The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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 24.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

In 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 this government is playing into by establishing an Electrical Power Control Act which is based on the private control of electrical power resources.

It is one of the aims of this legislation, as the Premier indicated on TV, to make it possible for privately held corporations to be able to access, through the Public Utilities Board, power from the Upper Churchill contract.

Mr. Chairman, if the government had no plans to privatize Hydro, they would not be passing this act. This act would not be here before the Legislature without the government's plan to privatize Hydro. We all know, from having heard the Premier on Province-wide TV what the intention was, and what the Premier's intention was, at that time, when he said that he would not proceed with the privatization of Hydro without the support of the people of this Province. Well, he doesn't have it. He doesn't have it, yet he intends to go ahead with his government to do just that.

It is a curious thing we witnessed in the House a couple of days ago that on the one hand it is unparliamentary to accuse someone of being a liar in this House when apparently it is not unparliamentary to be one. You can get up in this House and tell whatever lies you like. If anyone points out that is the case, they are ejected. That is a curious thing, and a lot of people in this Province are wondering why that is the case now, after what we witnessed a couple of days ago.

Mr. Chairman, that is what it has come to right now. We have a situation where the Premier of this Province has taken a position on provincial-wide TV, a commitment to public consultation, and to listening to what the public wants, and now has come into this House and said that he is going to do exactly what he intends to do, regardless of what the people think. That is what we have before us. It is not a piece of legislation that is going to fix up the wrongs that are existing in this Province. It is a piece of legislation that is going to bring about changes that will allow the power resource of this Province to go into the hands of a few people, a few large corporations, up to 20 per cent apiece, and you don't need 20 per cent of a corporation, a widely-held corporation, to control it.

Legislation regarding banks says that one company or one enterprise can't hold more than 10 per cent of a bank. The people who made that legislation knew that you can control widely-held corporations by having a control over management through a little more than 10 per cent of the shares.

One of the major flaws in this legislation is that particular piece, and I didn't see anything coming from the government offering to change that - offering to bring that 20 per cent down to 10, or 8, or 5 per cent, to avoid the kind of control that I am predicting will take place over Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro once it's permitted by this legislation.

Not only that, if you go to the Public Utilities Board, you can have more than 20 per cent. It is up to the Public Utilities Board. So whether appointed people like the people we were talking about a little while ago, appointed by the government from amongst their friends, and they are going to decide -

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that?

MR. HARRIS: What's wrong with that, I say to Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is that they are going to have the right to decide what's in the public interest. Maybe it's like Greg Malone said last night, maybe we should just go ahead and appoint a few stockbrokers, let them pick the leader and let them run the Province. The rest of us could all go home and do what we're told. That's the kind of government that we've got here. Everybody can go ahead and say what they like but do what they're told because the Premier is in control and he's going to do what he likes.

The power that's going to be turned over to the Public Utilities Board, to decide the public interest - that's what it says and I invite the Minister of Mines and Energy to read that legislation, look at what it says and what power is given to the Public Utilities Board in terms of a total take over of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or any other hydro corporation. The Public Utilities Board, not this House, not the government, the Public Utilities Board can decide what's in the public interest. I don't think that's right, Mr. Chairman, I think it's contrary to the democratic principles that we all say that we subscribe to. We all say that we subscribe to these principles, Mr. Chairman, but in this legislation what we're doing or what we're being asked to do by this government, is to turn over the right and the power to decide the public interest on a matter as important as the control of hydro electric resources to an appointed board, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in council, two steps removed, Mr. Chairman, from this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation may be bored. He may be bored but I suggest to him that what he's doing here, along with his colleagues in Cabinet, is passing over the control of the public interest to an appointed board, usually appointed by the friends of Cabinet or the friends of the government. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to do that. I'm not prepared to support this legislation and the people of this Province are not prepared to support the moves that this government is making in transforming the control of hydro electric resources from the people to its hydro corporation, to whoever happens to buy those shares, whoever can afford to buy those shares and we know that the people who are going to buy these shares, in major blocks, are going to be the large corporations of Ontario and Quebec. They're the ones who are going to control the hydro resources of this Province. When we seek to develop the Lower Churchill, Mr. Chairman, we will not have our own people acting on our behalf; we will not have the advantage, the critical mass to be able to properly conduct these -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to even attempt to reply to the socialist rantings and ravings of the gentleman from St. John's East. Occasionally he makes sense but on this one he has taken leave of his senses and I'm not going to even try to get into it. Let me assure him though, if he's under any doubt, this bill would have been introduced whether we proposed to privatize Hydro or not. It would have been a little different, sections in it which deal directly with the Hydro privatization, would not have been in it but the bill would have been introduced. It's a good piece of legislation, we commend it and for that reason we're going to put it through.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've had twenty-three hours and seventeen minutes of debate on second reading of this bill. Somewhere here I have a note - just so the House will know - so the committee will be aware of the kind of time we've spent on other bills. Now all that's happened so far is second reading. The Restraint Bill in 1991 was approximately twenty-nine hours and forty-eight minutes, all stages. The Amalgamation Bill in 1991 was nine days, approximately nineteen hours, forty-six minutes. The Restraint Bill in 1992 was eleven days, twenty hours, twenty-one minutes. Interim Supply in 1991 was seven days, twenty-five hours and forty minutes. We are now on, I think it's the thirteenth day - no, I'm sorry, it's the twelfth day of debate on this bill. We've had twenty-three hours and seventeen minutes at second reading, and we have now had approximately an hour in committee.

Mr. Chairman, members opposite have made it quite clear they have no desire to debate this bill clause-by-clause. They have every desire, they have made it clear now, we have heard from enough of them. I asked my friend from Ferryland directly, and he weaseled around and eventually had to give an answer, no, they want to have a general debate; no, they weren't prepared to go to committee stage, so Mr. Chairman, we are not going to present -

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

That is not what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to clarify it. Here is what I said -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I indicated they moved an amendment to clause 1. We do not want to deny our members the opportunity, if they want to speak on that amendment on clause 1. It was only presented today for the first time. We had only an hour or so to debate it. We have only had two or three speakers in committee. That is wrong what the member said, and I will ask him to withdraw it. He is imputing motives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't impute motives to the hon. gentleman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we can't have the Government House Leader standing in his place and imputing motives on my colleague, the Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that I would like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, Sixth Edition, page 141, section 481, where:

"Besides the prohibitions contained in Standing Order 18, it has been sanctioned by usage that a member, while speaking, must not: (a)..., (b)..., (c)..., (d)..., (e) impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a member."

I want to submit to Your Honour -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who can answer, the minister says. I am looking at Beauchesne now, I say to the minister - Beauchesne, Sixth Edition, page 141, paragraph 481, section 481.

Mr. Chairman, I want to submit to you that the Government House Leader cannot be permitted - the Member for Ferryland was very, very clear in what he said, so I just want to say that we can't allow this to happen. I think the Government House Leader knows there is no point of order and he can't impute motives -

MR. ROBERTS: I know there is no point of order (inaudible) not going to get away with it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Get away with what?

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You can't -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he accusing you of now?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we can't have threats in the House either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, someone threatened the Premier the other day. Now he has three or four bodyguards. We can't have the Government House Leader threatening people here in the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order, it is obviously a disagreement between two hon. members, and certainly that doesn't constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have now been recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have now been recognized. Your Honour will want to call it 4:30 p.m. The House will have the Late Show and then we will deal with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair will now rise the committee and report progress for the Late Show.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, and has directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now begin the adjournment debate. I think it is the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 9, I asked the Premier a question concerning the appointment of a new minister for Tourism and Culture. I also asked the Premier, does he intend to maintain Tourism and Culture as a separate department or are there any plans in the near future to merge it with the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology? The reason I asked that question, Mr. Speaker, is for the simple reason that we have been without a full-time minister now since the 22 of February, and Tourism, under the Strategic Economic Plan has been quoted by several ministers and the Premier opposite, of the possibility that it is one of the engines of the future of this Province, Tourism. It is fast becoming one of the main industries here in the Province now, and it will be touching on almost three months without a full-time minister, it is raising questions in and outside of this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason I ask the question.

The Premier said that there was something to be announced in a few days or a few weeks with regards to this and I say, Mr. Speaker, it is about time. That is not to say that the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is not doing an admirable job as acting minister, he is when he is present, but I must say that it is very upsetting to people who are in the industry, Mr. Speaker. As we develop this industry now, every day as day after day passes, there are many questions and to not have a full-time minister in that position is very upsetting.

Now the reason one has to ask I guess, Mr. Speaker, is, why; why don't we have a Minister of Tourism and Culture? You know, why don't we have, and I wonder is the real reason because of all this important piece of legislation that is before the House of Assembly at the present time? Is it because all these important pieces of legislation are before the House of Assembly now and that the Premier would like to make sure that everybody toes the line? There is nothing as good to wave in front, especially backbenchers of the party as it is to a Cabinet position. There are many members over there, Mr. Speaker, on the back benches who are capable of handling the Minister of Tourism and Culture's job I am sure, and many people who have a desire I am sure from people within their districts how important it is for the Department of Tourism and Culture to be its own separate department in this government as in any government.

I myself agree with that position that the government has taken in making sure that we have a separate department to deal with this issue, but the people out in the Province are wondering why and the only answer they can come up with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Hydro Privatization Act is before the House, the Education Reform is before the House and there are many other pieces of legislation and the Premier has to keep everybody in line, and I guess that's the reason why he intends to hold off now touching on three months, Mr. Speaker, since we had a full-time minister. I think it is about time that we had a full-time minister; I think it is about time that the Department of Tourism and Culture, the people say it is about time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - this Province had a full-time minister and I have to ask the reason why we don't. Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the acting, acting minister is doing such a superb job that we are going to keep him on for a while longer.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer given to me by the President of Treasury Board with regard to the question on tobacco tax, tobacco importation in Western Labrador.

On February 8 of this year, Mr. Speaker, the federal government announced because of actions within the RCMP and the OPP and QPP, the federal announced that they were going to lower the tobacco taxes in the country, the federal tobacco tax, Mr. Speaker, and urge provinces to do the same thing.

The reason why the federal government announced it was that they were told by the commissioner of the RCMP that they could not stop the smuggling into the country of tobacco products coming in mostly through Akwesasne. The Prime Minister said: If the RCMP can't stop it, and the QPP and the OPP can't stop it.... They announced that they would do it through economic means and lower the taxes so that there wouldn't be the necessity for smugglers to do it. That is what they did. That was the strategy, the national strategy, imposed by the federal cousins in Ottawa. The RCMP said: We cannot fill that hole; we can't stop the smuggling of tobacco products. So to remove the underground economy we will lower taxes.

The Province of Quebec agreed, they lowered the taxes; the Province of Ontario a few weeks later fell in line, they lowered the taxes; the Province of New Brunswick lowered the taxes; the Province of Nova Scotia lowered the taxes; the Province of Prince Edward Island lowered the taxes. The Province of Newfoundland, the only one east of Manitoba, thinks that it can stop the smuggling. I say they can't.

The other point is that in the case of Western Labrador, while I can agree with what the minister is saying in one sense, that smuggling does do a lot of financial damage to the Province for a period of time. But what is occurring in Western Labrador is cross-border shopping. People can go and buy $500 worth of groceries, they can buy clothing, or in the case if you are a member of the House of Assembly you can rent a car in the Province of Quebec on taxpayers' money. But don't you dare buy two packs of cigarettes or we will lock you up. It doesn't make sense.

This government increased the expenditures in policing by over $1 million. They sent two RCMP officers into Western Labrador at taxpayers' expense to live in a hotel. Aerial surveillance. Rented cars. Buy them new skidoos. Spent that kind of money of the taxpayers' money, over $1 million, to go up and watch housewives shopping, pushing groceries around a supermarket. They are coming down, searching the car, finding four packages of cigarettes. Can you imagine? An RCMP officer is out, because the minister is forcing him to do it. They are out chasing housewives around the supermarket to check and see if they have more than one package of cigarettes.

This is tremendously unfair. It is a waste of taxpayers' money and the government should not be doing it. They didn't see fit to intervene when the federal government said: We are going to remove two RCMP officers from Western Labrador who were there mostly because of hard drugs - cocaine and crack. They were there to stop that. This government said: No, that is okay, the federal government can remove them because they said it was for budgetary measures. But as soon as they come in with their tobacco taxes increases they sent back the same two RCMP officers, sent them back in there again. It is okay to bring in crack and cocaine according to this government, but don't you bring in Export A or DuMaurier, that is illegal. We will lock you up; we will throw you in jail. That is what they are going to do with the housewives.

This is tremendously unfair and it is not working. It is making a farce of the law, of the system. The members opposite know it. They agreed with the principle of lower taxes in border situations for previous years. They could have done that type of measure, or they could have left it so that cross-border shopping would be okay. They could have left it at a maximum of 200 grams. They could have left it at that. Then that would have continued to allow cross-border shopping. Or if they had a rebate system in it would have been possible for the consumers to purchase tobacco products sold in Western Labrador and allow it to compete on a level playing field with their competitors in Fermont, Quebec, or in Blanc Sablon in the other border situation.

The government should review its policy, the minister should review his policy, and look at implementing either a rebate system or cutting the taxes to match the federal funds in Ottawa the same as the other provinces all east of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, that's what they should do. I'm hoping that the minister will finally recognize the damage that he's doing to this Province in creating this underground economy because that's what's happening. That's why the federal government, the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario had to do something. That's why they did it and he knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: I will ask the minister to reconsider and be fair with the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. We're not reconsidering it at this point in time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't satisfied with the response to the questions on 911 and I haven't been satisfied with the response on the questions on 911 for the past two months. The minister stands in this House and states that it is a policy of the department not to permit highly trained people out in rural areas, outside the city limits, to be able to give a life saving service to people for the sake of - in two minutes they can arrive.

I'm going to cite an instance I didn't bring up in this House - I brought an instance up in this House on Tuesday - and it's very unfortunate that a woman in Torbay died on Tuesday - when an ambulance took eleven minutes to get there. They didn't call the volunteer fire department which has thirty-one trained people, every single one with CPR and first aid, four emergency medical attendants in that fire department, ten trained in oxygen therapy. It took eleven minutes to get to the scene.

After six or seven minutes a call came back from that house to 911 a second time and said the person has stopped breathing. The ambulance arrived after eleven minutes. When they arrived and saw the seriousness they put back a call again. Then they dispatched the volunteer fire department from Torbay that arrived within six minutes, very early in the morning, they arrived in six minutes. Unfortunately the woman died and I don't know whether the life could have been saved anyway. I don't know the circumstances around the medical aspect of it but the point is they could have gotten there in five minutes faster and the next person's life could be saved because of a fast response.

Now on the same day, the very same day up in Witless Bay, a person collapsed from carbon monoxide poisoning, turned blue and collapsed. They called 911 and said there's oxygen with the department on top of the hill in Witless Bay and the 911 response said: We cannot send a call to Witless Bay. Now Witless Bay has seventeen people trained in CPR and first aid, ten in oxygen therapy but they would not send them. The person said: if you want to get the fire department you call the Central Fire Station. He said: What is the number? It's in the book; it's in the telephone book they told him. You can check it all, it's on tape. It's in the telephone book. Somebody had the common sense to say: I know one of the fire fighters. They called him - they put it on the pager system - response came there and delivered oxygen and they saved that life.

Now the point is and the point I'm getting to, is that there's something radically wrong with the 911 system. There's something wrong with it. There's no ambulance service in that area. The closest takes thirty to forty minutes to arrive. Now I've met with people involved. I've met with people at the Health Science, I've met with concerned people and all they want, all these volunteer fire departments want is an opportunity to go to the scene and provide emergency first aid until the ambulance arrives. They know protocol - protocol indicates when an ambulance arrives, whether it's in the city or outside, they are permitted to take over then and these other people could act as assistants.

Why did they call the volunteer fire department, if you're not allowed to call them, eleven minutes later? They wouldn't call them eleven minutes earlier but still they called them and that's not right. There's something wrong with our system if you cannot call somebody next door, doesn't realize someone could be dying next door, who's skilled and trained by the same people. Some of these people in these fire departments have higher levels of training, EMA-2s, second level of EMA. There's people in the fire department there in Torbay at that level and it's shameful when they can't be called to render assistance when some of the people coming on the ambulance don't have the same level of training.

I say we have to get our act together. We have to coordinate a system and this government - the government has provided and here's the sad part of it all - the government has published on the inside cover of the telephone book and I spoke with a telephone company official who confirmed it - took me awhile to get the information -if you read the inside cover it says; Witless Bay, Torbay, St. John's and all those exchanges.

People are led to believe, dialling 911 they will have emergency come out. That is what they are led to believe, it is publicized. It was initially put here by the government and each year it is repeated, this lifesaving number to get people out. What is wrong with getting people in Witless Bay, or Torbay Bay, who might get there four minutes earlier? Is there something wrong with the system? The purpose of 911 is to get emergency aid to the scene in the fastest possible time and it is not costing this government one penny. The Town of Witless Bay paid $5,000 to assist in the training of these people by one of the highest trained persons here in this Province - a reputable person carried out this training - and paid it with no cost to the taxpayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, please do something about it before something else happens.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he had better watch his blood pressure or we will have to call 911 ourselves. I wasn't sure whether I should call 911 or call the Waterford for the crazy suggestions he has been making here today.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about are people who are suddenly taken ill and who want to be properly taken to hospital. What we need, and what we must have, is a reliable service so that it is available when required. One of the problems in volunteer areas is that they are not always available when required for these medical emergencies. Sometimes, it is true, some of the volunteer fire departments do have people who are qualified to be with ambulances, but not all are. What we want is that when someone is dispatched they will always be qualified.

The problem is reliability, availability, and properly qualified people. Another problem we have to face is the problem of liability. Will the town council take over if anything happens? Are they going to be responsible for this? The other question has to do with the response time. We realize, in some cases, because of the distance, it takes longer to respond to some calls than to others, and that is a real problem that has to be looked at.

There are a number of studies with respect to 911. The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in co-operation with other departments, is looking at the 911 situation throughout the Province. I have asked officials in my department to look at the health component of it in this region. I have had a preliminary report. I have looked at that report and have sent them back to have a much more in-depth look at it than they have had. In due time, as soon as we can, we will have that report and hopefully, appropriate action will be taken, but the action that is suggested by the hon. member is really irresponsible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour puts the motion, which Standing Order 31.(g) requires, may I ask of members whether they would prefer to be back here at 7:00 p.m. tonight -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, we won't be here all night. We will be here at 7:00 p.m. and we will leave at 7:10 p.m.

I am in members' hands. The House either has to defeat the adjournment motion, which would have the effect of bringing us back here at 7:00 p.m. for a very short session, because the government has said we will not sit tonight, or the House, if it so wishes, can agree now to let us go back into Committee, where I have a notice of motion I intend to give. I simply ask hon. members; they can please themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) time.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I will ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the motion to adjourn when your Honour puts it, and we will be here for not more than ten minutes tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn. All those in favour, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, say `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated, and I suggest that hon. members join me at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

The House reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you put the House into Committee of the Whole?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 2.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate on Bill No. 2, entitled An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill No. 2, shall be the first business of the House when next called by the House and shall not be further postponed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the government announced earlier, after consultation with the Opposition, the House would not sit on Thursday evening. We have no intention of sitting Thursday evening. The sulky childishness of the Member for Ferryland has brought us back here tonight.

With that said, I will move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m. I tell the House, we shall be dealing with the EPCA legislation on Monday and we anticipate it will come to a vote not later than 1:00 a.m. Tuesday - that depends on hon. members opposite, in accordance with the rules.

I move that the House do now adjourn, Sir.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't factual what the Government House Leader stated. The Government House Leader had ample time at 4:25 to have his closure motion. He also had a choice to introduce it on Monday. He is the reason we are back here. I would like to make that statement of fact, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.