the government's model is that because

our school board may be gone, new boundaries for schools will be made, cutting

of bus routes, reallocation of teachers, will mean this school will not have the

same students or teachers as present. Therefore, it will cease to exist as a

Pentecostal school.

Our generation will be running our Province soon, and we

think our education now will influence the way we do this. A Christian

background will help us and our future greatly. Please understand how we feel,

and help us keep Bursey Memorial Collegiate as it is.

We ask you to present this in the House of Assembly, et

cetera ...

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have a couple of extra words to

say to this petition. We only get five minutes in presenting the petitions, but

I have met with a number of students out at Bursey Memorial. I have talked to a

number of teachers, for sure, on this whole issue, and from time to time they

have expressed a lot of reservation, a lot of concern.

A broader issue, I guess, that I hope the minister might

address, is the criticism that we hear more frequently now about the approach

and the way that the government is moving ahead with its plan, forging on, I

guess, is the way to put it, with its plan to, in the minds of a lot of people

who are opposing his position, abolish the denominational education system.

The minister argues that he doesn't intend to abolish it, but

I guess it's a question of who believes who, or who is saying what, and who is

right about what. The fact of the matter is, though, Mr. Speaker, there are some

serious concerns about the approach that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If I could just have thirty seconds or so, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: If the minister could address those issues,

because there's no question about it, if you listen to any of the conversation

on the streets, or talk to anybody on this issue, I know there are people who

support the idea of changes to the educational system, and we do, too, and we

have said it many, many times. The minister has often tried to twist what we

have had to say, but nevertheless we have said many, many times that we would

like to see a lot of the changes recommended in the Williams Royal Commission.

We would like to see a lot of those changes made, but if it

is going to affect the constitutional rights that people, or classes of people,

in this Province have already attained, and worked very hard to get over the

years, and which were included in the Terms of Union, 1949, then as a political

party we will defend and support those constitutional rights - just so the

minister understands our position clearly, and the public understands our

position clearly - and if it appears as if we are headed towards a

confrontation, I remember the minister's words. They ring kind of hollow now,

but I remember last spring. I remember him taunting us - and he may remember it

himself - you'd love to see me have a fight, I think were his words, with the

archbishop and a few other people like that.

He smiles, because I am sure he remembers. Well, I can assure

the hon. members opposite that is not going to happen - words to that effect.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we can see those words ring hollow,

because there certainly is a confrontation between the minister and the leaders

of the churches these days, no matter what way you slice it.

So I hope that the minister will come to his senses. I have a

funny feeling the minister will not come to his senses, but I do suggest, Mr.

Speaker - since he has given me leave, I won't be too harsh on him - I do

suggest to the government, anybody who might be listening on the government

side, if you want to get a deal, if you want to get an agreement, on this

educational system, and the changes that are being talked about, particularly

with respect to governance, the best way that could be accomplished is to flick

out the Minister of Education from around the negotiating table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's South, I am telling

him that is the best opportunity to get an agreement. Get the Minister of

Education from around the table, because there is no way the other side is going

to agree with him - not a chance in the world - but if there was somebody else,

or a third party -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's North knows what I'm

talking about. If there could be a third party - I will suggest it to the

Premier when he gets back, as a matter of fact, in the House one of these days,

in Question Period. I seriously believe that there is a chance of getting an

agreement but not while the Minister of Education sits around the table, you

have to get somebody else involved in this process and I think you could pull it

off. Anyway, I thank members for leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

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

stand in support of my colleagues putting forward a petition on behalf of the

182 students of F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate in Grand Falls - Windsor. I

would like to make some comments on why I support the petition. The governments

stated goals of the restructuring plan, Mr. Speaker, are to transform this

society from one of persistent under-achievement to one whose achievement levels

rank with the best in the nation. After studying the documents that they put

forward and some information that is available through the Department of

Education itself, I question that statement, Mr. Speaker. An example is

referenced in To Success in Public Examinations as publication Profile '92 from

the Department of Education themselves which compares the graduation rate in

Newfoundland to those in other parts of Canada.

While Newfoundland's rate is below that of most other

provinces, this document points out that since graduation requirements vary

considerably, these comparisons should be made with caution. Alberta, BC, Quebec

and Newfoundland are the only provinces with a full scale system of provincially

set public examinations, therefore these provinces provide the most appropriate

comparison for this Province but instead they use the whole country when they

are making their comparisons, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland's graduation rate was the highest of these four

provinces that were on the level playing field. The foregoing would appear to be

an underlying rationale of adjusting the course to be at least questionable.

What does this say to the rest of the document? We talked about achievement, Mr.

Speaker, what type of achievement do we have here in Newfoundland? For some

reason or other the minister and the government try to come up with the

underachievement aspect but there's quite an amount of achievement here in the

Province. With a score of 59 per cent, Newfoundland ranked sixth in mathematics,

above Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and also above the US. Worthy of note, is

the fact that this province was the only population where females outscored

males in mathematics.

In terms of science, overall Newfoundland with an average

score of 66 per cent performed better than the french population in Ontario, New

Brunswick and Saskatchewan. Newfoundland performed only marginally lower than

international assessment, in mathematics and science, Newfoundland performed

slightly better than the international average and three points below the Canada

average in Mathematics.

Newfoundland has the highest graduation rate out of four

provinces that have comprehensive public examinations.

Some other statistics, Mr. Speaker: according to Maclean's

Magazine in 1992 Newfoundland had fewer drop-out rates than Ontario, Alberta

and British Columbia. I ask the minister, is this failure? According to the

Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, our graduate rates have

increased 1 per cent per year for the past thirty years, is this failure, I ask

the minister? According to Profiles 1991, a publication of the Department of

Education itself, Mr. Speaker, our students in the international tests in math

and science were very close or even better than the national average, is this

failure? The same report shows that Newfoundland has the highest percentage of

students doing achieved advanced placement courses and the highest success rate

in Canada, I ask the minister is this failure? I believe that the minister and

the Premier would like one super school in Newfoundland, all students be bused

or flew - one school in all Newfoundland and Labrador, that would make them

quite happy.

MR. GRIMES: How foolish can you get?

MR. MANNING: Yes, that's the question, how foolish can we

get? You should be asking yourselves that question in supporting this. Why do

they call you Pop Grimes? What is more important is a child's personal

development, physical development, academic development and spiritual

development. All of these above items are very important in our education.

Mr. Wells has stated that if he cannot get the churches to

agree to go along with what he wants, he's prepared to seek an amendment to the

Constitution of Canada to take away our rights. If he can succeed in taking away

the rights of one minority, I ask, who will be next? When they talked about

accountability, most of the problems for which they consider someone to be

accountable for are actually under the control of the Department of Education

themselves. Instead of trying to place the blame elsewhere, the government

should try to examine its own shortcomings. Reform should start at the top.

Mr. Speaker, at present, there are 293 communities in this

Province with schools. Thirty-five communities have more than one school system.

Many of these thirty-five schools in St. John's and Corner Brook for example can

support more than one system because of the number of students involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

By leave.

MR. MANNING: A few sentences to clue up. Maybe the

Minister of Education will get a few seconds to wake up and see what is coming

down the tubes here because this is not going to be resolved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, anyway. I will just close off in

saying I have been happy today to be able to stand and support this petition. I

am sure there are more coming like the petition so ably presented by the Leader

of the Opposition and I am sure that there will be other petitions coming

forward, Mr. Speaker, and many other topics to discuss under the Adjusting

The Course and Adjusting The Course II . I am sure that the Minister

of Education is waiting anxiously for the petitions to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few

words to this petition which was presented by the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

First, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

to go back to the children at Bursey Memorial Collegiate and explain to them

just what it is that government is trying to do.

Government is trying to bring in an interdenominational

system of education, Mr. Speaker. All too often, some would suggest that

government is going for an integrated secular system, that indeed is not the

case. There are people who would argue that the integrated education system in

this Province is a secular system, however, in reality it is not.

The integrated system is an example of some churches who

decided to practise their rights collectively, to exercise them collectively but

they hold them individually, so essentially, what we are asking the churches to

do, is to keep their rights as individual churches but in the interest of

education in this Province, exercise them collectively.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a school will that give us in

the Province? Let us walk for a second, into a Grade II classroom under the new

system the government is talking about, under the interdenominational, under the

ecumenical school system that we are talking about, and you would probably see

in the first row or in a semicircle, however you sit them, a little Pentecostal

child, next to that little Pentecostal child would be a little Roman Catholic

child, next to that little Roman Catholic child would be a United Church child,

and then there would be an Anglican child; children of all religions would sit

down and study together, learn about religion, learn about each other's

religion, each other's denomination, and, Mr. Speaker, I personally, don't have

any problem with that, and I don't know very many Pentecostal people who have

any problem with that, and I don't know many Roman Catholic people who have any

problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about an interdenominational system, which is

basic to christianity itself, where we understand each other as christians, Mr.

Speaker. That is the kind of a school system that I am talking about and the

children at Bursey Memorial Collegiate say that they have something that they

don't want to lose. They are talking about the ambience of their school and I

say to them, I don't want to lose it either, but anything that they have, I

don't want to confine it to Bursey Memorial, I want to bring it into the larger

picture so that the strengths that are contained in Bursey Memorial will be

found in an interdenominational system, so that the strengths that are found,

Mr. Speaker, in the Roman Catholic system will be shared by all of us

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether we are Roman Catholic or whether we

are Pentecostal or whether we are Anglican or United Church, that is the kind of

a school system to which we are looking forward and I am sure that when the

students at Bursey Memorial Collegiate get at the truth of the matter and see

the kind of an educational system that we are talking about, not a secular

system, not a secular system but an interdenominational system, where boys and

girls of all religious affiliations can sit down and study the great truths of

humanity, together, under the protection which is granted to us by Term 17,

where we can have a denominational-based education system, that is the kind of

system and that is the message I ask the hon. member to take back to his friends

at Bursey Memorial Collegiate.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a

petition of outraged citizens of Humber East, Humber West and Bay of Islands

districts who are extremely upset at the Wells government's proposal to sell

Hydro. People are extremely angry not only at the policy decision to privatize

Hydro but at the bulldozer tactics of the Administration, at the failure of the

government to consult people, to hold public hearings, or to have a referendum.

The petition reads as follows:

Whereas the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will burden the people of the Province with

higher electricity costs, higher unemployment, diminished economic development

opportunities, alienation of water rights, and the transfer out of the Province

of millions of dollars every year in dividends to shareholders, therefore we

petition the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown owned corporation.

Mr. Speaker, a citizen of Corner Brook, Eric Dyke, who lives

on East Valley Road, called me last week to say that he is so upset about the

government's move to sell Hydro that he wanted to sign a petition. I brought a

petition to his door. He asked for extra pages. He and his wife then, all on

their own, without my even knowing about it, went door to door on the street

where they live, East Valley Road, and the adjacent streets, and collected

signatures from people at virtually every door.

I've had two public meetings in Humber East for people in the

Corner Brook area to get information about the Hydro issue. I had a meeting on

November 25 and I had a meeting on Saturday past. On each occasion there was a

good cross-section of citizens. People affiliated with every political party, as

well as several never involved in party politics. A variety of ages, a variety

of socio-economic backgrounds. With the exception of one citizen, people were

unanimous in their strong and heartfelt opposition to the sale of Hydro. Some

people at the meeting on Saturday objected to the noun "sale," saying it is not

a sale, it is a giveaway. People are incensed.

Hydro, the fourth largest electrical utility in Canada, is a

Crown jewel owned by the people of this Province. Hydro comprises the

state-of-the-art hydro-generating facilities at Bay d'Espoir, Hinds Lake and Cat

Arm. The government's proposal is worse than people had feared earlier when they

heard rumours, when they heard talk of the negotiations with Fortis. The

legislative measures before the House of Assembly open up the possibility that

the undeveloped water rights throughout the Province, including the undeveloped

water rights in Labrador, will be handed over to a privately owned utility.

What do people of Newfoundland and Labrador have left of

their birthright? The groundfish stocks have been depleted through

mismanagement. There is only one operating mine left on the Island of

Newfoundland. Our agricultural land is being taken for superhighway

construction. Our trees are being cut at a rapid rate with technology that is

very destructive, in ways that are harmful to regeneration. What do we have

left? We have free, eternally flowing water, water that is now fuelling the

hydro-electric generating facilities on the Island, water that is fuelling the

giant Upper Churchill project, water that will fuel hydro-electric developments

to come.

The people of this Province have already invested heavily in

hydro-electric generation. We and future generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians deserve to profit from the return. On behalf of these petitioners I

urge the government to reconsider at the very least to hold public hearings or a

referendum.

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

West.

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

as outlined by my colleague for Humber East who expressed on behalf of her

constituents the outrage that is not restricted to Humber East but is indeed

prevailing right throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a

sham. Last year the Premier gave a little note to the Member for St. John's

South which said: come into the House and fly the idea of privatizing Hydro and

see what kind of reaction we can get, and the Member for St. John's South, being

the professional gofer he is, and the gofer he has been most of his lifetime,

stood up and did not know what he was talking about, and asked on behalf of the

Premier to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. That is where this came from, Mr.

Speaker. Something like the Member for Fortune - Hermitage standing up and

bringing in a private member's resolution asking the House to endorse Adjusting

the Course, and nobody knew what he was talking about because he had not seen

it. Well, that is the same type of goferage that we saw from the Member for St.

John's South. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government is

about to give away something that every man, woman, and child in this Province

has a right to be part of.

MR. MURPHY: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to the Member for St. John's South

that the people of this Province do not think it is nothing. The people of this

Province think it is a lot.

MR. MURPHY: I do not believe you.

MR. TOBIN: Now, this is what you have to deal with, the

Member for St. John's South who works in the Premier's office saying Hydro is

nothing. The Premier is going around saying he will not have to borrow for one

year, that he will get by for one year if he sells Hydro, so that is nothing to

the Member for St. John's. Well, tell the Premier it is nothing and tell him to

leave it alone. That is what you should tell him. This government has decided to

take away something that has been of a benefit to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I do not care what the members opposite say, I know from my

district that every time you go to the shopping malls, no matter where you go

you hear about Newfoundland Hydro.

One of the questions that continues to be brought to my

attention is what role is the Minister of Mines and Energy playing in this,

because no one has ever heard from the Minister of Mines and Energy. No one, Mr.

Speaker, knows he is alive. I was not here Friday because I was in my district

but I was told this morning by my colleague for Grand Bank that the Member for

Humber East asked a question of the Premier on Hydro and he would not answer but

referred it to the Minister of Justice. He let the Minister of Mines and Energy,

who is responsible for this, sit back and he totally ignored him. There are two

things here, either the Premier has lost confidence in the Minister of Mines and

Energy, and if he has the minister should resign, and if the Premier has not

lost confidence in the Minister of Mines and Energy then the minister should go

to him and say: I speak for Hydro, Premier, and not the Minister of Justice. You

cannot have it both ways I say to the minister. It is either you carry out your

responsibilities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Probably he does not have the virtue of

arrogance, probably he is not as arrogant and as contemptuous, and every other

adjective you can think of as the Minister of Justice. Probably that is why the

Premier got someone with an abundance of arrogance to get up and answer the

question. The Minister of Mines and Energy should stand up to the Premier

because you have been invested I say to the minister, you have been invested

with the responsibility of overseeing Hydro in this Province. Probably you do

not support the deal. That is why you are probably not saying anything, probably

you are against it, and if you are resign. Stand up and be counted I say to the

member because the people of this Province would be very proud of the Minister

of Mines and Energy, and his constituents would be if he were to take a stand.

You cannot stay on the fence on this issue I say to the minister, and I say to

all members opposite. You cannot stay on the fence.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not on the fence.

MR. TOBIN: You are not on the fence? What's your

position?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Should have been sold twenty years ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There you go, Mr. Speaker. You talk about

arrogance. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. TOBIN: Sure, Mr. Speaker. Sure, I can have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs -

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, sure I can have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: No leave? Mr. Speaker, that will tell you

where they stand on Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister responding?

MR. SIMMS: Is the Minister of Mines and Energy going to

respond to that petition or not?

MR. TOBIN: Are you going to respond to the petition?

MR. SULLIVAN: It's a different petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to get

up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't want to get up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of Calvert, in my

district.

The prayer of the petition is addressed to the hon. the House

of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened. The petition of the

undersigned residents of the District of Ferryland,

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

drafted and given approval in principle to an income supplementation proposal;

and

WHEREAS the government has presented this proposal to the

WHEREAS we believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed, and

will have harmful consequences for tens of thousands of people, and for the

economy of the Province generally;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

immediately to undertake a process of consultation with the people of the

Province on this proposal, and to halt any action with respect to this proposal

until the voice of the people has been heard, and as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, indeed, to present this

petition on behalf of the residents of Calvert, in my district, and I find and

take great offence with the manner in which the income supplementation program

has been presented.

Back last winter, before a provincial election, the Premier

of this Province had drafted an income supplementation program behind closed

doors, that he took to his Cabinet in June, approved it and presented it to the

Prime Minister of Canada last November, one month before he made it aware to the

people of this Province. I think that's an insult to the people of this Province

whose livelihood is so greatly affected by the recommendations within this

proposal.

Now we have a social security system in this Province that's

costing about $2 billion a year, and for a government to move forth and make

changes to a system without consulting the people who are so greatly affected by

it, I think, is an insult to the integrity of hard-working people in this

Province.

In an economy that is so dependent upon a social security

net, the least the Premier could do is give the people of the Province an

opportunity to have input into how these social programs would affect their

lives in the future.

The Finance Minister of Canada went a lot further. He stated

that we will not change the social safety net of this country, until the

stakeholders, the people of Canada, have an opportunity for input. Still, the

Premier of this Province went ahead, unaware to the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and presented this proposal that is detrimental to their well-being,

and is fundamentally flawed in many specific areas.

What it proposes to do is increase the number of weeks a

person has to work to twenty weeks. In an economy that is reeling from a

recession, and many people are finding difficulty in putting food on the table,

many people having to leave this Province to go to other parts of the country to

get employed in seasonal-type work, and being told by the Premier of this

Province that you must get twenty weeks in order to be able to draw unemployment

insurance benefits, and then you can only draw for twenty weeks.

It is little wonder that the Federal Government came back and

proposed a system that has very serious impacts on this Province, a system in

the recent federal Budget on UI alone, that is going to have a negative impact

to the tune of $300 million on the economy of this Province. The Premier went

out and asked the Federal Government to come down with such a program.

Now, it is flawed on many fronts. Number one, what it

proposes to do is to take the income that is there and redistribute income - to

take it away from construction workers and trades workers and fisheries workers

and others who do not have an opportunity to get twenty weeks work and put them

out onto a program that is going to be the same as social assistance. This

Income Supplementation Program is based upon family size and structure, and it

is structured like social assistance, not like unemployment insurance. So, that

program is going to have very negative impacts on many families in this

Province.

Had a program been accompanied by a job creation program that

would see a phasing-out of the dependence on UI - and nobody disputes the fact

that the system is very heavily dependent on UI. But we need to have an economy

that is going to have a stimulation from job creation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will get back again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand and support

the petition as presented from the people of Ferryland, from the district of

Ferryland.

It is astounding to me that a government in hiatus of public

consultation can propose such radical reform on the people of the Province

without any consultation. In December, the government presented for public

showing the Income Supplementation report that outlined in general what the

program was about. Shortly after Christmas, I received a document of

approximately 125 pages outlining in more detail - it was the actual proposal

that the Premier had presented to the Prime Minister on the Income

Supplementation Program.

To talk about the absolute nonsense, and how out of touch

this program is with the reality that is taking place in the Province today, I

will use one example: the construction industry which employs on average about

15,000 to 16,000 people in the Province on a seasonal basis, year after year,

both in the union and non-union sectors, that in the last ten years, on average,

in its best years, has received fifteen-and-a-half to sixteen weeks works - in

its best years.

The climate of the Province we live in, the conditions of

employment, the nature of the business and terms of when tenders are let and

when tenders come back and when business begins, don't allow for twenty weeks

work, which most people in the construction industry can count on today. Those

people themselves who, contrary to what the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations said, who make high levels of income in a short period of time,

contrary to that they do not make high levels of income in a short period of

time, and the people in that industry, will be reduced to abject poverty. That

is what the Income Supplementation Program will do for those 16,000

Newfoundlanders who are involved in that single industry.

If we look at other seasonal industries such as the fishery,

the mining industry, forestry, that is the employment base of this Province.

That is where our people are employed, and that is what this program attacks.

The Income Supplementation Program is an attack on seasonal industries, and

therefore, by strict and sheer logic, is an attack on the people of this

Province, especially those people who live in rural Newfoundland.

What I also object to in the strictest form is the continuous

lack of consultation by this government on major issues. They go out of their

way on small issues for public consultation, but on the major issues there are

hidden agendas, no consultation, decisions made, decisions taken, and the people

of the Province are left to bear the brunt.

What I also object to on the Income Supplementation Program

again is the process. It was only ten short months ago that we faced an election

in this Province, and the idea of the Income Supplementation Program was alive

and well. But the government knew full well what impact it would have if they

announced it or talked about it during the election campaign and they did not.

But I can assure you, if the government proceeds with this or any of its

principles, they will bear the responsibility, and the people of the Province in

the next general election will let them know. The Member for Bellevue knows full

well what I'm talking about.

MR. BARRETT: Are you against the educational supplement?

MR. E. BYRNE: The educational supplement has not been

explained in full detail. How will it affect - you know nothing about it. The

Member for Bellevue is the same member who told me that it won't see the light

of day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that it will not see the light of day. So

don't talk with two tongues to me, Mr. Member, I can tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition of several citizens

of the Corner Brook area, residents of the districts of Bay of Islands, Humber

West and Humber East. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows;

Whereas, the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher

unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water

rights and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year in

dividends to shareholders; therefore, we petition the Premier and the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a

Crown-owned corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is circulating in the Corner

Brook area. Joan Chambers, a senior citizen, called and asked me for a petition

and then she undertook to sit in the Co-op store groceteria one day last week to

collect signatures. She told me the response was overwhelming - people are

furious at the Wells government's proposed sale of Hydro, people want a way to

express their opposition, people were eager to sign the petition.

Mr. Speaker, at my public meeting on Saturday, Kevin St.

George suggested that a citizens committee be formed, and solicited volunteers.

A ten-member committee was struck. They are hard at work now. They call

themselves, `Save Our Hydro'. Mr. Speaker, these citizens have invested in

Hydro, these people through paying taxes over the last twenty-five or thirty

years, have made a contribution towards the cost of building the Bay d'Espoir

facility which was just paid off last year. They've made a contribution to

building the facilities at Hynes Lake and Cat Arm. These people are benefiting

through electricity rates right now. These people feel threatened by the

proposal to sell Hydro because they realize that all the government and the

people of the Province will get in return is an injection of $350 million or

$450 million in cash. So what's that going to do? What's that going to do, I ask

the Minister of Finance, with an annual Budget over $3 billion? That's a bit of

cash that will ease current account for a couple of years, reduce borrowing by

maybe what? Who knows, $25 million a year? But to do that deal the government is

giving up more in the way of fees and tax revenue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where are we going to be four or five years

down the road? We'll be paying higher electricity rates then we would otherwise,

year by year, after the sale, but then when the full tax measures are implied,

electricity rates will go through the roof and we won't have our Crown jewels.

Our inheritance will have been given away for a song. Mr. Speaker, people are

saying this is insane. Now, many of the people who signed this petition voted

Liberal in the last election. They voted for the Speaker or the Premier and some

of them voted for the Liberal candidate who opposed me.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MS. VERGE: Because they say - because they've told me.

MR. GRIMES: You can say anything. It's a secret ballot,

nobody knows. Don't be so foolish!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there were people voicing

opposition to the sale of Hydro at my November meeting who attended the Liberal

Convention in Gander.

MR. GRIMES: I voted P.C. in 1972, do you believe that?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, these people, a cross-section of

citizens, can't understand why the Premier would do something so stupid as to

sell Hydro, they just can't understand. And, Mr. Speaker, they haven't had a

chance to discuss this with the Premier personally because he has avoided

discussing it with them. The Premier has refused to have or has failed to have a

public meeting about the Hydro issue in Bay of Islands district, and people

smell something rotten with this transaction, because it is such an illogical,

crazy, proposal that is so obviously going to work to the financial detriment of

the Province, our businesses and our citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: All they can conclude is that there is some

skulduggery going on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) get up, boy!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for St.

John's South, we have no worries about him getting up in the debate. He will get

up and do what he is supposed to do and do what he is told when he is told to do

it. That has been his contribution for a while. Mr. Speaker, this NCARP -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of things we can talk about on

the Southern Shore, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. member that he is addressing the petition

put forward by the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for getting carried

away in responding to the Member for St. John's South. I shouldn't have done it,

because this issue is much bigger to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

than the Member for St. John's South. This issue is about Newfoundland and

Labrador; it is about the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and about

a corporation that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that

somehow, the Premier of this Province, at his whim for some reason, and we can

all have our own suspicions, but for some reason the Premier of this Province

has decided that he wants to get rid of Newfoundland Hydro. I would say,

according to what I heard on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits

shouldn't talk too loudly. I threw out one word today, I say to him, and I have

more coming.

Now, this issue, as I said, is about Newfoundland and

Labrador but why does the Premier want to sell Hydro? We all know that

Newfoundlanders will become unemployed; there will be less people working in

Hydro today or in a year's time or a few months time that there are today. There

will be job losses. So I say to members opposite that if you are to vote for

this, you are voting to take away jobs from Newfoundlanders. If you vote, and I

say this to the backbenchers, some of them whom I hope will have the courage to

join with us and vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, we see the Member for Eagle River changing a

lot. When the federal elections were over he went from being the great defender

of the fishermen to the fellow who then went out and advocated taking away the

U.I. on them; we see his cowardly act and I don't expect him to stand up, but I

hope there are men and women over there who will have the courage to stand up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you vote for this, you are voting to take away jobs from

men and women in this Province. If you vote for the privatization of Hydro you

are voting to increase the light bills for every family in this Province - the

Premier has stated that. You are voting to increase the light bills for the

working poor in this Province. You are voting to increase the light bills for

the people who are on social services in this Province. You are voting to

increase the light bills for everyone in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

If you vote for this act, you are voting to take away what

has been ours for decades and to give it to who - and I would suspect, Mr.

Speaker - we cannot lose sight of the fact that this government did not get away

with the plot or the plan to sell it off to their buddies in Fortis. Don't ever

think that wasn't a sweetheart deal, don't ever think that wasn't a buddy-buddy

deal cooked up by some of the hierarchy and the government.

Fortis backed off. It was Fortis who backed off, not the

government. Fortis backed off when they started getting publicity they didn't

like, I say to members opposite. Fortis backed off, that is what happened, and

now they are putting it on the block.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to the Member for Eagle River, if

the Premier has his Cabinet shuffle before the vote, then you may vote against

it.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 210 students,

residents of Grand Falls - Windsor, some of whom will be living in the district

of Exploits, if they don't already live in the district of Exploits as well. It

is further to the petition I presented about half-an-hour ago related to Bursey

Memorial Collegiate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is basically - not the same petition,

it is another one, but it is related - the same prayer. I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, it is the same prayer. So it is a total of 210

names on this petition, and 190 or whatever it was, it is nearly 400 students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all you need are three names.

MR. SIMMS: All you need are three names for a petition.

But you can see that this is not something that we just dreamed up or whatever,

there are 210 names - nor are the ones presented by my colleague, the Member for

Humber East. On that one she just presented there were tens and tens of names

who were opposed to Hydro privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Whether there are five on that sheet or fifty

or twenty-five it doesn't matter, as the hon. the Minister of Finance knows.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring my remarks back to the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say briefly,

and follow up on what I said earlier when I presented the first petition to the

Minister of Education dealing with the educational issue, that the students from

Bursey Memorial Collegiate don't understand, I guess, or if they do understand,

they don't agree with the minister's explanation of what it is the minister and

the government intend to do with respect to changes in the educational system.

The minister got up and tried to explain what it is the

government are intending to do, but it is clear that there are many people

around the Province who don't understand that or don't agree with it. I suspect

most of those who disagree with the approach that the government is taking on

educational reform simply don't trust the government, simply don't believe the

government. I'm glad the Minister of Finance was here, because I'm not sure he

was here when I spoke earlier on this issue.

I said to the House that on this particular issue, from our

own position as a party, we have always said that we will support and defend the

constitutional rights that classes of people or people have gained in this

Province over the years, going right back to 1949 in the Terms of Union and all

the rest of it. We will defend those constitutional rights because the party

opposite won't defend them, and the NDP, as I understand it, won't be defending

them. So we will be defending them.

At the same time, support for constitutional rights does not

mean that you cannot support changes to the educational system, and we have

outlined on many occasions that we support most of the recommendations, in fact,

that are contained in the Williams Royal Commission. We have said that publicly.

We support changes to curriculum, we support changes and improvements to

training for teachers, all of those kind of changes we support, Mr. Speaker, and

we have always said that, but unfortunately the Minister of Finance has not

heard it for whatever the reason might be.

I think what is wrong out there, Mr. Speaker, if I may try to

make an analogy, is that a lot of people feel they have not been allowed to

participate in the process and that is a failure of the government not only on

its educational issue but as we see on the privatization issue, as we see on the

income support program, and on several issues, the large issues, the government

is not prepared to hold public hearings and give people a chance to speak. That

is what has people so upset and so outraged.

But they will hold public hearings on issues like public

accounting in the Province, they will hold public hearings on smoking, as

important as those issues may be. Not only will they hold public hearings on

electoral reform, but they will send the commission around a second time at a

cost of probably $250,000 to determine the boundaries of the various ridings in

the Province, but something as fundamental and important to the future as Hydro

privatization, or as income support, or as educational changes, something as

critical and as fundamental to our future and the future of our children, and

our childrens' children, this government is not prepared to give the people a

chance to have a say. That is outrageous, it is regrettable, it is sad, and it

is wrong, I say to the Minister of Finance. I hope the Minister of Education,

when he responds, or if he does speak to the petition, will elaborate a bit more

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speak

when people are shouting in your left ear, very difficult, on both sides I am

talking about.

I hope the Minister of Education will further elaborate on

the points he was trying to make, that I can bring back to my friends at Bursey

Memorial Collegiate, because I would like to hear more. I would like for him to

explain a bit more on why they are taking the approach they are taking, why they

have decided to force the debate for several months on the philosophical

question of denominational education which has done nothing other than cause

bitterness and anger among family and friends.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: And why he has not proceeded to undertake a

lot of the other reforms. He does not need to deal with the governance issue as

he claims to get on with some of the other reforms, so maybe the minister will

have a chance to address that.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support the petition put

forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am glad to support the petition

and support the people of F.J. Bursey. The plan that the minister and the

government put forward in relation to an international denomination system, Mr.

Speaker, to many people in the Province is a joke. We talk about keeping the

church in the school system because it is the total education of a person, their

physical education, their academic education, and their spiritual education. It

is very important that we keep the church in the schools because they play an

important role in the overall growth of the child.

The plan we have put forward states today that the church and

religion will stay in the schools, Mr. Speaker. I refer to an incident just this

past year on Prince Edward Island. In one of the public schools on Prince Edward

Island this past year the Department of Education received a complaint from a

parent concerning her child who had to stand up and say the morning prayer in