May 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

for the Premier today on one of his favourite topics, the Hydro issue.

It is now six weeks to the day that the Premier pledged, on

Province-wide television, he would withdraw the Hydro Privatization Bill if the

majority of the people opposed the sale.

Just to refresh his memory, let me quote what he said. I

notice him all upset over there, but here is what he said: If the majority of

the people of this Province end up being opposed to Hydro, I would not ask the

members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro,

because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the

issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done

that is contrary to the wishes of the people.

Mr. Speaker, surely the Premier knows by now that a massive

majority of the people of this Province adamantly oppose the sale of Hydro, for

whatever their reasons, so I want to ask him today: Does he intend to be true to

his word? Will he keep his pledge? Will he withdraw the Hydro bill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the government has no

intention of withdrawing the Hydro bill. The future of this Province is very

much dependent upon the government implementing its overall economic policy.

Privatization is one significant aspect of this, and the government intends to

proceed with the completion of the Electrical Power Control Act which, by the

way, has had a fair amount of debate now, as I understand it, in the House, and

we will continue to implement our full economic policy, including privatization

of all commercial type activities that the government is carrying on, that can

be carried on by the public sector, and in respect of which there is no

compelling public policy reason to do otherwise.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

That is certainly contrary to what the Premier said publicly.

I just quoted for him what he said publicly. Now he is going against his word

again. I would say that he is probably the only person in the Province who can't

bring himself to acknowledge the fact that far, far more than a simple majority

of the people are opposed to Hydro, and the more the Premier explains it, the

more the people are opposed. His ministers know it, his backbenchers know it,

and certainly the people of this Province know it. There have been two polls

done scientifically, professionally done, credible polls with no trick questions

that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the people's opposition.

I want to ask the Premier, in all sincerity: Doesn't he

understand that this has now become an issue of credibility and public trust

with his government? Doesn't he understand that his intent now to break his

pledge, in fact, the people of this Province will never trust him again, or his

government again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am prepared to answer to the Province

politically for anything I do, any action this government takes. I am quite

prepared to answer to the Province politically for that, and will do so in the

future.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the problem with that kind of

attitude and that kind of approach is that it will be too late. Hydro will be

gone. That is the problem with that approach.

The people of this Province have heard everything that you've

had to say, I say to the Premier, in defence of privatization. They've heard

what his ministers have had to say as they've gone around, they've read your

brochures, they've heard your ads, they've read the newspaper ads, they've heard

and seen you on Province-wide t.v., they've heard you on open lines, they've

telephoned your 1-800 numbers, they've even seen you on a province-wide debate.

They've heard your case for privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a question (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a question. I'm

merely pointing out to the Premier that the problem is his arguments are not

convincing. You are spending millions of dollars and other issues are being

buried because of your obsession with Hydro. You are wasting your own

credibility and that of your government. I'm asking you, not in a partisan way -

I'm concerned about the Province, and the concern that I have is shared by many

people in this Province because of the loss of interest in other issues.

I'm asking him: Will he reconsider this position that he has

now taken which is contrary to the commitment that he made and the pledge that

he made on Province-wide t.v.? Won't he act quickly and withdraw this bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer remains exactly

the same as it was before. It doesn't matter how many ways he asks the question.

The government is committed to proceeding with the Electrical Power Control Act

and proceeding with its full policy on privatization, including Hydro, and we

intend to do that. In the process we will inform the people of this Province of

the web of falsehoods and utterly falsely based emotional statements put

forward, largely by the Leader of the Opposition, for which he has to bear a

great deal of responsibility in terms of misleading the public of this Province

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lies (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - as to the consequences of the proposed

Hydro approach. We intend to continue.

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

I heard an hon. member, and I'm not sure to whom I can

attribute it, using the word "lie." It is clearly unparliamentary. If a member

is using it I would ask him to desist. Otherwise I would have to bring him to

order.

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has

the gall in the public Chamber to accuse me of misleading the people on Hydro?

He is the one who went on Province-wide t.v. and confessed to everybody that he

misled the people of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: What I wanted to ask him is: His stated

position here today is that he is going to proceed come hell or high water. I

want to know how he can square that with his commitment and his pledge that I

quoted earlier in the day: If the majority of the people are opposed I won't ask

the members of the House to proceed. How does he square that with his commitment

to the people of the Province back in March, or whenever it was?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition puts forward his

interpretation of a statement, and his

interpretation is, like most other things he said, utterly false, totally

incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at no time did I admit that I misled the House.

I admitted one thing, and I will do it again, so that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition can never again falsely represent what I stated in that respect. What

I said was, I asked members on this side of the House not to raise the issue of

its application to Churchill Falls so as to avoid the kind of unfounded,

emotional arguments that the Leader of the Opposition promptly made. As soon as

he became aware of any aspect of it he made those kinds of statement.

Mr. Speaker, that was the reason for it. There was good and

sound logical reasons for the approach. I did not mislead this House. I did not

mislead anybody and I have no intention of doing so.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't what I asked the

Premier. I asked him, how is he going to answer the people now for misleading

them once again on Province-wide television when he told them that in fact he

would not ask the members of the House to proceed with Hydo privatization if the

majority of the people were opposed to it? Isn't that misleading the people

again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Lying to the people.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I stated very clearly that the government

has a responsibility to maintain and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lying.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, are we going to continue to

have these kinds of improper statements?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mentioned to the House on a previous occasion that certain

language is clearly unparliamentary and if I hear it again I will have to bring

the particular member to order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I stated very clearly that

government has a responsibility to maintain an acceptable level of public

support for anything that it brings to the House. Now, in respect to the Hydro

proposal, largely due to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition and others,

the people of this Province have been really misled as to the impact of Hydro.

He stood in the House and put forward totally incorrect propositions as to the

impact, and went throughout the Province and did it.

Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to correct

that and we intend to do just that, and correct those totally incorrect

statements upon which these judgements have been based. Mr. Speaker, we have

confidence that when we are finished with it the people of this Province will

recognize the absolute necessity of the government continuing with its overall

economic and financial policies including the privatization of Hydro and we

intend to continue with the policies, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In other words, the policy is, you're going to continue to

mislead the people of the Province. That's what your policy is, Mr. Speaker.

Accuse me of misleading people? Let me ask him a final question, Mr. Speaker. It

has been now five weeks since this particular bill has been called in this House

for debate. When will the government be calling Bill 1 for further debate? Can

he tell the House that, answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As soon as the progress of government

orders and works justify it. It might be tomorrow if we've passed and dealt with

Bill 2 which is presently being debated or it might be a few days later. If, in

the meantime, the House Leader decides we want to do budgetary matters first or

there's some other compelling matter, we'll call it in due course and the

government will decide its order of business when it is ready to proceed.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment and Lands. At the committee hearings on the Budget Estimates for the

Department of Environment and Lands, an official told the committee the

department had paid $9,000 to cover the moving expenses of the former minister,

Mr. Kelland. Is this part of the compensation benefits for all ministers or was

it done at the direction of Cabinet, that is, by an Order in Council?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there was - I don't know the

amount, if the hon. gentleman says $9,000 it probably is around that amount that

was paid with respect to a former member of the House of Assembly. This was in

line with the guidelines and the provisions for members of the House of

Assembly, Cabinet ministers and so on, what happens to them when they become

members of Cabinet and when they cease to become members of Cabinet. So, Mr.

Speaker, provision is made, for instance, for the paying of moving expenses into

St. John's. If a Cabinet minister has to vacate or leave the district to come

into St. John's and it provides for relocation expenses at the end of that time,

this position was put and fully examined by the Department of Justice and it was

discovered that we had that obligation, so it was paid.

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

John's East Extern.

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

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to table the

policy, that directive. Also, I would like to redirect my second question to the

Minister of Environment and Lands.

Was Mr. Kelland a special case or were other former ministers

paid moving expenses in the 93-94 fiscal year?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

I will dig out where this is and table it, but it is already

public information; it is already public knowledge and, Mr. Speaker, there was

no special case at all. As a matter of fact, it was determined that it was a

very normal matter.

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

for St. John's East Extern.

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

Mr. Speaker, did government also pay moving expenses for Mr.

Kelland and other ministers when they were appointed to Cabinet? Did they pay

moving expenses for Mr. Kelland and other ministers when they were appointed to

Cabinet, and, is this a new perk for ministers and a nice bonus when they move

in to Cabinet?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a new perk for cabinet ministers. I think the same

conditions are there for public servants and so on when they are forced to move

from one location to another. It's a normal process in the public service of the

Province, and I will be glad to dig up all the information and provide it to all

Members of the House if they want, but it is normal in procedure and has been in

place for quite some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the President of Treasury Board.

Last week the minister submitted contract proposals from NAPE

and CUPE to Cabinet, and I wonder if he can tell us if Cabinet has made a

decision, and is the minister confident that he will be able to avoid a strike

by NAPE and CUPE?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister responsible for

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows a lot more

than I do about it; I was not at Cabinet when they presented any proposals to

Cabinet. There have been no proposals presented to Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, late last week, NAPE and CUPE responded after

three separate meetings, responded to a position we put to them with a

counter-proposal, and, Mr. Speaker, we are considering that and I indicated and

I think Mr. Curtis indicated publicly, I think that's where the indication came

from; Mr. Curtis said publicly that the government will get back to him late

this week and we certainly will get back together late this week and, Mr.

Speaker, we are still in the process of talking.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with NAPE and CUPE

got back on the rails after government changed its opening position. Has

government made similar proposals with regard to changing its opening position

with the nurses collective bargaining process and are talks continuing with the

nurses union?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, right at the present time the

nurses union is going around the Province and conducting strike votes in all of

their locations. They have a certain procedure that they go through, and they

are in the process of doing that, so right now we are not in the process of

active talks. When they go through that process and come back to us, then we

will start talking to them again, as we were talking to them before they went

out and did this process.

So there have been revised positions presented to NAPE and

CUPE as a result of discussions. There have also been revised positions

presented to the nurses' union certainly, and let's hope that there will be

further revised positions as we go through the collective bargaining process.

That's what the collective bargaining process happens to be all about.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now it is becoming quite apparent, from comments in the

press, both by the minister and the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association, the government is holding firm to its opening statements,

or opening positions, with regard to the teachers' collective bargaining

process, and what the government is attempting to do with their particular

agreement.

Why are you being flexible with NAPE and CUPE and the nurses,

and yet inflexible with teachers? Are the teachers the new target of opportunity

for this year? Have you decided that you won't take a general strike but you

would welcome a strike by the teachers of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that revised

positions have been tabled as discussions have carried on. Unless the hon.

member has been out of the country for the last while, he will realize that the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, number one, has not sat down

with us and carried on five minutes of negotiation - number one.

Number two, they have had a vote on a conciliation board

report which their nominee signed, and the conciliation board report said, start

negotiating, and the teachers' union has rejected that by a 91 per cent vote. In

other words, they have decided and voted 91 per cent not to negotiate. Mr.

Speaker, revised positions can only be presented through negotiation, and when

they are ready to come to the table and negotiate, then we will have give and

take.

I have indicated very clearly to the NLTA that government is

flexible on all of its opening positions. That is all you can do. You have to

then go through a process, and that particular union is refusing to begin the

process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Is the minister aware of any labour and management problems

happening at the Hibernia site? If he is, can he explain to the House what those

problems are today?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the latest information that I

have, because we do monitor the Bull Arm site on a regular basis because of the

size and magnitude of the workforce and the potential always existing that there

might be an occasional disruption, but the parties have committed to handling

any disruptions that do arise themselves internally, through their own

processes, and have given an undertaking, as part of the special project order,

to make sure there will be no work stoppage at the site.

There has been nothing brought to my attention that suggests

there is any jeopardy of a work stoppage at the work site, which is the only

thing that would cause the government any real concern. In any other instance we

would leave it to the parties to resolve any differences that might arise in a

day-to-day operational basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my information tells me today

that there are 400 to 500 workers, specifically iron workers and carpenters, who

are about to be suspended from the Hibernia site, dealing with problems and

overtime. Can the minister confirm that 400 to 500 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and workers, specifically iron workers and carpenters, are about

to be suspended for a period of time because of difficulties and problems with

the management over overtime?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there may

be a possibility of some disciplinary action occurring with some of the workers

at the site, the kinds of things that have happened previously in the earlier

two or three years of operation, and it might very well happen again when you

have a workforce of some 3,000 people - in excess of that - in one area. In a

major project these things arise from time to time. The parties will resolve any

differences they have had, and there is no reason, as I understand it, for

government to be concerned, for the project manager to be concerned, that the

work will continue on, and any appropriate disciplinary action that might be

necessary will probably be taken and sorted out between the unions and the

employers at the site.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that 25 per cent to 35 per cent of

the workforce about to be suspended is a major issue. Let me ask the minister

this: Will he confirm today in this House that he will check into the issue,

find out what the situation is, find out what the difficulty is, and report back

to this House on that situation tomorrow?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we monitor

the Bull Arm site because of the size and magnitude of the workforce that is

there and the importance of the project to the Province generally. We monitor on

a regular basis. There has been nothing brought to my attention that would

suggest that I as the minister should be alerting the people of the Province

that there is a major problem at Bull Arm, that there is going to be a shutdown

or something of that nature that would jeopardize the project. None of that has

occurred to my knowledge. If there is anything that did require that kind of

alarm I probably would have made a statement in advance of that in the first

place to let people know that there might be a problem at Bull Arm.

If there are, as I indicated, instances that require some

internal disciplinary matters between members of the workforce and the

management and the companies, they have arisen before, they will probably arise

again over the next couple of years of the construction phase. Unless there is

something that jeopardizes the work at the site and the ongoing completion of

the project then the government has taken the position that we are not likely to

interfere. They have mechanisms and processes under their own collective

agreement to deal with any matters between the unionized workforce at the site

and the employers and contractors on the site.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. I'm not sure which will answer.

There are a number of fishermen in their late fifties or

early sixties who did not meet the eligibility requirements to retire under

NCARP, the early retirement program. Nevertheless they sold their licenses back

to the federal Department of Fisheries. I'm sure ministers are aware. There are

two reasons for that. One is because the department wanted to reduce the number

of fishing licenses and the number of people in the industry, and two, the

fishermen understood that if they gave up their licenses they would continue to

get income compensation.

I want to ask the minister: Is he aware that fishermen in

that particular category who had received compensation under NCARP for the past

two years have now been told that they will be dropped from TAGS program

immediately?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge with

that component of the program under NCARP, where people fifty-five years of age

and over exercised retirement options, or others who had made a decision to

exercise the option for a license buy-out, part and parcel of the full

compensation arrangement involving compensation for the license, any ongoing

moratorium payments that they might receive, or their pension, were all rolled

into the calculation of the total value and worth of leaving the fishery. That

anyone who did that it was in the context of a moratorium which was to end on

May 15 this year. That those people have been totally paid off as far as the

people in DFO where that program was managed are concerned, and they will not

have further eligibility for TAGS. They have exited the fishery; they are out of

the fishery. The compensation that they got, which took them up to May 15, along

with the amount of money they received in lump sum payments for their licenses,

was the agreed to total for those people to leave the fishery.

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

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to

the minister, this had nothing to do with retirement. These people gave up their

licenses in good faith, expecting to get a basic subsistence income.

I guess the real supplementary for the minister now is: How

could the federal Minister of Fisheries, how could the Premier of this Province

who stood in his place, and how could the minister stand in his place just a few

short days ago, and tell us and everyone else in this Province that anyone

receiving benefits under NCARP who were presently receiving benefits, that now

the new TAGS program was announced, that they would receive benefits until

December 31 1994? How can the minister now answer that, I ask him. How can he

square that with what he has already said over the last two weeks? The Premier

said it and the federal Minister of Fisheries has said it.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, two completely separate

issues. Those people who exercised - and I will repeat the answer again. Maybe

the hon. Opposition members might understand it a little better if I tried to

say it in slightly different words.

Those people who exercised the license buy-out when the

moratorium was announced a couple of years ago, the amount of total compensation

for both the license and so on, factored into that was the notion that there

would be a two year compensation program. There was nobody in the land - Mr.

Crosbie and all included, anybody in this Province or anywhere else - that ever

understood that there might be a continuation which has now been announced for

five years, that the stocks might not rebuild. Every decision that was made with

respect to license buy-out under NCARP, every decision that was made, was made

to my understanding with the full knowledge of the individuals involved, that

part of their full total compensation entitlement would be a lump sum payment

for the license plus two years of payments of compensation which would end on

May 15, 1994.

That's the only period of time that anyone could tell them,

back then when they exercised their individual options, that there would be

compensation. There was no guarantee; there was not even a suggestion in the

land at that time that there might be continuing compensation beyond the two

year moratorium. It was put in place as a two year measure. The person's

entitlement, when they opted for license buy-out, was a lump sum payment for the

license plus whatever compensation they were entitled to for the life of the

NCARP program which ends on May 15.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

I don't know if the minister realizes how much he's balling

himself up here but if such is the case, as the minister has outlined, then no

one would receive benefits after May 15. They would all have to reapply and only

those who are eligible would get compensation from that point on when they were

deemed eligible. So the minister is just balling himself up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There's no point in you talking about

those who chose the early retirement program because they're going to get

benefits until they are sixty-five when they get their old age security

payments, I say to the minister, but this is a situation here where people - I

have a copy of a letter from a gentleman here and there's been over 100 letters

sent out now from DFO telling those people who thought they were going to be

compensated - the federal minister told them they were going to be compensated

until at least December 31, the minister stood in his place and told them the

same thing and the Premier, now we find they're not going to be compensated

after May 15, not even until the end of December, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

So I want to ask the minister - I was going to ask him won't

he take up the fight for those people but I think the minister has already caved

in. I want to ask him, will you take up the fight for those people to at least

get them compensated until December 31, 1994? Could the minister, while he's up,

tell us what other surprises the 23,000 people are going to receive over the

next number of weeks as all of this starts to filter out from the TAGS program,

I say to the minister? Just a few days ago he accused us of fearmongering, at

escalating numbers, but I say to the minister you're going to be the one with

the egg on your face when this is all over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, maybe I should try some different words again so that

they might understand the very clear distinction. The answers given, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to continuing to the end of December, for everybody in the

program, still stand. All of those that had any prospect that there would be

continuing eligibility will be continued until at least the end of the year.

This group of people, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member just raised in the

question, this group of people to my knowledge, in terms of when they exercised

their option for a license buy-out some two years ago, they exercised a

voluntary option to buy out. They knew at that time that the deal was the lump

sum for the license and two years of payments. That, Mr. Speaker, if there's

somebody writing suggesting that they exercised the license buy-out two years

ago under NCARP and they thought that if there was going to be another program

going on until the year 2050, they might be eligible, then I don't understand

how they got that information. Maybe it should have been explained or they

should have sought further clarification before they exercised their option two

years ago.

So again, I'll say one more time, Mr. Speaker, those people

did not have any continuing right. It was a one time deal for a buy-out for that

group of people. The price paid was the lump sum for the license plus

compensation for the life of NCARP. NCARP ends May 15th. They had no prospect

for continuing compensation. Anyone that has a prospect for continuing

compensation will be extended to the end of December 1994, while they reapply

for eligibility to see how long and how far beyond that they continue to be

compensated. Two completely separate issues, Mr. Speaker, not to be confused.

There is no confusion and I hope that I helped make it clear for the hon.

member's opposite.

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

Capes.

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

Premier, in the absence of the Premier.

Throughout this Province of ours people have been angered and

upset over the comments attributed to Dr. Rosemary Ommer a voicer in the

Globe and Mail in relation to a study on the impact of the cod moratorium.

She has clearly shown her lack of knowledge of rural Newfoundland and she

certainly will not receive the support of people of the rural communities.

Today I ask the Deputy Premier, if he would take it upon

himself to contact his colleagues in Ottawa and advise them to withdraw the

funding for this study before $1.4 million of taxpayer's money is wasted and

rural Newfoundland is insulted once again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

public galleries, the former Member for the district of Fogo, Mr. Sam Winsor -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - and also, Mr. Fred Best, the Mayor of the

Town of Clarenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave

of the House to revert the Ministerial Statements. I have spoken to my friend,

the Opposition House Leader, and perhaps my friend, the Member for St. John's

East will concur.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 1991 in a remote area of Labrador

approximately 100 miles north of Goose Bay, a Cessna Caravan aircraft crashed

and a young man named Captain Frederick Drosch, the sole occupant of the

airplane, lost his life. A judicial inquiry has been held into the death of the

young man or into the incident, and I am here today tabling the report of Judge

Hyslop of the provincial court, who held the inquiry.

The most likely explanation for the crash, and the death of

Captain Drosch which resulted from it, in Judge Hyslop's words were as follows:

`that he encountered unexpected bad weather and tried to fly his aircraft

legally, by which the Judge meant, under VFR regulations, but descended to a low

altitude to retain his course and bearings.

In doing so, it seems likely that the rearward concentration

of the load in difficult weather gave him control problems and greatly increased

his workload. This may have been complicated by the fact that the vacuum low

warning light was on and the seat-belt was not fastened, offering him more

distraction. The aircraft entered a stall and spin, and quite literally, the

pilot ran out of time and space to counteract it.'

Judge Hyslop concluded that the death of Captain Drosch was

due to misadventure. The judge made four recommendations, none of which directly

bears upon the government; these have been referred to the agencies concerned

and, Mr. Speaker, copies of the report have been provided to the agencies

concerned, the Transportation Safety Board, the Labrador Airways, which owned

the aircraft, and Captain Drosch's family. I now table copies here for members

who may want them and any other person who wants one, will have a copy available

by simply getting in touch with me.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I received a copy of this Judicial Inquiry Report a few

minutes ago and I will have a look at it a little later, but while I am on my

feet, I would like to ask the minister, and perhaps with leave he could give an

answer, as to whether the Premier has made a decision on the petition to have a

judicial inquiry into the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of

Leette Moores, a young woman from Shea Heights, who died on an operating table

in a St. John's hospital during what should have been routine gall bladder

surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave to address

this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To my knowledge, no, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier has not taken a decision. The House will realize I found myself in a

conflict position. I will make enquiries of my Deputy Minister, who I know is

working with the Premier as an official on this, and I will either ask one of my

colleagues to make a statement or raise the matter with the Premier. If a

decision has been taken, I don't know about it and that shouldn't surprise

everybody. In the normal course, in this sort of situation, I would learn about

it only when a public announcement is made.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 33 of the Workers' Compensation Act, I

would like to table a report of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal for

1993, and just take a second to commend to all hon. members, maybe the overview

on page 1, which shows the increasing level of activity at the Appeals Tribunal.

For those who would like to look at the status of cases and the disposition of

them, the information is laid out quite clearly in the year-end statistical

information in the appendices. I would like also to pass along our thanks to

Judge Seabright and the panel members for their diligent effort and also to Miss

Marlene Norman and the office staff for working so hard on behalf of the

Tribunal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MS. VERGE: Where are the Western Memorial Hospital

reports?

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of

4,231 residents of the district of Trinity North. The prayer of the petition

reads:

Canadians, as defined by the Canada Health Act, 1984; and

WHEREAS the provision of nursing home care at Level II and

III care is the responsibility of the Government of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland conducted a bed study

in 1986 that recommended construction of a fifty-bed nursing home facility to

service the Clarenville region from Port Blandford to Winter Brook in the west,

and Little Harbour to Chance Cove in the east; and

WHEREAS the facilities required by the Clarenville region

have not been constructed, citizens are deprived of access to nursing home

facilities consistent with those available to citizens in other areas of the

Province; and

WHEREAS the 2,100 elderly citizens of a population of 19,000

are denied local chronic services; and

WHEREAS the placement of the chronically ill and elderly

patient in distant facilities far from family and community can be a brutal and

inhumane process;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon the House of Assembly to instruct the Minister of Health to take

action leading to the construction of a chronic care nursing home facility to

address the needs of the people in the Clarenville region, and as in duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition is unlike some of the petitions we

have seen here lately. This is not a staged petition. It's a petition that comes

from the heart of the people in the district of Trinity North, and this petition

brings out the very essence of what government's role should be, and that is to

provide a means to look after the less fortunate in our society.

The petitioners are asking government to provide the

facilities in the Clarenville area so that seniors who can no longer look after

themselves, who can no longer cope with life in an independent manner, will be

able to live out their last days with dignity.

The petitioners are reflecting the wishes of seniors who are

now being carted off to St. John's or other areas of the Province, away from

family and friends, and isolated from the communities they helped to build, and

I think that the seniors deserve better.

I fully support the prayer of this petition and, while

realizing the fiscal restraints that we live under, being one of the 8,000

petitioners who signed petitions throughout the region, I ask that government

provide the funding this year to plan for a modern chronic care facility in the

region, and I hope that in the very near future the funding will be provided to

make this much needed facility a reality. Chronic care patients and their

families in the region demand nothing more, and I think they deserve nothing

less.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition for a chronic care nursing

home facility in the Clarenville area, and I have been on record before and I

have had several interviews with The Packet in the area, and carried here

in The Evening Telegram , and have voiced concerns in the Clarenville area

that it was high on the priority list a few years ago, and has been overlooked,

and other areas that were lower on the list have been approved.

The Nycum study showed that there is a higher incidence of

elderly people in the Clarenville area by far than anywhere else in this

Province. There are people in the hospital there who have no place to go. They

are being kept in the hospital on a long-term basis. The people in the

Clarenville area have their relatives being sent to St. John's, and out in

Carbonear, Placentia and all over Newfoundland. They have loved ones and people

close being sent, the highest incidence rate of anywhere in this entire

Province. It has been identified before. There has been a push for it. This

government seems to ignore the request here.

Wouldn't it be more logical to put a facility in an area

where there is a higher number of people in that category? Wouldn't it be more

cost-efficient, closer to their loved ones where they can go visit on a more

regular basis? I think it's about time. It was promised. It was high on a

priority list. They have carried out the same types of promises they gave down

in Harbour Breton, that in 1989 they promised, and for every year since.

Anybody who read The Evening Telegram this weekend,

they focused once again on Harbour Breton, the dilapidated state of the hospital

there, with the roof leaking, a forty-eight year old institution there, and it

is pathetic that government hasn't seen and given priority to catering to the

needs in high priority areas of this Province. It is about time they established

to satisfy needs in areas of greatest priority. The people in the area deserve

that, and they should get the utmost attention from the department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the

concerns of the people in the Clarenville area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

DR. KITCHEN: I point out to my hon. friend opposite that

the Nycum study was done in 1986 when guess who was in power? They commissioned

the study and they did not implement it.

Now, let me indicate a few points. We have many requests for

nursing homes and nursing home enhancements in this Province. We referred to the

hon. member who represents Harbour Breton who recently wants his hospital

rebuild and it would also include a chronic care section. We have sufficient

chronic care beds in the Province now, according to our figures. This is what

they tell me. The problem is that many of the chronic care beds are not of the

appropriate level of care because many nursing homes were built to take in lower

levels of care, and some of the spaces are occupied by people who really are

Level 1s and so on. What we are trying to do is to refurbish quite a number of

long-term care homes.

For example there is North Haven Manor in Lewisporte which

must be redesigned. We are presently working on Bonavista. The Bonavista nursing

home is being expanded so that it can take in ten or twelve more beds. We are

remodelling a wing that had been closed. We have a long-term care facility in

St. Lawrence which is not fully opened.

Now, the new board that we have announced that will be

established to take into account Bonavista, Clarenville, and the Burin Peninsula

will then have twenty-odd more nursing home beds, and the question is, should we

also build in the Clarenville area?

We have had requests to refurbish the interfaith home in

Corner Brook. We have had requests to refurbish the home in Grand Falls. We have

had requests to refurbish the long-term care home in Port de Grave, because

there again there are basically a lot of Level 1 people. In Gander, Lakeside

Homes needs to be redeveloped so they can take long-term care. We have a long

list of areas which need things done in long-term care, but that is only part of

the situation. We are also refurbishing the long-term care facilities in St.

Anthony, where right now we have a very unsatisfactory building, and we are

going to do things with the Curtis Hospital so that they can take into account

more long-term care.

We have a lot of things going in the long-term care section,

but one thing we must be very careful about is not to build in obsolete models

of care. One of the problems we have had is we have been overbuilding in

hospitals. In Grand Falls, for example, we have a building that is far too large

for what we need in modern day health care. We have to stop thinking in terms

that a building will provide the care.

What we are doing now is setting up as well regional

community health care boards, and their major responsibility is to increase the

amount of home care that is going on. I am hoping very shortly now to be able to

announce for the eastern region the members of that eastern region health care

board, and one of their responsibilities will be to make sure that there will be

an adequate level of home care throughout the whole eastern region. Right now it

is very spotty in that whole eastern region.

As a result of the lack of home care there is more pressure

to get people into institutions. Our priority in this government is to refurbish

the institutions that we presently have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will finish it later - there is another one, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a further petition to be presented?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: We've heard three speakers on that petition.

Does the hon. Member for Bellevue have a new petition or the -

MR. BARRETT: A new petition.

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

MR. SIMMS: New petition, Mr. Speaker. The Member for

Bellevue has a petition, does he? Oh, fine, lots of time. You can come after me,

if you don't mind.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think I had recognized the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition at that point. If he wishes to cede to -

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend would grant leave for a second?

MR. SIMMS: Don't take it out of my time.

MR. ROBERTS: No, I won't....

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

MR. ROBERTS: I understand there are people here from

Clarenville to hear the petition presented so perhaps after my friend finishes

his petition then we will hear this one and that may do it for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to that point of order. If

that is - I stood on a point of order, I guess. Just to that point of order. We

have absolutely no problem with members in this Legislature who are duly elected

by the people to present petitions on behalf of the people, and they shouldn't

be stymied by the Government House Leader. There should not be a limit of two or

three or four or whatever.

We certainly look forward to hearing the Member for Bellevue

and we have the Member for Grand Bank who has an education petition. Hopefully

the Government House Leader will be as cooperative in letting the Member for

Grand Bank present his petition. I'm sure he will.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No problem. Okay, good.

Mr. Speaker, I have the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No leadership review here, brother. The

leadership review, do you know where the leadership review is, Mr. Speaker? It

is over there on that side of the House.

I have the privilege of presenting three petitions on behalf

of a total of 251 residents of Port Saunders, Hawke's Bay, Port au Choix, up in

the district of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I believe

it is. Hawke's Bay and those areas. St. Barbe District.

These are petitions that I received when the House was closed

dealing with the denominational education issue. The letters that were sent to

me with all the signatures clearly were meant to be a petition, but in case

somebody tries to object and say they are not in the correct form, the proper

words, let me just say that I have proper petitions attached to the front of

them with at least three signatures, which is all that is required, just to make

them perfectly legal so these people get their views heard.

I will read the prayer of the petition: To the hon. House of

Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador; that

WHEREAS we the undersigned reject the government's proposal

Adjusting the Course to restructure the education system of this

Province; and

WHEREAS we support the churches in their voice on our behalf

to maintain our denominational education system; and

WHEREAS we are people concerned about the well being of the

whole child;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

maintain our denominational education system; And as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty clear, straightforward message

on behalf of these 251 residents of the District of St. Barbe in the communities

of Hawke's Bay, Port au Choix and Port Saunders and perhaps other areas. These

are similar to petitions we presented in the House all last fall when the House

was sitting. At that time the government wasn't prepared to budge one inch from

their rigid, inflexible position dealing with educational reform. As much as we

raised it in the House, pleaded with the minister to be a bit flexible, pleaded

with him to listen to some suggestions that we had made, and others outside the

House of Assembly had made, pleaded with the Premier to move the Minister of

Education to one side and the Minister of Justice to one side, and bring in a

third party to maybe help resolve this problem.

Lo and behold, that suggestion was dismissed. The reason that

suggestion was made was because those two ministers are the most arrogant

ministers you would ever want trying to deal with an issue as prominent and

important as this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I give the government credit - I did it

yesterday in my question to the Minister of Education - they finally realized

the error of their ways. They knew they weren't going to get anywhere with these

changes without having to go through a lengthy and costly court battle

undoubtedly. Finally they brought in Phil Warren or somebody brought in Phil

Warren, he offered them his services along with Dennis Browne, a good Grand

Falls lawyer and somehow or another they were able to convince the Premier - I

doubt if they convinced the minister but they convinced the Premier - to put

forward some alternative suggestions which showed some flexibility and I give

the government credit for it. I hope now that the minister, in his new-found

flexibility and this new era of co-operation being shown by the Minister of

Education, I do hope and pray, along with these 251 petitioners, that a resolve

will be found to this problem so that we can get on with making the very

important and necessary reforms to the educational system, which needs reform

without question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: I ask the minister to listen to the prayer of

those petitioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that end of petitions?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the Member for (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody was on his or her feet.

Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Member for Bellevue has a separate

petition. Does the hon. the Opposition House Leader wish to be heard in this

petition? Because the hon. member was on his feet first. I'll recognize the hon.

the Member for Bellevue, in that case.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting because I thought

there might be somebody who was going to support the petition by the hon. the

Opposition Leader.

Today it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House to

present a petition on behalf of 2,267 constituents of that great district of

Bellevue. In addition to that, I have a petition signed by 230 residents of the

district of Placentia in the community of Southern Harbour. I have already made

my good friend and the hon. the Member for Placentia aware of it, and I think

they will probably speak in this petition afterwards. I'm not trying to play

politics with this particular petition - it's a very, very serious issue.

I guess it really comes home to you when you have people in

your own immediate family - at this present moment, as I present this petition,

I have one in my immediate family who was discharged last week from the

Clarenville hospital, a chronic care patient, who is home and the family is

unable to look after him. When we talk about all the excess beds in this

Province, it makes me wonder sometimes if the advice that this government is

getting, in terms of health care, is very accurate.

Since I've been elected, over the last five years, a lot of

time was spent and devoted trying to intercede, trying to assist elderly

citizens of the district who are trying to get into chronic care facilities.

They may be disproportionately placed around the Province. I think, as a

government, we are going to have to take things under control and assess the

situation, because when you look at the number of people in Little Harbour,

Chance Cove to Winter Brook, Port Blandford and all that area, we have a great

number of elderly citizens who need chronic care.

Every year, probably twice a year, I go and visit my

constituents who are in the Harbour Lodge in Carbonear and they're spread all

around the Province. People from Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Come By Chance, Swift

Current, North Harbour and all these communities, small communities, are

up-rooted from their families and they're either moved into St. John's,

Bonavista or Carbonear. I must say that the Lions Manor in Placentia also has a

lot of senior citizens from my district. But they don't seem to mind going to

the Lions Manor because they can look out and see that `far greater bay' and

they love the scenery in Placentia. If there were a chronic care facility in

that immediate area, even in the Trinity Bay area, the residents of the great

Trinity Bay could look out over the bay and see the area where they lived,

fished and worked hard all their lives.

Five years ago, in the district of Bellevue when I was

elected, we had very little services for senior citizens. Over the last five

years, we have seniors' cottages in Whitbourne, Norman's Cove and Arnold's Cove.

Just recently there was opened a thirty-bed personal care home in Arnold's Cove.

All of these facilities have been provided over the last four or five years. I

make it very clear and very strong that the Member for Trinity North and the

Member for Terra Nova, with the assistance of the Member for Placentia, will be

lobbying this government strong and hard to see that we have proper chronic care

facilities in the region that we represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed

delighted to be able to stand here in support of such a petition. I also thank

my friend opposite, the Member for Bellevue, who was kind enough to make me

aware of it, because it is something that affects us all.

A society is judged by its compassion. I do support the

petition on the thousands of people it is affecting. We look around wherever we

live, but what we are talking about now is the Clarenville area, and the numbers

of seniors, the people who need extra care, those who have given their all over

the years and who are being transported all over God's farm in order to have

some accommodation, someone to look after them towards the end of their days.

I can talk about the advantage that the Lion's Manor Nursing

Home gave our region, and people from other districts, in its catchment area.

While it was close enough for them to go to they had something in common. The

man next door to them or in the next bed might be a stranger but he had

something in common with that person - or the woman who had been transferred -

and had something in common with someone there. It wasn't like they were

isolated and on the moon. They were living with people of their own lifestyle.

It has been a great boon to our region, the Lion's Manor

Nursing Home, and I know what it would mean to the people of Clarenville and its

environs, what such a complex would do in that area. The senior citizens would

be closer, their families would be closer, and our population - you look at it

now. Most of our young ones are gone and our seniors' averages are increasing. I

have no hesitation at all anytime from this day on to help the members opposite

in their quest to get the chronic care nursing home facility in the Clarenville

area. Thank you very much.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, while we recognize the need, we

also have to be responsible in the request. The hon. the Member for Placentia -

in his district we are presently building on the nursing home there in order to

consolidate the total services in the Placentia area. I don't know if he is

proposing that we would cease work in Placentia in order to build a nursing home

in Clarenville. Is that what he is proposing?

MR. TOBIN: No, that is not what he is proposing.

DR. KITCHEN: Is that what he is proposing?

MR. TOBIN: No!

DR. KITCHEN: Because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is a

limited amount to our budget. It is very easy to get up on your hind legs and

say: I support the expenditure of public funds. It is very easy to say that.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: What he is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take away from

the hon. member's time, but there is such a thing known in this House as

decency. When the Member for Placentia stood to support a petition from the

people of the Clarenville area, he did it with a great deal of sincerity for the

wishes of the people of Clarenville. He did not do it at the expense of the

facility in Placentia. That was not the intention. That was sincere support for

the people of Clarenville, and the minister should not be getting on with that

kind of nonsense. If he doesn't want the Member for Placentia to support the

people of Clarenville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - say so. Have the guts to say so, never mind

hiding behind what you are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I don't need to hear the hon. the

Government House Leader.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the average cost to operate a

bed in a nursing home in this Province is $65,000 per year. Now, we don't have a

lot of $65,000, so what we have to do is to try to give the best possible care

we can with the money we have. Every time we build a new nursing home - and it

is not a chronic care institution we are talking about, we are talking about a

nursing home for people who are very sick and who need total care in a facility

that they can't get in their own home. That is what we are talking about,

nursing homes, not chronic care facilities. That is a broad thing because

chronic care facilities would also include things like personal care homes,

boarding houses, and things of that nature. We are talking here about a nursing

home, a $65,000 per year to operate nursing home.

We have to make sure that the type of care we provide to our

citizens can be done within our budget. As I said before, what we have to do -

our priorities are clear - the officials recognize that there is a need in the

Clarenville area and there are needs in other places as well. We do know that

the Nycum study of 1986 is somewhat obsolete because it was based largely on the

number of people over sixty-five, and we know that the health of people over

sixty-five now is better than it was years ago. It is getting better all the

time, as people live longer and stay healthier at older ages, so we are thinking

that a better formula would be to look at the numbers of people who are over

seventy-five and get a fraction of those.

Some of these old studies are not that reliable and they

don't guide us as much as they should. Now, I don't want to say that there is no

need in the Clarenville area because there obviously is a need, but what we have

to do is to see if we can meet that need in a variety of other ways. I believe

once we get this regional community health care operating in the eastern region,

which should be before too long, we will be able to take care of more people in

that area in their own homes, than we do now, with the help of properly trained

people who will go and help them in their homes, and that will relieve the

pressure on nursing homes.

Then, we are transforming other nearby nursing homes in areas

like Bonavista, St. Lawrence, Grand Bank, and Placentia, so that they can take

into account higher levels of care than they presently do. We don't look

necessarily at the only solution being to build a $65,000 a bed nursing home in

every vicinity. We just can't afford to do it. The Province can't afford to do

that. We have to be very careful with our funds, because if we spend our money

in that fashion, we may very well have to close the hospital in Placentia, the

one in Clarenville, or the one somewhere else.

You can't spend your money one way and have it left over to

spend on something else. That is the essential fact that has escaped the

Opposition over there, who are forever saying, spend more money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point

of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister stated that a nursing home bed

in this Province costs $65,000 per year. Now, estimates given by your department

to me last year indicated there were 2,360 beds utilized in this Province at a

cost of $82.289 million for an average of less than $35,000, so would the

minister confirm if it is now up to $65,000 a bed this year?

MR. SPEAKER: Really, there is not a point of order. The

hon. member is using the point of order to ask a question. If the hon. minister

so wishes he can respond to it, but there is really no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I rise today to present two petitions. I am going to present

them together because they pertain to the same issue, and they are all from

residents of the district of Grand Bank, the communities of St. Lawrence, Lawn,

and Little St. Lawrence. There are 785 names on the larger petition and 97 on

the smaller petition, and it is interesting to note that of the 97, they are all

students of Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn.

MR. BAKER: You can do at least ten separate ones.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't do that, I say to the Minister

of Finance.

Now, the 785 names, Mr. Speaker, as I said, are residents of

Little St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence and Lawn.

The prayer of the petition is: To the hon. House of Assembly

in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

the district of Grand Bank that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

cease in their efforts to dismantle denominational education and the right to

denominational schools be maintained; Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray

that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to take such action as quickly as possible.

This is a similar petition to what I presented a few days ago

on behalf of constituents. I'm very pleased to present the petition and to

support the petition. It is an issue that is uppermost in the minds of those

people whose petition I tabled on Thursday of last week, I think it was, and now

again today. It is a big issue in those communities, that particular area of the

Burin Peninsula, in my district. It is obvious from the number of people who

have signed the petition and have asked me under signature from their parish

priest, Father Doughy, to present the petition on their behalf. I'm very pleased

to do it.

As I said the last day, I'm encouraged by the statement given

by the minister a few days ago, from which it looks as if some progress has been

made between government and the churches in trying to bring a resolution to the

very contentious issue of educational reform in this Province. I don't think

there is anyone who is opposed to educational reform but, of course, as we know,

the churches want to maintain their rights, and particularly, in this case, that

denominational education and the right to denominational schools be maintained.

I just hope that the government and the churches will come to

an agreement, will reach a consensus on this. I think, as I said before, that

the Minister of Education, I believe it was yesterday, said that flexibility was

a hallmark of this government. Well, to date they haven't demonstrated this. I

just hope now, that in this very important issue that will affect the lives of

thousands of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the government will indeed

be flexible, and that hopefully, as a result of the further discussions between

the government and the church leaders, a resolution will be found for the

betterment of education and the betterment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to speak to the petition presented on behalf of the hon. member

opposite. As an educator, I taught in an integrated school system. At the school

where I taught, a number of Roman Catholic students were bused in from one of

our smaller communities. I must say that there were never any problems

experienced in that school as a result of the integration that took place

outside of the integrated system as we knew it.

As a matter of fact, I think it was very beneficial to all of

the students who attended that school. I speak in praise of our government's

initiatives in restructuring the education system. I think that the foremost

goal for all of us should be to provide the best education possible for our

Newfoundland students so they can go out into the global marketplace and meet

the demands that will be put upon them as our future adults.

I also want to say that I'm pleased that there is flexibility

on this side of the House, and that government and church leaders have certainly

moved closer to reaching an agreement so that we can go forward with our plan to

educate our Newfoundland students. I am totally supportive of the government's

initiatives in that direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, representing the Burin Peninsula

and knowing the people of Lawn, St. Lawrence, and Little St. Lawrence as I do, I

want to say to all members of this House, that when these people take up names

and ask to have them presented, one can be assured that it is done with a great

deal of sincerity and for very genuine reasons on their part.

We all want to believe as I'm sure the people of St. Lawrence

and Lawn and Little St. Lawrence believe, that there is room for certain changes

within the education system. But what the petitioners are asking is that

government stop its dogmatic approach to destroying the education system as it

is now, the way the people want it. That is what is happening, I say to the

member.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture, that when it comes to standing up in this House, I don't take a

back seat to him, I can tell him that. As a matter of fact, he would be hitting

his head off the back benches if he hadn't given up his seat to the Premier,

because his incompetence, would not allow -

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

MR. TOBIN: Unless the Premier had an (inaudible) his

incompetence would not allow him to sit in the front benches.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, if he were to go to Lawn in St. Lawrence or Little St.

Lawrence and laugh at the petitioners on that, make fun of what they are

requesting in this House, he would be in for a rude awakening if he ever tried

that tactic in one of those communities and, we might not let the people in that

area know as to how silly he treats the petition, I say to the member.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The people of St. Lawrence, Little St.

Lawrence and Lawn, Mr. Speaker, are genuine and very sincere in their request to

the Member for Grand Bank. And I say to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, knowing St. Lawrence and Lawn the way I do, that minister would be

well advised not to smirk and laugh at the people in those communities. The

Member for Terra Nova stands up and supports government's initiative and she is

delighted to see that government is flexible. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, it was a

great day for flexibility when Dr. Phil Warren, a man for whom I have a lot of

respect, was brought in to try to solve this issue.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I always respected Dr. Warren and I can tell

the minister that I never had any respect for his ability as a minister. I can

tell him that up front, that I have never had any respect in his competence as a

minister.

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

I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Time up, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. member's time is not up; I just

remind the hon. member that he is speaking to a petition and he should keep his

remarks relevant to the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that and I

apologize for being distracted but I can tell you that when someone like the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture laughs at the sincerity of the people of

St. Lawrence and Lawn, then I have to react.

Mr. Speaker, when Dr. Phil Warren, the other day, and someone

else, got involved in trying to bring some sense to this government in terms of

putting together a program and a package that would be acceptable to the

churches and the government, then they are to be commended. I always felt, by

the way, and sincerely believe that if Dr. Warren had been still around as the

Minister of Education, we would never have gotten involved in this impasse

between government and churches. But that was not to be and I am grateful and I

think Newfoundlanders should -

MR. FLIGHT: On whom are you blaming it?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am blaming it on the Minister

of Education, the Premier and some of the incompetent ministers who sit around

the Cabinet table such as the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. They are the

ones I am blaming for this mess. But Dr. Warren and another St. John's lawyer, I

am not sure of the name, got involved, and now hopefully, hopefully, Mr.

Speaker, the churches and government will be able to work out something that is

satisfactory to all of the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that pursuant to

Standing Order 21, the Orders of the Day now be read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. the Government House

Leader that we move to Orders of the Day.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let us go on to Order No. 4,

which is the second reading of the Electrical Power Control Act. I believe my

friend, the Member for Grand Bank was beginning to get to the substance - I am

sorry, I apologize to the people of Grand Bank. My friend, the Member for Burin

- Placentia West was getting to the meat of his speech. I think he was about ten

minutes into it and we were getting along quite nicely. I understand the floor

is his.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, on Bill 2, the adjourned debate. The

hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, neither the people of Grand Bank

nor Burin - Placentia West needs the hon. minister to apologize to them, I can

tell him that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was involved in some discussions on

Bill 2 - and I think I have approximately twenty minutes left - "An Act to

Regulate the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador".

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) five points.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I have five points, I say to the Member

for St. John's South - I have them here. Mr. Speaker, is there any way to get

the Minister of Forestry - Mr. Speaker, he's after saying more, yapping across

the House today, then he has spoken in the past session as a minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of very important issues that

I want to raise regarding the Electrical Power Resources Act. As I said

yesterday, there are certain parts of this bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill 2, that we

don't have a great deal of difficulty with. The problem that we have is, why

government has decided to put into this bill five areas or five parts that deal

specifically with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because

one has to look back, Mr. Speaker, on what the Premier said in the Leaders'

Debate on March 24, which is very important. He said, `When we considered this

legislation first' - meaning the Electrical Power Resources Act - `we weren't

thinking about privatizing Hydro, we were thinking about doing it with Hydro as

a Crown corporation.' Now, if the Premier, back on March 24, was thinking about

it with Hydro as a Crown corporation, then why did he change his mind? Why did

he bring into the privatization act, Mr. Speaker, issues dealing with the -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I ask the minister, in all sincerity, why

doesn't he have the courage to stand up and speak on it? Why doesn't he really

say something? You know, what you have here is - you have the pulp and paper

industry in this Province that's going to be brought into this, Mr. Speaker.

Have we heard one squeak from the minister? Have we heard one squeak or one

sound from the minister regarding what could happen to Bowater or to Kruger as a

result of this bill? not a murmur, Mr. Speaker. All you've heard from Mr.

Squeaker is a squeal, but then you have to understand what the minister is

responsible for and you can relate a squeak to the hon. minister. That's what

you've heard, a squeak from the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, a squeal. Well, you know what he's

minister for, the abattoir - I won't say it, no I can't say it. And the minister

knows full well that there is potential fall-out for both Bowaters and Kruger

but when someone gets $15 million -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) phoned the manager and said

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That's not true. I called up and asked him if

he had any concerns about it and do you know what? They do have concerns but you

won't admit it.

MR. TOBIN: They do have very serious concerns but I say

to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Forestry has

not expressed the concerns.

MR. FLIGHT: What are the concerns?

MR. TOBIN: What are the concerns? We know what the

concerns are -

MR. SIMMS: It is going to financially affect your assets,

that's the concern they have.

MR. TOBIN: Sure, it is. Would you mortgage your house,

Mr. Speaker, with no one to back - and try to sell it? Is someone going to buy a

house knowing the bank can take it back on you? What about $15 million?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Under this bill, under this piece of

legislation, the right to call back a power that could close down Bowaters.

MR. SIMMS: Why are their lawyers looking at it?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that's another point. Why are the

lawyers for these companies checking it out, I ask the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. We haven't had the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture stand up.

All we have heard is snipe from the sidelines, like a coward, like someone who

has no focus, like someone who has no responsibility and, in true fashion,

incompetent. That is the problem with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

He will sit there and snipe all day. Stand up and pick it up for the men and

women who are employed with Bowaters. Stand up and pick it up for the men and

women who are employed with Kruger, instead of sniping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Display your incompetence publicly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't know what he is talking about

anyway. The Minister of Forestry doesn't know.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Forestry is in the front

benches for one reason, because he resigned his seat for the Premier to run, not

because of his competence as a minister. We all know that, and the Province

knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to this

bill.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am doing very much so because

what I am doing is pointing out the negative effect that this can have on the

pulp and paper industry in this Province, and the fact that the minister

responsible hasn't spoken. That is what I am saying, and I think it is very

relative to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you stand up now, when I sit down,

and explain it to us, if you are the only one who understands it. Have the

courage to stand on your feet.

MR. SIMMS: I bet you he won't.

MR. TOBIN: No, I bet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Show us why you're getting $120,000 a year.

Stand up and show the people of this Province why you're getting $120,000 a

year. Get up and tell us. I will ask a good question. Which

section of the act,

by the way, deals with that as it relates to the pulp and paper industry? Which

section?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Aha. Which

section of the act? That's a very

easy question. Which

section of the act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has only recognized the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West. All other members should be listening to the hon. member.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, should be listening.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we heard from the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture. When we go back to March 24, the Premier said, and I

will repeat it again: When we were considering this legislation, meaning the

Electrical Power Resources Act, first we weren't thinking about privatizing

Hydro. We were thinking of doing it with Hydro as a Crown corporation.

Well, if Hydro is a Crown corporation, and he wasn't thinking

about doing it when he brought in the Electrical Power Resources Act, then why

did he include five sections that deal specifically with the privatization in

water resources - the Electrical Resources Act. What it does that ties in

directly with the privatization of Hydro is that it instructs the Public

Utilities Board to base electricity rates on three criteria: cost, maintenance

of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. What does that

have to do with the bill?

Second, it directs the Public Utilities Board to phase out

the portion of the rural subsidies charged to industrial customers by the end of

1999 in order to cushion the impact of privatization and the cost of electricity

to major industries in this Province.

Number three; transfers responsibility for the designation of

essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities

Board.

Number four; it empowers the Public Utilities Board to

approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of shares of the electrical utility,

which paves the way for the eventual merger between a privatized Hydro and

Newfoundland Power. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker. What does the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture have to say about that, I wonder.

You heard the Premier getting on -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what does that have to do with

what I'm saying?

You heard the Premier get up and say: No one is allowed to

have more than 20 per cent of shares in the privatized Hydro. Yet he brings in

Bill No. 2. What does he do? Approves more than 20 per cent shares. I know the

Paul Desmarais of the world are not rubbing their hands. Power Corporation. The

meetings that have taken place.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Ottawa.

MR. TOBIN: In Ottawa. I wouldn't expect the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture to know anything about that when he doesn't know

anything about forestry.

The fifth one, Mr. Speaker, is the refund of federal taxes

paid by utilities and rebated to the Province under PUITTA. We all know that

these five issues that I've just mentioned are linked directly to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and we will never support any

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The people of this Province

know. They do not want to pay higher electricity rates. Why should the rate

payers in this Province have to pay higher rates for electricity to pay the

shareholders from outside this Province?

Another very interesting question that I would like to raise.

The Premier has acknowledged that there will be an increase in electricity

rates. The Premier himself has stated that there will definitely be an increase

in electricity rates. I would like to know how much money the government now

spends to pay light bills and electricity rates in this Province. How much do

they pay Light and Power, for example, for the light bills and the heat bills on

this building? How much do they pay for the other buildings? For all of the

University campus and the Cabot Institute and the Marine Institute?

MR. EFFORD: Who built this monstrosity?

MR. TOBIN: How much do they pay - what?

MR. EFFORD: Who built this monstrosity?

MR. TOBIN: How much do they pay, Mr. Speaker -

MS. VERGE: For the highway in Corner Brook? That was John

Efford.

MR. EFFORD: This monstrosity of $8 million.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the light

bills. Probably the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation might know

offhand, probably he doesn't, and I wouldn't expect him to, if he does -

How much is the light bill for government? Just look at the

Confederation Building, or all of the buildings, all of the schools, the Arts

and Culture centres that they are responsible for, how much money -

MR. SULLIVAN: Schools. Schools.

MR. TOBIN: - schools, hospitals. How much money does

government pay for light bills? Number one. Then, Mr. Speaker, when you factor

in the increase that it is going to cost the taxpayers through the government

paying higher light bills it will be in the millions. Probably the profits that

the Premier is talking about making off of Hydro will be lost. That is a very

valid argument. How much money it now costs the government totally in light

bills for the schools, the hospitals, the clinics, the government buildings

throughout this Province. How much money do they really pay to Newfoundland

Light and Power?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is up in the tens of millions.

MR. TOBIN: Then when you factor in the increase that is

going to come as a result -

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Twelve percent of whatever it is is automatic,

right. Twelve percent of whatever it is. Do you know, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Do you know that when you factor in that 12

per cent I would suspect - let me put it this way. I would like to know the

difference between what the Premier is going to say he is now going to save

through a privatized Hydro and what -

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure we are giving up $10 million in

guarantee fees.

MR. TOBIN: This is just on the increase in government's

own light bills. The increase in government's own light bills as a privatized

Hydro. I'd like to know how many tens of millions of dollars it's going to cost?

I'd say to the Member for St. John's South, it's a lot of dollars.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure they can't do a cost analysis on

hospital boards, they'll never get one done on this.

MR. TOBIN: I'd say it's a lot of dollars. Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, we should be more cautious, more careful but I can tell you that it's

going to cost an awful lot of money.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Minister of Finance - if I

could get his attention for a minute - I wonder if I could have his attention

for a minute?

MR. BAKER: You always have my attention.

MR. TOBIN: Well I'll ask the Minister of Finance if he

could tell me, Mr. Speaker, if he has any idea how much money the government now

pays to Newfoundland Light and Power for the consumption of electricity in all

of the government buildings; in the schools, hospitals, arts and culture centres

and all of that? I'm wondering how much money would it be that the government

pays to Newfoundland Light and Power if all of their expenses were factored in?

Now granted, they rent some spaces throughout Newfoundland where the light bills

are included, I would suspect, but that would be factored into what the rent

charges are and -

MR. BAKER: About the same as the greenhouse was paying,

I'd say.

MR. SULLIVAN: If it is, it's too much.

MR. TOBIN: I'm serious now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Any increase is too much.

MR. TOBIN: I'm serious when I ask the Minister of Finance

that question.

MR. BAKER: I don't know the amount but it's a lot of

money.

MR. TOBIN: I would say it's a lot of money if you were to

factor in everything that the government pays for electricity bills in this

Province, to all of the medical clinics, social services offices, transportation

offices. If you look at the depots for the Department of Transportation -

hundreds of millions, I'd say to the Minister of Finance. I'd ask the Minister

of Finance, would he do a cost analysis on how much the increase will be?

MR. BAKER: About 4 per cent.

MR. TOBIN: About 4 per cent when you privatize Hydro?

MR. BAKER: At the end of five years, yes.

MR. TOBIN: 4 per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: You said 11 per cent -

MR. TOBIN: Okay wait now, he says 4 per cent. So you add

4 per cent on to what it's now costing - to what the light bill now costs the

government and I'd say you're into tens of millions of dollars more.

MR. BAKER: That's the cost of privatization.

MR. TOBIN: Not just the cost of privatization, it will do

a lot more. The Member for St. John's North may want to have that number when he

meets his constituents tomorrow night, to tell them that. How much money is it

going to cost?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's every year during the life of that.

MR. TOBIN: I know it is every year during the life of it.

What?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Tomorrow night is the party. I just want

you to know that Thursday night is the night of the meeting not Wednesday night.

MR. TOBIN: Well I would suggest to the member that I

agree wholeheartedly and I support him having his party before the meeting

because after the meeting he might not be in the mood to party.

Mr. Speaker, look where he's to now, up there cracking away

again.

Anyway, this government, Mr. Speaker, is selling out rural

Newfoundland on this Hydro bill and I'd say to members opposite that it is time

to get your wits about you, it is time to stand up for the men and women of this

Province that sent you here to represent them, it is time to take a decisive

stand, it is time that you followed the lead of the Member for Pleasantville, it

is time that you put your constituents ahead of your own political aspirations,

it is time that you forget about that lonely, looming Cabinet post, Mr. Speaker,

you can't all go into Cabinet. There's a possibility that there may be a couple

of openings. There's a possibility that there may be a couple of Cabinet

openings. There's no doubt that the Minister of Forestry is going to get the

fling and he should. Mr. Speaker, that's right, it is time gentlemen please. It

is time because I can tell members opposite that if you vote for the privatizing

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that the people of this Province will not

forget, come the next election.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Six weeks ago the government introduced two pieces of

legislation - one called the Electrical Power Resources Act, which we are

debating here today, which would also replace the current Electrical Power

Control Act, and the other, the Hydro Privatization Act.

Briefly stated, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Electrical

Power Resources Act is to provide for the supply and management of all power

produced in this Province, including Churchill Falls power, and to meet energy

needs of customers in the Province, and I quote: at the lowest possible cost.

Part II of the act sets out the Province's strategy to recall

power now sold to Hydro Quebec under the Churchill Falls power contract. While

there is no explicit reference to the contract, the act clearly targets that

that power, or the power that now flows to Quebec, as a main source of supply

for the Province's future energy needs. The legislation, in my opinion, is

certain to be challenged by Quebec, and will inevitably end up before the

Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, capturing some or all of the power locked up in

the Churchill Falls power contract has been central to the economic energy and

political policies of Newfoundland governments since the Smallwood era. Under

the contract, the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation agreed to supply

virtually all of the 5,225 megawatts of power produced on the Upper Churchill to

Hydro Quebec at an agreed price until 2041. Newfoundland can recall only 300

megawatts to meet its energy needs - a virtually worthless option, since it is

less than half the power needed to warrant the cost of building a transmission

line to the Island.

Through the 1970s the Newfoundland governments followed a

partial access strategy, attempting unsuccessfully to recall more power than was

provided in the power contract. In the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion

Act, for instance, of 1980, the Peckford government at the time departed from

the partial access approach and bid for total acquisition of the Upper Churchill

power development. Had the legislation survived the courts, Newfoundland would

have been in a position to negotiate a new deal with Hydro Quebec that would

have provided both increased revenues to the Province and access to low cost

power to meet its future energy needs.

The Supreme Court of Canada declared the Reversion Act

unconstitutional in 1984. The court ruled that it interfered with the right of

Hydro Quebec, under the power contract, to receive an agreed amount of power at

an agreed price. Since the power contract is subject to Quebec law and Quebec

courts, Quebec Hydro's rights under the contract were situated in Quebec and

therefore were outside the jurisdiction and competence of the Newfoundland

Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the Electrical Power Resources Act returns to

the partial access policy of the 1970s, but with a slightly different strategy.

Previous governments used the front door - that is, legislation and Orders in

Council aimed directly at gaining access to Upper Churchill power. The Premier

proposes to use the back door - that is, legislation of general application, and

orders issued by a quasi arm's length agency, the Public Utilities Board.

Part II of the Electrical Power Resources Act empowers the

Public Utilities Board, at the request of Cabinet, or an electrical utility, to

issue an order to CF(L)Co, or another producer of electricity, requiring the

company to deliver a specified amount of power for consumption within the

Province, regardless - and this is an important point - regardless of whether or

not it makes the company unable to meet its obligations to Hydro Quebec under

the power contract.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea. Mr. Cyril Greene, a

senior lawyer in the Justice Department drafted similar legislation in 1980. Mr.

Greene advised that his draft would be enacted without proclamation and referred

to the court to determine its constitutionality. The Peckford Government opted

instead for a total acquisition policy. In 1986, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Power

asked the provincial government to enact legislation drafted by their legal

adviser then, Mr. Clyde Wells, and based on a strategy to access Churchill Falls

power similar to that proposed by Mr. Greene. The strategy Mr. Wells drafted in

1986 in my opinion, is reproduced, Mr. Speaker, in the Electrical Power

Resources Act.

In 1986, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wells was director of Newfoundland

Power as well as its legal adviser, and had been appointed by the board to chair

a committee on future power supply. The committee was instructed and I quote,

Mr. Speaker: to specifically consider any legislative changes which would give

the company greater flexibility in the construction of new generating facilities

and the acquisition, Mr. Speaker, the acquisition, of power generated by others

at existing facilities.

Mr. Wells report to the board of directors provides

intriguing insight I say, Mr. Speaker, into his larger visions for the company

he was soon to serve as chairman of the board of directors. In addition to

recommending enactment of the legislation he had drafted, his committee advised

and I quote again, Mr. Speaker: that it would be appropriate for the company to

become more attuned to the potential for greater participation in energy

development. If Hydro does not initiate a Labradorian infeed, it could present

an opportunity for the company to provide capital through the acquisition of

Hydro assets on the Island. Alternatively he said, the company may wish to

participate directly in new Labrador developments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an uncanny correlation between the

corporate vision of then director and future chairman of Newfoundland Power and

the actions of the Premier today; and, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the legal

issues. They are very, very important issues. Will Premier Wells's backdoor

strategies succeed where all other efforts have failed? That is the central

question to this piece of legislation. He, obviously, is confident that it will.

Other lawyers have a different opinion.

The Peckford Cabinet referred Mr. Wells' 1986 draft of the

legislation to a team of lawyers. In their opinion, the legislation would be

challenged and would meet the same fate in the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, as

the Reversion Act. Several lawyers who have commented publicly on the

legislation in its present form, have expressed, Mr. Speaker, similar, legal

opinions.

Now the Premier makes three points in defence of his position

that the Electrical Power Resources Act would survive a court challenge, even

though the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act did not. First, the

Premier says, the Province has the constitutional jurisdiction to manage and

provide for the use, sale and distribution of power generated within the

Province in order, Mr. Speaker, to meet the legitimate needs of consumers of

power in the Province. Second, Mr. Speaker, the legislation has general

application to all power produced in the Province and to all contracts for the

supply of power. Any effect on Hydro Quebec's right under the power contract

would be purely incidental to the main purpose of the act. He has stated that

time and time again, Mr. Speaker; and third, control over all the hydroelectric

assets of the Province is essential he has said, to meet the needs of the people

in the Province.

No one, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, no one, including the

Premier can presume what the Supreme Court would do; nobody. The constitutional

jurisdiction of the Legislature in this Province, is not absolute, Mr. Speaker.

In the water rights reversion case, the Supreme Court did not quarrel, Mr.

Speaker, at Newfoundland's right to manage the supply of power within provincial

boundaries but issued the following warning: Where however, the pith and

substance of the provincial legislation is elimination of extra provincial

rights, then, even if it is cloaked in the proper constitutional form, Mr.

Speaker, the Supreme Court said it will be ultra vires.

There is no doubt that the Electrical Power Resources Act

will have extra-territorial effects from the moment it is enacted. In the

opinion accompanying the legislation the Premier drafted himself in 1986 he

wrote this: Hydro Quebec would no longer have the absolute priority to the power

that it now has by virtue of the power contract. Like every other power producer

or purchaser its existing priority would, where necessary, be subordinated to

the satisfaction of the overall needs of the Province.

In other words, as soon as the Electrical Power Resources Act

comes into force Hydro Quebec's right to receive power according to the terms of

the power contract will be effectively destroyed. The Premier knows this, his

Cabinet knows this, his caucus knows this. They are playing a dangerous game.

They are rolling the dice. Unfortunately Hydro Quebec is not like every other

producer or purchaser. The Minister of Finance knows this. It has

extra-territorial rights under a power contract that is subject to Quebec law

and Quebec courts. Even well-intentioned legislation that takes away from those

rights is certain to be challenged by Quebec and would inevitable come before

the Supreme Court of Canada.

The key question for the Court would be whether the effect on

Hydro Quebec's rates is incidental, or the main purpose of the act, its pith and

substance. The Electrical Power Resources Act is cleverly drafted, I would say,

to apply generally to all producers and purchases of power, but the Court will

know, I submit here today, that the Upper Churchill is the only source from

which the Province could recall power. It will also know that the act terminates

Hydro Quebec's absolute right to receive any power under the power contract.

A number of questions arise from this. Will those facts

persuade the Court that the legislation is unconstitutional, despite its

constitutional form? Because in substance it is aimed at the rights of Hydro

Quebec under the power contract. What about the arguments that access to power

generated at Churchill Falls is essential to meet the energy needs of the

Province? The Premier says, and I quote again: It would be unthinkable that the

people of this Province would have to provide for their future power needs

through higher cost and polluting oil-fired generation, or accept the cost and

risk of nuclear power generation.

I submit here that he should have thought about that when he

sat in the Smallwood Cabinet and gave away the Upper Churchill. The exact same

argument was made and rejected in the reversion act. The Court said - and let me

quote again -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am right, I say to the Member for St.

John's South. The Court said: It is not for this Court to consider the

desirability of legislation from a social or economic perspective where a

constitutional issue is raised. Let me repeat it so members opposite may

understand: It is not for this Court to consider the desirability of legislation

from a social or economic perspective where a constitutional issue is raised.

Mr. Speaker, even if the legislation gets through the

constitutional hoops the Court would have to determine whether we truly needed

the power and how much. That is the question. The Court would have to determine

whether we truly needed the power on the one hand and how much do we really

need. How great a recall can we truly justify? These are questions that have not

been answered. This is the issue in the Electrical Power Resources Act. How

great a recall can we justify and convince the Court that we truly need it?

Would contracts for power have to be in place? A question

that has been unanswered, a question that the Premier has refused to answer and

that his government has refused to answer. Another important question: Would

financing have to be in place for a transmission line to the Island?

Can we convince the court that there is no reasonable

alternative to Upper Churchill power? Can we convince the court to allow a

recall of power from the Upper Churchill when there is abundant undeveloped,

albeit higher cost, power on the Lower Churchill? Would the court set aside

Hydro Quebec's rights under the power contract simply, Mr. Speaker, to provide

cheaper power to Newfoundland? What are the legitimate needs anyway? These are

the questions that the court would have to determine, the court would have to

answer. These are questions that must be answered in this Legislature and in the

public debate on the very, very, important issue, but those answers have not

been forthcoming.

There are many other problems associated with this issue as

well, Mr. Speaker, and there are many risks inherent in the Premier's and the

government's strategy. First, let me say this, any interference with the power

contract may lead to an event of default. If such an event occurs Hydro Quebec

is obliged under the power contract to provide the funds to redeem CF(L)Co's

bonds. They are obliged to do that, Mr. Speaker, and in exchange for that Hydro

Quebec would acquire additional equity and eventual control of CF(L)Co.

Second, there is the problem of financing a Labrador infeed.

It is very, very, questionable that the federal government would guarantee the

necessary financing, and the Province could not raise funds unless other factors

intervened to improve our credit rating.

Third, another protracted and long drawn-out court battle

with Quebec over the Upper Churchill power contract will certainly impede and

may end whatever opportunity remains to conclude agreements with Hydro Quebec in

relation to the Upper Churchill and development of the Lower Churchill. That is

a very important issue.

In 1990, Mr. Speaker, we were told that government was very

close to an agreement that met all the Province's objectives, including access

to 800 megawatts of power at Upper Churchill rates and access to further blocks

of power to meet future provincial needs. The people of Newfoundland and

Labrador must carefully weigh the benefits, must carefully weigh the benefits,

of uncertain access to Upper Churchill power against an agreement for

development of the Lower Churchill power and side agreements on the Upper

Churchill. That would guarantee access to low cost energy and return billions of

dollars in economic benefits and revenue to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that the Premier has yet

solved the problems associated or inherent in the Upper Churchill contract, and

he may lose an opportunity for the development of the Lower Churchill that could

be a model of what the Upper Churchill development should have been. That is

what is at risk here. That is what I see as being at risk here.

Has the Premier given up on Lower Churchill so that he can

test his long-held legal theory, or expunge from his memory his association with

the infamous give away of Upper Churchill? Let us hope not. The Premier was not

elected by the people of this Province to practice either law or absolution from

the 8th floor of the Confederation Building. He was elected to get on with the

development of the Province in the best interest of the people of this Province,

and aspects of this bill, and Bill No. 1, in my opinion are not pursuant to

those objectives. They are not in the interest of the people of this Province.

In his Province-wide TV address on March 22 Premier Wells

tried to link his strategy to recall power from the Upper Churchill to the

privatization of Hydro. At that time he claimed that seeking access to Churchill

Falls power would be more susceptible to court challenge if it were done by

Hydro as a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Premier did not see Crown

ownership of Hydro as a problem when he first proposed the power recall strategy

to Newfoundland Power in 1986. That was two years after the Supreme Court's

proceedings on the Reversion Act in which he had participated as a lawyer for

Royal Trust. Mr. Speaker, he was more than aware of all legal arguments and the

rationale for the court's decision.

The legislation he wrote in 1986 names the Hydro Corporation

or a retailer, and Cabinet as the agents who could properly make a request to

the Public Utilities Board. In a legal opinion appended to the draft legislation

he wrote the following. This is very important, to note what the then director

of Newfoundland and Labrador Power, now Premier, said at that time:

To carry out such a purpose, the Public Utilities Board would

have to be given power to investigate and hold hearings, either on its own

motion, upon reference by the government, or upon application of Hydro, a power

distribution district, Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited, or any

other retailer upon any matter affecting the current or future supply and

delivery of power to the Province.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, virtually any agency directly or

indirectly involved in the energy business could do it. That was his argument;

that was his rationale put forward, but in his report to Newfoundland Power's

Board of Directors, Premier Wells, then Mr. Wells, anticipated the deed would be

done by the Crown-owned Hydro - the opportunity he saw for Newfoundland Power to

buy the assets on the Island that Hydro would have to sell to raise capital for

the Labrador infeed. Mr. Speaker, neither was Crown ownership of Hydro a problem

just a year or two ago when the government began work on the Electrical Power

Resources Act.

During the party leaders' debate on March 24, Premier Wells

said, and I quote again: When we considered this legislation first, we weren't

thinking about privatizing Hydro. We were thinking of doing it with Hydro as a

Crown corporation.

That calls into question, why move towards privatization at

all? The notion that an action by Hydro would be suspect is also inconsistent

with the Electrical Power Resources Act. Members opposite should know, or

anybody who has read this legislation and Bill No. 2 should know, or understand,

that under the act a producer, retailer, the Public Utilities Board itself, or

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may initiate action by the Public Utilities

Board.

If an action initiated by Hydro would pose such risks that

Hydro must be removed from any association with government, then clearly an

action started by Cabinet will be so calamitous that Mr. Wells, or Premier

Wells, would have expunged all possibility of it happening from the act.

Finally, as the Premier pointed out, in legal opinion

appended to the legislation he drafted in 1996, when he said again, and I quote

again for members opposite: The only legal issue arising from the proposal is

the question of whether or not it is within the constitutional authority of the

Legislature of the Province of Newfoundland.

That was his own legal opinion written in 1986. That, indeed,

is the question I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and it has nothing to do with who

owns Hydro.

Mr. Wells, or Premier Wells' insinuation that an action by

Hydro to recall Churchill Falls power would be more suspect than an action by a

private utility, the Public Utilities Board, or Cabinet, simply has no merit. It

is just a desperate effort, I submit, to lower support for privatization by

tapping into the public's flickering hope that someone, somewhere, will find a

way to obtain even a small share of the benefits locked up in the Churchill

Falls power contract. There is, however, a connection between the Electrical

Power Resources Act, Bill No. 2, and the Privatization Act, Bill No. 1. It is

impossible to speak about one bill without referring to the other.

The Electrical Power Resources Act declares that it is to be

the policy of the Province - and this is very important - it declares that it

should be the policy of the Province that all sources of power and electrical

utilities should be managed and operated in a manner that would result in power

being delivered to consumers in the Province at the lowest and I repeat, lowest

possible cost consistent with reliable service. The privatization of Hydro, Mr.

Speaker, would contravene that policy. Even the government admits that under

private ownership, Hydro would have to raise an additional $25 million a year in

revenues from electrical customers in this Province. Our own analysis, supported

by economists and experts in the energy field, Mr. Speaker, estimates the cost

will be at least twice as much. We may continue to disagree on the real cost of

privatization to electrical consumers, Mr. Speaker, but the undisputed fact

remains that they will pay more for electricity without receiving any additional

value.

A second undisputed fact, Mr. Speaker, that's worth noting,

is that the government will give tax concessions and subsidies to electrical

utilities to keep the cost of electricity from soaring even higher. In effect,

the consumers will be forced to subsidize their own electrical rates with their

own tax dollars. Have you ever heard of it? Because of the tax concessions, Mr.

Speaker, the Province will lose $20 million a year in revenue it now collects,

and another $20 million a year in revenues it will get from the Federal

Government after Hydro is privatized. In addition, the Province will spend $15

million over the next five years to phase out the rural electrical subsidy paid

by major industries in the Province and after 1999 the full cost of subsidy will

be transferred to domestic customers and smaller businesses.

No one, Mr. Speaker, can dispute those facts. Electrical

customers in the Province will pay more for electricity. They will pay more, as

taxpayers, to subsidize the cost of electricity they consume and they will not

receive any added value for the added costs. There is one reason for higher

costs, Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro. There is one way to prevent it

from happening - keep Hydro as a Crown corporation. If Hydro is privatized it

will be an absolute contradiction of government's policy declared in the

Electrical Power Resources Act to manage and operate electrical utilities to

deliver power to consumers at the lowest possible cost.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in

part 1 of this bill, the Electrical

Power Resources Act, there are privatization measures in there. Even though the

privatization of Hydro flies in the face of energy policies, the government has

inserted five measures into the act that intend to make Hydro more attractive to

private investors, disguise the real cost of privatization by disbursing it to

ratepayers and taxpayers, and pave the way for a merger between a privatized

Hydro and Newfoundland Power. These measures, Mr. Speaker, are in addition to

many other costly devices in the unwanted and unneeded privatization act. They

include, number one, instruct the Public Utilities Board to base electrical

rates on three criteria; cost, maintenance of creditworthiness and a guaranteed

profit for shareholders; two, direct the Public Utilities Board to phase out the

portion of the rural subsidy charged to industrial customers by the end of 1999

in order to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity to

major industries in the Province; thirdly, transfer responsibility for the

designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board, on the one

hand, where they properly belong, to the Public Utilities Board, where they do

not belong; four, empower - and this is very important - the Public Utilities

Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of an

electrical utility, which paves the way for the eventual merger between

privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power; finally, number five, refund federal

taxes paid by utilities and rebate it to the Province under PUITTA.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland do not want to pay

higher electricity rates and higher taxes simply to make profits for

out-of-Province shareholders. They have heard and read the government's

explanations, propaganda and rejected them all because they do not and never

will make sense. There is no hysteria, as the Premier claims, Mr. Speaker.

People are more and better informed on this issue than they have been on any

other issue since Confederation. They know the privatization of Hydro is wrong

for them, wrong for their children and wrong for future generations of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Try as he may, Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot

and will not convince people that wrong is right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that

during the party leaders' debate on March 24, Premier Wells made a commitment to

the people of the Province that he must now honour. He said, and I quote: If the

majority of the people of the Province, in the end, are opposed to Hydro, I

would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation

privatizing Hydro. To proceed with legislation, because I don't think any

government, no matter how strongly it feels about an issue, should use its

majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the

wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the

Legislature to do that. That is what he said.

Faced with the overwhelming and irreversible opposition of

the people to the privatization of Hydro, the Premier must be true to his word.

He must withdraw the legislation that so deeply offends the people of this

Province - the privatization act and the privatization measures contained in the

Electrical Power Resources Act. The people and their elected representatives,

Mr. Speaker, can then consider the Electrical Power Resources Act on its own

merits. Thank you.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to be able

to rise today and make a few comments on this particular part of the bill.

As many said before me as we stood, I say at the outset, the

three parts of Bill No. 2, as we look through it - and we do look openly at it,

although we have been contradicted from the other side of not doing that, but we

do, I say to all members.

Parts I, II and III are the three main ones that I would like

to speak to here today.

Part I, as most other members already indicated, is linked

directly to the privatization.

Part II, just in general terms I would say, and

the recall of power, is something we can also expound on.

Part III basically

deals with the emergency planning aspect of the bill. And

Part III let me say

quite frankly and openly, is one of the parts of the bill that we do support. As

hon. members have said before me, as we go through the entire bill and look at

the different parts and aspects, then there are parts that we could support.

Just referring back to the Province-wide address that the

Premier gave, first of all, in paragraph five of that particular address he

said: I have to confess that government did not take sufficient time or make an

adequate effort to explain to the public the economic and financial benefits of

privatization before proceeding with this legislation. Generally speaking, this

government has not spent money to advertise and promote its policy positions.

Mr. Speaker, as I read that today, since that time, since the

Premier stated that on television in a province-wide address, there has been

money spent. Of course, the argument has always been put forward, as it deals

with the privatization part of this bill, that maybe people were misled. And,

both sides, inside and outside the House, people have said: Maybe people have

been misled and misinformed. Again, as the Premier stood today I was - I'm not

surprised anymore when the Premier stands and says: No, we are going full steam

ahead. I'm going full steam ahead. We haven't come off our tracks at all, no

matter if it is 80 per cent or 90 per cent or if it 100 per cent opposed to

this.

But the Premier said: `This government has not spent money to

advertize and promote its policy positions. We thought the legislation would

speak for itself and be widely supported, as the public clearly supported

privatization in general. In this case, it appears clear that we ought to have

taken the time and spent the money to make the case for the government's

proposal before lack of information and misinformation could cause the proposal

to be greatly misunderstood by a significant portion of our citizens.'

He goes on to say a little bit further down: `I want this

evening to take the opportunity to spell out the full story.' Now, Mr. Speaker,

as soon as I read that part of the Premier's address, and as I watched him that

night I could hardly believe what I was hearing. What was the Premier saying?

Was the Premier saying that in fact he had not been telling Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians the full story? Then to add insult to injury, we move on and the

Premier would say, I ask my Cabinet and my caucus to be quiet. There is no other

way to have said it. Basically, what he has said is that members of his Cabinet

and government caucus members should be quiet and not say anything about it.

Then he says we have misled. Just a little while back I

referred to the money spent. He said maybe we should have spent money. Now,

since that time, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, money has been spent, quite a bit

of money has been spent on propaganda towards the privatization of Hydro, the

advertisements we hear on the radio, the glos