March 14, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 11


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

I would like to draw to member's attention that today is Commonwealth Day and we have available for members, on the table, copies of the Queen's Commonwealth Day message to the Commonwealth.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of days in particular I have been hearing the Premier and members of government in particular trying to use the guaranteed debt of Hydro as one its chief reasons for selling off Hydro. You hear government ministers and members talking about it, in fact they talk about little else, and in the media's closed briefing session last Friday, I am told, that the Premier said extinguishing Hydro's debt would be positive for the Province's credit rating. Now, the major credit rating agencies on the other hand have said, (a) Hydro's debt is self supporting, (b) Hydro's debt is in no way a burden to the Province, and (c) the government has never had to pay a cent of interest, nor is likely to pay any interest on that particular debt, so I say to the Premier is it not time for him to be at least a little honest to the people? Why do you not tell the people of the Province the truth, that Hydro's debt is not a fiscal burden to this Province and does not have any bearing on this Province's credit rating?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Just the opposite is true. Hydro's debt is a burden on this Province and if the hon. member does not understand that let me give him a simple example. Suppose he had guaranteed a debt of $100,000 for one of his children, and himself had a debt of $500,000, does he not think that when he goes to the bank, either to guarantee debt for another of his children or to borrow for his additional needs, the bank takes into account his liability under the guarantee of the $100,000, and it is not there, then why do they have it there in the first place? If there is no need for the Province to have it then why do they insist on it? They insist on it because Hydro is so poorly capitalized in terms of equity that it cannot borrow on its own without the government's guarantee. That is the simple truth of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute untruth and the Premier should know better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Is he now saying that the credit rating agencies that look after the credit rating of this Province are wrong? Is that what he is saying, they are wrong? Standard and Poors said they do not even include Hydro's debt in the Province's overall debt, and so did Dominion Bond Rating. They exclude Hydro's debt from their debt calculation of the Province. So if the debt isn't a burden to the Province, it doesn't have any bearing on our credit rating, they say, and credit rating agencies don't even include Hydro's debt, why does he continue to mislead people and spend tens of thousands of their own dollars on radio ads to try to convince them of something that is false?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are certain statements that are inappropriate. Now I can't deal with it if you don't call that hon. member to order to correct those allegations, other than to say his representation is totally false. It has no truth in it.

The simple fact is, the credit rating agencies do take this into account. Look at what the financial institutions do when they write about the Province, and they talk about the Hydro debt. They say, yes, Hydro is supporting its own and repaying its own debt; the Province hasn't been called on the guarantee, but Hydro does not have the capital structure that allows it to borrow on its own, without the government giving the guarantee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to it, and if it is essential to it, it is a burden on this Province. We have to put it up. We have to put up the guarantee in order for Hydro to borrow.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: It never ceases to amaze me, Mr. Speaker. Any time anybody criticizes the Premier's position, they are all wrong. Now he is saying the credit rating agencies of the Province are wrong. What absolute nonsense. Is it any wonder why the people of the Province don't believe him on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: Standard and Poor's have also said that the impact of the Hydro sale on our credit rating would depend on how much, and whether, government revenues would be affected. Now the Province - by the way, I have the transcript too, so we will table it after so that the press and everybody will see it - by its own admission, by your own admission, will no longer be collecting the loan guarantee fee worth $10 million to $12 million, will refund federal corporate taxes to both Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland Hydro, worth $30 million to $40 million, put $15 million into a rate adjustment fund, and contribute another $30 million in tax revenues to the new Hydro's pension plan. In return, you might collect about $15 million in provincial corporate income taxes, so I want to ask him: Is he concerned that there is maybe a real danger here that the sale of Hydro could, in fact, cause a downgrading of our credit rating, since privatization is going to result in a substantial loss of revenues and incur new expenditures to the Province?

Remember, I say to the Premier, in the case of Nova Scotia, which he used to flaunt as an argument at one time, after they privatized Nova Scotia Power, two credit rating agencies actually downgraded their province's credit rating.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: He should also realize that it would have been downgraded more without the privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That's right. Look at the reality of it. Now, let me correct some of the misstatements that he has made. Here is what Standard and Poor's said; let me read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read all of it.

PREMIER WELLS: If you want me to, I will read the whole thing. Now, this will eat up Question Period.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if I read the whole thing, and I am prepared to do it, it will eat up Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. Well, I am going to read for the record. Here is what they said: On the sale of Hydro and the reduction of the total debt for which the Province is liable, here is what is said: `Well, again it depends on how much cash is received and, of course, the benefits of that are immediate in the sense that it would reduce the Province's borrowing requirements but, because that would' - and here is a little english language problem - `in the sense that it would reduce the Province's borrowing requirements but, because that would, the Province's direct debt level, it would reduce to some degree the debt service cost of the Province going forward; that would have marginally a beneficial effect.' Yes. Now, that is not saying no, the credit rating is going down, it is saying just the opposite, very clearly the opposite.

Now, let me speak about the voodoo mathematics that we just heard coming from the Leader of the Opposition. The corporate tax problem - the corporate tax has all been given back to the company; that is wrong. The provincial corporate income tax that is presently collected, the provincial income tax that is presently collected from Newfoundland Power will remain with the Province, it will not be given back. The provincial income tax that Hydro will pay in the future, that it didn't pay at all in the past, will also come back to the Province. The two amounts together will leave the Province with exactly the same position that it was in before.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is not so (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it will. Now, at the moment, they will leave the Provincial Government in precisely the same position tax-wise as it was in before, exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not so.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, it is true, it is what I talked about, voodoo mathematics and you can see it now.

Now, let's talk about the pension funds. At the moment, the Province has total liability -

MR. SIMMS: That wasn't the question.

PREMIER WELLS: At the moment the Province has total liability - part of that is being dealt with by the Province putting in an immediate contribution out of the existing Public Service Pension Fund because that is going up. Now, it is being transferred on a basis proportionate to the number of employees; it is being done on a sound actuarial basis; they are getting their fair share of the fund. Now, that still leaves the balance unamortized, as is the Public Service Pension Fund now. What the Province is doing for the first time in twenty-five years, is taking some responsibility for dealing with the pension mess that the former government produced. We are dealing with it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: One part of it, Mr. Speaker, will be an amount that will be contributed to the pension fund in respect of the Hydro workers who are being transferred, and the balance will be provided for over, at most, a twenty-five year period. Now, that responsibility, therefore, goes away from the Provincial Government totally.

In the meantime, we must also deal with the pension fund problems for the rest of the public service, which we intend to do on a fair basis. When the details are made known people will see that we are dealing with both on the same basis, and there is provision in the agreement for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker -

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute deception, and misleading to the people of the Province, the way he gave his answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: It is, absolutely, deception, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: The same gentleman, Mr. Defoe, of Standard and Poor's, also in his document -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Never mind trying to stare down the Speaker and frighten the life out of him! He is not going to be intimidated any more than we are!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Premier, the same document that he quoted from, Mr. Defoe of Standard and Poor's, also offered his opinion that Hydro's debt and the Province's credit rating would not be a deciding factor for the government to proceed with privatization. That is what he says. Yet, that is precisely the chief argument that the government has been using.

Standard and Poor's spokesman, Mr. Defoe, also says: `I don't think that is the sole reason the Province is considering the privatization.' Mr. Speaker, neither do we, neither do the people of the Province. I want to ask the Premier if he will tell Mr. Defoe and the rest of us what is the real reason why he is on this personal crusade to get rid of this very valuable economic lever, Newfoundland Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, being as we are using unparliamentary words, I can only cope with it by using equally unparliamentary words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The only deception is the deception that the Opposition has been practising for four months. They took a position for their own narrow political purposes: No matter what, we will stop this, we will use every trick we can in the House of Assembly to stop it! And that is precisely what they've been doing. Mr. Speaker, included in that is deceiving the entire public of this Province with their fraudulent representations on this issue. That, Mr. Speaker, is the objective.

Now, there was some other question he asked, I've forgotten what it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Would you like me to ask it again?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, ask it again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, with the Premier's permission. The Premier is the master of deception. He has been called that before in the House and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker, what I ask the Premier is this: In his opinion, that is, Mr. Defoe's opinion, from the same document he quoted from a moment ago, he said he didn't think the sole reason that the Province was considering privatization was on this issue of the debt, and the Province's credit rating and so on. So I want to ask the Premier very gently and meekly, can he tell us, can he tell everybody in the Province, what is the real reason for privatizing Hydro?

MR. SULLIVAN: He won't tell us that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: This will take a little time, Mr. Speaker, and I want hon. members to know it. What's the real reason? I have enumerated them a number of times. The original purpose for which Hydro was created as a Crown corporation has disappeared - the building of Bay d'Espoir, because the private sector couldn't do it. I am told - I don't know that it's accurate, but I am told that the Premier of the day, Mr. Smallwood, when it was being created said, `It is being created as a Crown corporation now but it will have to be privatized in the future because the private sector can do it better than the public sector can.' Now, I am going to have that checked to see, but I am told by somebody who was there, that this was the view expressed at the time.

Let me ask another question: If Hydro were a private sector company now, could we justify coming to this Legislature and asking for authority to borrow $250 million, $300 million, $350 million or $400 million, whatever it would take to buy it and, in addition to that, guarantee another billion dollars worth of debt? Could we justify doing that? Of course not. Now, then, if we can't justify doing it how can we justify maintaining that kind of money for the Province in Hydro and maintaining that kind of guarantee on our books if we couldn't justify doing it all over again? And if we could, then why don't we go out and buy Newfoundland Light, and buy Newfoundland Telephone, too, and put it all in? If it's all so good for the Province, why don't we buy it all? The answer is simply, Mr. Speaker, we live in a private enterprise economic structure where it is private enterprise that generates the economic activity that builds the wealth of society. The former government took a different approach and virtually destroyed the economy of this Province in their seventeen years in power. The private sector went down disastrously, Mr. Speaker, the records are there. It can be seen and it's very clear, in the twelve years between 1975 and 1987 there was virtually no private sector jobs created in this Province at all because of the weakened private sector climate that the government maintained.

Mr. Speaker, the government of this Province, acting on behalf of the people will, through the sale of Hydro, receive a very substantial sum of money - a very substantial sum of money - that will enable it to avoid borrowing at all in the coming fiscal year, that will make a significant contribution to reducing its borrowing in the year after that, and will save $20 million, $25 million, $30 million, $35 million every year hereafter for the people of this Province.

In our present financial circumstances we can't do otherwise. It will make a substantial contribution to helping rebuild the private sector economy. It will help the industrial customers, this whole approach. The whole approach that we are taking with the electrical power control act, the privatization, the whole of it, is all part of the Strategic Economic Plan to rebuild the economy of this Province and give us the ability to start to look after ourselves instead of having to rely on the federal government for hand-outs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Instead of subjecting our people to that indignity.

Mr. Speaker, at long last we have a government prepared to take the decisions that will rebuild the economy of this Province instead of destroying it as the former government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the concern of the people of the Province is whether the Premier is out to look after himself and his buddies. I think that's the real problem here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a facility and an operation that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, held in trust by the Board of Directors, held in trust by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government has no mandate to sell it off, or to get rid of it.

The credit rating agencies say the debt is not a burden on the Province. Next year you will have to borrow your $300 million or $400 million again, or the year afterwards, and that money will be gone, and the $20 million or $25 million in savings in interest that you talk about, you are going to give away $50 million to $100 million in tax concessions and tax breaks. Now that doesn't sound like sound math to me, Mr. Speaker, nor a good deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. SIMMS: It is true - absolutely true - and the Minister of Finance knows it's true.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard in this House over the last few days, the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader say that this legislation is the most important legislation that we have had since Confederation. They have said it in the House. The people of this Province can't get the Premier to listen to their arguments. They can't seem to get him to wake up.

Since the legislation is so vitally important, I want to ask him: Will he allow a free vote in this House on third reading among the members on his side?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me correct some of those gross misstatements, and this is the deception that I was talking about, a give-away of the waters and the assets and the company and everything of this Province - utter tripe. The company remains an asset of this Province. It will remain forever an asset of this Province. It can't be moved out of this Province. The water is going to flow down the same rivers. It's going to run over the same turbines. The same diesel plants will be located in the same communities they are now. The same managers will be there. The same employees will be there. It will be run by a company and of the Board of Directors, 50 per cent must be resident in this Province. More than 50 per cent must be resident in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It will be regulated totally by the Public Utilities Board, and they must do that which the Public Utilities Board directs.

It is an utter fraud, it is a political fraud for the Opposition to suggest that this is a give-away of our assets. The company remains. The only question is, who finances it. That is the only question. Are we going to ask the people of this Province to use their scarce dollars to finance it themselves, or are we going to let the private sector finance it? It is a burden.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not a burden.

PREMIER WELLS: Now he says that in a couple of years the $200 million or $300 million or $400 million will be gone and we will have to borrow again.

MR. SIMMS: I suppose you won't have to do that. That's wrong too, is it?

PREMIER WELLS: That's true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That's true, but what would you rather borrow, and what interest would you rather pay, Mr. Speaker, the interest on $600 million or on $300 million? It is fairly simple. It is not going to relieve you of borrowing forever. What is going to relieve us of borrowing forever is following the government's policies in the Strategic Economic Plan to rebuild the economy of this Province, following what we are doing now in the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, of Farm Products, of Hydro, of all of the others, rebuilding the private sector economy of this Province, something the former government did not understand as they set about almost the systematic destruction of it because somebody was afraid of overheating our economy, for God sake. That is their approach, they did not want to overheat our economy. Somebody should have overheated them a long time ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: What I asked the Premier was if he would allow a free vote and he never answered, of course.

PREMIER WELLS: This is government policy.

MR. SIMMS: I ask the Premier: Will he allow a free vote of his members on third reading?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: This is government policy and the government supports it entirely and the supporters of the government support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Is that a yes, or no? I am asking the Premier if he will allow his members the freedom to vote on third reading on this piece of legislation, as many of them would like to have that freedom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is solid government policy. One member had a different opinion and he was not chained down to his seat. I am not enthusiastic or happy about what he has done. I am sorry he did not support the government on the issue, but he was not chained down to his seat. Do you think he is imprisoned or something? This is government policy and the government expects every member on the government side of the House to support government policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that the Premier has used closure on second reading on the bill, "An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation," will he refer the bill to a Legislative Review Committee for full public hearings, and will he put off further debate and votes on this bill until that committee reports back to this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. Let me just remind hon. members that it would not have been necessary to use closure had hon. members opposite been prepared to see a full debate on the issues. It would not have been necessary, but they came in this House day after day for two days until 10:00 o'clock in the evening, the equivalent of two weeks of ordinary government business time, and prevented the bill from being discussed, and now they are complaining about closure. They are complaining about closure and lack of democracy. What utter nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we had the total amount of government time if we sat an ordinary day, every ordinary day, we had the equivalent of more than three weeks of debating time on second reading alone, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: That is not true. The minister never called second reading.

PREMIER WELLS: No, because you were ragging the puck with page by page presentation of petitions on this issue and he let you do it. You chose to use the time and abused it on that basis. You chose to use the time and you see the result of it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I am afraid, Premier, that democracy was not in place at any time here. Government ministers have repeatedly said this bill is the most important to come before this House since Confederation. The Government House Leader himself said the same thing. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines and Energy have said on many occasions, we can take our time with this. Why the rush? The Member for Pleasantville has even said the same thing, why the rush? The people of the Province are clearly concerned about this bill and they do not share the Premier's convictions. As we saw again today there were meetings and petitions and everything else on this Hydro. If the Premier is so certain of his convictions, if he is so sure this is a great deal, why not bring it to public hearings, I ask the Premier again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what government ministers have said is the Electrical Power Control Act and this bill together are the most important legislation we have dealt with. There is no question about that, and if I recall correctly that's what the Minister of Justice said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why the rush? We want to look after the interest of the people of this Province. We are determined to put the interest of the people of this Province ahead of narrow political considerations. It could reduce a lot of pressures if we delayed this for awhile and then tried to get it through but how much would we lose for the people of this Province in the meantime, that's the important question? Everybody who knows anything about this knows, Mr. Speaker, that the marketing of securities in utility companies is extremely intra-sensitive. We want to take this proposal to market at a time when the people of this Province stand to get the best possible return in all of the circumstances, not at a later time when they may lose a great deal. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an opportune and appropriate time to proceed and that's the reason for seeking to proceed without undue delay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Premier, the best return is to not sell it at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Now as an elected member in this House I can't help but ask, how is the voice of the people going to be heard in this House? The Premier just rejected public hearings and he's rejected the Opposition Leader's call for a free vote in this House. Government members will have to vote the way the Premier wants them to vote not the way the people elected them to vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: What is the point of debate if at the end the people on the side of the House must vote with the Premier not with the people? Does it matter at all to the Premier what the people think about this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, free vote? The Leader of the Opposition four months ago announced, `no matter what, we're going to use every tactic in the book to stop it from going through.' Free vote, use of intelligent minds? If that's a measure of intelligent minds over there, God help us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the views of the people of the Province, petitions and so on, somebody gave me a copy of a petition this morning prepared by POP, a group called POP, so I did some checking. There were some names, addresses and numbers there so I called a few people, I said: I'd like to know how valid these petitions are. Here's the mixture of the responses I got: Oh well you know, somebody said we shouldn't do it and asked me to sign it so I just signed it. Another one said: Well, you know a lot of people are saying this shouldn't be done so I figured I'd go along with everybody. Another woman said: Oh no, I didn't sign it. I said: Are you so and so, do you live at such and such a place and is your phone number so and so? Oh yes, but I never signed any petition. I want to find out who signed my name to the petition. Okay? Now that's a sample of the quality of the petition. I picked four or five people and I made those telephone calls today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, let me readily acknowledge that there are people who are genuinely concerned about this. They're not sitting over there - they have their own political motive - but there are people in this Province who are genuinely concerned that this may not be in the best interest of the Province. There are people who believe some of the misrepresentations they've been hearing from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Abery and others. There are people who believe some of that and so have come sincerely to these conclusions but, Mr. Speaker, don't be misguided by this great show that was organized.

Even in the Leader of the Opposition's own district, he went out and organized a meeting in his own district to have a demonstration of all of the people who are so deadly opposed and I guess there were people from Exploits and Windsor - Buchans and there were forty people showed up. I expect the Leader of the Opposition has more relatives than that. A similar thing happened in St. George's and a similar thing happened in Harbour Grace. So, Mr. Speaker, for the most part you'd think you were at a Tory nomination meeting at most of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's not be misled into thinking that this represents overwhelming objection by the people of this Province. There are some who are genuinely concerned and feel the concern strongly. I got a call yesterday and I returned the call -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and let me tell you how strongly the man felt.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the question has been answered.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that the offer for development of the Lower Churchill that was on the table in late 1991 and early 1992 included sale of Lower Churchill power to Hydro Quebec for a thirty year term at an escalating price, going from about 35 to 145 mils per kilowatt hour, averaging about 75 mils per kilowatt hour over the thirty years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion. There was no offer on the table. There were negotiations that narrowed all of the aspects of providing the power, including diversion and reopening of Twin Falls and adjustment of price, and it provided for an escalating price for any future power delivered out of the Lower Churchill development. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head at the moment but I could get them. However, there was not agreement on the price.

MS. VERGE: You scuttled the agreement on purpose!

PREMIER WELLS: There was no agreement on the price. Mr. Speaker, let me remind hon. members that the negotiations did not proceed for one reason and one reason only. That reason is, Hydro Quebec didn't want to buy the power because of the changed power circumstances that has occurred in northeast North America, and for no other reason whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Question period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like hon. members attention for a moment. I understand that members on both sides of the House have strong views about issues of the day, however, in the last little while I think we have been using what people know to be unparliamentary language, words such as lying, untruthful, deliberately misleading, deception, deceiving. I am not pointing the finger at any one individual, I have heard it on both sides of the House from time to time. I generally follow the practise that, unless a person raises a point of privilege or a point of order, I don't try to intervene, particularly during Question Period to ask members to withdraw comments, but I just ask members to exercise an appropriate degree of restraint and to try to keep it in the terms of parliamentary language, otherwise I might have to enforce our decorum a little more strictly in the future. Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance whom I saw on his feet first.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

I also give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

I give notice I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave of the House to introduce the following Private Members Resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House, acknowledging the public concern that government is moving with undue haste to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and responding to the demand of the people for information and public consultation, calls on the government to hold public hearings on the privatization of Hydro, to set aside further consideration of Bill 1 until public hearings have concluded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order. A week ago I asked a series of questions to the Minister of Health and the past Minister of Health, the current Minister of Education indicated that he would pass them on and I would get answers back in Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, and as of this time, I have not received any response, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. There is no obligation on the minister to file his answers within any set period of time and in this case there is no point of order under our rules.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, I believe he was on his feet first.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 114 signatories who reside in the St. John's, Goulds, Torbay area of the Province of Newfoundland.

These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are seeking to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, they are among the thousands and thousands of petitioners who have asked to have their petitions and their prayer sent to this House of Assembly, this has been going on over the past several days; it is not a substitute for debate as the Premier would have us believe, it is an opportunity for the members of the public to have their views and their prayer presented to the House of Assembly. This has been as I said, going on for a couple of days, there are thousands and thousands of petitioners and all of them have the right to be heard on their views.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of suggestions made in the House today which I endorse, having to do with an opportunity for the public to become more informed and to have a say directly in the fate of this bill and this legislation. The Premier seems to be repudiating the suggestion that there be public discussion, that there be an opportunity for public debate and the suggestion has been made to either send a committee to go around the Province to hold hearings and to get the views of the public or to somehow or other establish the public hearing process.

It is most important, Mr. Speaker, that this be done because this issue is as we have heard today, and it has been said many times, is one of the most important pieces of legislation since Confederation. These petitioners I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, fear as I fear, that if we put this legislation into law that the dividends, the money that is being paid in Hydro bills in this Province will start flowing out of the Province to the shareholders just as surely as the electricity from Churchill Falls now flows out of the Province and benefits the people of Quebec more than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why these petitioners amongst many, many, many Newfoundlanders oppose the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and want to have more public discussion and public debate about this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East.

This government has sent out a flyer promoting Newfoundland Hydro, with many, many things that are not accurate at all. They are trying to do a sales pitch on selling something to the public of this Province without giving the public an opportunity in public forums across this Province, and in a committee of the House to respond. The public are stymied in their response to it. They should have an opportunity to come in under a committee of this House, to go out across the Province in public meetings, and respond to each of those points here in this brochure the government is trying to promote. Not one of those points here holds any merit whatsoever, and they cannot be substantiated.

It will provide badly needed cash for the Province. What is the point of saving $25 million in debt costs in financing when on the other hand you pass out, in one slap, $40 million in corporate tax refunds for the federal government back to these utility companies? That's $40 million.

When you pay $15 million of taxpayer dollars into a rate adjustment fund, when you amortize $30 million to $40 million over fifteen years out of the taxpayers of this Province, and giving up the $10 million a year we are now receiving from guaranteeing the loans of Hydro, that goes into the taxpayers of this Province, the Premier would like to make you think that the $9.2 million this year that we receive from the federal government, under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, he would like to make you think that we are going to get back provincial tax in return. Granted, but what other company in this Province is going to be given up? Is the Province going to give up 85 per cent of corporate income tax from the federal government back to utility companies? This Province didn't do it with Newfoundland Power, and now they are going to do it with Newfoundland Hydro, and they are going to give back to Newfoundland Power also, and they are going to use the weak argument they pay provincial taxes.

When you calculate the difference in what it is going to cost by financing the debt, $20 million or $25 million a year, the Premier said, or $30 million - well let's say $25 million - on what they receive for Hydro, it is only going to be small in comparison to the real costs.

Now the Premier showed in his presentation, the first 700 kilowatt hours... We want to make electricity available to people in this Province on an equitable basis - 700 kilowatt hours. Well, 700 kilowatt hours - and I looked at my light bill that came in this past week - is 6.54 of one cent, 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour times 700, that is a light bill of $45. I ask the Premier: What about the next 1,000 or 3,000 or 4,000? This light bill was 5,382 kilowatt hours. What is going to happen after the $45 a month light bill? What is going to happen on the next $50, $60, and $70? He is admitting there is going to be a substantial increase here. It is going to provide enough electricity to turn on a light bulb, to turn on a stove, to turn on a washer and a dryer, maybe - maybe not a dishwasher - a very limited amount for $45 worth of consumption. Those are the figures he is using, and using as a comparison, when he knows the majority of people in this Province burn more than $45 worth of electricity in any particular month.

That's the type of deception, the type of smoke and mirrors of the Premier, and he will hold up his presentation to the media and say, in a few years time: I told you on the first 700 kilowatts, here is what it is, $1.25 a month. That is what he will do, and you will be nailed to the wall on the next 1,000 and 2,000 and 3,000 kilowatts of consumption. This doesn't hold merit.

They defined land in this bill as water rights and water power. That is the definition of land. When we talk about in Clause 4.(1) (a): "... all of the undertaking, business, land, property, assets..." they define land. Land is defined as, and I repeat it again, not just real property. It mentions that here. It mentions estate, terms, easements, right of interest. It also goes on to say: "... and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges;" and we are saying they shouldn't have these. They should just have water privileges. That is all new Hydro should have. That is all should be stated here - water privileges. In fact, new Hydro shouldn't even get and see the light of day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think during this debate that we are having on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that we respond to the genuine concerns that the people have in the population. Not everybody out there who is creating a fuss is a Tory who is out to try to defeat the government. Many are. For many it is, as has been said, a meeting of the Tory association, but not entirely.

I get calls from people and they raise questions with me, as people do when they phone their member. They raise and ask questions. What about this part of Hydro, why are we doing it so, what appears to be quickly? The Premier answered that question here today quite well.

MS. VERGE: No he didn't.

DR. KITCHEN: I thought he did. What I would suggest to the members of the Opposition is that we lower the decibels on this debate and that what we do for all of us is we try to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Have public hearings.

DR. KITCHEN: No, that is not the answer. We have to do it in a hurry. The Premier also explained that. What we have to do, if there are genuine questions there to which you need answers - and I know it is rather difficult to get information on a complicated issue such as this. I remember a few years ago when the party opposite were in government when they privatized Newfoundland Linerboard. Do you remember that? I don't know, very few members remember that. They also pushed that through the House rather quickly.

What we have to do I believe is to ask whatever questions constituents ask, ask them in the House, and the appropriate ministers will respond. I believe what you are doing now is screeching and bawling at this side of the House, making a position known, rather than to elucidate, to try to bring forward, the answers that your constituents and mine want. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition from the District of Kilbride.

The prayer of the petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain as a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to deal with the process and a few of the statements that were made here today. With respect to the Premier's comments talking about a sample of the petitions that have been presented in this House, I challenge the Premier to phone anybody on this list that I'm presenting today and he will hear clearly what their views are. I can assure the Premier of that.

The Premier has accused the Opposition of fraudulently misrepresenting the views on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If the Premier and his government are so convinced that we have been fraudulent in our behaviour in representing the facts about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, then I say to the Premier, strike a select committee of the House, bring the committee across the Province for public hearings and expose our fraud, Mr. Premier, to the people of the Province. I challenge him to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has also said here today, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition tied up the House for two days and they had no other choice but to invoke closure. That is what I would call fraudulent misrepresentation. The government has the complete majority on that side of the House. They could have called Orders of the Day on Monday at any time, they could have called it on Tuesday at any time, but they chose not to. They are playing a dangerous political game, a very dangerous political game.

Let me say to hon. members opposite that this is a very controversial issue and that the people of this Province deserve better than having this rammed through this House all hours of the night and not the opportunity to bring it forward. The Premier and his government have said that the privatization issue has been in the public mind for some several months. While that is true, that the idea of privatization has been in the public mind for several months, but the details of privatization in this particular piece of legislation has been in the public mind for less than ten days. That is not proper.

I say to the Premier also, and to members opposite, that they have not fully convinced me as a member of this House that the sale or privatization of Hydro will be good, both from an economic point of view, from a business point of view, or from a public policy point of view. I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, there will be no new investment in this Province as a result of this sale. There will be no increase in jobs as a result of privatization. There will be no new technology, or technology transfer, as a result of privatization, and what we are doing in privatizing Hydro is taking control of a valuable resource and putting it into the hands of a few. That's what I say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, members opposite have gallantly stood up in support of their Premier, and in support of the government position, but one member did not. Now, I challenge members opposite: Listen to your constituents. Listen to what they say. Bring them to the House. Let us have honourable debate on this piece of legislation, but let us not close debate on it. Let us have honourable, straightforward debate, and let the facts speak for themselves, because I can tell you that it is not this side of the House that is fraudulent, it is not this side of the House that has been misrepresenting the views - it is that side of the House and that Premier that have misrepresented and been fraudulent with the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, very ably put forward, I should say. I have several here from my own district that, if the opportunity arises, I intend to present here today, but maybe what happened here last week will come again in the fact that we may be shut down and stifled; but just in case, we have some here.

I stand to present because, Mr. Speaker, over the past number of days several people from my district have come forward and discussed the Hydro issue with me, have called my office, have called my home, looking for answers. Several have made up their minds; several haven't. I admit, several haven't, for the simple reason that several people don't know exactly what's - and that is why the Premier should go ahead and have public hearings across the Province and inform the people, so there is an informed decision out there among the people of this Province.

The Premier spoke earlier about the legitimacy of the petitions themselves, and he said that he called some people and checked out the names. I say, the lady he called, who said she didn't sign it, is much like most of the backbenchers over on the other side, and the people in the House, they didn't have the gumption to tell the Premier that they had signed, or that they supported it when the time was right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say that is why the Premier should entertain the suggestion by our leader today of a free vote in this House.

I asked: Who were the six who phoned Steve Neary and told him that they were planning on going against this? Who were those six? Do they have the gumption to stand up in this House and say they phoned him, or do we have to point fingers? I call on those people to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. Those people know that their constituents are against this deal. Those people know that the people out in their districts want more information on this deal, and that is why the people are asking for public hearings.

I say to the Premier, if you are so sure, Mr. Premier, that this deal is good for Newfoundland, and good for this Province, and good for the future of this Province, why don't you hold a referendum so the people can decide, and let all the facts come out so that the people know about it, if you think it's such a good deal?

This government, back in the election campaign in April, said that the rumours of a privatization of Newfoundland Hydro were groundless rumours brought up by the Opposition to cause trouble in the Province. Therefore, as soon as they got a mandate for the government from the people, they went ahead with this without mentioning it, so really they had no mandate to privatize Newfoundland Hydro, because they never mentioned it during the campaign. They sought no mandate on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and they got no mandate.

The people of this Province are asking questions. They want answers, and the government refuses to give them. We were here last week and the Premier spoke on days and days. We spent two days, and then we were told we had twenty minutes each to speak on this legislation and it was over on second reading. I say we should have more debate, more time for people to get their views out to the members opposite - especially the members opposite - so that those people can stand up and have an informed vote on this piece of legislation, instead of being talked down to and told how to vote instead of how they would feel they should vote for the people they represent.

The people I represent have called me. I talked last week here on several occasions, and the people opposite said they received two phone calls - two phone calls. Three or four members stood up and said they had received two phone calls. Well, it is either one or the other; either they are not near their phones, or they don't answer their calls.

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. MANNING: It is one or the other, Mr. Speaker, because I got a lot of phone calls from people looking for information, and I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if you weren't sitting at the Cabinet table, you would be leading the fight across this Province on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is why the people - this is why we stand up now to be counted. This is one opportunity for the people of this Province to stand up and be counted, to stand up and let their voices be heard. The government don't want to hear that because they know that there is a movement across this Province, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, don't want the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They don't want to hear of it, they want it stopped and the government refuses to do so. The question was asked as to why, and nobody can get the answer. The government beat around the bush, Mr. Speaker, when they are asked why. I say to members opposite that the people of the Province are asking for public hearings, they are asking for a referendum on this and you should listen, because if you don't listen now you will listen in three years time. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that history will repeat itself, that this will come back to haunt the members opposite, I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, persuaded as I am by the eloquence of members opposite and as it is obvious that they wish to debate the bill, let's give everybody a chance to get into it. I move that under Standing Order 21, the Orders of the Day now be read, Sir.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could we go on please, to Order No. 2, which is Committee of the Whole on the Hydro Privatization bill.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill 1, The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to avail of this opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, my time is not up but the hon. member's time is getting pretty short.

I want an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak to this bill. It is my understanding we're still on the first aspect of it, clause 1, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that this past weekend I went where I go every weekend, back to my district to mix and to mingle with people and all I heard - there were two issues in my district this weekend, Mr. Chairman, one was the way the Minister of Health misled the committee that he met with on the Burin Peninsula a few weeks ago and the other issue was the arrogance and contempt of this government as it relates to their actions regarding the sale and privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing and what we saw today -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that he will have the opportunity to get up and speak when I'm finished. I challenge him to get up and speak, the same as I challenge him to go out to the people of Windsor - Buchans and hold a meeting and hear their views on this bill rather than kowtow to the Premier of this Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bad bill. This piece of legislation is a bad piece of legislation.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. TOBIN: Because it is giving away, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, it is selling out and giving away to the money lords, Mr. Chairman, of Quebec, Ontario and other places across this country to come in and to wipe up, to grab up and to take up, everything that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have owned for years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - that's why it's a bad bill! Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that it takes courage, like the Member for Pleasantville demonstrated in this House, to stand up to this Premier, to this dictatorial government, to this dictatorship, Mr. Chairman, that has been put upon the people of this Province. It is time for someone to stand up to that man there, because if someone doesn't stand up to this Premier on this bill, god only knows what he'll do next. I would venture to bet, Mr. Chairman, that what he will do if he's let loose and not reined in, is he will destroy this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has done a good part of it now.

MS. VERGE: And he will take the Liberal Party down with him.

MR. TOBIN: He will destroy this Province, Mr. Chairman. This piece of legislation and this bill gives too much power.

MR. EFFORD: You took him on before, didn't you, `Lynn'?

MS. VERGE: He will probably run against me, `John'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would suspect that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not want to meet the same fate against the Member for Humber East that his lord met in an election a little earlier.

Now, what we have in this piece of legislation is a government which wants to run roughshod over the people of this Province. It is a government that wants to look after their buddies out there who are begging. Don't ever think, Mr. Chairman, that no one approached this government to ask them to sell Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: It never happened like that.

MR. TOBIN: Well, you wouldn't know anyway.

Don't ever think that. There will be people in this country who will become rich men and women -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On the backs of Newfoundlanders.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. TOBIN: - on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what is wrong with it. Don't tell me there won't be shares bought up by Quebecers in large amounts. Don't tell me that the legal work that Hydro has done over the years, all the legal arguments that have been compiled, that the two court cases that went before the Supreme Court of this country over the years regarding Hydro - don't tell me that there aren't people in Quebec who want to look at our arguments as to what Newfoundland Hydro has been trying to do, and may want to do as it relates to the Churchill Falls contract. Don't tell me the people of Quebec don't want it, and don't tell me they won't easily find it when they sit around the table that will make up the board of this new Hydro.

MR. SULLIVAN: They own Newfoundland Power now, Fortis, the Mainlanders do.

MR. TOBIN: That's right. Who owns Newfoundland Power, for example, as my colleague, the Member for Ferryland points out?

Mr. Chairman, we, on this side of the House, are opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because we believe it is a bad deal for this Province. We believe that it will cost the taxpayers of this Province and the rate payers of Newfoundlanders, the rate payers of electricity in this Province, Mr. Chairman, millions of dollars a year - $100 million more per year. We all heard about Nova Scotia Power. When that was privatized there were to be no job losses. The stance on maintaining positions in the Nova Scotia agreement is exactly the same as in this one. Mr. Chairman, there are now 400 less people working in Nova Scotia today as a result of the privatization of Nova Scotia Power. So we have to be careful. We all know there are members opposite who disagree with this. The Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister of Health is against this bill, from what I can find out. I understand he is now all torn up about it.

DR. KITCHEN: (inaudible) phone Steve Neary.

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying you phoned Steve Neary, but there are people over there who called him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. TOBIN: I just may. I may name them, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, some of them are not in the House right now. Some of them are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, Steve Neary, as a true Liberal in this Province, as a man who led this party -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Steve Neary has a feeling for Liberals but you don't. As a man who had to stand up today out there and denounce - I was on the steps today when he stood up and denounced this government, denounced the people who make up this government, and yes, denounced the people who support this government, particularly the people in the backbenches.

Why is Steve Neary doing this? You can say why I am doing it, or you can question why the Member for St. John's East is doing it, or you can question why the Leader of the Opposition is doing it if you want to, because we are of different political affiliation. That is what the Premier likes to say. But why is the former leader of this party doing it? Why is the Member for Pleasantville doing it, why, I ask members opposite? Because they have the courage of their convictions, they have belief in their principles, and they are not prepared to put Newfoundland and Labrador ahead of a chance at a Cabinet position - that is the reason, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: There are members over there who are putting their principles aside, Mr. Speaker, throwing them away, because of their hope that the Premier will invite them into Cabinet. The Premier is intentionally not filling a position in his Cabinet - for what reason? so that he can whip the members into line; so that the people who phoned Steve Neary and said they were going to be voting against this bill now are hoping they can get into Cabinet. And I would venture to bet, and would apologize if I'm wrong, that the Cabinet position will not be filled until both of these bills are passed. That Cabinet position will not be filled, so that members opposite will stay there.

Now, if the Premier just fills the position, if he has the Cabinet shuffle that he promised last year by Christmas - last year he said he was having a Cabinet shuffle by Christmas. If he has the shuffle and throws out three or four and then there are another three or four like the Member for Eagle River, who hasn't got a chance of getting in but is living in hope, if he throws them out and you include some people like that, the Premier will not get this bill passed.

What is he going to do? He is going to dangle the pearl -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take just a couple of minutes to give a position on a couple of the petitions, and what the Member for Burin - Placentia West just spoke about a couple of minutes ago. Because they are talking about some things that are happening on this side of the House. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

Standing up and representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I will take a second place to nobody in this House of Assembly or in this Province. That is something I believe in. Do I believe in privatization? Yes. From the first day that I went into business back in 1966, I have believed in private business. I believe government should be in the position of setting policy, setting directions, and doing away with half or 90 per cent of the regulations they have. But no government - federal, provincial or municipal government or whatever - should be involved in private business - absolutely not. That should be left up to the private entrepreneurs of the Province and of the country. Pretty well everything that government ever put its hands into yet, in private business, the prime result, the bottom line is a loss of money - a loss of money and a loss of jobs.

Let me address one issue, Mr. Chairman. Members opposite are talking about having public hearings, that there is a great interest in the people out in the districts and a great concern out there, and people want to hear what is going on. I'm the first one to agree that people should have the right if they are interested in hearing what is going on. That is the purpose of this House of Assembly. That is why for two years I tried to motivate and help with the fishery crisis in this Province to get people involved in demonstrations. I intended to do what I did because I believed it was right for the Province - for two full years, night after night after night. The most important thing that has ever hit this Province, in its history, is the loss of the fishery. And even at that, 40,000 jobs lost - if you got 120 or 130 people out, you were lucky.

Now, let me tell you about last Friday night. I drove to Harbour Grace last Friday night in a rain storm such as this Province hasn't seen for years, to attend a meeting with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Member for Harbour Grace because they asked me to go down to a public meeting re Hydro. I said, yes. I was late leaving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who called -

MR. EFFORD: The Member for Harbour Grace. I was late going down because I had to go to the airport at 6:30. Anyhow, they delayed the meeting for about half-an-hour, and I went down.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the Board of Trade.

MR. EFFORD: The Board of Trade called the meeting; I was called -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Now, I said I was invited by the Member for Harbour Grace - I don't give a darn who called the meeting.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked who called it and you said -

MR. EFFORD: The Board of Trade. Let me get to the point.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I went to that meeting and when I got to the outside of the door, out on the street the cars were lined up, oh a quarter-of-a-mile on the street all up around the Royal Canadian Legion, in fact, I hesitated about going into the building, I said: My god, what kind of a crowd is in there tonight? the place is blocked. Anyhow, I parked my vehicle and I went in. When I got on the main floor of the building where the meeting was, there were forty people, and I asked, `Where are all the people who are so concerned about the privatization of Hydro? The streets are blocked - all around the building, all these cars! You know, Mr. Chairman, where they were? down in the basement playing bingo; down in the basement of the auditorium playing bingo - and all of this hullabaloo about privatization of Hydro, the great interest.

Now, there is the concern of the people who are so upset about government taking the position it has, because those people know this government was voted in last May to run the affairs of the Province and they know that government should not be involved in private enterprise, that should be left up to the people. And all of the people in that area - except the forty people and it is not hard to name them, it is not hard to name the people who were there from three districts, from Carbonear, Harbour Grace and the district of Port de Grave, and the reasons why those people were there. Now, we have a prime example of having public hearings. I went through it for two years having meetings about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) public hearings.

MR. EFFORD: It was a public meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Forty people, `John' - did you say forty people? Say it's forty people.

MR. EFFORD: So the Board of Trade called a public meeting and it is not a public meeting? Well, make up your minds!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: But I went there.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: This is the first time I went to a public meeting that is not a public meeting. I am totally confused by it. Now I know why the people were down playing bingo, it was because they were confused, too.

Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the case, the Opposition are not willing to listen. If this were an issue so important to the future of the Province, those people would have been there at that meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not telling the truth.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I was there at the meeting, the news media's quote was that there were forty people there - how could that not be the truth? The Board of Trade called a public meeting. There were people there from my district - I think there were four people; there were people there from Harbour Grace and there were people from Carbonear, with a total of forty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes they do, but where are the masses of people that you are talking about?

MR. FLIGHT: Forty people, same as in Grand Falls, that's eighty people all over Central and Eastern Newfoundland.

MR. EFFORD: Six of them were candidates who ran for the Tories in the election back in the spring, that's who they were, candidates who ran against us out there, in the month of May. Anyway, we are getting away from the issue; I am just being distracted, Mr. Chairman, by the people opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's correct.

Mr. Chairman, the whole issue here is a piece of legislation on privatization, to take Hydro from government's operation and put it to private enterprise. The principle of privatization is one issue, the cost to the Province is another issue, the $1.2 billion that we are guaranteeing. Nobody on the Opposition side has made mention of the $100-plus million - $147 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, $147 million.

MR. EFFORD: - yes, $147 million that is paid out each and every year to pay the debt -

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. EFFORD: By the people of this Province - but not Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rate payers.

MR. EFFORD: Where does Newfoundland Hydro get its money if it is not from the people of the Province? One hundred and forty-seven million dollars going to the finance markets in Japan, the United States, Switzerland, Germany - $147 million to pay the debt charges on $1.2 billion, and nobody says a word about that.

MS. VERGE: We pay twice as much in dividends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if some of those people were running private enterprise, they wouldn't be long going into bankruptcy if they operated with that train of thought. It wouldn't take them long to go into bankruptcy - I mean, $147 million going out to the finance markets of the world, and that doesn't matter - relieving the Province of a $1.2 billion guarantee, that doesn't matter; borrowing $300 million and paying $30 million interest forever and ever into the future, that doesn't matter. I just don't understand your economics, where you people are coming from.

The privatization of a company that will mean less of a burden on all of the people in Newfoundland, and that doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't know but you were going to take Hydro and move it up to Germany, or move it to the United States, or move it outside the country. Newfoundland Hydro will stay in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Go away, boy, don't be so silly.

Any person in this country or in this Province who wants to buy shares in it, can buy shares.

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you do with Fortis? How much of Fortis do we own? And that's only (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Well, if they operated on that principle, the shares that I have over in Japan and over in Rolls-Royce, I wouldn't be allowed to buy them. How silly!

MR. SULLIVAN: We didn't give away water to buy our shares.

MR. EFFORD: Nobody is giving away water. You see, this is the misinformation that is given out. There is no water being given away, no Churchill Falls being given away, and no rights except that now which Hydro owns.

Anyhow, we have a very clear situation here. The situation is that the Opposition made up their minds months ago. The only thing I regret from everybody within this Province, if the same energies were put towards saving what is the most important thing in this Province, our fishery, from those people who are now spreading petitions and spreading the word about Newfoundland Hydro, this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be in half the mess it is in today, and now we are hearing that this is more important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I did it for two years, and as I told you, I will take a back seat to nobody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

The Member for Port de Grave, and all the members opposite, were elected by the people of the Province last spring to manage the shop, not to sell the shop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: There wasn't one word in the Liberal Party platform last spring about selling Hydro. Hydro wasn't even mentioned. When the Premier and some of the individual Liberal candidates were asked point blank if they intended to sell Hydro, there was no direct answer. The Premier was asked directly by an Open Line host in Corner Brook, and he avoided the question. He just talked about the virtues of privatization.

Now, members opposite keep singing the virtues of privatization, saying the government has no place operating a business. It can always be done better and more efficiently by the private sector. Well, Chairperson, Hydro is not a typical business. It is a monopoly. It is publicly regulated. It is guaranteed a rate of return. It is a licence to print money. It is fuelled by water - water that's free, and eternally flowing.

Chairperson, the only result of this transaction for the Provincial Government and the people of the Province is negative. It is a lose, lose, lose proposition. The Provincial Government's financial position will be adversely affected. The Hydro debt is self-financing. We have established clearly, quoting independent authorities, including spokespeople for the bond rating agencies, that the government's contingent liability for the Hydro debt doesn't affect the Province's credit rating, and Hydro is actually an asset for the Province, it is a positive factor in the evaluation of the Province's financial position.

Chairperson, the government talks about getting $350 million net from the sale of Hydro so they will be able to forego borrowing for a year or so and reduce spending on debt servicing costs each year by $25 million. Well, that sounds pretty good. Saving $25 million a year is certainly a worthwhile objective in this climate, in this economy. What they are not saying is that they are going to spend on average more than twice that by giving concessions to the new private corporation and Newfoundland Power. To gain $25 million they are going to give up $50 million, and it will be more than that in the early years, because they are going to try to hoodwink the voters until after the next election. They will be giving more than $50 million in the early years, but if you average it over the first ten years following the sale of Hydro, to gain $25 million a year they will be giving up $50 million.

Worse than that, electricity prices are going to go up. How can the Premier talk about selling Hydro benefitting the economy and being a boost for the God Almighty private sector when businesses as well as householders will have to pay more for their electricity? Even the Premier acknowledges that electricity prices are going to go up more than they would otherwise following the sale of Hydro. The Premier is grossly understating the rise in electricity cost that is going to result.

Now, Chairperson, the government haven't given one single solid reason why we should sell Hydro. Opponents of Hydro, who belong to every political party and no political party, who are found in every walk of life from coast to coast to coast of the Province, have given a whole litany of reasons why we oppose the sale of Hydro, starting with rising electricity rates, continuing with job loss - including alienation of our water rights, because, make no mistake, this legislation says very clearly and explicitly in fine legal language that the water rights will go to the private corporation, and not only the developed water rights that go with Bay d'Espoir, Cat Arm, Hinds Lake and Paradise River, but also this legislation authorizes the Minister of Finance, without even reference to the House of Assembly, to transfer to the new private corporation undeveloped water rights anywhere in the Province.

This legislation is a disgrace. Stand-alone sale of Hydro's assets on the Island leads to nothing but negative consequences for the government, the taxpayers and the rate payers, but worse than that, the legislation opens the door for the vast undeveloped potential of Labrador hydro power to be exploited by the few against the interests of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Chairperson, members opposite do not have a mandate to sell Hydro. They didn't include selling Hydro in their election campaign platform last spring, they didn't include it in their much talked about Strategic Economic Plan. When asked directly, the Premier and other individual Liberal candidates denied thinking about selling Hydro or else avoided the issue altogether. So the only legitimate way for this government to proceed with the sale of Hydro is to not only have public hearings but then call a referendum. Have public hearings as a means of educating, informing and involving people, then have a referendum and see what the people want. It is the people's resource.

The hydroelectric generating plants at Bay d'Espoir and Cat Arm and the others on the Island have been built with the people's money. It was only last year that the debt on Bay d'Espoir was paid off. Now that we own Bay d'Espoir, mortgage-free, debt-free, people finally stand to benefit from the investment they and we have all made by paying our electricity bills over the year. The water that generates the power belongs to all of us. It's perhaps our most valuable remaining natural resource. We've done a very poor job, as a people, at managing our other natural resources, renewable or non-renewable.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talked about the tragedy of the mismanagement of the ground fish stocks. Well for heavens sake, learn from our past mistakes and avoid another tragic mistake, come to your senses before it's too late. The members of this House of Assembly have a chance to avoid another terrible mistake. Think how you would feel if you'd been in the House of Assembly in the 1960s when the Upper Churchill deal was done. Two members opposite were in the House of Assembly at that time and they're the same two members who are steering this terrible deal now and they are the Premier and the Minister of Justice.

Chairperson, I appeal to other members opposite who aren't in on the full agenda to stop and think, stop and read this legislation because, Chairperson, I have the impression that a majority of members opposite haven't even read Bill 1, the Hydro Privatization Bill or the companion bill, Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act. I urge members to stop and read these bills, think about what they mean, consult independent people about the implications of these measures, look at it in its totality, talk to your people, listen to what your constituents have to say. What I hear from my constituents, the people of Humber East, is that an overwhelming majority - and I'm talking 98 per cent plus - are against the privatization of Hydro. I've given them information at two public meetings I've had on the issue. The first on November 25 and the second, the first Saturday in March, a bit more than a week ago now and, Chairperson, at the two meetings there was one individual who was in favour of the governments proposal. He didn't actually defend the initiative on its merits, he simply talked about wanting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have the chance to buy shares, he happens to be an investment dealer.

Chairperson, on its merits this deal stinks. There is nothing in it for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, there's nothing in it for the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador and there's nothing in it but higher prices for the electricity consumers, be they householders or businesses. Chairperson, this is insane. The deal is so crazy that many people, from taxi drivers to engineers, are saying to me, there's got to be something hidden here. There's got to be another agenda that the Premier and the Minister of Justice are hiding from us. It's so illogical -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I'd like to commend the Member for Kilbride for asking for a reasoned debate on this topic. I agree with him and I think the debate should be a reasoned debate, unfortunately it gets tied down and bogged down to often in character assassination, imputing motives to other members, they haven't read the bill, the Opposition doesn't know what they're talking about and so on. Mr. Chairman, it's gotten bogged down in an awful lot of these unreasoned arguments which include charges of being Nazis, Fascists and all these insidious types of comments. I commend the Member for Kilbride for pointing out that we should have a reasoned debate on this particular topic.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a couple of points and there are many that I would like to deal with, we only have a very short time, I'll get up again. First of all the concept of: it doesn't really matter if we cut our borrowing. It doesn't really matter if we lower, over the next few years, the total debt that we otherwise would have had to pay. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if members of the House realize that with the federal government right now thirty-five cents of every dollar we pay to them goes to service the debt. I don't know if members realize that this particular government in this Province, every year for the last number of years, has had a tremendous operating surplus - a tremendous operating surplus - taking in hundreds of millions of dollars more than we are actually spending on the services we are providing. We have been actually taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year more than we spend on providing services for people.

Now the function of government is to provide services for people, and you might say, well, what's the big fuss then? If we have this tremendous surplus, a couple of hundred million dollars at least a year, then what are we talking about when we say we are in financial difficulty?

The answer is very simple, because whereas we have an operating surplus of a couple of hundred million a year, we have to pay $400 million or $500 million to service our debt, and it is the debt service charges that are killing us. The same thing is happening to the federal government. Do we ever want to see the day when ninety cents of every dollar we collect goes to service a debt, and then we have none left over to provide for a hospital system, and an education system, and social services? Do we ever want to see that day? Is that where we are headed? So I think it's very, very important that government lower its borrowing as much as possible.

Now then, Mr. Chairman, we will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Hon. members will have a chance to get up and make their points. I am calling, as the Member for Kilbride did, for a reasoned debate on this topic, and I would like to be given the opportunity to make my points.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we lower our debt because then that releases more of the tax dollars that we collect to put back into health and education and social services. It is very important that we do that because, don't forget, that is the function of government, to provide services for people. If we can get some of the equity that we have, as a Province, built up in Hydro, and take that equity to use to provide services for people, and free up money to provide services for people, then I think we have done a marvellous thing, because that is our function.

If we can substitute our equity, we can substitute private capital investment for our equity, and somebody else then carries the burden of debt and we don't, and we can reduce our borrowing consequently, then that frees up more money to do what government should do - provide the best service possible for the people of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the concept of debt build-up is key to decisions that government have to make in the future. That is one of the reasons - not the only reason - we are into the privatization of all of the things that we are trying to privatize, because we want to avoid a build-up of debt. We want to free up more money to provide services to people, and that's what people deserve and need and we, as government, must provide it for them.

It is all very well to get caught up in an emotional argument and say, we are giving away water. Mr. Chairman, in this Province right now we have a private company that has water rights. We have private companies that have water rights. There is a power development in Norris Arm, done in the 1950's, early 1950's, or mid-1950's, Newfoundland Light and Power; that's their operation, and they have the water rights to the ponds in back. So those ponds didn't disappear. The water is still there. It's still flowing through the turbines. The people of the area still have the use of these ponds - a great fishing area, as a matter of fact, tremendous brook trout in there. The people still have the use of it. There is no limitation, and yet those water rights are held by a private company. It hasn't inhibited the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to go in and use that water. It is not something that has disappeared. It is not something that is gone. It is there for our use. Yet, one of the main arguments that members opposite keep making is this giving away of the water rights.

Number one, the words `giving away' are wrong. We are achieving a financial benefit from it that will benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians forever - not giving away anything - and no matter who is there, water rights have to be tied to hydro developments. The only way that you can not have water rights in somebody's hands is if you have no hydro development. If you say: We will have no Bay d'Espoir; we will have no Rattling Brook; we will have no Cat Arm; we will have nothing. Then, of course, there is no such thing as water rights; but as long as we are going to have hydro developments, the water rights must be tied to that development because whoever is doing it has to be guaranteed of a consistent supply of water, a supply of water down through the years that can provide the electricity that again the people of this Province need. The water rights have to be tied to hydroelectric development but that does not mean that anything disappears. The water does not disappear, it stays where it is, it can be used the way it is now, there really is no change and the whole concept of water rights I believe is a very misunderstood one, so, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) royalties.

MR. BAKER: Well, I can deal with royalties. I can deal with the interest that we now pay, close to a billion dollars or a little over a billion I suppose, that is borrowed and that the interest has to be paid on. I mean, there is an awful lot of interest now that has to be paid on that debt. This Province has about 18 per cent equity in Hydro; we have about 18 per cent equity in Hydro. The other 82 per cent is provided through borrowings on which interest has to be paid, and as a previous speaker for our side pointed out that means that these interest payments are going to the bondholders all over the world, primarily in New York I believe, so there is a substitution certainly of dividends for borrowing, no doubt about that. There is a chance that some of these dividends remain in this Province; the borrowings don't, the interest on the borrowings all end up going out of the country; they end up going out of the country. At least through dividends, if people buy shares some of it will stay in the Province, a lot of it will stay in the country, at least we will be retaining this money so, Mr. Chairman, that is a totally false argument. You cannot pick out one or two little things like this and try to build them up.

The argument about the pension fund. The argument about the pension fund is the most blatant exaggeration, one of the most blatant ones that I have seen in this whole exercise. We have unfunded liabilities in our pension funds; we owe the money, we have to correct that situation in all of our pension funds. If Hydro is sold or not sold, we still have to do that, and that is something that has to be done because it must be done, and yet members opposite look upon this as being a cost of privatization. It has nothing to do with privatization. Fixing the pension plans has nothing to do with privatization I say again, yet members opposite continue to throw in tens of millions of dollars to fix up the pension plans, a cost of privatization. They also throw in the foreign exchange losses; that is a cost of privatization. What balderdash!

The foreign exchange losses will exist whether Hydro is sold or not and therefore is not a cost of privatization I will say to members opposite. You have to understand that. You have to understand that. The foreign exchange losses will be there whether Hydro is sold or not, that is not a cost of privatization; so, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of misconceptions in this whole debate and I will continue to try to straighten out members opposite as we go through each debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join in this debate to try and talk about a few issues that some hon. members have been discussing this afternoon in debate.

Before I talk about some of the issues specifically though I would like to address the issue that seems to be prevalent by members opposite, that the people of Newfoundland don't care about this deal, they are not interested in going to meetings to oppose it and what not, but I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have, outside of government circles, I have up until yesterday, failed to meet one single person who supports the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There are people who said they didn't know enough about it. A number of people said, well, I don't really know enough about this, we haven't really been fully informed. A lot of people said that, everybody else, up until yesterday, said that they oppose the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They thought it was bad for Newfoundland, it was a bad deal for the Province, it was bad for us to give up this great asset and resource.

The one exception was yesterday, Mr. Chairman, when I met someone who was opposed to the opposition, he favoured the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and it turns out that he was a stockbroker, that he was an individual who supported the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and of course, as one of those people who is in the business, stands to make a fair bit of money if this sale goes through, because he of course, and his company, and his fellow stockbrokers, will make significant commissions on the sale of this bill. That is the state of mind of the people who I encounter. Every single person, until yesterday this one, either oppose the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or say that there is not sufficient public information about it.

I next want to address some of the issues now just recently raised in debate by the Minister of Finance. He starts talking about the debt and how there is $147 million per year interest paid on the $1 billion or $1.2 billion worth of debt of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Well, that may well be true. I have no doubt that it is. I say in response to that, what is going to be the difference when Hydro is privatized? A large portion of that debt is going to be turned into equity. A lot of the debt will still exist. A large portion is going to be turned into equity. I say to the Member for Port de Grave that equity is more expensive than debt. Equity is more expensive to the rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro than is debt. I say that based on my own experience of appearing before the Public Utilities Board on rate hearings.

There will be an attempt to achieve in a private Hydro corporation a 50/50 debt to equity ratio. Right now it is 82/18. There will be an attempt to achieve a 50/50 debt to equity ratio, which means that a significant portion of this debt, perhaps one-third of it, will be turned from debt at perhaps an average of 10 per cent or 9 per cent, which is what it is now, to equity at about 13.5 per cent or 14 per cent. That equity will have to be paid for out of the rates, which is going to mean a significant boost in the rates to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have to pay for it.

It is all very well to get up and make some simplistic argument about debt. I've heard members opposite say: We don't really own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro any more because there is debt associated with it. It is like telling someone they don't own their house because they have a mortgage. That kind of simplistic talk is what we've heard going for argument on the opposite side about this.

Yes, we do need a reasoned debate. I would like somebody who doesn't have an axe to grind in this one way or the other to be able to say, in an objective report to the people of Newfoundland, what is going to be the cost of the transfer of this debt to equity in dollars and cents, and where is the money going to come from. Because if you take this $1.2 billion worth of debt running at an average - and I think - I worked it out, but I'm no actuary. It looks like about 10 per cent, 10.2 per cent, 10.5 per cent, maybe. Somewhere between 9.5 per cent and 10.5 per cent on all of the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, fully serviced, fully financed. Not one cent comes out of the taxpayer. In fact, the taxpayers get about $10 million a year from providing a guarantee.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the service cost?

MR. HARRIS: The service cost of that debt is internally looked after by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, not by the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, but as part of their rate cost of operating Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

If you take that debt and you transfer some of that debt to equity, all of a sudden the cost goes up. Instead of costing $147 million to service it, it is probably going to cost $175 million or $180 million. I don't know why the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to be the economic genius in the government, who handles all these hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money, why wouldn't he in his speech tell the House of Assembly that? That that $147 million a year, all of a sudden it is going to be $175 million or $180 million, or $190 million? That is going to be paid now, or after the privatization, by the same people who now pay the $147 million. Why didn't he tell them that?

If we are going to have a reasoned debate, which I think we should have, then we have to have the facts on the table. We have to have the real facts on the table, not some talk about: There is an awful lot of debt and interest costs a lot of money and we got to pay for these bonds.

Let us have the true facts. Let us have the real story. Let us let the people know that the cost of the equity, the borrowing, the capitalization, the cost of the capitalization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, when it is privatized, is going to go up, not down, and the people who now pay hydro rates are going to have to pay more. That is what I think is a fact. Now, if that is not true then let us get somebody over on the other side get up and tell us that is not true. We heard the speech of the Minister of Finance but he did not say at any point in time that the cost of capitalization to the rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to increase by getting rid of some of that debt and not decrease, because when you change it into equity the people who buy these shares, these handful of Newfoundlanders, and vast majority of those in Quebec and Ontario who buy these shares, they will expect a return on investment of something in the order of 13 or 14 per cent, Mr. Chairman.

That is why they buy the shares in the first place, that is why the shares are such a gold mine, that is why there is going to be an instantaneous sale of these shares as soon as they are released. They are going to be lined up to buy them, and the reason they are going to be lined up to buy them is because they know that the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador will guarantee to these investors in Quebec and Ontario a rate of return of about 13 per cent, plus. They will have some expert fly in from the States somewhere at $200 or $300 an hour to testify to the Public Utilities Board as to exactly how much, whether it is 13.58 per cent or 13.75 per cent, or whatever it is that is required. That is what the Public Utilities Board will grant them.

Now, the Premier can say all he wants, that that is now being controlled by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians sitting on the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities whose job it is to guarantee a return on the investments of these shareholders who live somewhere else. Now, is that stimulating the private sector? No, that is encouraging money that is being paid by the rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to go into a fund that filters it out to investors in Quebec and Ontario. I am opposed to that, Mr. Chairman, and we need a reasoned debate on it. We need a reasoned debate on it, we need a public debate on it and we need more time to have that public debate. We need to see this go all over the Province to let the people have their say and hear more about this.

Let the Premier, if he can, explain why it is it would be more acceptable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to pay an extra $30, $40, or perhaps $50 million more. We do not even have the figures. Explain to them why that is more desirable so that investors in Quebec and Ontario - we do not know who they are yet, someone is allowed to get as much as 20 per cent of this company. I do not know who plans to do that. We have not heard that. We have not heard who plans to get up to 20 per cent. We know it does not take 20 per cent ownership of a widely held corporation to control it. We know that. Paul Desmarais and these big industrial magnates can control widely held corporations with a little less than 12, 14, or 15 per cent of the shares. What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is whether there is any discussion about that in the back rooms of government, as to who is going to take up these big chunks of shares and end up controlling the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? That is what I would like to see some discussion on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all let me say that we are here debating a bill and up until now hon. members opposite have been hooting and hollering, screaming and shouting, but we have not opened the bill and debated one issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: I am going to respond to that gentleman right now if the member gives me a chance.

I just want to make a point about all this purification. I say to members in the back of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, just to remind them about public hearings, public meetings, and what have you. I have nothing against that. I think it is time to stop shouting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Perhaps you should have stayed at basketball because you certainly could not have been any worse than you are here. I can only respond, I say to hon. members, to constituents in my district the same as other hon. members, and I honestly, sincerely, tell this hon. House that I have had seven phone calls on the privatization of Hydro. Maybe the reason is because the Member for Humber East, who was on her feet not long ago, said that nobody on this side - now I showed hon. members my campaign literature almost a year ago, which explicitly said the privatization of Hydro. Now hon. members know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was not yours.

MR. MURPHY: It was my position. I can only speak from the seat in which I sit, I say to the hon. member, but let me remind the hon. members in the back, when Meech Lake was being debated, when Meech Lake was out there prominent, this hon. House closed, the taxpayers of this Province provided each hon. member, fifty-two members, the funding to go into their districts and to hold public meetings, and get the opinion of their constituents and bring it back here.

Now let me remind hon. members in the front, and tell hon. members in the back, and anybody who wants to listen, that hon. members came back to this House on the Meech Lake debate with 95 per cent, and 97 per cent, and 96 per cent of their constituents - including the Member for St. John's East - supporting the government position, and still and all we were upstairs in the old House, they stood in their place and voted against Meech Lake. Now is that fact or is that fiction?.... That is fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Burin -Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing, what the Member for St. John's South is saying here, is what we have been hearing on this Hydro bill the whole way through, and that is untruths, and the record must not be allowed to stand.

The Member for St. John's South knows full well that the Premier denied a vote on the Meech Lake Accord just prior to the time the vote was to be held. The Premier made that decision. The records will show that, so be truthful. For God's sake, be truthful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, he knows full well in debate - never mind the vote; the vote was free - in debate is what I said.

I remember the hon. Member for Kilbride, the other hon. member now sits in his seat, standing up and openly admitting that 95 per cent of the people in his riding told him not to vote against Meech Lake, so I say that. So that takes the theory of public meetings and what hon. members opposite read into them.

Now let me talk to the hon. Member for St. John's East a little more about the bill. The hon. member talks about the $1.2 billion worth of debt. Now that particular $1.2 billion today is in the marketplace of the world in bond issues at somewhere in the vicinity of 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, it's very little late, I say to the member, and if you look at the list it's more like twelve in a lot of places, and it's not in Newfoundland. The bond issue that now controls 82 per cent of the capital worth of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is held mostly in places such as Japan, in Switzerland, in Sweden, in Germany, in South America, and in the United States. Those bond issues are all over the world. Is that Newfoundlanders, I say to the hon. member?

Now I say to the hon. Member for St. John's East, $147 million a year interest that is paid out to those bond holders is paid by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So I remind hon. members that they are pontificating about who owns Hydro. So if they are right - and let's assume they are right - that the public of this Province owns Hydro, then the public of this Province is paying $147 million to service the bond issue that is now owned by people all over the world.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to the member, is 18 per cent equity. If you look at the scale of thirty years that Hydro is existing, from the time a Liberal government built Hydro, started Hydro, and as the Premier has said to you time and time again, the only reason that the government of the day got into the electrical business, or the generation of electrical power, was the private companies did not have the capital, nor did they have the signing authority, from Montreal Engineering, and other people who owned it at the time, they could not develop Bay d'Espoir. They couldn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we own (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: We don't own Bay d'Espoir, I say to the hon. member. Listen, book value is one thing - you may buy your house for $200,000 or $250,000 or whatever the members house is worth, but twenty-five years from now it may not be worth $225,000. If the marketplace says that the property is worth it - but you got maintenance, you got all kinds of problems associated with the upkeep of that particular property and for the hon. members opposite to say that we own Bay d'Espoir is not correct. I ask the hon. member this, tomorrow if we have four generators or four turbines that kick out of place because of a structural problem, who's going to pick up the $250 million that it costs to put those turbines back on? Who's going to have to sign the paper to do it? The people of this Province, that's who's going to have to do it and the hon. member knows it. Where on the paper now, if anything goes astray with Hydro or any part of Hydro, this government is going to be responsible to sign those financial documents because there is no financial institute that will give us the money to do the maintenance that's needed.

It's time to stop - it's time to tell the people the truth. If you open Section 15 of the act itself you'll see the rates, the regulations and rate issues, the breakdown of it and what it says in there but I don't want to read it, let's debate it, let's open up the act. That's what the people are here for.

MS. VERGE: Read it.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I'll read Section 15(c) it says, `adopt and maintain the rate stabilization plan of old Hydro on the basis reflected in the audited financial statements of old Hydro for the year ended December 31, 1993,' which guarantees - now we've also in the other bill put in place -

MS. VERGE: Read (a).

MR. MURPHY: I don't need to read (a) - if the member wants me to read (a) I'll read it for her, `for regulatory purposes under the Public Utilities Act compute its income tax expense using the taxes payable method of accounting.' Now, what I say to the hon. member is simply this, that in the other bill associated with the Hydro bill, which will be introduced by the House Leader within the next week or so reaffirms the Public Utilities Board which has been kind of drifting around since the days of my deputy mayor friend - and I'll get into that down the road -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: I'll talk about that down the road when he was on it and what happened - we are now putting in place a public utility system whereby the books will be open the same as they are to Hydro, the same as they are to Newfoundland Power and the same structure - as a matter of fact it will be stronger and it will protect the public and the hon. member knows - the hon. member full knows - well you lived with it for seventeen years, why didn't you change it?

MS. VERGE: Who's on it now?

MR. MURPHY: Who's on it now? So it's who's on it. See, the member always got the go and find somebody - find some under the table reasons, she can't put it on top, she can't say that there's somebody on the Public Utilities Board that has any grain of sense because she didn't appoint them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you saying that it's not strong enough now?

MR. MURPHY: I'm saying it is strong now, we'll make it stronger, I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I didn't say that. Now the hon. member is not going to put words in my mouth. He's not going to put words in my mouth, he tries but he's not going to. I said it's strong now but this government will make it stronger. It's the power of the board not the individuals I'm talking about, I say to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The Electrical Power Control Act.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Premier. The Electrical Power Control Act which is associated with this bill, okay? Hon. members talking constantly about who reads and who don't read the bill. It's time for you people to stop playing on the hearts and start telling the people of this Province the real truth, that this is a good deal. That this is a good deal in 1994 looking at the circumstances.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Listen, the hon. member has gotten up in her place day after day after day with ammunition supplied to her by the past chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. MURPHY: No, how do you know that it's not true, I say to the hon. member, how do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to know the source.

MR. MURPHY: I got lots of proof. Now I say to the hon. Member for St. John's East, I didn't interrupt any of you people when you were up. There is no trouble to know when you are making a point with the hon. members opposite. There is no trouble to know when you are making a point with them when they can't take it they start barbing at you, that's the problem. I say to the hon. member, look at your facts and figures and let's debate it. Let's debate them, let us open the bill and debate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite obvious by this time that many people in this Province have serious questions about this deal, and certainly, if you are to pay even a casual notice to the people who have come out in the public galleries today; the people who were here several nights ago, the people who called in to Open Lines, the people who have called to our offices, the people who have signed petitions, the people whom we have met in our social interaction within the Province, it becomes obvious to all hon. members that many citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are not convinced that this deal is in their best interest.

Some fear that it is, or that it resembles the give-away that occurred in the Churchill Falls deal with Hydro Quebec. Some people fear that history is repeating itself, they fear that our Hydro resources which they believe and know to be our birthright, they fear the long-term consequences and they can be forgiven if they have trepidation and worry about the long-term impact of this particular proposal on their children and their children's children.

Much of the debate in this House has not been terribly focused and certainly, I suppose that one can sometimes view the House as being theatre, sometimes one can view it as in this particular case, sometimes we view the House more as a comedy, but for many cases I see for the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy if we don't allow the public to have some input into the decision-making processes that we are going to take in the next little while.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what people are really afraid of, again as I repeat, are the long-term consequences. They know that what we do here in the next few days or several weeks will have consequences for themselves and for their children and for their children's children, because they also know that once we make this legislation law in this Province, that Newfoundland Hydro will be lost forever. I don't think any hon. member would disagree that once this deal is made, once Hydro is sold, there is not much of a probability or possibility that we as a government could ever buy it back; that's why people want the process slowed down. That's why people are saying, wait a little bit. Maybe the government is right, maybe they haven't explained their case for privatization in the way that they would like to or perhaps in the way, or the public is saying in the way that they should.

Now I heard people say this afternoon, hon. members say that they didn't believe in public hearings because there was no great, big demonstration. Some hon. members rose to say that there was not this great, big demand for public hearings. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can only say to you, what kind of demonstration do you want? Do you want people to go further than they have gone, do you want people to go out and do more than sign petitions, to come to the House of Assembly in record numbers, to talk to elected members and say: we want to have a chance to participate? What kind of evidence do hon. members want? What would persuade the government that they should slow the process down and have some public input by the Legislative Review Committee or some other form of public hearing?

Why is it that we have to make this decision today or tomorrow? Why can't we have proper expert opinion brought in that we can analyze the positive aspects of the privatization, analyze the negative aspects of it, put it before the public. This is their Province. We have been given a trust for a period of time. We are not here to say that the public has to put up with us regardless of what they think, or this idea that: In another two or three years we will go back and we will ask them and we will be accountable at that point in time.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to you that there is a terrible inconsistency. For example, in today's paper there is a notice from the Town of Torbay. Today's paper. A development notice. It says: Torbay is in the receipt of an application to operate an office in the home of Mr. P. Duffy, Bauleen Line, Torbay, for the intent of the practice of law (inaudible) Mr. Michael Duffy, beginning on or about April 12, 1994. Then it proceeds to say: The people of Torbay have an opportunity to make representation and there will be a public meeting held at which the people who believe this is a good idea for the Town of Torbay to put forward their arguments, and those people who believe that it is not in Torbay's best interest to put forward their arguments.

On Saturday in the local paper there was a notice from the City of St. John's. They were advertising for public comment on a proposal to amend the City of St. John's municipal plan. The councils here, Torbay or the City of St. John's, they are operating according to the laws of this Province. The Council of Torbay has the elected mandate to operate the municipal affairs of Torbay. The Council of St. John's has the elected mandate to operate the affairs of the City of St. John's. By law they must provide for the public to have an input into decision making.

All I'm saying is, let's be a little bit consistent. Last month in this very Chamber in committee, we had three days of hearings trying to straighten out a designation problem between chartered accountants and certified general accountants. Three days of meetings here in this very Chamber. We've had two months, of two different times in the process, of having the entire Electrical Districts Boundaries Commission go across this Province, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to decide on the electoral boundaries that will be followed in the next provincial election, probably in 1997 or 1998.

Why then can we not as a people, as the electorate of this Province, provide the people of this Province an opportunity to come before a legislative review committee to tell what they believe and what they understand are the implications of this particular piece of legislation? All I'm saying is that as a democrat, as a person who believes, after many years of municipal experience, in the power of the people - and this should be the people's House. Mr. Chairman, we pride ourselves and say: This is the people's Chamber. We say that this is the people's House. Let's make it the people's House! Let's do the thing that is right. Let's walk our talk. Let's not say that: We got elected, and now that I'm elected, thank you very much, I will now decide what I will do for the next number of years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to take a few minutes to make a few comments in this debate at Committee stage.

I just wanted to - rather than get into again some of the specific details of the legislation, because we haven't moved past the name of the bill yet and gone into the clause by clause examination. I know that my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance, will take opportunities in this debate to again spell out specific details on behalf of the government, and members opposite will be quite interested in hearing that, but basically the thing that I wanted to register in this general discussion at the beginning of the debate of the bill in a clause-by-clause fashion is somewhat of a disappointment in terms of how the debate so far, both inside this Chamber and outside the Chamber, has gone in terms of the tone and tenor of it.

I believe I have a great respect for all the people in this Legislature. Every one of us went door-to-door, and there were people in the areas that we represent who put their confidence and faith in us for a period of time.

There is no doubt, I think, that everybody here went around to try to get elected on the basis of trying to do something that would be in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - no question whatsoever - and I don't think that is any different with people on this side of the House and members opposite. Which side you sit on is, many times, just a quirk of fate and circumstance, but I think that the people who come forward and offer themselves do it because they would like to have an opportunity to participate in something that would be in the best interest, and make things a little better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In my consideration of the issues that are before us now, and in the people here, I am surprised again that people who went and got elected are willing for - it cannot be characterized as anything else other than - pure, partisan policy party lines, in terms of being willing to look at an issue and suggest that thirty-four or thirty-five people over here - almost all of them except one, and this party has always said people could speak their mind, completely opposite to the group over there - that in fact a group of people who would look at and examine the issue to the extent that we have at this point, will conclude that this is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So far the Official Opposition, and our friend, the Member for St. John's East, representing the other party in Newfoundland and Labrador, are characterizing it as to say that this is a deliberate attempt by some people on this side, who for whatever reason are supporting the Premier, to do something that will make life worse for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not understand why anybody - because we are all of the same mind in terms of trying to help people - for whatever reason, you would participate in the debate to suggest that there are people here who are trying to do something that is bad for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I don't understand that at all, because that is not the case.

So what we have is a debate so far that - never mind, because we haven't gotten around in this Legislature, as the Member for St. John's South pointed out, of examining the bill clause-by-clause and saying: Do you really have a question about the definition of water rights? Do you have a question about the fiscal arrangement?

People here that I have great personal respect for, and have for a long time before any of us ever got involved in politics, have stood in this Legislature and, knowing the difference, have continued to make an argument day after day about an issue when they know the exact opposite is true. They have had it explained to them. They have examined it themselves, but because at this point in time there seems to be a bit of a parade forming up out there that it is better to jump in front of than be dragged along, to stay somewhere associated with that parade, and hopefully close to the front, to stand in this Legislature day after day, when they know the difference.

Members opposite know the difference completely, particularly when it comes to details about the taxation, and what it will mean and what it won't mean, to then continue on and present it because of the fact that they think there is some political advantage at this point in time.

The other part of it, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that most of the debate then deals with non-related issues. My good friend and colleague, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount who just spoke, used the right rhetorically charged language. He talked about - let me use two phrases - `give away'. Great, beautiful, rhetorically charged language has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing being given away. The member opposite knows it. Everybody on that side of the House knows it, that there is absolutely nothing being given away, particularly not any access to water rights or anything. They know the difference and he stands up, because that is the right buzz word, that is the right phrase to use, that there is a give-away here, because that brings up all kinds of connotations

 

MS. VERGE: Read the bill!

MR. GRIMES: He talks about - like Churchill Falls. People here, the members here, the members opposite, the members on this side. They've read this bill and they know that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro as outlined in this bill and anything to do with the Upper or Lower Churchill. But it is nice, because it conjures up certain notions and ideas. It is beautifully charged rhetorically. That if you can make a connection between this and Churchill Falls, well, people got some tainted memories about Churchill Falls, so they keep trying to make the connection. When the reality of it is that anyone who read this bill knows there is absolutely no connection and it is completely disassociated in terms of this bill.

That is the real truth, that is what people here - even though they know the difference. That is what disappoints me. Because we are talking about trying again to raise the image of politicians. I know anyone who I grew up with personally, I don't think anyone ever believed that in my whole life before I got into politics that I went around deliberately trying to do anything to do anybody in, or that I was doing anything other than to try to be - I'm going through life to try to enjoy it as much as I can. The only other credo I live by is not to hurt anybody along the way. In this job we have a responsibility to try to help somebody, if you can. Not only not hurt, try to help them if you can.

Now for some reason, because I'm supporting this bill, the members opposite, many of them who knew me personally before we knocked on doors and happened to become politicians by luck and circumstances - because you don't train to be a politician. You don't go to school to be a politician. You go to school to do something else. I went to be a teacher. Enjoyed my teaching career, may even go back to it at some point in time. But in fact here, now because I support this bill, people are willing to go around and say: All of that crowd over there are tied up in some kind of plot or scheme.

Here is the most farfetched, Mr. Chairman, of the whole lot. It is the Member for Humber East who really absolutely amazes me in this debate. Here is this scenario that I'm supposed to believe is true and she tries to make a connection to repeatedly. She has nothing to say about the bill so she will talk about giving away the water rights when she knows the difference. She will talk about some kind of foolishness when she knows the difference. Here is the one that really amazes me.

If you would believe the proposition that she puts forward - and this is why she is opposed to the bill - if you believe the proposition, the most recent one - because she changes it every time one doesn't work - but the most recent one is that three or four years ago when there was a negotiation going on between Hydro in Newfoundland and hydro in Quebec, about some development in Churchill Falls, Lower Churchill, which didn't happen for a reason that was explained to the Legislature and to the people of the Province then, and was explained again now, she would now make you believe, all of us, that the Premier of this Province back when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister of the country and a lot of people would have bet for a period of time he might have stayed there for a long time - he surprised the whole world by getting re-elected when he wasn't very popular; nothing to say he couldn't do it again except he left - the Premier of this Province - this is the proposition we are all supposed to believe in the context of why this bill is bad - scuttled a possible deal. There was no deal to be had, there was no deal there. We are supposed to believe he scuttled it three or four years ago knowing Mr. Chretien would become the Prime Minister last fall so that Mr. Chretien could appoint him to the Supreme Court because of the fact that some friend of Mr. Chretien's was going to buy up most of the shares in a privatized Newfoundland Hydro.

I tell you, I think the Premier is good. I've been a great supporter of the Premier for a long time, long before he was in politics. I will tell you this: If he is that good, he is twice as good as I think he is. He is five times as good as I think he is if he schemed that up four years ago and convinced all these people here. Because there is nobody here who I think is stupid. I don't think there is one soul here who is stupid. As a matter of fact, I don't even think there is anybody over there stupid. You might be surprised to hear that from me, but I don't think there is anybody over there stupid either.

I will tell you one thing: If he pulled that off then I tell you, he is a lot smarter than I ever thought he was, he is a lot better than I ever thought he was, and so be it. If he can convince all of us that that happens - but to think that you would even put forward the proposition that this is what is on the go, this was a cooked deal starting three or four years ago, the Premier knew all this was going to happen, he is the biggest crook Newfoundland has ever seen, when in fact the exact opposite is true. This is the part that really burns and galls the member of the Opposition. Because politics in Newfoundland and Labrador has been significantly different since 1989, because there have been straightforward honest approaches to dealing with problems, instead of the kind of machinations and the kind of trickery that characterized the previous government for years before that.

I just throw in one last one, Mr. Chairman, to show -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. members' time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might even participate again later.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) elevators.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, there are no elevators in my district, hon. member, you are right, but I'm hearing it in your district and the shopping centres there. At least we had a meeting planned in our district, and due to uncontrollable weather we had to postpone it, but they will have another chance, I say.

I listened with interest to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and I don't know what the hon. minister told his people when he went around knocking door-to-door, but I know what I told my people. When I went knocking on doors, when the people came, I made one promise, that I would come and represent their views in the House of Assembly, and I would take their concerns forward.

I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I doubt if he said anything different from that, but I can assure you that the stand he is taking on this particular piece of legislation is completely different from the stand that many of his constituents would take.

We continue hearing the people from the other side get up and rant and rave about petitions. What a bad thing it is, bringing all those petitions before the House. Mr. Chairman, this is where those petitions should come, because somebody went out and had the courtesy to sign their name to show that it was the only voice that they had to bring forward to oppose this piece of legislation.

Then, lo and behold, the Premier astonished us all here today. The man of great principle, the man of integrity, got up and told us - this is the same gentleman that we spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a short time ago. He went over to Europe to look for industry to bring back to Newfoundland, and investment, and I applaud him for that. You will never hear me get up in the House of Assembly and say that was a bad thing. There should be more of it done. Then he went down to the United States, trying to bring back investment, create some economic stimulus. I would applaud him for that, but I wouldn't applaud him for wasting his valuable time here at home going over petitions, and making phone calls to scrutinize some names that were put on petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't trust anybody.

MR. FITZGERALD: Don't trust anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trying to intimidate.

MR. FITZGERALD: Intimidate people. Does he work for the public service? Where do you work? I see your name on a petition here. Where do you work? Are you a government employee? The fear that is there, another way of intimidation.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up to speak and talked about how successful a businessman he was. I am sure he is a successful businessman, and I would say it is only people who are successful who can go out and purchase those shares that are going to be put forward in this corporation.

Then I hear the minister in waiting -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Somebody had better call a doctor at the Health Sciences because the Minister of Health is going to have a heart attack.

Then I hear the minister in waiting getting up and talking about the Meech Lake. Well I would talk about the Meech Lake Accord too, Mr. Chairman. I don't know anything about people being given money to go out to their district and come back and bring back a different story than what they were told in their district. I do know that people out there were concerned because they didn't have a chance to be consulted and they wanted to slow down the process. That was the big thing that I heard out of Meech Lake. That was the big reason. They wanted to slow down the process and say: What's the rush?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Premier.

MR. FITZGERALD: Including your Premier, I say to the hon. member, and he came back and said: What's the rush? Let's slow the process down.

That is all we are saying over here on this side of the House. We are saying: Let's go out, have some public information forums. Let people have some input into the legislation, and let's listen to their concerns and bring them back here to the House. I don't know if that is too much to ask for, but I think that is the democratic process.

When you see the people that line the balconies here today, the people who were out on the steps, those people didn't come out here today because they wanted to appear on camera, or they wanted to hear the Premier speak, or the Leader of the Opposition. They are here because they are genuinely concerned. That is the reason why they are here, and they are like every other common Newfoundlander. They want input into a piece of legislation that may affect them forever and ever and a day.

Mr. Chairman, all the arguments that we hear being put forward by government, the latest ad, I think, that is put on the radio, is the one, `Now municipalities will be able to collect taxes from the new Hydro where they could not collect taxes from the old Hydro,' which is true. They can, Mr. Chairman, but who is going to pay the taxes they collect?

AN HON. MEMBER: The rate payers.

MR. FITZGERALD: The rate payers are going to pay the taxes so you are taking it from one hand and giving it on the other. What is the difference, I ask the hon. member?

Then, we hear the Premier get up and he talks about everything that is brought before the House - `it was going to happen anyway.' I don't know where the crystal ball is that you people have access to and we don't. The Income Support Program was talked about and the Premier said we should go with twenty weeks U.I., and we should be able to survive on $9,000 a year if you are a family of four, we will give you $2,000 as some incentive to go out and find a job - and we question that. The Premier states again, `You may as well accept this, because it is going to happen anyway.' Then he comes back with Hydro privatization and says we are going to have to at least accept some rate increases, and the reason why we have to accept them is because `it was going to happen anyway'. Well, I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that it was going to happen anyway. I don't think we should be bringing forward legislation and making the rules of this land because of fear of what might happen.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you of one thing, that when I vote in this House I will be echoing the thoughts of my constituents. It won't be the thoughts of my leader, or the thoughts of the other fifteen people over here, it will be the thoughts of the people in my district of Bonavista South. And I urge every member on the other side, I urge every member over there, to go out, listen to their people, and if you call a public meeting, don't come back with your head down because only forty people showed up, or only 100 people showed up, at least you have given them the opportunity to voice their opinion. That is the democratic process, and I would encourage every member over there to do nothing less than that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I shall not keep the Committee long but there are one or two points I would like to make as part of this debate. We are hearing cries for input. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including my friend for Bonavista South, have been very eloquent in this, but the problem I have with that is this: we are now at Committee stage of this bill. The House, following a practice that goes back, I don't know, hundreds of years, I suppose, even longer than I have been in the House, I say to gentlemen opposite, it goes backs for hundreds of years - carries debate in three separate stages, two of which are substantive. The first of the substantive stages is debate at second reading where the House addresses the principle of the bill. The House dealt with this bill, has adopted it, not unanimously but by a very strong majority. Then, we move to Committee stage. Now, it is in order to have the kind of debate we have seen at Committee stage so far. I haven't stood, nor has any member stood and raised a point of order, and the Chair hasn't intervened, but the purpose of Committee stage is to go into the clause-by-clause study of the bill, it already having been accepted at second reading.

Now, whether hon. gentlemen opposite accept it or not, it has been accepted by a democratic and proper process, and if they don't accept that, then they are being anti-democratic by definition. We have dealt with this bill at second reading and now we are into clause-by-clause in the Committee stage. There are any number of questions that members opposite have hinted at and we, on this side, will try to answer them, to debate them, to try to win the support of the Committee. My friend, the Minister of Finance, knows a fair bit about this bill and I know a fair bit about the bill. My friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy, knows a great deal about this bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, this kind of comment from my friend, the Member for Grand Bank doesn't add to the debate. When he bawls out like some sick dog, some sick dog who doesn't know anything about it - my friend, the Member for Humber East does this on occasion.

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Green Bay is proving once again my analogy to a sick dog is not a bad one. Mr. Chairman, if this is as important a bill as I say -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West is not even acting like a sick dog, he is acting like a sort of old, tired dog. He is just coming in late. My friend, the Member for Ferryland feels and my friend - they are all the same. I stand up to make a few non-controversial remarks and here I am being howled down by these people.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that there are important questions that could be raised, that, in my view, should be raised about this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: They certainly should; I would like to hear hon. members opposite raise them, they will get an answer; they may not agree with the answer, Mr. Chairman, they may not like the answer; they will get an answer. They will not get an answer to the character assassination that has gone on, the hidden agendas, the `selling out' and what have you. They will get an answer to any question that is asked about the merits of this bill or what this clause means or why this form of words are being used and not another. That is what Committee stage is about.

Now, I care not, Mr. Chairman, whether they debate the bill in accordance with the rules or not. Your Honour enforces the rules; any member who feels that something is out of order is at liberty to raise the point and Your Honour will deal with it, but what I say is, we are wasting time here. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite may feel somehow that they can hold up this bill. They can't. The House could hold up the bill; a majority of the House can decide even at this stage to defeat this bill, but hon. members opposite can't because they don't have a democratic or a legal or a moral or a political right to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to say something, I guess.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. He was elected to say something and so was I, and I have heard him in silence and I will ask him to hear me in silence. I was sent here by the people of Naskaupi, not all of them but a sufficient majority, and it was a majority, a good healthy majority, to speak what I believe to be correct, to do what I believe to be correct on behalf of the people of Naskaupi and to answer to them for it, and that is what I will do. We don't run this Province by referendum, we don't run this Province by poll, we don't run this Province by Open Line show, we run this Province by judgement of the fifty-two men and women who sit here.

Now, Mr. Chairman, they cry `dictatorship' when they don't agree with what is being done.

AN HON. MEMBER: A bunch of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if people in the gallery wanted to stay, they have every right to stay. If they want to speak in the House, they have to get elected and earn the right to speak here.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you are an old dog, you are an old dog here (inaudible) dogs; that's what you are, a dog.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The vehemence of the objections speaks the lack of intellectual substance to it.

Now, let me come back to the point.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am only a rookie to this House, but, Mr. Chairman, it seems that the hon. member, the hon. the Government House Leader continues to rise on the other side and almost incites riots here. He continues to go on and call people animals over here, he referred to people as dogs, that we can get into dogs and pigs and all that kind of thing, almost incited a riot in the stands, Mr. Chairman, and it is those kinds of things - if you are going to allow that gentleman away with that kind of abuse, then we can't expect to have any quorum here in this hon. House.

MR. ROBERTS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: I have not referred to any member opposite as a dog, or as a pig; what I have said, is that they are squealing like a sick dog and that I say, Mr. Chairman, is because when one stands to speak, one is howled down by the other side. Now, I haven't howled anybody down and I won't. My friend, the Member for St. John's East hasn't howled anybody down. It is just that a bunch of members opposite feel somehow they can howl. In my view, Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order and I invite you to make a ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the Member for Bonavista South, who is trying very hard to be a good member, keep at it and I have no doubt he will be in a very short time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back to the point I wanted to make. This is Committee stage. I would assume - and I have spent some time in Opposition, I would assume that hon. members opposite have either some questions on detailed clause of this bill or, have some amendments, and if so, I would ask them to bring them forward. I don't know how long the House can sit here and just carry on this kind of meaningless debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What debate (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The debate, Mr. Chairman, has not been on the clause-by-clause or on details of the bill; if so, one of us would be up trying to answer it. Maybe we could answer it to the satisfaction of members opposite, maybe we couldn't, I don't know,but all we're hearing, Mr. Chairman, is the same business we heard at second reading.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, I don't think the debate has been out of order. I certainly have raised no objection.

MR. SULLIVAN: What are you complaining about?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, what I'm complaining about, I say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, is the complete failure of the Opposition to address the clauses or the points in this bill. If they have a problem with a particular clause, let's hear about it.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have a problem with every clause.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, then let's hear about every clause. We are still on clause 1, let's hear about every clause, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members opposite, from time to time, bawl out about clause 4. Now, clause 4 - we are not there yet - is the one entitled `reorganization' and it is an important clause, because it deals with the transfer of the assets.

MS. VERGE: It's a giveaway.

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend, the Member for Humber East, she may think it's a giveaway but it is not a giveaway, it is a sale. It is a sale, Mr. Chairman. We transfer the assets - hon. members might want to remember what the deal does: if authorized by the House, the assets of old Hydro that are to form part of the assets of new Hydro will be moved into the corporate entity known as new Hydro. New Hydro, Mr. Chairman -

MR. SULLIVAN: Water rights?

MR. ROBERTS: I'll come back to water rights - I'd be delighted to. New Hydro will then, in due course, go to the market to offer securities, the very essence of the capital corporate structure of the modern business world, and the market will put a value on what the shares are, what the shares will bring. We can talk about value, we can talk about book value, we can talk about replacement value, but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with all diffidence, there is only one value that really works and that is what a willing and knowledgeable purchaser will pay for an asset when that willing and knowledgeable purchaser is at arms length from a willing and knowledgeable seller. That's the test, that's the market test. That is the true economic test, when a willing and knowledgeable purchaser will pay for an asset when that purchaser is at arms length from a willing and knowledgeable seller. Now, if we -

MS. VERGE: The seller is not willing.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. lady may think the seller is not willing but that's a matter to be decided by this House. She has to realize that she is but one of fifty-two voices and one of fifty-two votes in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you?

MR. ROBERTS: I am but one of fifty - I acknowledge it gladly, and I'm not seeking to impose my will -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I am seeking as part of a group to do what we believe we have the right to do and what we believe we should do in the interest of this Province, and as long as we believe we should do it we will come forward to the House and ask for support, and if we receive that support, we'll go forward and we'll answer to the people of the Province.

MS. VERGE: You don't have their support.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady says we don't have support. Again, she is entitled to her views, but I submit with respect she should remember Cromwell's advice: `I beseech thee, sister - he said `brother' but I'll say `sister' in her case - `in the bowels of Christ, they could be wrong.' Very good advice to her. If she is convinced she has support, then fine. She was convinced she had support, too, for the Sprung Greenhouse; she was convinced she had support for the disastrous policy of the administration of which she was part, that held up the development of Hibernia for years and years and years and more years. The hon. lady's record speaks for itself. In due course, ours will speak, and I will stand by what this government does, Mr. Chairman, gladly, willing and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier ordered you to.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman said the Premier ordered me to, now that tells me more about the hon. gentleman's mental processes than it does about what is happening in public life in this Province. It tells me about the hon. gentleman's knowledge of Cabinet. Maybe the hon. gentleman is speaking of the Cabinet of which he was a part. I don't know what went on in that Cabinet. I know he had a dynamic leader and I know he continued -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: So soon?

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

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

Now, Mr. Chairman, all you have to do today, to let you know why people are suspicious and why people don't trust this government is to just listen to the Government House Leader, how he speaks down at everyone else in the Legislature, how he questions everyone's intelligence and their mental processes. You know if it was in any other place, Mr. Chairman, I doubt if that member would have any mental processes left, I say to him. If it was in any other place but this House, I doubt if he would have any left after the way that he behaves and talks down to people. Because even though we're supposed to be hon. members, and establish parliamentary decorum, it is very hard to take, day after day, to sit here listening to Premier Wells and Government House, Leader Ed Roberts consistently talking down at you.

It is not in my nature and my soul, Mr. Chairman, to take that too long from bullies, I say to them. I don't like bullies, and that is what we have here, and that is what is happening to this piece of legislation. The people of this Province are being bullied.

Now, I want to go back to the Meech Lake process, which has been mentioned a couple of times. I was very much a part of that, I say to members opposite, and at that time public opinion was overwhelmingly on the side of the Premier. That is why members were given the $1,500 to go out to their districts to consult with their constituents, because public opinion on that matter was very much decided on the Premier's side, so he said: Here, Bill, take your $1,500 and go down to Grand Bank district because public opinion down there is with me, so I want you to go down and confirm that, and come back accordingly.

On this issue the public opinion is clearly against the Premier. That is why there is no $1,500 for each member of this House to go to their districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is why there is no $1,500 per member to go out and consult with the people in your districts, I say to members opposite, because the Premier knows, as he did with Meech Lake, that the public opinion in this one is clearly against one, Clyde K. Wells. That is the difference. So there is no opportunity for you to go out into your districts. There is no opportunity for the people in your districts to have input into this process.

Now I want to have a word with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations who, a few minutes ago, lectured the House again on principle, and lectured members on this side about principle. I want to say to you, Mr. Minister, that you should not lecture us about principle. We have all witnessed your principle from the time you were principal of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association until your actions now, which is a vicious attack not only against teachers, but the whole public service of this Province. That is what your principles are all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to you that there is only one principle that you understand, and that is what is in the best interest of `Roger Grimes' is best for `Roger Grimes', and to heck with everyone else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sit down (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: You were up on a point of order when I was up, so you be quiet. That is the best thing for you to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Look, Mr. Chairman, I don't mind listening to the hon. the Member for Grand Bank and give him leave for half-an-hour if he wants to speak, but it's not fair for the hon. member - and he knows it, and I know the hon. member - to be up naming members with that kind of a vengeance. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to remind the hon. member now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is too bad, I say to the Member for St. John's South, that he doesn't express his opinion in places where people want him to express them, rather than just here, I say to him. If he wants to play those games, now trying to pick up for his brother-in-law, that is quite alright. I don't need to bring my brother-in-law in here to pick up for me, I say to him. I can look after myself in here or anywhere else.

MR. MURPHY: There is no need to get (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm just reacting to statements that the minister made, I say to the member. You can't have members opposite getting up in their places lecturing people on principle, questioning their intelligence, without - look, I can't speak for the rest of them. But there is no one on that side who is going to get up and lecture me about intelligence and mental processes and principle, when I know all too well whence the comments came.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is exactly right. That is the same attitude as the people of this Province have taken about this piece of legislation. They are not going to be bullied or talked down to by the Premier or the Government House Leader or the Minister of Finance or anyone else, I say to the Member for St. John's South. They've had enough of this. They've had enough of this dictatorship, and that is what it is. Dictatorship. They are not going to tolerate it any more. As the days unfold you are going to have more and more people on the steps and in the galleries, I say to you, Mr. Chairman. More and more.

Any way you cut this piece of legislation - the Government House Leader says it is not a giveaway, it is a sale. I will buy that. You are going to sell it. When you look at what you are going to get for it and for what it is worth, then most people in this Province would classify it as a giveaway. It is a giveaway. People are questioning why this government is so intent on giving away such a valuable asset, I say to members opposite. Why are you so intent on giving away such a valuable asset?

The Minister of Finance stood in his place today and he tried to make us believe that part of the debt servicing charges of the Province are going into the Hydro debt, that it is going towards the Hydro debt. That is what he tried to make us believe. The Hydro debt is self-sustaining, it is paying for itself. When he talks about the 17 or 18 or 20 or 22 cents we are paying on a dollar for debt. He tries to make the people of the Province believe that the Hydro debt is calculated and included in the Province's debt. That is what he tried to make the people believe today, and until I picked him up on it he probably would have gotten away with it. Those are the kinds of games you are playing. You are not being straight with the people, you are not being honest with them.

You talk about the value of the assets, and the replacement value. We will get into that as time goes on in the various clauses of the bill. We are very familiar with this piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, more familiar than most members opposite, I say, because we've done our homework on this piece of legislation, because we realize just how bad it is for the people of this Province and we are not willing to support it. If it was a good deal for the people of the Province I would stand in my place and support it and I would vote for it.

MR. MURPHY: Put your homework on the Table.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Homework, I say to the Member for St. John's South, we can smother him with homework.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where have you been?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We could blind you with homework, and we have been at it for months. It started in the fall, I say to the member, and we had the draft piece of legislation of this for weeks before this bill was actually tabled in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, you wouldn't? It's time for you to get your head out of the sand, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. Don't be dictated to like I heard the Premier dictate to the entire caucus today, that he demands that you vote the way he wants you to vote, I say to him, and there is only one person with the gumption to go against him over there, so far. I saw him down in the gallery with another member today. I don't know what is going on there, but I understand there are a few people being reined in over there because they are going a bit soft, the same process as happened in Meech Lake. On Friday morning when the vote was going to be taken, the Premier came to the floor; he picked out the six or seven, one by one, and he took them outside and leaned on them. One by one he took them outside this Legislature and whipped them in line - the same process again with Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was here. I witnessed it. It is not second hand for me. I witnessed it. One by one he leaned on them on the Friday morning before the vote was supposed to be taken but then, of course, he very conveniently didn't have the vote. He blamed it on something Lowell Murray did, remember? He blamed it on Lowell Murray why we didn't have the vote, but we all know the real reason, because on Thursday night when we left the House of Assembly upstairs there was enough votes to go against the Premier, when we left upstairs Thursday night, and the same -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I do know, and I can tell you the names, and the Minister of Mines and Energy was in the middle of it, I say to the member, right in the middle of it, with five or six or seven with him, and members know who I am talking about over there, and they got leaned on very quickly early Friday morning. The same thing is going on now on Hydro, and he is trying to rein them in now.

MS. VERGE: But he is going to take you all down with him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

Something is not necessarily good because someone says it is, or bad, someone dictates. So why don't you stand in your places and be counted like men and women? Stand in your places like men and women and be counted. You know what your constituents are telling you. You know public opinion is overwhelmingly against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am against the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to the Minister of Health. That is what I'm against. I am against giving away a very valuable asset owned outright by the people of this Province. We are going to get far less money than we should get for it. We will pay $300 million or $350 million down on the debt this year. Next year we're back in the same boat. We are out borrowing $400 million or $500 million the next year, and Hydro is gone. That is what I am against, I say to the minister.

People of this Province are going to give new Hydro tax breaks, tax concessions, subsidies, and they are going to pay higher electricity rates. That is what I'm against, I say to the minister, to the tune that it will amount to about $1 billion that taxpayers and rate payers in this Province will pay in the next ten years, above and beyond what they are paying now. About $1 billion, about $100 million a year for ten years, I say to the minister, $1 billion. The Premier gets in his place and blows off because he is going to save he says $25 million for ten years, about $250 million. The net loss to taxpayers and rate payers, who are the same people in this Province, is approximately $750 million over ten years, I say to the Minister of Health. That is why I'm against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, just to finish the few comments that I was making the last time that I spoke here at the Committee stage.

Again, I apologize if any member opposite, particularly a person who I have great respect for, the Member for Grand Bank and the Opposition House Leader, misconstrued any of my remarks before as a lecture. I used to get paid for delivering lectures and I didn't think it was one. I thought I was just sincerely saying what I thought to be the case in this particular debate to date. There was no intention of doing that. It is unfortunate again that he, I guess, as another person, feels that the best way to deal with whatever I said or did is to cast some aspersions now back at me, which is the biggest mistake I think we ever make as politicians. That we don't spend enough time debating the issues.

The first thing that we do when anything happens is the Member for Humber East will say: The Premier is no good, he is a villain, he is the wolf in sheep's clothing,. Somebody will jump up and say: You were no good when you were there. This member stands up and says: The only thing I'm here for is what is for me. Then we will all go out and wonder why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador don't think very highly of politicians. That is all I said before and I believe it with every bone in my body. I don't think we do anything for ourselves, and I don't think that the people particularly believe that.

All I said was that people who know me personally, they do not think, and they don't think to this day, that Roger Grimes is standing here in this Legislature in St. John's, representing the people from thirteen communities in Central Newfoundland, doing something that is in my personal best interest, or because there was some deal cooked up, as the Member for Humber East would make us believe, starting four years ago. That we would have participated knowingly in a deal to turn down $14 billion or $15 billion worth of development, 24,000 I think person years of work, and all of that economic development for the Province, so that the Premier - who had a great crystal ball, as the Member for Bonavista South would suggests - looked in there and knew that Mr. Chretien was going to become Prime Minister. He would do a favour for one of his buddies, call off all that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, convince all of us somehow that that was a great deal, and turn around and do all that so that he could be appointed to the Supreme Court. I just do not believe it. I cannot understand it and it makes no sense, but I used it to illustrate the kind of things that have been surrounding this debate. There are a couple of other points I would like to make in this little intervention in the debate.

The only reason that the idea of debt, and whether or not this has anything to do with the credit rating, the only reason that is an issue is because the previous administration for seventeen years prior to 1989, and the administration before that, each one of the previous governments, continued - and by the way, it was not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, right across the country that was the way politics and governing was done. You went out and spent all the money people gave you from different sources, taxation on services, building infrastructure, putting in water and sewer, paving roads, building schools, building hospitals, and if you did not have enough money from what people gave you, because that is the only right as politicians and elected representatives that we have, to spend the money that the people give us.

We have a right to take it through taxation and we spend it responsibly on their behalf, but for forty or fifty years governments federally in all the provinces, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, when they did not get enough, they borrowed. I have used the analogy before, and we have known for two, three, or four years now, that we are at the point where the absolute privilege to borrow for this Province is very limited and very restricted. We all know that. That is what credit rating is about, and that is why it is important. That is why it has only been debated, by the way, in any big way in Newfoundland and Labrador for four or five years.

It was not a big issues before that except that the former Premier - I should say the former, former Premier, because we did have a Premier for forty days or so in Mr. Rideout, Mr. Peckford left and when he left for the public record he spelled out that we were getting close to being back to the 1930s again when we lost control. He knew there were real problems in terms of how much money we could raise and he was not willing to make the decisions to protect the fiscal and financial integrity of this Province so that we could continue to deliver services for the individuals. That is the only reason, Mr. Chairman, that debt thing is an issue today, otherwise that would not be an issue. Let all the governments collectively beforehand take responsibility for that on a shared basis.

One other point, Mr. Chairman, that I have heard raised, this is a one time deal and we cannot buy it back. Absolutely, but I ask the question, when we do this one time deal, whether it is this year or fifty years down the road, why would we want to buy it back? Is there any reason why we would want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to buy back Hydro? The answer is, no. The very purposes for which it was created in 1960 or so have all been realized. All of what could be developed for Hydro purposes on the Island are done. The extension of electrical services to all of the other communities who didn't have it, has been accomplished. All the reasons why the public utility was put in place in the first place have been accomplished, so if we sell it we don't want it back because the reasons that were put forward for establishing it in the first place, all of those objectives have been met in the Province, Mr. Chairman.

There is one other issue that I will just touch on briefly before I adjourn debate, recognizing the time. Members opposite have talked about a mandate, there was no mandate given in the election to deal with privatization. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that everybody in this Legislature knows the difference as issues come forward. Every time a major issue comes forward, the government of the day brings forward its agenda, the House decides and the people decide in three or four years time whether they support them or not. You don't go out every time you have an issue that you want to do whether it is privatization or education or something else and call an election and say: elect us because this is the only thing we are going to deal with in the next four years. Everybody here knows the exact opposite of that. That too, is a non-issue, a red herring in the debate but it is something I suppose, that again in the context of my previous remarks, might be something that rhetorically may touch the right buttons. It may have some rhetorical ring and appeal to it but in my presentation and contention, Mr. Chairman, it adds nothing to the debate about the details of the bill that I hope we are going to get to in the rest of our debate on third reading, clause by clause consideration of the bill.

With those few comments, Mr. Chairman, recognizing the time, I move that the debate be adjourned.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the House for the day, let me advise members that we shall ask the House to sit tomorrow night. We shall ask the House to sit tomorrow evening but not beyond 10:00 p.m. We may adjourn earlier depending on the wishes of members on all sides.

Wednesday of course will be Private Members Day and Thursday will be the Budget Speech from my friend the Minister of Finance. Friday we'll be back on regular business and then the following Monday, I understand, we're going to call the first order of business - the gentleman for Mount Pearl will be responding to the Budget and my understanding is he will finish his remarks that day, I want to be clear. That's my understanding of the arrangements that have been made between my friend the Finance Minister - we will keep the House meeting to give the gentleman every opportunity to finish his remarks that day including any non-confidence motion he may wish to move. Just so there's no misunderstanding there, we'll be glad to hear him at whatever length he wishes, subject to the rules. With that said Your Honour, I'll move the House adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.

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