March 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 22

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

Premier concerning Hydro.

Last Tuesday in his Province-wide debate, and again in his

opening statement at the beginning of the leaders' debate last Thursday on CBC

television, the Premier, at that time, tried to link the privatization to his

scheme to recall power from the Upper Churchill. When I challenged him on that

point he admitted that it wasn't necessary to privatize Hydro, he will recall,

and I stated that the recall could be done either by Newfoundland Power or by

Hydro, as a Crown corporation and so on, and the Premier said yes.

Now, since that kind of debate would be centred, I guess,

around Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act, I would like to ask him: Will

he withdraw Bill 1, the privatization legislation, so that Bill 2, his

legislation to recall the Upper Churchill power, can be thoroughly debated in

this House, judged on its own merits by the people of Newfoundland, uncoloured

by the massive public opposition to the privatization of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To correct some misstatements, Mr.

Speaker, I made clear, when I spoke on Tuesday night, that while the

Privatization Act is not at all essential to the functioning of the Electrical

Power Control Act - as a matter of fact when I introduced the Electrical Power

Control Act here in the House I made it clear that it could stand on its own. It

was good legislation on its own, but taken together with the Privatization Act

it would be very, very beneficial for this Province. That position remains.

Mr. Speaker, they aren't one statute; they are two statutes.

I have no doubt they will be voted on separately, and the Electrical Power

Control Act should stand entirely on its own and be dealt with on its merits.

To the extent that the argument that the government had made

that privatization would enhance our abilities and opportunities under the

Electrical Power Control Act, that debate may well continue and people will have

to judge that on its merits; but there will, of course, be a separate vote on

the privatization matter.

Will the government withdraw the Privatization Act? No, the

government doesn't intend to withdraw the Privatization Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about how complex this issue

is. I want to refer the Premier to the draft legislation - very similar to our

present Bill 2 - that he, as a member of Light and Power's Advisory Committee,

presented to his colleagues on the Board of Directors of Newfoundland Power in

1986, when he said, `it would give' - that is the legislation `would give the

company greater flexibility to access power generated by others at existing

facilities.' Now, that, in fact, was precisely what Light and Power had

instructed you to do as well, as the committee. In the opinion that Wells and

Company, Barristers gave to Angus Bruneau, then CEO, the Premier wrote this, and

I'd like him to confirm it for me, `To carry out such a purpose, the Public

Utilities Board would have to be given power to investigate and hold hearings

either of its own motion upon reference by the government or upon application of

Hydro a PDD, Power Distribution District, Newfoundland Light and Power Company

Limited, Light and Power or any other retailer of power.' Is that correct and is

that accurate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely, and it's completely consistent

with the present draft, EPCA that's before the House. It provides for an

application by any retailer to seek a direction from the PU Board as to its

future source of power. It enables the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to refer a

matter to Hydro for hearing and for recommendations, it enables Hydro to do it

on its own. It's completely consistent with the existing. Mr. Speaker, anybody

who read the Electrical Power Control Act could see very clearly from all of the

clear words, exactly what was the effect of that act. Anybody who wanted to read

it could see it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for the

answer. So even if the Premier is right, even if he is right, that it would be

better to have a retailer at arms length from government to make the request to

the Public Utilities Board. He knows there are existing private utilities in

this Province that are already at arms length and could do the job. So I want to

ask him, why not use Newfoundland Light and Power, an existing private

electrical utility company, who wanted to try it in the first place, as he

knows, why do you need to privatize Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is, you don't need to privatize

Hydro but the real answer to the question is in the question itself, why not use

Newfoundland Power? Government has no right to use Newfoundland Power or use

anybody else. The idea is, we want to create a fair and proper management system

of hydroelectric power in the Province. The Public Utilities Board would have

the complete jurisdiction to do that. Any retailer of electrical power whether

it was Hydro or Newfoundland Power or anybody else who might become a retailer,

who needed power could have a right to ask the PU Board for direction as to what

ought to be the source of that power. Government shouldn't be using anybody,

government shouldn't be using people. That only tends to taint the process and,

Mr. Speaker, that's part of the objective of proceeding the way in which we did.

We thought it would be more beneficial to have it done this way and clearly have

all parties involved at arm's length from the government so the government was

not in any way a party.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary?

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Premier wouldn't try

to twist words and use fancy footwork, I mean, nobody is talking about using the

Newfoundland Power people, I just said to him a moment ago, in his own document

of 1986, they wanted to do it in the first place. Now let me ask him this

question. Let's assume, Mr. Speaker, for the moment, that the Premier's scheme

to access the Upper Churchill Power would meet the test of a court challenge,

let's assume that, and that is a big, big assumption; there also remains a small

problem of getting the power to the Island; it is a question that hasn't been

dealt with and I would like to get his comments on it. First of all, how much

power would have to be recalled in a block in order to finance the construction

of a transmission line, who would build that transmission line and what would it

cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I knew all the numbers in

detail a number of years ago, and I knew the numbers in detail two years ago

when we were looking at it in terms of the discussion with Hydro Quebec. I don't

have them off the top of my head but I can provide some estimates of what a

transmission line would cost. Who would build it?... if, for example, Hydro were

the corporation that asked for the right to access the power, then I assume they

would also ask the PU Board for the right and authorization to build and

maintain a transmission line and they would ask the government to give it access

to a right of way to run a transmission line. The amount of power?... the Hydro

experts have indicated that the optimum block would be about 800 megawatts and

that's why that amount was the number that was being used.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who whould bear the cost?

PREMIER WELLS: The cost would be financed in the ordinary

course, unless - and these were discussions that were underway at the time - the

other provinces in aiding it with major transmission lines, and we would expect,

major responsibility to do that, bearing in mind that the circumstances exist

whereby this Province is in effect paying $800 million to $1 billion a year

subsidy to another province. It would be a small contribution back to this

Province. I've made the argument to the federal government along those lines.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like a

familiar argument. I think I've heard it before, by the way. Anyway, I will get

on with.... The Premier said he will try to get the information for the House.

As I understand it we are looking at maybe adjourning on Thursday. I don't know

what will happen after that. Will he guarantee or try to guarantee that he has

it tabled before Thursday? I understand he is going away tonight and I don't

know if he will back in the House tomorrow for Question Period or not. Does he

plan to be here for Question Period?

PREMIER WELLS: My scheduled time back is 2:15 p.m.

tomorrow. (Inaudible) Question Period (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He may not be here. I would like him to fulfil

that undertaking and hopefully get it to us before the House adjourns at least

on Thursday for the Easter break, if that happens, if he can do it at all. I

presume if he had it eight years ago it must be easily accessible.

Can I ask the Premier one final question, Mr. Speaker? Again

it is part of the complexity of this whole thing. In 1986, in the documents that

I have related to his legal opinion presented to Light and Power, he

acknowledged - and again of course it is here contained in Bill No. 2, in the

legislation, which I don't have right in front of me at the moment - that Quebec

hydro would have to be compensated at least for any transmission or distribution

facilities rendered unusable or surplus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: It is in the legislation and it is the

Premier's own - well, it is, and I will show it to him afterwards, if he likes.

As a result of recall power from the Upper Churchill. Given the amount of power

that would have to be recalled to justify the cost of building a transmission

line to the Province, has the Premier determined how much Hydro Quebec would

have to receive in compensation and who would pay that compensation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is nothing in either the original

draft legislation done in 1986 or in the bill currently before the House that

mentions Hydro Quebec. Not one word. Nowhere does it appear. This again, if

anybody doubts the reasoning behind the course that the government followed in

terms of avoiding debate and discussion in these terms, this is part of the

reasoning behind it.

Mr. Speaker, that is general legislation giving the PUB the

ability to manage the power resources of the Province in such a way as to ensure

that priority is given to meeting the needs of the people of this Province. If

the PUB were to order that Newfoundland Power was to divert some of its power

that it generates in Bay Bulls - Big Pond, or in Mobile, to Newfoundland Hydro,

and as a result a portion of their transmission line was rendered useless, then

in fairness they should be compensated. Not for the full value of the

transmission line, but for the unamortized value of the line to the extend that

it was surplus to the needs and could not be otherwise used.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: I understand that, but nowhere was Hydro

Quebec mentioned. Hydro Quebec is not mentioned either in the draft legislation

done in 1986 or in the legislation before the House now.

MR. SIMMS: Would you like for me to table it for you?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, please do table it. Hydro Quebec as

such was not mentioned in any of the legislation.

MR. SIMMS: Would you like for me to read it for you?

PREMIER WELLS: He may be reading from a legal opinion, a

letter, or something.

MR. SIMMS: That is what I talked about.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, the legislation. My statement is

Hydro Quebec is not mentioned in any legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period should consist of clear questions and answers

for the record.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation,

incidentally is not totally new, if you look at Nova Scotia legislation there is

a right to access power. If you look at Manitoba, New Brunswick - I have

forgotten which ones now, four or five of the provinces.

MR. SIMMS: They are all there.

PREMIER WELLS: All of the provinces are there but not all

of the provinces have such legislation. Some of them only have the right to

access in the event of an emergency and others have the right to require the

delivery of power to the distributer. Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual. It

enables the proper management of hydro electric power in the Province and that

is the objective.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier as well. This morning a

group called Take Back The Power released the result of a province-wide poll on

the privatization of Hydro conducted by Market Quest Research Group. Mr.

Speaker, 627 people were polled and I believe that is a very high sample and

would give the poll very high accuracy. Of the people polled, 80 per cent had

made up their minds while only 20 per cent were undecided. Of the decided 79.1

per cent opposed the privatization of Hydro, Mr. Speaker, and only 20 per cent

supported government's plan. Now, faced with that significant rejection by the

people will the Premier now live up to the commitment he made on Province-wide

television on Thursday night and withdraw the bill to privatize Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the government does not

intend to withdraw the bill to privatize Hydro. The government intends to

proceed with privatization of Hydro, but we also intend to make sure that the

people of this Province are fully and properly informed as to all issues and the

pros and cons of the proposal before any judgement as to their opinion or their

support, or otherwise is made.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Thursday night

the Premier pledged, on three separate occasions, to withdraw the bill if he did

not have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Now the Premier

has clear evidence that the people massively have rejected the sale of Hydro.

I now ask the Premier, is he going to be a man of his word,

or is he going to be, as many Newfoundlanders are beginning to realize, a man

who you cannot trust?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has no

intention of withdrawing the legislation. We have no intention of running

helter-skelter from the hysteria created by the gross misrepresentations, much

of it caused by the members opposite, some of it caused by others, and some of

it legitimate in genuine concern of people that does need to be addressed.

The government intends to make sure that the people are fully

and properly informed, and at that time the government will make its judgement

as to whether it has an acceptable level of support to proceed or not, but the

government's objective is to proceed with the privatization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, of the 627 people polled by

Market Quest Research, who were asked: Do you feel there should be a

Province-wide vote to decide if Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized? 82.8

per cent said yes, 12.3 per cent no, and only 4.9 per cent were undecided.

Clearly the people of Newfoundland don't trust the Premier or his government to

make the right decisions for them.

If he won't withdraw the bill, will he make a commitment

today to put the issue to the people of the Province in a referendum or in a

plebiscite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has no

intention of running helter-skelter because a group with a particular cause is

participating in creating this kind of hysteria, and putting forward the

proposition that they have conducted a poll and that the government should be

guided by it.

I have stated very clearly the government's policy on the

matter, and that remains.

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

Extern.

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

direct my question to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Madam Minister, the ATV regulations become effective April 1,

1994, in just three days. Since September you have repeatedly stated that there

would be an education program to inform the people about ATV use and the new

regulations. Could you inform this House why the education program has yet to

start and why you have not followed through on your promise?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It started today.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: That's a great lot of notice for the public

out there, I must say, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister agree and/or condone a statement by a high

official of the Department of Environment and Lands to a member of the ATV

Association, which was: We will have no problem educating 100,000 people when we

confiscate thirty or forty machines.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I have no knowledge of an official saying

that, but I will tell you one thing we are not going to do, we are not going to

use a minister to demonstrate it by turning the minister out on a wetland with

an ATV, la Charlie Power in the wilderness.

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

Extern, a final supplementary.

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

I would like to say that the minister seems to be quite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister seems to get quite agitated

and irritated whenever the question of ATVs is brought up. I wonder is that

because she is being forced to put this through the House, to implement these

regulations at a given date because it is a pet project of the Premier?

I would like to ask the minister: You are not ready to

proceed with these regulations. Your own department recommended that you defer

the regulations until April 1, 1995. Will the minister now reconsider these

poorly planned regulations and delay implementation for one year?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when that

gentleman looks at television and sees the advertising that is going to be on

this weekend he is going to be embarrassed that he ever stood up in the House

and appeared so ignorant.

Throughout this Province there are destroyed lands. If I

appear agitated it is because it happens to be a subject that is extremely

important to me as Minister of Environment, and I am proud that I happen to be

Minister of Environment in a government that is concerned about the environment,

concerned about the use of ATVs, and very proud to be the Minister of

Environment who is bringing it in on the first of April, regardless of whether

you think we should or not.

Mr. Speaker, again I think the gentleman is showing a lack of

responsibility that should be absolutely abhorrent in anyone who lives in this

century.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Premier pertaining to an

article in today's Evening Telegram

- I notice the Premier's conversation with the Minister of Finance - I have

a question for the Premier. I just refer the Premier to today's Evening

Telegram where the headline says: "Fisheries cuts could go deeper."

I want to ask the Premier, the report that says that he,

Brian Tobin, Lloyd Axworthy and three other federal ministers were members of an

ad hoc federal-provincial committee that recommended the number of fishermen in

the Province be reduced to 6,700. I want to ask the Premier, did he participate

in the federal committee? Did in fact the committee recommend a reduction to

6,700 when really the Cashin report just a few months ago recommended 13,000?

What was the basis of your recommendation, if indeed the committee recommended

such numbers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Province created a

committee of which I was the chair, committee of ministers, and there is a

federal committee chaired by Mr. Mass. I met with them - all of the ministers

didn't - I met with the federal ministers, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Dingwall, Mr.

Axworthy, and Mr. Mass, about three weeks or so ago in Ottawa, I would think. I

was pressing them to get on with this and we put in place a proposal for the two

governments, and together with people involved in the industry, to have an

involvement in developing a response that would deal with the three key issues:

compensation for people affected, a restructuring of the fishery in the future,

and a rebuilding of the economy of the Province in order to provide job

opportunities for people who would be displaced from the fishery.

Since that time officials have been working on developing an

approach. An approach was developed and went forward to the federal Cabinet for

consideration in principle. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that I hope in

the not too distant future the federal and provincial governments will together

be making a formal statement spelling out the position with respect to it. Until

that time I'm not in a position to discuss any details of the proposal.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it quite

interesting that the Premier did not deny the numbers of 6,700. He didn't deny

the committee had recommended that, so to me it seems pretty obvious that that

is indeed what the committee is recommending.

Let me ask the Premier: Did the committee recommend a similar

reduction in the number of fishermen in other Atlantic provinces, and what were

the numbers? Or were you, Mr. Premier, up in Ottawa again offering to sacrifice

more from Newfoundland than would be expected from other provinces, such as we

saw with the income supplementation program and the unemployment insurance

changes? Are you up again offering -

AN HON. MEMBER: A sacrificial lamb.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - this Province as a sacrificial lamb,

as the member says, offering that we cut out thousands and thousands of

fisherpeople from the industry, when perhaps there is no need at all of

recommending it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: Were you up there offering more lamb? That was

the question.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Such as you did with the income

supplementation program.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) question, I would be quite

happy to answer it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, the Premier didn't hear the

question?

PREMIER WELLS: I just heard a bunch of garbage

(inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Premier, perhaps the

Premier thinks eliminating 15,000 or 20,000 people from the fishery is garbage,

but I don't, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that right now. I don't think that at

all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The question I asked the Premier was:

did the committee recommend a similar massive reduction in the number of

fisherpeople in other Atlantic provinces? What were the numbers? Or were you up

in Ottawa once again offering your federal cousins a greater reduction of

numbers from this Province than would be expected from other provinces? Is that

what you were doing? Were you up there flying by the seat of your pants again,

making policy on your whims, without having the support and consultation of your

Cabinet, and in particular your Minister of Fisheries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That last

part is the garbage that I was

talking about, and I will ignore it because it is just that, garbage. As to the

first question, no, Mr. Speaker, I stated very clearly that the two governments

will, I hope, in the not too distant future, be making a clear statement on what

the present circumstances are and what is proposed. At that time we will make a

full statement to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

provincial Minister of Fisheries last night denied the report - actually, I

guess, said that he didn't know about it. How can the Minister of Fisheries for

this Province, Mr. Speaker, not know anything about what the Premier has

confirmed today, how can the Premier again, as we've seen with the Hydro debate,

how can he go on his own whims making policy, setting policy by the seat of his

pants? Why are you once again deciding the future of the Province, I ask the

Premier, on your own personal whims and your own objectives? Why are you doing

that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that's the garbage part of

it, I will ignore it. I confirm nothing except that two committees existed and I

met with the federal committee, that's all I've confirmed. I've told the House

that the federal and provincial government's will shortly make a statement. Now

what the Minister of Fisheries said he will accept responsibility for, I suppose

I have some responsibility for it too, but I have no reason to quarrel with

anything that the Minister of Fisheries said so far as I know. I can only

operate on the assumption that the Minister of Fisheries gave the member or

anybody else that asked him a question, fully correct information. As to the

member's suggestion that I confirmed something, that is utter nonsense. That's

his own fabrication, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a

question of the Minister of Health, the minister of crossword puzzles.

The assistant executive director of the Health Science

Complex said that dispatching an ambulance from St. John's was the proper way to

handle an emergency in Witless Bay in late January. She said volunteers from

that department are not part of the emergency response team and it was proper

protocol not to call the Witless Bay Fire Department. I ask the minister, is

that the proper protocol and if not, when did it change?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago - a week or so ago, maybe a bit

longer than that - when that question was first raised I asked that the incident

be looked into very carefully, it has been looked into and just a few moments

before I came over here I got a report on it. So what I'm going to do now is

study this report and ask any necessary questions that arise from it and then

I'll have a statement to make in the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the protocol for dispatching emergency calls

within the City of St. John's and area. Recently on November 9, in Portugal

Cove, a Mr. Day called me and said a person spent twenty minutes on the roof of

a house because the fire department wasn't discharged when it was proper

protocol. 911 was called in Mount Pearl just recently, a person lay on the ice

for twenty-one minutes when an emergency response vehicle was nearby. There's

too many blatant examples of protocol not being followed. Now I ask the

minister, if it is not proper protocol for the Witless Bay Fire Department to be

called in emergency cases, why is it published in the directory of the telephone

book that St. John's - on the inside cover - St. John's, Long Pond, Mount Pearl,

Portugal Cove, Pouch Cove, Torbay and Witless Bay Exchanges call 911 for all

medical emergencies?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not responsible for what

goes in the telephone book, thank you.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask him if it's not protocol to dispatch Witless Bay,

why were they dispatched for every, single medical call, to their knowledge, in

the area in 1993? Why were they dispatched since this death in January of 1994?

They've been called twice. I was at one specific area this past weekend when

they were called to an arena. Why are they being called now, before and after

and not on this particular time if it's not protocol?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

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

Mr. Premier, due to the vital importance of the tourism

industry to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, would the Premier treat it

with the importance it deserves and appoint a new minister immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It's an important question but just before

I do, Mr. Speaker, I just got a message from my office. Mr. Tobin's office

called to say that the figures in the paper are incorrect and that the minister

will be issuing a statement giving the correct numbers. That's as much as I know

about the numbers that are in the paper.

Now, to the question that the hon. member raised. Mr.

Speaker, the government has responsibility to ensure that the interest in

tourism and the vital interest this Province has in tourism is well protected

and we will take steps in due course to ensure that whatever adjustment is

necessary in the ministry will be made, but I don't consider it to be a vital

need right at this moment. I have every confidence in the Acting Minister of

Tourism and Culture. He performed that responsibility for many, many years and I

want to take time to consider the matter before I take any definitive steps.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table six copies of An Order in Council to

meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This is a

pre-commitment under the Department of Tourism and Culture to permit the

department to commit to tourism advertisement contracts for the '94 tourist

season.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of 180 citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who seek to stop

the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker, these are

part of some 15,000 petitioners that we know of, perhaps more, and others that

we do not know of who have been petitioning this House to prevent the sale of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we have been told throughout the

presentation of these petitions since the House opened that this is totally

unrepresentative, that the people are not opposed to Hydro, and that they are

not calling the members opposite. Someone said this morning that the Premier was

talking about how he was getting all these calls at home and at his office and

they wondered who the calls were coming from since the Premier had an unlisted

number. Perhaps all of his friends who know his unlisted number are the ones who

are calling the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the House yesterday we had a

couple of very unfortunate occurrences, occasions where there was an awful lot

of disruption, and conduct that is unbecoming of the House of Assembly. The

reason why this conduct occurred, Mr. Speaker, was because the Member for St.

John's East, in presenting a petition, refuses to stick to the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members at the back of the House are speaking across the

House and I really can't hear the minister although he is right next to me.

MR. BAKER: The reason for these disruptions, Mr. Speaker,

was because the St. John's East, in presenting a petition, refuses to present

the petition and follow the orders of the House as laid down in terms of the

presenting of petitions. He uses the opportunity to personally attack members,

and, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, that is not the purpose of petitions in the

House of Assembly. It is to present the position of the individuals, and he is

supposed to deal with the prayer of the petition, and so on, this kind of thing,

Mr. Speaker, and not get into personal attacks on individuals that cause

tremendous disruptions and disorder in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a valid point of order and I

think the member should be brought to task for what he has been doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member on the point of order, first

of all.

MR. HARRIS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly,

the minister is trying to use up the time for petitions to make a big long

speech. I am quite happy to speak to the petition, and the prayer of the

petition, so I do not know if Your Honour needs to make a ruling on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just on the point of order. I point out to hon. members that

the Minister of Finance is essentially correct. Order 92 provides that a member

shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes. Now,

we enjoy a certain amount of latitude, but, I think, it does get out of hand if

any member goes far beyond that to start with. I am more concerned about factual

inaccuracies being tossed back and forth across the House. Now, technically it

is not a point of privilege, and not a point of order, but members, I think, to

keep at least within the realm of courtesy to each other should refrain from

saying things that are incorrect, and if they do not know it at the time and it

is shown to be incorrect I think they should correct themselves accordingly,

otherwise I sometimes despair that we will ever have proper order in the House.

I will allow the member to continue.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a very wise ruling. I

did correct the misstatement that I made. The Premier apparently does have a

listed number.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been a

fair amount of latitude given in the presentation of petitions, however, once

again the member has gotten onto personal attacks on members rather than

presenting the petition he is supposed to present, and unless something is done

about it there is going to be chaos in the House every time members get up to

present a petition. The hon. member should confine himself to the petition and

to the subject of the petition and not go on a personal attack of members. This

will cause chaos in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is

important for people to understand, particularly people in the galleries who may

be watching, is that the hon. member is presenting a petition on behalf of

people who asked him to present a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Raise it after the petition. Every member gets

five minutes to speak to a petition.

If members rise on points of order, as the Minister of

Finance has just done on two occasions, spurious points of orders in the second

case, because it was exactly the same one as the first one, that time comes out

of the member's five minutes. So their strategy, clearly, is to interrupt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, their strategy is pretty obvious

and clear to anybody who is watching. I know they had a heated two-and-a-half

hour caucus meeting yesterday afternoon with arms flailing and voices raised and

everything else, but it is pretty clear to everybody now what you are doing. So

sit back, relax. We've got petitions. Give us our five minutes to present the

petitions. Don't interrupt, don't yell across, and don't interrupt with spurious

points of order!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make your

point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is

that members opposite shouldn't be interrupting, particularly with spurious

points of order like the Minister of Finance did, because it comes out of the

member's five minutes, and a member only has five minutes to make the points on

behalf of the people for whom he was asked to present the petition.

I think it is very unfair of the Minster of Finance to raise

that point of order, and obviously now we have both used up his five minutes,

unfortunately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, first of

all my submission is that it's not spurious. The hon. gentleman used the word

`apparently' and he is too good a lawyer not to realize the effect of using that

word as he did.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I can't hear the hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

My first comment is that the point of order made by my

friend, the Member for Gander is not spurious. The Member for St. John's East

used the word `apparently', and the gentleman is too good a lawyer not to

realize the effect of using that word in that context.

Secondly, we are not as evil-minded as my friend, the Member

for Grand Falls. I can only speak for those of us who sit to His Honour's left,

but for our part, we are more than happy to let the hon. the Member for St.

John's East go on for his five minutes and, for our part, we will consent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I realize my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West has trouble letting anybody else speak - but for our part, we are

quite prepared - and we will give leave - to ask Your Honour to allow the Member

for St. John's East five minutes to make his presentation but, I say again, if

he is out of order, we reserve the right to bring him to order and we will do

it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, lately in this House this side only

has the opportunity to present two, and sometimes three, petitions before the

Government House Leader stands. He permitted ten and fifteen and twenty for

several days, and used it as an excuse for us delaying Hydro.

I think it is unfair to bring up a point of order during the

limited time that we have for a petition. Now that we are limited to only two

petitions per day, and sometimes three, when we have hundreds of petitions to

present, from income supplementation, from education, from Hydro and other

things, and we are not having the opportunity here in the House that people

asked us to do, and then to take away the time, when you only have five minutes

on it, is improper.

We have allowed a certain degree of latitude in the past, and

I think it is necessary to carry on a proper discussion here. I think they are

being picky and silly and so on in getting on with this nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members raise a number of issues that might be

helpful to deal with at this time.

First of all, I think the point of order that was raised is

that the hon. Minister of Finance suggested that the Member for St. John's East

was using a petition as an occasion to launch a spurious attack, I think was his

language, on another member. Unfortunately, I think you can attack other members

as long as you do so in the proper language, and that seems to be part of our

parliamentary system. Whether it is polite or not is another question.

If one uses factually inexact or incorrect information it is

a little bit difficult to deal with that as well, because it is not a point of

privilege unless a member who is accused of having not told the truth to the

House, as it is sometimes said, admits it. So in our parliamentary tradition it

is hard to deal with that particular matter, but I think, in fairness to

everybody - it is my view, obviously - that if you say something and it is

incorrect, and it is pointed out to you as being incorrect, you should withdraw

it because you don't really help our manner of conducting business in the House,

and this is evident of it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says we shouldn't raise

points of order because it detracts from the time available. If that were the

case, then most of what we do is time limited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well, in any event we get into these things

whether of not it is during Question Period, and there is certainly nothing in

our rules that precludes a member from raising it. Whether or not it is fair, is

a different matter, I am not here to judge fairness, I am here to only judge

matters of order and whether or not we have a rule that covers it.

On the statement itself and what a member is entitled to do

during Presentations of Petitions, I refer hon. members to Standing Order 92,

which says that the member `shall confine himself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the

material allegations it contains'. Essentially, what the party says, I would

take it to be the prayer, which often raises allegations of things related to

it.

I would hesitate to confine any member very closely in that

regard because I think the latter part with the material allegations gives one

quite a bit that one might say about the government's intentions or its policies

or things like that, but certainly, on the matter that we are dealing with here,

Hydro, it seems to me that the balance or the majority of what the member would

or could say relates to what the petition itself says and that is, whether the

members are in favour or opposed to it.

These points of order are troubling, but I think it comes

down to more a sense of how we should conduct ourselves in the House rather than

any real point of order, so in essence I don't think that the hon. Minister of

Finance has raised a point of order where I can rule the hon. Member for St.

John's East as having been out of order in this matter. As to the second point

raised by the hon. the Government House Leader. Does the House wish to give the

hon. Member for St. John's East another five minutes to continue his

presentation?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave? I heard the `no leave'; is there

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, on this side.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, okay. Do we have leave from both sides

of the House? The hon. member has an additional five minutes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker,

the petition is the petition of 180 citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, who

along with hundreds of thousands of others we now know, Mr. Speaker, along with

hundreds of thousands of others, are opposed to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems to have a great deal of

contempt for the will of the people of this Province including these

petitioners, but the facts remain, Mr. Speaker, that a scientific survey done

over the weekend, after the Premier has had a full week, hundreds - well I don't

know how many thousands, I would say fifty or sixty or maybe 100,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds of thousands.

MR. HARRIS: Hundreds of thousands the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs says, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent

trying to propagandize people. The half-an-hour of free time on NTV, a public

debate, propagandizing over the airwaves, all that has been going on after

months of public discussion about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and now we

have 80 per cent done by a scientific survey done today by a group of concerned

and interested citizens, or not done by them, obviously done by people who know

how to do it, 80 per cent of those people are opposed.

Now if we look at say 300,000 on the voters list or something

like that, I don't know exactly but 80 per cent of that, if we extrapolated out

scientifically, that looks like in excess of 200,000, maybe 230,000 or 240,000

people are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why

these petitions are important because they are representative of the wishes of

the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the only course of action that I

believe is open to the government and the Premier at this stage, based on the

fact that there has been public discussion, is to withdraw the Privatization

Bill, to acknowledge that the people of Newfoundland are opposed to it, and not

to seek to use, which I am sure the government is thinking about doing, not to

seek to use the public's money some more to try and propagandize them against

their will to go along with what the Premier wants to do in privatizing Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it has gone too far, the Premier has

committed himself publicly on several occasions to the wishes of the people on

this matter. He doesn't accept the wishes of the people, what is he going to do,

keep asking them again, and again and again until he gets the answer that he

likes? Is that the plan that the Premier has: we will ask them again and if that

doesn't work, we will propagandize them some more; we will phone into the

Open Line four times, as the Member for Terra Nova was accused last night of

doing -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) her twice.

MR. HARRIS: I didn't hear her at all but other people who

recognized her voice said they did. But is that what we are going to have, Mr.

Speaker, a continuation of some sort of farce which is determined to manufacture

consent, or is the Premier going to do the honourable thing and withdraw the

Privatization Bill as he has committed himself to doing, and perhaps he should

also do the honourable thing and resign, because he is so far out of touch with

what the people of this Province want.

That's the second step that he should do, Mr. Speaker, in

response to the farce that's been created as a result of this bill. The people,

Mr. Speaker, have spoken. They may be emotional, the people, they may be

emotional. They may care passionately about issues, Mr. Speaker, but they are

the people and they are the ones whose decisions are the ones that we should

implement here in this Legislature, not the will of the Premier. It's the will

of the people that counts, Mr. Speaker, and the will of the people is expressed

by these petitioners, very clearly. It's clear now, Mr. Speaker, that they not

only represent themselves, they not only represent the others who's petitions

have not been presented because member's opposite have refused to bring

petitions forward, they're representative of themselves, of the others but also

of the population as a whole.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't see in a democracy how the Premier

has any course of action open to him other than to do the honourable thing,

withdraw the bill and resign. Both of those things seem to be necessary now, Mr.

Speaker, because the Premier today expressed his contempt for the will of the

people as determined scientifically after the Premier has had his way, has had

his debate, has had the public airwaves monopolized for three or four days on

this issue and the decision has been made by the people, the Premier should

accept it and follow it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on

behalf of approximately 500 to 600 students from Donald C. Jamieson Academy in

Salt Pond, Burin. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is to the House of

Assembly;

Petition of the undersigned students of Donald C. Jamieson

Academy in Burin, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take action

to respect the views of all the people concerned in their education system and

the rights of the people be given every consideration.

WHEREFORE, your petitioners humbly pray that your House may

be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such

action as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, what this is, on Saturday afternoon I received a

call from a group of students in Donald C. Jamieson Academy and they had a

petition that they wanted me to present in the House of Assembly of which I

agreed, Mr. Speaker, to present. That petition is by a group of students

requesting - they are going to write the Premier as well but they called me in,

Mr. Speaker, and there's three basic things of interest to the students, I'd say

to the Minister of Finance. The first thing that they were concerned about, I

say to the minister, is the length of the school year and the length of the

school day. Mr. Speaker, the students were concerned that government had claimed

that any restructuring of the school system must be accompanied by an increase

in the length of the school year and the school day. What the students are

saying is that they do not agree with that proposal. They felt that the

performance would increase if teachers are permitted to teach which is a concern

of theirs.

The other issue raised by the students when they presented

their petition and in their petition is the 2 per cent rule which limits the

number of teaching units to be lost by a school board in a year to 2 per cent of

the total staff complement regardless of how much student enrollment may

decline. Mr. Speaker, as most of us realize, the students are very concerned

because of what it will mean to them individually if their classes become larger

then what they presently are. The third position raised by the students is that

we do agree that the primary core area of language, mathematics, science and

technology are of most importance. However, let's not forget the vital

contribution made by other subjects in the area, for each course contributes to

the overall growth of an individual. We want a complete education.

So that's what the students of Donald C. Jamieson Academy in

Salt Pond are saying, Mr. Speaker. One has to recognize that when a group of

students from that school, and the school is made up of 600 students from Grade

4 to Grade 9, and they initiated a petition on their own and they presented it

to me on their own. I believe the students need to be complimented, Mr. Speaker,

for the interest that they have in their own education. The interest that they

have in providing for them the type of an education that will give them a

satisfactory quality of life. I think that is very important as well.

I know the Minister of Education is not here today but I'm

hopeful that the Minister of Finance will probably be able to speak a few words

on this petition, as the students would like to know basically where government

stands. I also want to say that the students with the petition, a copy of the

petition, have written a letter to the Premier outlining and expressing their

concerns as well.

I guess quality of education is what is very important to all

people attending school and to all parents who have children attending school. I

am not aware of very many petitions that have been presented to this House by a

group of students on their own initiative, from Grade IV to Grade IX, so I think

it speaks volumes about the interest to the students in that school, and

certainly about the staff in the school, and the parents obviously, who have

promoted the students into becoming that much involved in furthering their

education.

The government must take a responsible role in education. It

is not enough to restructure education for the sake of saying we are going to

restructure it. Everyone agrees that there have to be significant changes made

in terms of the educational system in this Province, but I'm not sure that the

answer to the education system is to make larger classes, if the 2 per cent rule

is eliminated, which is what the students here have expressed as one of their

concerns, the 2 per cent rule -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members' time has expired.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that on

behalf of these students -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: On behalf of these students, Mr. Speaker, it

gives me great satisfaction to present the petition. I am honoured to be able to

speak on behalf of 600 students from Grade IV to Grade IX who have drafted this

petition and signed it and asked me to present it. I think as I said it speaks

volumes about the character of these individuals. Donald C. Jamieson has turned

out students second to none in this Province. It is a good school, it has great

students. I think what their request in this petition has asked the government

to do is something that I hope that government will address very seriously. I

know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance only has a couple of minutes, but I

am sure he will speak to it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would

like to commend the students and the member for his presentation of their

concerns. It is indeed a matter that affects everybody. There are major changes

that will probably happen in the educational system over the next few years and

I believe it is important that everybody understand these changes, including

government, and that action is not taken unless everybody fully understands the

changes.

We started the process some years ago and a royal commission

travelled this Province for a year or so and received briefs and heard the

concerns of many parents and teachers and students and so on all over this

Province, and then did a recommendation to government on the changes that they

felt should occur to the education system. Since then we have been going slowly,

we have not been rushing, and implementing as many of these changes as is

possible to implement. Ultimately we hope to bring about the complete change.

I think that their point is well taken. That even now there

is room for consultation, even now there is room for input from especially

students in the system, in terms of what changes might take place. I know that

they are probably concerned about the lengthening of the school year. It was

shown conclusively I believe that in many instances in this Province - and I

think especially at the higher levels - students were only being taught 110 days

to 120 days a year. Certainly that is not enough. Certainly there have to be

changes made so that students have more effective learning time within the

schools. I think everybody would agree with these changes.

I accept their petition in the spirit in which it is

intended. I want to assure them that we will use every avenue of consultation

open to us. We have a desire to improve the educational experience in this

Province as much as possible. I think everybody agrees there must be change -

the only question is, how much change, and which change? Mr. Speaker, we are

taking our time with this matter because it is so important, and we hope that

the end result will be to everybody's satisfaction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the

teachers and the students at Donald C. Jamieson Academy on their initiative in

organizing and preparing a petition to this hon. House and in arranging with

their member to present it here today. The students are asking for a voice in

the decision-making processes, and we have been saying for a long time, that

government should be involving all the stakeholders in decision-making relative

to educational change.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that change in the educational

system is not only desirable, it is necessary. The Minister of Finance, a few

moments ago, said that we are talking about what changes, to what extent, and

what would be the process of implementation. For some time we have been advising

the government to proceed somewhat more slowly than they had stated they were

going to proceed with their Adjusting the Course,

Part 1 and Adjusting

the Course,

Part 2 .

Mr. Speaker, we wish to say to the students that we have

heard their voice, and we know what they mean when they talk about disruptions

in the classroom. Students themselves are very concerned with the behaviour of

other students that prevents some students from accessing a good and positive

learning environment.

Mr. Speaker, the 2 per cent rule as it applies to teacher

staffing, members on all sides of the House have been receiving letters from

their constituents relative to that. I know because many of the schools and

teacher organizations, and parents, have been forwarding me courtesy copies of

letters that have been forwarded to members on both sides. The teachers, the

students, and the parents in rural Newfoundland are very concerned that we

suddenly changed the 2 per cent rule which helped to guarantee a low

student-teacher ratio in rural Newfoundland, and which helped to protect the

programs and the curriculum that was in place.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say again, today, that the government

would be well advised, and they should take note, that if they simply take out

the 2 per cent savings clause from the Newfoundland teacher's contract and don't

replace it with a comprehensive, well-thought-out small schools policy, the

situation in rural Newfoundland is going to become a lot more difficult as far

as teaching and education is concerned than it is today. The result will be

multi-grade classrooms and fewer courses offered in the curriculum. As

enrolments decline, we are going to see a lot of small schools become even

smaller.

Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that this is a very serious

problem, and as an example, I will just read a letter which came from rural

Newfoundland to me a few days ago. It is written to an hon. member opposite - I

won't mention the member's name. It reads as follows: `I am writing to you

concerning the government's threat to take away the so-called 2 per cent clause

in the teachers' contract. If Mr. Wells and Mr. Decker take the so-called 2 per

cent clause away, then the result will be not only a lot of teacher layoffs but

also a doubling up of classes, and mostly in rural Newfoundland. Here is a

government saying that our standards are the lowest in the country, yet they are

going to take away the 2 per cent clause, lay off teachers, double up grades and

set us back about twenty-five years. The Liberals call their plan Adjusting

the Course but I would call it knocking her `way off course, about

twenty-five years, in my estimate. How can a teacher be expected to teach in a

multi-grade situation and prepare about twenty subjects, with all the stress and

distractions of the '90s?' That tone is but an example of the letters that have

been received. What it is saying is that when we make educational change, we

have to be aware of the impact on all of the students in the Province, and while

the 2 per cent savings clause was not put in as part of the teacher contract at

all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - it is an important part of the educational

structure in this Province today. We should do all we can to keep it in place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and present a petition from

my district, the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, with approximately 185

names.

The first thing that comes to me as I present this petition -

of course, the petition is as follows:

Your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a

referendum to ask people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland

Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

As I present the petition, and as I listened to the first

part of the session here today in Question Period and, of course, when the

Member for St. John's East stood up to present his petition, I couldn't help but

wonder, as I looked down through the names, is this a poll also? Is this another

way for people to present their views? We have been hearing so much about polls

lately, well, I consider this sort of a poll.

When I look down through the names I think about what the

Member for St. John's North said as he talked about polls yesterday, and about

the polls that he did. You know, I could have stood a long time ago in this

House, at least three or four weeks ago when we started to talk about Hydro, and

talk about a poll that I was doing since I have started this, but I guess the

response I would get is that of course, that's a biased poll and you intimidated

people to say what they wanted to say, and so on, so I didn't bother to say it.

I wouldn't bother to talk about that type of poll. It wasn't a scientific poll.

It was just an indicator of what I got personally, so I wouldn't mention it here

in the House. But if I did mention it I would have no problem whatsoever in

saying, if I were to take a number count, and I will be conservative, at least

80 per cent of the people that I have talked to, without my bringing up the

subject, said that they were totally against the privatization of Hydro. There

were no ifs, ands, or buts. I will admit that out of the other 20 per cent,

probably fifteen of them didn't know, they didn't have a decision made on it,

and that was fair enough. I didn't intimidate them.

So as I look down through the list of the people I have here

in my district today, a lot of them I knew them. As a matter of fact, most of

them I know, by name and face, and I can't help but think of the Premier's

statement the other day when he stood in the House and said that he went through

a petition and actually picked up the phone and called somebody on the petition

and asked them what they thought.

The funny part that strikes me about that is I said, now who

would he call? If I gave him this petition today, and my mother's name would be

on the petition, for example, now I can't picture 10:00 in the morning, as my

mother goes about her morning duties, and gets a phone call, picks up the phone:

Excuse me, Mrs. Shelley, the Premier is calling you. You know how I feel about

Hydro. Did you sign this petition?

I can't imagine what my mother would - well, I know what my

mother would say to him, but I can't imagine some lady walking around somewhere,

unless it was somebody that the Premier called -

MS. COWAN: She would be polite.

MR. SHELLEY: She would be polite, I say to the hon.

minister, but I could never fathom exactly what happened, what he said that day.

I can't imagine the Premier sitting in his office, with so much work, and so

busy, going through a petition and picking somebody he didn't know, out of the

blue, and calling her and saying: Excuse me, ma'am. Did you sign that petition?

You know I am against Hydro. Now, did you sign that petition?

What do you expect her to say, I say to the Premier? What do

you expect her to say? I'd say first of all she was in shock for five minutes

that the Premier called her; that's to start with. I can't imagine calling

somebody, and that kind of intimidation, and I relate that to the same thing

from the Member for St. John's North, calling people, saying: I am your MHA; you

know where I stand on this. Now, did you sign that petition? Are you against

Hydro?

To do a poll? That's not a poll. That's total, total

intimidation, to start with. They are not going to tell you the truth, off the

bat, I would say to the member.

Besides that, the numbers that you presented here in the

House, I can't even fathom that you are getting that kind of response, the same

as the Premier here, saying you get ten to one calls. He said that our Member

for Placentia had a sympathetic vote. I would say that the calls the Premier is

getting are sympathetic calls. There must be staunch, strong supporters of the

Premier who are calling in to tell him to root on, as we had some of the calls

last night on the call in show. I don't think they knew the difference, maybe

not a click about Hydro, but they were saying: Well, I support the Hydro - and

their answer, when Mr. Jamieson would ask them why they supported it, they would

say: Well, we trust the Premier. They didn't give a reason for the

privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Some people said: I believe in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. SHELLEY: Some people said: I believe in Newfoundland

and Labrador. What a shame, Mr. Speaker, that some people had to abuse Open

Line . And I will say for or against, whichever side that abused it, it is

too bad that they had to abuse it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: I mean, I believe in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Pardon?

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure to stand today in the House to support my colleague from Baie Verte -

White Bay's petition against the privatization of Hydro.

Two weeks ago in the House of Assembly, I challenged the

Premier, who had been consistently and constantly accusing this side of the

House of being fraudulent and misrepresentative. I said to the Premier then, if

he is so convinced that we have been fraudulent in our statements, and he is so

convinced that we have misrepresented the numbers or facts on the privatization

of Newfoundland Hydro, then why does he not hold public hearings and expose us,

supposedly, for the fraud that we are. But he has not done that. In fact, two

weeks ago that is what the Premier stated.

Last Tuesday the Premier himself admitted that he urged, he

said, his Cabinet and his back benches to not talk about the repercussions of

Bill No. 1 and Bill No. 2 as it relates to the Upper Churchill contract. I say

to the Premier that the only one who has been fraudulent, the only one who has

misled the House, has been the Premier himself, and in concert with the Premier

his Cabinet and his caucus. That is what has transpired.

The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would

make sense, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if the following would occur: If the

government could demonstrate that there would be increased jobs as a result of

privatization, if there would be, as a result of privatization, lower energy

costs, if there were going to be new investment in the Province as a result of

privatization, if there would be new technology transferred into the Province as

a result of privatization, if we were going to receive a large portion of money

above and beyond the sale of Hydro, but a large portion that would equal more

than the assets of Hydro would work.

Mr. Speaker, none of these things will happen. We will see a

net loss of jobs as a result of the privatization of Hydro. This government

could only guarantee the number of people and the employees jobs in the

transition period. That is what we will see. In energy costs - we will see an

increase in energy costs above and beyond 700 megawatts. We will see high

increased energy costs as a result of the privatization initiative. We will see

no new technology as a result of this sale. A transformer bought in Newfoundland

and Labrador is the same as a transformer bought in British Columbia. There will

be no new technology as a result of this sale.

Members opposite have continued their assault on members here

about how we have fraudulently misrepresented, how we - some members being

accused of using voodoo mathematics. They have been using the right mathematics;

they have been using the Premier's mathematics. Economists everywhere, I say to

the Member for St. John's South, including those at the University, are now

saying that this sale will cost Newfoundlanders both as taxpayers, as consumers,

and as ratepayers, far more than they will receive from the net benefit of the

sale of Hydro. That is what we are seeing.

The Premier has demonstrated, and has indicated clearly, that

if the Newfoundland public are not in favour, and have demonstrated that they

are not in favour of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, then he will

not proceed with the sale. I say to the Premier today, and his government, that

clearly, the people of this Province are not in favour of privatizing Hydro, and

that he should take heed to the winds that are blowing out there on the sale of

Hydro. Because, in the end result, if he proceeds with this deal, those very

same winds will blow him and his government out of office. Because they have

demonstrated that they are not listening to the people and that they have not

taken any consultative approach.

Open Line - Members opposite, the Member for Terra Nova,

two-and-a-half, three weeks ago, said: Don't be so foolish talking about the

silly people on Open Line talking about the privatization of Hydro. On

four occasions last night the Member for Terra Nova phoned in. Is she now one of

those silly people phoning in to Open Lines? Something must be important;

something must be getting to the members opposite in terms of the pressure of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the pressure from their constituents, pressure

from their constituents, Mr. Speaker, because these same members opposite who

have proposed and who support the privatization initiative are now coming to

realize that their constituents are not in favour of it, Mr. Speaker, not one,

single, solitary one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

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

MR. SPEAKER: No further leave.

Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was not in his own seat and I submit to Your Honour that he

cannot withdraw leave, he is not allowed to speak from another speak.

MR. EFFORD: I apologize, and (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and you should apologize. Mr.

Speaker, because the minister should be setting an example on this side and

should not be doing such things, and really, if the minister hadn't spoken the

member would have had leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The hon. Opposition House Leader I

think is correct. Members heckle from other chairs but they are really not heard

by the Chair unless they are in their seats, so I think the

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Good point. Does the hon. member have leave

to continue? Does the hon. member have leave?

I don't hear any `no leave', so -

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, go on.

MR. EFFORD: I said no leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, no leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the hon. House of

Assembly. I don't think I will read the prayer of the petition because it is a

similar prayer that has been read many, many times here from this side of the

House. I haven't heard many prayers read from the other side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, but I am sure that they must be getting lots of correspondence from

their constituents, and I am sure the members are using every tactic possible,

especially the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who

continues to shout and holler across the House and belittle, Mr. Speaker, what

is being brought forward here. Many times people stand up here representing

people from his own constituency, presenting petitions and those people should

have their voices heard as well as other people.

Mr. Speaker, I present fifty-three names on a petition from

the District of Bonavista South, and I could assure you that I have lots of

others, Mr. Speaker, that will be presented; they won't be hidden, they will be

brought forward and their concerns will be echoed here in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, our people here on this side of the House, the Opposition, continue

to go out in their districts, hold public meetings, have people come forward and

listen to their views and concerns. We have challenged on many occasions the

people on the other side of the House, and one member spoke up and said she

didn't believe in open line shows, they are all fictitious things, they were

silly, the people who were calling in there; the written media, it wasn't worth

the effort of reading it, and last night, lo and behold, my phone was ringing

about fifteen times and they said: if the Member for Terra Nova could call in

four times surely, you could call in once.

I don't believe the Member for Terra Nova called in four

times because I only recognized her voice three times and I have known her for

fifteen years, Mr. Speaker. She didn't call in four times it was only three, and

I don't believe anybody who would say any different, but, the polls last night,

Mr. Speaker, regardless of how they were abused by some of the people on the

other side and some people who were put up to call in, they were a real

reflection of what's happening in rural Newfoundland. It was consistent with the

polls we have done here, it has been consistent with the polls of the Power to

the People, Take Back the Power, they are all showing an overwhelming opposition

to this piece of legislation, Bill No. 1, The Privatization of Hydro, which is

being put before this House and asking people to support it without knowing what

the bill is all about, without having any input into the bill, they are supposed

to believe the Premier, Mr. Speaker, he's the one who stands up and speaks and

said: because I say it is true you should believe in me.

But the people are seeing that the glow is starting to go off

the Premier, the shine is starting to fade and there beginning to question his

motives, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, rightly so. As I've referred many times

here in the House before, to some of our own people, when the shine started to

come off them people did remember. They remembered for years after that, Mr.

Speaker, and when they went back to the people for their support then the people

came out and spoke very strongly of what they stood for and what they

represented. It wasn't the wishes of the people that they had brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I fear the same thing will happen to members on

the opposite side. I plead with the members on the opposite side to go out into

their districts and listen to their people. Those are the people, Mr. Speaker,

that put them here in this House. Those are the people that asked them to come

forward and speak on their behalf. It's not happening, Mr. Speaker, it's not

happening. They're following their leader. They're like sheep, Mr. Speaker,

where the leader goes I will follow. They should speak out on behalf of their

people. What the people are asking, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple question, what

has the government got to hide? What has the government got to hide by not

coming out to the people and putting forward their position? A very simple

question and if it's such a good deal then why isn't it taken out to hold public

hearings to hear the people's voice and concerns, such as I would suggest,

lesser pieces of legislation has been done with in the past? Mr. Speaker, their

question to me is, why sell something that we already own? Why sell something

that's continuing to turn a profit back to the coffers of this Province? We

continue to talk about the money owing on it, well let's forget about what money

is owing on it as long as it's paying for itself and putting money back into

general revenue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: - that we should maintain, Mr. Speaker,

and make sure that it's always there -

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - under our control to allow -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member can't continue to speak.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to be brought forward to the people of

our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition put forward by my colleague

who did a fine job of putting forward the voice of his constituents which we see

here time after time in this House. It's such a great feeling, I'll tell the

hon. members in the back benches there, it's such a great feeling to be able to

stand in this House and say what you really feel. What a difference over here to

be able to stand up and say what you really feel instead of sitting back in the

back benches and not standing up and pretending a poll that you had or jumping

on an Open Line as a ventriloquist throwing your voices in all different

angles -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) filling the tourism vacancy.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, all the eyes brightened up as he talked

about filling the Cabinet post, I tell you today, you should have seen the back

benches. But what a wonderful feeling to stand over here and be able to stand,

speak and say what you want to say. It's a great, great feeling, I must say. As

I look at the names on my petition today - I said I can honestly say I'll look

through this petition - I didn't even send out the petition. I didn't send out

the petition to be signed. People in the district had the initiative to go

around and do it themselves.

Now, I have to ask all hon. members on both sides, what does

it take for this government to concede defeat? What will it take for them to

concede defeat? Forget about the Bas Jamieson Show, forget about the Bill Rowe

open line show -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) phoned in four times.

MR. SHELLEY: Well I mean you're four to one to start off

with. So we gave you that advantage and you still lost - 80 per cent to 20 per

cent, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four to nothing.

MR. SHELLEY: Four to nothing. Four times - you should

have multiplied by four on the Open Line show last night with four calls

coming from one person or as my hon. colleague said, three calls from one

person. So you should have won three times to one to us but look what happened,

even with that kind of barrage coming in we still had 79 per cent and then we

get the poll from the power to take back the people is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take back the power.

MR. SHELLEY: Take back the power. A statement by the

Premier in The Evening Telegram today it says, Wells says if the

government proceeds with a poll it will be conducted by a credible and competent

polling group outside the Province. Not M-5 our own Newfoundland advertising, he

doesn't trust them. Maybe it has to be from the five wise men who started out on

this deal in the beginning. Maybe they are going to do the poll. Who are the

competent, credible ones, I wonder? In the beginning when we started this

debate, Mr. Speaker, I said, I wonder are we getting the right indicators, are

we getting the right vibes from people that they are really against this? I

wondered in the beginning as it built and continued to build, even up to a

couple of weeks ago; then I was pretty sure, I was 99 per cent sure. I then said

I am sure now we are getting the right vibes. As I mentioned earlier, getting it

from my own district, I wouldn't say too much about that because we can't go

around giving biased opinions, you aren't going to believe that, so I didn't

bring it up much.

The Member for St. John's North did his own phone calls. What

a poll! Hi, this is Lloyd, I am wondering if you will support me on the Hydro

privatization? I really looked bad on TV the other night so I am wondering if

you would back me up a little bit? I am feeling a little bit down about it right

now. I wonder if you could support me and send me a little sympathy card? I

still say to hon. members over there that the ten to one calls that the Premier

of this Province is getting have to be sympathy votes. I don't know where he is

getting them.

AN HON. MEMBER: The backbenchers are calling.

MR. SHELLEY: The backbenchers are calling, ten to one.

That is a good idea. The Premier tells all the backbenchers, when you go home

this evening you make sure you call and support me on privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: And three call in. I really wonder what it

will take for the government today to concede defeat and say we were totally,

totally wrong and we are sorry, smack the Premier on the wrist and say, I'm

sorry, but you made a booboo. You didn't come out front. It was back room

Confederation politics, as someone mentioned in the media yesterday. Why didn't

you bring it out in front if it was such a great thing?

Then we were accused of hysteria. We weren't the ones when we

asked the question way back, I don't know when - it is only a rumour that we are

going to privatize Hydro, just a rumour. Meanwhile, all this was going on. As a

matter of fact, all the people in the back here thought the same thing. It must

be a rumour. The Premier just said so. They didn't know. They were all shaking

their heads and so was I. I believed it.

MR. TOBIN: They did a lot of shouting in caucus yesterday

evening.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what was coming through the

walls in that caucus room yesterday, boy! We had to close our door because of

the noise coming across the hall. I don't think they were applauding each other.

I say to the Premier that if he thinks we are creating

hysteria -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are no more petitions to

be presented, I understand? Well, this will be the last one then. By all means,

yes, of course.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition containing 1,048 names, Mr.

Speaker. The prayer of the petition - I won't read it all: Wherefore your

petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to leave Hydro as

the status quo as it is recognized by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its

financial experts to be a profitable and viable Crown corporation, and so agreed

by the undersigned, and so forth. This is the prayer of the petition, Mr.

Speaker, against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, there are several groups of papers here. On a

couple of them the prayer is slightly different, but the purpose of all of them

is to oppose the privatization of Hydro, and I am presenting them all as one

great petition with 1,048 names on it. It is interesting to have a look at where

some of the names are from. Not all of them are identified. On some of the pages

here there are simply names without addresses, but I quickly ran down through

them just to see where in the Province these people are living. There are a

large number from the central area, St. John's and Mount Pearl, Grand

Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Peterview, South East Bight, Point Leamington, Philips

Head, Northern Arm, Torbay, Terrenceville, St. Bernard's, Red Harbour,

Carbonear, Gambo, Gander, St. Mary's Bay, Lewisporte, Centreville, Parkers Cove,

Milltown, Bay d'Espoir, Bay d'Espoir Hydro, Carmanville, Nippers Harbour, Norris

Arm, and there are others, Mr. Speaker. The point is that the names on this

petition are coming from all over the Province and that should come as no

surprise to hon. members opposite. We are receiving incredible amounts of

opposition from every area of this Province and it bears no relation to

electoral district or who presently represents that particular district. In

fact, most of the names on the petition that I'm presenting here today come from

districts represented by hon. gentlemen opposite.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I'm getting them, obviously hon.

gentlemen opposite have to be getting the same names, or maybe people won't

bring them to them, they know they won't present them anyway. And that is a sad

day, when hon. members opposite are refusing to present petitions. I remind them

that one of the responsibilities of being elected to this hon. House is that you

are responsible, you are duty bound, to present petitions on behalf of your

constituents when they are brought before you. It is a sad day when constituents

of districts represented by hon. gentlemen opposite don't feel that they can be

properly represented and that they have to come to the Opposition and beg us to

present petitions in the House in their name.

The point that needs to be made once again is that what is

really coming through here, and what has come through in meetings that we've had

- I was in Bonavista with my friend, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North, on

Thursday night - had a great meeting, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista South.

MR. WINDSOR: Bonavista South, I apologize - Bonavista

South, in the great town of Bonavista. There were many people at that meeting

who were strong supporters of the party opposite in the last election,

well-known supporters of that party, several of whom I spoke with afterward who

said: I've never voted anything else but for the Liberal Party, but I will never

vote for the Liberal Party again. They are strongly opposed to this particular

piece of legislation.

So it is not a political issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a basic

matter of principle. What has happened as a result of this is that so many

people in this Province who failed to see any logical reason for this government

bringing forward this legislation have lost confidence in the government,

certainly, have lost confidence in the Premier. That is a sad day, when

literally hundreds of Newfoundlanders are saying: We no longer trust the

Premier; we no longer trust this government. We thought we could trust their

judgement, we thought we could depend on them to do in the House of Assembly

what was in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government has stopped listening, Mr. Speaker. They have

to recognize the fact that all of these petitions, the polls that are being done

in the last number of days, all are exceedingly consistent in their opposition

to this piece of legislation. They are not blind, they can see it, but they are

denying the facts that are so clearly in front of them, facts that are saying to

them: The people of this Province do not want to see Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro privatized.

They can sit there and say: We are elected to govern, we know

better. There are rare occasions when the government is in possession of

information that allows them to have a better judgement on a particular issue.

This is not the case. The bottom line here is that what we are talking about is

an asset that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the same

people who are signing these petitions, who are calling the Open Line

shows, and who are being polled in the polls that are being done, the

shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Those shareholders are saying to this government: We do not

wish to have our Hydro corporation sold. And as the shareholders, surely that is

their right, Mr. Speaker. It is their right to speak out loudly and clearly and

tell this government, who are simply the administrators of Newfoundland Hydro on

behalf of constituents all around this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: - they have a right to tell them: We do not

want our asset to be sold.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: We do not want Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro to be privatized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say a

few words in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the

Member for Mount Pearl, who points out that the petitioners represent places

from far and wide, from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, every nook and

cranny, as my friend, the Member for Grand Bank used to say in the past. I want

to speak in support of their petition. The prayer of the petition is clear and

obvious.

We have been seeing some very strange and unusual things

happening over the last little while, particularly the last couple of weeks,

where we saw the Premier, after accusing us of spreading confusion or causing

some difficulties in terms of helping people understand, he is the one who went

out and asked for Province-wide television time. He is the one who asked to

appear on a CBC Open Line program here, to appear on a radio Open Line

program over in Corner Brook. He is the one who created the sudden flurry of

activity and interest in the Hydro debate. And on Tuesday night in his

Province-wide television address he says: Ah, ha! I have been keeping it a

secret. We did have a hidden agenda. I told my colleagues not to open their

mouths. I told them, and they agreed, and for that I greatly give them my

respect. But, he spent twenty-five minutes of his thirty minutes telling us what

his hidden agenda was. He needed to privatize Hydro because, and he went on to

talk about this ability to be able to recall Upper Churchill power. That was

Tuesday.

Then on Thursday in the debate, when I pointed out to him

that in his own documentation back in 1986 you didn't need to privatize Hydro,

you could have that same thing done by having Newfoundland Light and Power make

the application to the Public Utilities Board, the Premier agreed, on

Province-wide TV, after telling us on Tuesday that he wanted to privatize, or

had to privatize, because he wanted to access this Upper Churchill power, then

on Thursday, admits he didn't have to privatize to access the Upper Churchill

power.

Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder about the confusion? Then of

course, I asked the Premier in the House yesterday about some of the things he

had been saying, and is it true that he would not proceed unless he had the

support of the people, and he said no. Yesterday he changed his mind again and

said: No, we are going to proceed to privatize.

So, Mr. Speaker, the gall of the Premier to accuse us of

misleading people, or spreading confusion. Can you believe it? It is just

absolutely crazy.

Now, I just want to touch on the performance of members

opposite in this debate as well, while I have the opportunity. Now, I had

occasion to travel around the Province and attend a number of public meetings,

some large and some small. It doesn't matter what the numbers were, but there

were people with some concerns and interest, and I had occasion to travel to a

number of places. Members opposite were asked to have public meetings and they

absolutely refused, with two exceptions; one, the Member for Pleasantville who

listened to the people, had several hundred people at his meeting, and then made

his position known, and he did not support the Premier in his efforts to

privatize.

The other was the Member for St. John's South, who called a

public meeting where, I think, he nearly got lynched, or close to being lynched,

according to the reports. I have to confess, I wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was this?

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's South.

I have to confess, I wasn't there, but those were the

reports. Then we had the example of the Member for St. John's North, who really

hit the jackpot. He really hit the jackpot yesterday when he said to us in this

House: I've done a poll over in St. John's North. Oh, what is the poll? I called

twenty-five people on seventeen streets, he told me afterwards. Twenty-five

people that you called - you called them - that is not exactly how you conduct a

poll. Hi, I'm Lloyd Matthews. I'm your member. I'm with the Premier. I'm

supporting Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you do it?

MR. SIMMS: We did it by using independent people who made

the calls for us.

It's too bad my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I had more to say.

Maybe the Government House Leader would like to give me a little bit of leave so

I can complete.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the hon.

gentleman all the time he needs, but we will do it in Interim Supply, so I would

move that the - class is now at attention. Is that what my friend, the Member

for Grand Bank has said? I move that Orders of the Day now be read, Mr. Speaker,

under Standing Order 21.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand there is consent to deal with Motion 3 first.

That is the motion that will refer the Estimates to the Standing Committees. If

so, let's deal with that one and then we will get on with the business of the

day.

Motion, in accordance with Motion 3 on the Order Paper, that

various Heads of Expenditure be referred to various Government Services

Committees as outlined in the motion itself, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for St.

John's East asked about the number of days. The Standing Order says sitting

days, not calendar days, so if he had a concern there is no concern on that

account anyway.

Your Honour, given that we are going to be debating Interim

Supply, and the need to ensure adequate debate on this matter of a billion

dollars, I would move the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we now go on to Order

2(

a) that is the Interim Supply. By the count given to me by the Clerks at the

Table we have now used five and one-third hours on this debate. We will have the

opportunity to do a number of hours more this day and then we will see where we

go from there. The House will not sit I hope beyond 10:00 p.m., I would say to

members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No matter how much members opposite demand

that we sit beyond 10:00 p.m., Your Honour, we shall not.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could continue

from where I was before I was so rudely interrupted.

MR. MURPHY: Relevance, Mr. Chairman, relevance.

MR. SIMMS: This in Interim Supply. Anything you say is

relevant in Interim Supply, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

I was pointing out the procedure used by the Member for St.

John's North in conducting his now infamous poll, the one he told us about in

the House, or he let it slip the other day in the House. He said: I telephoned

twenty-five people myself personally. Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an example

of intimidation tactics used in conducting a poll there is the perfect example.

You couldn't very well conduct a poll -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) old widows.

MR. SIMMS: I don't know who he called but I have no doubt

he called his constituents. I believe him when he says that. Mr. Chairman, the

thing is that the hon. Member for St. John's North has done exactly what the

Premier has admitted to doing in a certain way. Because the Premier told us last

week he picked a name from a petition and he called him up. Hello, this is Clyde

Wells, did you write your name on this petition? The person said: No, Mr.

Premier, I didn't, of course I didn't, no, I didn't mean to do it, I didn't want

to do it, I'm sorry, the devil made me do it. Or something like that.

Then we have the Member for St. John's North phones

twenty-five people.

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that? (Inaudible) to his

constituents?

MR. SIMMS: He says: Hi, this is John Efford - this is

what is wrong with it. I'm with the Premier. I'm in the Cabinet of the Premier,

you know, and we are supporting Hydro, so I hope you will support Hydro. That is

no way to do a poll. The minister knows the difference in that. That is

silliness and nonsense. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we conducted a poll

Friday evening and Saturday which -

MR. EFFORD: And your poll is right.

MR. SIMMS: Well, ours is fairly -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) no doubt about that.

MR. SIMMS: Well, let me just say to the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Verified by two others.

MR. SIMMS: Let me tell the minister now. Today on CBC

radio, (inaudible) Anne -

MR. EFFORD: CBC. That is where you get all your

information.

MR. SIMMS: No, today - just relax, I say to the minister.

Just relax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) awful testy over there today.

MR. SIMMS: They are all testy over there today. I guess

after that caucus meeting yesterday when the arms were raised like this, boy,

and the Premier was going and laying down the law to them all, you needn't worry

about them being testy. On CBC -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) road work (inaudible) take it all

back (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is okay, I don't need to beg for road

work, I say to the minister. I don't need to beg for road work. That won't make

any difference to whether people vote for me in Grand Fall's District, I can

assure you. Not one bit. They got very little when I was in the government out

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Let me repeat that and say as modestly as I

can that the people of Grand Falls District were treated with fairness and

balance in the ten years that I was in the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, you see what their strategy is. Try to talk you

off. They had this big caucus meeting yesterday. They said: What we have to do

is when they get up on petitions we have to interrupt, interject, yell, shout,

laugh, anything. Get them off track. That is what he is doing there now; it is

his task I guess today as a member of the front bench to do that. What I was

trying to say to him is that you don't conduct a poll in the manner of the

Member for St. John's North. I was talking about CBC radio - CBC radio today,

Anne Budgell, interviewed Mark Graesser a professor at the university, a

political science professor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, now you're going to attack Mark Graesser?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, and they loved him when the polls

were showing -

MR. SIMMS: When the polls were showing them going very

well, polls conducted by Professor Graesser and his students, oh it was all fine

and hunky-dory, lovely. Now they've spent their time in the last two days

attacking Cyril Abery, they talked about Greg Malone, they talked about Bill

Vetter, they down-graded Wade Locke today, the economist in the front page of

the university, Andy Wells, I mean they've attacked just about everybody in the

world. Now today, because they've ran out of people to attack, they finally

attack Mark Graesser, a professor of political science at the university, whose

students, along with him, do polling and teach polling techniques, that's part

of their training, very good. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

confirms they do a good job and he's a good man and the Member for Eagle River,

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, confirms they are

good people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What I was about to tell the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is that the way our poll was conducted was a

very valid poll, very legitimately done, large sample, quite a large sample of

274 names, one question, so it's scientific because you hardly need to be a

political science professor to analysis the results of the answer to one single

question.

MS. VERGE: He said it was a fair question.

MR. SIMMS: He said it was a very fair question and

thought that the results were very accurate but if that wasn't enough - so our

polls showed somewhere between 70 and 85 per cent opposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: 87.1 per cent

MR. SIMMS: There was 70 and 87.1 per cent - 87.1 per cent

on the high level if you just counted the decided voters, 71 per cent or 70 per

cent if you counted everybody including the undecideds. Now that sort of agrees

with the poll on VOCM yesterday morning, Bill Rowe, the one they like or the one

they used to like and again the one they don't like, Bas's show, where they had

another three to one poll last night. In spite of the fact, the ones who are

voting for privatization only got less than one-quarter of the vote and that was

with the help of the Member for Terra Nova, I understand, who I'm told called -

she confirms it herself that she phoned four times. So even with her help, after

saying it was all nonsense you hear on Open Line , she didn't mind calling

in herself to contribute to more of that nonsense I guess, is the way she looked

at it and then confirmed this morning by an M-5 poll, Market Quest - a reputable

firm here in Newfoundland that does research and opinion surveys for various

clients - and, Mr. Chairman, their poll indicated very similar numbers.

Somewhere, 63 per cent opposed - what is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: 79 per cent of decided.

MR. SIMMS: 79 per cent of decided voters were opposed -

how many were in favour?

MS. VERGE: Four to one.

MR. SIMMS: Whatever it was, it was a very low number as

the members know. So I don't know how much more evidence you want but let me say

to the members this, in case they're looking for more credible evidence, let me

just tell them that we also have commissioned a public independent poll as well

to be done by a very credible and reputable Canadian polling firm, results of

which we'll have in place early next week, I guess. So this will be more

evidence if you need more evidence. Now I have to say also, Mr. Chairman, by the

way, we don't think that this is the best way to gauge the public reaction to

this issue. We don't believe this is the best way but having pressed the Premier

and asked him time and time again to do a plebiscite, a referendum or something,

even public hearings and having told us: no, no, no, we won't do it. Well then

we felt we had no other choice but to conduct some public polling ourselves so

that we have something that may be not quite as shaded, jaded or manipulated as

one the government is doing.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, could be. No because ours is only one

question, I say to the minister. I bet any poll you did or do or will be doing

or are doing or whatever, will be more then one question.

MR. EFFORD: You got that right.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I got it right is right. Mr. Chairman, as

a matter of fact, isn't it interesting, I had a couple of calls today, Mr.

Chairman, the minister and others might be interested in hearing this. I had a

couple of calls today from people who were called last night on a poll; it is

not one we are doing -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) poll.

MR. SIMMS: No, that's already done, it was announced this

morning, his was -

MR. EFFORD: It was announced before.

MR. SIMMS: No, but I will tell you who it is. Maybe the

minister can tell us who it was, two questions.

MR. EFFORD: Two questions?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: One question dealing with denominational

education and one question dealing with Hydro privatization, so the minister

might be able to tell us who is doing those kinds of polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government.

MR. SIMMS: No, the Premier denied that yesterday; they

are not doing any polling, I don't know if the Member for Port de Grave -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, let me start off this way by

telling hon. members opposite and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the only

poll that I have done in Port de Grave district, except for one occasion, my

good friend and colleague from Eagle River did one for me prior to an election,

which overwhelmingly shocked me by the majority that I was going to win by but

nevertheless -

AN HON. MEMBER: Underestimated.

MR. EFFORD: Underestimated, a little bit, yes,

fractional, but anyhow, the only polls that I have done in Port de Grave

district or believe in doing in Port de Grave district, it was 1985, 1989, 1993,

other than that, Newfoundland Light and Power and the Newfoundland Telephone

Company sticks up a few poles and that is the only thing I ever intend to see in

my district. This nonsense of governing by polls, in other words, every time the

Opposition gets something that they disagree with now, that we run out and we

conduct a poll and then when we conduct a poll we decide if we are going to

govern this Province. Now, how silly can you get? That's the reason why after

seventeen years of government that we ended up with a $6.7 billion debt around

here. That's the reason why we have to go through this massive restructuring of

the financial administration of the Province and try to provide enough money for

the essential services of the Province because of the mismanagement of you

people over there for seventeen years.

We inherited a total collapse of the financial economy, a

total mess of the administration in this Province and now the best you can sit

down there are Andy Wells and Greg Malone and a few of those people lead up the

charge for you to go across the Province and do polls. Do all the polls you

want, that means absolutely nothing, the people of the Province conducted a

referendum, conducted a plebiscite, conducted a poll in May the 4, was it, May 4

of 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: May 3.

MR. EFFORD: May 3, that was poll enough for the people of

this Province. Clearly the majority of the people of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-seven to forty-three.

MR. EFFORD: Well, how come you are over there in the

Opposition and we are over here? Whether it is one goal or ten goals, it is

still a winner, and as my hon. colleague from St. John's South, in his first

election won his election by one vote and I won by 2,800, he is the Member for

St. John's South and I am still the Member for Port de Grave too, whether it is

1 or 2,800, he has a victory so you could talk about semantics and about numbers

and who got the most, you people over there are the official Opposition of this

Province and here is the governing body of this Province, you can't have it both

ways, you had your -

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be long.

MR. EFFORD: Well then, it may not be, but the one clear

thing, the people of the Province will decide how long it will be. Mr. Chairman,

I spoke to a group of people last week in my district, and one of the questions

I asked the people in the district: do they want us, as a government, this

government of the day, to go out and start borrowing and start doing the foolish

things, the foolish decisions to further increase that $6.7 billion debt, where

we are paying out $585 million on interest, and will be for the rest of our

lives and our children's lives and grandchildren's lives, they will be paying it

off, the mistakes of the past, is that what you want me to do as your

representative in the House of Assembly, to continually make foolish decisions,

and I suggest, there is a couple of business people sitting on the opposition

benches, if they had operated their businesses in the way in which you operated

the government in the past, I can assure you they wouldn't be able to sit back

and fold their arms now collecting interest on the money they have deposited in

accounts.

You don't operate that way. You don't go around and make

foolish decisions and I have more confidence in the people of this Province that

we are going to make some sensible, rational decisions that will be short-term

pain for long-term gain, and that's the key issue here, Mr. Chairman. The key

issue is to ensure that we do have a future, that we do have an economic future

in this Province but you cannot keep borrowing, borrowing and borrowing and

borrowing and borrowing, and expect to say: well, come on back whenever you want

it, we will give you more. That is so silly it is not even worth mentioning.

I spoke to another group out in my area and I asked them a

simple question. If you are earning $2,000 a month income and you spend $2,500,

you realize that cannot continue. You could get away with it one month but not

the second month. So you have to make some things change. Some things you have

to do without, some things you have to cut away, some things you may have to

change. You may have to change the way in which you work. Instead of having one

job a day you may have to get a second job in order to supplement your income.

In order to take care of your debt.

Government is no different. In this particular case, Mr.

Chairman, it is privatization. Government should not be involved in the

operations of business. Entrepreneurship should be left up to free enterprise.

Members opposite know that. Although now I notice the Leader of the Opposition

has to go around to his fellow colleagues and tell them: Don't notice Efford.

You have to remember, Efford is not talking about polls now. Efford is talking

about something that makes financial sense, something that the Tories absolutely

know nothing about, have never displayed in seventeen years of government. They

have never shown any financial management at all.

We have the responsibility of making some major decisions. I

have total confidence in the decisions that are going to be made are not only

for the political interest of a particular party or a particular government of

the day, but the interest of the future of this Province. I was elected by the

people in the District of Port de Grave to make some wise decisions. I was

elected to make some rational, sensible, logical, common sense decisions. To get

away from the pickle factories and to get away from the cucumbers and to get

away from all that silliness and make some decisions that are going to protect

my children and my grandchildren and all the children in the future of this

Province. Just imagine making decisions that people four or five generations

down the road are going to be burdened with the stupid debts of a government of

the past. Governments of the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still a giveaway.

MR. EFFORD: Giveaway? Five hundred million dollars coming

into the coffers of the Province, or $300 million, whatever the number is, is a

giveaway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Okay. We talk - what do you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Churchill Falls.

MR. EFFORD: What about the Second World War and the First

World War and the Boer War and the war between Custer? What about the 500 years

ago in history? What about when the people came over here from England and

France and settled on the shores? What about all the 500 years ago? What about

the seventeen years of Tory mismanagement, Mr. Chairman, what about the

seventeen years there? What about the $7 billion we are in debt? What about the

$585 million we are paying out in interest? What about all that, Mr. Chairman,

that is money that the people of the Province could have to create a better

economy?

The problem is that we are making some sensible, rational

decisions and they can't stand the fact that we are doing something right. That

is the key factor. Now they are going to try to `poll' us out. If they are going

to `poll', they should take the `polls' to Newfoundland Light and Power, or

Hydro, or Newfoundland Telephone, or some cable company, those people who have

experience in sticking poles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in

Address in Reply to discuss the situation that the government due to policy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Interim Supply.

MR. E. BYRNE: Interim Supply. I apologize to the

changes to the student loan program.

Post-secondary education. Memorial University, Cabot, Trades,

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) $585 million (inaudible)!

MR. E. BYRNE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I speak? I sat

down in silence and listened to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No one else did.

MR. E. BYRNE: I certainly did.

I expect the same courtesy from him that I provided to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to members opposite and members in

the House that post-secondary education, and the institutions in this Province,

especially those who come from rural Newfoundland, because of the higher tuition

costs and the higher costs associated with education of moving into larger

centres to be educated.

The Province's recent change to the student loan program does

not in any way, shape or form reflect the reality that those institutions were

this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And if the minister will listen I will tell

him how and why.

Province, those who will not be able to afford a student loan, those who will

not be able to afford to go to university because of the increased debt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the policy changes on student

aid will -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation will kindly listen to what I have to say he may get

an answer to his question. If he is committed to interrupt this process, then

take it outside somewhere. I have something of importance to talk about here

today, and if you want to talk then you stand up and get recognized and talk

like you did the last time.

I listened to you, Sir, and I ask you to listen to me!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Let's not get into a fiery debate across the House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, you must have had a hard night last night, did you? It must

have been a very difficult night.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that there are members opposite and

maybe - I am not so sure about the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation - who have benefitted greatly from Memorial University, Cabot and

trades institute and post-secondary institutions in this Province, and they, I

can tell you, the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Stephenville, they did

not have the burden placed upon them as what they are about to do to the

students of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, in my own case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you again, will

you sit the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation down and ask him

kindly to refrain from interrupting me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Let's listen to the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister has some difficulty with

what I am saying, then he has the opportunity to stand up and respond to what I

have said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, let me give the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation some numbers to chew on.

First of all, under the new system here all grants will be

eliminated. Remission begins, supposedly, at $22,000. That eliminates people

from Cabot and the Marine Institute from any hope of remission on student loans

because if they were in a three year program, which the majority of them are,

they will reach $18,000 or $19,000 at that level. They will not be acceptable,

or not meet the criteria for remission.

Now in my own case, when I attended university, the only

reason that I could go there was because of the student loan program. My parents

could not afford to send me there. There were seven children, one salary. The

only reason that I could afford to go there was because of student aid and the

loan and the grant system here.

When I left university I came out of university with a

$16,500 student loan; a loan, not grants, a loan. I will have paid that back

over nine-and-a-half years at approximately $300 a month, and in paying that

of $30,000.

Now what the government has done with this new policy is that

they have guaranteed that somebody in a four to five year program, or somebody

who wishes to go on to post-graduate work, that their debt load will be doubled

that for a five year program. They have guaranteed that students will come out

with at least a minimum of $22,000 and a maximum of $45,000 to be paid back. Now

that's the principal we are talking about.

In paying that back over 114 months, which is nine-and-a-half

years, students in this Province will be required to pay back in the vicinity of

somewhere between $44,000 and $75,000 to $80,000. That is what this policy has

done, bar none.

If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and

members opposite, or any members in the House today, believe that is not a

deterrent to attending post-secondary education, then I ask you, what world are

you living in?

The Member for Eagle River knows full well what I am talking

about. He must have sympathy for the students on this issue, he must have

sympathy for what students from his district will come out, and how will they

get access to University education.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the process. For the past

eighteen months, the past year and a half, students who sat on the student aid

advisory committee have been lobbying the Minister of Education to hold a

student aid advisory meeting to talk about the serious issues and inequities and

inequalities that exist in the student aid system. That did not take place. The

minister even said: I wasn't even aware that there was a student aid advisory

committee. A student aid advisory committee meeting did take place. It took

place on Budget Day in the West Block, the same time that the Budget was being

given and denied students the opportunity to talk about student aid changes. The

government did not consult in any way, shape or form.

I would like to get into the criteria on the student aid

changes. The government has been unable to say when these changes will tak