May 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Education today, he will be happy to know, I am sure.

Over the last couple of months many of us who have watched

the tactics and quite often heard the bullying language of the minister were

convinced that he was doing his real best to provoke a confrontation with

teachers. One of the ploys, Mr. Speaker, that he introduced at a very critical

point in negotiations was to demand that teachers submit the mid-term

evaluations, and threatened dismissal if they refused to do it. You will recall

that, and no other action by any other minister of this government infuriated

teachers more.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: Some say, Mr. Speaker, despite the protests

opposite, that this Minister of Education single-handedly made this strike

inevitable. Let me ask the minister this: Were the student marks that he

demanded submitted before the teachers went on strike this morning? And,

secondly, does he still plan to order school boards to discipline those teachers

who did not submit the marks? Can he answer those two questions?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the direct

questions I have to make a few minor corrections. The hon. member accused me of

trying to force the teachers to strike, calling me arrogant and all that. I

would beg to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am probably the meekest and mildest

member of this government, and I am certainly the meekest and mildest Minister

of Education we have ever had, so how anyone could think in any way that I would

force a strike, I think they do not know me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A pussy-cat, hey?

MR. DECKER: To the Member for Grand Bank, yes, I am

probably the pussy-cat of the Cabinet, very soft, Mr. Speaker.

The threatened dismissal, the hon. member is ill-advised,

misinformed, or whatever you can say politely. In no way did I at any time

threaten dismissal.

We have not ruled out public exams, Mr. Speaker. In order to

get a certificate of graduation a student's year's work is taken into

consideration, his various midterms along the way are taken into consideration,

and the public exams are taken into consideration. Assuming this strike goes on

beyond two or three days, a week, or whatever the case might be, and it is our

hope that it will not last that long, but if it does last beyond June 10, when

exams would normally start, it is certainly our intent to carry on and have

exams so that we can evaluate the year's work so that students can have a

certificate so they can make known to the school they wish to attend, the job

market, or whatever, that they have accumulated a certain standard.

The answer to his question about whether or not the marks

were turned in to the various boards' offices, less than 100 teachers out of the

8,100 complied with that request, Mr. Speaker. As for the discipline, I would

advise the hon. member that teachers are not the direct employees of the

government. They are employees of the various boards throughout the Province,

and each board will have to determine in its own way how it deals with any

employee, whether it's a teacher or whether it's a janitor or whether it is a

school bus operator or whatsoever the case might be, school boards will have to

determine how they discipline or how they deal with any of their employees who

fail to carry out an order.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: On the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't

want the minister to get too offended, I didn't use the word arrogant by the

way, in my original questions, it is one that slipped my mind at that time; I

could have easily, and there is no question about it, he is a legend in his own

mind, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

Now the President of Treasury Board, I mean, obviously

everybody in the Province misunderstood what the minister had to say, everybody

in the Province, even the Minister responsible for Treasury Board because he

said publicly that the minister's scheme that he outlined in a letter to the

school boards was basically a bargaining ploy that didn't work, that's what the

President of Treasury Board said, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't obviously a serious

plan for assigning final marks to the students; I suspect the President of

Treasury Board was almost as infuriated with the Minister of Education as the

teachers of the Province.

Anyway, he sort of answered my supplementary question by

saying that if the strike goes on I think he said, they will have exams. Now,

may I ask him these two specific questions: Who will supervise those

examinations and, who will mark them?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, supervising is not a major

problem. The hon. member will remember when he and I wrote the exams, there was

nothing further from the room than a teacher. I mean, in the past they were

supervised by non-teachers so that's not a major problem, the actual

supervising. The exam, I should tell the hon. member, the exams are written, are

prepared, are printed, they are sitting in the Department of Education, that's

normal, that happens every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: No, I don't think it would be appropriate to

table a copy at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that after the exams

are written I would be quite pleased to table the exams from all the eighteen

subjects in which the exams will be given. The marking is not that simple. In a

normal year, last week there would have been letters gone out from the

Department of Education advising the various teachers whether or not they were

accepted for the marking board. I don't know how we are going to deal with that

specifically, there are some suggestions.

I would suggest that first and foremost though, we will have

to discuss the matter with the Newfoundland Teachers Association to see whether

or not they would permit their teachers on strike to actually mark the exams. At

the moment we are concentrating on getting the exams set and delivered but the

marking - and there is not quite as much pressure on for the marking - because

we will have more time to deal with that issue, Mr. Speaker. Now we are talking

as if this strike is going to go on forever; there is always a chance that the

strike could be over tomorrow but we will have to wait and see.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Just one final question I guess, Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of Education.

It is fairly common, in labour disputes, for government and

the public service group, whatever group is involved - management, I guess, and

labour - to get together and work out a satisfactory continuation of necessary

services, one of which would be the one we are discussing here today. I can't

think of one teacher who would want any students to lose their year, so while

the minister said, I guess, `we would have to...', `we will have to...', let me

ask him directly: Does he intend, as Minister of Education, to ask for a meeting

with the president, or the executive, or whoever is responsible, of the NLTA, to

discuss this particular possibility so he can have it dealt with; in other

words, to ask for their co-operation, would they co-operate, in dealing with the

issue of marking exams?

Those kinds of things can be worked out sometimes, and it

wouldn't hurt to have it done before, and in advance, even though we are talking

about maybe as if the strike would continue prolonged. It is good to have it in

place.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made to do

that yet. I won't rule it out, but any approach which is made between the

government and the teachers, of course, government would have to decide how to

do that, the President of Treasury Board would have to be involved, but as of

today, no, I have not made any plans to meet with the NLTA to discuss that

issue. Have I ruled that out? No, I have not ruled that out. Have I ruled it in?

No, I have not ruled it in, but we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that

the students of this Province will not lose a year's work. We are particularly

concerned with the graduating students, and those who are doing Level 3000

courses.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to

the President of Treasury Board.

On January 18, the NLTA representatives met with the minister

and the Minister of Education as well, to discuss the general framework for

collective bargaining. At that meeting you informed the NLTA that government

would be looking for major concessions in this round of bargaining from all

public sector groups, but that concessions from teachers in the educational

system would be disproportionately greater than that from others. What is the

rationale for the government's approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we had a number of those

so-called high-level meetings leading up to the point in time where we requested

that collective bargaining begin. Many things were said in those meetings, on

both sides, and I could talk about, for instance, what was said to me in

confidence by the President of the NLTA; I will not do that. All I can tell you

is that a number of things were discussed.

As to the conclusion the hon. gentleman reaches in his

question, the answer is no.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that at this stage

the government has identified $50 million in its Budget in concessions from

public sector unions which has since been reduced to $44 million. Of that total,

the NLTA has been told that they are expected to contribute $22 million in

concessions, with 50 per cent, of course, coming from the total of all the other

groups. Since teacher payroll is only 23 per cent of the government's total

payroll and since the government has asked teachers to give up 50 per cent of

the concessions, does the minister not agree that his approach to collective

bargaining is the real reason for the current confrontation with teachers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess to answer the

question properly you have to go back three years. During the last three years,

all public employees in the Province have been subjected to the same conditions.

There has been a wage freeze and this has been, in the first instance, imposed

by legislation and, in the second instance, through agreement. There has been a

three-year freeze in wages. In addition, there was a reduction in the amount

that government put into the pension plans. So all public servants, equally,

have experienced this in the last three years.

In addition, we've gone - for instance, as an example,

through the health care system. We have restructured much of the health care

system, where we've changed acute care beds to short-term stay beds, where we've

increased the number of chronic care beds, but there has been a real reduction

in the number of acute care beds in our hospitals. We've done all of those

organizational changes in the health care system in addition to the general

effects on all of our workers in the public service of the Province.

Now, we must do the same in the education system that has

already been done in other government systems. In the instance of the three-year

protection letter, we must not be hamstrung by a letter in a collective

agreement which says that if you consolidate boards you must pay everybody

involved for a three-year period whether the job exists or not. That is

ludicrous. So, Mr. Speaker, there are other issues. We didn't hear the teachers'

union complaining three years ago when we restructured the health care system

and didn't restructure the education system, but we hear them complaining today

when we want to carry on the same restructuring in the education system. Mr.

Speaker, that is the crux of the matter.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the teachers of this Province

are prepared to be treated fairly, equitably and in comparison to all other

public sector unions. Let me follow up with a matter dealing with the

discontinuance of the severance item, which is not even in the collective

bargaining process.

In the paper on the weekend the minister has confirmed that

he has now taken the severance payout off the collective bargaining table in

spite of the fact, as a consequence of earlier initiatives, 300 teachers

retired. Now the minister takes away the severance at this late stage in the

game in spite of the fact that the NLTA repeatedly asked the minister to give

some indication as to whether or not that item would be able to stay there until

the end of the current school year. It's a sad commentary; it's very provocative

and a very intimidating strategy. Why does the government, by doing this, seek

ways to isolate and cause emotional and financial harm to teachers of this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. gentleman refers to is a series of unfortunate

occurrences. In the opening package presented to all unions in January, one of

the suggestions as to one of the many ways that our objectives could be achieved

had to do with severance pay, also the sick leave and there was a whole list of

things involved. Mr. Speaker, these were opening packages for discussion. I made

that quite clear at the time. I made it quite clear in letters to the NLTA

executive and president, that government had no intentions of unilaterally

legislating that. I made it quite clear, in all public statements that it was

simply an opening position and the same thing applied to all of the public

sector workers, exactly the same conditions.

I indicated that this was simply an opening position and that

we had no intention of legislating it. It's rather unfortunate that the

impression was given that somehow government was going to retroactively

legislate this provision regardless of what happens, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious

that government did not. At the same time we asked that collective bargaining

begin. With some of the other unions collective bargaining did begin and through

that process of collective bargaining there was give and take. As a result of

that we're no longer looking at the severance option for the unions where there

has been give and take.

Mr. Speaker, had there been collective bargaining starting in

January with the NLTA it would have become obvious very quickly that these were

simply opening positions and that in fact government had no intentions of

legislating this option and any of the other options.

I will say to the hon. gentleman that it is kind of

unfortunate that there were people out there who believed that we were going to

legislate this option and they retired a few months ahead of when they should

have retired. Mr. Speaker, that is really unfortunate. It is unfortunate that

happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal scam.

Last week the minister told The Evening Telegram that

he couldn't remember a report by former Tribunal executive director Weldon Brake

expressing serious concerns about Tribunal inefficiencies and excessive billing

by Chairperson Gordon Seabright. The minister has had the weekend to reflect.

Does he now remember in 1992, almost two years ago, personally meeting with Mr.

Brake and listening to Mr. Brake's serious concerns about inefficiencies and

excessive billing by Mr. Seabright, and then at the meeting arranging to get a

photocopy of Mr. Brake's statistics quantifying the abuses? Does he now remember

on February 23, 1993 being hand-delivered a thirty-five page report by Mr. Brake

reiterating grave concerns about inefficiencies and excessive billing and

recommending specific reforms? Does the minister also now remember personally

phoning Mr. Brake and thanking Mr. Brake for his report? Will the minister now

admit that he has known for about two years, at least two years, that Gordon

Seabright -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - was flagrantly abusing his position with the

Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal and that there were gross inefficiencies

at the Appeals Tribunal?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were a number

of comments in the questions that were raised there and I will try to deal with

them. The problem is that since last week when I tabled the information that was

requested - and I had no hesitation in tabling it, because in fact the

information appears in public reports, an annual report of the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal every year. We are in the process now of tabling

the further information because the Appeals Tribunal has been in place since

1987. It has been under review for just over a year or so now because we did a

major review of everything in Workers' Compensation. The last item to be dealt

with was the appeals process itself, which in fact there are recommendations

that have been before the Cabinet committees and the Cabinet for a short period

of time and will be decided upon in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: The difficulty, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having difficulty hearing the hon. minister and he is

about ten feet away. If members could hold their conversations down, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is the

context in which the hon. members opposite try to raise the questions which are

legitimate questions that should be raised in terms of accountability. When they

talk about - the hon. Member for Humber East in raising her questions today

talked about a scam at Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. There is none,

has been none, and never has been any that I'm aware of. That is not what Mr.

Brake, the former executive director, who left the Province to take up a

position with Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, addressed with me.

Mr. Brake was not talking to me about any scam at Workers'

Compensation Appeals. He had legitimate concerns as the executive director about

more efficient ways that it could operate. One of his major recommendations, by

the way, is that we replace the tribunals, which is what the previous

administration put in place, by single adjudicators, which is what we are

seriously looking at now, and which everybody who is involved in the system, by

the way, is saying they don't want to change.

The bases for Mr. Brake's concerns were not in the context

that the members opposite raised the question, that there is a scam, or the

other phrase was that there is excessive over-billing. His concern, very

legitimate, expressed to me, and in the report that he gave me back in February

of 1993 that I then had studied and looked at, and that is why I don't - I met

with Mr. Brake a dozen times over serious issues. Because he had some concerns

about the running of the Appeals Tribunal in a more efficient manner because he

thought it was getting too costly to run as a tribunal.

Secondly, that even though we were putting more people in the

system to try to hear more cases so that the injured workers could get

decisions, the decisions were not being rendered any more quickly than they were

before, because previously at a point in time there was just one chairperson. We

have moved to the point now where we have a chairperson and four vice-chairs who

share some of the work, and the decisions are still taking sometimes eighteen

months for the injured workers to get the final outcome.

That was Mr. Brake's concern. That is what he legitimately

came to see me about. He talked about the increased costs, but he didn't talk

about any scam, and he didn't talk about any excessive over billing with me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, supplementaries for

the minister. The minister's memory is starting to come back, but we will smoke

out the rest.

Two years ago, 1992, the year in which the minister became

well aware of a scam, abuses, and excessive billing, Gordon Seabright billed the

tribunal $57,000. Last year, Mr. Seabright boosted his billings to over $98,000.

Why did the minister allow a bad situation to become so much worse? Was it

because the Premier issued instructions to make a special exception for his

first patronage appointment, the defeated 1989 Liberal candidate in Mount Pearl?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again I have to take exception

to the language that is used, because I think it's somewhat irresponsible and

inappropriate. There has been and is no scam at the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is clearly this. For some time the

injured workers who have claims for appeal that they would like to have the

external hearing so they could get, hopefully, reversal of a decision rendered

already by the Workers' Compensation Commission, had been complaining about

delays in getting a hearing date, and then delays in getting a decision. To

assist in that matter, what we did was to appoint extra vice-chairs and extra

sides persons so that there could be more hearings and people could get their

issues addressed.

The report clearly shows that the activity at the Appeals

Tribunal, in terms of the number of hearings held so that the injured workers

could get their cases heard and disposed of, doubled; and if, of course, you are

going to pay on a per diem basis, which is the basis again that the previous

administration put in place, and that we have continued, except for a reduction

in pay - I point out again, that is the only change we have made, is a reduction

in the per diem rates put in place by the previous administration in 1987 - we

were concerned that the injured workers get their hearings heard and decisions

rendered. On a per diem basis, when you do twice as much work you pay twice as

much money.

There are five people there doing the work where, when the

previous administration was in place, there was one. They had a second who

resigned because they couldn't make a commitment. They had another replacement

who resigned because they wouldn't make a commitment. We were fortunate enough,

this time, to have a couple of people who, because they didn't have those

commitments with other law firms, that meant they could only commit a day or two

a week to this practice, that even though it is a per diem basis and not a

full-time job, we have had a couple of people who have been able to put an

inordinate amount of time compared to other people into it, and therefore they

received the payments that they deserved under the system put in place by the

previous administration.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bluff, bluff, bluff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Let's see some documents.

Will the minister table, number one, the February, 1993

report of former tribunal executive director, Weldon Brake - the thirty-five

page report - table it now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Will the minister table the per diem claims on

the prescribed forms by the tribunal chairperson, Gordon Seabright, as well as

each of the vice-chairpersons since May of 1989?

Will the minister table any Minutes of Council or other

documents appointing Gordon Seabright, specifying his term of office,

remuneration, benefits, expenses, and responsibilities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - including any broadening of his duties after

Mr. Brake's resignation from the executive director position? And will the

minister confirm that Mr. Seabright's term actually expires next month, in June

of 1994, not in December of 1994, as he told The Evening Telegram ?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will check and see. I will

certainly check with Mr. Brake in the first instance to see if there is any

objection that he would have to having his report to me tabled for public

consumption. It is an internal document that he presented to me, as the

minister.

I will also check and see, just as the hon. members opposite,

the hon. the Member for Humber East, when she was a Minister of the Crown -

people will make their own judgement as to whether she was a good one or a bad

one. The fact of the matter is, as you know yourself, that in the position she

was in there are internal documents for use of the ministry and the department

from time to time that are not appropriate for public scrutiny. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I'll look at the rest of the request and maybe at the same time that we

look at the appropriateness of placing on the table for public scrutiny personal

claims for people who are doing things, we might also table all the claims made

by the spouse of the hon. member opposite under contracts that he worked for the

Provincial Government when she was a Minister of the Crown and he was awarded

several contracts for the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Last week some 300 people were laid-off at the Come By Chance oil

refinery. Can the minister update this House and the people of the Province

today on what has happened and what the effects on the future operation of the

oil refinery will be as a result of these layoffs?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The operators at Newfoundland Processing Come By Chance

Refinery have been in touch with both the Minister of Mines and Energy and

myself since the middle of last week when it became clear that they were going

to have difficulty meeting their full payroll commitments, which were due on

last Thursday. As a result, I believe even this afternoon as we are here in the

House there are meetings ongoing between representatives of the workforce at the

refinery and the management operating group to try to find mutually-agreed-to

arrangements whereby they can meet the remainder of the payroll. They met part

of the payroll on Thursday and they're trying to meet the remaining payroll.

Also, the company officials are dealing with our own officials in terms of what

kinds of notice requirements might be in place with respect to an orderly layoff

of the people, if that's the final outcome, so that they meet the requirements

under the law in the Province and that there can be an orderly layoff, if it's

necessary, while the company continues its best efforts to get back into a

position where it can meet the remainder of its payroll and straighten itself

out so that they can look at continuing operations as soon as possible.

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

Kilbride.

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

The situation is very, very serious, I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations. We're talking about 300 jobs in this Province

that are in jeopardy, possibly 500. I asked the minister in my question, what

about the future operations of Come By Chance? Can he enlighten the House?

Because there are more details. Can he enlighten the House today - either he or

the Minister of Mines and Energy - on the future operation of Come By Chance,

which is so very, very important to the future economic condition of this

Province?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the company could not make

its payroll on Thursday. As my colleague explained, the company is dealing with

that issue and is hoping to meet the rest of the money for the particular

payroll concern, the one that was due last Thursday and I hope they can meet it

in the next few days. In the meantime, that refinery has been closed for some

time now because of the fire that occurred there a few weeks ago. They are

undergoing clean-up, maintenance, reconstruction because of that fire. Also,

they were due to start a regular maintenance turn-around about now, about

mid-May, to change the catalyst in the isomax unit. All of this is now part of

the closedown. All of this will be done in a few weeks as part of the closedown.

You cannot have an instant re-opening because it was down anyway for the

clean-up after the fire and for the turnaround. It will take a few weeks. I'm

not sure of the exact time that will be required but I certainly hope that it's

all taken care of in the next few weeks and everybody gets back to work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 665 residents

of the district of Port au Port. The prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS recent decisions by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to eliminate the 2 per cent savings clause will mean a significant

loss in teaching units available to schools in our district; and

WHEREAS the loss of these units will have a negative impact

on programming which will be available to our children for next year; and

WHEREAS the current dispute with teachers further threatens

the education of our children;

WHEREFORE we respectfully request that government review its

decision with regard to the elimination of the 2 per cent savings clause;

And further, we urge the government and teachers that

government and teachers engage in intensive negotiations to bring about a speedy

resolution of this labour dispute.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my district I had occasion to meet

with some 100 parents representing PTAs throughout the district, and there were

a number of concerns that were raised. Under the 2 per cent savings clause, the

school board within my district is one of the few boards in the Province that

has benefitted, and there have been a number of programs that have been carried

on within that area for the past number of years as a result of the fact that

the school board has had in hold-back a number of these units.

The concern by parents is that with the units that have been

withdrawn this year, and the further plans to remove the balance next year, it

will impact negatively on the quality of programming that will be available to

children, especially in the smaller schools in the rural areas.

With regard to the labour dispute, the parents spoke at

length, and very emotionally, with respect to their concerns that their children

are not in class today, and their concern that they do not want this situation

to continue for any extended period of time. At the meeting, I can say that the

parents were not concerned with laying blame. They appreciate the teachers'

position; they appreciate where they are coming from, and respect what they are

trying to do. They also recognize, I submit, the very difficult situation in

which the government finds itself, but the bottom-line as far as the parents are

concerned is they do not want the dispute to continue. They want their children

back in school and they are urging this government and the teachers to continue

to bargain in good faith to bring about as quickly as possible a resolution of

this very serious situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition

presented by my colleague and to say that the prayer of the petition is

something that I have been talking about for some weeks and months. The impact

on the schools of this Province of the withdrawal of the 2 per cent savings

clause without a comprehensive small schools policy has been devastating. In

fact, I have received many, many letters from all parts of the Province

indicating that school boards have given notices to teachers that they are to be

declared redundant, that some schools are closing and students are scheduled to

be transported over long distances next year.

Mr. Speaker, programs are being chopped. In particular, I

want to mention things like physical education programs, guidance programs,

music, art, these kinds of programs are at risk. While we have a government

which pretends to be dedicated to the rural Newfoundland schools, we have not

yet seen a comprehensive small schools policy for this Province.

While the minister has said he has allocated

7,200-and-so-many teachers to all the boards of the Province, in reality, that

means that many children in rural Newfoundland next year will not know whether

they will be in multi-grade classrooms, whether the programs they have at the

senior high school level will be cut back, courses dropped, whether we are going

to have situations where we are going to have at risk students, students who are

already in danger of not finishing school, placed at even greater risk. The

impacts of the government's policy towards the 2 per cent savings clause, are, I

don't believe fully understood by the people who really work at the Department

of Education level, because if they understood them, they would be doing a lot

more to address the issue with a greater degree of sensitivity.

As for collective bargaining processes, Mr. Speaker, I can

only say the time has come for all sides to be going to the table with a

compromising attitude, with a willingness to seek a resolution because the

children of this Province deserve the best education they can get, and we call

upon the government to go to the table, try to be conciliatory, try to stop the

intimidating tactics, deal with the issues and let's get the children of this

Province back into schools because we can't say on the one hand, we want a

longer school year and as of this day, that this government has saved $2,225,000

this very day from the teachers payroll of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, if

that's they way we are going to balance our budget, on the backs of our

children, then it is a sad day for education in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for presenting the petition and I thank

him for the way in which he handled the petition. There are two parts to the

request. First of all, it has to do with the 2 per cent savings clause.

Mr. Speaker, I agree and I guess everybody in the whole

educational system in North America would agree, that it probably would be

better if we had perhaps one teacher for every ten students, that that way there

would be more personal contact and more individual help given, there is no doubt

about that; but, Mr. Speaker, there is a reality that we have to live within;

there is a reality, and that reality simply is, that because of what's happened

to this Province in the last three years, because of the recession, because of

what's happened to the groundfishery, because of what's happened to transfer

payments and so on, the revenues are simply not there to provide, what I guess

anybody would consider to be an absolutely ideal system, and if we could hire

twice as many teachers, Mr. Speaker, we would probably create a better situation

from the point of view of students and teachers, but the ability to pay is

simply not there.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the 2 per cent savings clause,

there is a three-year protection rule. These are management rights that should

be retained by management, to give the management the ability to restructure the

system and to move teachers where the need is greatest, if I could put it that

way. We have a number of schools where there is one teacher for five students,

one teacher per ten students and so on around the Province, and I understand the

special circumstances but, Mr. Speaker, our kitty can no longer afford to have

that a widespread condition, so, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we can't comply

with the first part of the request.

The second one however, Mr. Speaker, I embrace

wholeheartedly. Negotiations should have begun in January; they did not; that's

unfortunate. We are at the stage now where there is a strike and we are trying

to get negotiations started, they have not yet started and we are hoping that

over the next few days perhaps that can be accomplished, but, Mr. Speaker, I say

to you, that even if that is accomplished, that we would finally, after months

and months begin the negotiating process, the collective bargaining process,

that there are still some significant hurdles to overcome in those negotiations,

not an easy round of negotiation, but I agree wholeheartedly, the shorter this

work disruption is, the better it is for all concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a petition from 120 residents of St. John's and

area, and these petitioners are concerned about the sale of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, and have asked the House to demand the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown

corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are amongst the, I would

say, hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders who have opposed the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with 79 per cent of decided people, after

hearing both sides of the issue on the Province-wide debate, decided that they

were opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The government has

continued in its arrogant attitude towards the people of this Province, most

recently displayed in its treatment of the teachers, I might add, but its

arrogant attitude to the wishes of the people of this Province who have clearly

made up their minds on the issue.

The Premier on his television address and the debate

committed himself to not taking the matter forward in the House of Assembly if

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not support it. Yet we now have a

situation where the Premier is determined to move forward regardless of the

wishes of the people and regardless of his own statements to the contrary.

We've come to a situation where the respect for government

and respect for people in government is at an all-time low. It is things like

this that put us in that situation and put the people's confidence in the

government in very serious - and rightfully so in this case - disrepute.

We have a teachers' strike today because as a number of

teachers said to me that they are convinced that some people in government are

out to get them. What we've had over the last number of months is a continuation

of the arrogant attitude of this government, including the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture who supports the government's position on Hydro, and won't get

up in this House of parliament and act in the best interest of the people of

this Province. Nor will the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. They

are continuing to support the Premier in his arrogant views of giving away the

resources of the people of this Province to serve some ideological goals that he

picked up from Michael Walker or somebody like that.

That is the kind of government we have here. That is why we

have the disrepute that this government is held in. That is why we have a

teachers strike, because this government can't handle the reality of power

without this kind of behaviour. When the government is prepared to listen to 79

per cent or 80 per cent of the people then perhaps the people will have some

respect for them, but not until then, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a few people

on the opposite side of the House today who are somewhat testy. I have some

advice for them. If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, well then get out

of the kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand here

and support my colleague's petition that government not go ahead and privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What we have seen since October 1 on this issue

has been a blatant disregard for public input, a blatant disregard against the

public wishes.

First and foremost the tale began with the merger of Fortis

but the Premier and his government backed off from that. Then we saw that Hydro

was privatized because there was a committee of three wise men established, the

Premier said. There was no committee at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five wise men.

MR. E. BYRNE: There were five men, were there? There was

no committee at all. There was no report presented. No report whatsoever

indicating that Hydro should be privatized.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province has stood in this

House time after time and has called the Opposition fraudulent and

misrepresenting the views on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the real facts. We

have said to him and his ministers opposite that if he is so convinced that we

have been fraudulent, if he is so convinced that we have misrepresented the

views on this particular issue, then why has he or his government not called

public hearings to prove that we have been fraudulent and misrepresentative? If

there is anybody who has been fraudulent it has been the Premier himself. If

there is anybody who has misrepresented the facts in this debate, it has been

the government itself.

If we need any clearer indication but this, the Premier's own

words: `No government has the right to proceed, and ask the majority that it

commands in the House of Assembly, to put through laws that it can't maintain

adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean, essentially, majority

support in the Province' - the words of the Premier, Mr. Speaker - `and if the

majority of the people of this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to

Hydro, I would not ask the Members of the Legislature to proceed with

legislation privatizing Hydro.'

March 24th, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made, in a public

debate. Two weeks ago, the Opposition House Leader stood up and asked the

Premier that very question: What was his and his government's intention? His

intention was full speed ahead with privatizing Hydro - a pure chameleon.

This leader reminds me of a story of the Emperor Nero, who

fiddles his fiddle while the country burns around him. This Premier, on this

issue and many other issues, is doing exactly that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, you're not going to hear it. I am going

to state some facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, I had more important things to do on

Sunday morning than listen to CBC Radio, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in regard to the

petition that the hon. the Member for St. John's East and the hon. the Member

for Kilbride just spoke to about the privatization of Hydro. The Member for St.

John's East got off into the accusations that this government is not concerned

at all about the teachers of the Province, and brought it all together.

I want to state very clearly to this hon. House that we all

have concerns for all people of this Province, whether you are a former teacher

of the Province - we all have family members who are teaching in this Province,

and we have sons and daughters who are going to school. I will give you my own

personal example. I have three close relations, sisters, brothers-in-law,

teaching in this Province, and I have children going to school, so I am equally

as concerned about the education process, and the value of education, and the

value of teachers to the education process of my children, and everybody else's

children in this Province, as any other individual in this Province, no matter

what side of the House you sit on.

The privatization of Hydro, bring it all together, it is all

a financial matter. No person, no matter where you sit in this Province, can not

be concerned about the financial situation of the Province. Nobody - no

minister, no government member, no backbencher, nobody in the Opposition -

should have any less concern about making the decision about what we should do

about the financial mess this Province is in, and where we should go into the

future, and it is all interrelated. Whether it's NAPE, whether it's CUPE,

whether it's the NTA, or whether it's the privatization of Hydro, it all has an

impact on the financial situation of the Province.

I have said it in this House of Assembly 10,000 times in the

last ten to twelve years - well, not twelve years - ten years since I got into

this office, we can't continue dishing out the monies and borrowing the monies

that we don't have coming in in revenues; you just can't keep doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) gave it all away.

MR. EFFORD: Well, okay, we gave it away. Let me explain

to you how we did give it away.

MR. SIMMS: Gordon Seabright.

MR. EFFORD: We go back to 1971, when -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, probably the members on both

sides of the House don't need to hear about the financial situation; they will

carry on their own debate.

I was going to point out -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might begin by

agreeing to sit through the 5:00 p.m. hour so as to give the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader. If hon.

members would restrain themselves for a minute or two -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, there are those who say that

not hearing me may not be a subject of complaint, but I wonder if I could begin

by moving that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.?

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is a degree of urgency

about Motion No. 6. I wonder if perhaps you would call it and we will deal with

that.

MS. VERGE: What?

MR. ROBERTS: Motion No. 6; that is the judge's motion.

MS. VERGE: Did you say it was an emergency?

MR. ROBERTS: A degree of urgency.

MS. VERGE: Oh.

MR. ROBERTS: It is the sort of urgency that if we don't

act in due course it could become an emergency, I say to my friend, the Member

for Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, when we finish motion 6, I can advise the House,

we'll go on into the debate in committee stage on the Electrical Power Control

Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, there will be a closure motion on that.

MS. VERGE: How many is that this spring, three?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular resolution goes back to 1991 where a tribunal

was put in place, according to legislation, to make decisions on the salaries of

provincial court judges. That tribunal operated, Mr. Speaker, under the

chairmanship of Norman Whalen, Q.C., and reported to this hon. House. It

recommended, Mr. Speaker, some substantial, we believe, increases in the

salaries of provincial court judges and changes in benefits and so on. However,

Mr. Speaker, at that point in time we were experiencing tremendous financial

difficulty. We had to freeze the compensation of public sector employees. We had

to make a decision on this tribunal report and one of our choices was that we

could vary the report, so did, because we thought that in a time of restraint we

could not give these large increases to a sector of public employees. They are

really employees of the public in the Province and get paid from the public

purse but, Mr. Speaker, the mechanism that we used put certain deadlines and

certain dates in place and if we do not now act before May 18 which is two days

from now - I believe today is the sixteenth, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Yes. If we do not act within the next two

days, then the recommendations of the tribunal will come into effect

retroactively to 1992. So, Mr. Speaker, we are now choosing to vary the report

again. We're choosing to do it in a way, Mr. Speaker, that indicates our desire

to make sure that it's done in a fair manner. The point has been made to us that

since the last review of the provincial court judges' responsibilities was done

in 1985, there have been considerable changes in responsibility and duties. What

we're suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we continue the way we are, that the

Classification and Pay division of Treasury Board be asked to take a look at the

particular duties and responsibilities to see if, in fact, there have been

substantive changes or if, in fact, there have been changes that would warrant

any type of reclassification to occur at this time.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I can give the hon. lady the numbers. Right

now, the current salaries and benefits; judges get $90,129 a year and the Chief

Judge of the provincial court gets $95,129. The recommendations of the tribunal,

which we don't want to have come into effect now, would give judges $101,000

immediately and $112,000 by April 1, 1994, and the Chief Judge would be 6 per

cent higher then the judges. So it would effectively see over a 20 per cent

increase in the salary of the provincial court judges and, Mr. Speaker, this is

not the time to get into that. So we're asking that Treasury Board look at and

see if, in fact, since 1985 there have been substantial changes in the duties

and responsibilities of the provincial court judges and to report back as to

what changes should be made in the classification of these positions. So, Mr.

Speaker, that's the purpose of the resolution in a nutshell and I'd be

interested to hear what members opposite have to say.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, support the

stated government objective of being fair in deciding on levels of remuneration

and benefits for all those paid out of the provincial treasury. Judges are

different from public servants inasmuch as they are independent from the

political branch of the government, and their independence must be preserved.

And that is precisely why we, in the House of Assembly, are now dealing with

this resolution about judges' salaries and benefits that is provided for by

legislation. We don't, in the House of Assembly, by resolution set salaries and

benefits for public servants. There are other problems associated with the

process of determining wages and benefits for public employees.

What judges have in common with public employees is the

source of their income which is ultimately the taxpayers, the provincial

treasury. At a time when the government is imposing restraint in awarding

compensation, in awarding pay and benefits to public employees, it is necessary

to be consistent in setting salaries and benefits for judges. We, in the

Official Opposition, supported the action taken by the government two years ago

in extending the same restraint guidelines to judges as those imposed on the

public service.

Inasmuch as this resolution achieves that objective, the

objective of fairness, we support this resolution; however, this resolution, by

setting up a reclassification process, really opens up the possibility that

judges will get an increase, and even a very substantial increase by another

name. There is no provision in the resolution for a reclassification

recommendation for pay or benefit increases coming back to the House of

Assembly.

I wish to move an amendment, and my colleague, the Opposition

House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, will second it, to ensure that any

reclassification and remuneration increase which may be recommended through the

reclassification exercise, come back to the House of Assembly and only be

implemented if the House of Assembly votes to implement it, in other words, that

any changes in classification and remuneration be subject to approval of the

House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Opposition House Leader has

already given the Government House Leader a copy of my amendment. I have another

copy here which I can table.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. member would permit for a

second? That is correct, but I didn't hear her move it formally. I think she

talked about the effect of her amendment.

MR. SIMMS: She moved it, seconded by the Member for Grand

Bank.

MR. ROBERTS: Was the word `suggested' in there?

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is

correct. I just explained the amendment, I didn't read the precise wording, but

I will do that now, and I have a copy.

Moved by me, and seconded by the hon. the Member for Grand

Bank that the resolution be amended by adding the following: `6. The tribunal

recommends that any suggested changes in classification and remuneration

resulting from the reclassification exercise in Recommendation 1 be subject to

the approval of the House of Assembly.'

Mr. Speaker, we want to have any increase in remuneration

subject to debate and approval of the House of Assembly to guard against the

possibility that judges will be treated differently from others paid out of the

public treasury. People in the Province, public employees in particular, who are

being subjected to year after year of wage restraint, of freezes, of cuts in

benefits, of suspension in government pension contributions, will only be

prepared to go along with that arrangement if there is a perception, if they

perceive that the government is being just and uniform.

But when people see exceptions and abuses such as people

found out about last week in the case of the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal, in the case of Gordon Seabright and Jeff Brace, people are no longer

willing to accept restraint measures themselves. The government has failed in

its stated objective of fairness, not so far, in the case of Provincial Court

judges, but in other instances.

Retired Judge Gordon Seabright has been treated much more

favourably than stated government policy would allow.

MR. SIMMS: An interesting point.

MS. VERGE: There was no fairness and balance involved in

former Judge Seabright double-dipping. There was no fairness and balance

involved in Mr. Seabright billing the amounts he did, charging the per diems he

did, for his work with the Appeal Tribunal. The billing didn't even conform with

stated Treasury Board guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, in moving the amendment to this resolution

dealing with pay and benefits for Provincial Court judges, we, in the Official

Opposition, want to make sure that any change is subject to House of Assembly

approval. We would expect the House of Assembly, which would have to deal with

the issue openly, with public scrutiny, to make the same kind of decision for

judges as the measures being imposed on the other people who are being paid out

of the public treasury, teachers, for example.

MR. EFFORD: I agree with you.

MS. VERGE: Good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of

comments. I'm not going to take up ten or fifteen minutes. I just want to make a

couple of comments about the inaccuracies that the hon. the Member for Humber

East is presenting, trying to leave the impression that this piece of

legislation going through today is connected with the accusations made that a

former judge was being overpaid with taxpayers' money for the job he was doing.

The Opposition has every right, it is the right of the

Opposition, to stand in the House - I did it, from 1985 to 1989, to make points.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where the real Opposition was.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, a real Opposition. But at least, when I

did it, and when I stood up and asked a question or made an accusation, I had

researched and I knew the answers before I put the question. Nobody could throw

anything back in my face and say, there: Well, Efford, you did it for four or

five years, you handed out patronage jobs and paid taxpayers' money. But to

stand there - I want to read, Mr. Speaker, to this House, and then I'm going to

table it: This is the hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: What did the Leader of the Opposition say

then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Giving out money? Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I will

stick to the point at hand.

This is the hon. the Member for Humber East, the former

minister, standing up now talking about Judge Seabright and what this government

is doing. I'm not suggesting anything is right or wrong, I'm going to make a

point to the hon. member.

Contracts with Newlantic Group - now, who is the Newlantic

Group? I will let the hon. the Member for Humber East explain that when she

stands up again; 1989-1990 - study of legislation governing the use of vacuum

unloading systems: $24,000; 1988-1989, to implement in-plant quality program of

four processing plants: $30,000; 1988-1989, development of a fisheries quality

manual: $30,000; 1987-1988, development of a productivity quality management

system for Makkovik fish plant: $20,000; 1986-1987, implementation of an

in-plant quality program at Barry Fisheries Limited, Curling, and Superior

Seafoods Limited, Stephenville: $24,000; Operational Review, James Doyle and

Sons, $29,980; Operation Review, Moorfish Limited, $25,000.

MS. VERGE: What year was that?

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen-ninety. But all the hon. members -

fifteen (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen ninety-one, I said. This started

back in 1989. The spouse of the Member for Humber East is (inaudible)

complaining - $24,000, $30,000, $30,000, $20,000, $24,000, $29,000, $25,000 and

$15,000, and she has the gall to stand up in this House and make accusations

that we are throwing away taxpayers' money. Well, I mean, if you are going to

say it, say it with some accuracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, table it.

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

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

I just want to have a few words; I don't want to belabour the

point, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleague, the Member for Humber East has covered

it very well and has made an amendment which really is adding to the resolution,

which I understand from the indications of the Government House Leader, the

government will accept, because this matter should be brought back here to the

House, if indeed there are any changes in classification or enumeration

resulting from the reclassification exercise; we support that and that's why we

are making the amendment. And, of course, in this day and age and what we are

going through in this Province today, when we see the teachers of our Province

on strike today, NAPE and CUPE are still negotiating, the nurses, as I

understand, are back to the table today in conciliatory talks, it is only right

and proper that we, as members of this House demand, that if indeed there is a

reclassification process undertaken for provincial court judges and as a result

of that, there may be some recommendations for benefits or salary increases,

that this House has the ultimate say in whether or not these benefits or

increases are ratified. I expect, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if we

are still in the same climate of restraint as we are today, when these

recommendations come back, we will deal with it in orderly fashion, that we

won't even consider - but, of course, if indeed the reclassification exercise

takes place and there are no recommendations or if there is no reclassification,

then that is the end of it anyway.

We will only deal with it if indeed there is reclassification

awarded, and consequently, benefits and so on recommended for the House to deal

with. So we support it; but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

didn't say too much about the resolution, I say to him, he completely ignored

the resolution. He got pretty testy with the Member for Humber East and took his

venom out on her without dealing with the resolution, and it is almost as if he

were supporting the provincial court judges in getting raises and so on; I don't

know if that is what he meant or not, but he certainly didn't deal with the

resolution, I say to him.

MR. EFFORD: Don't get into the (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, all I can say to that is, my

colleague, the Member for Humber East is very capable of looking after herself

and defending herself, I don't need to offer, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. She is quite capable of dealing with that and the

minister can stand in his place and spew out all the figures he likes, he

doesn't make any difference. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I

don't know if there is any other member who wants to speak to this or not.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I get the

impression that most members who want to speak have said what they want to say.

I want to say on behalf of my colleague and myself and the ministry, that we

were consulted in respect of the amendment that the hon. the Member for Humber

East moved and we had indicated we are prepared to accept it and to ask our

friends in the House to vote for it. We think it is a reasonable point to make,

and indeed, I go so far as to say, having had a hand in drafting the resolution,

that if we had thought of it first we would have put it in, so we are quite

prepared to accept it.

I want to make two other points if I might, Mr. Speaker. The

first is to emphasize to the House that the judges in this Province, the

provincial court judges - there are now twenty-three; there is one vacancy,

Judge Stone retired and there has not yet been an appointed to replace him, the

competition is underway. The judges have been subjected to the same financial

restraints as any other persons paid from the public chest. Four-and-a-half per

cent last year and I believe we did it through the pension mechanism as we did

with other senior public servants. And that's only right and proper, I think

members would agree this doesn't compromise judicial independence; it's not

unfairly singling out the judiciary or anybody else. Everybody who looked to the

public chest for her or his compensation last year had a 4.5 per cent roll back

or whatever you want to call it, decline; a rose by any other name is still a

rose with thorns although it smells sweet. And the judges had that, and to their

credit, there was no complaint; there was no remonstrance. They accepted the

same discipline as was imposed on all of us including, of course, members of the

House and ministers.

Secondly, with that point made, I want to say, as other

members have, it's very important that judges be treated fairly. They cannot, by

definition, engage in job action, or in collective bargaining, as almost every

employee group in the Province can. They have an association which speaks for

them very capably, but they are not a group that can find a place in the normal

mechanisms by which government attempts to resolve wage and working conditions

with employee groups. That is why the act was brought in in 1991 by my

predecessor, the Member for Humber West, and I understand it had the support of

all sides of the House at that stage, and in due course the report has come back

here that we are dealing with today.

In my view, what we are doing here is consistent with the

principles of judicial independence, and I want to underline that the Ministry

are very much committed to this. What we are doing is entirely appropriate to

balance off on one hand the right of the House of Assembly to control

expenditures of the public revenue of this Province and, on the other hand, the

judicial independence of judges, who must not only be independent, as they are,

but must be seen to be independent by any reasonably informed person.

The fact remains, as the resolution, I think, notes - it does

note, in the form of the reference to the Orsborn report by David Orsborn, who

is now Mr. Justice Orsborn of the Trial Division - there has been no examination

since 1985 of the role judges play, of the nature of their duties, the nature of

their qualifications, the types of factors that are taken into account in a

reclassification exercise. Reclassification exercises go on all the time

throughout the public service. They are proper; they are appropriate, and when

done properly, as they are under this administration - that is all I can speak

of with knowledge - they are very effective as part of a proper personnel

policy.

The role of the judges has changed. I am not here to make a

case for them. They will make their own through their council, before the

classification procedure, assuming this resolution is adopted, but since 1985

there have been two significant changes. We have brought in a ten-year rule,

which is the same as applies to the

Section 96 judges, we call them, the judges

of the Supreme Court Trial Division and the judges of the Court of Appeal or,

for the matter, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Federal Court

of Canada. No man or no woman can be appointed to the Provincial Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador unless she or he has ten years in active practice at

this Bar, or a combination of our Bar and some others.

Secondly, the scope of their duties has been extended

somewhat. The extension in some of the family court jurisdiction, some other

jurisdiction, has increased the scope and nature of their work. There have been

significant changes, as members know well, in the Criminal Code.

We think the request is an appropriate one. We are not here

to prejudge it. That will be done by the process, and we quite agree with the

hon. member's suggestion that before a change becomes effective, it be brought

back to the House and not take effect until and unless approved. So the

classification process will suggest a change, at most. If it does suggest a

change, the decision will remain here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote?

Before we vote on the amendment, I will read the amendment to

make sure it is in the record, because there have been some changes in it.

Moved by the Member for Humber East, seconded by the hon. the

Member for Grand Bank, that the resolution be amended by adding the following:

The Tribunal recommends that any suggested changes in

classification or remuneration resulting from the reclassification exercise in

Recommendation 1 be subject to the approval of the House of Assembly.

On motion, amendment carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 5.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move to Orders of the Day,

Motion No. 5.

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

Transportation, Motion No. 5.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go into Committee of

the Whole on Bill No. 2, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 5.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 5, yes.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I'm tired of listening to myself,

actually.

Regrettably, this is the third time we have had to deal with

closure imposed by this dictatorial administration in the last three months, in

this spring sitting of the House of Assembly. Three times the administration has

stooped to using closure to ram through Hydro privatization against the wishes

of the vast majority of the citizens of this Province.

Chairperson, this third instance of closure is even more

offensive then the previous two. Notice was given an hour into committee stage

on Bill 2 - Bill 2, which is a complicated, difficult piece of legislation which

will have long-lasting repercussions for the economic development of this

Province, sadly, negative repercussions. This bill will go down in history as

Clyde's folly. It's the bill that's going to mess up our golden opportunity for

beneficial development of Labrador Hydro resources and it's the bill that

facilitates sale of Hydro, the assets on the Island. It's the companion

legislation to Bill 1, the Hydro privatization bill.

The Premier and the Minister of Justice are really the only

two members of the administration, the only two Liberal members, who fully

understand what this measure will do. They're the only two who are in on the

master plot. The master plot, of course, is to land us back in the court in

another long-drawn-out, expensive battle with Hydro Quebec over the Upper

Churchill. Ultimately, it will be a losing cause. We've lost twice already seven

to nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada. But if there were something to be

gained or even if there were nothing to be lost by trying again, then I would go

along with it - but what a cost!

The cost so far has been the loss of a fantastic offer from

Hydro Quebec two years ago for redress on the Upper Churchill and development of

the Lower Churchill. Two years ago, the Premier backed away from an opportunity

to do a deal involving Hydro Quebec pumping billions of dollars extra into the

Upper Churchill to keep CF(L)Co solvent, to replace worn infrastructure,

principally the Lobstick facility which was designed to have a useful life of

only thirty years and which is going to need to be rebuilt at a cost of perhaps

$200 million in the first part of the next century, but more than that, to

provide over $4 billion in additional royalties and revenues, $4 billion net, to

the provincial treasury over the remaining life of the Upper Churchill contract.

And those additional royalties and revenues would have started to flow already.

It would have meant perhaps $20 million extra this year, $20 million extra the

government would have been able to put into public sector compensation, $20

million extra for the President of Treasury Board to pay teachers, nurses, NAPE

and CUPE workers. The offer involved development of both Gull Island and Muskrat

Falls with a thirty-year contract of sale to Hydro Quebec at an escalating price

of power surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. The price to go up

from 35 mils to about 145 mils per kilowatt hour, and that compares to less than

3 mils a kilowatt hour we are now getting on the Upper Churchill.

Immediately on the development of Gull Island 800 megawatts

would have been available to Newfoundland and Labrador and that would have been

sufficient to finance the transmission line linking the Upper Churchill to the

Island grid. Think what that would have meant, Chairperson, in terms of

construction value, in terms of jobs for unemployed Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Think what it would have meant to power rates. Think what it would

have meant to economic development of the Province.

This has been documented. I made public a Cabinet

presentation outlining the terms of the offer, setting out the Wells

administration's own objectives going into the talks in late 1989, pointing out

that Hydro Quebec had initiated the talks, indicating the key points on which

agreement had been reached, short-listing the few items on which negotiation was

still required, and which the negotiating team expected compromise would result,

so that there could be a final agreement in early 1992.

The Premier walked away from that golden opportunity and why?

It was because of his crazy, personal idea of doing what the Peckford

administration and the Moores administration had not been able to do. His

personal pet legal theory for breaking the Upper Churchill contract, and that is

set out in

Part 2 of this Control Bill.

Part 2 of the Control Bill purports to set up the provincial

public utilities board to reallocate power. Now, the only source of surplus

power is the Upper Churchill. The Premier confessed his real motive on the

Province-wide TV address through NTV March 22. He admitted his real reason.

Chairperson, as the Premier himself had written in a legal

opinion in Newfoundland Light and Power in 1986, this scheme could be carried

out through Newfoundland Light and Power, the company he was with at the time.

The scheme could be carried out by a publicly owned Hydro. All the Premier is

suggesting - and this really stretches the imagination - is that privatizing

Hydro and making the government at arm's length from the electricity industry

will somehow make the court more likely to rule out Quebec's inevitable

constitutional challenge on the basis that this is legislation targeted at the

Upper Churchill.

Chairperson, the Premier blew his own cover on the NTV

address. If through some miracle the Premier's legal theory turns out to be

right and we win a challenge by Quebec, then what? The Hydro Quebec contract is

breached. The breach triggers default of the bonds, close to $1 billion in

bonds, then what? What do we do? Cash starve Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill, basically, represents the Premier's option for

more litigation, another court case, instead of negotiation with Hydro Quebec,

and through negotiation with Hydro Quebec two years ago we could have had the

agreement that I outlined for redress on the Upper Churchill and development of

the Lower Churchill. We could have had that.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true and you know the difference.

Do not be so silly.

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations may not have been in Cabinet in December 1991. I do not know if the

minister had been appointed to the Cabinet in December of 1991.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: His colleagues who were in the Cabinet at that

time in December of 1991 if they are honest will confirm what I'm saying. In

fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy already has confirmed what I'm saying.

The Minister of Mines and Energy has confirmed what I'm saying. Any objective

person who looked at the document that I made public, which was a presentation

to the Cabinet in December of 1991, will conclude that what I am saying is true.

Anyone who has read the Premier's legal opinion - Clyde K. Wells of Wells and

Companies' legal opinion - to Newfoundland Light and Power in July 1986

outlining his pet theory and attaching a draft of the electrical power control

act will realize that this has been a pipe dream of the Premier's for many

years. `Clyde's Folly.'

This is the Premier's control act and this is the legislation

that is going to mess up our opportunity for beneficial Labrador hydro

development. The people of the Province will be paying for this for generations

to come. This is also the bill that facilitates the give-away of the Hydro

assets on the Island. For example, the provision involving the provincial

government giving up revenue we now get from the federal government that

originates with Newfoundland Light and Power. The provincial government is going

to give away $10 million a year. There will be $10 million less for teachers and

other public sector workers. Because the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, which has been knocking the public workers, is going to give back $10

million to Angus Bruneau and the people at Light and Power.

This bill contains a clause saying that the 85 per cent share

of private utilities' federal corporate tax that goes to the provinces will be

refunded by this Province to the private utilities. That is $10 million a year

to Light and Power sacrificed by the Newfoundland and Labrador government. The

same government that is putting the boots to the teachers and the nurses and the

people on social assistance is going to simply hand back to Light and Power $10

million a year. The government also is going to hand back the 85 per cent share

of federal corporate income tax that a private Hydro would pay. Hand it back to

the private Hydro. They claim privatization means efficiency. What poppycock.

Privatization in this case is going to mean higher prices for

consumers. It is going to mean a huge cost to the provincial economy that

Memorial economist Wade Locke has quantified at about $70 million a year, each

year and every year. Where will that money go? Most of it will go out of the

Province. The higher electricity rates that householders and business people

will be paying for the most part will end up being paid out of the Province to

the non-resident shareholders. This is a measure that is going to make sure that

the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Newfoundland and Labrador

as a whole will be reduced to an even more impoverished status as a result of

this measure which is going to squander our chance to catch up by Labrador hydro

development.

Chairperson, the reason the Government House Leader brought

in closure an hour into Committee stage last Thursday is because he is afraid of

the growing public anger. People made up their minds weeks ago that they are

against this measure. The polls that were done at the end of March after the

Premier's barrage of publicity - his Province-wide TV addresses, his appearance

on open line shows, the tens of thousands of dollars worth of radio ads and full

page newspaper ads - the polling that was done then showed that well over 80 per

cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had made up their minds and 80 per cent

of them were against privatizing Hydro.

CBC through corporate research is doing another poll now, and

we understand the results will be available in the next week; I would suggest

the Government House Leader, under orders from the Premier, and maybe the two of

them cooked it up together, are trying to get this through before those poll

results are released and before people's disgust translates into more dramatic

types of protests. There is an anger, a seething anger in this Province that's

building and for good reason, Chairperson.

This Province has problems that would be inevitable, didn't

have to be inevitable but would be a fact of life for any government in office

in 1994, but the Wells Administration is creating new problems, adding to our

burdens, squandering our opportunities and there is no measure worst than this

one; this is the worst yet. The full consequences of this controlled bill won't

be seen next year or the year after, it may be decades before the full impact of

the harm that will result from this bill will be known. The children and

grandchildren of members opposite will find out about the folly of this Premier

and these Cabinet ministers and these government members.

People in the Province today realize that there is much wrong

with privatizing Hydro, but the full magnitude of the mistake contained in this

bill won't be realized by people this year, it may take decades but,

Chairperson, it will be too late; it will be too late. The sad part about this

bill and the companion legislation is that, if Hydro is sold, even a change of

government three years from now or whenever the next election comes, a change of

government will not be able to undo the sale, because a Progressive Conservative

Government in three years time will not have enough money; there won't be enough

money in the public Treasury for the next government, the Progressive

Conservative Government, to buy back Hydro. This government is foolish enough to

entertain selling Hydro for net $300 million or $250 million, but, Chairperson,

no private sector owners would think of selling it back to the Province for such

a ridiculously low price.

Private sector owners, centred in Montreal likely, perhaps

controlled by Paul Desmarais, won't be soft touches, they won't be prepared to

sell Hydro back to the Newfoundland and Labrador Government for a mere $250

million or $300 million or $350 million; they would be looking for a much, much

larger sum, and where is the government going to get that money, and what's the

government to do about the Upper Churchill, with CF(L)Co headed into a deficit

position; CF(L)Co which will be taking in less revenue than the annual cost of

operating in a few short years, what's the government to do about that?

Chairperson, it's very regrettable, it's very regrettable

that backbenchers opposite and Cabinet ministers for that matter aren't willing

to take a courageous stand along with their people and against their Premier.

There is one exception, one notable exception, the Member for Pleasantville. The

Member for Pleasantville has done considerable research on this; he has shown

tremendous initiative and courage, he has arrived at his own independent

conclusion that privatizing Hydro would be very bad for the Province and he has

explained that in the House and outside the House to his constituents and to the

public.

It's not too late for other members opposite. As I said

before, when the final votes come on this bill and the companion bill, each

member in this House will have exactly the same vote as the Premier, exactly the

same vote as the Minister of Justice. At the end of the day, when we all have to

vote, each of us will have one vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have a few words on this bill, I was about to say,

but I think in technical terms what we are dealing with here is government's

attempt, once again, to implement, to bring into this House, the infamous gag

order.

Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that since the

Wells' administration came to power in this Province, government has introduced

closure, has shut off debate, has killed democracy more times, more than twice

as often, than has ever been brought in since 1949. So between 1949 and 1989,

forty years, there was closure implemented in this Legislature four times, and

since 1989 to 1994 it has been brought in nine times.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. TOBIN: More than that? The Minister of Finance is

proud of that, is he? He is proud of that record, is he? He is. I don't find it

difficult to believe that the minister is proud of that. If the way that he

conducts collective bargaining in this Province is any indication, then nobody

should be surprised.

I don't know how all members opposite can go out into their

districts week after week and hear the people loud and clear, that they do not

support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and yet come into

this Legislature, and the Premier stands up, and what does he say? I know the

people are supporting it because my caucus are telling me.

Well, the caucus are not being truthful to the Premier, or

the Premier is not being truthful to the Province to say it; it's one or the

other. There is someone not telling the truth.

How does the Member for St. John's North tell the Premier

that his constituents support it when he knows that they do not? How does the

Member for St. George's come in and tell the Premier that his constituents

support it when he knows that they do not support it? Are they being truthful?

Are the members opposite, particularly in the back benches, willing to sell out

themselves, sell the whole system for a Cabinet post? What happened to the word

`principle'? What happened to it?

The Member for Pleasantville has put his constituents and the

people of this Province ahead of his own personal gain. That is what he has

done.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. That is what he was

elected to do.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he was elected to do, and he has

done it well, and I will give him full marks for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: But so was every other member elected to put

their constituents first, and their own selfish well-being last.

How can members opposite tell the Premier that their

constituents support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Is

the truth important any more? Is the truth important? Are your constituents

important any more? No, they are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not on that side.

MR. TOBIN: No, they are not, not on that side; that's the

crowd I am talking about.

We have seen this government set up in this Province

an act

to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that wasn't enough, it was not

enough to bring in one act to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro they

brought in a second bill, Mr. Speaker.

With the exception of what's involved regarding Bill 1, the

privatization act, we don't have any great problem with it but why intergrade or

intertwine Bill 1 into Bill 2? Why are they doing that, Mr. Chairman? There is

only one thing and one reason why they're doing that, it's because some day some

very influential people in this country, not necessarily in this Province, in

this country will control what has been ours for a number of years, the

electrical power assets in this Province. Is that going to benefit the people of

Burin - Placentia West, the people of St. George's or the people of Exploits,

Mr. Chairman? The short answer is no, it will not be of benefit to any of these

people. Why the government proceeds, Mr. Chairman, on this piece of legislation,

no one will ever know.

The Premier of this Province stood in front of the public on

television and stated loud and clear for the whole Province to see and listen

to, that he will not privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro if the majority

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support it. Well, Mr.

Chairman, the majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support

it. Why is the Premier proceeding? Who did the Premier tell the truth to, that's

the question? Did he tell the truth in this Legislature or did he tell the truth

when he was on television?

There is only one group that the Premier told the truth to,

he didn't tell it to two groups. What did he say?... But I can say this to you.

No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in

the House of Assembly to put through laws that he can't maintain adequate public

support for and by adequate I mean essential majority support in the Province.

If the majority of the people of this Province end up in the end being opposed

to Hydro I would not ask members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation

privatizing Hydro because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly

it feels about the issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause

something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this

Province and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that. Mr.

Chairman, these words were spoken by the Premier of this Province and now he's

going to bring it in regardless. Who in the name of God does the Premier think

he is? Who does he think he is?

Mr. Chairman, I can only ask: what happened to the backbone

of those ladies and gentlemen opposite who went door to door, knocked on doors

the same as I did and everyone else did and asked the people for their

support?... send me in there to represent you, give me a chance to represent the

district. Mr. Chairman, you got your chance and now you got the wishes of your

people and don't turn your backs on them. Stand up today and be opposed to this

bad piece of legislation. It's something that is not good for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and you've been all told that, Mr. Chairman, all of you.

Mr. Chairman, with that, we've got some amendments we want to

bring into this piece of legislation. I guess, seeing the Government House

Leader has once again implemented a gag order and has decided to do what his

Premier - leader wants him to do and that is shove democracy aside if it doesn't

suit them - to get even, to look after their buddies, the crowd with the big

bucks who are going to buy Newfoundland Hydro, Mr. Chairman. The people of this

Province are not going to be the major shareholders in Newfoundland Hydro, don't

ever worry about that. The people of this Province will not be. It will be their

friends, most of them on the mainland.

Having said that I move, seconded by my colleague for Humber

Valley, the following resolutions. I guess I might as well -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I think he agrees with me more than some of

your colleagues agreed with you on Thursday evening past.

MR. ROBERTS: It may well be.

MR. TOBIN: More than your colleagues agreed with you on

Thursday evening past, I would say to the Government House Leader. I guess for

once, Mr. Chairman, you got caught. He got caught not knowing - having to get up

and have a smart smack at everyone he finally lost the battle when it came to

bringing in the appropriate motion that he wanted to do. I would suggest that my

colleague for Humber Valley agrees with me far more than your colleagues did

with you on Thursday evening.

I move, as I said, seconded by my colleague for Humber

Valley, that: Clause 2 of Bill No. 2 is amended by deleting the proposed

subparagraphs 2(a)(xi) and 2(a)(xii), and renumbering the proposed subparagraphs

to 2(a)(xiii) and 2(a)(xv) as subparagraphs 2(a)(xi) to 2(a)(xiii).

Does the Government House Leader have that? Probably what I

will do is I will pass it over to him when I'm ready. That would be the first

amendment. In deleting these I just want to say, obviously by deleting the first

ones what we are doing is renumbering the second ones back. 2(a)(xi) would limit

the Crown's share under the present form, and as it relates to 2(a)(xiii) it

deals obviously with - referred to

section 23(a).

The second amendment, after moving the first one, would be:

Clause 2 of Bill No. 2 is further amended by deleting the proposed paragraph

2(

k) and substituting the following: "2(k) "persons" includes an individual,

partnership, corporation, unincorporated organization, trustee, administrator

and other legal representatives."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you making those changes?

MR. TOBIN: Why are we making those changes? Okay, if the

member wants to know I will certainly tell him. Mr. Chairman, it is quite

simple. The government or agencies of government, it deals with what is there,

presently existed with the government or agencies of government and that is why

we delete it, I say to the member opposite.

The third one to the Government House Leader is: Clause 2 of

Bill No. 2 is further amended by deleting the proposed paragraphs 2(g), 2(h),

2(

i) and 2(r), and renumbering the proposed paragraphs 2(

j) to 2(

g) and 2(

s) as

paragraphs 2(

g) to 2(o).

Let me say to the members - I say to the Government House

Leader, if I don't get to finish these, proceed with it, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I will read them all then.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay. The fourth amendment we are bringing in,

Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the Government

House Leader. We all know the ambitions of the man who sold out the teachers in

this Province, but now I'm dealing with the Government House Leader, and he is

not the Government House Leader yet, as bad as he wants to be the leader.

Because anyone who can come in here after what he did, after how he used the

teachers to get here, and then he has turned his back on them as soon as he got

here, should stay quiet and let the Government House Leader proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment is clause 3 of Bill 2, is

amended by deleting the proposed subparagraph 3(

a) iii and substitute the

following: "iii should provide sufficient revenue to the producer or retailer of

the power to enable it (

a) in the case of a private company to earn a just and

reasonable return as construed under the Public Utilities Act and (b), in the

case of the Hydro corporation, to recover the cost of service provided by it and

a margin of profit sufficient to achieve and maintain a sound financial

position, so that it is able to achieve and maintain a sound credit rating in

the financial markets of the world, Mr. Chairman.

The fifth amendment is clause 3 of Bill 2. It is further

amended by deleting subparagraph 3(a) (iv); Clause 3 of Bill 2 is further

amended by deleting paragraphs 3(

d) and 3(

e) and renumbering paragraphs 3(

f) and

3(d). The seventh one, Mr. Chairman, if I could have a quick second here, I

would probably have it, I have a copy here for the minister. Mr. Chairman, I

thought I had but I will send him over this one.

The seventh one is clause 8 of Bill 2 is amended by deleting

subsection (5) and substituting the following: "

(5) A producer or retailer

directed by an order made under subsection (2) to deliver power to another

producer or retailer shall, within the limits of its capacity, deliver power to

notwithstanding that the producer or retailer may as a result have to reduce the

amount, or cease the delivery altogether, of power then being supplied to

another customer.

The eighth amendment, Mr. Chairman, is clause 14 of Bill 2,

is amended by numbering the proposed

section as subsection (1) and added in

immediately after the following: "

(2) For greater certainty,

Part II shall not

apply to the producer having priority to use, other than for resale, the power

it produces, or the power produced by the producer which is it's wholly-owned

subsidiary."

Bill 2 is amended by deleting the proposed clause 22 and 29,

and renumbering the proposed clause 23 to 28 and 30 to 36 as clauses 22 to 34.

Clause 23 of Bill 2 is amended by deleting paragraph 23 (3)

(

c) and substituting the following: "Voting shares acquired, held or

beneficially owned by the Crown or by the Agency of the Crown;"

That final one, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Government House

Leader, brings in the Agency of the Crown and not just leaving it strictly to

the government; that would obviously mean Hydro in this case.

Does anyone have a copy of these -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Would you pass that to the Government House

Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why we have removed

section 22, the Minister

of Finance, the old collective bargainer, wants to know what it means by

twenty-two. Well, what we are saying by eliminating all paragraph 22, is that

the Labour Relations Board and not the Public Utilities, should, Mr. Chairman,

as it does with all other groups, be the one responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Under all legislation. The Labour Relations

Board now has the right to - well who deals with it now, I would ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right, which comes under the Labour Relations

Board in the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations department, Mr.

Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not correct, (inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: Right, but what you are proposing to do here

is put it under the Public Utilities Board and we are saying that we don't see

the necessity for you to put it under the Public Utilities Board, that it should

stay exactly where it is.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) as I understand it, want to do

is change PU Board to Labour Relations Board, that will I think, achieve what

you want to do. My friend from St. John's East knows more than I do, but there

is no emergency power in the Labour Relations Act as such.

MR. TOBIN: Well that is the reason why we put through the

amendment and the minister -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) but it doesn't achieve what you

want to achieve, Glen.

MR. TOBIN: It does achieve it. We are saying, that the

authority should not be given to the Public Utilities Board and should stay

MR. ROBERTS: Should anybody have the power to designate

Hydro employees as essential? Should anybody?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Public Utilities Board

should not be the ones to do it.

MR. ROBERTS: Then should the Labour Relations Board have

the authority to do it?

MR. TOBIN: The Labour Relations Board presently has the

authority to do it.

MR. ROBERTS: No, it does not. That is the problem.

MR. TOBIN: But if it stayed with the Labour Relations

Board they could be given the power to do it, rather than pass it over to the

Public Utilities Board.

MR. ROBERTS: That is right. That could be done, but this

amendment will not achieve that.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it would achieve it.

The Minister of Finance wanted to know why that was being

done, so I guess I clarified to the Minister of Finance why we were proposing to

do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Leave for a second, Mr. Speaker.

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

No leave.

MR. TOBIN: I just want to say to the Government House

Leader that these are the amendments that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair can only enforce the rules. In order for the hon.

member to speak he must have leave and there was no leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I suppose every member has to

take the opportunity. We only get one chance to speak in the closure debate but

it seems like every time we stand, especially in the last couple of weeks, that

is what we are doing, speaking for twenty minutes and then sitting down. That,

Mr. Chairman, does not say much for democracy. I said before in the House, and I

say again, that democracy in this Province stops when we enter the chamber of

this House. We go about our business when elections are called. We go knock on

doors and answer questions for twenty-eight days during an election campaign,

and talk about the great democratic system in which we live.

Mr. Chairman, like I said, democracy stops at the door of the

House of Assembly as far as I am concerned. I said in the past also that there

should be a mechanism in the rules and regulations governing parliamentarians of

this Province, and I say in the House of Parliament in Ottawa, that makes it,

except for a monetary bill, except with something to do with the strict fiscal

regime budgetary process of the government, whereby there should be a free vote.

There should be a free vote on every piece of legislation

that comes before the House of Assembly except for monetary matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain it.

MR. WOODFORD: There is no trouble to explain it. The only

thing that can bring the government down is a monetary bill, something to do

with money, whether pertaining to the Budget or otherwise. There is nothing else

to bring a government down, so why be afraid of losing a vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: We did not. That is what I am saying. It is

not because our ancestors did not do it. Back 200 years ago when they had

nothing like that they should not do it, but we should do it today. I am serious

about that, and I think the hon. member will go along with what I am saying,

then we would not have half the friction we have in the Province today.

Mr. Chairman, when members opposite formed the government in

1989 they did something that I thought was a great thing, they brought in the

committee system, whereby all legislation was suppose to be referred to

committee. The committee then would make a decision on whether they went around

the Province and held public hearings so that individuals in this Province,

every man, woman, and child in this Province who had the right to vote, or

otherwise, would get a chance to view the legislation and ask questions on it,

but that is not being done. There are only certain pieces of legislation going

to committee, Mr. Chairman.

Any piece of legislation that they figure would cause some

concern, would cause some friction, and would have people in the Province asking

questions that would result in the legislation not coming before the House, or

being defeated, that is not being brought to the attention of the committee.

That is not right, Mr. Chairman. This is an excellent opportunity for people in

the Province to have some say, it is an excellent opportunity for government,

even, to have some ideas given by the people, make some amendments, and bring in

some excellent pieces of legislation that would be conducive to the running of

the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the piece of legislation we are on today, the

Electrical Power Resources Act, there are a number of reasons for this

particular act, and some of them I have no problems with - absolutely none.

Part III of that particular piece of legislation, dealing

with the emergency measures and so on, as far as I am concerned, that is long

overdue. It should have been brought in years ago, and give the Province some

say, and the utilities in this Province, in case there was an emergency in the

Province, to give people to recall the power and use it wherever the government,

or the PUB in this case, thinks that it should be used. So that particular part

of the legislation, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Part III is not all that bad, very few wording changes and

that could probably pass in the Legislature. I know that some of the paper

companies in the Province have some problems with some of it, but I think that

could be addressed with regard to amendments.

Part I is the part that a lot of people in the Province have

problems with, and I ask members opposite, and especially the Premier and the

Government House Leader: Why is this particular

section needed? Why is

Part I of

this Electrical Power Resources Act needed? I can't honestly get a straight

answer on it.

Now the reasons for that, the reasons why the five clauses

were put in there, are obvious. Subsection 3.(a) (i) - (iii) lay out three

principles that the Public Utilities Board must use in setting electricity

rates. The pricing policy anticipates that Hydro will be privatized.

Now if there is any other reason to have it there, then

members, government members, especially Cabinet Ministers, should get up and

tell me otherwise. What other reason would that be in this particular piece of

legislation? It is there for anybody to see and read. Why have it there? It is

for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the anticipation of the

privatization of Hydro.

There is a mechanism there now for price increases. There is

a mechanism there now where you could go to the Public Utilities Board, any

electrical utility in the Province, and ask for an increase, and there is a

chance for public hearings. There is a mechanism there for NewTel, recently, the

last number of years, to go off to the CRTC and ask for increases. So why this

particular piece of legislation? We know why, and that is the anticipated

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Subsection 3.(a) (iv) provides for the phase out of the rural

subsidy paid by industrial customers by the end of 1999. After 1999, the full

cost of the subsidy will be borne by domestic consumers and small businesses.

Now if people around this Province don't know what that

means, it is this: The paper companies around the Province who are paying the

rural subsidy now, by the end of 1999 will not have to pay the figure between $5

million and $12 million on this particular subsidy. It will be borne then by the

consumers and small businesses around the Province.

Now, granted, there are certain companies in the Province,

especially Abitibi-Price in Stephenville, that could very well help. It would

mean, I believe, when you do the calculations on it, something like $13 a ton.

That is what it would save paper companies, which would mean the difference,

today, of probably making it or not making it.

Then again, having said that, you talk about something

volatile, and talk about something putting in something that would help paper

companies but yet, at the same time, place the burden back and down on the

shoulders of consumers in the Province. Just recently we have had Kruger in

Corner Brook make statements that there is a possibility of the newsprint

industry turning around and making a few dollars. All because of what happened

in the last couple of months, not what's going to happen in the future and it's

good to see. It's excellent to see, Mr. Chairman, something like this happening.

This is one of the clauses that is put in there to cushion

the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity for large industrial

companies. There's nothing there that says; if the price of newsprint went up,

well they'd pay a certain share. No, that's not there. It's there for one reason

and one reason only and that's the second concern that I have with regards to

the unloading of between $5-$12 million down onto the consumers of the Province.

That's why, when I look at some of the figures that have been thrown out and

sent around this Province in pamphlets that says there's going to be a 10 and 11

per cent increase over the next five years, Mr. Chairman, then I'd say that

someone got their wires crossed.

I don't know what kind of math they're using but if you just

go back and look at what happened when this Administration, in 1989, charged

Newfoundland Hydro a 1 per cent fee to float their bonds and dropped the $30

million on the PDD system, what happened? What happened then? Anybody can have

that today, all you have to do is go down to the PUB board and have a look and

see that there was approximately a 2.8 per cent increase resulting in $4.20 per

month on a light bill in this Province.

Now when you look at what can happen with some of the figures

that are included in this particular piece of legislation and if I didn't talk

about any other clause except for the return of the Public Utilities Income Tax

Transfer to the Province, even that figure alone could add 1.8 per cent to the

bills of the people of this Province which would result in probably a couple of

dollars right there. I don't have to go into anything else; don't have to go

into anything with regards to a fee charge or anything. That, Mr. Chairman, can

be addressed by members opposite. They can go to Newfoundland Hydro tomorrow and

ask for 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent, whichever, to float Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro's bonds.

They can also collect the taxes under PUITTA, the Public

Utilities Income Tax Transfer, they can take them back and I would venture to

bet that if you worked in the subsidies that are going to be paid under this

particular piece of legislation alone over a five year period, six, seven at the

most, you would have back - if this Province got $300 million for the sale of

Newfoundland Hydro, I would say you'll have that back in the coffers of the

Department of Finance within five to seven years. I can see it and it would be

faster then that if there was an increase in the economic activity in the

Province whereby Hydro's rates and Hydro's revenues would go up. So

Part 1, of

that particular piece of legislation should not be in there. It's not needed,

Mr. Chairman, in order to do what government says it wants to do under this

particular piece of legislation. It is not needed and there's only one obvious

reason for it.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons and one of the clauses that

are put in that particular piece of legislation - and I call it No. 4 -is to

empower the PUB to approve ownership of more then 20 per cent of the shares of

an electrical utility which paves the way for an eventual merger between a

privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power. Now, Mr. Chairman, the last few words

of that are my words. They are not words contained in this particular piece of

legislation but as far as I'm concerned they lead exactly to that.

I'd say within four or five years if the so called new Hydro

is not swallowed up by Fortis it would be a funny thing to me. That particular

piece of legislation is there - and members opposite say and the Premier says on

different occasions that there's no way any individual shareholder can own any

more then 20 per cent of the stocks of new Hydro.

This particular clause in the electrical resources act, even

if it were in the New Hydro bill - but why is it in this one? It is in this

particular piece of legislation because - and the Premier says that this piece

of legislation can stand on its own. Yes it can, but why those clauses? They are

there for one reason and one reason only, Mr. Chairman, and that is to

accommodate the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro to New Hydro.

There is a chance down the road that someone could own more

than 20 per cent of the shares of this particular company. There is only one

reason to own a company in this Province, in this country or anywhere in the

world today. There is only one reason they exist. They exist to create and make

profits for their shareholders. What other reason would they have, to exist? Why

form a company? for something to do? Why put your name down as a director? for

something to do? No. Because you were expecting your return, you were expecting

a good return. How many companies and small businesses in this Province today

can start off, or however many people, could go in and start off a small

business and go to their bankers and say: Boy, we are guaranteed 14 per cent

return before ever we do anything - not many, none, in fact, except for a

utility, and especially an electrical utility in this Province.

They are guaranteed approximately 13.5 per cent, 13.74 per

cent, before ever anything else is taken out of it. The shareholders in those

particular companies are well looked after. I can see a few years down the road

where this clause 23(1), 23(4), that is supposed to limit share ownership in an

electric utility to 20 per cent of the voting shares. But it allows the Public

Utilities Board to approve otherwise. The clause is there and the opening and

the loophole is there for the Public Utilities Board to otherwise approve an

application by somebody for more than 20 per cent of the shares.

The intent is to limit ownership shares in New Hydro. The

application of the subsections may have implications for existing electrical

utilities that are now wholly owned by paper companies. That is another clause

there that might deserve a bit of scrutiny.

There are some questions on

Part II, especially as it

pertains to the Upper Churchill contract and so on, but I don't want to get into

that one. You would need a couple of hours just to make references to that one

alone. One of the other reasons in that piece of legislation is the refund of

federal taxes paid by utilities and rebated to the Province under the Public

Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. That is taxes - that in conjunction with the

monies that the government could charge Newfoundland Hydro, that alone, I would

say, over the next few years, especially with an increase in revenues and so on

from Newfoundland Hydro, could make the difference of probably $40 million or

$50 million a year into the coffers of the Department of Finance in this

Administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If they wanted to charge. If the government

wanted to charge Newfoundland Hydro say 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent,

whichever, to float their bonds, instead of the 1 per cent, and the PUITTA that

is coming back - just take that into consideration alone and not look at

anything with regard to the other subsidies or the monies that the paper

companies (inaudible) come off the rural subsidy program or anything like that -

I would say that within two or three years you would be taking probably around

$50 million to $60 million back on that alone. Granted, you wouldn't get the

total $350 million for five years whereby you will get the $300 million now. You

have to take that into consideration as well. But I'm saying -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: We didn't charge them that.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know, I wasn't in Cabinet, and as a

backbencher then, to be perfectly honest and straightforward about it, I didn't

know but that Newfoundland Hydro was fit to eat, except for turning on the

switch. It was only the people around the Cabinet table who are privy - the same

way it is today, and you know full well what I am talking about - who are privy

to that information and can stand up and substantiate it.

I would say there are a lot of backbenchers over there today

who, if put on a question and answer period, would not be able to answer some of

the things we are talking about here this evening, and I am not saying that in a

derogatory sense or anything like that. I am saying that because of the fact

that unless you look, and unless you do your research, unless you do your sums,

so to speak, well, then you don't make it a point to know about it, and that is

another sad commentary on our parliamentary process, as far as I am concerned.

Over a four or five-year period, based primarily on those two

particular reasons, we could get the same money as if we sold it tonight, and as

if we got a cheque tonight. We could very well do that. Probably the minister

will say, and rightly so, that, yes, light bills have to go up, but under this

scheme light bills have to go up. That is what I am saying and that is why I am

making reference to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but under this particular piece of

legislation here -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and speak

on Bill 2 once again. I am not so pleased that it will be my final time to have

the opportunity to speak since the Government House Leader brought in closure

last week, more or less another gag order. It seems like every time we speak

here in the House lately we are speaking under a gag order.

We will do our best to attempt to bring forward some facts.

It seems that the gag order has been on the other side of the House for a long

time now, so we are the only people to get a chance to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the legislation, from what I can

gather, is to try to obtain some control back from a deal of the 1960s with

regard to the development of the Upper Churchill and the possible development of

the Lower Churchill. If I thought for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that this

legislation would in any way, shape, or form, give us the opportunity to gain

back some of the millions and millions of dollars that are flowing out of this

Province annually to Hydro Quebec, I would stand foursquare behind this piece of

legislation and support it all the way.

But, as my hon. colleague, the Member for Humber East

mentioned in her opening remarks, there have been two cases brought forward to

the courts before on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador and both have lost

seven to zero, so really, we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what are the

chances we will succeed with this legislation any more than we did in the past?

At the same time, we also have to ask ourselves what we really are putting at

stake as we attempt to right the wrongs of the 1960s.

Mr. Chairman, I guess that is our biggest concern, and really

what we are putting at stake is the control of our water rights, and the control

of our last natural resource. We are giving away control in order to attempt to

obtain, or right the wrongs, as I said before that were done in the 1960s. I

think it is too big a gamble, Mr. Chairman. I think it is too big a gamble for

the people of this Province, and definitely too big a gamble for the Government

of this Province at this time, and they will learn in the days ahead that it was

too big a gamble.

Mr. Chairman, we had a deal on the development of the Lower

Churchill a few years ago that was almost reality except that the Premier

decided at the time that he wasn't going to accept the proposals put forward,

even though everybody else at the table, from what we can gather, thought that

the proposal was very beneficial to the people of the Province, but the Premier,

in is own wisdom, decided he wasn't going to proceed with this deal and scrapped

it.

Mr. Chairman, I say when Newfoundlanders learn in the years

ahead about the opportunity this deal held for the Province, and that the

Premier walked away from it, it will only intensify the anger of Newfoundlanders

towards the Premier of this Province. I say it was wrong for the Premier to do

that when all other people at the table, some of the best lawyers in the country

at the table, were pleased with the agreement that was brought forward, and the

possibility of the many dollars it would have poured into Newfoundland's

economy. As I'm sure all members understand, we need it.

Mr. Chairman, what really bothers me most, I guess, and I

have some major problems with it, is that back on March 24th of this year, the

Premier went on a CBC TV debate with the other party leaders and he told the

people at that time, and I quote from the transcript - when asked would he have

a plebiscite throughout the Province so that the people could have their say on

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, the Premier answered: `But I can say

this to you. No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it

commands in the H