May 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 41

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 who is absent

unfortunately, and I understand he won't be here on Monday, by the way. Could

the Government House Leader confirm that?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

The Premier I believe is on his way to Ottawa now - and I

believe he has meetings arranged in Ottawa Monday, so he will be here on

Tuesday, but in the meantime I offer up my friend the Deputy Premier for any

purpose for which the Leader of the Opposition may wish.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with that is, of

course, many of the questions we have are only appropriately asked of the

Premier because it refers to quotes he made and everything else and it is very

difficult, but my questions relate to the information tabled in the House

yesterday and I am going to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I

will say to the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday, the information he tabled in response to my

questions of a week ago, asking for a list of the payments paid to the chair and

four vice-chairs of the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Now, I heard the

Premier on the news; I saw him last night and heard him and heard him again this

morning on the news expressing his surprise, that he wasn't aware of this until

I believe, to use his words, the Minister of Justice informed him of it a few

days ago.

Now I say to the minister, this is very, very hard to believe

once again, because last year he will recall, this matter, this very issue about

per diem and payments to the chair of the tribunal was raised during the

estimates committees discussions last year in the House, and also I say to the

minister, he would be aware and hopefully he can confirm for me today, that a

former employee of the board gave the minister, this minister, a written report

last February, 1993 on this whole issue of per diem charged by the chair of the

appeal board, Mr. Seabright; so I ask the minister - I know he can't speak for

the Premier - but, how on earth would anybody be able to believe the Premier

when he said he wasn't aware of this until now? Didn't the minister make the

Premier aware of this?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that

contrary to what members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition try to

portray sometimes, the Premier largely leaves the ministers to answer for the

departments for which they are responsible and unless there is something unusual

or strange that should be reported to the Premier, he would not be expected to

be aware of everything that's happening in every department of government.

Contrary as well, Mr. Speaker, to the representation and the

spin that the Leader of the Opposition tried to put to this particular

information yesterday, this is straightforward information, providing the

details of exactly the per diem charges that were properly accounted for and

paid out to people who provided the services required through Workers'

Compensation appeals, and that there is nothing unusual about it, nothing that,

in my estimation, I felt I should alert the Premier or anybody else to. This is

a normal practice, and if someone can find something unusual or strange about

it, I would like to know what it is.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will try to accommodate the

minister as we get through the questions, but surely if he is saying the only

things that ministers are expected to report to the Premier are things that are

unusual or strange, then this should have been at the top of the minister's

list, I suggest to him. It is a very unusual and strange circumstance and

situation.

Now let me ask the minister this: Can he confirm that in fact

Mr. Seabright was paid in the range of $70,000 to $90,000 for each of the past

two years - not just last year, each of the past two years - at least,

(inaudible), and secondly, specifically, while I am on my feet: Will he table in

the House shortly - it shouldn't take as long as it took to table the last bit

of information - the annual payments made to Mr. Seabright since his appointment

on May 16, 1989, as well as the annual payments to the other vice-chairpersons

since the dates of their appointments?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to get

that information, since 1989. The activity at the tribunal has increased since

then. As hon. members opposite would know from studying the annual reports that

have been submitted, there has been increased activity, and there has been

tremendous pressure from the injured workers for us to be more efficient at the

appeal tribunal to get more cases heard.

The more cases you hear when you are paying the people

hearing them on a per diem basis, the more money you have to pay to the people

who do the hearings. If you hear very few cases, you get very little money. If

you hear a lot of cases, you get more money.

I did happen to check, just out of personal curiosity, on the

previous year to the one that was tabled yesterday, and for the immediately

succeeding year I can table, for 1992-1993, the year prior, and I will go back

and get the other years, Mr. Seabright, as chairperson in that year, was paid

$53,375 as chair.

MR. SIMMS: No other money.

MR. GRIMES: No other monies, because of the fact that is

what his duties required, and he did extra hearings this year. Also, I point out

for information, and a good opportunity provided to do it, and I think everyone

should be aware of it, that one of the changes that was made in that fiscal year

that was accounted in the public tabling that I did yesterday, was that we used

to have an executive director position at the Workers' Compensation appeal. The

person left the Province to seek employment outside.

MR. SIMMS: Who was that?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Brake - Mr. Weldon Brake used to be

executive director. He has left the Province to seek employment in British

Columbia. As a result of that, we looked at whether or not we needed the

executive director position, which was at an annual salary of almost $68,000. In

fact, in the last fiscal year, Mr. Seabright actually did a few hours a day as

the CEO and the rest of the time as the head of the tribunal and did the

hearings, which is why his amount went from $53,000 to $98,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will pursue on another day with

the Premier the other issue that the minister just entered into the discussion

about Mr. Seabright's role as CEO. But since the minister, himself just raised

this issue of the more you handle, the more decisions you take and everything,

the more money you make, let me enter it into the discussion and ask him this

question: The chair and the vice-chairs are paid hourly rates; one of the

vice-chairs was on Open Line last night himself, Mr. Watton from Corner

Brook, and said they're paid hourly rates for the time that they spend - and now

the minister nods yes, since Mr. Watton confirmed it - for the time they spend

in their hearings and in writing their decisions. Now, last year, Mr. Seabright

gave forty-three decisions, earned $98,000, an average charge of $2,283 for each

decision. Mr. Brace - his decisions cost $1,857 each and Mr. Watton's, $1,614

each, all three very prominent Liberals. Compare that to the amounts charged by

the other two vice-chairs, Ms. Allen Westby charged $791 per decision and

Christine Fagan charged $646 per decision. Now, can the minister possibly

explain the huge differences? Are these three patronage appointees just

stretching out their time in order to boost their incomes, are they ripping off

the system or are they just plain inefficient?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, and I - probably starting

from the end of the question in the statement and going back to the beginning.

As a matter of fact, before I arrived in the Legislature today I received a

letter from Mr. Derrick Watton, who is one of the vice-chairs on the West Coast,

in Corner Brook, and I will write back and suggest that his grievance and what

he is suggesting in this letter should be forwarded to the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition, not me. Because he goes to great length, saying clearly, `I must

advise that I am not an active nor a prominent member of the Liberal Party, have

never been on any executive board of the Liberal Party, at any level, further, I

have never worked on any Liberal campaign, nor have I ever been a delegate to

any Liberal conventions, nor have I ever made a financial donation to any

Liberal candidate or to the party.' In fact, indicating that the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition has now, in some way, made some reference to his character,

the gentleman feels very offended and affronted and is considering what kind of

action may be taken against the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting things

when he knows not whereof he speaks.

MR. SIMMS: Tell him to sue me, okay?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that same vice-chair pointed out

on the Open Line program last evening and in this particular letter - and

my understanding with the beginning of the question is that for the chairs of

Workers' Compensation appeals, and for the sides people who sit on those

appeals, they get paid a per diem rate. Then, if it is less than a day, they

charge an hourly rate, which is the same for every board and tribunal in every

part of the government where a legal background is required to chair the

commission or the tribunal.

In every case, the billings are made on the basis of the

preparation time, depending on the complexity of the case that is before the

Tribunal that is chaired by this particular chair or vice-chair; how long it

takes for the actual hearing, itself; and how long it takes then to render the

actual decision. The only time charged by any of those particular people who are

providing a very invaluable service has been legitimized through the process,

certified and verified by the managers over at the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal, certified and verified by the administrator in the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations, and given that all of it has been legitimate

time registered and paid for for services rendered.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad the minister couldn't answer the question

instead of talking all around it. Maybe we will ask it another way. Let me say

this to him first of all. If Mr. Watton or whatever his name is - I don't know

the man from Adam, I never met him.

MR. GRIMES: You know enough about him to say he is a

prominent Liberal and all this kind of stuff. You don't know what you are

talking about.

MR. SIMMS: I never met him! Who called him a prominent

Liberal?

MR. GRIMES: You did.

MR. SIMMS: Let me say this to him. You want to pass -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Would you table Mr. Seabright's and Mr.

Brace's letters, too, by the way, which say that they are not Liberals? Would

you table those two letters, too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And Jean Payne's!

MR. SIMMS: And maybe while you're at it, get Jean Payne's

letter, too, because she used to be there as well.

Let me say to the minister, if he would like to pass on to

Mr. Watton - if he feels that guilty that he has to send a letter disavowing

himself from the Liberal Party or any association with the Liberal Party, if

I've caused him to do that then I apologize to him for that. If he feels that

I've done something to wrong him by suggesting maybe he was a Liberal, then tell

him to sue me, I say to the minister.

Now, since these vice-chairs and chairmen charged by the hour

- Mr. Watton, himself said on radio last night - it obviously takes Mr.

Seabright four times as long to make a decision as it takes Christine Fagan. And

it takes Mr. Brace and Mr. Watton nearly three times as long. Now, these three

patronage appointees of the Premier handled three-quarters of all the decisions,

Mr. Speaker, of that Appeals Tribunal.

I want to ask the minister, Is it any wonder why people in

this Province who have called our office today, for example, have been forced to

wait six months, or even longer, for decisions from the Appeal Board? Does he

have any suspicions at all about what is going on?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. I guess the great difficulty

we have is that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks the questions he

can only come from the framework in which he thinks and operates. When they were

in government they always assumed that is the way things were done, there was

something underhanded going on, that there was patronage, there were hand-outs,

and people were milking the system. They used that language, Mr. Speaker,

because that is the way they always have thought. It is the way they operate and

the way they still think.

In this case, nothing has happened other than that legitimate

services have been rendered and paid for according to the rates that were

established by members opposite when they were the government, and the only

thing that has happened, as I pointed out yesterday, to the rates paid to the

chairs and vice-chairs at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal since this

government took over is that they have been reduced because of the fact that

there is a financial problem in the whole Province.

Now, whether one individual makes a certain amount of money

or not, they can only make the money because they have rendered services which

have been verified by the officials at the Tribunal, and also at the department,

that they did render the service, they did provide the work, it was valuable and

necessary, and it should be paid for. And, on that basis, I had no hesitation

yesterday in tabling the information because it is for the public record, and I

would ask that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others opposite, when

they continue this line of questioning, if they do, that at least they have the

decency to leave Mr. Watton out of the equation.

If they want to talk about Mr. Seabright, who doesn't deny,

and never has denied his affiliation with the Liberal Party, or Mr. Brace, that

may be fair, but I think, in all decency they should leave Mr. Watton out of

this equation, when they talk about patronage, milking the system, and those

kinds of unfounded accusations that do nothing but try to discredit people who

are providing a very valuable service.

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

MR. SIMMS: What a lot of garbage, Mr. Speaker! What a

weak attempt by the minister! I asked him a question: Why does it take Mr.

Seabright four times as long as it takes Mrs. Fagan to do a decision? Why does

it take Mr. Brace and Mr. Watton nearly three times as long? He never did answer

the question, and I asked him twice. Here he is now, defending this, when

yesterday on the news and in this House, the Premier, himself said it is wrong,

and it has to be changed. Now, who is right and who is speaking for the

government, you or the Premier?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the Premier, in addressing this

issue, talked about in the general context of the whole process of review, the

whole idea of appeals from workers compensation decisions, that all of those

things need to be looked at and they are; they have been addressed and we are at

the stage now of dealing with it at the Cabinet level in terms of the revisions

and changes that should occur so that those people who have a grievance and have

an appeal, can have it heard more quickly and get their decisions without having

the delays and I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as we bring in the

proposed changes, the same members opposite will jump up and say there is

something wrong with the changes because of the fact that they will find some

other reason to be negative about the whole approach.

With respect to the time and the comparisons, Mr. Speaker, I

did mention that since last year when the executive director left, the billings

for Mr. Seabright include: times for hearings plus certain amounts of time, so

many hours, so many days a week, to act as the CEO, I didn't break it out and

separate it, but that is the fact -

MR. SIMMS: I won't accept that.

MR. GRIMES: I can understand I may never make you accept

that, I can just tell you the truth, and for the others, Mr. Speaker, there is

only one explanation for all of them. The amount of time billed by any one of

the chair or the vice-chairs at Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, is only

accepted if it exactly reflects the amount of time required to review the case

in the beginning, have the actual hearing and write the decision; and hon.

members opposite would know that there is a wide range in terms of the degree of

complexity of some of these appeals. Some take two minutes and are decided, some

go on for days and some require a great deal of review to get ready and take a

very complicated decision. Others are settled in a matter of minutes, it depends

on who is doing the appeal, what the issues are and the period of time it takes

to handle the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions that I wanted to ask the Premier but in his

absence I will put to the Minister of Finance.

Standard and Poor's dropped the Province's credit rating last

week in the midst of the government's Hydro privatization initiative. The

announcement was made a few short days after the Premier told the House of

Assembly that he was proceeding with the Hydro privatization legislation,

despite massive public opposition and contrary to the explicit promises he made

the people of the Province on the Province-wide live TV leaders debate on March

Standard and Poor's obviously factored Hydro privatization

into their projections for the Province when they decided to lower the

Province's credit rating. The question for the minister: Didn't Standard and

Poor's put the lie to the government's claim that privatizing Hydro will improve

the Province's financial position?

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

MR. BAKER: It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, that

somebody who is supposed to be able to read things and analyze things can take

the Standard and Poor's release and try to reach those conclusions on it, Mr.

Speaker, it is a gross twisting of exactly what Standard and Poor's has said in

their release.

No. 1, they outline very clearly the reasons specifically why

the downgrade occurred at this time, and everybody knows about it. The whole

document has been available to the press and has been in the newspapers and so

on. They specifically outline the reasons why the Province is downgraded at this

time. They dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the Hydro issue because they felt it was

significant and expressed their opinion about the effect that this would have on

the finances of the Province.

They also expressed very clearly their opinion as to the way

this government has been handling the finances of the Province so, Mr. Speaker,

all these things were dealt with in very specific detail and for the hon. member

to think, knowing that this information was made available to all kinds of other

people who are quite reasonable, that she would think that she can convince them

to put this totally false

interpretation on it, Mr. Speaker, it just defies the

imagination.

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

East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Standard and Poor's quite correctly factored into their

calculations of the Province's credit rating, the economic prospects for the

Province and the current gross domestic product relative to the debt, the

economic strength relative to the debt. Now Hydro privatization, obviously a

current initiative of the government was factored into their calculation. If

Hydro is privatized, clearly the economy will decline further; as Memorial

University Economics Professor Wade Locke has shown, Hydro privatization would

cost the Newfoundland and Labrador economy about $70 million a year, each year,

every year. Businesses would have to pay much higher electricity rates and

consumers would have less disposable income, with most of the additional costs

ending up being paid to non-resident shareholders.

Isn't the truth that with Hydro privatization looming this

month Standard and Poor's went ahead and lowered the credit rating and a few

years after privatization, when the resulting economic cost takes its toll,

privatization would further jeopardize our credit rating?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to start.

There are so many problems with what the hon. member has said, and again I'm

kind of amazed at the lack of understanding she is showing.

The key fact, as she tried to explain but got wrong, was that

Standard and Poor's said that the debt to GDP ratio has deteriorated in the last

two years. That is correct. The debt to GDP ratio has deteriorated in the last

two years for two very obvious reasons. Number one, we've had to go to the

market to borrow money for operations. Number one. We have gone and increased

the debt. Number two, the GDP numbers do not include the transfers to

individuals. In other words, did not include the NCARP payments coming into the

Province because they are classed as transfers to individuals. If these same

fisherpersons had been working and making that same income, exactly the same

income, then it would have been included in GDP, and the debt to GDP ratio would

not have looked so bad. I spent some time with Standard and Poor's. I spent some

time with them. Explaining the fact that the debt to GDP ratio was not as bad as

it seemed for this very reason, but, Mr. Speaker, they have a way of looking at

things, so they use the debt to GDP ratio.

The rest of what the hon. member says is absolute and total

hogwash. It is just as confused and just as uninformed and shows just as much a

lack of understanding as her comment about the debt to GDP ratio.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health. Last Wednesday, May 4, before the

House convened, the minister told me that the report of the three doctors on the

Grenfell regional health care service would be released shortly. I ask the

minister, does he intend to live up to that commitment of releasing this report

very shortly?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister:

Is the minister aware that when the Premier was in Corner Brook recently, since

last Wednesday, he was reported to have said that the government would not

release the report of the three doctors to look into the situation at Grenfell?

Is the minister aware that the Premier made that statement?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have given up

relying on the reporting of other people's activities by the hon. member.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the

Premier I would like to address this question to his parliamentary assistant. I

would like to know sir at this time from the parliamentary assistant what is the

government's policy on moving Marine Atlantic's ferry operations and services

from Argentia to St. John's, please?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't paying attention. I

would ask the hon. member to repeat his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just for the clarification of members. The questions are

directed to the government, in essence, not to a particular member, and then it

is the government's choice as to who answers. I merely recognize those who

stand.

I will recognize the hon. Member for Placentia as he is on

his feet, if he wants to ask a supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of order, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I can't cite you the

chapter and verse, but

I can assure Your Honour that you will find that parliamentary assistants are,

indeed, open for questioning and can answer on behalf of a minister. Other

backbenchers obviously can't, but a parliamentary assistant is expected to

answer on behalf of the Premier. Obviously he can refer to a minister, but he

can't refuse an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My point was, and may not have been understood, that it is up

to the government to decide who should answer a question. Presumably, according

to that, any backbencher could, on behalf of the government, answer a question,

possibly, certainly any minister, but, at the same time, there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is up to the government to decide, and the minister stood

to answer the question. It is now the floor for the Member for Placentia, if he

wishes to ask a supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in the absence of the Premier, I would like to put this

question to the Deputy Premier. The week before last, the Premier's

parliamentary assistant, the Member for St. John's South, called on Marine

Atlantic to move its ferry operations and services from Argentia to St. John's.

I would like to know, Sir, if this is the policy of our provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize. I cannot

hear, and that is twice I could not understand and hear the question. All I

could hear - Argentia and the ferry system. I am quite serious. If I heard the

question, I would answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Now, I know I talk fast, but I am not a

foreigner to this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I am still putting it to the Deputy Premier,

Sir. The week before last, the parliamentary assistant of your government, of

the Premier, stated the reason why Marine Atlantic should move its ferry

operations and services from Argentia to St. John's, and I am wondering if that

is the policy of the provincial government. Thank you.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to the hon. Member for Placentia. I just didn't

understand or hear. It wasn't the fact you were not talking properly. We all

have our different dialects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Some are faster than others.

MR. EFFORD: Some are faster than others. I am quite proud

of mine; I don't apologize for it.

The simple answer, `no'.

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

Bay.

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

of Fisheries.

Last June - to be exact, June 17 - I, along with a group of

people from the community of Fleur de Lys, met with the minister and also with

the Premier. During that meeting we discussed the reason as to why the Fleur de

Lys crab plant lost its processing licence, I say to the minister. The Premier,

after listening to some of these concerns asked, or actually ordered, the

minister, in that particular meeting, to investigate the events that led up to

this cancellation of the licence.

I would like to ask the minister today for the findings of

that investigation, and would he table them in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice

undertook that investigation. I would defer to him to answer the question.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was asking

about the situation in Fleur de Lys. At the request of the Premier, I reviewed

the papers, the files, in the Fisheries Department, and the other government

records. I am not sure if the hon. gentleman asked a specific question, so I

will give a very general answer and he can follow with supplementaries, if he

wishes.

The conclusion to which I came is that there was nothing done

that was wrong or unlawful. Now, it is not for me to address policy issues, that

wasn't the mandate I was given. What I was asked to do by the Premier, I did

fairly shortly after the event, making a report which my colleagues, of course,

have seen. The way in which the matter was dealt with was in accord with the

law, and I might add, the law in this matter was set, I think, in - I'm going

from memory now, Mr. Speaker, it has been some months since I have seen the

papers; but in the late 1970s there were some regulations adopted and those

regulations were adhered to and followed in dealing with the matter. Now, that's

a very general answer, Mr. Speaker, but if my hon. friend has more precise

questions I shall either answer them or take them as notice and get him answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just to raise a point of order dealing with

the matter that came up in Question Period, to give Your Honour some direction,

I guess, or at least to ask Your Honour to look at it further.

MR. ROBERTS: Submissions (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, in submission to the Speaker's request

for some input on this point. My recollection is - you probably won't find it in

the Standing Orders because I think you'll find that it was made as a result of

a ruling in the Legislature by a former Speaker, who I don't think was me; it

may not have been me, it may have been me.

MR. ROBERTS: It may have been a good ruling.

MR. SIMMS: It may have been a good ruling then if it

wasn't me. But probably sometime in the 1982-1985 session - maybe the Government

House Leader who was there then, as I remember, in his first life, might

remember. It was a ruling that I think was made upon a point of order being

raised dealing with: What role do parliamentary assistants play? Of course, in

those days, there was a parliamentary assistant, I think, for the three - there

were three for the three committees of Cabinet, to the Chair, and one for the

Premier, that's all I remember - four.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) to have an extra for bridge.

MR. SIMMS: Extra for what? Bridge, yes. Perhaps an extra

for bridge - but it was the Premier's and then three assistants for the minister

who was chairman of the three Cabinet committees. So it came up then and the -

what is wrong with the wood chucker over there at all? Mr. Speaker, it came up

then because - just listen, Mr. Speaker, will you? Can you believe it? He's

really upset at me, Mr. Speaker, because he heard me on the radio saying he was

the biggest blight on the Newfoundland forestry since the spruce bud worm. He

hasn't been able to accept that. I was mistaken; he's the biggest blight on the

Newfoundland forestry since the four-eyed bark beetle.

Mr. Speaker, there are references, of course, in Beauchesne's

fifth edition, which is not the most recent edition, but it certainly is one

that's used has a reference where parliamentary secretaries clothed with the

responsibility of answering for the government, etcetera, etcetera, references

like that, Your Honour will find. Specifically, in the Newfoundland Legislature

I think you'll find, if you do the research through Hansard and through

Speaker's rulings, that there was a ruling made that parliamentary assistants to

the Premier or to the ministers could answer questions on behalf of ministers in

their absence or whatever, and I believe - the Clerk might be able to affirm

this - there was also a reference made that the parliamentary secretary or

assistant could deliver a Ministerial Statement on behalf of his minister or the

minister and table documents and those kinds of things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it doesn't apply here though. We need to

research what the ruling was in the House and we should know what it is.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Member for

Grand Falls was kind enough to refer to my first life. My first life in this

House was as the original parliamentary secretary -

MS. VERGE: It was a long time ago.

MR. ROBERTS: It was a long time and the hon. lady was

even more immature then than she is now.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) ten.

MR. ROBERTS: I wouldn't have thought she was that old, I

say to my hon. friend, the Member for Grand Falls.

Mr. Speaker, the position, I think is very clear, in this

House and there is ample precedent. A parliamentary secretary may not ask a

question of a minister. A parliamentary secretary may not be asked a question of

the ministry. In that sense, a parliamentary secretary is the same as any other

non-minister but a parliamentary secretary may respond on behalf of a minister

or, if one wishes, the ministry, or may table a document or make a statement. It

is my recollection, not having looked at the matter for some time, that all of

these are entirely permissible within our precedence. The rules are silent and

Beauchesne has nothing on it - nothing in point. There is a reference. It is

citation 413 in the current issue of Beauchesne, but I can tell Your Honour that

as far back, to my personal knowledge, as 1966 the parliamentary assistant to

the Premier was tabling material on behalf of the Premier, or responding to

questions.

If that will help, Your Honour, I put it forward for that

reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It wasn't required to rule on the question of whether or not

the parliamentary assistant was eligible to answer the question. It is up to

government to decide who should answer the question, and in this case, the

government chose that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should

do so. I think that falls under the general authority in 418 as cited by

Beauchesne, that the government designates the person to respond.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) parliamentary secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure how broad that authority is,

and it is conceivable that government could possibly designate a backbencher,

which would be extremely unusual, because questions are directed to ministers,

and arguably, the backbencher is not a member of government. I am not sure as to

the exact parameters, and it would be unlikely that government would ask a

backbencher, but certainly parliamentary assistant is clothed with some

responsibility and the government might conceivably do it. But it is the

government's decision as to who should answer. It didn't arise on this occasion

but I will certainly check the precedence. I am aware that there was a ruling of

this sort made on a previous occasion but I don't have it at hand. I will check

it and advise hon. members accordingly.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I shall, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS

Section 28 of the Provincial Court Act 1991 requires

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint a tribunal to recommend the

salaries and benefits of the judges and chief judges of the Provincial Court of

Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its report to the Minister of

Justice 16 April, 1992; and

WHEREAS on 1 May, 1992 the report was laid before the House

of Assembly as required by the act; and

WHEREAS the act requires the House to approve or vary the

report within thirty days of it being laid before the House; and

WHEREAS the House varied the report by inserting immediately

before recommendation one, as (a)1 the following:

(a)1 In light of the provisions of the Public Sector

Restraint Act, 1992, it is recommended that the House defer consideration of the

recommendations of this report until the expiry of the restraint period provided

for in that act.

(

b) It is recommended that the House accept or vary the

recommendations of the report within thirty days of the expiration of the

restraint period, or if the House is not then sitting it is recommended that the

report be considered, accepted or varied, within thirty days of the first

sitting of the House immediately following the end of the restraint period.

(

c) it is recommended that the report, as then accepted or

varied, be implemented within thirty days of acceptance or variation with effect

from 1994-04-01 for the then unexpired balance of the four-year period

contemplated by the report and the Provincial Court Act 1991; and

WHEREAS Mr. Speaker, the restraint period referred to expired

on 31 March, 1994, and

WHEREAS it is expedient for the House to consider the report

for the balance of the four-year period dealt within it; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to vary the

recommendations of the report further;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House vary the report and

the salaries and benefits of provincial court judges as follows: 1) by deleting

recommendation (a)1; 2), by deleting recommendation 1 and substituting therefor

the following, 1) the Tribunal recommends that officials of the Department of

Justice and Treasury Board, with such professional assistance as they may

require, undertake a reclassification exercise of the position of provincial

court judge analogous to that available for civil service positions.

Any reclassification should take into account only the

changes in jurisdiction and required qualifications, since the Osbourne Report

may not exceed the normal maximum range on the executive pay plan and will take

effect only as of 1 April 1994; 3) deleting recommendation 2 and substituting

therefor the following, Number 2, the Tribunal recommends that the differential

between the chief-judge's salary and the other judges be $5,000 so that the

chief-judge's salary be at all times $5,000 higher than the salary paid the

other judges; 4) by deleting recommendation 3 and substituting therefor the

following: 3) The Tribunal recommends that government continue to provide the

same pension plan for judges as provided for deputy ministers in the service of

the Province; 5) by deleting subparagraph (2) of recommendation 4.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents

of the districts of Carbonear and Harbour Grace. A petition to ask the

Government of Newfoundland not to privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador

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

corporation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Adams.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not sure if his name is here - no, it

isn't. If the members for these areas would like to look at the names here - I

don't know any of these. I have every reason to believe they are very legitimate

signatures and people who believe and understand what they are signing. The

Member for Harbour Grace is certainly entitled to have a look at these.

Recently, I guess, with all the flak and the public against

Hydro, the Premier is very intentionally avoiding the House of Assembly and

other forums where he could - he is trying to hide away from the public

backlash, not being available to answer questions here in Question Period and to

appear in the House on important issues pertaining to Hydro and other matters.

Now, it is very interesting, just a couple of weeks ago, in

April actually - right across the country there are articles appearing in

papers. This one was in Hamilton, Ontario, in The Spectator , which has a

few very interesting observations. It says: "[O]bservers wonder whether Mr.

Wells is in danger of losing enough respect to critically damage his

credibility." And "`This could be a turning point. So much depends on what he

does in the next few weeks,' says Peter Boswell...." It said: "Much of the

criticism... has focused on how Mr. Wells sprung the issue on the province last

fall without mentioning it during the election campaign. The utility is

profitable and widely considered a provincial institution."

The Hamilton Spectator goes on to say that: "[B]ecause

of a peculiar admission he made during a 30-minute television and radio address

he gave last month on the hydro sale" he is wounded, they've indicated. They

said: "A privatized hydro would have a better chance" - that is what he stated -

"of negotiating access to power from the hydroelectric plant on the Upper

Churchill...." Now, "It was a point he had not raised publicly before," the

article goes on to mention, and that he told his caucus "to remain silent on the

issue for fear of firing up anti-Quebec sentiment."

That is a very well-informed report in the Hamilton

Spectator . It goes on also to mention on Meech Lake he stood up and, "`He

didn't buckle under pressure'...." That, at times, can be looked on as a very

positive attribute, not willing to buckle under pressure. But they go on to

mention: "`That is part of his aura. There is a positive side to be unyielding

under pressure, but there may also be a negative side. Maybe we're beginning to

see the negative side," it stated.

Here is a very interesting observation by the person who

wrote this article. He said: "Now 56, Mr. Wells sometimes has little patience

for those who cannot see arguments that seem as obvious to him as if they were

spray-painted on a wall." That is what the

article stated. He cannot see

arguments for people who do not believe in his way of thinking.

That is not the proper response. I am quite sure all Cabinet

ministers don't agree with that, and backbenchers. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture stated that they've given away the Upper Churchill, the biggest

sell-out in the history of Canada - a multi-hundred millions of dollars sell-out

per annum. It is a multi-billion, tens of billions of sell-out. Over the life of

the agreement it is in the hundreds of billions, practically, the effect it is

going to have, not just the direct loss in revenues that we are going to have.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture stated that because

we gave it away, because we sold out the Upper Churchill, the Liberal Party was

in a political wilderness for seventeen years. That is what he stated, and in

November, out at a Liberal convention, he said: If we sell Hydro, we will be in

a political wilderness for another seventeen years - the same minister who stood

and voted on second reading for the privatization bill, because he was told by

the Premier: You have to support me; it's government policy. To keep your

Cabinet seat, you have to support me or you're going to be gone.

People are just hanging on by their fingertips now. Those who

are just clinging on have to follow what the Premier is saying, and those who

are clawing to get the Cabinet door opened are towing the line with a snap of

his fingers, except one, who doesn't care; he is more concerned about

constituents.

You have constituents out there, each of you who don't agree

with Hydro, but you are failing to face the facts. We see petitions in this

House every single day, practically, from people across this Province crying out

against Hydro, but the Premier has the rest of his members toeing the line,

agreeing with the Premier as he brings down a sinking ship. Stand up for your

constituents, if nothing else. Stand up for the people of this Province.

The Premier sat in the Cabinet that gave away the Upper

Churchill. He gave away the Upper Churchill, and he is looking now to come back

and redeem himself at the expense of each and every one of you, and at the

expense of the future generations of people in this Province. That is an

absolute fact. He gave it away, and your House Leader was an assistant in his

office, but the Premier was in the same Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on a guilt trip.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. He is on a guilt trip, and

he is trying to transfer that guilt from him. He has transferred it to each

person who supported it and the Premier's guilt trip, he is now trying to pass

it to every single person in this Province, and you have received it. The

Cabinet, and all backbenchers except one, have accepted that and said: `Premier,

we believe you now,' but not for the right motives. That is the sad reality of

what is happening here in this Province with Hydro. It is a bad deal

financially. If it were a good deal financially I would support it, no doubt

about it. It is a very poor deal, and I support those petitioners who took the

time and effort to sign this petition.

I don't see the minister, the Member for Carbonear standing

up presenting petitions on Hydro from his area, or Harbour Grace, or any other

areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never got one.

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't get one because they knew you

wouldn't present it, probably. That's why you didn't get one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bull shit!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are here from Carbonear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if Your Honour heard

this, but clearly it was heard throughout other parts of the House. The Minister

of Municipal Affairs, the Member for Carbonear, uttered a word that I am sure is

obviously unparliamentary; there is no question or debate about it.

The common initials used associated with the word are `bs',

but he used the proper full word. I don't know if Your Honour heard it -

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am afraid I didn't.

MR. SIMMS: - or if the minister would like to apologize.

There are people in the gallery who, I am sure, have heard it. Maybe the

minister could take Your Honour off the hook by simply getting up and

apologizing for using that language in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear the word, but it is up to the

hon. minister. It may show in Hansard. I don't know whether it is attributable

or not, but is there anybody else who wishes to be heard on it?

MR. REID: No problem, Mr. Speaker. I did say the two

words, and I withdraw; I apologize. I apologize the way the hon. member did when

he called the Premier a liar seven times yesterday.

MR. SIMMS: Call him another seven times, too, if he keeps

lying!

AN HON. MEMBER: `Simms'! `Simms'!

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise today to support my colleague on

his petition, and I say to all hon. members in this House that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is difficult to hear the hon. member with conversations

going back and forth from one side of the House to the other.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I needed that.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the

petition that my colleague put forward and I can say to all hon. members, Mr.

Speaker, that the opposition to Hydro has not fallen whatsoever as the Premier

seems to put forward day after day, and to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I

think he hopes and he prays every night and he hopes that it has fallen but the

reality is, Mr. Speaker, that it has not fallen, if anything at all it has

increased, I say to all hon. members. It has increased, the opposition to the

privatization of Hydro; because day by day as time goes by the truth comes out

more and more every single day; and to watch the Premier squirm every time he is

asked a question and for the last two nights in a row, Mr. Speaker, on

television again, to show the clip of the debate, the infamous debate where the

Premier of this Province on Province-wide tv, stated - and I am sure I don't

have to read it out again as I did the last couple of days - that he would

withdraw the legislation if he did not have the support of the people of this

Province, and, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to everybody and it is even obvious to

the hon. members opposite I say, Mr. Speaker; it is obvious to everyone but it

just takes a certain amount of guts and pride I guess, and integrity to stand up

and say: yes, we believe you.

Well I have a little message for the members opposite, today,

Mr. Speaker. Pull back now before you have to pull back behind the Premier;

don't wait for the Premier in a few days from now or maybe a couple of weeks

from now to have to pull back on this mistake. Don't wait for that to happen

because you will regret that. I say to the government members on the opposite

side of the House here now, if you are going to change your minds like you want

to and speak the real mind, they should do it now. That's my advice to all hon.

members here today, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure some of them will even consider

that, but as the Premier states time after time when he gets up in this House

and talks about: well, I believe that support for privatization is growing. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know where he is getting his indicators.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the hon. minister I get them from

people; that's where I get my indicators, right straight from people's mouths as

I speak to people, as they call me, as they write me. As I go around my district

I talk to people and I let them tell me what they think, I say to all hon.

members, and of course he has always mentioned that of course we are opposed to

everything the government does, opposed to privatization, that is a total

falsehood and just for an example of that, the privatization of the Newfoundland

Farm Products which is now coming to the forefront, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have

looked through that situation very closely, lately. We talk to as many people as

we can, we have consulted people who are going to be affected, the implications

around the case where people will be affected in that industry and we have

listened to all of it.

Now in principle, we believe that the privatization of

Newfoundland Farm Products may be a good thing and I say may for a very good

reason, that it is handled properly. It is the same as education reform; it is

the same with any reform, any new issues that come up in this House and was

handled by this government; from ATV regulations to amalgamation. You name it

and it is not the what, it is the how; how things were handled by this

government, shoved down the throat, no consultation with people. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I say that is the same problem that we see facing us now with the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, because I sat in this House as a new

politician some months back and watched the Premier of this Province stand in

his place over here and say: Sorry, that's all rumour; we are not considering

privatizing Hydro, and lo and behold, we hear just a couple months later that

all the work was being done behind closed doors, Mr. Speaker. The same thing as

the Meech Lake, the famous Meech Lake charade; the Premier stood up in Ottawa

and said: I can't go on with this; I don't like things behind closed doors, why

are we rushing such an important thing? That's what he said.

The Member for Pleasantville reminded him of it, how he stood

up and he said I am going to fight for the people. Open up the doors Brian

Mulroney, let everybody in on this. Don't hide anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't pass up the

opportunity to respond to the petition presented, I won't say so happily

presented by my friends opposite, nevertheless presented to this House of

Assembly. I know now where they got the petition. They had a Tory convention in

Gander last weekend and there were a few people who turned up at the convention

from Carbonear and Harbour Grace and they got another petition put together but

there are a couple of points I want to make; number 1, they keep saying that the

numbers are growing. The numbers are growing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

These petitions, we've gotten these from months back. I don't

know what the minister is talking about. Petitions at a convention - I didn't

saw any petitions at the convention. These are valid petitions signed by

Newfoundlanders and it's about time that the government people took these as

credible as they are.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: The numbers are growing, Mr. Speaker. The

numbers are growing on this petition. We're looking at about nineteen names. The

last time I attended a meeting down in Harbour Grace - Carbonear District about

the people who are protesting against the privatization of Hydro, there were

thirty-five people there. So they've grown from thirty-five to nineteen. Now

that's growing backwards. That's something similar to the Tory people opposite.

They grew from a government in power to a government in opposition. So that's

the way in which they grow.

There are a couple of points we have to make here. Everybody

is entitled to their opinion but when you have to make a decision based on the

financial conditions of this Province, there's lots of times decisions are going

to be made by a government who were elected by the majority of the people of

this Province to make decisions on their behalf. That's the role and the numbers

that we are talking about, the majority in favour of the privatization and

whatever other decisions that government will make and have to make to protect

the financial situation, not only today, but for the future of this Province.

On May 3, last year the people spoke very loud and very clear

in this Province. I tell you very clearly, Mr. Speaker, there's nobody that I've

spoken to in this Province who would like to see the government opposite return

to power and go back over the last seventeen years and start off with an $800

million debt and then not seventeen years later with in excess of $7 billion.

Now if that's the type of administration and the type of decisions that the

people of this Province are waiting for, well I'm not going to be a part of it.

I'll do everything in my power to support the government on this side in making

the right decisions to protect the financial situation of this Province and

that's the conditions under which we make decisions.

You talk about silly confidence in people and try to portray

that they are now going to make all of the right decisions to benefit the people

of this Province and the future of this Province after seventeen years of total

mismanagement. All we've got to do is go back to the last year or two of their

power - talk about the decision of growing cucumbers in Newfoundland, a $27

million project that cost the taxpayers of this Province, Then they go back and

refer to twenty years ago when Churchill Falls was developed, that was a wrong?

Sure, it's nice to say - to look at now in hindsight, 20/20, yes hindsight would

say now: if we had it to do all over again we wouldn't do it. How silly can you

get because that's the same as saying what's going to happen next year will be

the wrong thing what happened ten years ago. How silly can you get? When you're

travelling, Mr. Speaker, with a $10 billion debt - $7 billion debt you're not

going to be party to making the decisions -

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

minister is not being factual at all and the reasons why these petitions weren't

presented before was because the Government House Leader has stymied the

process, only allowing a couple per day and so on. That's not a - he's giving a

lot of mistruths and fabrications there. There's no sense to what he's saying at

all. It's completely out of character.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Number 1, the Opposition now just accused me

of making some mistruths. So there's a mistruth that we owe $7 billion or in

excess of $7 billion. It's a mistruth that they build the Sprung Greenhouse,

it's a mistruth that they started off in 1971 with an $800 million debt and

ended up in excess of almost $7 billion seventeen years later. That's all

mistruths.

Now, I would like to question the members opposite, where are

they getting the information that they are trying to convince the people of this

Province that we do not, number 1, have a financial problem. That we should not

be making decisions for the best interest of the future of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Next time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My, oh my, what a

difference a day makes, Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes.

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

the residents of Bonavista South and Trinity North. The petition again is

against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: How many names are on the petition?

MR. FITZGERALD: There are fifty names, I say to the

minister. I've stood here many times before, Mr. Speaker, and presented other

petitions with one hundred, 200 names. We will continue to do that.

MR. REID: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, those petitions are not

against the Sprung greenhouse.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, please bear with me. I'm not

absolutely sure this is a point of order or not. After the comment was made by

the hon. Member for Ferryland about a resident of mine I got a copy of his

petition. The first name on the petition is Robert Baker of Carbonear. I saw

another petition and I'm almost sure that this is the same petition that was

presented to this House by the hon. Member for St. John's East some time ago. In

fact, I am absolutely positive that Robert Baker's name appeared on a petition

submitted to this House on the Hydro question no more than three weeks ago. I'm

asking you, Mr. Speaker, would you check this out for me? I don't know if it is

a point of order or not.

With that comment made, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the

Member for Ferryland for collecting thirteen names spread between Victoria and

Lower Island Cove in the District of Carbonear. I really appreciate that there

are only thirteen people out there against Hydro. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't know what you

would call what the Minister of Municipal of Provincial Affairs just did. The

Member for Ferryland presented an original -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, an original petition, Mr. Speaker.

Original ink. People do sign more than one petition for the same cause, I say to

the minister and to Your Honour. People do sign their names more than once. When

an issue as important as Hydro and such a flurry of activity out and about this

Province against it, people do sign more than once.

There is no point of order. I don't know what the minister -

I think the minister is smarting because some other members of this House have

to stand in their places and present petitions on behalf of his constituents

because he refuses to do so. That is the real matter. He is embarrassed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to - okay.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I presented a

petition and every petition I presented in this House was an original. If

someone else presented a photocopy I would like to know that. I would be very

delighted to know it. It is an original, signed, originally. I received it in my

possession over a month ago. I have several petitions I haven't had an

opportunity to present because the Government House Leader stymies it. I have

forty on the income supplementation program and numerous others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: From different communities. I'm presenting

different communities' petitions and it is my right to do it. So that accusation

made by the minister infringed upon my credibility in presenting a petition. I

don't know the people on that. I don't know who Robert Baker is. If he signed

another petition I can't do anything about it. This petition is legitimate, it

is original, and I present it with that belief. I certainly stand to be

corrected if anybody -

AN HON. MEMBER: More importantly, the people have a right

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: More importantly, the thirteen who signed

that, or whether it is 13,000, have a right to be heard in this House of

Assembly, and that is the important thing.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. The Chair has the

petition here. It is the original petition, I would think. It looks like the

original handwriting of these people. The Chair can only assume that it is an

original petition and it hasn't been presented to the House before. On those

grounds, I guess, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand

people on the other side being upset when those petitions are brought forward.

Embarrassed? Sure they are. Because many of the names are from districts that

the members opposite represent. There is a very good reason why they are coming

to this side of the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to say a few

words about petitions -

MR. SIMMS: Are you speaking now as Parliamentary

Secretary?

MR. MURPHY: As a matter of fact, let me say, in speaking

to that, I have no problem today in answering the question put forth by the

Member for Placentia.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Members have five minutes to speak to

petitions. I think the Standing Orders are quite clear, that the member should

contain his comments and remarks to the petition, the number of names on the

petition, and the prayer of the petition. It has nothing to do with Question

Period and the questions asked by the Member for Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is

correct on that, that comments should be relevant and kept to the prayer of the

petition and the names on the petition.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wouldn't have even thought to respond, only the Leader of

the Opposition asked me: Did you speak on behalf of the government? - the very

man who got up on the point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No. The answer to the Member for Placentia's

question is: No, I don't speak on behalf of the government, and I did it as the

Member for St. John's South. That is the truth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would like to hear the hon.

member talk about Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hasn't recognized the hon. member yet.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the member only has five minutes.

He need not attack me, and he need not attack the Member for Placentia. Let him

confine his remarks. I want to hear what he has to say in support of Hydro

privatization, and I think the people of the Province would like to hear it. We

would like to get it on the record. He only has a couple of minutes left,

because others want to speak.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Day after day the hon. members opposite get up and present

petitions with twenty-five and thirty names on them, fine. If that is their

filibustering tactic, or if that is what they want to do to keep the Hydro issue

alive, then fine.

Petitions are petitions, and they should come to this hon.

House. Every hon. member has a responsibility to take a petition from his

district. I remember quite well, with a petition on the Meech Lake Accord, when

the Premier stood against the Meech Lake Accord because it was wrong. That was

the petition.

Many of the hon. members opposite went to their districts and

were told by over 90 per cent of their constituents to come back to this hon.

House and support the Premier's stand, and now they cry, now they wail, about

the hon. members on this side not representing their people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, you had 100 per cent, I say to the Member

for Grand Bank - 100 per cent.

Back to the Hydro issue, there is nobody, least of all the

public sector unions in this Province, there is certainly nobody out there who

is trying to administer health care; nobody who is out there trying to

administer education; there is nobody out there who has enough money and/or

funding to do what needs to be done in this Province today.

Now the prime reason is because of hon. members opposite.

That is the real, true, the most obvious, obvious reason and answer, is because

of members opposite, when they spent and borrowed this Province into a hole that

this government, five years later, finds in recession.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member from nowhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on a point of

order.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring

to what this side of the House did in previous governments. There are members on

the other side of the House; I was only two years old when they were in the

government, so I can't see how the member can keep saying to us what we did when

we were in government. I wasn't in government; this is my first term. I will

tell you, we can't wait to get back in government so that we can straighten up

the mess that you are creating here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member from nowhere - because his seat is

gone when he is trying to take the nomination away from the Member for

Ferryland, or the Member for Kilbride - he hasn't got to worry about it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) take yours.

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is fine. As I said to the Deputy

Mayor: Come try, and we will see what I will do to the gentleman. It will be his

last run in politics I can assure you of that. It will be his last move in his

political life.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (inaudible) the next time.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank

that I have absolutely no problem in running in St. John's South. I spend more

time in St. John's South than the hon. Member for St. Mary's -The Capes spends

in his district, a lot more. I can tell you that right now.

Let me get back to the petition. Let me get back to these cut

and paste petitions that come in here, the recyclable paper, and the cut and

paste petitions. If they did not have scotch tape and white-out I doubt very

much if they would have any petitions. There is the fact of that, and the truth

goes down, carry on, but at the end of the day this government will do what it

needs to do on behalf of the people of this Province. That is what will happen.

The people of this Province need a government that is

responsible, they have a government that is responsible, this government has the

mandate from the people, and this government will continue to do what it sees

fit on behalf of the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am glad today to stand in

support of the petition put forward by my hon. colleague for Bonavista South.

Once again I say that the people of the Province are speaking out. I think there

were fifty names on the petition. There may not be hundreds and hundreds of

names as members opposite would like to see but those fifty are just as

important as any other fifty people in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I say if it is

twenty, fifty, a hundred, or whatever the case may be, that those people have a

voice and they like to be heard, because this government is not giving them the

opportunity to be heard through public hearings.

We have asked the Premier on several occasions to have public

hearings in the Province and he refuses to do so. The people are asking to have

public hearings in the Province and they refuse to do so. They just cannot face

the music, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I want to correct something that the hon.

member says. He knows, as every hon. member in this House knows, that it is not

correct to say something that an hon. member did, or did not say, and leave an

impression by innuendo that somebody has mislead or told an untruth. I just

heard what the hon. members said. He said that the Premier said he would not

hold public hearings. Now, that is not correct and for the hon. member to say

that the Premier said he would not hold public hearings is not a correct

statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is.

MR. MURPHY: No, it is an inference of an untruth, Mr.

Speaker, and it is time for the hon. member to stop this foolishness, and I ask

the member to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stood to support this petition because the people in my

district and the people in districts right across this Province are speaking

out. They spoke out in several polls that were taken in this Province. Over 80

per cent of the people of this Province are against the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and members opposite know that. There was a

song a few years ago that would fit very good here today, `The Heat is On.' That

is why the hair is up on their backs, because the heat is on, the pressure is on

the members opposite by the people of this Province.

The people of this Province asked for public hearing. The

people of this Province are asking on a day to day basis for members opposite

and ourselves to go out and hold meetings in our districts. We have and we will

continue to do so, and so did the hon. Member for St. John's South. He got a

message he did not like but he did not change his mind because he had a

mind-set.

I believe this government should have a referendum in this

Province on this issue. Why? Because it was not mentioned during the last

political campaign.

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

The hon. member has just done it again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not recognized the hon. member

yet.

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

MR. MURPHY: It is the second time in five minutes that

the hon. member has got up and made a statement that is incorrect. The hon.

member just said that during the last campaign that members on this side did not

mention the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I've already

tabled a document in this House and showed them from my campaign literature that

I did mention the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. By

coincidence or not by coincidence not one single solitary person brought up the

privatization of Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, this petition is important

because this is an opportunity for the people of this Province to have their

say. The Premier wants to go down in history - and I respect that - as one of

the people who brought back a better deal on the Upper Churchill. I guess that

is what he was attempting to do with this piece of legislation. I say that the

Premier will go down in history not as the person who brought back Upper

Churchill but along with Upper Churchill gave away Lower Churchill afterwards,

and that is a shame.

We sit here day after day talking about the past. I am

concerned about the future of this Province. I say that I had nothing to do with

past failures or past problems that other governments had, but I have something

to do with this and that is why I'm standing to have my say. The people of this

Province did not give this government a mandate on May 3 last year to privatize

Newfoundland Hydro. They did not, Mr. Speaker. All the changes that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, I suggest, that

the members opposite have no desire to come to grips with the business of the

House and so I will have to give them an opportunity to do so.

I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 21, the Orders of the

Day be now read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Orders of

the Day be now read.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough please

to call Motions 5 through 8, which are first readings of four bills? Then we

will get into the major business of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 5 and 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act" (Bill No. 17);

and,

"An Act To Amend The Assessment Act," (Bill No. 18), carried.

On motion, Bill Nos. 17 and 18 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 8.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of

Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of

These Governments And Their Agencies," carried. (Bill No. 20)

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill No. 19)

On motion, Bill No. 19 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

call Order No. 5? We will go into Committee of the Whole on the Electrical Power

Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 5.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 2, clause 1.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the government propose to

introduce four amendments to the bill now before the committee. I provided

copies of these yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House

Leader for the NDP and I believe the law clerks have copies which can be

distributed to members or at least those who want them if we don't have

fifty-two copies here.

If it's in order, what I would suggest is that I move these

formally - the Premier can't do it, (

a) he's not here and (

b) in any event it's

his bill or (

a) it's his bill and (

b) in any event he's not here - and say a

word or two with respect to them and then at the appropriate time we can deal

with them but I'm not optimistic we may get a long way beyond clause 1 in this

bill. So if that's acceptable to the committee, I would simply move them and

then at the appropriate time we'll deal with them in whatever way members want.

The first amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to clause 1, which is

the name of the bill and it changes it from the Electrical Power Resources Act,

which is what it says in the printed bill before the committee, to the

Electrical Power Control Act and this is to correct a clerical error.

The second, Mr. Chairman, is to add a sub-clause or to change

a sub-clause in the statement of power policy - if my friends would keep it down

just a little it would make it a little easier for me to hear myself think. That

may or may not be a valuable thing. I leave that for the committee to judge.

Mr. Chairman, subsection (b)(iv) of clause 3, which is the

power policy now says, `that would result in a producer having priority to

consume the power it produces, subject to

Part III,' and it would be replaced

with these words, `would result in, subject to

Part III, a person having

priority to use, other than for resale, the power it produces or the power

produced by a producer which is its wholly owned - when my friends are ready,

Mr. Chairman, I'll continue. My friends are behind me, I know that and when I

see gentlemen opposite, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that they are not my friends.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was reading the new sub-paragraph

(b)(iv) of Bill 2, `that would result in, subject to

Part III, a person having

priority to use, other than for resale, the power it produces or the power

produced by a producer which is its wholly owned subsidiary.' The effect of this

is to remove what may be a problem in the present draft, the bill as it was

originally presented, which is the situation with Kruger. Where Kruger does not

produce power itself, the power is produced by the Deer Lake Power Company which

is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kruger. So it's not a change in any principle in

any way, it's simply to improve and make even more clear the intent of the

clause.

The third

section will be an entirely new

section 2 - and I

won't read it out. The members of the committee have been provided with the

wording of it. The changes are black lined. The effect of the changes could be

simply stated. The clause, as it is in the bill, we were told by the union

representing the employees at Hydro, could be open to a construction that was

not one that was intended. The clause addresses emergency employees and it

allows the Public Utilities Board to address a situation where the employer,

Hydro, or other, as may be, and the employees represented by a bargaining agent,

a union, cannot agree on the essential employees. It gives the Public Utilities

Board the right to do that. It also gives the right to do it ex parte, so we

can't get into the kind of problem we have run into consistently under the

essential employees legislation that governs the public service, although they

are the unions that have co-operated, I think my friend from Treasury Board

would say, very well, and we have resolved that, but nonetheless, the problem is

still there potentially.

The IBEW, if memory serves me correctly, representing the

employees of Hydro, came forward and said, as the legislation reads it is

possible that the board, upon application of an employer, could designate more

employees than the employer actually requests. In other words, Hydro would go in

and say: We want to designate eighteen employees as essential, and the board can

say: We will designate twenty-eight.

The change is designed to remove that possibility. The board

will have the power to designate any number of employees it deems necessary as

being essential, up to the number requested by the employer.

Finally, there is an amendment to clause 23 of the bill, and

that is to add a new subsection (2), and to renumber the other subsections of

that bill. The new 23.(2) will make clear that a corporation - and there is at

least one, maybe more - that, as of the date this bill comes into effect, holds

more than 20 per cent of the shares of a retailer, which, as defined term, is

not thereby in breach of the act.

That relates to

section 23 as a whole, which says that once

this act comes in, any person who seeks to acquire, directly or indirectly, by

any means whatsoever, more than 20 per cent of the shares of a retailer - a

corporate entity which sells power, defined in the act - anybody who seeks,

directly or indirectly, to control more than 20 per cent of the shares of a

retailer, or to hold that number, must first get the permission of the Public

Utilities Board, and the Cabinet are given a reserved right to overrule a

decision of the Public Utilities Board if the Cabinet are so minded.

Now, it has been pointed out to us that the word `hold' could

cause a difficulty with one existing situation, a situation which is perfectly

lawful, has been in effect for a number of years, so the new 23.(2) is designed

to address that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) is that?

MR. ROBERTS: It is Newfoundland Power.

MS. VERGE: How does that apply (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: Because Newfoundland Power is now owned by

Fortis, and we are told that Fortis owns 90.04 per cent of Newfoundland Power,

not all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, even at the best of times I didn't, but

I... Not only have my shares in Fortis been sold, my trustee tells me, but I

regret to this day that I am not allowed to invest in what I believe is a fine

company. I don't recommend shares to anybody, but it's an anomaly that Ministers

of the Crown are not permitted to invest in companies that do business in this

Province. Anyway, be that as it may, there we are.

The situation, I say to my friend from Humber East, is that

the word `hold' in 23.(1), we are advised by our counsel, could cause a

difficulty with the situation whereby Fortis owns either 90.04 or 90.40 per cent

- I forget - of the shares of Newfoundland Light, or Newfoundland Light and

Power, whatever the corporate name of it now is - the entity which sends us our

bills each month, to which we send back our life's earnings.

MS. VERGE: We will pay more in the future.

MR. ROBERTS: We will, but not nearly as much as the hon.

member would have us believe. We will be paying no more than the government have

forecast in our documents and, in all likelihood, in my judgement, less. That is

for the Public Utilities Board to decide, but without getting into the political

argy-bargy for a minute, let's deal seriously with a serious issue.

There is a problem, we are told by the lawyers; that is why

we are moving the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, those are the four amendments that the

government will be bringing forward to deal with this bill. I would be happy to

try to address them now, if members wish, but, of course, I am in the hands of

the committee, but I would move each of them formally, in the appropriate way,

and ask that when we come to the appropriate time that they be dealt with.

With that said, Sir, I will stand back and let the flow flow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 2 is attempting to do several things that are going to

facilitate the privatization of Hydro. Now much as we may be led to believe

overall, it is going to regulate and control the supply of electricity in the

Province. There are certain aspects to this bill that are acceptable. Nobody

disputes the fact that we need certain controls under power emergencies and that

we should have certain rights to be able to use power for priority needs of this

Province. That point is not debatable and you are not going to find anybody I

think on this side who is going to dispute that fact.

You are going to find people who will dispute many other

statements that are in this bill and what this bill attempts to do. This bill is

attempting to set out, I guess, and have the Premier redeem himself, to be able

to attempt, he initially stated, to get at the Upper Churchill contract. To be

able to go out and indicate that the Supreme Court is going to be so naive as to

think that because we are regulating and we are going to have some control over

- the Province can request the Public Utilities Board, because it is out of the

hands of government and not in a Crown corporation.

That does not hold any water. Because where else would you

turn to for a recall of power if it wasn't the Upper Churchill? It is just not

there. Even if you exempt companies, the paper companies there, or exempt

anybody else under this, it weakens the argument even further. They are

attempting to balance the impact of the privatization of Hydro on the rate

payers and the taxpayers of the Province. Rather than give it all to the rate

payers and drive rates through the ceiling immediately they are cushioning the

impact so rate payers and taxpayers will pay the proportionate share there, to

ease the burden in so it won't be noticed, the full impacts, until 1999, when we

phase out the rural subsidy completely.

They are doing it to taxpayers initially by permitting the

new company - and it is here in Bill No. 2 - the new Hydro, to be able to be

exempt, really means the same as being exempt, or getting back the corporate

income tax that they pay under PUITTA. The Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer

Act permits the federal government to refund to the province that the utility

company is located in - it permits a refund of that federal tax back to the

province. Now, 85.5 per cent of federal tax on Newfoundland Power now that is

out there is coming back to this Province. We are receiving that. Almost $10

million annually we are receiving back from the federal government because

Newfoundland Power is a utility.

This bill would permit that $10 million now to go back to

Newfoundland Power. That is what is going to happen. This is going back to

Newfoundland power. The reason they did that - and I don't think anybody can

dispute it; if they are I would like to hear the arguments for it, the Premier

didn't dispute it when I said it before - the reason they are doing that is

because they do not want to shift the entire load for privatization onto the

rate payers of this Province. They wanted to have the taxpayers absorb some of

that.

New Hydro now that is formed is going to pay corporate income

tax to the federal government and corporate income tax to this Province like any

other corporation does and should. The key here is that the new Hydro is going

to turn back possibly $20 million to this Province and the Province is going to

pass it back to new Hydro. Because the rates will go up less than - that $20

million will cushion the rates from going up by that amount.

What has happened, what PUITTA is going to do, what this, one

of the five things that we see as being improper with this, it is going to give

$30 million now to the utilities in this Province. It is going to give $10

million back to Newfoundland Power we've been receiving for the last number of

years, and it is going to give - and here is the down side of this, and let me

tell you, this could be very dangerous. Here is what is happening.

They are going to give to new Hydro the corporate tax of $20

million, so that is $30 million. I say, what happens if the federal government

states that: We are no longer going to refund to the Province PUITTA, the Public

Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act? That $30 million now that we have used - $20

million to cushion the rate increases with Hydro, and we give another $10

million to Newfoundland Power onto their profits - what happens if the federal

government pulls the plug and they decide across Canada: We are not going to

refund this any more.

This province has $30 million that they are going to have to

put on the rate payers of this Province, or increase our deficit by $30 million

or lay off people, jobs to equate for that $30 million; whether it is hospitals,

teachers or nurses or whatever it is, that is one thing that is wrong with this

bill, it is opening the doors, increasing the avenue for a tremendous,

potential, future impact on the people of this Province here under PUITTA and

that is one of the chief reasons.

There is another reason too, to facilitate the privatization

of Hydro. Right now, Newfoundland Hydro only has to be able to make enough money

to cover its cost of operating and the utilities board permits this, to cover

its cost and to be able to maintain its credit worthiness in the marketplace.

There are two things that are happening right now. This bill is going to add a

third one. It is going to add a reasonable return of profit to shareholders;

that's the second thing this bill is going to do. It is permitting now, the

shareholders to be able to get a return on their profit, it is not provided now

and this is going to be a new addition, a provision to this article, to this

clause that is going to give that opportunity.

Now I don't disagree with any private company being able to

give a reasonable return to its shareholders, that's an expectation and the

utilities board is going to give a return to the new owners of new Hydro as they

are doing to Newfoundland Power right now; they are giving a return of 13.74 per

cent the past five years. We know that a guaranteed return of profit has to be

paid by somebody and that's being paid by the rate payers of electricity in this

Province, that is who is going to pay it; no doubt about it. You will have to

factor in your costs, you will have to factor in enough money to maintain your

credit worthiness on the marketplace, that's vital and that's important,

important to get enough to cover costs but I question the importance of

privatizing to give a larger profit to shareholders. I say don't privatize it,

leave it as it is and let a reasonable profit come back to this Province from

Hydro to keep the rates down for the consumers of electricity across this

Province.

We have seen Hydro turn into this Province this past year $10

million fees for guaranteeing its debt. We have seen these figures- I am

referring to here under PUITTA and under return to shareholders, we are going to

see tens and tens of millions of dollars, $20 million under PUITTA and tens of

millions of dollars under returns in profit, that is going to go on the rates of

electricity in this Province and that is wrong. That is another key point with

which we disagree in this bill. We also disagree with a few other points and

another one is the designating of essential employees and shifting them from the

Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board; they are all aspects that

are moving, these three that I have mentioned so far are ones that are

facilitating the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

If we want to get a better return on Hydro to this Province,

it has a self-supporting debt in Hydro, we can ask for a larger fee. We can look

at a rate increase and expect a bigger return from that Crown corporation, we

expect it from it, we want funds from our liquor corporation and everything

else, we want a certain amount back, you raise your prices accordingly to give

us that return; that can be done, so that's another point. The public utilities

would now have control to decide over the essential employees and that's another

point.

There is another area here also. What's happening now -

Fortis, which owns Newfoundland Power, has as its largest shareholder, 16 per

cent. We were told last fall that there is going to be legislation that limits

this new company from holding any more than 15 per cent; when the bill came to

this House it was 20 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: We can explain the reason for that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh you can explain the reason, but I am

telling you what we were told and what was in the public forum, that the

government indicated that no one company, the Premier stated, would have more

than 15 per cent, the bill came, it came to 20, OMERF has 16 per cent, a little

over 16 per cent in Fortis, that's the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement

Fund there and there are other shareholders who have significant amounts not

quite that much and they are listed, the main owners, anybody can check back and

see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: With leave, to finish a couple of points?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I am not going to get into an argument with

the hon. gentleman because these things have been thrashed out time and time

again. I simply have a question for him on procedure. We are going to spend

whatever time we spend debating this bill in Committee. I wonder if it might not

be better - he has a number of specific points, and I respect those; I may not

agree with them, but I respect them, and he is putting them effectively and we

understand what he is saying and all that - would it not make more sense, I

suggest to him and my colleagues in the Committee, to move forward to deal with

those clauses?

We can do it either way. I don't really care whether we talk

only about clause 1, and at the end, as is usually our case, have a great rush

and everything goes through at once, or whether we should simply focus on the

particular specific clauses to which my hon. friend takes objection. That is all

I want to say.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: We have to give our members the right if

they want to debate the bill generally under clause 1, and then as we move into

the clauses when the appropriate amendment applies. There is one amendment now

applying to clause 1 and that is the changes from the Electrical Power Resources

Act to the Electrical Power Control Act. That is not a big deal, I don't think,

in a name change there. I don't think -

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to pass clause 1 and go on or

(inaudible) cause 1 (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: No. We would like the opportunity to

address the general bill under clause 1, the title, because -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) hours' debate at second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. It will not limit our ability - when

we get to a clause we will deal with that specific thing as it arises. We are on

clause 1. There is one amendment there out of the four, so we will have an

opportunity to deal with that. Okay. So I guess I'm back to -

MR. ROBERTS: Your answer to the question is no, but I

accept that.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is it, yes. If I didn't make it clear

enough, I will say no.

MR. ROBERTS: It took the hon. gentleman a long time but

(inaudible) saying no.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, and it took the hon. member a

long while to ask it too, if you check the time there, and I figure I would like

to get equal time to respond. Okay. I will just continue.

Another aspect of this that is not too acceptable - and I was

stating that when my time ran out - is that the Premier stated, and he said it

out in the public forum when he privatized Hydro: We are going to give an

opportunity - we are going to limit the opportunity that no one company or

individual can get control of this new Hydro, so we are going to limit it to 15

per cent. The 15 per cent became 20 per cent and the 20 per cent became

unlimited, practically, with the Public Utilities Board having that right to

determine if a shareholder can have more than 20 per cent. That is stated there.

This legislation in Bill No. 2 empowers the Public Utilities

Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of an

electrical utility, and it goes on to say, specifically there in the bill, I

think section,

Part III, I believe, I think it is

Part III - no,

Part V, I

believe in the bill, addresses those things.

What that is doing, when the original scheme didn't work to

have a merger this 20 per cent opens up the door for a possible merger of the

utility companies in this Province. If it was a limit of 20 per cent or 15 per

cent, that could not happen. We've thrown it back into the fray again. We are

giving the opportunity now to be able to merge the two companies.

We also have some difficulty - the fifth thing, I will point

out, of concern why this bill is trying to mask the privatization, it is trying

to hide a purpose on privatization, is it proposes to eliminate the rural

subsidy to the rural consumers of electricity in this Province, and it is going

to shift it from industry. What is going to happen, over the three year period

the government is going to throw in I think $15 million under a fund to be able

to adjust this rate increase on the consumers. It is going to put it in

gradually, so in 1999 you are going to get a full impact of these rate

increases.

The Premier admits in his closed media briefing that he

wouldn't allow us to get in - he released on a Friday here in the Treasury

Board, I think, boardroom - he said it is going to go up 11 per cent. He said it

would have gone up 7 per cent anyway. I can assure you that electricity rates in

this Province are going to go up a tremendous amount. Wade Locke, the economist,

put forth some figures. Nobody can refute the figures. Nobody has put forth

figures to refute what Wade Locke has put forth. The Premier has stated it is

going to be $25 million. He has indicated it could be $40 million up to $70

million is the cost that is going to go on the rate payers in this Province.

In addition to that, in addition to the $40 million - let's

take the low side of that, $40 million - we are going to look at the other

impact on the opposite side, the taxpayers' side. We're losing $10 million in

guarantee fees and nobody doubts the profitability of Newfoundland Hydro. In

fact, I'd say Newfoundland Hydro is a lot more self sufficient and sustainable

in the eyes of the market in terms of floating bonds than this government.

Why would you cut loose you're strongest asset, something

that has a stabilizing effect on the Province? It has made significant strides

on its debts. It has eliminated the bonds on Bay d'Espoir in 1992 and there was

$170 million to construct Bay d'Espoir with 604 megawatts of electricity. It

lists on a book value - on a book value it's listed as $150 million when all of

the sites of any significance were constructed in the last several years, it has

cost $3 million per megawatt to produce. If you took Bay d'Espoir now and

applied that cost to it now, it would be $1.8 billion - not a penny owing on

bonds that were floated on Bay d'Espoir - $1.8 billion just to put the facility

back there. Well let's be a bit generous and say only $2 million a megawatt.

That would be $1.2 billion and it has a book value of $150 million.

We're selling out the shop. We sold it out on the Upper

Churchill; very regrettably we sold it out on the Upper Churchill. It was the

biggest fiasco and the biggest sell out in the history of this country with

almost $800 million flowing over lines into Quebec and sold at exorbitant prices

for Hydro Quebec. The richest corporation in this country and over the past

number of years has consistently turned in the biggest profits of any Canadian

corporation even higher some years than BCE the largest company in Canada that

owns, Northern Telecom, Bell, and Newfoundland Tel and all these other

companies. It has the biggest sell out, higher then George Weston and Canadian

Pacific and those big top companies in Canada, is turning a larger profit.

So that's where they are making some of their money and we

are getting for that initially 3 mils, three-tenths of a cent. We pay on a

household, 6.542 cents for electrical consumption of electricity in our

households and we're giving it for three-tenths. It's going to decline to 2

mils, two-tenths of a cent, one-fifth of a cent, in 2015 and that's irreversible

and don't mind what the Premier states. Hydro Quebec has accepted that option

for that electricity at 2 mils. It's going to reduce the profitability and it's

going to increase substantially the balance sheets, the debts of CF(L)Co and

it's going to be a fiasco for this Province. It is something that I hope the

Province is going to be able to survive the fiasco of that sell out.

The Premier's sole emphasis on this bill, I can assure you,

is to try to redeem himself when he sat in that Cabinet and he supported Premier

Smallwood. He either supported him because he believed it was the right thing at

that time and didn't have the foresight or because he didn't have the guts and

intestinal fortitude to oppose it at the time. I would hope it's because he

believed it was the right thing at that time because that has been a monstrosity

around the necks of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It has been an impediment

to our economic survival. It has caused us to have a decline in our credit

rating in this Province because the hundreds of millions of dollars that are

flowing out of Labrador with no return, not even a cost recovery return after

the turn of the century, is going to be deadly in this Province and it's going

to impede future economic development.

We had a chance to right that in some proportion back in 1992

when a deal was struck, practically in 1992, at least to increase it probably to

8 mils. An opportunity to at least save some face on the Lower Churchill

development in 1992. There was a commitment there and when they came back to

accept it the Premier took off the table things that were agreed to before. He

jeopardized the future development of the Lower Churchill and he left the

contract of CF(L)Co that could have been changed - we left probably in

perpetuity that's going to adversely affect people in this Province. That's why

we're struggling to keep our credit rating high. We've given away revenues since

the 1960s that are flowing out of this Province, at exorbitant rates of return.

I wouldn't mind if Quebec made a reasonable response but the most profitable

corporation in this country, at the expense of a poor decision that was made, a

lack of foresight - and Bill 2, he's trying to circumvent now and get around the

opportunity to think that the Supreme Court of Canada is so naive that they're

going to think that by getting control of all electricity -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MS. VERGE: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably before I recognize the hon. member

and I won't have to interrupt her, these are the questions for the Late Show at

4:30.

The first is: `I am not satisfied with the answer to my

question to the Premier concerning the appointment of a new Minister of Tourism

and Culture' - that's from the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Number two: `I am not satisfied with the answer to my

question to the President of Treasury Board concerning the tobacco taxes and

harassing cross-border shoppers in Labrador' - that's from the Member for

Menihek.

Number three: `I am not satisfied with the answer to my

question to the Minister of Health concerning 911' - and that's from the Member

for Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

Chairperson, in speaking to clause 1, the title clause of

this bill, I will be making general comments about the significance of this bill

and the consequences of it. I am afraid history will judge this piece of

legislation as the current Premier's terrible folly; this will end up being

known as `Clyde's folly'.

Part II, the bill purports to set up a mechanism whereby

our Province can interrupt the CF(L)Co contract with Hydro Quebec and get back

power that now CF(L)Co is obligated to provide to Hydro Quebec. Chairperson, it

is extremely, extremely unlikely that that mechanism would ever survive the

inevitable constitutional challenge that will be mounted by the Quebec

Government and Hydro Quebec, in which the Federal Government will surely side

with Quebec in protecting their constitutional position.

This legislation almost certainly will be struck down as

being ultra vires this House of Assembly for the same reason the Water Rights

Reversion Act was ruled unconstitutional a few years ago, because this is an

attempt to do through the back door what the provincial Legislature may not do

through the front door. It is worded in the guise of a regulatory mechanism for

power produced within the Province that would have general application. In

reality, it is obviously targeted at the Upper Churchill. We only have four

producers of power in the Province, and the only un-allocated power produced in

the Province is that at the Upper Churchill. The Supreme Court of Canada has

already ruled unanimously, clearly and unequivocally.

Chairperson,

Part II of this legislation, `Clyde's folly',

will trigger long-drawn-out and costly litigation - litigation that almost

certainly will be a losing cause, and during the years that the litigation is

going on, the chance for healthy negotiation with Hydro Quebec to address the

problems associated with CF(L)Co, and to develop the Lower Churchill, will be

very remote. It's hardly likely that Hydro Quebec is going to want to negotiate

with Newfoundland and Labrador when we are opposing them in another court case.

Chairperson, hand in hand, of course, with this bill, is Bill

1, the Hydro Privatization Bill. The Premier, through some weird reasoning that

nobody else can understand, argues that privatizing Hydro and putting the

government at arm's length from Hydro will somehow improve the chances for

Part

II of this bill to work in such a way that Upper Churchill power would be

reallocated, and some of the provisions of this bill facilitate Hydro

privatization.

Chairperson, although the Premier acknowledged on the

Province-wide CBC TV debate on March 24 that it really isn't necessary to

privatize Hydro to proceed with the Electrical Power Control Act and tried to

say that the two are separate and that this legislation can stand alone; and

even though in that TV debate he promised to withdraw the Hydro privatization

legislation if a majority are against it - obviously, a vast majority are

against it - now, in this second week of May, the Premier is signalling that he

is going to go full steam ahead with privatization. He is going to ignore

popular opinion, he is going to break the promise he made to the people of the

Province on the TV debate.

Chairperson, we have to ask: Why is this Premier sacrificing

his own personal popularity as a political leader, why is this Premier dragging

the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador down with him, by persisting with

Hydro privatization against the strong opposition of the people of the Province?

opposition of people in Port de Grave, Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Bellevue and

Trinity North, opposition from people in every part of the Province - massive

opposition. The professional polls done by Decima Research and by Market Quest

towards the end of March showed that well more than 80 per cent of the people of

this Province have an opinion on Hydro privatization, and 79 per cent of them

are opposed.

Now, Chairperson, when I say that the Premier is sacrificing

his popularity and that of his Liberal Administration, I have good authority.

Last month, there was a poll done by a highly respected national polling firm,

Environics Research, for the Council for Canadian Unity. The results were just

released. The results show that when the polling was done in March of people's

approval of their first ministers, the Prime Minister led the pack at 66 per

cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), pretty good, eh?

MS. VERGE: Indeed, very good. The Newfoundland and

Labrador Premier tied for last place with Ontario Premier Bob Rae, getting only

22 per cent.

This is a premier who has enjoyed enormous popularity across

Canada and in his own Province until very recently. People believed that this

Premier was honest. People regarded the Premier's actions as perhaps being

tough, painful, but in the best long-term interest of the Province. Now, they

say perception is everything in politics, but that is the way the Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador was perceived until recently. People trusted him. His

integrity was a key part of his appeal to the people.

But, Chairperson, the Premier has shot his bolt. People no

longer believe him, people no longer trust him. And when a first minister loses

respect, when people no longer believe a premier, then the premier is finished,

basically. There is no likely chance that the premier will ever recover.

But, Chairperson, I don't think this Premier cares about

public opinion anymore. He has always been a self-centred individual; he has

never been a team player. I feel pretty certain, looking at him and watching

him, that he has made up his mind that this is going to be his last term in

office. He is already working on the next phase of his career. He really doesn't

care about the future political careers of the Members for St. John's North,

Port au Port, St. John's South or Trinity North. The Premier will be out of

here, he will have what he wants. He will have arrangements made for the next

phase of his career, and he will be leaving the Liberal Party of Newfoundland

and Labrador in tatters.

Mr. Chairman, members opposite must know that their

constituents want the government to retain Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation.

They are dead set against Hydro privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Member for St. John's South

is very testy, he is uncomfortable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few remarks on this very, very, important piece of

legislation. Outside of the few amendments that the hon. the Government House

Leader brought in, I think we all agree that this piece of legislation needs to

be passed on behalf of the people of this Province, very expeditiously, I say to

the Member for St. John's East, very expeditiously.

Now, what we find ourselves, as a government, involved in

today is a situation -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A scandal.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. the Member for Grand

Bank, I don't know what he means by a scandal. In Question Period today I was

asked a question by the Member for Placentia and I say to this hon. House, and

to the hon. the Member for Placentia, when I suggested that Marine Atlantic,

because of the circumstance, move from Argentia to St. John's, he should have

read it all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I did not speak for the government. I

spoke as the Member for St. John's South, probably, and I say this with all

modesty and humiliation, probably known as one of the best constituency members

in the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: Who?

MR. MURPHY: This hon. member, I say to the Member for St.

John's East, that's who.

Let me refer to the Member for St. John's East who continues

to play his buttinsky game, who is always making barbs. I read a little passage

from the Morgan Report which has a lot to do with this bill, since we are all

here because of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we're not.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, we are.

The Morgan Report said, and I say this for the Member for St.

John's East - this was their recommendation. Their recommendation was based on

the fact, to perform efficiently and effectively as a member of this hon. House

a member needs to contribute all of his or her time and efforts to the task. If

these members, who for business or professional reasons, cannot devote

themselves full-time to their responsibilities, and full-time doesn't mean in a

law office or in a courthouse, they should be honour-bound, I say to you, Mr.

Chairman, honour-bound, as this government is in this piece of legislation. We

are honour-bound on behalf of the people, and to inform the Speaker what

proportion of their time they can devote to their duties, their indemnity, and

their non-taxable allowance should be pro-rated accordingly, I say to the hon.

the Member for St. John's East - in other words, come clean.

Now, let me finish. I say to the hon. the Member for Grand

Bank, when he talks about a scandal, I don't know what scandal he refers to. I

don't know - I have no idea, but by suggestion maybe it ties itself into Oral

Questions today, which again has a lot to do with this bill. It has a lot to do

with this bill because of questions to credibility of this particular government

bringing forward this bill. This bill is brought forward on behalf of the people

of this Province, and no government was ever more accommodating, to sit down, to

scratch and look, and make sure that a bill that was only printed three weeks

ago -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They closed down hospital beds.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. member, the reason

why hospital beds may be closing down was because of the stupid way you ran the

government for seventeen years - that's why they are closing down, that's why;

throwing money around: every time you got into a pickle you ran to the bond

markets. Now this government needs this bill so we don't have to run to the bond

markets, so instead of BBB+, we're not YYY-, that's why, I say to hon. members.

It is time to take some fiscal responsibility on behalf of the people of this

Province.

Is the responsibility that the hon. member is talking about

related to the appointment of an ex-Cabinet Minister, Joe Goudie, or John

MacLennan - known Liberals? known Tories, I say to you - known Tories; or Everet

Osmond, or Tom Hickey, Chairman of the Youth Offenders Board, with a salary of

$65,000 in 1987, and the list goes on and on.

The Member for Menihek, Economic Counsel Newfoundland, Robert

Verge, Newfoundland Hardwoods, Doug Moores, another known Liberal; Canada Games

and Park Commission, Luke Woodrow another known Liberal, Luke Woodrow. Fred

Stagg, I wonder, is he a Liberal? I wonder is Fred a Liberal?

The Member for Placentia - he wasn't on one board, he was on

three. Doug Atkinson - now there is a familiar name, Doug Atkinson.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never heard of him.

MR. MURPHY: No, I never heard of him either, for the last

year or so.

MR. CAREEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: One little (inaudible). He did, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia, on a point of order.

MR. CAREEN: Quickly, Sir, what the man had to say, he

didn't finish it all. On three of those boards, what I got paid was for

transportation. It was for free, and the thing I got paid for was

transportation, and it was much less, my transportation, than what the Member

for St. John's South gets paid for travelling to Tors Cove. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member was on boards - appointed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are insinuating (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I am not insinuating anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well then, perhaps the hon. the Member for

Grand Bank will say that Tom Hickey, Chairman of the Youth Offenders Board, in

1987 who received a salary of $65,000 - is that what the hon. member is saying?

and when we get the time, Mr. Chairman, we will put dollars and cents to all of

these positions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Okay, I will be back, you can be sure, I say

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Contrary to the previous speaker, I would like to speak to

the bill, and the bill that we have before us is

an act, the Electrical Power

Control Act, which will have the effect of endorsing a scheme which permits the

takeover and control of the electrical power resources of this Province by large

corporations outside of this Province, and if anybody thinks that is not going

to happen, then they don't understand how international finance works and they

certainly don't understand the workings of power corporations and the other

large corporations that are interested in controlling the electrical power

resources of Canada to the extent that they can.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, because of the existence of Hydro

Quebec, Ontario Hydro and other publicly-owned corporations, this is hardly

possible, but we do have a chink in the armour. It started with Nova Scotia

Power Corporation and the champions of this type of enterprise have been here,

they have been paraded in, one or two or three of them and who are they? They

are the Merrill Lynches of the world, they are the stockbrokers and those who

are going to gain from the financing of this, and there are people like Louis

Comeau, who is singing the praises of privatization in Nova Scotia. What did he

say? First of all he told us that the price of the shares went up 25 per cent in

the first year. Well, you know what that tells me? That tells me that they

undersold the Nova Scotia power in order to get a quick sale; that they

undervalued the shares in order to get them off the market and get it out of the

public purse, and it will happen here, just as it happened under Thatcher in

Britain when they sold off British Gas and the other corporations. They

undersold these corporations, and what happened is, of course, people who knew

there was a quick buck to be made went in, bought them up, waited a few months,

and sold them off and took the big flip. That's the kind of marketeers that