April 22, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 28


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the galleries ten adults in the Skills for Success program, accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Buckle and Ms. Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to welcome as well sixty Grade VII students from St. Bon's, accompanied by their teachers and chaperons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence in Ottawa yesterday released the long-awaited Environmental Impact Statement on military flight training in Labrador.

Over the coming months the EIS will be available for public review. Part of that review will include a detailed assessment of the document by an independent arm's length review panel which has been established by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, and is known as FEARO. The chair of the panel is Dr. A.T. Davidson, a former assistant deputy minister in Parks Canada who was in charge of the national parks service for many years.

Following FEARO's initial review the EIS will form the basis for public hearings which are expected to occur this coming fall.

The release of the EIS is a significant milestone in the federal government's environmental review of the low-level flying project at Goose Bay. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador welcomes news the document has been completed and looks forward to the ensuing steps of the review process which I expect, as I said, will conclude late this year or early next.

Members will recall the statement I made on behalf of the government last December in which I reaffirmed our support for military flight training activities in Labrador.

The government recognizes that low-level flight training is an important part of the foundation for Labrador's sound economic development, and that CFB-Goose Bay is an integral part of the economic, social and cultural fabric of that area. As we've said time and time again we believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that low-level flying is an environmentally sound way to use a renewable natural resource to the economic benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that if done properly it is compatible with legitimate aboriginal rights. The successful conclusion of the environmental review process is crucial to ensuring that the Upper Lake Melville area and the Labrador region as a whole continue to prosper from this activity.

The environmental review process provides an important opportunity for those who support the project and those who oppose it to state their views, interests and concerns.

The government intends to be an active participant in the review process. We shall provide FEARO with an assessment of the EIS once a comprehensive review of the document has been completed by our provincial officials, and we shall be involved in the public review hearings appearing as an intervenor.

While we encourage all interested individuals or groups to participate in the review of the project, we believe that the debate must be shaped by the facts. I ask those who feel compelled to oppose low-level flying, for whatever reason, to do so with fact and evidence and not with fiction and emotion.

Mr. Speaker, sustaining the economic, social and cultural opportunities for all of the people of Labrador requires responsible review and a commitment to balanced economic development with environmental protection.

It is therefore our continued hope that the EIS will be found by the panel, to contain a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the impacts of low-level flight training. Throughout the years that this environmental review has been underway, and that's nearly eight or nine now, we have been encouraged that scientific analysis has shown that any negative impacts which may be associated with this activity can be addressed and alleviated.

It is important, Sir, to note that the environmental review was initiated in 1986, eight years ago, as a result of the proposal to establish a NATO Tactical Fighter Centre at Goose Bay. Had NATO selected Goose Bay as the site for development, in fact as the House will recall, development was later cancelled because it was not going ahead anywhere. Had NATO selected Goose Bay, the base would have experienced a dramatic increase in military activity. When their proposal was cancelled in 1990, the federal government could have cancelled the environmental review process. The fact that they decided not to do so and to proceed with the review demonstrates their commitment to ensuring that military training in Labrador is carried out with due regard for public and environmental concerns, including the legitimate concerns of aboriginal peoples with this issue.

The Government, Mr. Speaker, are committed to working closely with the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and other interested Labrador communities and organizations which depend on this activity for their livelihood. We shall assist them in whatever way we can in presenting their views during the review hearings.

The coming months, Mr. Speaker, will be crucial to the future of the Upper Lake Melville area, to the rest of Labrador and to all of the Province. I ask therefore that all those who recognize the importance and benefit of military training in Labrador join with us in the public hearing process. It behooves us all to ensure that the process continues in a responsible manner.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, are also very pleased to see that this process is moving along in this particular fashion. We have supported the training facility at Happy Valley-Goose Bay over the numbers of years it has operated and are pleased to see that it is continuing; but, Mr. Speaker, it is nothing to get excited about, I mean, all we have seen here is that the Department of National Defence has released the EIS and that is going through now and will be going on to the federal environmental assessment review, Mr. Speaker, and will be holding public hearings.

We hope at the end of the process or we continue to be supportive for the low level flight training in Happy Valley -Goose Bay and grounds for further expansion. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that this can be expanded into further economic activity built around that particular facility. We realize the importance of this economic activity in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Labrador and indeed the whole Province. But, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Province is going to take an active role in support of it but if the minister really wanted to announce something today about his contribution to the economy of Labrador in particular, Mr. Speaker, he should have stood in his place today and announced that the provincial government are going to participate in funding for the continuation of the Trans-Labrador Highway this year instead of allowing the federal government to go ahead alone and participate and build the Trans-Labrador Highway this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to point out that the hon. Member for Menihek, when he spoke about this side of the House, certainly didn't include this hon. member in the unmitigated support for low-level flying over the interior of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the continuation of an environmental assessment process over a period of some seven, eight or nine years now while the continued operation of low-level flying makes the whole process a farce, Mr. Speaker. Does anybody realistically think that an environmental assessment - perhaps the length of the environmental assessment process is designed to coincide with the operational length of the planes that they are using so that by the time the environmental assessment is finished the planes will be obsolete and they won't need to do it anymore.

Mr. Speaker, the continued use of low-level flying over the lands without dealing with the aboriginal concerns about low-level flying is, I think, wrong. It interferes with the culture and lives of the aboriginal people and while we support the continued operation of CFB Goose Bay we do not, as a party, support low-level flying in the interior of Labrador over the opposition of the aboriginal people. Now, Mr. Speaker, the environmental process has provided at least a forum for discussion about this issue but it has not provided any solution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Tourism and Culture, I would like to inform hon. members that "Ours to Discover '94", an exclusive trade show encompassing all elements of the tourism, hospitality and outdoor recreation industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, will be held at Memorial Stadium in St. John's from April 22-24, 1994. It begins today at 2:00 p.m.

This trade show, the first of its kind in the Province, will consist of over eighty booths and will bring together an exciting mix of products including demonstrations, new product displays, stage shows featuring some of the Province's best musicians, and a broad range of vacation choices.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. This show will provide a link between the industry and the consumer, and an opportunity for the industry to reach and influence the expanding `in-province' market.

Hosted by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland Sportsman magazine, with support from the Department of Tourism and Culture, this exhibition will allow the public to see and experience the exciting variety of tourism and outdoor products available throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members that Destination Labrador, Labrador's marketing agency, has been chosen by the American Economic Development Council to receive five awards for its Awaken Your Heart and Soul promotional literature and video.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: It should be noted that this international competition had over 1,000 entries from across North America. Destination Labrador won two first place awards, two second, and one distinguishing it as being in a class of its own.

Congratulations to Kathy Crotty, Destination Labrador's Marketing Director, and her staff, as well as M-5 Advertising, who developed the material. The organization will be officially honoured at an awards banquet hosted by the American Economic Development Council on Monday, April 25, in Chicago, and I think we should be very proud of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, first of all, to thank the minister for his telephone call early this morning to inform me of his statement today. The `Ours to Discover' trade show is another step in the right direction for the tourism industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to discover our Province and to see first-hand the tourism product that ranks with the best.

This trade show, as the minister has stated, is the first of its kind in this Province, and I have no doubt that it will be expanded in the years ahead, just as the tourism industry, itself has.

I am also very pleased to see that some of the Province's best musicians will have the opportunity to show what they have to offer to the market, and I wish all participants a successful weekend.

I also join with the minister, as I am sure all members of the House do, in congratulating Destination Labrador on their awards from the American Economic Development Council.

Last year, at the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador convention in Gander, I watched a promotional video put forward by Destination Labrador, and I thought it was one of the most moving pieces of tourism video work I had ever seen. The tourism market is a global market, and I am sure that the opening up of Labrador to the world will quickly add to the total tourism product we have to offer.

To Kathy Crotty and M-5 Advertising, I say, congratulations on a job well done, and to the minister I say I understand from yesterday's evening news that you are not very busy these days, so I look forward to seeing you at the Trade Show next weekend.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave given.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House twenty-five students from Dorset Collegiate in the district of Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister responsible for Hydro, the Minister of Mines and Energy. I would like to ask him: Has he received the 1993 annual report for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the 1993 annual report is not yet published and I haven't received an official copy of it yet. When I do, I think I have fifteen days to table it - I think that is the time requirement - but it is not yet published.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I know when the minister must receive it and when he must table it, but the question was, has he received a copy of the 1993 annual report? He says he has not received an official copy. Has he seen the draft copy?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have received some information on 1993 but at this stage I have not seen a report which covers the 1993 year.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I got the answer I wanted, I think, in the end. He has received some information about Hydro's operation for 1993, he did say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, is there something wrong with the gallery over there? I am trying to get some answers to questions. He did receive some information respecting the 1993 operation of Newfoundland Hydro. Is that correct?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I have been given some information on the operations in 1993. For example, the annual profits from 1993 I've been made aware of that as an example.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is precisely the information I wanted, Mr. Speaker. This is a supplementary. Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the nattering nabobs of negativity over there in the corner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Imagine that. Right off the top of my head too this morning.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, I want to say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Because he has now said he has received the information dealing with the profits for 1993, but it has not yet been made public, he has not reported it to the House of Assembly, correct.

Last night on an open line program there was a gentleman caller who called in and quoted the profits for Hydro for 1993. I would like to ask the minister how would that individual have that kind of information? Has he, the minister, or any of his colleagues, such as the Minister of Finance or any other colleague, given that information to individual members of the public without first it being known to the public generally?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I've used the 1993 profits of Hydro numerous times in public speeches that I've given in several places around the Province over the last couple of months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: No, I've used it in public speeches in several places. That particular figure. Because I noted that other people, particularly people who are out fighting against the privatization of Hydro, had been using some outdated numbers on profits and were a bit mixed up and confused about profits. So I said to the Hydro people: Tell me what your profits were in 1993 so I can clarify this confusion that is out there. It was made known to me that the profits last year, 1993, were a total of $24.9 million, of which $11.2 million are the profits of CF(L)Co., Newfoundland's share, and $13.7 million are the profits of the portion of Hydro that we are proposing to privatise. I've said that numerous times in public presentations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he certainly hasn't said it in the House of Assembly and he certainly hasn't said it in public appearances where he debated the Member for Humber East on two occasions, never used those numbers.

In any event, let me ask him this. Since he has so readily that information on the profits and so on will he tell us now how much Newfoundland Hydro has spent on privatization of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I will go back to the profits question first, Mr. Speaker. Any time that I've been asked, any time that I've gone to a public meeting about the profits of Hydro, I have told the profits of Hydro to the public. Any time I've been asked. Nobody in this House of Assembly until today has asked me about the profits of Hydro for 1993 until now, and I have just given you the profits as for 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: As for the amount that Hydro has spent on this exercise, of assessing, analyzing, proposed privatization, after yesterday's questions from the hon. member to the Premier I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

DR. GIBBONS: Well, on that particular question that you put yesterday, I spoke to the president of Hydro yesterday afternoon and asked them to put these figures together for us. He is doing that. When he has those figures together I will get them and I will table them in the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if he can tell us what the government's intention is now concerning Bill No. 1, the Hydro privatization bill? What is their intention?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our position has not changed. When our position changes, if it does, we will announce it and everybody will be aware. It is still on the Order Paper. We are now debating Bill No. 2 which is the companion bill to Bill No. 1. It is on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, so our intention is still to proceed with Bill 1.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a specific question with respect to Bill 1, Hydro privatization. Does the government intend to call that bill next week?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the intentions of the Government House Leader are, but certainly it is on the Order Paper and we intend to call it at some point in time, yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary to the Government House Leader.

Does the government intend to call the bill next week, Bill 1?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues suggested I should have a word with the Minister of Finance to see what we are doing about this.

A little more seriously, it is our plan to proceed with the Electrical Power Control Act until the House has disposed of that. The sooner the House disposes of that bill, and we are in the hands of the House of course, then the sooner we can come to grips with the Privatization Act. We will not do them simultaneously, obviously, as the hon. gentleman will appreciate, so we want to get on with the Electrical Power Control Act.

While it is a companion piece of legislation, and while there are sections in it that apply only to the privatization of Hydro, the greater part of the act, by far, members will acknowledge, deals with situations that will continue to exist whether Hydro is privatized or not.

With that said, we will deal with the Electrical Power Control Act. Then we will deal with the Privatization Act, which is on the Order Paper and remains there.

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

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

A few days ago the Premier wrote the federal Minister of Fisheries stating categorically, if you can listen to what the Premier said, that the Province would not participate in the fishing industry renewal boards unless the boards were given responsibility for not just reducing the processing and harvesting capability, but as well they would have to determine and be involved in joint management of the fishery of the future.

I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the House whether or not the Premier has received a written or verbal response from Mr. Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries, on this issue.

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to either confirm or deny it. I can only say that when the initial announcement was made, in fact when the Cashin task force was released, which outlined their views of how the fishery of the future should evolve, and the establishment of a fisheries renewal board, at that time the Province and I, in the House of Assembly here, expressed some concerns as to the make up of that board - its mandate. We thought it was too restrictive. It is a board that, as they envisage it, would be only concerned with downsizing the industry, closing plants. We felt that, as its name implies renewal, that it should have a broader mandate - one that would include renewal.

We have made our position quite clear to the minister on many occasions, the latest, of course, being the other day when the Premier wrote to the minister to that effect. Now whether he has gotten a reply back, I can't answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

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

I hear in the public media that the federal minister is rather tired. I think they described him as `exhausted'. I hope he is not too tired to respond to the Premier.

Anyway, since the minister now, the Province has 100 per cent responsibility for the processing sector of our fishery, how does the minister propose to deal with reducing capacity in the processing sector if there is no industry renewal board for Newfoundland and Labrador? How does the minister propose to do that, because in my view there has to be some co-ordination between the harvesting and processing sector. So if indeed the Province does not participate in the industry renewal boards, won't the Province and the federal government still have to work together in co-ordinating a reduction in harvesting and processing?

My first question is: If you don't participate in the industry renewal board, you have 100 per cent responsibility and control of processing. How do you propose to bring about the reduction in capacity?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is hypothetical because I expect, on the basis of what I have heard, having talked to the minister privately and having had meetings, I am optimistic that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will see things our way and will, in fact, agree to broaden the mandate, the terms of reference, of the proposed renewal board to include the concerns of the Province.

Let me tell the House that at the present time we have 213 fish plants in the Province, altogether. We have 153 groundfish plants, and that would include small, feeder type operations. As you know, some years ago a number of community stages were converted into small feeder filleting-type operations. The number of groundfish plants licensed by the Province that have freezing capacity - and these are the real plants that we have to concern ourselves with - are ninety-two. We have ninety-two plants in the Province now with freezing capability. We have decommissioned, in recent months, twenty-six plants. These twenty-six plants represent a reduction in through-put of 1,000 metric tons of product every twenty-four hours. So the job of down-sizing, Mr. Speaker, is happening, maybe not as fast as we would like to see it happen, but it's happening. First of all, we expect that there will be a renewal board established along the lines that we want, and as close as possible to meeting our requirements with respect to joint-management. We expect that board's mandate will be expanded or extended to include the aspirations of the Province, and that being the case, then we will work together with the Federal Government to bring about the eventual down-sizing of the industry.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I thank the minister for his answer, but he didn't say how he would deal with reducing the capacity if there are no industry renewal boards. I just want to pursue the line of question with the minister. He has referred to 213 processing plants. Now, we all know that the mandate of the industry renewal boards will be to reduce the processing capacity to a minimum of 50 per cent. I say to the minister, it could go below that.

Now, I just want to ask the minister what his interpretation is on 50 per cent reduction in processing capacity. Does the minister see that, as say, there will be approximately 100 plants left in the Province open at the time? I'm sure he has put some thought into that. Has the Province done its own estimation on the number of plants that will be left open with a 50 per cent reduction? I'm sure the minister realizes that we could have thirty plants in the Province that may have, in fact, 50 per cent of the processing capacity. It's not necessarily half the plants. Thirty or forty of the larger plants can certainly have 50 per cent of the capacity. So we could see 120 or 130 plants closed or 150 plants closed. Have the minister's officials done any evaluation, estimation and analysis on this to see how many plants will close with a 50 per cent reduction in capacity?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, attempting to forecast how many fish plants there will be in the Province in the year 2000, or indeed, how much fish will be caught in the year 2000 is like trying to project, with any level of accuracy, what the rainfall will be in that year, and that is a fact. Mr. Speaker, it is virtually impossible for any person on this planet today, not withstanding how we've advanced in science, it's virtually impossible to predict precisely how much fish there will be in the water in the year 2000. It is impossible. I don't think there is a man alive on this planet today who can make that projection with any level of accuracy. We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the fishery of the future will have to be much smaller. There will have to be a far fewer number of people involved in it, a far fewer number of plants, and far fewer fishermen and fishing boats.

MR. SIMMS: What's the answer to the question?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is no answer. There isn't an answer - the hon. gentleman laughs. If he has any great insight into what's going to happen - I can tell him, about the only thing that we can predict for the year 2000 is that he will still be over there and we will still be over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the hon. the Minister of Social Services. I would like to ask the minister: Does the department have any building codes for community homes in which young offenders are being placed and are those homes inspected regularly for compliance with building code safety regulations? I am particularly concerned with fire safety regulations. Do all homes have fire alarms, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, etcetera? Are those homes equipped with fire-rated gyproc?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: That is a matter with which I am not familiar. I will undertake to find it out for the hon. member.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister if open-custody community home parents receive any special training before being assigned to care for young offenders? I am told that some community home parents have been promised, for twenty-seven months now, that training will be made available for them, only to have it cancelled right at the last moment by the Department of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we are not up to scratch, maybe, in that area as much as we should be. It is an area we are working on. We realize that we don't give the training that is required, but the department is undertaking to ensure that the young people who come into the care of these people are afforded the maximum care that this Province can afford.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, some concerns were raised in the House some time ago when the Department of Social Services looked at getting away from group homes and putting young offenders in community homes, the fear that the Department of Social Services would not be able to attend to their needs like they would in visiting a group home situation. Would the minister advise the House if social workers make regular visits to those homes, since I am aware that some homes have gone as long as eight months without seeing a social worker or having a call from his department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: If the hon. member is in possession of any specific information the hon. member knows the procedure for that. He can call and find out, but again, as I mentioned yesterday, in these rough economic times when we get a lot of problems socially, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect, with the tremendous demand on social workers, that from time to time they may not be able to make all of the visits that are necessary. Under the circumstances, they are providing yeoman service to the people of this Province, but it wouldn't surprise me if, in a case or two, some home didn't get visited. But I would certainly appreciate knowing about it. My department officials would appreciate knowing if there are any specific cases so that we might be able to attend to them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Over the past few months, much debate on the privatization of Hydro has centred around the effect it would have on our credit rating. Many have said that it would have absolutely no effect on our credit rating and that it is not even considered by the market when our financial situation is assessed. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, would he agree with this particular assessment, and if not, does he have some information that would substantiate his position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is refreshing to find, from time to time we are reminded that Question Period is available to both sides of the House and not just one side. The implications in the question by the hon. the Member for Eagle River were absolutely correct. Once a year, the four rating agencies, two Canadian and two American, do a rating on the Province's debt. We have recently received rating from one of these companies and the other three will come sometime in the next month or so. The Canadian bond rating service, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that in reaffirming our rating - and that is the good part of it - in reaffirming our rating, not lowering it, they took into account the fact that the privatization of Hydro was a positive effect, that it reduced debt from the Province's books, it would allow the Province to not borrow for a period of time and in light of that positive effort in privatization they reconfirmed our ratings and that if in fact the privatization of Hydro did not proceed, they would probably have to come back and reassess our ratings so, Mr. Speaker, we have had that correspondence and that release from the first of the rating agencies and we can only wait and see what the other three rating agencies have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. It has been brought to my attention that there are PCBs stored on the Baie Verte Peninsula; there are PCBs stored in drums at Rambler mines site and there are PCBs stored at the Baie Verte mine itself. Could the minister inform the House whether this is the case and if so, the amount of PCBs stored at these sites?

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

MS. COWAN: I would have to check on that, Mr. Speaker, and I will get back to the member on that and I must assure him that I am extremely agitated by this question as he loves to assess my emotional state every time he asks a question; very agitated today by that question, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am sorry that the minister is agitated but I thought her job over there is to answer questions that are brought forth by the Opposition; it is really too bad that you are agitated. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House how long the sites have been in existence and how frequently they have been inspected including when they were last inspected and by whom?

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

MS. COWAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I shall get a full report on the circumstances if the PCBs are indeed there and get back to him.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Can the minister confirm to this House today, that eighty to 100 welders from Nova Scotia are coming into this Province to go to work at the Newfoundland Dockyard, and if he can confirm that can he also explain to this House and to the people of this Province why Newfoundland workers, welders in particular, were not provided the opportunity for those jobs?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't confirm that at this point in time. The matter was raised a couple of days ago by a constituent currently I believe living in Conception Bay South, who phoned me and also by the hon. Member for Placentia who brought the matter to my attention. It is being checked out, there is someone now trying to get the answer for me since yesterday morning. It is clear that the dockyard is going to have some work that requires a number of welders, they are advertising through the public media for people to come forward and apply for work on the job. They are welders who will need the CWB test to be passed and to have that particular certification. The difficulty at this point in time is that just about every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian who is a welder and has that designation is already working, and there are other welders in the Province who do not have that designation, who cannot go and do this job because it requires a specific designation.

The effort that we are undertaking is to try to find a way whereby those welders who do not have this particular designation can be tested to see if in fact they can reach those qualifications and be certified as being CWB attested and have that particular ticket and be then eligible to be hired at the dockyard. That information is being gathered at this point in time and I hope to have a more complete answer later in the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister now talks about a CWB designation. CWB designation is ordered by the employer. The employer knew full-well that these jobs would be coming up and why were not Newfoundlanders provided the opportunity to write that test? It is a three to four-hour test, it is not a difficult test, it is provided for all welders just to test their practical experience. What is his department doing, if they are not monitoring employment situations in this Province for Newfoundlanders?

Two days ago in the House, Mr. Speaker, the minister stood up and couldn't confirm that Newfoundlanders were laid off from the Hibernia site. Maybe we should rename his department to the Minister of Unemployment and Labour Unrest, and not the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for the Province. Can he explain why his officials and his department were not on top of this situation and why eighty Newfoundland welders were not given the opportunity to write that test, therefore having jobs in their own Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Usually when we tell that joke about the name of the department we call it - the minister should be renamed the Minister of Unemployment and No Labour Relations, we don't say `Labour unrest.' If we are going to change the name we should try to agree on the same name.

The situation clearly, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know from his previous experiences in a past life, is that any time any group is designated and sent forward - because these tests, even though they only take a few hours to do, to see if you can be CWB certified, they are expensive, they cost money. The workers themselves, welders in this case, are usually referred either by the actual employer - referred by the employer for testing - or referred by the appropriate union.

The difficulty that we have in this particular case is that the employer itself - and this is what we are checking with the Dockyard as the potential employer here - has not seen fit at this point to my knowledge as I stand here this morning to refer welders without the designation who are coming to them looking for work. They have not seen fit to refer them. They are looking for people who already have the designation. Secondly, most of the welders who are looking for the job now are not in a union, they are non-unionized welders, and therefore the union doesn't see it as their role to refer non-unionized welders.

There is a difficulty and at the end of the day it may in fact be the case that some of these welders may come from outside the Province. It is being checked on at this point in time. Again, it is always our number one concern not only at Bull Arm but everywhere to try to make sure that we maximize the employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are doing in this case as well.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe what I've just heard. Minister, there are eighty to a hundred people from outside this Province who are coming in to take jobs away from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, if the minister and his officials had been on top of their department, could have provided the opportunity for welders in this Province to have that designation. In a Halifax paper two weekends ago Newfoundland Dockyard advertised for eighty to a hundred welders.

I ask the minister again, will he ensure that if there are twenty or thirty or forty positions left that welders, whether they are in a union or not in a union - it doesn't matter, they are still welders in this Province from this Province - will he ensure that his department will provide the opportunity for welders in this Province to write their CWB designation and therefore have a chance to have a job in their Province at the Newfoundland Dockyard?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would answer as I did before and just repeat to the hon. member that we are having the matter looked into. Our priority and our concern is to try to maximize the opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to the training, though, and whether or not the department or government should have ordered it, I would just like to point out to all hon. members present that the same hon. member opposite is one who had raised a concern, particularly in relation to Bull Arm, when people, when a lot of training was done, some of the people their training didn't get them a job. The same hon. member stood up to say: Why did you train all these people when there was no job for them? In fact, that same question has been raised opposite. If we had gone six months ago and gotten another hundred people tested and certified for CWB and this job hadn't come up, the same situation would have been used in the exact reverse. That is a tactic that this particular hon. member opposite uses all the time. When the argument is convenient to him he uses it: You should have done something. When we do something and there is no immediate result he argues: What did you waste your time doing that for?

Our concern is to try to maximize the opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are aware of the situation. It is being checked on at this point in time, and we will do everything possible to make sure that the maximum number of qualified, certified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians work at this particular job at the Dockyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations just indicated in his answer that this member, myself, the Member for Kilbride, some time ago, dealing with training at the Hibernia site, asked: Why do we train too many people?

I did not ask that question of the minister, and if he is so convinced, table the evidence, table the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you, as Speaker of the House, either to ask the minister to withdraw that statement or to table where I asked those questions of him. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further comment on the point of order?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will comment.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think members should get up in this House, as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations just did, and accuse another member of saying something in the House when the minister knows full well that was not the case and what he said was not the truth.

I think that minister should not get involved in that type of debate in Question Period.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He should withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he should probably do the honourable thing and withdraw it, when he knows what he said is not true, and if it is true, there is one thing you can do - table the evidence.

It is something like the Member for Eagle River lecturing to the House that we should be asking questions on fisheries, when his first question in the House was on Hydro - that's what is taking place in this Legislature.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I earlier indicated I didn't see any need to say anything on the point of order raised by my friend, the Member for Kilbride, but the gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West -

MR. TOBIN: Got you up again.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I (inaudible) say he has got me up again.

What the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West has done is breach the privileges of the House, and of my friend, the Member for Exploits, in speaking to the point of order. I won't say my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West knew what he was doing. I would never go that far, to say he knows what he is doing, but what he did was accuse my friend, the Member for Exploits of making a deliberate misstatement in the House.

So I will say to Your Honour that when you have dealt with the point of order raised by my friend, the Member for Kilbride, and dealt with it on such merits, if any, as it may have, we will then ask if Your Honour would be good enough to address the point made by my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, who may or may not know what he is doing. We will let him speak for that, as to whether he knows what he is doing or not, but my submission is that at least inadvertently he breached the rules of the House, and we really can't have it. All it does is turn the House into a bear pit or a beer garden, and that doesn't serve the purpose of the House or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: I will consider the point and make some comments later.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table the report of the Government Services Committee respecting Bill 59, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act".

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

Report received now.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further reports?

MS. VERGE: Where are the Western Memorial Regional Hospital reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS. VERGE: The Western Memorial Regional Hospital reports the Minister of Health (inaudible).

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 168 people from the district of Bonavista South and from the district of Trinity North. It is a petition, once again, speaking out on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, those are people, like 80 per cent of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are speaking out and asking people on the other side to do the honourable thing that they were elected to do, and to represent them here in the House of Assembly and vote against this Hydro privatization bill, Bill 1, which received much discussion here, and on which much concern has been brought forward by many people in all of the Province. This government, Mr. Speaker, on the opposite side of the House, continue to turn their backs and say any who oppose it are misinformed, they are fearmongering, they're not in tune with what's happening. We saw one group, Mr. Speaker, come forward to speak in favour of it, and the Member for Eagle River gets up this morning and does a charade here on the House to try to hoodwink the people into believing - to put the publicity out there that they believe in what's happening and it's a wonderful thing for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear about our own people being able to go out and buy shares in the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Well, I don't know how our people are going to go out and buy shares when - we heard questions this morning asked by the Member of Kilbride of the Minister of Employment and Labour - there were eighty jobs being put forward in a local industry here in Newfoundland and the jobs being advertised in an Atlantic newspaper published up in Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, that's the shame of what's happening here in this Province today. We're talking about wonderful things for our Newfoundland people, we're talking about the wonderful things that are going to happen after we privatize Hydro. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there will not be many people out there rushing forward - the people that I represent will not be rushing forward to buy shares because, Mr. Speaker, most of them are finding themselves in a situation where they're unable to put bread and butter on the table to feed their families let alone go out and play the stock market.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talks about the time we're taking in discussing this privatization bill, we should be thinking about other issues, and I fully agree with him, Mr. Speaker. I fully agree with him and I plead for the government to take this piece of legislation off the table, listen to the people who have voiced their opinions, listen to the negativity that's out there. Take it off the table and let's get on with the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Trinity North - he's not in his seat now but I wish he were - spoke out on a couple of areas. Here he is, right here in another minister's seat. He got his picture in the paper the other day, talking about the town of Bonavista being misinformed. They were misinformed, Mr. Speaker, because they didn't agree with what the government was putting forward. They were misinformed, the member said, but he was rapped on the knuckles pretty soon afterwards by the members of council when they told him that they were getting up and speaking on behalf of the residents of Bonavista, the people who elected them, Mr. Speaker, and not out supporting their leader, the Messiah of their party. When the members on this side stand up, they speak for the residents, they speak for the people who elected them. They don't come out and support their leader because they are looking for a plum that might be offered them. What they did was what the Town of Bonavista did, and they should be encouraged - every other community should be encouraged to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the other side starts up a chain-saw every now and again over there and tries to make fun at the situation on the Bonavista Peninsula, where people are being deprived of the opportunity to cut firewood. Mr. Speaker, here's another example of things being taken from people and the government not listening. First it was the ATVs, now it's the cutting of firewood, Mr. Speaker - they'll have no other choice but to burn electricity or oil because this government will take all the other heating substitutes away from them. I suppose it will be more profits that will fall into the hands of the new Hydro owners, people from outside of this Province and in other countries, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly fully support this petition here today and I ask all government members to pay attention to the people who are speaking out, pay attention to their constituents, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm inspired to rise, by some of the comments of the previous speaker who referred to there having been some accusations of misinformation and so on. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that there indeed has been a tremendous amount of misinformation about this very serious issue. Now, the Leader of the Opposition can laugh at it all he wants but it's a very serious issue. It's very serious from the point of view of the finances of this Province and he can laugh all he wants - I know he spent several years laughing when he was in government and that is what got us into the mess we are in now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the original presentation of Bill No. 1, one of the things we indicated was that we felt this was a positive move financially for this Province. Since that time there has been misinformation spread by the Leader of the Opposition and by others concerning that particular issue. They've said that it has no effect on the rating of the Province, that the rating agencies don't even take it into account, that because it is self-sustaining debt, it is not even considered, that we are totally wrong when we say the sale of Hydro has an effect on the financial condition of the Province and that the privatization as outlined by us would be viewed as positive in the financial world. They've gone around this Province and tried to convince the people of this Province that that is totally false.

Mr. Speaker, as government, we are in a very difficult position on this issue, because nobody controls the rating agencies. All we can say is how we feel it will be viewed. There is nothing hard and fast about that. We've heard from the first of the rating agencies. They have made it quite clear that the privatization as outlined is viewed as a positive, that getting rid of the debt off the books of the Province is positive for the financial outlook of this Province. They state that. They say that the fact that we would not have to go the markets to borrow for some substantial period of time, depending on the revenues, is a positive in the financial outlook of this Province - a positive, which is exactly as we felt they would respond, and as we indicated in the beginning.

The Opposition have made all kinds of hay about questioning our logic and questioning that particular statement that we made. I would say that the people who have egg on their faces today are frightened to death to deal with this issue now. The Leader of the Opposition has egg on his face over this issue. He has got up and made all kinds of financial pronouncements on rating agencies and how rating agencies would look at the sale of Hydro. He has done it time after time, all over this Province. He has done it on the media - made all kinds of seemingly informed statements about it and he has hoodwinked a lot of the people. All I can say is, this is the fist rating agency that has rendered judgement on the Leader of the Opposition and he is found to be lacking, he is found to be wrong, he is found to be going around this Province not telling the truth to the people of this Province.

Some time over the next two months we will have our rating dealt with by the other rating agencies. We don't control that - nobody controls the rating agencies. In due course, as they do every year, they will either downgrade us or upgrade us or reconfirm our current rating. They may not comment on the Hydro issue, I don't know, but we will just simply have to wait and see. I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that so far, the one report from the rating agency has put the lie to everything that the Opposition have been saying with regard to the financial stability and the financial future of this Province.

MR. SIMMS: Good try, `Winst', (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is the truth, you don't like it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: It is the truth and you don't like it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South and to comment on some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance and other government members have engaged in their own form of disinformation about this. They have gone about this Province saying: We would like to be able to tell you what the cost and benefits are but we can't because the Ontario Securities Commission won't let us. That is a lot of poppycock. That is absolutely, totally untrue.

There are restrictions, Mr. Speaker, on what the government can say when they are talking about issuing a share offering to the public. They are not allowed to say what price they will be put out at. They can't say they will be sold for $9.00 a share, or $9.40 a share. They are not allowed to say that, Mr. Speaker, because that will distort the market. They are not allowed to tell lies about how good a deal it is, to pump it up. They are not allowed to go out and pump it up and say, we are going to offer these shares and people are going to make a fortune on them. They are not allowed to say that to induce investors to buy. But, Mr. Speaker, to say they are not allowed to talk about the cost and benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the people, is absolute, total, nonsense, the kind of information that Dr. Wade Locke has produced in his objective economic analysis of the deal.

MS. COWAN: We expect this from you, `Jack', because you are a socialist.

MR. FUREY: I expect honesty from government members when they are in charge of the public purse, not the kind of nonsense we hear from the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, if government were being honest about this they would release whatever cost benefit analysis they may have, and whatever information they have about the return to the government on a potential share issue and its various scenarios. If we got $250 million, this is how it would work out; if we got $300 million, this is how it would work out; if we got $350 million, this is how it would work out. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the government from revealing that information to the public. We have at the moment a reliable, objective, assessment of the Hydro proposal done by an independent academic whose credentials are so impressive to the government that the government has, itself, hired this individual on a number of occasions to do economic studies, including the Minister of Mines and Energy who has hired this individual as a consultant to do economic studies for them. We are not talking about somebody who is on his own trying to promote certain ideas, but as a service to the people of Newfoundland, and to the academic community, this economist has used the assumptions based on the government information, and produced a result which is shocking to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The result of his study and analysis of government's figures, which they made public, is that it will cost the ratepayers, the people who have to pay for electricity to heat their homes, to heat their water, to have showers and wash themselves, to wash their clothes, to cook their food, the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador will have to spend an additional $70-plus million per year with benefits to the Newfoundlander taxpayer of something in the order of $18 to $20 million. The cost benefit analysis that has been done shows that the net cost to the economy of Newfoundland is going to be over and above whatever benefits might accrue in the order of $50 million, perhaps $70 million or perhaps more.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has not answered that challenge. The government has not provided the information; they have not provided the figures. The Minister of Finance gets up and talks about the lies, the misinformation and disinformation that is coming from people who are opposed to this deal, and at the same time, it hides behind some phoney notion of what the Ontario Securities Commission might or might not say if they talk about the true benefits or cost to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

That is three speakers on the petition, I believe. Is there a further petition to be presented?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition and in that way I will give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to speak to this, and hopefully clarify the misrepresentations he just made to the House, because there are certain words the minister just said, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot use in this House, and I will not say them, but what the minister said was not true.

I remember, back a couple years ago, remembered very well, when the minister and the Premier, I think it was around the time they brought in the mini-Budget, some of the comments that you attributed to the same credit agency that you are now trying to praise, that's what I say to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this is a bad deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and whether your buddies on Bay Street like it or not, that's a different story.

What we have is the taxpayers of this Province and the credit raters of this Province, the men and women who are slaving in this Province to try to make ends meet, are the ones who are going to have to pay for you to sell off Hydro to your friends. You talk about set-ups in this Legislature; you heard the Minister of Finance get up that time and talk about the credit agency. This morning the Member for Eagle River got up and had a question for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you the position I thought he was going to take; I thought he was going to ask you, did you agree with spending money in Quebec and not in Newfoundland, that's the question I thought he was going to ask you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just wondering, is the hon. gentleman presenting a petition? I am just looking for some information now, and if so, what is the petition? I missed the beginning.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has missed a lot of beginnings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The beginning of this petition that he missed is from a group of people from Bonavista North. Now I didn't want to say it is from Bonavista North but now that the Minister of Finance has forced me into saying that I am presenting it on behalf of the people of Bonavista North, then I have no other choice but to say it, Mr. Speaker. Two sheets, Mr. Speaker, from people from Gambo and there is a signature on it from Greenspond, Mr. Speaker, and it is against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, so I hope that satisfies -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, listen here, Mr. Speaker, let the record stand here that the twenty-six people from Bonavista North who signed this petition are just as important as any other twenty-six people anywhere else in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister opposite, and what we have here is a government that is trying to privatize Hydro so that they can sell it to their buddies, that's what is happening and the set-ups we saw this morning, the Member for Eagle River, who was trying to get back in the good books of government, when it was exposed yesterday what he was doing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No he is not already in there, because yesterday I heard someone saying to the Minister of Finance: is that true, when it was raised about the Member for Eagle River going down to Quebec and renting cars with taxpayers money when he could rent them in Labrador, two miles away and even cheaper, fourteen dollars cheaper. That's what took him out of the good books and I hope the Minister of Finance will put a halt to it, I say to the member. He is the same member by the way, the Member for Eagle River is the same member who is always preaching in this House about: how come you are not asking questions on the fisheries, why always Hydro, why not the fisheries? Well he had his opportunity this morning, Mr. Speaker, and what was his question on? Hydro.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Your question I say to the Member for Eagle River will be whatever you are asked to ask by the ministers opposite. Whatever you are told to ask, you will ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro is not good for this Province. The minister talked, when he got up, about people misleading. Well who has been more misleading on the Hydro issue than the Premier of this Province? Who went on public television and apologized to the people of this Province for not telling the truth? Who went on public television throughout this province and said that I have informed my Cabinet and my caucus, but I have asked them not to tell the real reasons to the people of this Province.

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

The hon. member's time -

MR. TOBIN: Who misled, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Already?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've heard it all this morning and it kind of characterizes this whole Hydro debate. First of all we had the financial genius, the Leader of the Opposition, for the last couple of months telling the people of this Province that the rating agencies don't consider Hydro debt and wouldn't consider the privatization a positive. We get the first of the four rating agencies reporting, pointing out to everybody all across this country that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what he has been talking about and has been misinforming the people of this Province.

Then we had the Leader of the NDP get up and say that in his great financial genius he disputes what the Ontario Securities Commission is saying and that he is taking them on now. He is saying that really the Ontario Securities Commission doesn't know what it is saying. They don't know what they are saying, and that we can ignore the Ontario Securities Commission and go ahead and assume that they are going to allow us to go ahead with the sale of Hydro even if we breach their regulations. Fortunately one of the news media in this Province contacted the Ontario Securities Commission and contacted other financial people in this country and they found out that what we were saying was exactly right. Not what the financial genius of the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

Then we had another financial genius, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, get up and in effect tell us to ignore the rating agencies, ignore what they say. It doesn't matter what they say. Let's go ahead and bankrupt the Province, let's go ahead and ignore the rating agencies. Don't worry about getting our credit rating lowered, that doesn't matter.

It does matter, and it is crucially important for this Province that if we do get our credit ratings lowered we are in a mess like we have never seen before in the history of this Province. We will be shut out of most of the pools of money that we have to access to do our capital works and to support our programs. We will be shut out of that market. We will have a very reduced market to go to to borrow and it will cost us more money to borrow. There will probably be times, although I can't guarantee it, when we go to the market and we can't get the money. That has happened before, it happened to New Zealand. Everybody knows about that. It is crucially important, contrary to what the Member for Burin - Placentia West says, that we maintain that credit rating.

These three instances are typical of the debate about Hydro. There have been a lot of emotional things, certainly, but in terms of dealing with the facts of the Hydro privatization this morning typifies what has happened. As we go through the next few months and the next few years, regardless of what happens here, it is going to be patently obvious to everybody in this Province that at least the political people in this House of Assembly are simply taking a position simply to oppose and ignoring the financial stability and credibility of this Province. Totally ignoring it. One of the reasons why we are in the mess is that in the past we've had the attitude that we can go ahead and borrow and spend regardless. Continually expand services, throw money away, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, and there is no limit to it. That has been the attitude. The attitude has been that we can go and borrow hunks of money today and make commitments today to be paid for ten years down the road and some other government will pay for that somewhere, we don't have to pay for it. Let's go and borrow our money. That has been the attitude that has been in this Province for years.

Mr. Speaker, that attitude no longer exists. It comes to an end. We must have sound financial management in this Province and one of the tools for sound financial management is the privatization of Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this Province interprets credit rating agencies whenever they want to and how they want to. That is what they do. When the Canadian Bond Rating Service just about a year ago commented and downgraded the rating I think in this Province - it is BBB now, I believe, in this Province, by the Canadian Bond Rating Service. Federally, when the Canadian Bond Rating Service gave a rating they fluffed it off and said: It is not significant what the Canadian Bond Rating Service does. The key ones are Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are coming.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are coming. Well, March 9 on CBC radio - I listened and taped it and did a transcript of every single word we had done a transcript, of what the person who sits on the committee of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Too bad you don't understand it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't interrupt you. The person, Steven Defoe, who sits on the committee that rates this Province stated on March 9, he stated and made reference to: Hydro is a sound corporation. If a corporation is not sound there is a contingent liability on this Province. If Hydro is sound there is no liability that is assessed against this Province in terms of our credit rating, and he said that. Hydro has not in recent years presented a burden to the Province. It has been able to meet its debt servicing costs and for that reason we do not include it in the measure of tax supported debt. That is public sector debt of the Province and other public sector entities in the Province that do, or could need to be supported out of taxes raised in this Province.

Now, Hydro's financial statement - and the minister did not state in this House, but when you look at the 1993 financial statement it will show that there was a profit of about $14 million made on the portion that the government is trying to privatize, excluding the Upper Churchill. The year before there was about $16 million profit on that portion. Hydro has not, since last year, the year before, or the year before, since Standard and Poor's and the other credit rating agencies have assessed this Province, its financial position has not deteriorated. It is still a sound financial company. This government brags about it being easy to sell because it is sound financially, so how can a company that is sound financially, able easily to finance its own debt, turn over a profit of $14 million, turn $10 million back to this Province in guarantees on that debt, and be able to operate and meet all its requirements, pay off debts as they go, Bay d'Espoir paid off in 1992, $170 million, how are they going to rate that as a liability on this Province?

How are they going to do it? The government could guarantee every viable business in this Province, if they have a government guarantee that is making money and profit out there, is no liability. The problem is when government guarantees the debts of companies that are not profitable and that may not be profitable in the future. Now, Hydro has a regulation built in, and the Public Utilities Board has the authority, if the financial position of Hydro becomes tenuous, or there is a problem, they can give a rate increase on the rates to that company to be able to meet their expected financial demands and a small rate of return meeting the requirements of this Province. That is not going to pose a problem.

Now, this government has failed to discuss, it has failed to acknowledge these statements back in March. They get one agency, a very small rating service, the Canadian Bond Rating Service, when the two major ones having rendered a decision, and when they render their decision and the person sits on the committee in March had very positive things to state. Here is what he did say in that statement. He said: depending on the tax concessions that government gives to the new corporation. I will read it for you. The Minister of Finance does not like to hear it. Here is what he stated. It would depend on the price received initially, in other words that is viability. It would depend on expectations of whether and how much of the corporate income tax Hydro would pay, or whether there would be other levies assessed on Hydro that would continue to generate income for this Province. Here is what he is saying. He is stating that if we give concessions of taxes to these companies it will result in less revenues coming into this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I have one minute to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that members opposite wish to debate the Electrical Power Control Act and Hydro privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am not saying that members on this side do not want to. We are definitely anxious to debate it. We believe it is such good legislation that it should be brought forward and debated at once. Accordingly, I move pursuant to Standing Order 21 that the Orders of the Day now be read. The Leader of the Opposition can now pick up his papers and leave, because he has no more interest in the House than that, but I make the motion, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the hon. Government House Leader that we now move into Orders of the Day. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 4, if you would, Mr. Speaker, the Electrical Power Control Act.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate yesterday. Today I will recap by saying that I find it extremely objectionable that the House is being required to debate the Electrical Power Resources Act, as the bill is called. The Premier indicated that there was a mistake in the printing, that the intended title was the Electrical Power Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is an objectionable procedure, first of all because the Premier who introduced the bill, the Premier in whose name this bill stands, introduced it under false pretences. He spoke for about an hour at the outset of debate on second reading, during the first week of March, and gave an explanation for the bill. He answered questions put by the Leader of the Opposition. Three weeks later he asked for free Province-wide television time and, through NTV, startled the people of the Province by confessing that he had given wrong information when introducing this bill.

The Premier indicated that he had concealed from Opposition members of the House, and the general public, one of his real reasons for advancing this legislation. He indicated that he had included the members of his caucus and Cabinet in his conspiracy.

What he said is that one of his actual reasons for advancing this Electrical Power Control Act is to break the Upper Churchill contract. That's the big reason it is objectionable for us to be debating this bill the way we are here this morning. The ethical procedure would require the Premier to start again. If the Premier is intent on having some version of an electrical power control act, let him take this tainted document off the order paper and start afresh. When he introduces the revised bill, let him tell the truth and we will proceed from the basis of the Premier's disclosure of his actual intention.

The second reason it's not fair for us to be debating this measure is that several clauses and provisions of this bill assume that the government will privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Premier told the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, on Province-wide television on March 24, that if in the end a majority of the citizens of the Province are opposed to Hydro privatization he will withdraw the measure privatizing Hydro. The main measure is Bill 1, but there are clauses of this Bill 2 dealing specifically with and assuming the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has refused to hold public hearings into either measure - either the Hydro Privatization Bill, Bill 1, or this Electrical Power Control Act, Bill 2 - and that's an unacceptable departure from the democratic process and from the public hearing process specifically, which the administration now in office began.

The Premier has also declined to have a referendum or a plebiscite on Hydro privatization, despite that fact that he did not get a mandate - he and the Liberal party did not get a mandate from the people in the election last spring - to give away or privatize Hydro. Again he concealed that part of his agenda from the public. He had a secret agenda during last May's election, during last spring's election campaign.

We now know that he was actively contemplating Hydro privatization long before last spring and indeed the government and/or Hydro incurred costs related to the privatization initiative but when the Premier was asked pointedly about Hydro, last spring, he denied or avoided answering. He concealed his intention to privatize Hydro from the voters last spring. Privatizing Hydro is an irreversible act. If there's a change of government in three years time or whenever the next election occurs, as I expect there will be, and if Hydro is privatized by then, sadly a new government will not be able to afford to buy back Hydro. It's very unlikely that a government would be able to buy back Hydro. So what we do now is effectively irreversible. The consequences will burden us for the rest of our lives and will be a liability on future generations.

But, Mr. Speaker, on Province-wide live television on March 24, the Premier promised the people that if a majority of the population are opposed to Hydro privatization that he would withdraw the legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, he did rule out a plebiscite, he refused to have public hearings but he said that polling would be an acceptable way to measure public opinion. Since then polls have been done by reputable, professional polling companies; Decima Research and Market Quest, a division of M-5, the firm recognized by the Minister of Tourism and Culture here this morning. Those polls both indicated that over 80 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a position on the question of Hydro privatization which is quite remarkable. The Decima Research poll indicated that 87 per cent of the population are decided on the question. Both polling firms found that over 79 per cent of the people decided, are opposed to Hydro privatization. Now, Mr. Speaker, the government and Hydro have spent a small fortune on propaganda to try to persuade the population that selling Hydro is a good idea. For five, going on six weeks, there have been ads running on the private radio stations. For the last two or three weeks there have been full page newspaper ads.

During the last week of March, as I've indicated, the Premier had time on the TV networks to give an address that reached the whole Province. That same week he was a guest on open line radio programs reaching the whole Province. So the government has had ample opportunity to put forward its case, yet an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the Province do not buy the government's case. People have rejected it. People are dead set against the government's proposal to privatize Hydro. So the only honourable course for the Premier to take is to keep his word, honour the pledge that he gave people on March 24 and withdraw the Hydro privatization legislation, take Bill 1 off the Order Paper and also take Bill 2 off the Order Paper because Bill 2 has clauses that assume Hydro privatization and facilitate Hydro privatization.

Now, if the Premier wants to bring back a modified version of an electrical power control act, by all means let him do that. I would still call on the Premier to put that revised measure to a select committee of the House for public hearings or to one of the Legislation review committees for public hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now speaking on a motion made by the Leader of the Opposition to delay further consideration of this bill by six months. What I would really want to see, as I've said, is for the government to take this bill off the Order Paper altogether along with withdrawing Bill No. 1. As long as we are stuck with Bill No. 2 on the Order Paper and as long as the government ignores public opposition then I would certainly support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition to delay further consideration of this bill for six months. The reason for the six month delay given by the Leader of the Opposition I fully support, and that is to allow time for consideration of this measure by the public through a public hearing process.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, who is perhaps the only member of the Cabinet in on the Premier's full agenda relating to Hydro privatization, said early in March when these two interrelated measures came before us that they are the most important legislative initiatives since Confederation. How then can the government deny a proper public hearing process? If these measures are so important surely the public should have a chance to examine them.

As I mentioned yesterday I attended Memorial University economics professor Wade Locke's public briefing on his economic analysis of Hydro privatization a couple of days ago. Professor Locke spent an hour and a half explaining his analysis, indicating the approach that he took, saying that he didn't have access, any more than members of the Opposition or the general public have had access, to the government's actual calculations for Hydro privatization. Professor Locke hasn't been able to get the government's figures from them. What he has, and we have had, is a great deal of relevant data. We have audited financial statements of Hydro, although we haven't been able to get the most recent statements. We have the 1992 statements. We have statements of Newfoundland Light and Power. We have records of the Public Utilities Board, the regulatory agency. We have information about comparable electrical utilities and regulatory agencies in other parts of Canada. Of course, we have the two bills.

Based on all of that information and Professor Locke's considerable knowledge of economics, he constructed a model. He plugged in different variables, underlining the fact that he hasn't been privy to government's figures. His variables, I feel, are quite generous to the government. He seems to make assumptions that are favourable to the government case. What he came up with, his best estimate in other words, indicates a huge annual, ongoing, perpetual economic loss to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador resulting from Hydro privatization.

There was no member of the government present at Professor Locke's analysis, which I think is revealing. The Minister of Finance I think is an individual who works hard and usually has a good understanding of what he has advanced. The sad reality in this instance is that he was shut out of the initial decision to privatise Hydro. It has been handled very much by the Premier, solo. As I indicated before, I believe only the Minister of Justice is in on the full scam. Obviously the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is nominally the minister responsible for Hydro, has been shut out of the deliberations. His ignorance has been obvious and is quite pathetic. Personally I don't know how he can live with himself continuing in the job as minister. If I were in his position I would have resigned a long time ago.

I believe that some members opposite have been searching their consciences, but I think it's unfortunate that none of the members opposite attended Professor Locke's presentation, and I would urge members opposite, particularly the Minister of Finance, to have a private consultation with Professor Locke, because the stakes are very high and it would be sad for any one of the individuals opposite to end up as old men, in their seventies or eighties, living their last years regretting a huge mistake which they were in a position to avoid back in 1994.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker - I have just been given a note that my time is about over - I would urge members opposite, while they have a chance, to take individual responsibility for the future of Hydro. Each one of the members opposite, at the end of the day, has the same vote as the Premier. All the members on this side of the House are adamantly opposed to Hydro privatization, and all it would take is nine members opposite - eight in addition to the Member for Pleasantville - to defeat any legislative measures put forward by the Premier to give away or privatize Hydro.

Privatizing Hydro will obviously result in huge electricity rate increases for consumers, for householders and business people - much greater increases, vastly greater increases, than would occur with continued public ownership of Hydro. Mr. Speaker, any electricity cost increase for businesses will have a multiplier effect, will be built into the cost of all goods and services produced in the Province.

Secondly, privatization of Hydro will result in a much greater outlay of Hydro revenue collected from rate payers for dividends, the bulk of which will be paid outside the Province. Now the bond repayment goes out of the Province now, but dividend payments go on forever, whereas bonds have a finite term. The Bay d'Espoir bonds were paid off a couple of years ago. Equity obligations go on forever, and the rate of return on equity is always higher than debt servicing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the third reason - the third main reason -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have a chance today to speak to this amendment. Of course, I certainly don't want to speak against the amendment. We, on this side of the House, are very supportive of getting the issue of the electrical industry redesigned in this Province, and the privatization of Hydro done, because it is the best thing for the people of the Province at this point in time.

Before I do go on to talk about some of the substantial parts of this bill, and the privatization, I would like to point out that I had a couple of calls from Bill Vetter, the leader of the Power of the People in the Province, and he asked me to correct something that I said in the House. I think it was a few days ago, last Tuesday or something, when I got up and indicated that the POP - the Power of the People group - had popped and had fizzled out because of the fact that they couldn't get anybody to show up at the demonstration last Monday.

Obviously I stood to be corrected on that because it wasn't the POP who had organized that particular event, it was the Take Back The Power group, Mr. Malone I guess is the leader of that group, so I want to say to the leader of the POP, that it wasn't any malicious intent to try and say to him that he couldn't put together a crowd of people to demonstrate against this particular issue, but I guess that part of it, Mr. Speaker, does give rise to some concern, because I don't know exactly where Mr. Vetter would be coming from, I don't know why he would be so upset that he would not want to be associated with the leader of the Take Back The Power group.

It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that, here we have one group who is opposed to the privatization of Hydro, they have to try and get support for their cause and we have another group, the leader of the other group, Mr. Vetter, who has given, it seems, like all of his life to taking the government on on this issue and opposing it, and when there is a chance to show the government the opposition, all of a sudden he goes over in the corner and shies away and says: please don't associate me with this other crowd, but the common denominator is the one and the same, so I wonder why there is such a family feud now on the opposition to this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. Why are they fighting against each other? Is it all of a sudden that now Mr. Vetter has recognized the battle is over, and really they have lost that particular issue, is he agreeing now with the Leader of the Opposition and others that they haven't the issue any more? It is gone, the people of the Province want the government to get on with their job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, that could be too, that could be too. Actually the Minister of Finance raises a good point. I think that what we have on the go here now, is a fight to be the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Power struggle.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, a very big power struggle over there now because it is certainly clear from a few days, that Mr. Malone seems to be taking up the Leader of the Opposition and now for a few days before that it was Mr. Vetter, now the Leader of the Opposition sits in here - Mr. Speaker, he went out to his own community about seven blocks I suppose down from his own house where fourteen of his relatives live, and he couldn't get any more than forty people to come out against the opposition to Hydro, so I think they seized the opportunity over there; they said: look, here we have the official Leader of the Opposition who is going out into his own riding, he can't get forty people, so maybe there is a real opportunity now for Mr. Malone, Codco is not on anymore, so maybe it is an opportunity that I can get into politics and be the official Leader of the Opposition. Maybe he can do that, Mr. Speaker.

Not to be outdone, the candidate for the National Party of Canada, in the last election, not to be outdone, had gotten the bug of politics, he had gotten it into his blood of public office, Mr. Vetter, had gotten into his blood now that he would like to be in politics too, so I am not going to try to give any glory to Mr. Malone because we know that he is going after the Leader of the Opposition's job, I am going to make sure now that if there is a demonstration by the Take Back The Power group, that we will do everything possible to make sure that nobody turns up. Now then, the hidden agenda is coming out now. We are now seeing what is at play here.

They are not concerned about whether this is in the best interests of the people, they are concerned about what is in the best interest of Mr. Vetter or Mr. Malone or Mr. Simms, that is what is the concern, the PC Party opposite has now come, you know -well, really they are keeping abreast with the increases in the interest rates. They are starting to come up now in popularity similar to the increase in interest rates; about a quarter-of-a-point a month, I suppose. Maybe in a good month they might rise a point but it is a real opportunity being seized by the members who are involved in this particular debate and it's certainly not lost on us here either, Mr. Speaker.

You know it was only about six or eight months ago when there were all kinds of flashy pink buttons over on the other side. Oh yes, Kim - pounding their chests for Kim, six or eight months or a little while ago and there were the big flashy buttons on the go. Now they've changed the buttons - six months ago they changed their buttons and then they put on the red button, Mr. Speaker, `don't take my Hydro. Please don't sell my Hydro.' Now, Mr. Speaker, today - oh, I caught him! Look, the Member for Ferryland, he noticed he had the red button off and he got to put the red button back on, Mr. Speaker. Oh, boy! Well if it wasn't for me he wouldn't have his button on again today, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can't help but notice it. I hope he didn't tear his shirt that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

If the member is going to make statements he should be accurate. What we've got here - if he calls that red then he should get his eyes tested. Mr. Speaker, we'll wear buttons, any buttons that's in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and I'll ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he has any of those thrifty car rental buttons that are operating in Newfoundland and Labrador he can wear them too!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, in Quebec, not Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I know there was an ouch - and I guess it must have came from the Member for Ferryland when he drove his button in through his jacket that time when he was exposed again because over there now, I mean except for the hon. Member for Ferryland who drove the button in through his suit, there's not one other button over there now anymore. They've taken off their buttons, they've cast that away and now, Mr. Speaker, I guess they are going to go out to the streets again, they're going to go out through the outports of Newfoundland again and try to find another cause, they're going to try to find another parade now that they can come in front of, Mr. Speaker, another parade that they're going to join and jump in front of and try to get some salvation for their political party.

I'm sure that the Member for Burin - Placentia West is going to be going out around the Province trying to find that parade. I know that he will recollect the time that he took his Premier out to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. I know that he will reminisce about the time that he took the Premier on the bus down to the Burin Peninsula and he found this big parade there, Mr. Speaker, he found this big parade, this big horde of people all in the street, and he said to the Premier: now, Mr. Premier, look what a welcoming committee we have here now for you on the Burin Peninsula.

Oh yes, Mr. Tobin, yes my humble parliamentary assistant, yes give me another cigar. Oh, I'm so happy that you would be able to arrange this welcoming party for me, Mr. Tobin, but why are they carrying the guns? Oh, no problem, Mr. Premier, you know that it's such an historic time for you to be coming to the Burin Peninsula, that we arranged a twenty-one gun salute for you, Sir. But, Mr. Tobin, why are they pointing them at me? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there had to be a quick turn around, a big U-turn on the Burin Peninsula and all their back up through, Mr. Speaker.

So obviously when the Member for Burin - Placentia West starts scouting rural Newfoundland again, trying to find that issue, he will reminisce and he will say, that if I see a group of people I shouldn't act too quickly as Chrétien used to say, our esteemed Leader and Prime Minister today, he said: you know you don't jump to quick. If you jump too quick you could jump into a fire. Mr. Speaker, what they have now seen is that the parade that they jumped onto with the Hydro privatization deal has now turned into nothing more than a family feud over there for who is to be the Leader of the Opposition.

They have now found, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province have tremendous confidence in this government. They told us that we wanted you to carry on with the business of government, to implement the policies that are going to bring recovery and economic prosperity to this Province, Mr. Speaker, and they called all kinds of people. They tried to elicit all kinds of information and expertise to back up their support for this campaign. They even went and said that they were going to go to the financial markets and they were going to find out that this did not matter to the financial markets. They were going to say that this did not matter to our credit rating. We do not care, they were saying in the financial markets. Today, Mr. Speaker, finally they've been exposed on that particular issue. Because today it has now been shown that the marketplace out there, the bond rating agency, the one in Canada - Canada Dominion Securities, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Dominion Bond Rating Services now, Mr. Speaker, have come out and clearly, unequivocally, absolutely outlined its concern and said that: If we do not have the privatization of Hydro we will have to seriously consider downgrading the Province's credit rating. How clear do you want it? They are saying that if you privatize Hydro - because it is a good deal for the people of the Province - then they are certainly going to look upon this as a very positive sign of fiscal responsibility. We are looking out.

What do we have now? What we have now again is the Opposition has been exposed again. They have been shown to be for what they are. They are now shown again for what they are. They had seventeen years over there where they were spending like drunken sailors. They didn't care about the futures of our children; they didn't care about the future of this Province. They went to the trough and spent and spent, and they said: Who cares?

AN HON. MEMBER: Borrowed and spent.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Borrowed and spent. If we can't have it in the cash we will go to the banks and get it and we will borrow and spend, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River can't be up here making such false accusations and saying that members on this - it is very derogatory saying that members on this side spent like drunken sailors. It is a terrible reflection on members here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a terrible reflection on sailors, I would say to the member. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member for Eagle River that even drunken sailors would know the boundaries of their district and their Province, and they wouldn't stagger into the Province of Quebec to rent a car at a higher price than he could get one in this Province, at taxpayers' expense, I would say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, no point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of silliness, of foolishness, a point of absolute outrageous imagination by the member opposite.

I should correct myself there, because I do believe he has a valid point about me casting any innuendo on the sailors. I certainly would not want to do that. But if I could be allowed to take that part of it away, I want to as a matter of fact reinforce even more that whatever state they were in, whether it was through those particular beverages or anything else, there is absolutely no doubt about the record.

The record was one that is - in 1972, when this party gave up the government of this Province after twenty-three years, there was a total public debt on the books of this Province of $600 million. After seventeen years in record growth, revenues increasing by 8 per cent to 10 per cent on average, after record growth, after record revenue, and after leaving with $600 million in the Province, they left after seventeen years with $5.4 billion to the people of this Province, to the children of this Province, to the generations that are yet to come. That is the record.

Whatever way you want to characterize it you certainly can do so. The fact is that when we left the government in 1972 it was $600 million. After we took back the government in 1989 it was over $5 billion. That was the kind of record that they left to the people. That was their legacy. They did not care about who had to pay. They did not care about us having to pay right now $470 million a year interest we have to pay out of the taxpayers' money, the people out there who are asking now to be paying the taxes.

Before we can touch our education, Mr. Speaker, before we can take a dollar to spend on the very important health care facilities around this Province, before we can take a dollar to try to keep those hospital beds open, before we can take a dollar for the Minister of Social Services who has many pressing needs for the people in this Province who through no fault of their own are in need, before we can go to that Minister of Social Services and give him a dollar, we have to take $515 million for the next fiscal year. Four hundred and some odd last year, but for this year, before we can take a dollar for anybody else, we have to take $515 million to pay the interest on the debt. The debt that hon. crowd over there built up while we were experiencing record economic growth in this Province, while we had tremendous influx of new revenues to this Province and to that government.

Since we have come to power we have endured the worst economic recession since the 1930s. We have seen a downturn in provincial revenues. We have seen an even greater demand on our social services, on our health care, on our education. We have seen all of that. Ever since that we have - it is incumbent upon us to look at ways so that we can get the money that is necessary to be able to keep these essential services going.

I must also report to this House that during the Easter break I undertook to consult with my constituents and I went throughout the Coast of Labrador and I held five public meetings at various locations along the Coast. At those meetings I had a chance to answer any of the questions that the people might have. I gave them lots of good news of course, because this government has been doing tremendous things for the people on the Coast of Labrador. I gave them tremendous news about the water and sewer projects that are going to be going ahead. This year over $2 million in water and sewer is going to be spent along the Coast of Labrador, absolutely.

We have a very good, solid agreement with the federal and provincial governments in Labrador. There was an amendment recently by our Minister of Fisheries, our Cabinet representative in Ottawa, an amendment which gave us an extra $4.2 million for the Labrador Agreement for water and sewer. Just another indication of the kind of cooperation, the kind of consideration, that we are getting from Ottawa. We are joining in here, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is joining in here in this Province, by giving 30 per cent of the dollars for that money for water and sewer on the Coast of Labrador. I was happy to tell them about that particular funding.

I was happy to tell them about the new package that was going to be announced by Mr. Tobin. I was happy to tell them that we are going to have a five year program of renewal in the fishery, a five year program that will give them income support. They are going to give them incentives to go out and diversify within and outside the fishery.

I was happy to tell them that progress is being made on the woods operation, the forestry potential. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is going to be one of the most remembered ministers of forestry ever from the point of view of Coastal Labrador. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture last year saw a training program put in place down there that kept some thirty-odd people into the training of forest harvesting. Right now as we speak there are some ten to fifteen new jobs in Port Hope Simpson as a result of that training project, long-term, meaningful jobs, where we are now harvesting the woods of Labrador for Abitibi-Price. We are now seeing another contract in the offing.

I will say here today that we are going to see in the Cartwright, Port Hope Simpson and Charlottetown areas of Labrador within the next two to three years 200 to 300 jobs in the harvesting and processing of the Labrador timber, good solid meaningful jobs for the people on the Coast of Labrador.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, of course, is another minister who is going to be long remembered on the Coast of Labrador. There is no doubt about that. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, along with his colleague there, the Minister of Education is working now to get established on the Northern Peninsula a laminated wood processing operation, and we are eagerly waiting to see that that project is going ahead, because the people on the Coast of Labrador want to be a part of that. They want to be able to cut the wood, they want to be able to saw it into lumber, and they want to be able to take it over to Roddickton so that we can laminate it, and for the first time ever in this Province we will be exporting a finished lumber product from the Coast of Labrador.

Now, that, Mr. Speaker, is very good news indeed, some 100 jobs on the Norther Peninsula, we are willing to share in Labrador. We are looking to have 110 jobs in the Cartwright, Port Hope Simpson, Charlottown area working with the local sawmillers, Mr. Speaker, it is a very good and very promising piece of news for the people of Labrador.

The Minister of Development is spearheading that and I know he is going to see it through to fruition, that he is going to see it accomplished, and we are going to be able to go back. That is something that should not be lost to the people of this Province, that right now on the Coast of Labrador, from L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright we have, I believe, greater promise than many other parts of this Province because of the work that is being done by this government, and obviously their humble servant their member of the House of Assembly.

We have been ahead of the game. We have recognized that the Northern cod stock was leaving the Coast of Labrador. We recognized some four years ago that the Northern cod stock was leaving 2J so we seized an opportunity to diversify within the fishery, we seized an opportunity to go into Cartwright and invest $750 million, along with $250,000 from the Labrador shrimp company, and put a new modern crab processing plan in that community that now has over 100 people working there, more security than the people in Cartwright have known for twenty-five years.

On the coast further up, in Mary's Harbour and St. Lewis we have seen equal investments of public and private funding. We now see in the Williams Harbour area 100 and some odd people getting good solid meaningful employment from harvesting one resource, the scallop resource, that was never used before. It was always there on the bottom and was never taken other than for a bit of food harvest. Last year over 100 people in that area got solid meaningful employment from going out there and taking advantage of that resource. We are now, this year, looking at the community of Black Tickle that is adjacent to the shrimp fishery. We are seeing that as a very promising venture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Could I have a few minutes leave to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Until the next time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, when I rose before to speak on the other bill, Bill 1, one of the things I mentioned that was missing in Bill 1, and the same thing now in Bill 2, is the fact that there were no public hearings. Now, one of the things that this particular administration did when they came into power in 1989 was institute the committee system in the House of Assembly, and as far as I am concerned it was long overdue. It was one - and I underline one, of the things done by the administration opposite that, as far as I am concerned, was a good move, an excellent move.

Mr. Speaker, to put something in form and to say you have something on paper and doing it and carrying it out, the intent of what that regulation is or whatever the legislation is, is another thing. When I look at some of the pieces of legislation that have been sent to the committee over the past five years, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Province as far as I am concerned, all we have to do is look at our history and we should learn from that, and that is Bill 1 especially, and Bill 2, to a certain extent but especially Bill 1.

Why, Mr. Speaker, I asked before and I ask again today, wasn't this piece of legislation sent to committee? Why didn't the people of the Province have a chance to air their views and their concerns and have a chance to express them to the committee structure? A committee was structured such that they would be given an opportunity once that piece of legislation was sent to the committee, they could hold hearings within the committee system because they are masters of their own affairs and so on and they could make a decision within committee whether they travelled around the Province or whether they just held meetings here in the House of Assembly, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if this particular piece of legislation had come to a committee in this House, that the decision would have been to go out and travel around the Province and hear the concerns of the people.

Give them a chance to express to committee members what their concerns are and what they would like to have to say and document it, and bring it back to the House of Assembly so that, in the committee report every member of the House of Assembly would have access to the comments and so on made by their constituents and then they would have an opportunity to get up and speak on it. It is funny when you see in other jurisdictions around the country today and around the world, committees in place, especially the federal system, travelling all around the country. We had one here yesterday in the city on GST and so on; travelling all around the country to listen to what people have to say, but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the people are given absolutely no opportunity to have anything to say on it.

If, even I suppose - certainly, I have said this before too, as far as I am concerned democracy stops. We go into an election campaign, we come out of it and we are all, in the campaign everybody is talking about, vote for your choice; vote for someone who is going to bring your concerns to the floor of the House of Assembly and express them on your behalf and so on; but once the election is over and we come into the system we have, this Parliamentary system, the Westminster system, then, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, all democracy stops, because I am a firm believer that once a government is formed, government members, backbenchers and opposition members should be given the opportunity of a free vote on each and every piece of legislation that comes to the floor of the House of Assembly, we should have the opportunity to vote our conscience, and to vote mainly the way that our people, the people who voted and put us here, we should be given an opportunity to express their concerns and to vote on their behalf, and if an issue comes up where, 65 per cent, 70 per cent, 75 per cent of the people in your district are against something, why should I come in here and vote against their wishes after they voted to put me here in a so called democratic system and a democratic right?

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the things that the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River just mentioned as it pertains to the provincial debt. Yes, we have a large deficit, Mr. Speaker. I won't go into the details as to how that deficit was incurred, but I will mention that the hon. member gets up and other hon. members opposite talk about what happened in seventeen years. Mr. Speaker, we can go back to the twenty-three years previous to that and we could look at probably a provincial deficit of $500 million to $600 million come 1971-'72, but I say to you, and to each and every person in this Province today, that there was no more serious act, and there never will be, unless this piece of legislation goes through, there will never be another act carried out like the Upper Churchill, the Churchill Falls Agreement.

That is costing this Province in the vicinity of over $2 million every day, each and every day, and we are talking about provincial debt. We are here talking about what happened in the previous seventeen years. Well I say to the people in the gallery, and to the people of this Province today, that they must have short memories. People associated with the Liberal party in this Province today, and previous to this in the last twenty-three years, we are paying the price, and a very, very dear price, for what has happened by a party represented by people opposite today in this Province, and have the gall to stand in this Legislature and talk about the previous seventeen years - have the gall to stand, when you look at over $2 million a day going into the treasuries of Hydro Quebec, and the people of Quebec, at the expense of the poorest province in this country, and we are about to commit the same sin. We are about to commit the same sin, only give it to a few different people in other parts of this country and other parts of this Province today.

Big dollars - when I first looked into this, when I was on the resource policy committee, and I asked what the income to Hydro Quebec from Churchill Falls was, I was given a figure of $847 million. Then I was asked what the Province got in that same year in those estimates - $21 million. Mr. Speaker, any member opposite, or anybody associated with the Liberal party in this Province today who has the gall to stand in their place, or anywhere in this Province, and try to defend a scheme such as that!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No way. I know what I am talking about, and if the minister wants to get up and rebut some of those figures and ask where they are going... We paid a heavy price, and we are still paying a heavy price, and it's obvious today, from this piece of legislation, that we are going to continue to pay a heavy price for trying to keep Quebec in Canada. This is nothing new. This goes back a long, long time. That is why we couldn't get a grid across Quebec. What were the reasons? Who was in power, the federal government at the time? We paid the price then. We paid the price yesterday, and we are going to pay the price today, and we are going to pay the price tomorrow.

Never, never, was there a time in our history with regard to what is happening in Quebec today, the possibility of separation. Is there any federal government today? Whether it be Liberal, PC, or whatever the hell they are up there, are they going to give any rights to Newfoundland Hydro or any other, regardless of the government in this Province, to put a grid across Quebec or to sell power outside of Quebec? No, they are not. If they never did before, they are certainly not going to do it today, regardless of what the membership of the Liberal party of Quebec is in the federal government today. That will not be done. We paid a heavy, heavy price, and we are still going to pay it.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the funds and the revenues that are going into the coffers of Hydro Quebec, if you could only sit down with every Newfoundlander and Labradorian on a one-to-one basis and go through this particular piece of legislation, and then go through Bill 1, and then go through the history of what has happened to this Province pertaining to Newfoundland Hydro, then there wouldn't be any doubt in my mind that the vote today would be 98 per cent instead of 70 per cent.

Seventy per cent of the people in this Province are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, of which Bill 2 definitely plays a part in that particular piece of legislation - not a big part, but it does play a part - and those 70 per cent, or 65 per cent, or 69 percent, or 75 per cent, as far as I am concerned, should be given the right to voice their opinion in a public manner such as the committee system. I am sure members opposite, sometime over the next few weeks, will possibly see the light and give people an opportunity to voice their opinion in that particular manner.

Mr. Speaker, under Bill 2, "Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador," there are a certain number of things in there that I would like to address with regards to what it would cost the Province. I said previously that this particular piece of legislation, some of it is good, some of the legislation in this Bill 1 has nothing wrong with it, but there are parts of this particular piece of legislation that should be highlighted and it should be let know to the people of the Province that it is not only Bill 1 they should have concerns with. It is not only Bill 1 that is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province X number of dollars, possibly $25 to $40 million a year in perpetuity as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and when you look at inflation that will be increased each and every year from here into the future.

We can look at Bill 2 and see the same repercussions from this particular piece of legislation. One of the things I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is there are five areas in that particular piece of legislation that would add to the cost of electricity rates in this Province, in other words hit the rate payer in this Province. One of those, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 2, is where it would instruct the Public Utilities Board to base electricity rates on three criteria. Now, what is the criteria that the public utilities board base their decisions on, and they look at when they make their decisions pertaining to the increase of electrical rates in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read that?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I read that. That is the worst piece of propaganda that I ever saw put out to the people of this Province. If the government was questioned on each and every clause in that, in a debate somewhere in this Province, I am sure the minister and a lot of his colleagues would not be able to answer it. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, three of the reasons the Public Utilities Board base their decisions on an increase of rates in the Province when a utility goes to the Public Utilities Board for an increase are cost, maintenance of credit worthiness and a guaranteed profit for shareholders.

Now, Mr. Speaker, previous to this particular legislation, if this piece of legislation is passed, the only ones in the Province right now, if I am not mistaken, is Newfoundland Light and Power, especially as it pertains to the generation and the distribution of electricity in the Province, they are the only one that will go to the PUB under those three, and when they go the Public Utilities Board will look at it under those three particular headings, cost, maintenance of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders.

Now, if this particular piece of legislation is passed, Mr. Speaker, then new Hydro, if the privatization bill should go through, then new Hydro will have the right, when they go to the Public Utilities Board, to have the same cost and the same return as Newfoundland Light. Today they are guaranteed a rate of something like 13.74 per cent return to their shareholders. Before they go in at all they are guaranteed that. The minister shakes his head. Well, it is history.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: Is the minister suggesting to me today that this government would sell Newfoundland Hydro to the so-called new Hydro, and is he saying to me that in turn, with the cost that I have seen on even what the government has presented - and that has been very little, that they would go to the Public Utilities Board? They have no choice because even if the minister can convince me today that they would not have to go in the next two years, there is no trouble to look at the figures and see, after this administration is out of power in another couple of years, what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: They have no choice but to go and pick that up. Those subsidies are not going to be paid then. This administration has no intention of paying the subsidies they have recommended now in this particular legislation, in the privatization act, paid to new Hydro. Mr. Speaker, they would have to go to the Public Utilities Board and ask for an increase in rates to cover their costs, and having said that, that is just a cover.

Now, the difference of the debt to equity ratio of Newfoundland Hydro and that of Newfoundland Light and Power, is a far cry, and you don't have to be a mathematician to find out and tell people opposite or anybody else in the Province, that when they go to the Public Utilities Board, they would - nobody is going to invest money in new Hydro if they are going for 13.74 per cent even, if they can go over to Newfoundland Light and get 20 per cent or, go to IBM and get 20 per cent or go somewhere else and get 18 per cent - you aren't going to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

MR. A. SNOW: Thirteen per cent?

MR. WOODFORD: Thirteen, no.

MR. A. SNOW: Thirteen per cent? How much?

MR. WOODFORD: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That's right, exactly, and the case today for - What is the case for Newfoundland Hydro today? Can the minister tell me that, is it 7 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Power.

MR. WOODFORD: Newfoundland Power.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will vary (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Exactly, between 13 per cent and 13.5 per cent, but I am talking about the average over the last five years, and if the average over the last five years with the interest rates as they have been for the last twenty-four months, I mean, what is going to happen over the next five years, the way interest rates are? We know what is going to happen in the next year. Look what has happened in the last two months with regard to interest rates. At a time in our history, when - and I remember members opposite getting up in this House a short seven or eight months ago, tearing strips off John Crowe and the Federal Government because of interest rates being so high and they were keeping the bank rates up and yet some of the rates, the mortgage rates, were some of the lowest in the last three years. What has happened in the last month or two? costing this government money every day.

The reserve of the United States has put up their interest rates to fight inflation - automatically the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the new John Crowe, so-called, we have no inflation, absolutely nothing today with regard to inflation because of the reduction in the price of cigarettes and so on, that's what kept it up to around 2 per cent for the last number of months, except in this Province now; well, that's a little different but still (inaudible), we have no inflation. One of the reasons the former Governor of the Bank of Canada put up interest rates was to fight inflation, but now, because the United States are putting up their interest rates to fight inflation, what is happening?

We are putting them up in this country, at its worst time, at a time when they should be down and, as far as I am concerned, if the interest rates move much higher within the next month to six weeks in this country, we are not going to have a recession, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a depression, because businesses are not going to spend; consumers are holding back now because when you look at the provincial part of it, because of the uncertainty created by members opposite with regard to the unions in the Province, they are not spending and, Mr. Speaker, if interest rates go much higher, the sale of Newfoundland - and I think someone opposite, I don't know if it is the Minister of Finance or maybe the minister responsible for Mines and Energy, mentioned just a short time ago what the effect of interest rates could have on the sale of Newfoundland Hydro; we don't have to tell members opposite what that would be.

When you see mortgage rates going up again - now, on the other hand, you look at bonds, some stocks have gone up. I think the Federal Government just put an extra 1 per cent on their bonds yesterday; if I am not mistaken I saw something to that effect, or 1.5 per cent on their Canada Savings Bonds, so that is a plus for consumers who kept it in there. But who kept it in there? Most people who have any money today in an RRSP or something like that have moved them out into mutual funds, moved them out into stocks, moved them out into equities over the last couple of years, so that they could gain something, because they were getting absolutely nothing on their savings in the banks and it's just as well to say absolutely nothing when it comes to a stock or a bond with the Canadian Government. So, all of a sudden, after seven or eight months, Mr. Speaker, everything is quiet. The political cousins in Ottawa now are wonderful people. They're wonderful people all of a sudden and there's absolutely - we can see it as it pertains to the fishery, we see it as it pertains to the infrastructure program, we see it as it pertains to pretty well every program that's announced or talked about today, everything is hunky-dory. A few short months ago, Mr. Speaker, we saw the opposite. Every time a federal member opened his mouth, there was something wrong with it. Every little cent - $5 million, $10 million and so on, and when they talked about the monies that were going to be cut in the Province, what was said?

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister just confirmed for me the first part of this particular piece of legislation that I have concerns with and that is, as I said before, the cost, the maintenance of credit worthiness and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. The minister confirmed for me today that the return to Newfoundland Light and to new Hydro would be somewhere around 13 per cent, 13.5 per cent or 13.74 per cent. As I said earlier, the average for the last five years - and one of my colleagues said that as well - that the return was an average of 13.74 per cent. So it won't be only Newfoundland Light to have that particular right. Newfoundland Hydro will automatically have that - or any other hydro, I suppose, even if Bill 1 doesn't go through, they'll still have it under the Electrical Power Resources Act, which is Bill 2 - they'll have that anyway. So when they go to the Public Utilities Board they can get a return.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's no trouble to know what's going to happen when all the subsidies start coming off. In two or three years this administration is not going to be giving the same subsidies to new Hydro that they're giving today. We look back historically, at what's happened with Hydro rates, at what happened after the 1989 Budget when $30 million was knocked off to the PDD system in this Province, when the Province charged 1 per cent to float the bonds of Newfoundland Hydro for $9 million or $10 million a year. What happened when they went for a rate increase? It meant, at that particular time, a 2.8 per cent increase to the ratepayers of this Province, which meant $4.20 a month on a light bill. Then someone has the audacity to come here and tell us that that was only based on a $10 million cost charged to float the bonds. It was only based on $10 million of the $30 million to the PDD system in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because that $30 million that came off in the 1989 Budget was spread out over three years, and members opposite forget that.

That particular increase in 1989, when Newfoundland Hydro had to charge Newfoundland Light extra for their power, they went in for a cost to the ratepayer of $20 million - not $50 million, not $40 million but on $20 million. The other $10 million came in 1990 and the other $10 million came in 1991; it was not done in one year and that particular rate increase resulted in the $4.20-a-month cost to the ratepayers of this Province, just on one increase for one part of the 1989 Budget. It has nothing to do with a $40-$50 million cost that is going to happen each and every year, on and on and on as we go, Mr. Speaker. That's what is going to happen and if the people of this Province - and the funny thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is this: when the people of this Province ask a member opposite or ask one of our members, how come that's going to happen? That won't happen and so on. Sure there's no trouble to see it. It doesn't have to come from a politician. It doesn't have to come from a member opposite. All they have to do is go down to the PU board and pick up the paper. It was in it. And then we got leaflets going around this Province today on rate increases and rate estimates dated March 4, 1994, that shows a 12 per cent increase over the next five years. Now, Mr. Speaker, that to me, is just a cover up, that's all. I don't know who put those figures out. Newfoundland Hydro must not have talked with anybody at Newfoundland Light and Power. They certainly didn't talk with anybody at the Public Utilities Board. I mean, this is public knowledge. Any member opposite can get this in thirty seconds - thirty seconds to see what it cost this Province after the Budget was changed in 1989 for the $30 million to the PDD system, and the $10 million charge to float their bonds. Any member can stand up today and get what I got. It is not coming from anybody that I had working for my office, it's not coming from anybody within our office, it's coming from the Public Utilities Board, and each and every person in this Province has access to that particular board and the information they have.

Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, especially the backbenchers, that if they want to make sure they have their facts on this one, they don't have to look at the privatization bill at all. All they have to do is just talk about rate increases and forget what's in the bill. Just look at what happened with the Public Utilities Board over the last four or five years and you would not have to ask any other questions when constituents walk up to you and ask, `Will the cost of electricity increase?' All you have to do is say, `Yes'. `Where can I find that out, hon. member?' `Go to the Public Utilities Board or go to your member.' In thirty seconds they can tell you.

And nobody has to tell me about the Public Utilities Board. I sat for years on the Federation of Municipalities and watched the Public Utilities Board in action. I watched when the Federation of Municipalities were the only intervenors in this Province, when Newfoundland Light and Newfoundland Hydro came to the Public Utilities Board for an increase in rates. What happened? The people of this Province did not have a right to intervene with the Public Utilities Board about the increase in power rates in this Province. The only intervenors were the Federation of Municipalities in this Province, and that was a risk that they had to take, because we were not floating in funds. We did not have surplus funds, and we did not have access to funds at that time.

We took a chance and went into those hearings, and hoped that we would win it, and if we won it then we could claim the cost to the PUB and then they would pay the Federation of Municipalities for their expenses; but if anybody ever went into a courtroom in this country today, or this Province, and saw, especially at one of the public trials - I suppose something the media had blasted all over the pages - and see the lawyers who are sat around, that is nothing. You should see the battery of lawyers and the consultants from all over the world that the Public Utilities puts forward, that Newfoundland Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro used to have sitting in that particular chamber. As far as I am concerned, if anybody walked in off the street representing a municipality, whether it's big or small in this Province today, they would be intimidated right away; they wouldn't say anything. You had to have your facts together to go in there, because they tried to intimidate you right from the start.

Mr. Speaker, there are five areas, I mentioned - I only got on one. You could probably speak for another couple of hours on the rest. The other one that I would like to mention is to empower the PUB to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of an electric utility which paves the way for an eventual merger between a privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power, and that, to me, is one of the concerns that I have with that particular legislation, and that is, namely, Bill 2, the one we are on today. As far as I am concerned, yes, it is good to have it there. It is good to have the 20 per cent there for protection, but I can see - all you have to do is look around this country today and see what happens to companies, big or small.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they should. They would probably like to adjourn debate.

I rise to speak on the six-month hoist. Maybe we would like to see a 2,000 year one.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the planning, allocation, and reallocation of electrical power and power emergencies in the Province. Now, there is no problem with providing for power emergencies in the Province and there are some good points in the legislation, but overall, it states also that to provide an equitable source of power at the lowest possible cost with reliable service is the intent of this bill, Bill 2. That is the professed intent of this bill, overall. Now, we know, and we have known for some time, that the deal on the Upper Churchill was bad for this Province. Everybody should admit that, it was bad, and we are paying a tremendous price on the deal for the Upper Churchill. In fact, this Province realized it shortly thereafter and there were attempts made in the 1970s to recall that power. There was an attempt made to recall that power through the partial access of power out of the 5,225 megawatts that were produced at the Upper Churchill. That was back in the 1970s. The Supreme Court ruled that we could not access that power above and beyond the contracted 300 megawatts without violating a legal contract with the Province of Quebec, or Hydro Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting to that. Follow the sequence. I am delighted the member is listening. I sure hope you keep paying attention because I will get to these points.

Now, in the 1980s, I believe, with the Upper Churchill Water Reversion Act, Premier Peckford attempted to get the power back, the second attempt by this Province to recall that power, and he went for the total acquisition process for the Province rather than the partial access, to access 800 megawatts of power. Now, the Supreme Court also ruled that was not proper, was not constitutional, and we took a beating in the Supreme Court.

MR. MURPHY: Tell us why.

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason why? because the Province would be breaking an agreement with Quebec. That contract is to be heard under Quebec law and in Quebec courts and it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Now, it did go to the Supreme Court and regardless of what twist you want, what we see today is a throwback to the partial access of Upper Churchill power, not for a total takeover of power. We are looking to partial access and it is cleverly fitted and grafted into this act here that we are now going to try to do by the back door what could not be done by the front door before in the courts.

This Electrical Power Resources Act enables this government, the Cabinet to ask the Public Utilities Board for the recall of power. The Premier indicated - he said on March 22 on TV, that a private company would have a better opportunity and it would be deemed to be without motives, to have a better chance in court of getting back that power from the Upper Churchill. Now, he admitted on March 24 in the debate that it was not a consideration at all, and here are some of the points that Mr. Wells, in 1986 - and I have a copy of it here - he was on the committee on the future power supply back in 1986 where he was an advisor. Here is what the committee was instructed to do, first of all. It was instructed specifically to consider any legislative changes which would give the company greater flexibility in the construction of new generating facilities and the acquisition of power generated by others at existing facilities.

Now, Mr. Wells came back to the board with a report and he stated -here is what his committee advised. It would be appropriate for the company to become more attuned to the potential for greater participation in energy development.

He said: If Hydro does initiate a Labrador in-feed, it could present an opportunity for that company - Newfoundland Light and Power at the time - to provide capital through the acquisition of hydro assets on this Island. He said: Alternatively, the company may wish to participate directly in new Labrador developments.

That was in 1986. Now, he tried a back door strategy. The Peckford Cabinet in 1986 sent that legislation - and there are copies here; it was drafted by, at the time, Clyde Wells, who is now Premier Wells - to a team of lawyers. The team of lawyers did not think it would stand up to the challenge and they disagreed, that it wouldn't have a chance within the courts.

Now, this Province is facing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm getting a few of these points as we go. I would like to keep it on course here and deal with it in an orderly fashion.

The Province has three specific points on which they are basing this act: Number one: That the Province has constitutional authority to manage the supply of resources here in this Province. That is a fair assessment. The Province should have considered that more seriously when they gave Quebec a contract for all of 5,225 megawatts, with the exception of recall of 300 megawatts, when they struck a legal agreement. They should have considered that seriously.

He said: The second is that legislation has the general application to all power produced in the Province and to all contracts for the supply of power. It is based upon the premise that any contracts with Quebec would be incidental to that supply of power - now, incidental, rather than the pith and substance of it.

Third, control over all of the hydro assets in this Province is essential to the needs of the people in this Province.

Now, the Supreme Court would be the final say, not Mr. Wells, whether he thinks that because we are going to hide it into a whole framework of legislation, to hide the intent of legislation - and I want as much as anybody to see that power recalled, to be able to have control and get extra profits on that. We made a decision that the courts have deemed irreversible. I'm very saddened by that, and I'm sure you are. I think it's a grave misfortune that has happened in this Province to see $700 million or $800 million dollars-worth of electricity going out at the profits of Hydro Quebec, the most profitable corporation in this country, one of the most profitable corporations in this country, one of the most profitable corporations in the whole country, not just hydro or electrical generation corporations but the most profitable in the entire country, if you look at the top 500 companies, look where Hydro Quebec is in terms of profits, it ranks up in the top two and three and four, and even first I think in I believe 1989 -1990.

The Supreme Court did not quarrel with Newfoundland's right to have specific control over those things to manage within the provincial boundaries, but there are some responsibilities and some authority here outside the provincial boundaries in other words. Now the Electrical Power Resources Act, when that comes into effect, what is going to happen is that technically Hydro Quebec's, if this happens, Hydro Quebec's right to adhere and live under the contract that they signed and our Province's responsibility will no longer exist. It will be effectively destroyed and my greatest fear if that happens is that the repercussions that could occur if Quebec takes action for the loss of this power and possibly those revenues and takes action against this Province, it could be a terrible price that this Province would have to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my greatest fear. If you break a contract with something you signed, you could be sued. If we break a contract with legislation that contravenes and flies in the face of a contract with Hydro Quebec, they are subject to take you to court and the Supreme Court has ruled twice in their favour.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about if the sky falls in?

MR. SULLIVAN: What about if the sky falls in?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) break any contract.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you if the sky falls in. If this Province attempts to take more than 300 megawatts out of 5,225, it is now 5,428 megawatts there now, if they attempt to take any more than 300 it flies in the face of the agreement that they signed to have a supply of power until the year 2041 to the year 2016 at 3 mils per kilowatt and two thereafter. That option was in an initial contract that they have exercised; it is violating a contract and the repercussions could be immense on this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not going to do it so the whole question (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you don't want it, why do you want the act? If you don't want it why do you want the act? Take it off the Order Paper and stop wasting the time of the people of this Province if you don't want it; get it out of there and debate the legislation, there are lots of important legislations waiting there and get on with the business of the day and stop wasting time in the House of Assembly debating something if you don't agree with it.

Now, the Premier stated it on numerous occasions, I won't get into that. We know and you know that if this act is passed it could have the intent of taking away the absolute right of the province of Hydro Quebec to have that power delivered - a fixed amount of power for a specified time and price - to the Province of Quebec, and if they are trying to do it, that is what is going to happen.

Here I will ask: What happens if Hydro Quebec -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, here is what happens. If we default, Hydro Quebec has the right to take over the bonds, to buy the shares, to have it turned into equity in CF(L)Co. They have that right, and we would be in a financial situation where we would have no choice but to permit Quebec to take over the equity by our defaulting on bonds on Hydro, and Quebec would get control over CF(L)Co. They now have, I believe, 34.8 per cent control of CF(L)Co, and within a few years when the equity moves they get over 50 per cent.

That won't be very long, because CF(L)Co is projected to start showing a loss in the year 2000. It was initially 1998; it is now 2000. I hope it goes to 2041, that we never show a loss. It would be fantastic for the financial position of this Province, but we are going to reach that position - that very undesirable position, - in the year 2000, or very shortly thereafter, and when we get to that position, Hydro Quebec has the right to be able to contribute to the shortfalls, to be able to convert it to shares or equity that they will, for all intents and purposes, within a few years after the turn of the century, will have controlling interest in CF(L)Co, if they so desire to have that. If they think it is going to be a long-term loss and devastation and expense, they may not want to do that, but they have that right. That is there; that is built in. We don't have that right; Hydro Quebec has.

The Premier has put out much conflicting information to the public of this Province, and they have been very confused - very, very confused. He has stated, and this new act empowers the Public Utilities Board, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, can make a request to the Public Utilities Board, or anybody else, for any other utility, whether it would have been a power distribution district or whether, well, we will say Newfoundland Power, or any suppliers of power, if they need it they can make a request to the Public Utilities Board for that right for the recall of power. That is deemed to be improper and a violation

of the agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Supreme Court has ruled - you weren't here listening. You should be here listening to the proper sequence we developed and not butting in at a time that you don't know what you are talking about. You have all the answers. You sat back in the 1960s when we gave it away, advising the premier.

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't even there.

MR. SULLIVAN: You sat around.

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't even there (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Weren't you his parliamentary assistant there at the time, you worked in his office? You were a lawyer working in his office giving advice. Is that the type of legal advice we are getting?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The Premier was there too. The same architect of the Upper Churchill deal that is thirty times a Sprung every single year for the rest of our life. That is what it is. It is thirty times a Sprung. At least when people make mistakes some people admit them and others don't. Some people can face the fact to admit it.

There are a few points I would like to touch on before we conclude.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) look over your shoulder.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to look over my shoulder; I am going to look straight ahead. What someone did before, if I'm a part of it, I accept responsibility and stand up and take it. If I don't agree with it I will fight as hard as I can to see it doesn't happen. If it happens and I can't control it, so be it, I will take responsibility. I won't go out and try to hide and preach one thing when people -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are trying to hide. To tell me that this government produced estimates a year ago and they came back to this House....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Then come back to this House and table the Estimates in this House and have a new item under Executive Council of $1.7 million, and the minister can stand up here and he does not know the breakdown. It is all privatization. It is only trivial, that is what he tells the people. If the minister doesn't know that he shouldn't be minister, that is what I would say to the House. You should know every, single expenditure that is occurring on privatization. You should have them ready and available and tell it to the people up front. The reason you are losing the trust and confidence of the people is because you are not telling the truth. We have to draw facts out of you, draw them out, after numerous false figures being given.

We know the truth. It is right here. One million four hundred and seventy-two thousand out of $1.6 million you spent on Hydro privatization. The minister didn't know that. If he didn't know that he is incompetent. That is what I would say to the minister. He is incompetent if he doesn't know it.

He should know where the next $1.5 million is going to be spent. If he put it in the line item of a budget of $1.5 million he should know how it is going to be spent.

MR. ROBERTS: It is not in his estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister - I didn't say what minister. The Minister of Finance, the Executive Council. If it was to be spent on the privatization of Hydro, he should know, and you should know.

Now, this bill was cleverly crafted to have five key specific areas here that would enable a privatized company to operate and do business in this Province above the rate now. One of these I will mention. One of the points in this bill, and we will address them in due course, is to be able to give a utility company a guaranteed profit for shareholders. That is here in Bill 2. We are going to give a new company, it states here, to recover the costs, the maintenance of credit worthiness and a guaranteed profit to its shareholders. That is in this bill here. That is referring to a privatized Hydro. The second point made here in the bill is directing the Public Utilities Board to take that rural subsidization and eliminate it. They are using a $50 million fund to ease that out, to phase it out. Are you going to phase it out?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So that is the intent behind the rural subsidization, to eliminate it -

AN HON. MEMBER: No! No!

MR. SULLIVAN: - wait until I finish - so that this government can spread - now there is another part to it, so that this government can spread the exorbitant privatization cost between two areas; number one, between the taxpayers of the Province, as it would reflect in our Budget, and between the ratepayers of the Province. Instead of taking the whole total, upward of $100 million, and putting it all on ratepayers, or putting it all on taxpayers, they are spreading it out thin and phasing it in so that the impact will not be noticed immediately. That is what they are doing. Whatever we make or whatever we do we will do it by going ahead and telling the truth and the facts, and if that doesn't make anything, then that is tough, we will accept whatever comes. Also, what it is doing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all day.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am beginning to enjoy it so much I might stay all day. With the time approaching for adjournment I now adjourn the debate.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. gentleman, the Member for Ferryland has done us the merciful service of moving the adjournment of the debate, we will adjourn for the weekend. The House will meet on Monday at 2:00 p.m. and we will carry on when we get through the regular order of business - our Question Period, our two petitions - we will then carry on with the debate. I assume my friend, the Member for Ferryland will then attempt to enlighten us further and we look forward to that. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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