The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to express condolences to the family, relatives and friends of a constituent of mine who passed away early last night, a well-known physician in the Grand Falls - Windsor area, Dr. Ross Martin. Not only was he well-known in the community and served his community in many, many respects, he was involved personally with me in my political association as a member of my executive, his wife was my president and, more importantly, from a personal perspective, he was also the doctor who delivered both my children. I know that the Member for Windsor - Buchans knew him well and, I imagine, the Member for Exploits. I would like to ask Your Honour if he would express, in writing, to the family our condolences on this very untimely, unfortunate passing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, on behalf of this side of the House, to associate ourselves with some of the comments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is true, I have known Dr. Ross Martin for many years, not to the extent that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have known him, but I have known him as a renowned doctor in Grand Falls and a very community-minded and community-involved individual. I can say, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of everyone in Grand Falls - Windsor, that he will be missed - he was appreciated. His untimely death at fifty-nine came as a shock in most cases. I want to associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and would like to see that condolences are, indeed, expressed on behalf of the House of Assembly through your office. Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to make a short statement about and to table the report of the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of John Stephen Rich. Mr. Rich, as members may recall, died on 8 June 1993, at Makkovik, Labrador.

The presiding judge at the inquiry was the Hon. M. R. Reid, and he concluded:

"It seems obvious that John Rich had decided it was time to end his own life. Once he had decided his fate he was either going to take his own life or force the police into doing it for him and he rendered himself under the influence of alcohol to make it easier to accomplish. To conclude otherwise would seem to fly in the face of the evidence." That's a quotation from the report. I shall be tabling the full report, of course.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Reid further concluded that once Mr. Rich had made the decision to die, subsequent events forced the RCMP marksman into a situation where he had little choice but to fire at Mr. Rich. Just before the fatal shot, Mr. Rich fired several shots at RCMP personnel, some of which came dangerously close to them. It was only when Mr. Rich pointed his firearm at an RCMP constable who was moving closer to the residence in which Mr. Rich was located, that the RCMP marksman fired and killed Mr. Rich.

Allegations were presented during the inquiry that the RCMP had acted hastily and improperly in this situation. Judge Reid made this finding about these allegations, and I quote: `Having sat through the inquiry, however, and having considered the submissions of counsel, I am satisfied that the criticisms aimed at the police are without foundation'. Judge Reid did find that the RCMP had encountered minor problems in their deployment of the Emergency Response Team but concluded that these minor problems had no bearing on the eventual outcome of the incident.

The inquiry made two recommendations, the first, that measures be taken to bring the Emergency Response Team up to its full complement and to maintain it there in case of need of such services in the future, and secondly, that the RCM Police take steps to identify for use, aircraft suitable to accommodate the E.R.T. and all of its equipment when needed on short notice. The RCMP have assured me that appropriate steps will be taken in response to these suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, a copy of Judge Reid's report has been provided to Mr. Rich's family, or to be precise, to his counsel, and copies are available for the press and for any member who may wish to have one.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice, through his staff, provided me with a copy of the Judicial Inquiry Report a few minutes ago; I will be reading it and may have something more to say later. I note that the minister has provided a copy, as well, and more importantly, to the lawyer for Mr. Rich's family. I would think, Mr. Rich's family will find it very difficult to accept the judge's findings. People at a greater distance will have to read and assess the findings of the report and the recommendations and try to be objective about it.

The death was very tragic and sadly, it is not the only such instance of a death through a police stakeout. We have had a few other similar occurrences in the Province over the last couple of years and, in each case, there has been a difference of opinion and some controversy about the way the police have responded, so I think it is important that we have close scrutiny of police procedures for such incidents in the hope that we can prevent such tragic deaths in the future.

Thank you.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to add a few remarks. We are always very concerned, of course, when tragic situations like this lead to a death and it is important to have a full and thorough public enquiry, and I am pleased to find that Judge Reid has found no reason to criticize the actions of the police here. Underlying this tragedy, of course, is the decision itself of Mr. Rich to end his life, and the tragic circumstances behind that unfortunately are all too common in some communities in this Province. I look forward to seeing the report to see whether any reference is made to that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, for the past number of months, the Department of Education has been engaged in an intensive effort to develop a program of reform for primary, elementary, and secondary education based on the recommendations of the Williams Royal Commission. The general outline of these reforms has been presented in two recent documents entitled, "Adjusting the Course" and "Adjusting the Course: Part 11." The first of these documents deals with reforms of the structure of the school system, while the second addresses issues of teaching and learning. My purpose today is to inform this hon. House of the progress to date in dealing with these reforms, and to indicate where government plans to go from here.

As most people are aware, the major structural changes proposed involve a reduction in the number of school boards from 27 to 10; creation of a school construction board; and a shift to neighbourhood inter-denominational schools as the norm; while retaining uni-denominational schools under certain circumstances. All of these changes affect the role of the Churches in the system. Following intensive discussions with the Church Leaders and representatives, it has become apparent that no consensus is possible which would allow government and Churches to proceed together with reform. Government must therefore move with its program.

Because of the time taken in attempting to reach consensus, it is not now possible to proceed with all of these changes in September, 1994. A new target date of 1995 has been set for implementation of changes to the school boards. Certain other reforms which have major costs attached cannot proceed until the new school boards are in place, because it is planned to finance these changes out of savings in administration which will result from the streamlined school board structure. One of these changes is the plan to introduce a full day kindergarten. This plan will now come into effect in September 1995. However, some school boards already have a full day kindergarten in place and others want to proceed in September of this year. Therefore, boards who feel they can meet the necessary criteria in time for the next school year are encouraged to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, government intends to introduce at this session of the House of Assembly a comprehensive revision of the Schools Act. The revision will include changes needed to carry out the reforms.

Despite the delay in implementing the new board structures, and the consequent impact on certain other reforms, it is intended to proceed with a number of important initiatives in the coming school year. Work is already under way to establish standards at key stages of education, and to develop indicators of student and system performance. Pilot projects on school councils have also commenced. All of these are developments which can proceed independently of structural change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister rises to report progress in dealing with these reforms. The minister knew and the government knew two years ago when their legal counsel to the royal commission published in appendix three verbatim his report to the royal commission. Mr. Furey, in his thirty page opinion, it is clear, it is an unmistakeable warning, of the jeopardy that government would be in if they proceeded. He stated: If the commission's report was to be implemented immediately there is little doubt that this course of action would result in protracted and expensive litigation. The end result would no doubt find that the thrust of many of the commission's recommendations is unconstitutional.

That is the government's own legal opinion to the royal commission. This government wasn't looking for consensus. They were looking for surrender that they knew they couldn't possibly get under the terms of the Constitution. They tried to use that as an excuse to delay very important reforms that are needed in education. Which goes to show that planning on trying to introduce kindergarten without a curriculum, without teacher assignment, without adequate space, is an example of this government's incompetence and inability to address the real concerns in education today. That a minister, when he was in the Department of Health, instituted changes and we are still picking up the pieces in a system that descended into chaos.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: There is one sure way to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker. There is one sure way to do it and that is get rid of the minister, and we might get some change in education!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for a copy of his statement before question period. In reading it and listening to the minister and hearing about Adjusting the Course parts I and II and the changes in the minister's plans, one wonders whether or not there is any course at all that the government is committed to in this instance.

I look forward to changes in the Kindergarten program. I look forward to reforms being brought in consistent with the Williams Report, and I would like to see some resolve on the part of the government to continue with them.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, one wonders what we are going to end up with if the minister himself keeps adjusting his own course so that we don't know where he is going.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's been eight days now since we had the privatization bill in the Legislature, and I think five of those eight days the Premier has been absent, which is rather unfortunate since it is such an important issue, so I will have to go to the Minister of Mines and Energy if, in fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy is over the roasting he got this morning on Open Line, and ask him some questions.

Now a week has gone by since the Premier misled the House, you will recall, until he corrected his error the next day.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour yesterday, at the end of Question Period - it was Mr. Speaker Dicks presiding - made a very succinct and very straightforward statement to the House to the effect that non-parliamentary language would not be tolerated.

The most classic example of non-parliamentary language is to accuse another member of misleading or of lying. The hon. Opposition Leader just used the word `misled' in that he said the Premier misled the House.

I would ask Your Honour, as a point of order, to rule this is out of order and request the hon. gentleman to withdraw the remark and rephrase the preamble to his question.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he has withdrawn the remark.

MR. SIMMS: I withdraw it, yes.

I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker, if he could correct the mistake that the Premier told me about in a letter the day afterwards, when he said he had misunderstood what the question was and what his answer was, apparently.

At that time I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy for information on the advertising and promotional campaign related to Hydro. He will remember the Premier said in his letter to me that the government would be involved in radio advertising, and then a handwritten note that said, also in newspaper ads. I asked him how much was being spent by Hydro. How much was being spent by the government individually. Would Hydro's share be charged as an expense and included in the tax rate base? What companies are doing the work? Was there a tender?

The minister said he didn't know, but he said he would check. A week has gone by; the questions weren't answered. Will the minister now provide the answers to the people of the Province? Will he give us a precise breakdown today?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few days it has become quite well known that we are participating with Hydro in the text of a brochure, and the hon. member and all others throughout the Province have received the brochure which was prepared. It is paid for by Hydro, copied, and distributed through the post office since the middle of last week. That cost approximately $25,000. There are some radio spots that have started. I don't think the newspaper spots have started to appear yet. There will be some of those too, I believe. Overall the estimated cost is about $100,000, which is a very, very small amount.

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

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We will take the opportunity in a future day to debate whether or not it is money worth spending.

I want to ask the minister some other questions related to Hydro. Can the minister tell the House what companies, banks, and other financial institutions have been engaged to advise government and Hydro on the privatization issue? Could he also tell the House what company or companies have been engaged as underwriters to finance the private takeover of Hydro and to handle the sale of shares? Can he tell the House?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we've been working with RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod for some months now in doing the analysis and they are our advisors. We have not at this time finalized a syndicate that will be handling all of the shares, but RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod are certainly our key advisors on it at this time. I'm sure that all the members of the investment community will be involved at the appropriate time.

We've also had discussions with the banks and other financial institutions and we would expect that they will all be involved at the appropriate time in the sale of shares as we proceed, assuming that we do proceed. The names of various law firms have already been mentioned in this House that have been giving advice to government on the one hand, Hydro on the other hand, and the underwriters on the other hand, so I won't go into the details on that right now.

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

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand the minister in a meeting over on the West Coast over the weekend also told the audience at that public meeting that Sir Edmund D. Rothschild, or Rothschilds, were also one of the government's advisors on this deal. Now we also know that Sir Edmund I believe met last fall sometime with the Premier to discuss matters related to Hydro. Can the minister tell the House what role does Sir Edmund or any of the Rothschild companies play in the sale of Hydro? Will the Rothschild bank for example be providing financial backing related to the sale of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker. The Rothschild company is giving us some advice. They are one of our advisors as an advisor to government, playing the same role that the Rothschild company played in Nova Scotia as an advisor to that particular government when they went through their privatization. It is the company and not Sir Edmund.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is the same family-owned bank that was one of the chief bakers of BRINCO, as the minister would know, which was the company formed to develop the Upper Churchill and that negotiated the ill-fated giveaway of the Upper Churchill power to Hydro Quebec.

I want to ask the minister, why has this particular bank been invited back to this Province again to advise government on yet another Hydro sell-off? Is there any connection between the privatization of Hydro and development of the Lower Churchill?

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

DR. GIBBONS: On the last part of the question, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no connection. The two are quite separate. We are keeping our Labrador assets related to future development and all the undeveloped water rights. There is no connection between the two.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: I hope the minister has a chat with some of his other front row colleagues over there because they were over there saying: Could be. So they should get their act together.

One of Hydro's responsibilities was to manage the provincial government's interest in the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, the Gull Island Power Corporation, the Twin Falls Power Corporation and the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. I want to ask the minister: Will that which remains of old Hydro continue to manage all of those interests totally, or will they be transferred to another entity, say, the new Hydro company under some contractual arrangement? Is that possible?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to transfer these properties to anybody. Right now existing Hydro has a management agreement with CF(L)Co. for certain functions. It is our plan in the short-term transition to continue that arrangement until we do a thorough evaluation of which way we want to proceed in the future. So we haven't made any final decisions on how we want to proceed in the long-term future, but in the short-term we are certainly going to continue a management type arrangement, basically a continuation of what is in place today, until we decide otherwise.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think what might be ahead of the people of this Province in the long term. That is the big concern that most people have.

Newfoundland Hydro took the lead in negotiations with Hydro Quebec, as the minister would know, for the development of the Lower Churchill project. I want to ask the minister: Who now will handle those negotiations for the Province after Hydro is privatized?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a misconception. Newfoundland Hydro did not take the lead in the negotiations. We in government put a committee in place that included representatives from Hydro and representatives from government. I believe the number was six people on that particular committee. Three of these senior people were from the government side over here, Confederation Building, and three of them were senior people with Hydro, but Hydro didn't take the lead. The direction was given from this House, from this building.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: My question to the minister is: Who will handle the negotiations for the Province after the privatization of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: We will continue to lead ourselves. We were the ones who did the leading before. We did have people from Hydro on that committee with us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Three and three, yes, but we are the ones who gave directions for that set of negotiations, and they reported to us here in government. The reporting wasn't at Hydro, and we will continue to do the leading in the future, as need be.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall during the opening day of debate on second reading of Bill 1, the privatization bill, during my speech, in an exchange across the floor, the Premier said to me that new Hydro would be able to acquire shares in CF(L)Co., GIP Co., Twin Co., and LCDC. He will remember that. He was here in the House.

I want to ask the minister: Why will new Hydro be allowed to purchase shares in those companies? Whose shares would they purchase, and what percentage of the shares would they be permitted to hold?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I heard no such thing, and it's certainly not our intention to sell any of our shares, so I don't know where the hon. member got that misinterpretation, but certainly we have no intention of selling any of our shares to new Hydro.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Yesterday I asked the Premier a question about the offer for development of the Lower Churchill that was on the Table in late 1991 and early 1992, specifically about the escalating price Hydro Quebec was prepared to pay. The Premier replied that he didn't have the numbers off the top of his head, but he could get them. Will the minister now confirm that the offer included the 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 close to 75 mils per kilowatt hour over the thirty years?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we, with Hydro Quebec, and initially dating back to 1989 - October 26, 1989 - with Ontario Hydro, were negotiating the possible development of the Lower Churchill. After our initial discussions Quebec and Ontario, in discussions with us, Quebec said that they wanted to have access to all of the power that was surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they would like to have the opportunity to negotiate this with us without Ontario present. Ontario Hydro said: Okay, we will sit on the side. We are there, and we will always be there, depending on our need.

We negotiated and had many meetings over about a three year period, and during that time this continent, this world, went into a major recession. We made a lot of progress on the details, financial, technical, environmental and otherwise, a lot of progress on the details, but we never ever reached a stage where we had a final agreement on what we would do. We were getting close on a number of matters; we made a lot of progress on a number of matters, but we never reached a stage where we said, this is it. We never reached that stage, although we had a lot of discussions on it.

One of the points that the hon. member is talking about, the escalator clause, yes, I have said it publicly before and I am sure the Premier has probably said it publicly before, that one of the early things that we put into it was the requirement that we were going to have an escalator clause in any future contract, and we had effectively come to an agreement on that, although I don't believe we had signed it off or anything, but it would be an escalator contract tied to an appropriate index; an appropriate index for any contract that we signed, but the numbers, I am not going to comment on the specific numbers at this time but we were dealing with specific numbers and ranges of numbers but we hadn't reached any agreement and about two years ago - it is two years ago this month - Hydro Quebec representatives said: Look, with what's happening in the economy, our demand is not there now like we thought it was going to be, we don't need Great Whale now in 1998 like we thought we going to have it and that one is back now to maybe 2007, therefore let's lay this aside, acknowledge that we made a lot of progress towards a possible agreement but let's lay that aside for now and let's monitor what's happening in the market; and since that time, that has all been proven out in spades, Mr. Speaker.

Last month, Ontario Hydro was up talking about the 10,000 mega-watts surplus that they now have rather than a demand for power. They reached their peak in '89 and they don't expect to get back to the 1989 peak until about three or four years from now, if then. Hydro Quebec is similar, Mr. Speaker, the demand is not there and until there is a demand there won't be a development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another question for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I say to the minister, I know there was no agreement, the Premier scuttled the golden opportunity for an agreement. I am asking about the specifics about Hydro Quebec's offer in late '91 and early '92.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this document which should serve as an aid to the minister's memory; the document is labelled Churchill River Project Review, Presentation to Cabinet, and is dated December 12, 1991. With the help of the document, will the minister confirm that the offer for development of the Lower Churchill that was on the table two years ago, included development of the hydroelectric capacity at both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, as well as the construction of a transmission line connecting the Upper and the Lower Churchill to the Island of Newfoundland, and that the value of the construction projects was estimated at over $14 billion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS. VERGE: - and would have provided 24,000 person years of employment?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, over the last few years I have given numerous speeches, others have given numerous speeches of what might be an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill if and when that might be reached. At this stage it has not been reached, nobody has scuttled anything because nobody needs the power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a final supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that in addition to an offer for development of the Lower Churchill, also on the table in late 1991 and early '92, was an offer to enter into side agreements to the Upper Churchill contract that would have provided over $4 billion in royalties and rentals to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador over the remaining life of the Upper Churchill contract?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, during all of our negotiations with Hydro Quebec, we had agreed that we were not going to make any of the details public unless we reached an agreement. We are not going to go talking about what might or might not have been, we were negotiating various things to see what we might reach -

MS. VERGE: You are covering up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - we never did reach a final agreement because of the changing world circumstances for energy, and one of these years there will be a demand again and the Lower Churchill will be developed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we have just found out why the Premier wants to privatize Newfoundland Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: We wonder how much money the major shareholders of Hydro will make, Mr. Speaker.

My question by the way, is to the Minister of Health.

A month or so ago, the minister went to the Burin Peninsula and met with a group on the Burin Peninsula from the councils, the Chamber of Commerce and others who told the minister in spades, that they wanted to maintain the Health Care Board on the Peninsula to serve the people of the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced in the House last week that he was now putting a new board in place for the Burin - Peninsula, Clarenville and Bonavista. In his statement, the minister said that the people involved were very receptive and positive about the changes we are making.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, would he tell this House the names of the individuals who were so positive about the approach he is making, from the Peninsula?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I went and met with quite a number of people from the Burin Peninsula representing most of the people who were on the joint councils and others. We had lunch in the hotel in Marystown and we talked for quite awhile. People told me quite clearly that they would prefer to have the system that was in place then to continue and they did not want to join with the other two boards, but in this world we don't always get what we want. Later on when government had made its decision after considering a number of options and after these sentiments that were expressed in Marystown were conveyed to government and other sentiments from the other boards and people in the area, from Bonavista and Clarenville area and so on, the government decided that of the options they would choose to put in place a board that would govern all the health care institutions on the Bonavista Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula including the area served by the Clarenville board.

When I called the chief executive officers and the chairpersons of the boards together to announce this before I made it public - I thought then that the people from the Burin Peninsula, two were there - I don't think they were enthusiastic about it but what impressed me very much was the desire on all peoples part, the decision having been made, that we would do our best to make the thing work as best we can and that same sentiment has persisted through all the mergers that have taken place.

In St. John's we've had the same situation. Everybody put forward their views and then government made their decision and the decision wasn't always what everybody wanted. It was what some wanted and what others didn't. In this world one cannot always get what one wants and it is high time for the members opposite to realize that what we're trying to do is to build a good health care system for the whole Province where people think regionally rather than for people to look after their own selfish interests. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we'll never get a good health care system in this Province as long as the hon. member is the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about a region, we're talking about the region of the Burin Peninsula. Let me ask the minister another question, Mr. Speaker: When he attended the meeting in Marystown he told the people at that meeting that because they had 50 per cent plus of the population of Bonavista, Clarenville and the Burin Peninsula that more then half of that committee would be made up of residents of the Burin Peninsula. Is it still the ministers intention to do that, number one, and number two, will he reconsider and put the system back in place for the Burin Peninsula?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. If you look at the total area and the population by the 1991 census, the population of the Burin Peninsula that's served by that particular - that existing board rather than future board - takes into account about 28,500 people. The other two boards serve a slightly larger population, slightly larger but not much larger. They are roughly the same number, so I would imagine that the new board should be about evenly balanced between the Burin Peninsula and the other two boards. Whether it will be 50/50 or 49/51 per cent I don't know.

But it won't be only on that criteria. We have to keep in mind, as I mentioned here before I believe, certain other criteria. We want all the institutions to be appropriately represented there, long term care and otherwise, and we want good geographical representation. The Burin Peninsula has two-and-a-bit political districts, the others have more than that so we have to take that into account. We also have to take into account gender balance. Most of the boards tend to be dominated by males and I really want to bring in a good gender balance here because that's important and also I want to have a good mixture of skills.

We will try to make sure that there's an evenly balanced board but I can't be sure until the names come in and we try to build a good strong board. The most important thing is to put together a board that can manage the health care of the whole region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a final supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell me, number one, where the new CEO and the headquarters for this new board will be, in what town or community, what area? Number two, will he assure the House that the present services that exist on the Burin Peninsula will not be downgraded and that all of the services that remain at St. Lawrence, Grand Bank, and Burin will remain intact as they presently exist, and that they will improve, but will certainly not be downgraded?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, nothing is frozen in time, but our whole purpose in bringing about health care reorganization is to make sure that the health care services throughout the Province are better than they are now, or at least as good as they are now. As we are faced with financial problems, what we have to do - and this is one of the main reasons why we are regionalizing, is to make sure that the money goes where it is needed, on the front lines in the health system rather than in unnecessary administration and things of that nature, and in duplication. It is a straightforward thing. I would like to be able to guaranteed everybody in this Province that the health care system will improve, but part of it depends on dollars, I might as well be honest, but I have no intention of downgrading services on the Burin Peninsula. As a matter of fact, I believe, that the Burin Peninsula right now has as good a health care service as anywhere in this Province and better than most.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy on VOCM Open Line this morning tell a caller that government is not giving away any water rights. All new Hydro will get, he said, was the use of the water flowing through the turbines. Now, has the minister read the Privatization Act? Is he aware that Section 4 of the act says, the Minister of Finance shall transfer to New Hydro all of the land invested in Old Hydro or which are used in connection with the business of Old Hydro? And does he know that Section 2 (a) defines `land' as real property of every kind, including rights-of-way, and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges?

Now, will the minister stand in his place and correct the misinformation he gave to the people of this Province this morning?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not give any misinformation to the people of this Province this morning. We wrote this Privatization Act and I believe we know what we wrote. Obviously, the hon. member opposite doesn't know how to read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Number one, no undeveloped water rights in this Province, anywhere in this Province, are going to the new company, no undeveloped water rights, whether in Labrador or on the Island, no undeveloped water rights are going to that company. The only water rights they will have the right to use, and there is no ownership change in this, it is not an ownership matter, it is a right to use. They have the right to use the water rights that are being used today - the water rights that are being used today, where, in Bay d'Espoir, water is flowing through the turbines, Hinds Lake, where water is flowing through the turbines, Cat Arm, and other such places, where water is flowing through the turbines. They have the right to use that water to produce electricity for the people of Newfoundland until they stop using it. If the day should come when they stop doing that, producing electricity, then that right to use reverts to us.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What kind of a con job does the minister think he is sending to the people?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise a point of order whenever I believe there is a legitimate basis for one. The hon. the Member for Ferryland just used the phrase a `con job' and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is not parliamentary and I ask Your Honour to rule him out of order, ask him to withdraw it, and rephrase the question.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Minister of Justice under consideration and report later.

MR. TOBIN: You will not stifle Question Period, `Roberts', as much as you would like to!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: Dictator - that's what you are!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. I guess that is the same government, too, that knew and wrote the Upper Churchill legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Subsection 4(7) says that New Hydro will get legal title to the land "free and clear of all encumbrances". I remind the minister again that "land" is defined in the act in section 2(1)(a) "and includes ... waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges." What is legal title, free and clear of all encumbrances? In fact, is it not ownership, I ask the minister?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. If the hon. member would only read the section again, it says, in section 4(4), "such rights to use all waters, water rights ... as are developed and as are used by Old Hydro ... at the reorganization date". By definition, the reorganization date is the date that this transaction would occur. They get no undeveloped rights. They only get the right to use the waters they are using now.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: There are two minutes left in Question Period.

MR. SULLIVAN: It started at 2:17.

MR. TOBIN: At 2:18.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was using the stopclock here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Table says there are two minutes.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Is he genuinely uninformed on what is in the act, or is he part of the whole process, along with the Premier, that has a deliberate campaign trying to mislead the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Here we go again!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I raise another point of order. As the Leader of the Opposition said, here we go again. Every time any member of the House accuses someone of deliberately misleading, in my submission, it is unparliamentary. The hon. gentleman, the Member for Ferryland has been here more than long enough to know that he is using unparliamentary language. I would ask Your Honour to direct him to withdraw it, and either to rephrase it or put his question in an entirely different way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the question: Is he deliberately - I didn't use the word `deliberately' - I said: Is he not trying to mislead? That is my question, and Hansard will record that, and you can read it in Hansard tomorrow. That is what I asked, is he not?

I ask the minister to answer yes or no. He should tell us if he is or if he is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, to the point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I would like to reiterate that Speaker Dicks, yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Speaker Dicks, yesterday, after a Question Period that was filled with totally unparliamentary language, charges and innuendoes, decided that at the end of Question Period he would remind hon. members that this would not be tolerated in the future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to, at some point in time, put limits on the types of innuendoes and charges and so on that can be thrown across this House if we are to have any reasoned debate at all. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite a logical point of order, and for days we have refrained from raising these points of order during Question Period, but there is a limit and I believe that we have crossed that limit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond and say that this is the first time in my twelve years in this Assembly that I have seen the Government House Leader and other ministers trying to stifle Question Period by rising on points of order. Usually, they extend the courtesy until after Question Period has elapsed, but what we see here is the sure evidence that what is happening on this debate, and Question Period in this House, is cutting to the bone. It is cutting them to the bone, that's what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier, now, won't have public hearings. Yesterday he rose in his place, listing people who have signed petitions. He doesn't want people to express their opinions on petitions, and now we have a deliberate attempt, as a result of the caucus meeting yesterday, that the orders have been given to cut down on the questions in Question Period.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that Your Honour should take it under consideration and come back and rule very clearly to the Government House Leader that any points of order that he should wish to bring to the attention of Your Honour, he should do so after Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, to the point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that the hon. the Member for Grand Bank -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, in making his submission on the point of order, breached another parliamentary rule. Accordingly, when Your Honour deals with this one, I ask leave to move a point of order. He is not allowed to impugn the motives of members on either side, and that is what he did in making his submission on the point of order. It is no more in order when made in pursuit of a point of order than it's made in pursuit of any other proceeding in this House, so I would ask leave to raise that point when Your Honour deals with this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a final comment on it, to make it even. There were three on that side, and only two over here, so I will make it even.

I want to say to the House Leader on the Government side, it is a poor time to be hypocritical. That same individual, the Government House Leader, not too long ago, just a couple of days ago, sang out and told one of our members to shut up, and the other day, or yesterday, I think, he referred to members of the Opposition as a bunch of dogs - sick dogs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, apparently the interpretation of parliamentary language is in the mind of the Government House Leader, because those are the only examples that he knows how to use, himself. All we used here today were words like `misled', that is not unparliamentary, I say to the Government House Leader. I'm sure the Speaker will find out when he checks Hansard to make his ruling, but I will ask the Speaker to do this, as well, while we're on this same point of order: I will ask if he would check also the parliamentary references, including our Standing Orders. I believe he will find the point that my colleague referred to or alluded to about raising points of order after Question Period. Not only is it the practice, it is also recommended and suggested in the parliamentary reference books. When the Member for Gander was Government House Leader - I have to give him as much credit as possible - there was very rarely an occasion when there were points of order raised during Question Period because the public would not be aware that there is only a thirty-minute time segment put aside for Question Period. Any time the Opposition is putting any pressure at all on the government, you can be sure it is striking home because of the kinds of things the Government House Leader put up with today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, over the last couple of days, I guess, it has been brought to the attention of all members of the House that there have been some words used which are clearly considered unparliamentary and some other words which are borderline, depending on the context in which they are used, whether or not they are considered unparliamentary. The Chair will have to check the context in which the hon. the Member for Ferryland used the term and will rule on that at a further date.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls, I believe, raised a point of order, as well, with regard to raising points of order during Question Period. Again, the Chair will take that under advisement and check on it.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the hon. the Member for Humber East tabled a document and I think it is important that we do things right in this House. What might appear to be right one day might not be right another day but, Mr. Speaker, tabling documents by private members is not permitted. I refer hon. members to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: No, it is not a matter of (inaudible), it is a matter of doing things right, and it appears that some members don't want to do things right. If we do things right there will be no problems. I refer to Beauchesne - Order! I refer to Beauchesne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I'm soon going to stop that.

Mr. Speaker, I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, page 151, clause 495(6), which says: "A private Member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other, document." I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As two of my colleagues have already indicated it is not an official document. As I reflect back, any time in his House where an hon. member, regardless of which side, stands in his or her place and makes reference to a document, or at any time reads a sentence or two or a paragraph from it, yells from the other side come: Table it, table it!

That is exactly what the hon. member did. The hon. member made reference to a document - as the Premier last week asked her to table it. But of course today members opposite know that what the member has tabled really has the goods on the Premier for walking away from a very good deal for this Province. They don't want that tabled. They don't want the press to know about it, they don't want the public to know about it. All I say to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is there is no point of order. It is a good attempt, I say to the former Speaker, a good attempt on your part, but you are no longer Speaker, you are now a minister, and I expect you to act accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order. The point raised by the hon. Minister of Social Services has been raised on several occasions since I've been a member of this Chamber. I think there has been some ruling made on it. I will have to check the precedent and see what actually was decided.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Social Assistance Division for the fiscal year 1992-1993 as requested by section 5 of the Social Assistance Act, 1977.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise today to present a petition on behalf of 104 residents of Harbour Breton, Baie Verte and Bonavista. In tabling this petition I would caution hon. members opposite who represent some of these districts not to phone up people and intimidate them as the Premier seems to want to do with petitions.

These are petitioners who, as citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, seek to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They are saying the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been proven to be in the best interest of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that regard I wonder if the Minister of Finance would pay some heed to the concerns that are being raised in this petition. Because yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance raised the issue that the interest payments on the Hydro debt was costing $147 million. He was raising that as a serious impediment to the government financing because there was $147 million of interest payments being made on the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt.

First of all, what the Minister of Finance did not explain was that this $147 million worth of interest was being paid not by the taxpayers of Newfoundland but was being paid out of the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What he also didn't explain - and I hope that he will listen carefully and will rise in response to these petitioners - and explain what he should have explained, Mr. Speaker, is that when and if, which is hopefully never, but if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized that that $147 million which is now being paid on interest on bonds of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, will in fact increase substantially because in addition to paying interest on the borrowings of the new Hydro corporation, there will also have to be an additional, considerable millions of dollars of cash flow required to pay the cost of capital because it must include not only interest on bonds, but also the return on equity that is going to be demanded by the new shareholders and is going to be guaranteed to them by the Public Utilities Board under its current legislation.

So if the Minister of Finance would rise in response to the petitioners and acknowledge that there will be an increase cost of capital for the new Hydro corporation, up from the $147 million which is now required to pay interest on the bonds and it will increase somewhere in the order of $175 million to $180 million, and perhaps the minister can tell the House what advice his government has been given about the cost of capital requirements for the new Hydro corporation, what kind of cash flow will be required in addition to the current $147 million to meet the cost of capital requirements of the new Hydro bill. These are some of the very many questions, Mr. Speaker, that concern these petitioners and have yet to be answered properly by this government which is why there is so much opposition across this Province and so few people have been convinced by the government's move, that there seems to be almost no support for this government's plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition presented by my friend from St. John's East. Again, we have a group of people from Newfoundland and Labrador crying out to this government, crying out to the members, crying out to the hush puppies in the back benches over there, to take a stand. Well, if there had ever been any doubt in anyone's mind as to what is behind this Hydro scheme, if there had ever been any doubt in anyone's mind as to why the Premier was hell-bent, four-square ahead to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, was made public today by the tabling of an appendix to a Cabinet document by my colleague from Humber East.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is being privatized to look after the buddies of the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, that is why it is being privatized. Why didn't the Premier take the deal that was reached when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as we know it today, reached a deal with Hydro Quebec, as that document would clearly show there was an agreement reached, $14.4 billion reached with Hydro Quebec, 99 per cent agreed upon, when the Premier pulled the plug and scuttled it. Why, I ask members opposite? Have the courage to ask the Premier why and don't believe him if he does not tell you the truth. That deal was scuttled and is on the table and I have not seen a backbencher going up to get a copy of it yet, to know why the Premier pulled the plug on a deal worth $14.4 billion.

You talk about jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, but now we know that an agreement can be reached with Hydro Quebec over the next little while because it was agreed to a little while ago, a few months ago, so now, who is going to make the deal with Hydro Quebec, who is going to reap the benefits from Hydro Quebec? What did Steve Neary call it yesterday?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A diabolical plot.

MR. TOBIN: A diabolical plot Steve said and he said it would be the moneybags who would reap the benefits. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the moneybags will reap the benefits from this new development and we the peasants, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who don't break bread with the Premier in his social circles, we will not benefit from this deal. There is a plot that has been exposed and that plot, Mr. Speaker -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A diabolical plot.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a diabolical plot.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: I do believe what I am saying and I say to the Member for St. John's North that I have the courage and the principle to stand up for the people who sent me here. There are other members on that side, Mr. Speaker, who have principle and courage and stood up for their constituents, and there are others who have not, I say to the hon. Member for St. John's North. Mr. Speaker, it takes principle to stand up, it takes courage to stand up, and backbone, so I do believe what I am saying, and believe it very strongly.

Ninety-eight per cent deal done, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier pulled the plug. What would have happened? Hibernia would have peaked. As that was going down, as Hibernia was going down, this contract would have peaked and Gull Island, I believe it was, then as that was levelling off it would have peaked on Muskrat Falls. That is what was in that deal. That is what was in it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what was in the deal that this minister was ecstatic about. When an agreement was reached the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker, was ecstatic. He took the agreement and brought it back, right delighted to report to Cabinet, and what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Premier cut the legs right from under him and did not proceed with the deal. I would venture to bet that this Premier will not be the Premier of Newfoundland in five years time, or four years time, or three years time. There is a plot and it has been uncovered.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Minister of Social Services to restrain himself, please?

The facts have been laid on the table. I ask members opposite, the backbenchers opposite, to look at that. That was an appendix to a Cabinet paper that was tabled here today. That, Mr. Speaker, was the briefing notes that were brought to Cabinet as to where the deal was to and what was agreed on. That is the deal that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador must become familiar with, and they will never be totally familiar with it if the backbenchers over there continue to play the role of tapping their desks and closing their ears.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a few words with respect to the petition presented by my friend the Learned. Member for St. John's East. Let me first of all deal with the comments made by my friend for Grand Bank. I am sorry, for Burin - Placentia West. I keep confusing the terrible twins over there. I apologize to my friend for Grand Bank. I realize I inadvertently may have offended him but I did not mean to.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman for Burin - Placentia West assured us that he believes what he is saying and I accept his word, but I will say to the House that I am not going to engage in debate about paranoid fantasies and that is what his statements are, paranoid fantasies. There is not a jot, a tittle, iota, scintilla, of truth to them. The member said we now know that an agreement can be reached. I think those were his exact words as I marked them down. If I got them wrong, I got them wrong, but as I marked them down: We now know that an agreement can be reached with respect to the Lower Churchill. Mr. Speaker, that statement is just incorrect. The truth of the matter has been said by both the Premier and my friend the Minister of Energy in the House today, the Premier speaking yesterday. There never was a deal with Hydro Quebec. There were talks and the talks were very promising.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. members opposite that I hear them in silence and I ask the same of them. I can shout louder than any of them, I can sauce better than any of them, but I do not think that helps anybody. I am trying to make a few modest remarks about a modest speech. What I am saying is that both the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy have said quite clearly, and this is the truth, that there was no deal with Hydro Quebec.

There were talks that looked very promising until Hydro Quebec, for their own reasons, withdrew. The hon. Member for Humber East may table what she wants but the truth of the matter is there was no deal, there was never a proposal that could have been a deal because Hydro Quebec backed out for their own reasons and the reasoning for that has been given.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to my friend for St. John's East who made, I thought, some very pertinent points because he raised the issue of the cost of the capital to be used by Hydro. Now whether the capital is in the form of equity, shares or in the form of bonds, it still costs one way or the other. My friend for St. John's East -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be bothered by the nuisance from Humber East, if she would please keep quiet I'm -

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

MS. VERGE: It shows him up for what he is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would suggest to Your Honour and to the Government House Leader, who gave us a lecture a few minutes ago about parliamentary language, that nuisance is certainly unparliamentary and I think the Government House Leader should withdraw it and he should stop being so contradictory - I got to be careful of what I say here because I might say something that's unparliamentary - but he seems to want to have different rules for himself than everyone else. So I ask Your Honour to remind the minister.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I mis-spoke myself under the extreme provocation of the hon. woman from Humber East, I withdraw and of course I apologize unreservedly to her but she does try to interrupt and that's rude and unparliamentary and not helpful.

Now, my friend from St. John's East had made, I thought, a very good point and let me try to respond to it as best I can in the moment or two left. The cost of capital, whether it's equity or bonds, is factored into the rates - my friend again nods acquiesence, what we're saying is common ground - is factored into the rates. The tables that the Premier presented to the House at second reading, that were since tabled and have now been sent to everybody in the Province, every home in the Province has them - factor in the extra costs, and there are some extra costs because Hydro's debt equity ratio will go from the present 80 to 18, to 57 debt 43 equity, I'm sorry, 53 debt 47 equity -

MR. BAKER: No, your first way is right.

MR. ROBERTS: The first way is right my friend the Minister of Finance says - that's why he is Minister of Finance and I'm not. It's 57 debt, 43 equity. So the equity in proportion is going up by 25 per cent. Those calculations are factored into the rate calculations, now that's one point. The second is, that it's difficult to be specific because these rates are set not by this House, not by the government, not by Hydro but by the Public Utilities Board after a hearing, by a process that's public and in accordance with very well established rules but that is our best estimate. The rates are our best estimate and I would say to my friend from St. John's East that the concerns he's raised, the extra costs and there is a marginal extra cost - he shakes his head - when you net out the gains against the losses there's a marginal extra cost and that is reflected in the increases shown in the tables that the Premier presented to the House.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy today to stand and present a petition on behalf of 118 people from the community of Colinet, in the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. I would like to read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer;

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 a Crown corporation. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, these 118 people in the community of Colinet are among hundreds and thousands of others who are starting to speak out on this very important piece of legislation. As the Government House Leader stated last week, he felt that it was one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House of Assembly since 1949. So I ask the ministers and the government opposite, why not go out into this Province and have a referendum on this piece of legislation if you feel that it's so important, number one and such a good deal, number two, to the people of this Province? If you think it can be sold take a chance and go out and hold a referendum in the Province on this piece of legislation.

I'm sure the Minister of Mines and Energy after spending two hours this morning on the open line show is fully aware that people are asking questions. People are finally starting to delve into this piece of legislation. It is starting to pique their interest. They are starting to learn more as the days pass and therefore they are asking more questions.

Therefore the people want to know why the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro is going ahead and they want to know the ins and outs of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. That is why I feel that the government should hold a referendum and hold public hearings so that the people are made aware of the importance of this piece of legislation and that they have a chance to voice their opinions, whether for or against.

The Minister of Mines and Energy heard many comments this morning, as I'm sure he has relayed to some of his colleagues since he returned, about the importance of public hearings also. There were public hearings held on smoking legislation that came before this House, Mr. Speaker. There were public hearings held on the chartered general accountancy act that came before this House. It is very important, I believe, that some public hearings be held on this very important piece of legislation.

I'm very surprised, as somebody mentioned earlier, that the Premier of the Province has found it necessary to be out of the House of Assembly for five days out of eight that we have debated this piece of legislation. A very important piece of legislation, as I've stated earlier, and the Premier decides or makes it convenient to be out of here for five days out of the past eight.

People are asking questions. They are very interested and they want to know. I wonder if the Member for Humber East has put forward today the reason why Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to be privatized. Maybe over the next few days people will learn more about the information that she has put forward and will begin asking more questions and wondering why.

Water rights seem to be a major problem as people are debating. People are calling my office asking questions. It seems that the people are very concerned about the water rights since it is one of our last natural resources. I refer back to March 7 here in the House when the Minister of Finance was asked a question concerning the water rights. Just to make a quote from Hansard, page 176:

"Isn't he aware, in the legislation, that in fact, undeveloped water rights are not excluded from the legislation, and that in fact, the act gives the Minister of Finance the power to give away all or any of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador, at the stroke of a pen any time in the future, without ever having to come back to the House of Assembly. Will he confirm that?"

The Minister of Finance said, on page 177: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that and I am a pretty reasonable person, and have no intentions of giving away anything that is not supposed to be given away."

Knowing the Minister of Finance, I respect him, and I think that maybe he may not give it away. But what happens years down the road? Whoever may be the new Minister of Finance, whether it be a he or a she, in years that go by, that there is something wrong in a democracy where one person can give away water rights. That is written right in the legislation and that I believe is wrong. That seems to be creating a major problem for many people right across the Province, that somewhere down the road one person in this House of Assembly who doesn't have to come back to this House of Assembly to get a ruling on it, doesn't have to come back to Cabinet to discuss it, one person has the right at any time in the future to give away the water rights that we hold so dear. The last renewable resource in this Province and one person has the right to give it away.

That seems to be a major problem with many people right across the Province. It seems to be a major part of the act that many people are asking questions on. Therefore again we go back to the necessity of public hearings and the necessity of people getting out and learning more about this act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: 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 my colleague. I would like to get to a point of giving away water and water rights.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said today that this government is not giving away water and water rights. It is giving it away. It is stated specifically in this act that they are giving away water and water rights and water powers and water privileges. Not only what is with old Hydro and transferred to new Hydro that is specifically stated here, but it is also giving away the rights for any water that remains with old Hydro, that is used, or any assets that are used, in the conduction of business of new Hydro. That is stated specifically here in this act too.

I don't know what act the minister is reading from. It is his government that has produced it. Plain black-and-white. It states in section 2(1)(a) that "`land' means real property of every..." single kind, of every kind. It tells what it includes. It goes on to say it includes "... waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges." He has the audacity to get up here in this House and to say it otherwise.

He has the audacity to get on an open line program and tell the people of this Province, and if that is not misleading the people of the Province, I don't know what is.

Now when you evaluate the assets of Hydro, and ask the question: How much is it worth? The Premier talked about, downplayed it, $250 million or $300 million, trying to play it down so when he sells it for $500 million it looks like he is getting a great sale, and that is not correct. It's far from it.

I will just use an example to show the value of the real assets that we have there. Upper Churchill is an example, 5,225 megawatts, built at a cost of $950 million. Today there are only $408 millions owing on Upper Churchill. It is valued, at a book value today, of a little over $908 million. To replace that today, and to get an appreciation for it, it costs between $2 million and $3 million a megawatt to produce and generate electricity here in this Province. If you applied that figure to the Upper Churchill, as an example, it would take $10.5 billion, is the low end of the estimate, and the high end is $15 billion to replace the assets in the Upper Churchill.

I will bring it a little closer to home. Let's look at the Bay d'Espoir project. Down in Bay d'Espoir there are 604 megawatts produced, and the cost of putting that there was $170 million. It is written off. There is no debt remaining on Bay d'Espoir. It has a book value of $150 million. Based on this Province's own cost of putting in - and I will use an example - Paradise River, just in 1989 they put in 8 megawatts at $21.4 million, over $2.5 or $2.6 million a kilowatt.

If we look in 1984, the Upper Salmon, for example, was over $2 million, 84 megawatts, $169 million, and the Bay d'Espoir project is worth today, just at the minimal $2 million we have expended five years ago, estimates are saying it is closer to $3 million a megawatt, Bay d'Espoir alone would be worth $1.8 billion. It has a book value of $150 million. That is the valuation that we are giving away. It is preposterous. It is an outright sale.

Bay d'Espoir itself is worth far, far more, three times the value that this Province is looking in return for the selling of this Hydro. It is ludicrous and ridiculous that this Province is trying to look at the value of an asset. The replacement value of the untold dollars over and above, beyond these, and the cost of dam replacements and so on, would drive into multi, tens of millions of dollars value that we are passing away to investors around Bay Street and Montreal, and other parts of this country and the United States. We are sending away our most prized asset that is going to give returns to this Province for generations to come, and the minister states: Only what is used for electricity.

Does anyone ever think that the waters flowing over to turn these turbines that the minister talked about is ever going to be used for other than electricity? It is theirs, lock, stock and barrel. That will only happen if this Province becomes a desert, the rivers dry up, and if that happens we might as well pack up and go out of this Province anyway, because this Province will be uninhabitable. That is the real truth that we are not hearing out there every single day, and the minister should know better, and the Premier should know better.

I really think the Premier knows better, but he is not telling the whole story to everybody out across the Province. I don't know if the Minister of Mines and Energy knows better. If he does, it's a shame, I say. It is a downright shame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that hon. members opposite, in rising to present these petitions, are not seeking to voice the prayer of the petition, or seeking to ask the House to take these petitions into account. All they want to do is debate the bill.

Well, now, those of us who sit to Your Honour's left are minded to encourage them to debate the bill. Accordingly, it has been an hour since Question Period began, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now be read. Let's go on to debate the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw the motion on that. I need leave of the House to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will give you leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I would withdraw the motion. The hon. gentleman told me that they had one more petition. We will deal with it, but the point, is we are not going to allow this petition business to frustrate the House coming to grips; we will sit until ten tonight, anyway, so we will have ample time to debate the bill, then I can respond to the hon. gentleman's comments on section 4 of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to withdraw the motion before the House, which is non-debatable? Is leave given?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Still on Petitions, the hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly from twenty-five residents of the Springdale area and the prayer of the petition is: `We, the undersigned, demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.' As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, this petition is from approximately twenty-five people in the Springdale area.

It so happens that this is of particular importance to people in that area because the company, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has a significant presence in the Springdale area and no doubt, if and when privatization takes place there will be some job losses which will adversely affect the local economy.

On a more general note, Mr. Speaker, I have had cause to speak in the media, on Open Line and so on with regard to the unseemly haste with which this government has been forcing this matter through the House of Assembly, minimizing the debate wherever possible among the general public. The same Premier who decried the lack of public debate in the Meech Lake situation, is today forcing something of very great importance through this Assembly as fast as humanly possible.

Today, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Humber East presented documentation showing that this administration, the Wells Administration, had come pretty close to reaching an agreement on power development in Labrador with Hydro Quebec and more particularly, some changes in the existing and odious contract with regard to the Upper Churchill.

The ministers in the benches opposite would have us believe that economic, international circumstances caused the government to back away or caused the governments to back away from this proposed agreement but we, on this side, Mr. Speaker, have our suspicions that there may be other factors at play here, that this government seems to be utterly preoccupied with the private sector. We have seen through the Upper Churchill, what the private sector has done in terms of hydro development in Labrador; we know that this new Hydro corporation, if created, will be able to do hydro works in Labrador and, without having a public policy purpose driving this particular company in Labrador, we could see a repeat of the Upper Churchill mistake on the Lower Churchill River and the people of our Province will pay again for decades and decades for having given something away that was ours to start with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support the petition presented by my colleague, and again, the prayer of the petition is that the government would reflect on the privatization bill that is before the House and that they would allow for some public discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is becoming obvious to all hon. members that the general public in this Province are concerned. They are as much Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as you or I; it is their Province, their future, their children and grandchildren and their resources, and, Mr. Speaker, what people are saying is that they would like to have a delay. The government has done a very terrible job. If they have the rationale to present to the public, if the have a game plan, they should have made it known to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador a long time ago, and what people are saying is that they would like to have the reasons why, they would like to have it explained, would like to be able to refer this matter to a committee of experts. Probably, if we had had a little more public input on the terms of Confederation in 1949, we would not have let the entire management of the fishery go to the Federal Government. Probably, if we had had a little more public review in the 1960s, we would have avoided the pitfalls of the `no escalator' clause in the Churchill Falls contract.

Mr. Speaker, the true essence of democracy is the way in which we interact with those who elect us, and certainly, while there are people who believe that in politics the elected people should take the `good shepherd' approach, meaning that once you are elected then you will guide the population along, and take a rather conservative, narrow interpretation of your role as the elected official, we believe that on this particular issue we have to be more visionary. We have to be more liberal, to put it in a -

AN HON. MEMBER: Small `l' sense.

MR. HODDER: A small `l' liberal. We have to maintain a close relationship with the people who elect us.

Mr. Speaker, it is totally illogical for the government to refuse to have public hearings on this kind of matter. Robert Louis Stevenson, in one of his articles, wrote: `Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.'

Certainly, for the last forty-five years, we sit down to the banquet of consequences arising from giving control of our resources in the fishery to the Federal Government in 1949. We sit down to a banquet of consequences arising from the Churchill Falls agreement. We sit down to a banquet of consequences when we gave too much control of our forest resources to multinational companies in the early part of this century and in the 1920s.

Certainly,what people are saying is, let us today reflect. Allow the public to have an opportunity to have public hearings, to give an opportunity to the government in a reasonable atmosphere for a committee of the House to make sure that thirty years from now we aren't hearing our political people talk about the banquet of consequences in a negative way arising from the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro in 1994.

The government, I do believe, should be advised to do the right thing. That is why they should take measures to assure the merits of the proposal are communicated to the people, that the people are assured that there is an ample provision for dialogue, and that their viewpoint is appreciated. What is there to hide? There can't be anything to hide. It's their Province, and answer questions like the question about jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member wishes to call Orders of the Day. Before doing so, I wish to make a ruling on some matters that were raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I had intended to do this earlier, but I was unavoidably detained and so was not here when there was a larger captive audience to pass on the ruling.

On Monday, March 7, 1994, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Member for Humber East alleged that the hon. the Premier and the hon. the Government House Leader had breached their privileges as members of this hon. House. The allegations were similar in that both members alleged that answers given to questions on a previous Friday, March 4, 1994, were deliberately, intentionally, or knowingly misleading.

The question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerned government's role in an advertising campaign to sell shares in Newfoundland Hydro, while those of the hon. the Member for Humber East concerned the retention of the law firm of Chalker, Green and Rowe by Newfoundland Hydro or government to do legal work on the Hydro privatization.

Let me first of all thank hon. members who participated in the discussion on the issue. Their comments, while at variance with each other, were insightful, thought-provoking, and ultimately helpful in deciding the issue before the House.

Secondly, I have reviewed and relied primarily on Joseph Maingot's work, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, and for a more general discussion on Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.

This Legislature has received those privileges acquired and sometimes wrestled from the Crown by the British House of Parliament over the last eight or so centuries, starting for the most part with the Magna Carta in 1215 and going on to probably the Bill of Rights in 1689. Those privileges are claimed by the Speaker from the Lieutenant-Governor on the occasion of the opening of each Assembly. The phrase that is used is: And the claim is made for all those undoubted rights and privileges.

While those privileges may be undoubted, it is difficult to find an exhaustive list of them. I expect that the word "undoubted" as used in parliamentary language on that occasion, is used for much the same reason that the words "et cetera" is used in common terms, and that is to bridge a lack of knowledge or definition.

Having said that, it is my observation that the privileges of hon. members, by and large, reside in and are meant to regulate not the relationships with each other, but rather with non-members. That is, that members do and must enjoy a privileged position in society in order to properly perform their duties. These privileges include freedom of speech, and from lawsuits for slander and libel for matters discussed in the House of Assembly, the right to exclude the public from its deliberations and to enforce its rules, and, of course, the greatest comfort to us all, freedom from arrest for a variety of offenses while within the precincts of the House.

Despite these manifest privileges, I am unable to find any recognition in our long history of a privilege that requires one hon. member to tell another the truth, although one would piously hope that members would choose to do so. In fact, Maingot specifically states that it is not a matter of privilege. That is not to say, however, that members' comments and conduct cannot constitute grounds for contempt or points of order. But comments and answers will not, of themselves, constitute grounds for a proper point of privilege.

Finally, it must be noted that our preservation of the quaint parliamentary fiction, that members are all hon. ladies and gentlemen, and therefore, do not lie to or mislead each other, results in that the very accusation, that one member has deliberately misled or lied to another, itself is unparliamentary, and therefore cannot found a point of privilege, in that that comment itself is out of order. Consequently, since a member would be out of order to accuse another of deliberately misleading or lying to the House and must withdraw such a remark, it can never form the basis for a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

I just want to read one paragraph from Maingot which deals with those thoughts much more concisely. It is found on page 205 of the work I earlier referred to. I quote:

"To allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and is not unparliamentary, whether or not it is qualified by the adjective `unintentionally' or `inadvertently.' To allege that a member has deliberately misled the House is also a matter of `order,' and is indeed unparliamentary. However, deliberately misleading statements may be treated as contempt. In the Canadian House of Commons, however, members attempt to get such matters before the House on a `question of privilege' when there is merely an allegation of contempt rather than an admitted matter (as in the Profumo case)," - with which I'm sure most members are familiar - "and the problem arises because the use of unparliamentary language is not permitted in the House and therefore questions of privilege and motions in support must be purged of such language."

For these reasons, therefore, the hon. members have not made out a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

MR. SIMMS: Excellent ruling, though, Mr. Speaker, I have to give you credit for that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it we are now at Orders of the Day after that erudite disquisition to which we all listened with profit and pleasure.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, before we go to the order of the day I wonder if - just so I don't forget, on the off chance - I may move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour of the motion, `aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, the Member for Grand Falls says: I would give leave. I appreciate that but `all roads lead to Rome', as the saying goes, so we will get there anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you would be good enough to leave the Chair and call Bill No. 1, which is in Committee of the Whole, Sir. That is the Hydro act, in case anyone is under any surprise.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. SIMMS: No, not quite yet!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few words pertaining to Bill 1, Mr. Speaker. I had a few words to say the other night on the closure bill. I could only speak for twenty minutes and you can't say much in twenty minutes, that's for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, no, not today, I'm talking about the closure bill last Thursday night. I know about today and I know about the gag order, I know about the muzzle order and I know all about the blinkers on members opposite, Mr. Chairman.

I concluded the other night, Mr. Chairman, by saying that in nine years in the House, it is one of the most controversial topics that I have experienced, I know, in my district, and elsewhere around the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the fact that Hydro rates would escalate a lot more than the figure the government has sent around the Province - or they said they were going to send around the Province - in a package to every householder, to tell them how good this deal was for privatizing Newfoundland Hydro. Now, Mr. Chairman, if this deal is so good and if it contains so many goodies for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, why isn't the government telling the people? This particular brochure that's gone around the Province tells absolutely nothing. It gives householders around this Province a little more to mull over or to chew on but they don't understand it any more, based on what the government has said publicly so far - and it certainly doesn't clarify anything that they said around this Province, especially government ministers.

Now, I say to members opposite, Mr. Chairman, and I don't have it on this one but apparently this is one here that has gone around the Province; and on the back of it, it shows the estimated effect on customers' bills and so on for 1994, on 700 kilowatts per hour based approximately on a $150 bill, and so on, per month.

Now, if members opposite don't do anything else - and I say to the backbenchers especially, that if they don't do anything else over the next few days, take that and go back and do a little bit of homework on what has happened since 1990. This is a complete fabrication of what has happened to the increase in Hydro rates since the government changed its policy in 1989-1990. What happened? I remind members. They dropped the $30 million subsidy to the PDD system. They charged a 1 per cent fee to float Hydro's debt, Hydro's guarantees or bonds and out of 1 per cent they got $9 million.

Now, the government didn't have to come and privatize Newfoundland Hydro in order to do that, in order to get that off their books or anything else. They could have gone on and on and on and charged 2 per cent next year, they could have charged 3 per cent the next year for the debt to float their bonds. I'll get into some of the other subjects pertaining to the debt, to equity ratio in Newfoundland Hydro later on tonight, Mr. Chairman, but I want to stick to the rate increases. What happened when Hydro went to the PUB in 1990? They went for a 3.9 per cent increase based on one $10 million, because the $30 million was spread over three years. On $10 million, a 3.9 per cent increase. What did that result in? That resulted in an actual 2.2 per cent increase to Newfoundland Light who distributes 90 per cent of the power. They only generate 10 per cent of the power, the rest comes from Newfoundland Hydro. That resulted in a 2.2 per cent increase. And what happened? What happened, Mr. Chairman? Rates to householders went up by $4.40 a month on a $10 million first year on the PDD system based on a 2.2 per cent increase.

MR. SIMMS: You didn't know that, did you?

MR. WOODFORD: Now, how many members know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: None. Not one of them over there.

MR. WOODFORD: And that's fact, it's not fiction. All you have to do is pick up - they can go back to Newfoundland Hydro's - the PUB ruling, and all they have to do is pick up all the media quotes of the day and they will tell exactly what happened. For instance if we took the $30 million in one year, and it is no trouble, all you have to do is three times that, and what are we into, $13.20 odd cents?

MR. SIMMS: $13.00 a month.

MR. WOODFORD: Based on a $200 a month light bill up to 700 kilowatt hours. Mr. Chairman, in the estimated rate increases that are gone around the Province today for people to look at, from 94 to 98 shows a 5 per cent increase. What does it say for the first year, Mr. Speaker? The first year - well I notice they have not even got it on this that has gone around the Province. It is in the package but it is not on this. The first year there is a 0 per cent increase, no increase for 1994, and four years after that there is a 12, a 4.5, 4.5 and a 4.5, so really your average is coming on four years, a four year increase and not a five. It is shown here as 1 per cent.

Now, this is wrong, this is not right based on facts, and the sooner hon. members opposite realize that and tell their constituents what is going to happen with regards to rate increases, the sooner the people - well, the people around the Province know it anyway now, because even without knowing what the rate of increases are going to be, they are upset. They are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and like I said the other night this particular piece of legislation will be the albatross around this government's neck.

They have a 12 per cent increase for 1995 listed on the estimated rate increases, Mr. Speaker. Now, that 12 per cent increase, based on the actual increase that was given in 1990, 1991, and 1992 would have resulted, if you mind to take that into consideration, and say it was almost five and a half times the increase that was given in 1990. Now, if you took that based on 2.2 per cent of what it meant on a $200 light bill you are talking about over $20.00, $22.00 or $23.00 a month based on that particular figure. Mr. Speaker, only for the rate stabilization plan at that time, because the government charged a 1 per cent fee to float Newfoundland Hydro's bonds, only for the charge on that and only because they took the $9 million that they were suppose to get for floating Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's bonds at that time, the rate increases would have been double in 1990. They were $4.40 but they would have been $8.80. The only thing that saved it, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that they took the $9 million from the rate stabilization plan in 1990 and put it against the fee that has been charged by government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that begs another question. What is going to happen now when this is privatized? What about the rate stabilization plan that was there? That plan was there so that rates would be kept down and in 1990 the plan resulted in a rate reduction of 1.3 mils per kilowatt hour for Hydro's retail customers and a .24 mil savings to the industrial customers in the Province. If Newfoundland Hydro is gone the rate stabilization plan is not going to be continued by new Hydro. This has not been brought up at all, about this rate stabilization plan, but yet in 1990 the very $9 million that was charged Newfoundland Hydro was saved from the consumers of the Province because they took it out of the rate stabilization plan, and even though they did that it still saved the people of the Province 1.3 per cent because of the three year average under the rate stabilization plan. That is the way the plan worked. The plan is over a three year period and like I said it saved the industrial customers around the Province a .24 mils.

Now, Mr. Chairman, based on those two figures, those two figures alone, all we have to do is go back and look at what happened to the rate increase, like I said, in 1990 and try to tell me or convince the people of the Province that this particular piece of paper that has gone around the Province, is right.

Mr. Chairman, you take those statistics and just look at the increases in the last two or three years, and it is like night and day, there no relevancy to it, there is no logic to it and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that over the next few years, there are all kinds of little goodies put in this bill for one reason and one reason only, and that is to take people through the next few years so that there won't be a significant rate increase as compared -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to take the opportunity in third reading again now on clause-by-clause even though we haven't gotten to any of the clauses yet, but I hope that we will maybe later today since we have some time allocated for exactly that to occur, that members of the Opposition who have been asking for an opportunity to bring forth their specific concerns about the bill that has been passed by this Legislature and in fact, the House has agreed in principle with the notion of privatization, so whether or not there should be privatization, that matter, Mr. Chairman, I remind all hon. members again, has been decided by the Legislature and really we should now be at the stage where we should turn our attention to what are the issues in clause 1, or as the hon. Member for Humber East repeatedly calls out: what about clause 4?

Well, certainly we would like to get to clause 4 later today and let the hon. member ask her specific questions about clause 4 and get the specific answers; because certainly, we would like to allay any fears that people have because members on this side of the House save one, at this point in time, are convinced and have supported the notion that the general thrust and direction outlined in this bill, the whole prospect of privatization is one with which we agree, and to follow on some of the comments I was making yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we agree with it because we believe that it accomplishes exactly what we knocked on doors to get elected to come here to do, and that is to better the lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to make sure that we provide better opportunities for them and get on with some other things that we have to do in terms of governing the Province at this point in time.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, as well, in this intervention in the debate that the government has acknowledged up front in the information sent to every household in the Province that their rates will increase, that is not news to anybody, I don't think there is a member sitting in this Legislature or that there is a person living in Newfoundland and Labrador, who does not fully expect that his electricity rates are going to increase over the next five years whether we privatize or not, and what we have said quite clearly, is that there is an additional price attached to privatization.

By returning it to the private sector and by capitalizing at a higher rate than it is now and by moving from the 18 per cent equity to a higher equity, there is a cost associated to that and just as with all other costs associated with hydroelectricity, when there is a cost, for whatever reason, the utilities themselves, whether publicly or privately owned, go to the Public Utilities Board and spell out what their costs are, and if they are legitimate, on the basis of that, the Public Utilities Board decides what the new rates are.

We cannot predict exactly because, as was pointed out here, it is not the role of this Legislature, it is not the role of anybody here but everybody knows that even if this bill never ever saw the light of day, that there would be a presentation made, a representation made by Hydro and by Newfoundland Light and Power, whether that Hydro is publicly owned or privately owned before the Public Utilities Board within the next year or so, seeking rate increases, and whatever the basis of it is, it will be decided on that matter.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the other part of it is that we wanted to put that information up front and make sure that everybody knows and there is no doubt and it is clearly spelled out in the bill, that in fact there are deliberate efforts taken in different parts of this bill, to make sure that certain amounts of money tied up in this are passed back directly, either through the companies or through government taxation, to the benefit of the rate payers, because it is a very real concern of this government in putting forward the privatization that we don't want to see exorbitant rate increases for the rate payers.

The choices in terms of the debate, in terms of principle, are that the same people, the rate payers, are taxpayers, and either they will pay through this privatization thing slightly increased rates, or if the government is left without the cash and the wherewithal to do some things that it can do because of what will be recognized from the sale of this asset, then they are likely to be hit, instead of with rate increases slightly increased, as we have indicated quite openly in the documentation, instead of slightly higher rate increases they are likely to get slightly higher taxes.

So one way or the other, the government will either use the cash from the sale to keep taxes down, or if we had decided not to go ahead with the sale, there would be no sale and the hundreds of millions of dollars that people have been talking about - the number will only be known when the sale is completed - that money which will come to the government would have been raised through other sources by taxation.

The same people are paying. There is only one group of people that pay. The taxpayers and rate payers are not two separate groups of people, and the government needs the money to offer the services that the people expect and want, and have told governments repeatedly that they want them to stay in place, and one way or another there will either be a tax increase, or if some cash is realized by the government, as it will be, then the tax increases won't be necessary, but the people admittedly and up front, in every bit of documentation - the government has never said there won't be rate increases. There will be rate increases without privatization, and there will be slightly higher increases with privatization, and that is out there for everybody in the Province to recognize, and over the three or four years between now and the next election they will all have their own experiences, I say to the hon. Member for Humber Valley. They will look at their light bill. They will get a monthly reminder of exactly what happened, and if they are convinced that what you propose to be true, that these exorbitant, unrealistic rate increases show up on their bills, then they have every right to throw this group out of office, because we are convinced that is not going to happen.

You know no more about what the rates are going to be than we know in the finality, because of the fact that the Public Utilities Board will decide, based on the information that they get, prepared and presented by experts in the field, in terms of energy and finance - not us, who aren't those kinds of people - and it will be decided on that basis.

I want to get back for a couple of minutes, too, since we are still on a general discussion, since we haven't gotten into the clause-by-clause, which I hope we do later today, to the fact that really, in my opinion, and it's just exactly that, there isn't a lot of credibility to most of the opposition that has been raised in this Legislature, because again we have the whole case, as I see it, and I outlined it yesterday a little bit, built on the premise that the Opposition, the official Opposition at least - I can't say too much for the lone Member for St. John's East - but the official Opposition have indicated and built their opposition to the deal on the basis that they are trying to make the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that the Premier is somehow a crook; that he is cooking something up here; that he is not to be trusted, and the Member for Humber East leads the charge on almost a daily basis, that there is some kind of deal cooked up here and you can't trust this man, and therefore there is something wrong with privatization, because there is a crook in the House. That is the basis on which I have heard all the representations made. That particular member repeatedly suggests those kinds of things, and lays out that kind of innuendo, which adds nothing to the debate.

As I mentioned again yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, nobody here has called the Premier a crook in this House. The basis of the Opposition's opposition to this particular legislation lies in the contents and the details of the bill. It is not based upon some fairy tale that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is trying to put forward.

I just want to rise on a point of order and correct the statement there that the discussion or opposition on this piece of legislation, our opposition, is contained within the details of the legislation, the bill presented to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, just a disagreement between two hon. members.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, in a general context, I wanted to make a couple of other comments about the point I made yesterday as well, that there has been a great deal of effort put into the rhetoric around this, rather than the facts, in dealing with the issues, which we could do in clause-by-clause debate if members opposite were really interested in getting into that sometime today. There's lots of time available for it, I hope we do that.

As I mentioned yesterday, to talk about the water rights - the issue was raised here again today about the water rights. The matter has been explained to the members opposite ad nauseam, 100,000 times we've told them that there's nothing to be concerned about with respect to water rights, and if they feel there is, that in this clause-by-clause debate, if they would like to suggest some amendment to clause 4 that would give them the assurance that what we are telling them is exactly what the words in the bill say, we have already expressed a willingness to do that. There is absolutely no intention, and we contend that there is absolutely nothing in the words now that would ever lead to the possibility where you would have this giveaway of these water rights, as it is characterized by members opposite. It is just not possible. And its nothing that is even in the thinking of anybody here who has had any debate or discussion about this bill. Why anyone would suggest that any elected member would come in here and want to be party to a piece of legislation that gives away rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to access the water on the rivers and streams, that they're accessing today, even though some of them are dammed and used for hydroelectric production, but the people are still allowed to use those water streams, those rivers and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I might return to some of those matters later in the debate. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on our general discussion of clause 1 of the act which is, after all, called an act to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

We oppose this legislation for a number of reasons, Mr. Chairman. Part of it has to do with the increased costs that are going to be devolving upon Newfoundland and Labrador rate payers, it is great matters of principle.

There are also concerns raised by hon. members on both sides of the House, Mr. Chairman, as to the inability to get the right amount of information. I would only quote for hon. members the report in today's Evening Telegram by the Member for Pleasantville, who said that ever since the bill was presented in the House of Assembly, he has been trying to clarify the figures that are being used. In trying to get the information that he requires, `working at it full time,' he says, `and with more access than the general public, I still have not succeeded in getting the information I need.'

Now, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House of Assembly on the government side, he can't get the information he needs to make up his mind about this and he still thinks it is not a very good deal. Now, Mr. Chairman, what information is being withheld from the Member for Pleasantville? What information is the Member for St. John's South not asking for? Because if there is information being withheld, Mr. Chairman - because the government members opposite haven't been asking for it, haven't been insisting that it be made known, Mr. Chairman, that's what is going on over there, despite all the talk about it being a good deal, etcetera, etcetera, lining up behind the Premier who says that as far as he is concerned it is a good deal, so all the members in the backbenches are coming behind and saying, yes, yes, yes. When an hon. member opposite says, `I can't get the information' - he has been asking questions and he's not getting the information - then I have a lot of difficulty with the intentions and the purpose behind what this government is doing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the House - as another example - yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to know what he's talking about, got up and said that the $1.2 billion worth of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt is costing $147 million a year to service in interest payments, and that's correct, it is costing $147 million to service. He said that this was a debt that was unconscionable, could not be paid, shouldn't be recognized and we want to get that debt off the books because it's costing $147 million a year in interest. Mr. Chairman, we're trying to get the real numbers out of the government since that speech. I did a little bit of my own figuring, I've asked questions and finally, Mr. Chairman, I've got it figured out, that the $147 million that it is costing, right now, to pay the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro interest debt is going to increase to over $182 million per year to pay for the capital in both interest and equity costs of the New Hydro corporation.

This amount of money, this $147 million per year, is going to expand to $182 million because it is going to have to pay not only the interest costs now, Mr. Chairman, which are going to be reduced, but the increased equity cost. Because that equity has to be paid for and it has to be paid for at a higher rate than the interest. The Minister of Finance has confirmed these figures, that I'm right. It is now going to be $182 million per year to service both the debt and the equity at the rates of 57 to 43, debt to equity ratio, down from 82 to 18.

Mr. Chairman, this is, as some hon. member said earlier, eight days into the debate and it takes eight days into the debate to get this figure out of the government, who are going around trying to frighten people into saying: There is $147 million per year that has to come out of the rate payers to cover this debt, we have to get rid of this debt! What are they going to do? Those same rate payers are now going to be paying $182 million a year to cover the costs of capital, of operating Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The Member for St. John's South shakes his head. If he shakes his head it is because he is not asking the Minister of Finance the kinds of questions that this hon. member is asking him and eventually get the answers. The Member for St. John's South can't be asking any questions. He can't be asking any questions, not even the kinds of questions that the Member for Pleasantville is asking but can't get answers to.

Mr. Chairman, this is an example of how cavalier the government is being with this issue and with the realities of the financing of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in this Province. They are quite prepared to go around and bandy about facts about $147 million worth of interest payments on the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt, allowing people to think that this is somehow coming out of the treasury when it is rally coming out of the rates. Instead of telling the whole story they lead people to believe that this $147 million a year burden is somehow being relieved by privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when, in fact, the obligation is going to be increasing to $182 million per year.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that $182 million covers the whole cost of the debt plus the whole cost of equity. The Minister of Finance says that there is some cost of the 18 per cent equity that is already there, in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent, and that might account for the difference between what the government says the additional cost is and what I say. I've come up with a figure of $35 million per year extra. The government says $25 million. That may be accounted for by the fact that there is about 5 per cent return on the 18 per cent equity that the government now has - about 5 per cent return on equity. The 18 per cent equity, I say to the Member for Fogo, that is now theirs, the debt/equity ratio 82 to 18. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been getting around 5 per cent return on that equity built into the rates. Five per cent of 18 per cent equity is about $9 million, I guess, something around - well, exactly $9 million if it is exactly 18 per cent - so, an additional $9 million if it is 5 per cent of 18 per cent.

These figures are figures that haven't been made abundantly clear to the people of Newfoundland, and it is one of the reasons why people aren't supporting it. There are a lot of other costs thrown in on the so-called rate base. The rate base is a figure that is used in Public Utilities Board circles to base - that is the amount - and it is considered the amount of capital used in generating the electricity that is required. On each and every dollar of capital there is a return expected, and that return is shared up between retained earnings and various other financial expectations. Retained earnings plus dividends to shareholders. The retained earnings portion increases the value of the equity and the dividends, of course, provide income to the shareholders.

This is creating a new cash flow out of this Province every day, year after year, to the point that we are going to be, as part of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, sending an income stream out of this Province that looks like another Churchill Falls deal, which sends electricity out day after day, year after year to the Province of Quebec. What we will see here is an income stream in dividends flowing out of this Province year after year, going down the tubes, so much so, that protestors outside the House of Assembly yesterday, provided a new version of the song, `We'll rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders'. Mr. Chairman, their additional verse goes like this:

MS. VERGE: Sing it.

MR. HARRIS: You want me to sing it? I don't know if I will sing it or not but:

`We'll rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders\We'll rant and we'll roar on deck and below\For if we sell Hydro we'll surely strike bottom\And right through our fingers our money will flow.'

Mr. Chairman, that says quite eloquently what is going to happen if we have this bill passed in this House and the Hydro corporation as it presently exists, is passed over to private enterprise or private owners who will be, for the most part, residing outside this Province.

We only have to look to organizations like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - and maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy will participate in this debate and tell us here, how many or what percentage of the shares of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are held in Newfoundland? I don't want to know how many shareholders there are, because there could be thousands and thousands of people with 10, 15, 100 or 200 shares, but what percentage?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Of Newfoundland Light and Power I am asking - what percentage of Newfoundland Light and Power shares are held in Newfoundland?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve per cent.

MR. HARRIS: Twelve per cent, says the Member for St. John's South. I would suggest that the Member for St. John's South doesn't know, but the Minister of Mines and Energy should know the percentage of the shares, not the percentage of shareholders, that's a phoney number that Newfoundland Light and Power has been using; it talks about what percentage of the shareholders live here, that is not important, because in a private corporation it is not one person one vote, Mr. Chairman, it is not democratic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: How ever many shares you have, that's how many votes you get.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to make a couple of other comments. I may not even take the full ten minutes at this time, because I don't want to take away from opportunities for members opposite to get to the specific concerns that they have about clause 1 or clause 2 or clause 4 or whatever the case may be. I would like to provide the maximum opportunity for that to happen.

Before I ran out of time the last time, Mr. Chairman, I was referencing again the idea that rather than deal with the specifics, which I really do hope we will get to today, that there has been a lot of effort put into the rhetoric which sounds good and I guess evokes certain responses, predictable responses, I would suggest, in people, because if you want to characterize things in a certain way, it will get certain predictable reactions from people who will hear one side of the story.

The other one other than birth right or the water rights and the give away notion, the hon. Member for St. John's East, started to talk again like it sounds like Churchill Falls, and he knows - the man is an educated person, he has read the bill in some detail and he knows for a fact that there is absolutely, positively no connection whatsoever between Bill 1, "An Act Respecting The Privatization Of Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation", and Churchill Falls, not only is there not, there can't be, it is not even remotely possibly and he knows that; and as I was saying yesterday, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that Members of this House will know that to be true, with every bone in their bodies they know that to be true, but for some kind of political reason, to serve their own political interests rather than contribute to helping to educate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about the issues which they claim they want to do. Let us have some hearings, let us have some debate. For what reason? So that people can better understand, but all they want to do is, when they know the exact opposite and difference for their own political partisan reasons, they will still absolutely represent it another way knowing that it is not that way. I mentioned they are a perfect classic example of it. For our lawyer friend for St. John's East who has enough experience with all of these things, and is to my knowledge an hon. man of integrity, but because he leads a party which for some reason has decided to - and I guess they have to be in opposition whether they like it or not, that right now for political reasons, and judging what is going on and looking for public support, they have to be against this.

He has to get up and try to make a connection between the privatization of the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the Island, with the water rights they now use and the water they now use to generate electricity. Down in Bay d'Espoir they cannot generate electricity for the people to use tomorrow, next week, or next year, unless they use the same water from the same rivers and streams that they have used for the last thirty years. It cannot be done. And not only that, unless they build 5, 6, or 7 brand new turbines and generators down there they do not need access, and do not want access, to any other water than what they have used for the last thirty years.

All this nonsense about the water rights, and so on, is absolute total nonsense and the members opposite know that in their hearts and souls. I am convinced of that, Mr. Chairman. There is absolutely no doubt that they know that, but because it has some ring and some appeal to it they will stand up day after day and say, oh, you are giving away the water rights. Then they characterize it in another nice phrase, as the point I was making yesterday about the charged rhetoric, 'the birthright'. Now, I have talked about birthrights in my own lifetime but how can anything be a birthright when for starters it has only been around for thirty years. It was done thirty years ago as a straightforward business deal, no more than that. There is no big birthright issue, no nothing, other than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a lot of communities were living without electricity. There was not enough generating capacity on the Island to provide them with electricity even if we wanted to, so we had to develop the best and biggest known source on the Island at that time which was Bay d'Espoir.

The people that were generating electrical power, Mr. Chairman, on the Island at the time were privately owned companies. That is all that was ever in Newfoundland and Labrador, so if you talk about a birthright the birthright with respect to the generation of hydro electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador is that from the time the Province has been here privately owned companies have done it. That has been the birthright if you want to talk about what has been here ever since the place was settled. When you talk about hydro electricity there have been private companies doing it. Private companies have done it since we settled on the Island part here. Private companies have developed and delivered hydro electricity to the people of this Province, except for the fact that thirty years ago we wanted to make sure that more people in more communities could have electricity.

A Liberal government did that, Mr. Chairman. They decided that more people should have access to electricity and the private companies that had always delivered electricity, always generated it, always built the plants, always put up the power lines, the utility poles, delivered it to the houses and charged for it, they found out they could not get their hands on the money to do it. From their own sources those private investors that had always done it - that is the birthright, Mr. Chairman, they had always done it, but they could not get the money so the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Rothschilds.

MR. GRIMES: I will get to the Rothschilds in just a second.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at the time said: we want the people to do it so we will give the backing of the people through a government guarantee and by creating a publicly owned Crown corporation, because that corporation with the backing of the Province could get the money. A major public policy was achieved in the Province in terms of delivering electrical energy and power to communities that would not have it today if it were not for the public utility being established, but the birthright totally, totally, misrepresented in this debate, has been that it has always been delivered by private utilities except for the fact that when the government, acting properly in the judgement of everybody, I am sure, in the Province - not in this Legislature, in the whole Province. There is nobody that would disagree that the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador should have access to hydroelectric power that they have today. I would ask anybody to stand up and say that was a mistake, that a government of the day should not have put in place a public corporation to generate electricity so that homes in Newfoundland and Labrador today can enjoy electric power that they never could have dreamed of before. Now where is the mistake in that?

Now the issue is that the reason for doing all that has completely vanished and disappeared, and the time has come to say, now, those same private sector investors in companies that the great birthright was that they always did this before, they can now do that again. They are willing to do it again. They are willing to invest their own money again, and they can access the money on the markets, and they will not need a government guarantee. They will not need it. So now we are saying, let's pass it back. Let's return to business as normal.

I will just take a minute, Mr. Chairman, to point out one disagreement that I have with some speakers on our side in talking about this particular bill. When you talk about Bill 1, some members opposite have used a quote from the Minister of Justice in saying it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation since '49. This bill is not. The electrical power control act, which talks about making sure that the whole production and control of electrical energy in the Province is maintained totally in the control of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is the very significant piece of legislation.

I will tell you how stunned I am now, to use my English. This piece of paper, while the words in it are complex, they have very specific meanings in a legal context and a financial context. This piece of paper which we are debating now, Bill 1, is nothing more than the mechanism by which a very simple, straightforward, proper business transaction should now occur, and I don't put any significance at all in this as the major item to address Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, the privatization bill.

The electrical power control act is going to make sure that everything that is needed to be done through the public utilities process, and the Public Utilities Board, will be in place to protect the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it comes to hydroelectric generation, and delivery, and the cost of it into the future. This just says, let's return to the birthright, and let's put the generation and the distribution of hydroelectricity back in the hands of the private sector where it always was in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, and where it should be, and where we have to send it back, and the sooner the better.

Today, in the last couple of minutes, I might make another intervention if I get carried away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might return to it further again later.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take some time to respond to some of the statements by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

While Bill 1 is not as significant as Bill 2 coming before us, I say to the minister that certainly should not downplay the significance of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The aspect of this particular piece of legislation, the minister said that the government of the day was forced into putting forth, from a public policy point of view, forced into creating a utility that would bring electricity to every corner, nook and cranny of the Province, and it has done that. Newfoundland Hydro has done that, for a couple of reasons.

It has been able to borrow money more cheaply on the market because it has had a guarantee by the government on its debt. It has only had to satisfy bond holders in the marketplace, and not both bond holders and investment holders, or equity holders, and it has served this Province, and every community that it has brought electricity to, very well.

Now the minister says that we have come to a time in our history, as a Province and as a people, when we should look at divestiture, or divesting ourselves of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I say to the minister that as a member of this House I could support privatization if certain things could be demonstrated clearly.

If it could be demonstrated that there would be new investment in this Province as a result of this sale, then that would be a factor in changing my mind on how I believe on why we should not privatize Hydro but it has not been demonstrated by the government to date, I say to the Member for St. John's South, that there will be new investment in this Province as a result of the sale of Hydro. It has not been demonstrated clearly, as a result of privatizing Hydro, that there will be new technology brought to the people of this Province, that has not been demonstrated by the government. There will be no new technology transfer coming to this Province as a result of divesting ourselves of the Crown corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, is that the government has failed to demonstrate that we, as all shareholders in any business upon selling or divesting of themselves an interest, would want to get a fair return upon their equity, would want to get a fair return or increase above and beyond what the shares are worth. The government has not demonstrated fully or capably that we, as a Province, will receive a net benefit, in terms of financial dollars, above and beyond what the share value or what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is worth.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that this is an important piece of legislation. It may not be the most important piece of legislation that's been before this House since 1949 but it is a significant piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and as such, the government has failed again I think, to provide or to do any cost benefit analysis study that can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I say, Mr. Chairman, and to members opposite, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the selling of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a right thing, is a positive thing and the only course of action that the Province and the government should take but the government has not demonstrated that in any way, shape or form.

Now the minister is anxious to get into debate on the clauses and to the members opposite, I suggest that sometime in the near future or today we'll be debating parts of the clauses. The act itself, Bill 1, the legislation before us has some main features; transfer of assets, that's the main feature of that bill, expropriation, debt restructuring of old Hydro to new Hydro, employees pension benefits transferred from old Hydro to new Hydro, impact on electricity rates - as the minister talked about earlier - rural deficit and the government has talked about municipal taxes and the rights of municipalities to collect taxes.

Now let me say to the members of the House of Assembly and in particular members opposite, that the government says new Hydro will not get ownership rights but rather rights to use water only for as long as water is used to produce electricity. Legal title free and clear of any encumbrances is ownership, I say to the members opposite, is complete outright ownership. While the rights revert to the Province if they are not used to produce electricity the likelihood of that happening is remote, as pointed out earlier by the Member for Ferryland, my colleague and friend.

Now the Premier has accused the Opposition of being fraudulent, of misrepresenting the true facts and the true opinions on this particular piece of legislation. He's also said that we've tried to jump ahead of the parade, to stay in front of the parade as opposed to being dragged behind it. Now yesterday in the House, Mr. Chairman, I said to the Premier that if he's so convinced and if members opposite are so convinced that we as an Opposition, or that I as a member of this Opposition Party, have been so fraudulent, misrepresenting and providing so much information then why does he not extend he time of this debate?

Why does he not - like he did with smoking legislation, like he did with public accountancy in terms of, do CGAs or CAs have the right - who should have the right to do public auditing? Why didn't he strike a select committee of this House for presentations so that he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the information that we've brought forward thus far in this debate has been indeed fraudulent and expose us for what he has accused us of being but he has not done that, Mr. Chairman, and we will not see him do that.

The Premier says critics of the deal are irresponsible, fraudulent and misrepresenting the true facts. He has dismissed the opposition and the public mind-set that everybody who opposes that particular view is wrong, irresponsible, misinforming the public, and not truly telling what he believes to be the correct course of action.

The Premier himself has engaged in attack on public servants, past and present. He has engaged in an attack on the Leader of the Opposition and the entire Opposition party. The very thing that he accuses the Opposition of doing he has done himself, from day one.

The Premier has questioned, on many occasions, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, statements of investment company officials who have disagreed with his opinions about the impact of privatization on the Province's credit rating. He has stood before this House and read selected passages of what Mr. Defoe said, on what the impact could be on the Province's credit rating.

The minute that anybody - anybody - disagrees on this particular piece of legislation, in particular with the Premier's opinion, whether it be the Opposition, whether it be members of the public, whether it be past civil servants, or present, whether it be credit rating agencies, or members of his own back bench, he immediately attacks them as being - that's not right; that's misrepresenting; that's fraudulent, but he has not taken the time to smell the roses, and smell the roses in terms of public opinion and the sound business management of this deal.

The Premier has warned people there would be an opportunity. He said there would be an opportunity for public input, but we have not seen that. We have not seen any opportunity extended for public input on this particular deal.

The idea of privatizing Hydro has been in the public mind-set for several months, in general. Back on October 1 the Premier announced in a statement that they were looking at the possibility of merging with Fortis, and the beginning of divesting ourselves, as a Province, of Newfoundland Hydro began.

During the course of those discussions we know what happened. There could not be any agreement reached for business reasons. It was announced that the merger between Hydro and Fortis would not take place, so the Premier went to his second option, privatizing on a stand-alone basis, which financial officials said was not the best option. Leaving it as it was was the best option, by financial officials. Yes, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, but a month ago, five weeks ago, the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a CBC Radio talk show, which I listened to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hopefully I can clue up, because I really am tempted not to participate further because as I have indicated each time that I have rose to speak in the debate at third reading, I would prefer, and I think the hon. Member for Kilbride was getting very close to doing, I think, exactly what we will do here today, because he did mention four or five areas of specific concern that are contained in direct clauses in this bill, and I think that he deserves an answer. I think the House deserves an answer in terms of each of the issues in detail, what exactly does it mean, and I think we will get to that before the end of the day.

Just a couple of other things, Mr. Chairman, and the comment I was making about the tenor so far of the opposition versus the actual substance of it. We saw evidence of it again today with respect to the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition raised today, he went back to mentioning a very reputable firm, the Rothschilds that had given advice. The most recent privatization that has occurred in the country, in North America, happened in our neighbouring Province, in Nova Scotia, and one of the major advisors in terms of the details of that, and how to structure the arrangement that if you want to do that, how to actually structure the arrangement, the Rothschilds are considered to be expert in that field.

Again, because this government would make a decision to go out and get the best possible advice available, which is the same as our neighbouring province did, and the same as anybody that was considering this type of thing today, all of a sudden -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: All of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition wants to say that there is something wrong here because he brings up something about BRINCO some thirty years ago, and the same firm name being involved in some advice and again tries to tie it in to Churchill Falls and all these kinds of things, when, again I make the same point at the risk of being repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but I think it needs to be said. I make the point that every person in this Legislature who has read this bill knows in his heart of hearts that there is absolutely, positively no possible connection between Bill 1, the privatization of the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Churchill Falls and BRINCO and anything that has to do with Churchill Falls; so again, Mr. Chairman, when we get to Bill 2 and the electrical power control act, I am sure people will want to talk about that and protecting all of the hydroelectricity in the Province including Labrador, then that is a different issue, but to keep raising those kinds of things because it does evoke and it does get certain predictable responses which has been the premise of my whole commentary.

The other thing, and I made the point again yesterday, that having had some things explained in detail and knowing the difference, certain members of the opposition still persist in presenting it when they know it is absolutely the opposite of what they are proposing. The hon. Member for Ferryland, Mr. Chairman, continues to amaze me, because at least on four or five occasions he has talked about the taxation arrangements that are spelled out in this piece of legislation, and I wish he would get to that particular clause in the legislation and ask his questions and allow for a ten-minute back and forth discussion on the taxation arrangements because the taxation arrangements are there, they are spelled out in detail and are there for particular reasons, but the hon. Member for Ferryland, continues to represent it as this massive loss of taxation, giving up all kinds of money and being a lot worse off under the privatization arrangement than we are currently, and that is the exact opposite.

It has been explained to him on four or five occasions; he knows the difference, Mr. Chairman, but still, regardless of that blindly goes ahead and makes the same speech day after day after day, and it doesn't matter how many facts you give him and how much information you give him, he is not going to change his story because he is convinced that he is out in the front of some kind of political parade, that this is good now, he should be here, he should be leading this opposition and it is good to be in opposition and he should keep doing that regardless.

I think, Mr. Chairman, he has taken the approach that whatever happens, don't confuse me with any facts. He doesn't want any facts, he has his mind completely made up, he thinks he has struck a chord with some people, that there is a tremendous loss here and regardless of what the explanations are in regards to what the facts are, he is going to continue representing it as a great loss whether it is or it isn't, and that's the part, Mr. Chairman, where I think that we do a disservice in not participating jointly, and everybody saying, let's get out the information, people will make their own judgement; sure, but when you know the difference and continue to present it regardless of what you are told, then I think we sell ourselves a little bit short.

The other part there, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for St. John's East continues to talk about the cash flowing out of the Province like the electricity did from Churchill Falls. Another great piece of rhetoric, again to try to tie this privatization arrangement to Churchill Falls, and to conjure up whatever memories people still have of the arrangement that was made to create what was then described, and still in some circles described as the eighth wonder of the world. Some people are now talking about Bull Arm as that; but Churchill Falls was a major, major, unbelievable engineering feat for its time and day and it contributed great benefit, more benefit unfortunately in hind sight to other provinces and so on than to Newfoundland, but great continuing benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

Even when the hon. Member for St. John's East is challenged and asked, well, where do you think the money is going today, in terms of the people that - There is $1.2 billion worth of debt out there guaranteed by the Province, all kinds of bonds held, and the different governments and the different financial institutions, where do you think the money is going today, from that $1.2 billion, you think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are putting it in their pockets? Not likely. Where is it going? It is going to the bondholders as was pointed out yesterday, in Japan, in Switzerland, in the United States, in other parts of Canada and the Newfoundlanders, do any Newfoundlanders hold bonds now on the debt for Newfoundland Hydro as a public utility? The answer is no.

What does happen, while it may be limited because of the financial circumstance, Mr. Chairman, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, under the privatization Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be able to become owners of the new Hydro in a private setting. They don't own it now in terms of the money flowing to them, none of that's happening so when you talk about the cash flow, all the cash is flowing out of the Province today, Mr. Chairman, every copper of it. Under the new arrangement some of it can stay in the Province because some individual Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can actually own outright, privately a piece of the new Hydro corporation.

Mr. Chairman, the idea of leaving it as it was, we firmly believe -and it was spelled out in the Strategic Economic Plan - that when individuals are capable of and willing to take the financial risks of providing services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and when it doesn't need the guarantee in surety of the government that's the preferred option in every case. There is no difference in that basic principle between Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Products, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - when we get around to that, Mr. Chairman, because I hope we do get around to finding a way to privatize that as well. If the private sector can sustain all those things then all of the borrowing and credibility of the Province can be put to work directly in terms of making sure that we secure, on a firm basis, the finances that we need to provide goods and services to people that the government should provide and that the private sector either can't provide or should not even think about providing because of the fact that there's a public policy interest for the government to make sure that it's done by the government for the people because they need it and have to have it delivered in a certain way.

So with those few comments, Mr. Chairman, again I'll look forward to hearing the rest of the discussion and debate at third reading, clause-by-clause. I'll try to refrain from participating again in a general nature hoping that we will - as the hon. Member for Kilbride started to do in his last representation - get down to the specific details of the clauses and find out what exactly is it about this straightforward business transaction that bothers the members opposite. Let's look at trying to allay any of the fears that they have. Let us move away from the rhetoric and the kind of charged language that is used deliberately to bring up certain kinds of memories of the past, all kinds of ghosts and bogeyman, because it serves nothing in this debate. There is a straightforward transaction to return to the way it has been and should be again, which is private provision of electrical utility services.

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

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

I have a few words on the clause of the bill. It seems that as a result of the caucus meeting yesterday the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I guess, has been put up as the front guy for the next day or so to try and carry the government line. Well, I only hope he was not given the task of trying to convince members on this side that what he is saying is correct because he does not even believe himself what he is espousing here today, I say to the minister. You can really tell when a person does not believe what they are saying. It is very weak, no conviction, and no commitment.

MR. HARRIS: No tears.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, no tears. I say to the Member for St. John's East that the time we saw the minister in tears there was no commitment there then either. Everyone who saw him thought there was commitment, devotion and dedication to teachers in the education system in the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: A good actor.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, a very good actor, a very good display. His performance today mirrors that performance on the steps of Confederation Building when he stood in front of them all and told them he had done his best but there was no more he could get for them. Now, all he has done for the last five years, Mr. Chairman, is take away from these same people that he wept openly in front of because he could not get any more benefits for them. I say to the minister that is how convincing he is today. He is just as convincing as he was that day. He is standing there time after time and he keeps telling us on this side that we do not speak to specific clauses and specific points of the bill. Well, I want to say to the minister and others opposite that for weeks now, for weeks, we have told the people of this Province the specifics of this piece of legislation. We have informed the public of the specifics of this legislation.

As a matter of fact it was about five or six weeks ago that there was a press conference held that highlighted to the public of this Province the major concerns of this piece of legislation. It predicted what was going to be in it, but, of course, it was not really a prediction if you had seen a draft copy of the piece of legislation. Of course, members opposite said, where is the Leader's crystal ball? He was dreaming in technicolour. The minister denied most of the very serious concerns we highlighted about this piece of legislation. The public, I guess, then were not too sure either, but now that they are becoming familiar with what is in this piece of legislation they know that the concerns we highlighted for them then are real concerns today, and we have consistently and continuously, since this debate began, have espoused these same concerns in this House, asking the government for answers to our questions.

They have not been specific in their answers in Question Periods. They have not been specific in debating the issues raised by members on this side, and the minister stands in his place and consistently attacks members on this side for not being specific about the bill. Well, I say to the minister, we have been very specific, and that is why there is so much public opposition throughout this Province today, and such outrage throughout this Province today, about this piece of legislation.

People are very, very angry about what this government is doing to them through privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and any member opposite, ministers or private members, who try to console themselves by saying that we are fabricating the amount of opposition out and about this Province to this piece of legislation, I say to you that you are only fooling yourselves and it is time for you to come to grips with it, because this piece of legislation is bad. This piece of legislation is selling out, giving away, a very valuable asset that is owned by the people of this Province, and the people of this Province do not want this government to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They want the government to keep it, and the reasons for that are quite simple.

They don't want to give something, the only resource they have left that hasn't been given away, they don't want that given away. They don't want, as taxpayers and rate payers, to be paying out about a billion dollars in extra money over the next ten years, an approximate $1 billion coming out of their pockets as taxpayers and rate payers and, on the other side, because of what the Premier says will amount to about $25 million a year over ten years will be $250 million that the Province will get back. As I said yesterday, $1 billion minus $250 million leaves $750 million net loss to taxpayers and rate payers in this Province. Now that is the nuts and bolts of this piece of legislation.

There are arguments about what is contained in Clause 4, under water rights. If you listen to members opposite you would think that they are reading from a different piece of legislation. It is obvious that they haven't read the legislation. It is obvious that they haven't sought interpretations on the legislation, or they wouldn't be debating the way they are on specific clauses of the bill, particularly clause 4. Of course, later on this evening we will get down to the specifics of debating clause... I hope we get as far as clause 4, but we certainly will be further along in the debate in committee than we are presently. We will move on to other clauses and debate them accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I suppose he is going to get up again now in another weak attempt to defend this terrible action that is being undertaken by the government, that the former leader of the Liberal Party described yesterday as a diabolical plot. I think if there is one person who described this piece of legislation and this action by this government most appropriately, I say, it was the former leader. Diabolical plot. With each ongoing day, as more and more information comes forward and is tabled in the House, and leaks out to the public of the Province through the press, the more and more diabolical the plot gets. The more and more diabolical the plot thickens, I say to the Minister of Social Services. It thickens daily. Over the next number of weeks it will thicken even more.

Those 2 or 3 per cent out and about the Province who are not quite sure yet about what this means for them, they will jell with the other 97 per cent or 98 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are opposed to this piece of legislation. I would say it is a rare circumstance on any occasion that you have such a high percentage, a high number, of the public of our Province that has jelled together on public opinion on any one issue. It has never happened before. To get up in excess of 90 per cent of the public of this Province opposed to a specific piece of legislation that this government has brought forward.

It is getting worse daily. Members know. They are doing their monitoring. They have a very slick public relations team around them. They know what is happening. We can see with the ministers and the Premier now slotting into speaking engagements around the Province, with the mail out of their fliers, and the minister on open line, it is a sign. They have finally realized just how much the public is against this piece of legislation. They are doing all they can now to try and counter it.

What is happening is that they are protesting so much that the public opposition out there is growing, and the anger is growing even more. We saw it last night in Labrador where the Member for Menihek had a public meeting where 200 or so people turned out. Some of the language that is being used in some of those meetings –

MR. SULLIVAN: Two hundred and sixty-one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - two hundred and sixty-one - is becoming very strong. It was only yesterday morning by the way, I tell members, I was at the Health Science Complex. I was standing up waiting to use a pay phone. A little old lady came and put her finger in my chest and said: You are with the Opposition. I said: Yes I am, ma'am. She said: I heard the `almighty one' this morning on CBC Radio, and you know who I mean by the `almighty one.' I said: I can guess. `What is gone wrong with him,' she asked? Then she asked, `Would you do me a favour when you back to the House of Assembly this evening?' I said, `If I can, ma'am.' What she asked me to do I wouldn't say and I couldn't do anyway, but I'm telling you something, this is a lady I'd say approaching seventy years of age, like thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out and about this Province that are very, very concerned. They do not trust the Premier on this issue and I can say, for the first time since he became Premier, there has never been so much mistrust of this Premier and this government. Mistrust - they do not trust the Premier anymore, I say to members opposite. They can try all they will -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - to rally around him, they know deep down in their hearts, Mr. Chairman, that they cannot trust him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting now for days and days for the Opposition to go down through, clause-by-clause, and point out the problems with this bill, but all I've heard them say is; `it's not good, it's bad'. All I've heard people do is accuse us of being Nazis, talking about hobnailed boots, all of these things, Mr. Chairman, which try to exploit people's fears and try to create an air of negativism around this Province. I'm still waiting for the clause-by-clause discussions. I suppose, in due course, someone will get up and refer to different clauses and hopefully point out some arguments that they have with it. I don't believe they really have any complaints with it, Mr. Chairman, if they did, I would think by now they would have pointed out where the problems are instead of getting up and shouting and trying to make political points and believing that they have a parade and try to get ahead of it.

I'm supporting this bill, Mr. Chairman, because I believe it is good for the Province. I believe that because philosophically I believe that it is the role of the private sector to generate wealth for the Province or the nation and that government has no role in the economy, Mr. Chairman, unless the private sector is unable to fulfil that role.

In the case of Hydro, there clearly was a time when the private sector of Newfoundland was incapable of doing the job that had to be done; hence, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was formed and did a good job, Mr. Chairman, it served a purpose for a number of years, but now, it is no longer essential to the public good, the private sector has matured, the private sector is able to take over this responsibility, and philosophically I believe that this should be the case. Also, it is an opportunity for us to change some assets into cash. Never in recent years has there been a time when we could use this money any better than we can right now. So we can - philosophically, we can let the private sector do that which the private sector does best and, at the same time, we can change some assets into cash, Mr. Chairman. But the most important thing for me, personally, in this bill is the signal that we are sending out to the private sector of Newfoundland and Labrador, and of Canada in general.

In the Speech from the Throne, His Honour said that Newfoundland and Labrador is open for business. We have recognized - the people of this Province have recognized - that the days when you talk about 500 jobs being created because the government put some make-work programs in place - remember the old days when they would get up and announce 500 jobs created because the government gave $1,000 to a company down in Timbuktu to hire on a person, or the government gave a few dollars to repair a graveyard on the Funks, or the government gave a few dollars to Charlie Power's executive assistant that time when he had his little business, that was their definition of creating jobs, and in the process they practically drove the private sector into the ground, wiped out the private sector and started us on that slippery road to where we almost went over the edge. But just in the nick of time, the people of this Province came to their senses, realized what a stupid mess the previous administration was making with the economy of this Province, and right in the nick of time, they came to their senses and elected the present administration.

Now, this present administration has a history of doing what is right and what is in the interest of this Province. No one can doubt that. That is just as sure and just as certain as the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. This administration is committed to doing what is in the best interest of the people of the Province.

Just as certain to that is also the fact that no matter what the government does, the Opposition will say it is not good. Just as sure as we say yes, they will say no. Just as we will say perhaps, they will say absolutely not.

MR. ROBERTS: And if we abandoned the bill today they would think it was a nefarious plot.

MR. DECKER: My colleague, the Minister of Justice makes a good point. If we today said: Mr. Chairman, we are going to withdraw this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: A plot.

MR. DECKER: It was a plot; we are going to withdraw it; it was all a mistake, I can guarantee you that tomorrow the Opposition members would be up, led by the Member for Humber East, saying: Bring it back. Bring it back, for goodness sakes. Traitors - I can hear it now as they would shout.

The thing that strikes me about this is how limited is their vocabulary. Remember May - how long ago was it? When was the last election, 1993? Remember March of 1993, some of the speeches?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, the doorknobs.

MR. DECKER: The doorknobs, the dictator, the hobnailed boots, Nazism, call an election! Remember that, Mr. Chairman? Remember the year before last March - hobnailed boots, Nazis, dictators, won't listen to the people. Remember the year before that again? Nazis, hobnailed boots. Their vocabulary is so limited that it is a total disgrace. I believe the time has finally come. Yes, they are starting to believe their own rhetoric, they are starting to believe their own propaganda, that is the problem with them.

I believe we have reached a crucial stage again and I believe it is time for me to make the offer which I've made slavishly for the last four years. I will make it again. I believe it is time for the Opposition to have some seminars. They need some guidance. I am going to volunteer the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is always there when we need him. He never fails. I am sure that wherever he is today he will come forward. I am going to arrange for the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to sit down with a few of the Opposition members and teach them how to analyze bills that this government brings forward.

It is time now for them to go into caucus with the hon. John Efford, sit down and learn how to behave as Opposition members. You see, people lose credibility if they tend to be against something simply for the sake of being against it. The smart thing for hon. members to do is every now and again agree with something. If we come forward with 1,000 good things, and they disagree with 999, as they are wont to do, if they were to agree with only one, the people of the Province will say: Maybe those guys are not as bad as we think they are, because they don't disagree with everything. That is the first lesson for hon. members of the Opposition: agree with the occasional thing from time to time - maybe one in every 1,000. At that rate I would think it would soon be time now for them to agree with something. It doesn't necessarily have to be this Hydro bill.

The other bit of advice I have for the hon. members is this: don't be fooled every time you hear a few interest groups get up and shout and scream. You see, when I look at this page of The Evening Telegram and see this person waving the Newfoundland independence flag to protest the Hydro sale, when I see this happening, I have to question the motives of the people who are out kicking up all this noise.

I can understand the Member for St. John's East. Because when I think about socialism, I think about the artsy-fartsy crowd, I think about the crowd who put the Soviet Union into the ground, and I think that belongs to that which we normally associate with the New Democratic Party. What I can't understand is how it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

March 15, 1994           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 12A

[Continuation of sitting]

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

MR. DECKER: I shall return.

MR. HARRIS: I think it is kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Education would get up and try to enter into this debate, not by talking about the issue but by talking about the Opposition, as if the issue here were the Opposition and not government's plan to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and give away -

MR. TOBIN: That is not the issue.

MR. HARRIS: I know what he said. We will get to that - as if the issue were the Opposition and how the Opposition behaves. Mr. Chairman, the whole Opposition has been opposed to this bill since its inception. Some government members have been opposed to it as well, and they are not able to get the information that is required to be able to have a very good appreciation of what is going on.

He tries to suggest that the Opposition doesn't agree with anything government does. Well, I have said to the minister and I say to him again that I agree with his proposal to change the kindergarten, to have a full year kindergarten. I think it is a great idea. I don't know why he is waiting a year or two to do it, but I think it is a good idea. I would like to see him do it sooner. But when the Minister of Education gets up in this House and castigates the Arts community of this Province, the cultural industries of this Province, and says there is something wrong with the members of the Arts community because they believe in Newfoundland and Labrador and our future, then, Mr. Chairman, he should resign. He should resign from his position as Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: They say that education has to have something to do with culture, and if the Minister of Education has no appreciation for the Arts community of this Province, what he calls the artsy-fartsies - that was the term used by the minister - then I challenge him to say what he has done to equal the contribution that has been made by the Arts community to this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in terms of raising our profile, explaining our culture, celebrating our people and our history, and indeed, Mr. Chairman, adding considerably to the economic well-being of this Province through film, through books, through poetry, through television, and through language and culture. The fact that these very same people, or many of them - I don't think they were speaking particularly as members of the Arts community but as true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, when they expressed their views yesterday.

To suggest that because certain members of the Arts community in this Province are opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it has something to do with communism in Russia, that will give you an idea of how bankrupt the ideas of this government are in proposing this deal. They can't support the detail of it and can't support the facts. They can't even provide sufficient information to their own members to be able to make up their minds about it and convince them it is a good thing. And to suggest that because people who are opposed to it happen to be members, some of them, of the Arts community, to run them down, run down the contribution of the Arts and Cultural community - that is what the Minister of Education did here this afternoon; and if the Member for St. John's South questions that let him read Hansard and he will see the kind of criticism being made by the Minister of Education.

I hope that the members of the Arts community hear the scorn with which the Minister of Education has deigned to speak about them and some of their positions with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. But I don't know, Mr. Chairman - the Newfoundland flag is a flag that I am proud of as a Newfoundlander, the original Newfoundland flag. I'm proud of that flag. It's a very venerable flag. It has a lot of association with a lot of Newfoundlanders, it harks back to our nationhood, Mr. Chairman. That flag has great symbolic value of the time when we were a nation. It has great symbolic value, just as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as an asset belonging to the people of this Province, has great symbolic value, Mr. Chairman. And the people in this Province who are opposing the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro feel that very strongly in their hearts and in their spirits, Mr. Chairman. They have yet to be convinced by this government of this `plain business deal' as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations called it, a simple business deal - just a matter of a simple business transaction. We're selling off, Mr. Chairman, one of our most important and valuable assets and resources. Those who care about Newfoundland and Labrador, those who love Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, are opposed to this sale. Those who care about and love Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, feel ashamed of the fact that our nationhood, our ability to control our destiny has been impaired by the deal with Hydro Quebec, to send away our Hydro resources to the Province of Quebec to enrich them at our expense.

The people who care about and love Newfoundland and Labrador are also contributing to the culture and to the arts of this Province, something that the Member for Eagle River doesn't understand, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't understand the cultural contribution of our arts community. The Minister of Education doesn't understand the contribution of our arts community. The government, by its failure to adequately support the arts, doesn't understand the contribution of our cultural community. I say that their lack of understanding, their scorn for the people of this Province, their scorn for the cultural community will cost them, Mr. Chairman. It has already cost them but it's going to cost them even more. The more the Minister of Education gets up in this House and casts scorn upon the people of this Province, scorn upon our cultural leaders, artists, writers and people who care about this Province, the more he will distance himself from the people and the more his government will lose, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt my colleague, the Member for St. John's East when he was speaking but I was wondering, Your Honour, if the comments made by the Minister of Education were indeed parliamentary when he referred to the arts group in this Province as `artsy-fartsy' and compared them to Communist Russia, Mr. Chairman, the downfall of Russia. I think that that was totally unbecoming of a minister of the Crown. I would ask Your Honour to rule as to whether or not that language and that parallel was indeed parliamentary, and I would ask Your Honour, as well, to ask the minister to apologize to the arts group in this Province and to do so immediately.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order, I withdraw the term `artsy-fartsy' and apologize to anyone whom I might have offended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the minister has withdrawn.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, the minister (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's East speak in the debate?

MR. DECKER: Yes. The Member for St. John's East has just proven my point. I'm making the point that there are certain people in this Province who gravitate to the NDP, who see this, not as a business deal, but as patriotism -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack the Communist.

MR. DECKER: - who see it as somehow our last vestige of keeping control, and that particular philosophy finds its way into the New Democratic Party, Mr. Chairman. That does not encompass the arts community. I can speak with some knowledge of the arts community, Mr. Speaker. I would challenge the Member for St. John's East to lay on the Table of this House any of his publications. I can lay on it one of the greatest books this Province has ever known, The Welfare Officer Will See You Now by C. R. Decker. So I am a member of the arts community, Mr. Chairman. I would challenge the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: There is an element of hysteria in this debate, Mr. Chairman. People do not see it as a business deal but they see it as somehow giving away something that we own. It is tied in with culture, hence the flag on the front page of The Evening Telegram.

Having said that, I have to agree with the Member for St. John's East when he shares these sentiments, because a substantial part of his party has been putting forward that philosophy ever since they have been a party. It goes right back to the old days of the CCF when their philosophy was that everything should belong - the government should run everything. Government should be the employer, the government should create wealth and all that sort of thing. So that is right in keeping with NDP philosophy, and I have no problem with it whatsoever when the Member for St. John's East gets up and is against the privatization of Hydro; we understand that, and we understand where his followers are. We have only to watch them waving the old Newfoundland independence flag to understand what they are talking about. There is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Newfoundland flag.

MR. DECKER: No, that is what it says here - Newfoundland independence. So I have no problem.

What upsets me, Mr. Chairman, is when the members of the Tory party get up and perceive that they somehow have a lot of people out there who are against this privatization deal. They believe they see a crowd of people walking in one direction and they are trying to get out ahead and give the perception that they are leading. Now, this is what's upsetting.

So I wipe out the Member for St. John's East. His philosophy is a dying philosophy, proven by the recent happenings in the Soviet Union. It is going nowhere, it has proven nothing, it is a total disaster, and the hon. member is the last vestige of a dying philosophy, and good riddance to it, Mr. Chairman!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member compares the Communist Party of Russia to the New Democratic Party. I don't think it could be further from the truth. Speaking of last vestiges, this is the last vestige of Thatcherism over here on this side under the guise of the Liberal Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Getting back to where we were before I was interrupted. He is trying to cling on, he is clinging on, to a philosophy which is dying, and good riddance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dead and buried.

MR. DECKER: Dead, gone, kaput. He is serving the last few years. He will probably be the last member of the NDP to be elected in this Province, Mr. Chairman. Government after government of the NDP is falling across this nation - falling, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: There is something totally out of whack here. I mean, this is the Hydro debate. I haven't heard once the word `Hydro', in this man's speech. He is talking about the philosophy of Communism and the NDP and everything else. When are you going to mention Hydro? They keep getting up and talking about Hydro. I would like to see something relevant to the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order. The Chair has been very lenient, I guess, in terms of the debate in Committee. If hon. members wish the Chair to enforce the rules and apply solely to the debate on the bill before the House, then the Chair will enforce it. I ask the hon. the Minister of Education to confine his comments to the bill.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is the best ruling I've heard today and the best point of order I've heard in two weeks. Because hon. members have taken the time of this House getting up and accusing us of being Nazis and dictators and walking in hob-nailed boots, and all this. I've waited here for the last two weeks to have hon. members get up and go through clause 4, clause 5, and what have you and debate it, and give us an opportunity to speak on it. That is a wise ruling and I commend Your Honour for making that ruling. I would ask Your Honour to stick to that ruling from here on, because the people of this Province deserve to have this bill debated, not talking the nonsense we've been hearing from both Opposition parties over the last two weeks. It is time now for us to get on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the minister to confine his comments to the bill.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of this bill gives the short title as the Hydro Privatization Act. Now, to hear members opposite talk, this is something more than the privatization of a Crown corporation. They are trying to create hysteria throughout this Province and to get people to treat this as if it were something more than what we are doing with NLCS, something more than what we are doing with Newfoundland Farm Products, as if this were somehow different, or something more than what they had done with Linerboard. Hon. members are trying to make this more than simply a business deal and the privatization of a Crown corporation.

This bill lays out exactly what we said in our Strategic Economic Plan, that we put confidence in the private sector to be the generator of wealth. It is the role of government to provide the climate for business and, as we said in the Throne Speech, we are going to privatize any Crown corporation that it is not in the interest of the public to keep as a Crown corporation. And it is by no means in the interest of the people of this Province to keep Hydro as a Crown corporation.

The private sector has come of age. The private sector is now quite capable of taking over here, Mr. Chairman. There is no reason why we cannot pass clause 1, so I now move that we pass clause l.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to make a few remarks about clause 1 of this bill, "An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation". In discussing clause 1 we, of course, are allowed to speak about the overall meaning of the bill and address the particular contents of all the clauses of the bill.

Now, I have listened to the government spokesman here this afternoon, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Education and all I could think, Chairperson, is that they remind me of Richard Nixon's -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled about relevancy. I remind the hon. the Member for Humber East that the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay raised a good point earlier in terms of relevancy and I would ask that the member confine her comments to the bill.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

The ministers defending the bill refer to it as amounting to a simple straightforward business deal, nothing more, nothing less. Chairperson, if that's all it is, why did they hide their intentions to do this deal when they campaigned for election last Spring? Why did the Minister of Mines and Energy deny that there had been, a mere month ago, a decision to privatize Hydro? Ministers opposite - the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who says his Premier is not a crook, deny -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I suggest that the hon. member stick to the bill.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I realize, I have had a fair bit of experience in Committee stage on other bills in other extended sittings of the House of Assembly.

Chairperson, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is trying to persuade people that this bill doesn't authorize a wholesale transfer of water rights to a private corporation. Perhaps the minister hasn't read the bill. Perhaps he has simply looked at the propaganda sheets passed out by the Premier and the Minister of Justice.

Chairperson, anyone here who can pick up and look at the black and white provisions of Bill 1 will see that in clause 2 (1)(a) "land" is defined as meaning "real property of every kind and includes tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, leaseholds and an estate, term, easement, right or interest in, to, over, under or affecting land, including rights-of-way, and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges." Chairperson, every time the word "land" appears in the bill, in clause 4 or any clause of the bill, read: Waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges, land equals water rights, land equals water powers, land equals water privileges.

Now, when we come to clause 4, which is the key clause - this is the giveaway clause - we see in clause 4(1): "The minister" - and, of course, "minister" is earlier defined as the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the Crown the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may designate. Clause 4(1) says: "The minister shall" - so this may be our current Minister of Finance or it could be another minister, such as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations since he is so enthusiastic about selling off Hydro. Or it could be the Minister of Education, who obviously isn't listening to the people in Cook's Harbour who are petitioning the government to stop the sale - any minister present or future. It could be the Member for St. John's North if he succeeds in selling his soul for a Cabinet position. It could be any one of the members opposite.

"The minister shall" - no discretion, "shall" - "by means of agreements with Old Hydro or New Hydro or otherwise, enter into transactions or cause transactions to be entered into that will, directly or indirectly, result in..." and then we have (a), (b), (c), (d).

Clause 4(1)(a) is: "the transfer to New Hydro of all of the undertaking, business, land" - now remember, land equals water rights, water powers and water privileges - "land, property, assets, interests, benefits and rights of, or the title to which is vested in, Old Hydro or which are used in connection with the business of Old Hydro, except as provided under excluded assets". I'm going to come to excluded assets now in a minute, but that is just (a).

Then there are (b), (c). Clause 4(1)(c): "the transfer to New Hydro" - and remember, New Hydro means private owners, means interests -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: - which may be based in Quebec or anywhere in the world.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I'm sorry to interrupt the hon. the Member for Humber East but I'm just trying to listen to what she has to say. The bantering across the House is reaching a level where I'm unable to hear the hon. member and I'm sitting next to her.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Actually, I didn't have any problem with the bantering back and forth, I welcome interjections. I would suggest that the squawking coming from the members opposite has to do with their lack of comfort with what is actually stated in this bill. I suggest to members opposite that what is in the bill is not the same as what is on the Premier's propaganda sheets.

Clause 4(1)(c): "the transfer to New Hydro" - read Paul Desmarais, read Caisse Popûlaire, read private interests who will control the new private corporation - "the transfer to New Hydro of the land - remember, what does "land" mean? land means water rights, water powers and water privileges - "property, assets, interests, benefits or other rights of the Crown used in connection with the business of Old Hydro, except as provided under excluded assets, and the granting of any licences, leases or other rights by the Crown to New Hydro..."

So, the minister shall transfer to the new private corporation, the Desmarais Corporation, the Rothschild Corporation, the new private corporation, the water rights and water privileges, and waters of Old Hydro, the water rights, water privileges, and waters of the government, of the Crown, except as provided under excluded assets. Now, continue down the page: What does `excluded assets' mean? It means securities of CF(L)Co. So, does that mean the rest of CF(L)Co goes to the new private Rothschild Corporation or the Desmarais Corporation? Securities of Gull Island Power Company Limited, securities of LCDC, securities of Twin Falls Power Corporation, so it is just the securities that are excluded. Presumably, the rest of those Upper and Lower Churchill corporations can go to the Rothschild Corporation, the Desmarais Corporation, the Caisse Popûlaire Corporation, the new private corporation.

Then, what else does `excluded assets' mean? `Excluded assets' mean the undeveloped water rights as determined by the minister, so the minister, whether it's the current Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's North, or it could be minister in a few years time when the government changes, the minister can pick and choose which of the undeveloped water rights go and which of the undeveloped water rights stay with the government and the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Then you go down to subclause 4: "The minister shall, under an agreement entered into under subsection (1), grant to New Hydro for the purpose of generating power such rights to use all water rights, water powers, and water privileges as are developed, and as are used by old Hydro for the purpose of generating power, that at the reorganization date" - I assume that is a drafting mistake because it doesn't make any sense - "for as long as the water rights, water powers, and water privileges are used by New Hydro for the purpose of generating power." Well, presumably that will be forevermore, unless there is an ecological disaster and the water flowing into Bay d'Espoir, Cat Arm, Hinds Lake, and Paradise River dry up. The water runs eternally, it comes from the rain.

Members keep pointing to subclause 6: "Where an interest in land" -`land' meaning waters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: That's right. We all saw the Member for St. John's South at the bar. He was probably admitted to the bar a long time before I was.

Subclause 6: "Where an interest in land" - meaning water - "is or is purported to be transferred to New Hydro from Old Hydro under any agreement entered into under the reorganization, the legal title to and beneficial ownership of that interest shall be considered to have been acquired by New Hydro free and clear of all encumbrances and other interests which infringe upon the interest except for encumbrances and other interests (a) created or granted in writing by Old Hydro; or (b) which Old Hydro took subject to a deed or other document..."

Now, then, subclause 7 says, "Where an interest in land" - and remember, land means water, remember, land equals water, water right, water privileges - "Where an interest in land is or is purported to be transferred to New Hydro by the Crown..." Okay, the Crown as opposed to Old Hydro, that could mean water rights in Labrador, it could mean Muskrat Falls, it could mean Gull Island.

MR. MURPHY: It could.

MS. VERGE: Exactly! So the Member for St. John's South is confirming what we are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now, "Where an interest in land" - including water, water rights, water privileges" - is or is purported to be transferred to New Hydro" - meaning the Rothschild Corporation or the Desmarais Corporation - "by the Crown under an agreement entered into pursuant to the reorganization, the legal title to and beneficial ownership of such interest shall" - shall - "be considered to have been acquired by New Hydro free and clear of all encumbrances and other interests which infringe upon the interest except for encumbrances and other interests to which New Hydro took subject to a deed or other document by which the Crown transferred such interest to New Hydro."

Chairperson, this is what opens the door for private interests wherever they may reside, whether they reside in Quebec or anywhere in the world - to profit from the development of the Lower Churchill and from future developments on the Upper Churchill at the expense of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members opposite, new converts to the culture and creed of private enterprise, talk about the desirability of private enterprise being able to flourish and profit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me say just a few words. I didn't hear all of the hon. woman's speech but I heard enough of it to confirm my worst fears about her understanding of the bill.

Let me begin with this point about securities. She makes a great noise about the provisions of section 4(2) where the word "securities" appears several times, as it does. We are talking about the excluded assets, we are talking about the assets that my friend and colleague the Minister of Finance may not, even if he were so minded, transfer from Old Hydro to New Hydro. These are assets now held by Old Hydro, which, of course, is the name in the bill for the present Hydro company, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation, incorporated by an act of this Legislature.

The hon. lady makes a great noise that securities doesn't include shares, if I understood her point correctly. Perhaps, since she is in the Chamber, she would correct me if I had misunderstood her. She made a great noise that the use of the word "securities" would somehow allow the Crown to sell the shares, and the bogeyperson today is the Rothschilds. These paranoid fantasies that the hon. woman and her colleagues indulge in, today's bogeyperson is the Rothschilds and here we are, in a nefarious plot to make these securities available, but since we can't make the securities available we are going to make the shares available.

Let me just show you the depth of the hon. member's knowledge of this bill. If she goes back to section 2 to which she has referred many times, because it includes the definition of the word "land," which in this bill has a particular meaning. It goes on in subsection (2) of section 2 of the bill to say that: "Unless otherwise defined in this Act or a contrary intention appears, words and expressions used in this Act have the same meaning as in the Corporations Act."

That is a fairly standard provision in legislation, to incorporate by reference another statute. It saves us reproducing the 370 or 380 sections of the Corporations Act which, if memory serves me correctly, became law at the request of the hon. lady when she was the Minister of Justice during that glorious period when she was justice minister. She smiles approvingly that she was the minister who sponsored what is quite a good piece of legislation, so we assume she knows what's in it. Section 2(3) of the bill also says, in case there is any doubt: "The Corporations Act applies to New Hydro except as provided otherwise by this Act." We are told that the definitions in the Corporations Act are the ones that apply here unless there is a contrary intention or a contrary definition. Even the hon. woman will agree that there is no contrary definition of the term "securities" in this bill, in the privatization bill.

Now, let's go back to section 4(2), which lists the excluded assets, including securities, to which she has taken such great objection. Let me do something she hasn't done, let me look up what `securities' means in the Corporations Act. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, it's not defined in the Privatization Bill except by means of the incorporation by reference, by means of section 2(2) of the Privatization Act. Now, remember, Mr. Chairman, we're being told that the use of the word `securities' means that my friend, the Minister of Finance, can give away the shares, the equity interests that we hold in the Lower Churchill, Gull Island Power, Twin Falls and CF(L)Co, Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation itself.

Now, lo and behold, let us turn to the statute book, a good place for a lawyer to look when one is speaking about the statutes. On page 12 of volume 3 of the current revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1990, which are now the law in this Province and repeal all previous statues except the private acts not consolidated - the hon. lady knows what's coming - it says securities; it's subsection (z) of section 2 of this act which begins: `In this act' and we zip along from (a) right through to (z).

AN HON. MEMBER: What act is that?

MR. ROBERTS: The Corporations Act. `Securities' means - now, are we ready? Are we waiting? -

AN HON. MEMBER: With bated breath.

MR. ROBERTS: - means a share of a class or series of shares of a corporation or a debt obligation of a corporation and includes a certificate evidencing a share or debt obligation. Now, when we look at it then, Mr. Chairman, on the facts, what do we see? Section 4(2) of the Privatization Act, far from being a nefarious plot to allow my friend, the Minister of Finance, to sneak away from old Hydro to New Hydro such things as our ownership interest in Gull Island Power, Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, Twin Falls Power, far from that, is a specific prohibition. Now, that shows exactly where the hon. lady comes from. As a lawyer, I'm afraid, she's not going to make the grade. This is really inexcusable carelessness from a member of the Bar. She can wrinkle her little button nose if she wishes; I wish mine were - nobody will ever say that about me, I say to my hon. friend, that my nose was a little button nose. But she can wrinkle it and be as cute as she wants - you know that's just not acceptable, I submit, from a lawyer. The term has a specific definition, it's clearly provided in the act and I've just taken the Committee, Mr. Chairman, through the process by which one finds out what the word, `securities' means.

Now, let me talk about `land'. She has made a great deal, and my -I beg your pardon?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) water rights.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I've talked about water rights. My friend, the Member for Ferryland, sort of is `one-track Loyola' - he gets an idea fixed in his mind - give him credit for that, that's one idea more -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the hon. member that we're supposed to refer to hon. members in this House by their district and not by their -

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the Chair for protecting me from the harassment of those opposite and bringing me back on the straight and narrow. I am truly grateful.

Now, Mr. Chairman, my friend, the Member for Ferryland has a one-idea mind which, of course, is one idea more than most of his colleagues have. But he somehow has it in his mind that the word `land' -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: You have to hand it to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, he's a little slow but he does get it eventually. Three years in kindergarten was it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: More than I did.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back: the word `land'

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. woman is interrupting and she shouldn't. The word `land' is defined here as meaning, `real property of every kind and includes tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances.' Now, I say to my friend, the Member for Gander, watch the appurtenances - they might sneak up on him, and an unleashed appurtenance is as bad as an uncaged hereditament. Anybody who can say that quickly at ten o'clock tonight can get a seat in the Cabinet tomorrow, I assure you.

It also includes, "an estate, term, easement, right or interest in, to, over, under or affecting land, including rights-of-way, and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges." Now, that's the shorthand. The word "land" whenever it appears in this bill means any or all of those, whatever it takes to make sense of them.

Mr. Chairman, we come along now to 4(1)(a) where the minister is authorized and, in fact, obligated to transfer to New Hydro "all of the undertaking, business, land, property, assets, interests, benefits and rights of, or the title to...Old Hydro..." to New Hydro. That is very straightforward.

MR. FUREY: Which minister?

MR. ROBERTS: It is the Minister of Finance, I say to my friend for `DITT'.

MR. FUREY: Be nice.

MR. ROBERTS: I am. I say to my friend, I am. As he should realize.

MS. VERGE: As nice as he is capable of being.

MR. ROBERTS: Now - I'm sorry, the hon. lady had a question?

MS. VERGE: I said to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that is as nice as you are capable of being.

MR. ROBERTS: This is true, this is true. It is difficult, faced as I am with harassment from the members opposite, Mr. Chairman, always to be nice, but today I am being as nice as I can.

Mr. Chairman, let me come back to the point of this. The grant in section 4, the power in section 4, would allow the Minister of Finance - in fact, require him - to transfer water rights. He would not be able to transfer undeveloped water rights. He cannot transfer an undeveloped water right. He can transfer a water right. What is a water right? A water right is not property in water. Our law knows no property in water in the wild. You could have property in water in a glass, particularly if it can be made, with the advantage of some hops, into beer or - I turn to my friend, the Member for St. John's South - into holy water perhaps, you can recognize property in that. But what one has in the wild is the right to use the water.

Now, my friend is accused of wanting to give water to New Hydro. What is going to happen is they will run it through the turbines in Bay d'Espoir and then they are going to bottle it up or take it in buckets and they are going to carry it to the mainland or back up the hill and pour it in again, like Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. What New Hydro will get is the right to use the water. It will get the rights that have been developed to use water. How could one have a hydro corporation without doing a developed water rights? It just makes no sense. Light and Power has them, it has had them for many years.

Mr. Chairman, let me go on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: So soon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. ROBERTS: Another time.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson.

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

MS. VERGE: Perhaps the Minister of Justice was just working up to the real issue, in which case I trust he will be on his feet again later in this debate. The real issue is what is going to happen to the water rights, developed and undeveloped - the water rights that are associated with Bay d'Espoir and the other hydroelectric generating facilities now owned and operated by Hydro, ultimately by the government and the people of the Province, as well as undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador.

MR. ROBERTS: You are asking what happens to them? Is that the issue? Okay.

MS. VERGE: Everyone knows that it is the undeveloped water rights in Labrador which constitute the bonanza where we stand to reap tremendous profits and proceeds in the future.

Chairperson, if this is all innocent, as ministers opposite would like us to believe, then why is the legislation worded the way it is? Why does this require the minister responsible to transfer to the new private corporation - which, for the sake of shorthand, I will call the Rothschild corporation or the Desmarais corporation -why does it require that the minister transfer to the new corporation both Hydro assets and land and water and water rights and Crown assets and land and water and water rights? And why is there a specific provision excluding some undeveloped water rights giving to the minister alone the discretion of which undeveloped water rights will be excluded and presumably, then, which undeveloped water rights will be included? It is here in black and white.

Now, apart from the tremendous current value associated with hydroelectric generation and the enormous future value of undeveloped water rights, which will at some time in the future be used to generate hydroelectricity, water in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the future, will likely have value that few of us today can contemplate.

In the 1960s, when the Minister of Justice, the Premier and others entered into arrangements with another great corporation, another part of the private sector, BRINCO for the development of the Upper Churchill, the Premier of that day, Premier Smallwood, and others didn't foresee the astronomical increases in energy prices that occurred in subsequent years through the 1970s and 1980s and perhaps, to some extent, we can forgive them for their lack of foresight. There wouldn't have been very many people in the total population who predicted the enormous rise in energy prices that occurred.

Now, Chairperson, the Minister of Justice talks about lawyers - I mean, any lawyer worth his or her salt advising the government of the day, would have pointed out the importance of having an escalator clause. It's a standard provision of any important contract. Premier Smallwood couldn't have foreseen the way energy costs would go up in the succeeding years but, similarly, few of us here today can likely predict accurately the value that Newfoundland and Labrador water will acquire as the world develops. Already, Chairperson, there are many parts of the world; California, Saudi Arabia which have to purchase and import water. I predict, Chairperson, that in the future, and it may not be very many years from now, great amounts of money will be made through the bottling and sale, perhaps in bulk, of Newfoundland and Labrador water - perhaps the water that flows through the Bay d'Espoir generating station or through the other existing hydroelectric generating stations or water which is not now, or which won't in the future, fuel hydroelectric generating stations. But, Chairperson, we have to think about the full value of the assets that this legislation would authorize a minister, a single minister of the Crown, and the legislation which requires the minister of the Crown to transfer to a new private corporation. Remember, it's not just hydro assets, it's not just hydro water rights, it's Crown assets and water rights.

We know about the current value for making hydroelectric power. We have some idea about the future value of developing water rights in Labrador to make hydroelectric power. What nobody yet in this debate has even talked about is other values of water - water which many nations of the world in future years will be willing to pay high prices to get, for drinking water. Chairperson, this bill that we are now examining in detail in Committee, this bill requires a minister of the Crown to transfer the water rights - the waters, water rights, water powers, and water privileges of Old Hydro and of the Crown to the new corporation.

In a very dangerous provision in clause 4, excluded are undeveloped water rights as determined by the minister. Obviously, that means that the minister in his or her discretion may transfer some undeveloped water rights. Excluded are some undeveloped water rights, included would be other undeveloped water rights. It will be possible under this legislation for a minister, without reference to Cabinet, without reference to the House of Assembly, to transfer undeveloped water rights at Gull Island, undeveloped water rights at Muskrat Falls, the Lower Churchill undeveloped water rights, to the private corporation, not to mention undeveloped water rights elsewhere in the Province.

Now, on the Island there are no major sources of hydroelectric power left undeveloped but there are several small potential sites which have been developed which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology knows all about. The minister, I suggest, knows about some Island undeveloped water rights which may be developed and amount to relatively small sources of hydroelectric power. I believe he and some of his colleagues have had discussions with business interests which are willing to invest in developing some of these small hydroelectric sites on the Island. Now, under this legislation, those undeveloped water rights and those small sites on the Island, as well as undeveloped water rights in Labrador, may be included or may be excluded from the transfer of assets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a concensus among the vast crowd of us in the House that we perhaps - I'd ask Your Honour to leave the Chair until, say, 6:30 p.m.? By unanimous consent?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations wanted to speak after the Member for Humber East. If he could be recognized when we come back. He is the next speaker. Is that fair enough?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes (inaudible).

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

We are ready now to proceed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity. As much as I was tempted earlier - and I said on a couple of occasions earlier this afternoon as I was speaking in this debate in Committee of the Whole, I really would have preferred to take my place and wait to get into some of the questions that we started to get into with the Member for Humber East when we really did get into clause-by-clause. I thought at one point we were even going to agree to pass clause 1, which is the name of the bill. We came close, and maybe later on tonight we might even pass the name of the bill, and make some significant progress.

I think I recognize now from listening to the last two speakers, the Member for Humber East and the Minister of Justice, that the members opposite must be starting to have some reservations about the advice they've been taking from the Member for Humber East. Because I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated, certainly for anyone who has an open mind and is looking at it objectively at all, that the Member for Humber East in her presentation of the issues about water rights and the giveaway and the land and so on, clearly has been a very selective reader and has only chosen to read certain parts, much like members opposite, as I've been saying, in these interventions in this Committee of the Whole stage.

It is the kind of thing they've been doing with their whole Opposition; the basis of it, there is no basis - that is the whole point I've been trying to make. The selective reading by the Member for Humber East, demonstrated by the Minister of Justice, must surely have given members opposite reason to pause and really question themselves as to the advice they've been taking from that particular member, because it obviously holds no substance. There is no more proof in it than the fact that as soon as it was brought to her attention she immediately switched off from this great thing about "land" means this and "water rights" means that, and moved - because there was no substance to what she was saying anymore and it was demonstrated to be such - everybody over there on the opposite side knows that - absolutely no substance to one of the major arguments they've been pinning their hopes on for weeks now, demonstrated in just ten minutes of debate that it meant absolutely nothing.

Now, they know that, so they don't want to debate the rest of the clauses because they will get answers just like that one to show there is no substance to the rest of it either. The Member for Humber East then went back to say: Well, we had better not privatize Hydro because none of us can look into the future and realize how valuable water is going to be and what price it will fetch. We are going to bottle the water and send it off to Saudi Arabia and off to California and therefore we shouldn't privatize Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Because somebody - I'm just repeating in case members opposite missed it. I know the Leader of the Opposition wasn't in his place but I'm sure he was glued to his speaker out back.

In fact, one of his lead speakers, one of the lead Opposition members in terms of debating this issue and trying to point out what is wrong with it, having been shown to be totally wrong in her representation, switched off to say: Just as Premier Smallwood and the Liberals in the 1960s couldn't predict the cost of Hydro escalating, we can't predict how valuable water is going to be and who is going to want to buy bottled water - thirty years time. Therefore, we should shut down Bay d'Espoir, we should shut down Cat Arm, because people won't be able to get the water and bottle it. Because that is where the real value is going to be. You can't privatize anything because people might want to sell some bottled water.

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

I apologize to the minister. (Inaudible) catch his breath. He is right, I did miss the earlier part of his speech. Can he tell me who it was who said we should shut down Cat Arm? That is what he just said then. Who said it? Could he tell me, just to bring me up to speed?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the interjection because I did need a drink of water. Now I will get back to what I was saying.

We have the whole point that you couldn't privatize, not allowed to privatize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Ask me in Question Period tomorrow. I have only a few minutes left and I don't want to waste them answering questions like that.

Mr. Chairman, the idea is that it doesn't make sense to privatize because people might want to buy some bottled water and we don't know how valuable bottled water is going to be. This is the new argument now. It shows the quality of the argument and debate. She came up with that one right on the spur of the moment. I was amazed. What a great switch! It was ingenuity personified, to go from an argument she had developed and stuck with for three weeks, and having found out in ten minutes that her argument was absolutely worthless, was exposed to be false and meaningless and useless, she therefore switched. It showed absolute ingenuity to a `T' - she switched to say we shouldn't privatize because somebody in twenty or thirty or forty years might want to buy some bottled water and privatization is going to stop us from doing that.

I can't understand why we can't grab the water after it goes down over the dam and through the turbines and then bottle it. What's wrong with that? It doesn't matter if it is privatized or not. Why can't we just bottle it at the bottom instead of at the top of the dam? But there is some logic to it somewhere that you can't privatize because somebody might want to buy some water. Water might be very - water is valuable today. Visit California, visit Saudi Arabia. You will find out anybody will buy water. Whether Hydro operates or doesn't operate, whether it is private or public doesn't matter, people can bottle the water today, they can bottle it next week, they can bottle it next year and they can sell it for whatever it is worth. I would like to know after some of the other arguments about taxation and so on are shown to have no merit, then what will we be talking about next? We have to talk about something, and I hope it is going to be something a little more substantial than bottled water.

The other one is the notion about - the same member, the Member for Humber East, talks about the fact that we paid off so much of the debt of Hydro and we now own Bay d'Espoir. I'm absolutely positive that with that 82 per cent outstanding debt, when somebody comes to collect, if they have to - which they won't, because we all know it can sustain its own debt, that they say: Well, we won't touch Bay d'Espoir - because they paid enough to own it. We will leave Bay d'Espoir alone. We won't touch it. We will say they own Bay d'Espoir. What a pile of foolishness! You never saw the like in your life - that we own Bay d'Espoir. We don't own any of it. We owe money on all of it.

The kinds of things that are brought forward by the hon. members in terms of trying to be legitimate Opposition - all I'm trying to say in this short debate in the Legislature is: Let's go like we had begun to do, back to the clause-by-clause. Hopefully, when it is pointed out like it was for the hon. Member for Humber East that this great premise that she had built up - the great theory about giving away the land, giving away the water rights - which was exposed in ten short minutes to be meaningless, that all of a sudden we won't jump off to, like, bottled water. Or some other kind of red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

Just before I conclude, let me say that somewhere along the line, I would hope that the Member for Humber East in particular would take the time - and I'm sure she will find a way for it to be relevant, Mr. Chairman, to one of the clauses - take the time to spell out for me again, and for this Legislature, exactly how it is that Premier Clyde Wells talked these thirty-five people into turning down a $14 billion construction job on Churchill Falls to do away with $4 billion to the Treasury that all of us could have used; to do away with 24,000 person years of work which we all want, so that he could give in this privatization deal somehow - I would like for her to explain it because I missed something somewhere - the part where he could through this deal give Hydro to a buddy of Jean Chrétien's so that Jean Chrétien can appoint Premier Wells to the Supreme Court.

Now, I missed it somewhere; I know you've said it three or four times somewhere else and I'd like if you would - I know you can make it relevant so I'd like for you - if I've miss interpreted some part of that - I'd love to hear exactly how you got that figured out because I don't have it figured out yet and I don't think anybody in Newfoundland has it figured out but I'd like to hear that because I'm sure that bears just as much reality and credibility as the notion about the land, the water rights and the giveaway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate again and look forward to hearing the other speakers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations must be the designated hitter for tonight in this debate. We haven't heard from the Minister of Finance. He hasn't been telling us all the intricacies of the financial arrangements here. All we've heard from is the designated hitter, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and the Minister of Education showing his ignorance about culture and the arts community and everything else.

We've just heard from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations the classic straw man argument, in this case the straw woman argument. What you do is you construct -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, it has already been ruled that the debate in this stage of the debate on the bill will be relevant. I ask you to call the Member for St. John's East to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order. All hon. members know that we are in the Committee stage and that our remarks should be confined to the title and the clauses contained in the bill. I ask hon. members to do that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The title of this bill is the Hydro Privatization Act. When debating this clause of the bill hon. members are expected to make arguments that are related to the act itself, and not to the kinds of arguments we have heard the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations make in terms of the so-called - what I call the straw man argument, in this case, the straw woman.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What you are doing is you are arguing about - the straw person. The politically correct Minister of Justice - recently politically correct Minister of Justice, I might add -

MR. ROBERTS: I've had a lot of help on it.

MR. HARRIS: He has had a lot of help. He has needed a lot of help, I say.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) my wife.

MR. HARRIS: I'm sure some of it has come from his wife.

The straw person argument, such as the argument used by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - you build up this person made of straw and then you start bashing it around and knocking straw all over the floor just to prove how ridiculous the argument is that you've just made up for the other person. That is what we heard from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

You wouldn't know but this, instead of being the Hydro Privatization Act, was `an act to sell bottled water out of Labrador' act, the way the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is talking. He just takes an argument that someone else made or a phrase that someone else made, constructs it into a big huge straw person, and then starts knocking straw all over the place to show how clever he is and how nobody over on this side of the House knows anything. It is like the kinds of arguments the Premier was making up until recently. People who had an opinion on this legislation other than his own, didn't know what they were talking about, including people who had been in a position to know more about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro than the Premier had for many years.

Mr. Chairman, the Hydro Privatization Act is legislation that before this House finishes this session is, I suspect, going to be rammed through by hon. members opposite. We've only heard a few speakers today from the opposite side. I don't know what happened in the caucus meeting yesterday. Maybe the back benches were told to stay quiet and let the ministers look after this, let the ministers look after the debate. We've heard from the Minister of Education, we've heard from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, we've heard from the Minister of Justice. We haven't heard from the Member for LaPoile today. He has been told to be quiet. We haven't heard from anybody from the back bench, haven't heard from the Member for Trinity North. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage hasn't said a word. I know his constituents are after him.

MR. WOODFORD: The heat is on now.

MR. HARRIS: The heat is on now because people know, Mr. Chairman, that there are individuals on the other side with the courage to get up and speak out. Things are so bad, or maybe the members are so anxious about the vacant Cabinet position that even the Member for Eagle River, who is usually fairly outspoken on these matters, hasn't been heard - not a peep from the Member for Eagle River on this issue today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The member - he must have been the one phoning in this morning complaining to the Minister of Mines and Energy about this bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if anybody phoned in to the Open Line Show this morning to support the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, not even members of the caucus phoned in to support him. So I'd like to know where the support for this legislation comes from to allow the government to get up here in the House and try to put this bill through against the wishes of the people of this Province, who have been very outspoken. There have been no petitions presented in this House supporting Hydro. There is no long list of supporters. There have been hardly any public figures that I've heard of come out in support of this. I think the St. John's Board of Trade is the only claim they can have to public support for this legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, why are we here debating the Hydro Privatization Act, clause 1 of the act, to cite it as the Hydro Privatization Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: My friend, the Member for Menihek had a very lively meeting last night. There were New Democrats there, there were Liberals there, there were even a few PCs there. There were altogether, some 261 -I think CBC has underestimated them. There were over 200 people there and what the CBC has been calling - what is becoming a familiar site throughout the Province, Mr. Chairman, is people gathering together to oppose this government's legislation. Now, the act is said to be called the Hydro Privatization Act. I can suggest other names for it, Mr. Chairman, the Hydro -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I can suggest other names for it, Mr. Chairman, the Hydro Giveaway Act, the Hydro Sell-Out Act, the Give Away of Our Heritage Act. There are a lot of other names that this act can be called but the Hydro Privatization Act is the worst name because it hides the truth, Mr. Chairman. It hides the truth because the truth is that this is an act to turn over this public resource to people outside this Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, one thing that needs to be put on the record is that the government doesn't even know who is going to end up owning this corporation. Now, the Premier likes to say it's going to be a Newfoundland corporation. Well, that means there's going to be a document down in the basement of this building registering it and they're going to have a registered office in Newfoundland. But the ownership of this corporation - it's going to be owned, widely held, mostly by people outside the Province.

There probably isn't one single person in this House, in the Cabinet, who can tell the House what percentage of the shares of Newfoundland Light and Power are held by Newfoundlanders. I don't think there is. I will venture a guess of 1 per cent or 2 per cent. If you look at the numbers of how many shareholders there will be, 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the shareholders may be Newfoundlanders but how many shares? How many shares? Is it 1 per cent, 2 per cent maybe? That's a good measure as to how many or what percentage of those shares are going to be held by Newfoundlanders afterwards. Because when you're dealing with private corporations, Mr. Chairman, they're not a democracy. It's not one person one vote, it's one share one vote. So if you have 10,000 shares you have 10,000 votes.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, I know the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture doesn't know much about - much about anything really. I know he doesn't know much about anything but let me tell him that when it comes to shares of private corporations, it's not one person one vote, it's one share one vote. That's what I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. If the minister doesn't know that then he's advocating his responsibility to the people of this Province. Now, when you look at the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, every person who buys a share gets one vote for each share they buy. So if somebody has the money and some corporation has the money, whether it's Power corporation, Paul Desmarais, Montreal Engineering, Fortis or whoever, are going to be buying these big chunks of shares perhaps financed by the Rothchilds or whoever else is involved -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Right now the people of this Province have all the votes, every single vote, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Social Services. The people of Newfoundland have every single vote and the government of this Province -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to Bill 1 and going through the various clauses -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Open Line.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, I have been on Open Line, I say to the hon. member opposite. Actually, prior to the last election I was advocating the sale of Newfoundland Hydro as well and did say so on an Open Line interview at that time with Mr. LeDrew on the West Coast.

MS. VERGE: That is more than the Premier did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. RAMSAY: Anyway, to the hon. member, we talk about it being a giveaway, which is really again an argument put forward by a group who are set to defeat the government. That is their purpose. Their purpose is to oppose. Their purpose is not necessarily to be responsible with the arguments they put forward. All they have to do is conjure in the minds of the people who have difficulty with the emotional bent the argument that we are doing something wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: They have done a very good job, I give the hon. members of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I didn't say that. The hon. members also - when you strike a problem with them, when it really gets hot, they try to prevent you from having your say, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is no different from before, with their putting forward petitions.

Let's look at a few points in the bill. They speak of the proceeds of the sale of Hydro being a problem, that once we take the money that would be there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. RAMSAY: The hon. members opposite really don't want to hear what we have to say. They say when we aren't standing up to speak that the hon. members of the government caucus are not speaking. Then, when we do stand up to speak, they try to interrupt and prevent us from speaking. Really, one only has to conclude that they are certainly not in want of the truth.

Anyway, back to what I was saying. The current situation is such that Hydro, as a Crown corporation, is financed by bondholders throughout the world. People hold these bonds. In general, they are closely held by the major banks from Japan, some of them consortia of different companies holding bonds. This is the method of financing that has been used.

Now, using bond financing, I suppose we could float a bond issue with respect to Hydro, take the money from the bond issue and try to do it that way, but it would be creating more debt and not necessarily creating a private interest in the Province and in the country. It will be one of the largest utilities available for investment in the country that people can invest and participate in the sound management and the sound operational procedures and principles that Hydro was built on that you speak of so highly. If in fact it is as good a company as we are all led to believe it is, then it will be very wise for us to proceed with and issue shares in it.

The other thing I wanted to get into is the argument that possibly we should hold on to it, continue to borrow the way that we've been borrowing in the past, add another whatever the amount would be this year to our debt load, and continue to go on this course without taking the opportunity of divesting ourselves of the equity that we have in Hydro and realizing the cash gain to the provincial Treasury for doing so. If your argument on that were entirely correct then it would also be correct, I would think, for us to entertain nationalizing, as the term is used, or provincializing, as it might be more correctly stated here this evening, Fortis and Newfoundland Power and possibly even take a portion of the Newfoundland Telephone utility.

Maybe we should even go so far as to provincialize the Iron Ore Company of Canada, as well. Because maybe the people of IOC whose jobs and futures depend on that resource would be better served by a provincial government moving in, taking over the debt load of that company, taking over that as a resource that the people are dependent on. That is to take your argument to the furthest extension.

That is the kind of situation - and again they will try to prevent the hon. members on this side of the House from bringing it forward and we should - well privatization - we talked about earlier privatization of some of the efforts of the Opposition.

If we were to privatize the Opposition this would be the first time that they would really have either bit of a gain in the last number of years. They've certainly done well and they deserve full credit for stirring up the general public, as was often referred to, `the toiling masses.' They certainly have people stirred up over this and people are concerned. We will do our best to get the message out to them. Every constituent that I've spoken to, who's asked me about this in conversations, that I've called up to asked about it, once I had explained it - and I even offer the opinions of the Opposition. Now, granted, I don't offer them as forcefully as the Opposition do but I say, `Well, the Opposition are saying this and we say that.' Now, I offer them both sides and usually they'll side with me. Really, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is the kind of thing we have to do more often.

I would certainly support the Opposition entertaining the bringing forward of both sides of the equation and if you do so, more often the negative will prevail. The negative of any argument will usually be heard by twelve people to the positive being heard and repeated by one. The ratio in general is twelve people. They say this in service industries, if a customer is dissatisfied or a person is dissatisfied about something, twelve people will hear the complaint but only one person will hear the praise for doing the right thing. So really you have a 1200 per cent advantage going into this in trying to get people to take the negative view.

Now, the other thing that I did want to mention has to do with the argument about the privatization of Hydro and whether we will waste the money. If the money that comes forward from the privatization of Hydro and goes into the consolidated revenue fund is going to be used by the government for the purposes of preventing us from having to borrow this year, then you've maintained that that will all be a waste. Well let's look at it: the general revenues of the Province this year, from what we've heard from the Minister of Finance, we are shooting for a $25 million current account deficit this year. So the balance of the expenditure for the Province will be expenditure on capital works here in this Province. So therefore the fact that we are taking the contribution from the shareholders of New Hydro and putting it into new capital assets in the Province is in fact something that will add value to the Province's efforts for this year. It is not something with which we will take money and basically blow it or spend it on operational activities of the government. Namely, the $25 million that we see that we will probably be short this year, hopefully, that's on the worst case scenario. If the economy picks up, and I do think it will - I have reason to be optimistic about my own electoral district.

I think that the economy and the private sector of this country and this Province is turning things around and there's a strong possibility that our economy will improve. And if we are banking on the worst case scenario maybe that $25 million won't even be required. Furthermore, if we then take the fact that we will take this money that is coming from this transaction and use it for good capital asset, capital works and construction throughout the Province, then we will be investing in the Province. We will be increasing the infrastructure of our Province and we will be making a much better case for offsetting all of the arguments of the Opposition, arguments which say that we will lose the money, we will have nothing. They say that we're not going to get enough for it. They maintain that the way we're going about it, we're not providing the information. A lot of the information we can't provide, Mr. Chairman, and it's sad that the people are often cajoled and they try to make the people of the Province think that we, as members of government, are here to do a wrong, to do something wrong for the people of the Province. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, and I certainly feel that we should set the record straight, that a lot of the arguments against the Opposition's contentions may in fact be financial arguments which we are - because of the information for the Ontario Securities Commission and the way that stock issues are floated on the stock exchange, offerings being made through perspectives currently being prepared, we would possibly be in breach of Ontario securities law -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: - and, in general, our own securities law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, Mr. Chairman, Bill 1, the title of which is the Hydro Privatization Act. The people in my district came out last night in hundreds. Mr. Chairman, the people are really concerned. The Open Line programs are showing the new provincial ombudsmen now appointed to the airwaves, these ombudsmen who are replacing the previous Ombudsman. Remember the Premier's famous speech asking, `So why do we need an Ombudsman? We have an Open Line host - people can phone these people.' Well, now, Mr. Chairman, the people are contacting their ombudsmen by the hundreds and if you don't believe me ask the Minister of Mines and Energy. Ask the minister about how the ombudsmen are acting. They're receiving hundreds of calls about the privatization, the sell-out of this resource, Mr. Chairman, the people's resource.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-seven calls this morning, in two hours.

MR. A. SNOW: Twenty-seven calls and I suppose twenty-four of them - there were three EAs and one secretary phoned in in favour. Now, Mr. Chairman, all the rest of them, all the other calls were honest, articulate people who were phoning to express their opinions in a down-to-earth fashion of why they are against the sell-out of Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Chairman - thank you, Mr. Government House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, the people in this Province are upset. It's no different in my district from how it is in your district if we're going to be honest about it, and let's be honest about it. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Energy will attest to that. The hon. the Member for Eagle River did an Open Line program the other day on the West Coast and in Labrador and 100 per cent of the calls, Mr. Chairman - I didn't listen to all of it but I did -

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you how I knew. I listened to the Open Line program this morning while I was awaiting the aircraft to come out and bring me back here to speak in the House of Assembly - The host was wrapping up the program today and the one yesterday - and he, Mr. Chairman, the West Coast and Labrador ombudsman, said that 100 per cent of the calls received yesterday and answered by our colleague, the Member for Eagle River were against the privatization of Hydro.

MR. WOODFORD: Now!

MR. A. SNOW: He even went on to say, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for Eagle River asked him after the show, `Did you realize, Dave, that I've read this book about the privatization of all the industries and everything in Britain, our mother country.'

`And, do you know what happened?' asked the host, the ombudsman? `Do you know what the hon. member said?' He said, `After three years the electorate forgot it.' They forgot all about the privatization, Mr. Chairman. Now, the point of the story is, the backbenchers are hoping what they are taking the heat over now, that when an election is called, their electorate is going to forget it the same way the people in Britain did, supposedly. Now, Mr. Chairman, the required reading to remain in Cabinet was the privatization of Britain. They have now passed it on to the back benches and that's the required reading. They undoubtedly didn't read this act and they didn't read any papers that were submitted to them because all they can say is that the people against it are rumourmongers, they are not telling the truth, they are making misstatements - that the people against it, Mr. Chairman, are all dishonest.

The truth of it is that I'm sure now when this bill came to the Cabinet there was no more discussion about that than there was about most other things. Because we know who did it. It was done in a similar fashion as was done back in the 1960s when you had the two heavyweights in there then doing the same thing. The linkage tonight was on television, on CBC provincial news, on Here & Now. They linked it, and linked it very well. The people of this Province - and I will tell all the people in the back benches now because the front benches are heavy with pensions - I will tell you fellows in the back benches -

AN HON. MEMBER: Some more than one.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, several of them have more than one, Mr. Chairman. All you fellows in the back benches, I can tell you now that the electorate of this Province will not forget what you are doing with Newfoundland Hydro. Don't you believe that silly little book that they are passing around, don't you believe it. They won't forget it.

MR. SULLIVAN: They didn't forget Upper Churchill, did they?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for Ferryland reminds me to mention why they won't forget. It is because they are embarrassed by what your party did to them with the Upper Churchill, that's why. They are embarrassed, they are ashamed, that you gave away a mechanism, a lever that provides $700 million worth of economic rent to the Province of Quebec -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, it has already been established in this debate - the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay made a point of order which was ruled in order - that we would be relevant in this debate. I insist that the hon. member be relevant. I have no interest in sitting here wasting my time listening to debate which is totally irrelevant to this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are, as I have ruled before, in Committee and we should be looking at the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I remind the hon. the Member for Menihek to stick to the debate.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure, in speaking to the name of this bill, to the title of this bill, the Hydro Privatization Act, I can see this now. Because we all know that the hon. the Minister of Education had the opportunity to discuss this when it came to the Cabinet. Now, I didn't.

The first title of the bill was `the second sale,' the second giveaway. That is what the original title was when it came into Cabinet. It was `BRINCO - Act II.' If there is going to be a play next year that is what they will probably call it.

MS. VERGE: How about `Clydro'?

MR. A. SNOW: `Clydro' for sale, or was it for rent? I'm not sure. Mr. Chairman, the privatization act - I'm sure that they had a very heated discussion that it wouldn't be proper to call it `sell-out number two.'

I can imagine the discussion going on in Cabinet saying: No sure, if we call it Hydro sell-out number two they are going to know what is going on, they are going to catch on, I'm telling you. They are going to know that I had something to do - I can see now the Government House Leader saying: Sure, they are going to figure out that I had something to do with this. The Premier is going to say: Sure, if you put it there they will know for sure that this is the second sell-out that I'm involved in. That is what they will say, that is what they are going to say. So we have to change the title. We are going to have to make a different title.

That is why we have to tell the people in this Province that the name of this act is very important. Because of the heated discussions that took place in Cabinet - and I can understand why the Minister of Education was upset that I would be wandering a little bit. He knew the importance of the title of the bill because he heard all this going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of leaks coming out of Cabinet now, you know. You know it and I know it. Because things are slipping in the polls and you want to make bigger pensions and all those things are happening, so there are leaks. You know there are leaks. There are leaks in Hydro. If there were as many leaks coming out of the hydro development in Upper Churchill as are coming out of Cabinet and coming out of the office buildings around town there wouldn't be a kilowatt of electricity coming out of the Upper Churchill. It would be all dried up, Mr. Chairman. That is how many leaks are coming out of this government now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, the Member for Menihek has been talking about giveaways. I have been listening to this now for some time and was minded to do a little research, something that perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite should indulge in once in a while. I want to hark back to another debate that was held in this House in May 1905, a mere eighty-nine years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate the confidence that hon. members opposite have shown in me and I have no doubt that I shall be here as long again, given the way they are carrying on.

Now, in 1905 - I didn't bother bringing down the Speech from the Throne and for some reason there is no Hansard for that year. There was a Hansard up to 1891 and then there wasn't one until 1909, an eighteen-year gap, so I can't go to the Hansard. But in 1905 the major bill to come before the House was called "An Act To Encourage The Manufacture Of Pulp And Paper In This Colony."

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not relevant, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, this is as relevant as any other giveaway. We have heard all about giveaways, now it's tit for tat, and if they give tit they get tat back. We are going to talk about giveaway and Tory attitudes.

Now, 1904 was one of those glorious periods in Newfoundland and Labrador history when the Liberals formed the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the hon. the Government House Leader that he should stick to the relevancy of the bill.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I thank you, and of course I am sticking to the relevancy of the bill. I am talking about giveaways. When Sir Robert Bond, the Premier of the day, brought before the House of Assembly the bill that in due course -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend got it right. My friend the parrot, the Member for Grand Bank has it right. If he sticks with me he will be okay, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the hon. the Government House Leader that we have been talking about parliamentary language, and I remind him -

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend, the Member for Grand Bank for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter with Your Honour, Mr. Chairman.

Now, as I was saying before my friend interrupted me, when Sir Robert Bond brought this bill into the House to set up what became the Grand Falls mill and what became the engine of prosperity for the central part of our Province from then until now, and for many years to come, the cry that went up from the Tory Opposition was, this is a giveaway. Talk about fantastic paranoia or paranoid fantasies as hon. members opposite have shown today, a giveaway to preserve a hunting and fishing reserve for Lord Northcliffe and his friends, English lords.

Now, today we hear the name Rothschild brought in, as if a man like Sir Edmund deRothschild who has never done anything for this Province except help it, deserves to be blackguarded, a man now well up in his 70s. I have here the journal, Your Honour, of the Committee debate right where we are today on this bill. We had amendment after amendment moved by the Tories - A. B. Morine, that great figure from Bonavista, moved amendment after amendment.

Let's talk about this one. Mr. Morine then moved an amendment, seconded by Mr. McKay - I think he was the Member for St. George's if memory serves me - `the right of the Crown to grant to the holder now or hereafter of any property the use of the water power on the Exploits River necessary to, or convenient in the utilization of such property shall not be affected by anything herein' - being this bill - or the schedule hereto, except in relation to such water power as the lessee may within four years of the date hereof select for the use of a pulp mill about to be erected' - which passed in the negative and was ordered accordingly, so it was defeated by the House.

Mr. Chairman, what they did in 1905 was put it through the House, a bill that enabled the government of the day to do a deal with the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company Limited thereby providing a basis for the prosperity that Central Newfoundland has known in the ninety years, the nine decades, since then. Now, there was talk of giveaway then. The Opposition hung her down. The House in those halcyon days, Mr. Chairman, met at four o'clock in the afternoon - talk about gentlemen's hours - and we had a bunch of petitions; whale fishery, telegraph, fishery laws, whale fishery, whale fishery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Am I straying Your Honour?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is not being relevant to the bill and I -

MR. ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour. Let me carry on, Mr. Chairman. Now that we've exposed - I mean, the Tories are like the Bourbons, they learn nothing and they forget nothing. Ninety years ago they opposed it and if they'd had their way there would have been no Grand Falls. I could come forward, twenty years from then there'd be no Humber. The Tory -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to be relevant.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I thank you. I am being relevant to this bill but let me carry on now. Let me talk - somebody give me another clause to which they've objected and we'll try to get back to a clause-by-clause study, because I confess, what happened in 1904, while it's interesting, may not be terribly relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the minister answer a question for me?

MR. ROBERTS: I will gladly try, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Menihek on a question.

MR. A. SNOW: With the indulgence of the Chairman and the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - and the member, Mr. Chairman. The question is related to what the hon. member read to the House of Assembly concerning notes of meetings back in 1905, I believe it was?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: In 1904 or 1905, and he talks about how the people in the Opposition of that particular day, in the debate, Mr. Chairman - the people were concerned about the giveaway of hydro resources to the A and D Company, I think that's what he was mentioning.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I would like to have the floor. The hon. Government House Leader -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek has asked to be heard in silence and he deserves to be heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, in indeed they were given the rights to hydro development in conjunction with the pulp resources in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: And minerals.

MR. A. SNOW: - including the minerals, Mr. Chairman, and they've gone ahead and made major developments in industry and for people in this Province but, Mr. Chairman, today, ninety years later, we see that this government is saying that we should privatize the electrical industry because we're going to give major benefits to that industry. Now, would the minister explain to me what the economic gain is going to be to those two major industries or that particular major industry who were given the hydro rights then - and how is it going to benefit it now, ninety years later, Mr. Chairman? After ninety years of operating with that hydro, how are they going to benefit today with this new bill?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on. This is now an extract from The New Newfoundland by that well-known Newfoundlander, the Hon. Joseph R. Smallwood, a member of the Queen's Privy Council.

MR. A. SNOW: Would you answer my question?

MR. ROBERTS: I'll deal with the hon. gentleman's question in due course.

Mr. Morine, speaking out in the debate in the House of Assembly on April 28, 1905, could scarcely find sufficient breath with which to mention his objections to the deal. The whole scheme, in his opinion, was silly, unsound and unwise. These are words - you know, the same tired old line.

Now, if I remember correctly, my hon. friend's question was; what has the Hydro privatization got to do with either the Abitibi-Price Mill, as it now is, at Grand Falls, or the Kruger Mill in Corner Brook? I say that's a good question. I ask him, what has it got to do with it? They will still continue to buy their power - other then the power they produce - to buy their power from a utility at a regulated rate. It's that simple. There's no mystery to it. There's no need for a paranoid fantasy.

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible) in this brochure, you say it's going to be a major benefit to those particular industries.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes!

MR. A. SNOW: Would you (inaudible) for us within the next day or so?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course. The Premier dealt with that quite clearly at second reading. I'd be happy to refer the hon. gentleman - I'll look it up in the Hansard and send it over or send the reference over, which I may say is more than the Leader of the Opposition did today. He got up today and made an accusation - the Premier had made some remarks at second reading about shares and I sent a note over saying, `Len' -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member, you are supposed to refer to hon. members by their districts.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls: `Dear hon. Leader of the Opposition, Member for Grand Falls: Would you be good enough, please, to give me the reference in Hansard, in the Premier's speech, introducing this bill in second reading?' Nearly two weeks ago now, a bill that we've never debated has been in this House for nearly two weeks, we're still in the Cabinet, still in the caucus, still in the - wherever we are, the Committee, we haven't got very far.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It's all the same. There's more opposition - not only is there more opposition in the Cabinet, Mr. Chairman, than there is in this House but there's more intelligent opposition, too, I'll tell you, far more informed and far more effective. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, our caucus has far more intelligent and effective opposition then the hon. gentlemen and woman opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Chairman, the people of the Province have a great deal of intelligence and have shown it time and time again, most recently on the third day of May, 1993. The people of the Province had the intelligence to elect those whom they wished to govern this Province. They sent here fifty-two men and women - forty-nine men and three women, two of them, by choice, ladies - sent them here to govern this Province. Now, that's one of the things we're doing by means of this bill.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I say again, I wish hon. members opposite would raise a point about a question. The hon. the Member for Humber East raised a point about section 4 and I did my best to answer it. We haven't heard from her since; maybe we'll hear from her again. I don't mind as long as -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: So soon, so soon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Party Whip and the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the Government House Leader has a monopoly on intelligence. If it's the type of intelligence he and the Premier used back in the 1960s when they sold the Churchill, thank God it's not contagious, that type of intelligence!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will not condemn the Liberals because they sold us down the river figuratively and literally back then, we're condemning them because you and the Premier were a part of that team that sold us down the river, not the Liberal Government. I don't care who sold us down the river. You were there then and you're here now and you're trying to repeat the mistake. And you're trying to give the people of this Province an improper figure for the value of the resource that we have in this Province. Now, the value of the resources under Hydro are grossly underestimated. In fact, I'll just refer back to a few developments which occurred in this Province and I'll take them back in chronological order to look at the cost of producing and generating electricity.

Hinds Lake, in 1980, was built at a cost of $79 million to produce 75 megawatts, slightly over $1 million per megawatt. As we move into the next development that - I don't know, there could be others in between, maybe - I can't speak for all of them. Just prior to that, we look back to Bay d'Espoir - I think it was probably around 1968 or 1972 that it officially came on stream, and it cost $170 million to produce 604 megawatts. If you look at the cost there, that's only about 27 or 28 per cent of the cost we'll save off $1 million - about $270,000 - $280,000 per megawatt to produce it prior to that. Now, if we follow it up to this point in time, back in 1984, the Upper Salmon, 84 megawatts is $169 million - $2 million per megawatt to produce. We have in 1989 Paradise River - more recent - 8 megawatts for $21.4 million, up around $2.6 million per megawatt, getting closer to $3 million. If we compare costs way back to the Upper Churchill, 5,225 megawatts at a total cost of $950 million, it is only a fraction, about 17 or 18 per cent of that value, which is only about $170,000 per megawatt.

Now, if you do a comparison today of say, Upper Churchill. Today at the current cost of generating electricity per megawatt - the point I am making reference to here is that the low end of the scale is $2 million per megawatt now. In fact, back in 1989, it cost $2.6, and in 1985 at Cat Arm it cost over $2 million per megawatt, 127 megawatts for $263 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to make a point here?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am going to make a point. I prefaced the point by saying that we are grossly underestimating the value of the assets we have in Hydro today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It has a fine lot when you are selling it for a price far below value. I am trying to put a value on the assets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will set the conditions now on what I'm going to talk about and if you want to respond, you may, in due course.

The Upper Churchill, for example, to put that asset there today would cost $10.5 billion at the low end of the scale and $15.6 billion at the upper end of the scale. The $170 million debt was retired on Bay d'Espoir and it is now listed for sale as a $150 million asset. It cost $170 million back in 1970 and to replace it now at 604 megawatts, at $3 million a megawatt, the upper end, and the lower end $2 million, it is going to cost anywhere from $1.25 billion to $1.8 billion now for that asset in Bay d'Espoir, the debt is retired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The debt on the Bay d'Espoir portion is retired.

Somebody stood up in the House and you, the minister, stated, the debt is retired. Are they (inaudible) say we are not going to touch Bay d'Espoir. Let me tell you, if you have a loan on a certain vehicle, or a loan on various equipment, as long as that is a viable company and its assets are liquid assets - and who can say Hydro water is not a liquid asset? I challenge that literally and figuratively. And they will not - unless the total structure collapses completely, then it is gone and we have retired the debt, let's face it. If you have twenty pieces of property and you retire the debt on five of them, that is progress, that is something you are building ownership of. And there is a target date on which we will own, lock, stock, and barrel, the other 83 per cent that is financed in Hydro at some point in the future and it is not costing the taxpayers in this Province to retire that asset.

AN HON. MEMBER: When will we own it?

MR. SULLIVAN: At the rate you are going we will never own it. We will not own it at all - they are going to sell it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Hon. member, number one, it is not proper to speak when you are not in your seat, it is not proper to interrupt a member when he is speaking. I will just refer to what the Minister of Finance said here in this House. He was asked by the Leader of the Opposition on March 7 in Question Period - now here is what he was asked and here is what he said, pertaining to this Hydro Privatization Act. He was asked by the Leader of the Opposition was he was not aware in the legislation that undeveloped water rights are not excluded from the legislation and in fact the act gives the Minister of Finance the power to give away all, or any, of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador, at the stroke of a pen, any time in the future without ever coming back to this House of Assembly? Do you know what the Minister of Finance said to that? In spite of what the Government House Leader said, the Minister of Finance said, `Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that.'

Now, the Minister of Finance confirmed on March 7 in Hansard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will give you this afterwards when I am finished. I know you're a slow learner and don't catch on quickly. Tthe Government House Leader was talking about all this intelligence in Cabinet, there's a monopoly on - I'm unfortunate that I just don't have the time to go back over it again. I will later on tonight if you want to stick around. If you want to sit beyond 10:00 p.m.

Now, I'd like to point out a few things about that. Some members don't realize that as long as we're moving to our debt retirement -if you want to pay if off in 180 years or 100 years you would accelerate the payments you're making there and put it on the rates of the people of this Province. This government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. No, this government have taken a stand - here's what they're doing. They have taken the stand that they are going to privatize now and transfer the debt of this Province that's being paid off at a moderate rate without incurring high electricity rates - they are now going to transfer it into the private sector, let them retire the debt and tack it on to the rates and drive electricity rates through the roof. I'm saying that's serving a public interest, it's either taxes to this Province or it's raise electricity here. However you cut it, it's the same dollars that are retiring this debt. The only difference between doing it now and doing it under private enterprise is that the Public Utilities Board will permit private enterprise to reap extra profits to go into the pockets of investors who deserve a right to get a reasonable return on their investment. These are the dollars that are going out of this Province and not being put back in, to either ease the tax burden or to reduce the rate that people are paying for electricity in the Province. That's the whole crux of the matter here, the cost of financing the debt. Whether you want to make it short-term or long-term all depends on how much you're willing to pay up that burden, how much the ratepayers want to pay and what this Province is going to put on the shoulders of ratepayers or taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, the last time I saw such antics portrayed by a crowd of people, let alone a bunch of politicians - the last time I saw anything similar to it was when I was watching a program one night on The Nature of Things where they talked about the lifestyle of the lemming. The lemming, in a mindless, thoughtless move, just goes headlong towards the edge of the cliff and down over. I've never seen it personified as I've seen it personified in the last couple of weeks by members opposite. They have fervently adopted this cause. They are going towards the sea and lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, they will do the honourable thing, of course, and go over the cliff, I will submit to the people of this Province, on this issue, there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if hon. members do much research, as the Member for Naskaupi just outlined, but I would like to read a couple of comments from days gone by. Mr. Chairman, here's an excerpt of a document that says, `Public sentiment is loudly crying out against the consummation of the iniquitous measure now before the Legislature, by which it is intended to place an alien, monopolist syndicate, in full and unfettered possession of an enormous tract of land in the interior.' The great headlines of the day carried the call, `Newfoundlanders arise and free men throughout the land, and wage war against a transaction to which the government has become privy that must forever be an intolerable burden upon those who are now living, as well as the generations that are to come.'

Tonight on TV, on Here And Now, I heard the songs being sung: `stand up and guard thee' and saw the flags waving, and, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't believe this kind of thing was happening in our Province. Going back in the history of the day, except for what happened then, we wouldn't have the new schools, the water and sewer services, the arts and culture centres, the 3,000 or 4,000 people now working out in Grand Falls - Windsor; we wouldn't have the thousands of people with good, meaningful, solid jobs in the Humber Valley, Mr. Chairman, where there's a great forest industry now.

I have to turn to the Member for Menihek who gave me honourable mention today as to my quoting a book that dealt with the privatization efforts in Britain, Mr. Chairman. He was right in that I did quote from that book called Blueprint for a Revolution -that is the name of the book, if the hon. member would like to borrow it - by Dr. Madison Pyrie. He was one of the chief architects in the privatization efforts that obviously led to five consecutive majority governments for that particular party over in England, to the cries of the Socialists and to the demise of the Labour Party, and as we are seeing here today, the demise of the Socialists in this Province, and the Tory Party that now can hold onto but four hands in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, the Tory Party is obviously going the way of the Great Auk and the other species that went over the cliff with the lemmings. There is no doubt about where they are going. They have now set themselves up for the great walk, there is no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman. They have found a few people in the street who were leading a parade. There is no doubt that what they are doing is absolutely wrong and it is ignoring a very, very significant reality in this Province today.

This Hydro privatization measure is required. It is being demanded of us by the people of this Province who want to have the government exercise its responsibilities when it looks at securing the social welfare program we have in this Province. We want to keep our chronic care facilities in Forteau, in Port Saunders, and in other places in this Province. We want to keep our small schools where they are being productive. We want to keep our social services programs that are helping those who, through no fault of their own, are in need.

People want to keep these services but obviously they have been taxed to the limit. They have had their government forced to borrow to the maximum. The government of the day has now borrowed to the point where thirty-seven cents of every dollar that the Province generates has to go to paying interest on the debt. We know that it is incumbent upon us to act responsibly, to look at the assets we have and to ask, is there a public policy need for these assets to be run by the government at this point in time? I submit, as all hon. members know, that there is no place in this Province today that does not have a good electrical service being provided them, right down to Pinsent Arm, Labrador, the smallest community on the Labrador Coast, that now has full electrical services.

There is absolutely no doubt that the people of this Province have agreed that government does not need to be in the production or distribution of electricity any more than we need to be in the production and distribution of chicken, or in the raising of pigs over on the West Coast. We dealt with that. We got out of it. It was the right thing to do and we are going to be getting out of Newfoundland Hardwoods. There are many hardware stores around. There are many, many areas where government is involved that we now have to get out of.

People want us to get out of those, because on their list of priorities, they are saying to me - the people in my riding today are saying to me: `We want to keep our hospital going, we want to keep our education system going, we want to keep the services that we hold so dear, and if it means selling Newfoundland Hydro they agree with us. In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt about that, the people out there, the silent majority, are loud and clear, they are behind the government on this initiative.

And, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely telling - one of the things that has, I must say, struck me when I hear some members of the Opposition say that we've been misleading the House and things of that nature - they've made accusations at us that we can't be living in this Province. I got up a couple of days ago and said that to that point in time I hadn't received one telephone call, I hadn't had one call for a public meeting and I hadn't received one letter. Now, I was being absolutely honest on that score and it's not fair for hon. members opposite - I wouldn't think of getting up and telling an hon. member - if he said he had ten calls I wouldn't get up and say that he was intentionally telling people an untruth. I wouldn't do that and I don't think it's fair to us over here. I can now tell the House that I have had two letters and two telephone calls to this point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, they're picking up, but all four of them, Mr. Chairman, were wanting to raise concerns. They wanted to ask a particular question. They wanted to know how it would impact on them. I answered them to the best of my ability and I believe they have been satisfied that we're doing what we feel is in the best interest of this Province. And I think that's an important distinction to make. We're doing what we feel - and we will have to account for that. We have been elected to use our judgement. We have not been elected solely to try to do public opinion polls to see what's good or bad in terms of public opinion and then let that carry the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's fine for (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, it's fine for (inaudible) to jump in front of and to lead the people of the day down the garden path. They don't want us to do that. They want us to go on the merits they elected us on and they want us to use our judgement so that we can bring critical and clear review on these major public policy issues. The people of this Province certainly want us to do what's right for them, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can't believe it, Mr. Chairman.

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

By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much. I could see the members opposite were enthralled by what I was saying and I appreciate their giving me an extra couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say to the people of Eagle River and particularly to the people in the Labrador Straits, we're working now and hopefully going to see the inter-connect go up the Northern Peninsula which will mean a very significant savings on the electrical subsidy provided under - the diesel subsidy being provided.

I'm hearing today that the Robinsons Lake Development is now six months ahead of schedule. They're looking at getting down to the Labrador border in early 1995, which hopefully then will mean that we will connect up from L'Anse-au-Clair to Red Bay on the normal grid that will be there then under the Quebec North Shore. So that means, Mr. Chairman, that up to 70 per cent of that subsidy will then be eliminated and obviously the people in the Labrador Straits will see a lower overall electrical cost. I would urge all people in Labrador and other parts of the Province, when the rural rate review of the Public Utilities Board comes up that they get out to that particular hearing and let the people know that they want to see this put into the overall system, so that the cost can be evenly distributed. The efforts we're making in privatization and the efforts we're making on the inter-connect between the Northern Peninsula and in the Labrador Straits, I believe will provide a much better situation and a lowering of costs. I submit to hon. members, we will see a lowering of electrical costs to the people on the coast of Labrador in the next number of years. Members opposite may believe what they want but I sincerely believe that and I hope that we will see those initiatives come into play.

Mr. Chairman, with that I'll certainly sit down and listen attentively to what the members opposite have to say on this very important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Well, It's the first time that I, as a member of the House, or as an individual, has ever been described as somebody running towards a cliff to plummet some thousand feet below into some unknown ocean. I can assure the Member for Eagle River that ten short months after the past provincial election, the government over there has become as arrogant as the past federal PC Government and the only place, I say to the member opposite, he may find himself in if he's not careful - the very description he used to describe this party - is at the bottom of the ocean he has described.

Now, let's have a look at the costs associated with privatization. I ask the Member for Eagle River, can he provide me with information sometime over the next week or so which can demonstrate clearly that the electrical rates will go down as a result of privatizing Hydro? If he can provide me with some information, hard facts and figures, to demonstrate that clearly, then I'd like to see it.

Let's look at the costs to ratepayers, exactly what it's going to be. The Privatization Act states that all costs associated with the organization and sale of New Hydro shall be included in New Hydro's rate base. Now, what are those costs? They shall be included in the rate base. Now, what are the costs, Mr. Chairman? In his media briefing, the Premier put some figures on those costs and I'll use those figures here now; debt premiums and costs related to the portion of Hydro's debt that will be paid off from the proceeds of the sale of New Hydro shares amounts to about $20 to $30 million, Mr. Chairman - one cost to the ratepayer; fees and commissions paid by New Hydro on the issue and sale of shares - an additional $15 to $20 million; foreign currency exchange losses on Old Hydro's debt, Mr. Chairman - an extra $90 to $100 million; part of the unfunded pension liabilities assumed by New Hydro, as a result of the transfer of employee pension benefits from the Public Service Pension Plan - an additional $25 to $30 million. Now, in addition to those four extra costs to ratepayers that will be included in the electricity rates after Old Hydro is sold, compensation to persons who are deprived of their interest in land as a result of the transfer of land to New Hydro under the privatization act - a maximum of $5 million.

Now, before I go on, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make this point; if all we're doing is a straight mortgage deal or sale here of a property, if all we're selling are the assets of Old Hydro to New Hydro, then why is there a need for an expropriation clause in the bill, let me ask you that? Can somebody over there answer that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the question to be answered?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, the fifth cost, compensation to persons - we're talking about the expropriation part.

MR. FUREY: Which clause are you on?

MR. E. BYRNE: I'm dealing with the privatization clause. The cost of purchasing, servicing and managing the investment securities New Hydro must acquire to defease the debt is an additional $10 to $15 million, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FUREY: Would the hon. gentleman identify which clause he's talking about with particular reference to expropriation - then perhaps we can get an answer for him.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I was dealing specifically with clause 1, the privatization. If the member could give me a moment, I was trying to demonstrate to member's opposite the cost to ratepayers, I talked about the expropriation clause in the bill. If the member has the piece of legislation, I believe it's clause 5 or 6, I'm not sure. But let me go on, Mr. Chairman: the cost of purchasing, servicing and managing the investment securities New Hydro must acquire to defease the debt is $10 to $15 million. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, all costs or expenses of any sort whatsoever relating directly or indirectly in any way, shape or form to the reorganization or distribution to the public the shares of New Hydro. Now, these privatization expenses charged out to the ratepayers, amount, Mr. Chairman, to approximately $165 million to $200 million, plus the cost that `whatever else' includes. We don't know what that will be, whether it will be one dollar, $1 million or $100 million. We're not sure what those costs will be. The Minister of Mines and Energy has not been able to detail those, for example. The $100,000 that was just spent, is that an extra cost that ratepayers will have to pay for?

In addition, the costs will be amortized. These costs, from what I understand from the Premier's own media briefing, will be amortized over a period of fifteen to forty years at New Hydro, which means that consumers, ratepayers, will have to pay interest and other expenses over that amortized period. Now, Mr. Chairman, the $200 million amortized over twenty-eight years, take the median period of 8 per cent, will cost ratepayers $16 to $18 million per year. This is what ratepayers will pay every year for the next forty years just to cover the cost associated with reorganizing Old Hydro and New Hydro, and the sale of Hydro through that public share offering, for forty years, an additional $16 to $18 million.

Now, in addition to those costs, Mr. Chairman, when New Hydro, as a private company, goes before the Public Utilities Board for an adjustment in electrical rates, it will be entitled to earn the same rate of profit that Newfoundland Power is entitled to earn. Over the last four to five years Hydro has been operating on a rate of profit between 6 per cent and 8 per cent. Newfoundland Power has been operating on an average annual profit, over the last five years, of 13 to 14 per cent. That additional 6 per cent to 8 per cent that the Public Utilities Board will grant New Hydro is going to cost approximately $300 million of equity purchased for New Hydro from Old Hydro. An extra 3 per cent to 4 per cent, which is the difference between the debt service cost and the rate of return on equity, on the $300 million that will be converted from debt to equity at the time of privatization, is approximately an additional $10 million a year. Another $5 million a year as more debt is converted to equity after privatization in order to achieve a 50/50 equity-debt ratio that New Hydro will need to maintain a sound credit rating in the financial markets of the world.

Then, finally, the rates paid by homeowners will go up by an additional $12 million, I say, Mr. Chairman, because the share of the rural deficit paid by industrial customers will be shifted to domestic customers. Now, what is the cost to consumers, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: No - that's fine, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I thought I would like to add a few remarks to this debate this evening. I probably have a unique experience among members present which leads me to the position I take in this particular debate, and leads me to a position in a debate that is going to ensue, I expect, in the coming days.

I won't dwell on this in case Mr. Chairman gets a little uneasy that I am not relevant. I just want to say I think it is probably twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago that I went to work in Churchill Falls. My family was the number five family, the fifth family to move. I was Vice-Principal of the school. I was there for five years and saw that entire development.

Just as a little aside, I remember listening to a radio program. I wondered what Churchill Falls was going to be like. I had heard a lot about it, that it was going to be a tremendous development and I didn't know at what stage the development was. I knew we were going to go in and there was going to be a new school there. I remember listening to the radio this day, this was the official opening of Churchill, the official beginning, and Mr. Smallwood was there saying something to this effect - it was a sod turning ceremony and he said: `As I get ready to turn this most different, this most unusual, this most unique sod ...' Well, that sort of grabbed my attention - very, different, unusual, unique sod. So when I got to Churchill that's the first thing I inquired about - mind you, it was two weeks after - I said, I remember Mr. Smallwood, the Premier was here and he was talking about this sod and the language he used was that he turned this very different, this most unusual, this most unique sod. I asked: `What made it such a sod to require that description?' The fellow said, `Look around, Tom; do you see any sods down here? It was flown in from Montreal.' That was my first experience with Churchill and I was there for five years.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I also taught for five years, the most successful, the most rewarding teaching experience in my entire career. I taught in a public school; it was a private school but I should say, a non-denominational school. It was, as I said, one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and which made me ready for the debate that we will be participating in in a couple of weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you (inaudible)?

MR. LUSH: Oh, I learned a lot. I learned a lot about that immense development. I saw that tremendous engineering, technological achievement from day one, right to its finish. One of the scientific, one of the engineering marvels of the 20th Century, the completion of Churchill Falls but, Chairperson, that's not the debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, number five.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: When I went there? That's probably about fifteen -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Newfoundlanders have been wondering ever since.

MR. LUSH: When I left, the population of the community was about 300, but the number of people at the work site was 5,000 when I was there.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, on this particular debate, the privatization of Hydro, I want to tell hon. members that I support this by philosophy. I will tell hon. members as well - experienced members there will know - in my eighteen years of politics there have been times when I've had to compromise a little on my principles. Sometimes I've had to fit into party policy and the way that the party wanted a person to go, and hon. members can relate to that. There have been times I've had to compromise a little, give a little, but always in caucus I've tried to express my viewpoint. However, I must say on this particular item, on the privatization of Hydro, I didn't have to compromise one little bit because I happen to believe in privatization. I happen to believe that's the way government should go. It has annoyed me somewhat, in the earlier days of the debate, when hon. members opposite started finger pointing and asking hon. members to stand up and be counted, have guts and this kind of thing. Mr. Chairman, that does nothing to advance the debate. I think everybody in this House, every member is a person of principle. Every person will stand up at some point and be counted. At the end of the day there's going to be a vote taken in this House. At the end of the day there's going to be a vote taken and members on that side will stand and vote and members on this side will stand and vote, and everybody will be counted, Mr. Chairman, everybody will be accounted. To use this argument that you're somehow unpatriotic, that you're lacking as a Newfoundlander because you sit on this side of the argument, I say, these hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are every bit as much Newfoundlanders as I am. I would like to think that they think I'm very bit as much a Newfoundlander as they are, and a Labradorian. It's not because we're separated by philosophy that it makes anybody less of an individual.

Mr. Chairman, I respect every member on that side of the House and respect the position they're taking. I expect that they respect it on this side as well. But I think what worries some hon. members opposite is that they see a government that is driven by its agenda. They see a government with a political philosophy. They see a government that is ruling by their policy, by their program and not by polls. Now, Mr. Chairman, we know what happened to a government recently that governed by polls. This party happens to govern by philosophy, by program and by policy. It has a political agenda.

Mr. Chairman, this governing party has a leadership with a vision and that baffles some people. That baffles some people. Because I remember sitting in this House for years and years and saw a government that was directed by the next election. That's how they governed themselves - what could get them in for the next election. But I say this government, Mr. Chairman, is concerned about policy that's going to govern and that's going to care for the next generation. We're not one bit concerned about the next election. It's our people that we're concerned about. So, Mr. Chairman, it baffles people when they see leadership with purpose, when they see leadership with direction, with commitment, dedication and vision, and that's what this government has.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I can tell hon. members that despite their finger pointing and their attempts to divide and conquer, everybody here stands behind the Premier, cheek-to-cheek, jowl-to-jowl, Mr. Chairman, on this particular policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Where are you going to run again, now?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, that's it. Where are you going to run again and are you going to run again?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all that's on their mind.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, those are thoughts that are well behind me. They're well behind me; when am I going to run? I'm not saying I'm not going to but there's lots of time for me to think about that. I am in no great trouble in my constituency, no great trouble at all and I have two or three this time, two or three that I'm contemplating.

MR. TOBIN: What clause is that?

MR. TULK: Shall the title carry?

MR. LUSH: This speech, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, is completely within the auspices, guided and directed by all of the authorities; Maingot, Beauchesne, Erskine May, go right down the list, Mr. Chairman, Philip Laundry, all of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to delay the proceedings any further. I simply wanted to state my position. I simply wanted to tell hon. members why it was and why it is that I am supporting this particular bill. I stand foursquare, Mr. Chairman, behind the leadership of this party because I know that it has a policy and a program that's planned and directed for the people of this Province. The people on this side of the House are not going to do anything they believe is detrimental to the economic development of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am foursquare behind the Premier on this one and in support of this party. I don't have to use the hon. the House Leader's expression. I don't have one iota or one scintilla of apprehension. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Whom did you recognize?

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't hear Your Honour over the ovation for the Minister of Social Services, a well-deserved ovation, I say. I haven't seen him in such flight since his days in Opposition when he talked about his resolutions and other things, resolutions that he talked about when he used to debate on Private Members' Day.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Member from Fogo can identify with it all, I tell him. But at least the minister was honest tonight, Mr. Chairman, very honest. He told us why he's supporting this piece of legislation. He told us of how cosy he is with the Premier, how he's cheek-to-cheek, jowl-to-jowl, bum-to-bum and foursquare behind him, I say to the minister. Now, if that's the best reason that this Minister of Social Services can give us for supporting Bill 1, "An Act Respecting the Privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation", Mr. Chairman, then I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - then I say to the minister and others opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: They're in trouble.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In trouble? In trouble? Well, is there any wonder? Is there any wonder, Mr. Chairman, after a speech from a minister in the front benches of the government telling us why he's so proud to support this Bill 1, "An Act Respecting the Privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro." What was amazing in it was that the minister once referred to the generations of Newfoundlanders. Well, I want to say to the minister and other members opposite, that is what we're most concerned about, the generations of Newfoundlanders that are going to come after us, because after you pay down your $350 million, $400 million or $500 million on the debt - and it's gone in a year or two maximum as the Premier and the Minister of Finance have indicated, then future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be negatively affected by what you're doing here tonight, negatively affected. Now that is what is absolutely amazing.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, we've seen today what has flowed from yesterday's meeting. A stream of ministers getting to their feet defending the government position and defending the Premier's legislation that he's been developing since 1986 - the Premier's legislation that he's been putting together since 1986. But there are many members opposite who haven't spoken yet, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to them speaking over the next number of days, because I'd be most interested in hearing what they have to say. I know what the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations are going to say, they have no choice. Well, they have a choice to oppose the Premier, to speak out against this legislation and leave the Cabinet, that's the choice they have.

For the private members opposite it's an easier task. They can stand on their feet as private members and oppose this legislation which most of them know is a bad bill. It's a bad piece of legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not in the best interest of the people of this Province as some members opposite would like us to believe. The people of the Province know it is bad for them and they're speaking out loud and clear. For members opposite, Mr. Chairman, we know the pressure they're getting from their own constituents. The Member for Eagle River said that up to a day or two ago he didn't have any phone calls or any letters and now he's had four; two phone calls and two letters. So that's an increase of 400 per cent - that's a big difference, but for most of us, Mr. Chairman, it is quite a different story.

I was in my constituency this weekend - drove down on Friday and came back on Sunday. I was in a gathering of people on Saturday afternoon and a number of them expressed disappointment with me, actually. They didn't think I was vocal enough on speaking against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. And I said, there's so much opposition to it and so many members saying so much that it's hard to get your position known. But that's the message I'm getting from my constituency, that they don't think I'm vocal enough against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. One of the people who said that to me, by the way, was a small business operator in the Town of Fortune. I said to him, `Well, I'm surprised to hear you talking this way because you're a business person and I thought you would be supporting privatization in the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.' That individual very quickly told me what he thought about this piece of legislation and what I should do to oppose it. That's the consistent story I'm getting from the constituents of the district of Grand Bank, I say to members opposite. No matter where I go in my district, no matter where I go in St. John's, from being on the elevator here in this building - as a matter of fact, I was coming down to this Chamber some time this afternoon and there were two gentlemen on the elevator with a name on their coats, I forget what was. And they said, `Keep up the good work in opposing the privatization of Hydro, the giveaway of our resource.' I said, `We'll do the best we can.'

I told the story earlier about my visit to the Health Sciences yesterday. And no matter where else you go -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't tell it all.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I didn't tell all the story of the Health Sciences - members wouldn't be interested in all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, but didn't she say -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I couldn't say all she said to me because it would be unparliamentary. If I told members opposite what that lady asked me to do to the Premier it would be unparliamentary.

I mean, it's like the Member for Humber East has said on a number of occasions, if you get into taxicabs to be driven around this city and the taxi drivers recognize who you are, see what they'll tell you about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what's happened to this Premier and how they don't trust him anymore. How they did trust him! How they did trust him, by the way, they'll tell you that, too, but they will tell you today that you can't sell it anymore `Clyde', we don't trust you. And once you lose the trust of people, it's over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, there's no doubt. Someone said, go to a bar. Yes, you can go to a bar and you will find the same conversations. As a matter of fact, the first thing that will be slapped up to you is: `Why are they trying to give away Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Why are they giving it away?'

Go to church, like the Member for Humber Valley did on the weekend; it took him an hour to get from one part of the church to the other. Constituents there - what do they want to talk about? not educational reform, which is very important, and which those people are very concerned about, but what did they want to talk to him about? They wanted to talk to him about Hydro and they wanted to express to that member how much they are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. That's what's happening, Mr. Chairman, on this issue.

All you had to do was watch the newscast tonight. If people don't believe what's happening in this Province, they should have watched the newscast tonight, beginning with the Minister of Mines and Energy on an Open Line program this morning, going on to what happened in Labrador. All across this Province they're saying, `Rex Murphy, tonight, nailed it into them over there.' On and on it goes.

Now, members opposite read the same papers, listen to the same radio stations, watch the same TV channels and they have constituents who are just as human or more human than we have. And if they're standing in their places in this House, Mr. Chairman, telling us that their constituents favour the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or don't care - I mean the Member for LaPoile tonight, when he stood in his place, was actually saying that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians weren't as smart as he was. I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very smart. I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have seen through this piece of legislation very quickly, Mr. Chairman, and they are very resentful of this legislation, and for good reason, because we don't have too much left. We do not have to much control of our resources left and it's been an ongoing battle regardless of what government has been in power in this Province. They've always wanted to control and manage and get more value from our resources for our people.

It's hard for Newfoundlanders to comprehend that we now have a government in 1994 that's going to privatize this Hydro, a deal that's bad for them and not in their best interest. They're not willing to accept it, I say to members; people are loud and clear on the issue. They are not willing to accept what this government is proposing to do.

I say to members opposite, that I've never seen an issue like this one, in my time, that I can remember, where people are so outspoken and so angry about it. Some of you say, `Well, I have to toe the party line,' but I tell you, by toeing the party line a lot of you over there are going to shorten your political careers on this issue, because you are going to be remembered the next time you go to the polls.

MR. WOODFORD: They will be reminded.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They will be reminded. The electorate will be reminded. They will remember where you stood on this issue and many of you will be turfed out as a result of this.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't care, you'll be retired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter to you - you won't be running, I say to the Minister of Health. The only running he will be doing in the next election is running away with his tail between his legs. That's the running he will be doing, like a lot of others other over there, running away with their tails between their legs because they're secure. But for the newer members, those who have only been here for a term or two, it's going to be a different ball of wax, I say to them. They will pay the price.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They will pay the price tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, for kowtowing to the Premier of this Province for trying to ram something through on the people of this Province that they don't want.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to rise in this House to go on record as expressing my support for the proposition and the principle of privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. I have done it in public. I've done it outside where, not withstanding the verbal barrage at times that comes across the House, it is infinitely more dangerous to declare one's position than it is in the solitary confines of this Chamber. Because, while we hear a lot of verbal rhetoric around here, no one has, at least not yet, attempted to take a poke at me. It's not that I have anything against taking a poke for privatization, because I think it would be a worthy cause for which one could get a smack in the mouth if fate should befall him in that way.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that never, I suppose, in the Province's history, has so much been said by so few that is so false. We have witnessed, I suppose, over the last - particularly two or three weeks but to some extent over the past two or three months, such a verbal barrage of misinformation that has been perpetrated on the Newfoundland public, to the extent that if one didn't know any better, one would think there was a ground swell of support against privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I have the good fortune of being able to live in an area that pretty well includes, or it's just outside of my district - and I want to tell you, my colleagues, that I'm in my district very day. I'm in my district continuously throughout the day and what I hear in my district is not what you are telling people, through this House, that people are saying out there. People are not saying what you are purporting them to be saying. People are not up in arms to the extent that you people are saying they're up in arms, and I think it is time that the record be set straight with respect to the public outrage that you fellows on the opposite side, my hon. colleagues on the opposite side, are attempting to perpetrate on the people of Newfoundland.

I have great fascination with the organization called, The Power of the People - it calls itself P-O-P. Well, I want to make a declaration, for the record of this House, that I support P-O-P. I think P-O-P is the greatest thing that will ever happen to Newfoundland, so I would suggest that we all join the organization of P-O-P. To me it represents privatization of the Province, and if that is not what this bill is about and if that is not the direction this government is taking, then I think we have all missed the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: There are people opposite, Mr. Chairman, who express, on a one-on-one basis, great interest in the private sector and the private sector economy of this Province. They say we believe that the private sector is the economic engine of growth, the great slogan, that catch phrase that we all use at times. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the first time in this session that a motion came before this House to be debated with respect to the small business sector, the primary and most important aspect of the private business sector, what did the members on the opposite side of the House do, Mr. Chairman? What did they do five minutes after a motion came to the floor of this House with respect to small business? They have such interest in and they express such great support for the small business community out there that when it came time to debate it they all got up and walked out of the House as though it were unimportant -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - a non-issue, as though it were of no relevance to small business. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that those who have so little respect and so little appreciation for small business really have no understanding or respect for large business, and Hydro, I would have to say, is not in the small business category.

Now, let me talk about two or three of the myths, Mr. Chairman, that are being perpetrated on the people of this Province. And none of them are probably more outstanding or more erroneous than the one being perpetrated with respect to the giving away of our water. I don't know, it boggles my mind, and I think I'm half-sensible.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: We used to think so.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well keep thinking it because I appreciate the thought. Even if there's no truth in it I'd appreciate the thought. But I don't know how the hon. members on the other side of the House can continually support the myth or continually put forward the proposition that we are giving away or selling our water. I mean, how in the world can you catch it, how could you capture it, how could you put it in containers, how could you put it in a form or fashion that you could give it away, even if you wanted to give it away and even if it were gold-dust? You're dealing with an impossibility.

Now, when I pick up the Telegram and read some of the leaders of the cause against privatization, people who supposedly represent the heritage and the culture of our Province - one, Greg Malone, writes in The Evening Telegram; first of all he says, `It is practically the only asset Newfoundland has' - the only thing we have is a drop of water. Well, I would like to inform Mr. Malone that there are assets in this Province that are even more significant than water, even though he thinks that's the only one we have. I would like to submit to him that our people are our greatest asset, in particular, our young people. Then he goes on to say -

MR. HEWLETT: And the school system, too, I guess.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: And our school system included in that. Make no mistake about it, our school system is a tremendous asset and it is more important than water.

Then he goes on to say, `Who will buy Newfoundland Hydro and all the water? Who will buy it all?' Well, I don't know, frankly, if anyone could buy it all, because if you bought it, what would you do with it? Certainly you'd be similar to, if not exactly like, the dog that caught the car. You certainly wouldn't have much use for all the water in Newfoundland. It is such a stupid, erroneous, misfactual, inaccurate - it is such a misrepresentation of the facts, that we are giving away our water, that I think the people on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman, ought to hang their heads in shame.

The great mystery of all of it is how the members over there can go home at night, go to bed and go to sleep having perpetrated that type of a misnomer and come in the next morning to work and look as though they've had a good night's sleep. I frankly refuse to believe that some of you have slept for weeks. I don't think you can do it. Why should we sell our water? Well, Mr. Chairman, for the umpteenth time in the last two or three weeks, I want to say that we are not selling our water. That our water is being allowed to be used when New Hydro assumes ownership of Old Hydro just as it is now. They will get to use only what they need to use and they will get to use no more. If the employees of Hydro get to drink a glass or two of it, I don't think that'll be the end of the world either. But that is one myth, I think, that we need to let the public know is totally and completely inaccurate.

I'm always fascinated, of course, too, Mr. Chairman, with the mathematics used by my good friend, Mr. - I guess I can't call him mister and I certainly won't call him lady - but I'm really impressed with the mathematics used by my colleague on the opposite side, the Member for Ferryland. I have to admit, when he gets up to speak I listen to what he has to say, but I have to confess also that I would never want to have to take math from any class that he might teach. I have never seen anyone, Mr. Chairman, able to string together numbers in such a fashion as to come up with a proposition that's so preposterous it boggles the mind. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Ferryland, who has invented what I call `Lyoganomics' has certainly out done `Reaganomics'. I think he has done a great job of putting together strings of figures that at the end of the day totally misrepresent what this bill represents.

MR. SULLIVAN: What's wrong about it? Tell me one thing that's wrong.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would have to admit, Mr. Chairman, that the figures, individually, are right. They're all good figures -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - they're good figures. The problem is that they are all used out of context, inappropriately and they add up to a sum total that is a total misrepresentation of the mathematical facts, the arithmetic behind the bill that is before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: By leave! Give him more (inaudible) over there.

MR. A. SNOW: Give him some more rope, Mr. Chairman, he needs more rope.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'm recognized, boy. Sit down, do what you're told.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the Member for St. John's North, when he questions the ability of my colleague, the Member for Ferryland in terms of his math, that my colleague has had six years at university, and for six years he scored 100 per cent on math, and he taught advanced math for ten years. So someone like you or I shouldn't question his ability in that regard.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, `Glenn'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen such a walking contradiction. Here is a man who gets up in this House tonight - and he never has a problem, Mr. Chairman, because his constituents don't bother with him, no problem at all, not even an issue. He started off by saying, it is more dangerous to make his position known in public than it is in here. He also said, Mr. Chairman, no one in here attempted to take a poke at him. Then he went on and said, `I probably would have agreed to take smack in the mouth for this cause.' Now, Mr. Chairman, no one talked to him, no one questioned him, and all of a sudden it's more dangerous outside than it is inside and people are going to take a poke at him.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's their type of logic.

MR. TOBIN: And he was questioning my colleague's ability in math?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's a fallacy in logic isn't it?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a fallacy in logic, Mr. Chairman.

Now, he said he supports P-O-P. He supports privatization of our Province. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, let me ask him, how much is he going to get for the school that his children attend? How much is he going to get for the Health Sciences Complex or the Burin Peninsula Hospital? How much is he going to get for the vocational schools and the university if he's going privatizing this Province? You can't have it both ways, I say to the Member for St. John's North. Is he going to privatize the school system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador? How much money is he going to receive for them if he's going about privatizing our Province, Mr. Chairman?

MR. SULLIVAN: Only the rich will get medical treatment then.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, to privatize our hospitals, Mr. Chairman. The people with condos in Florida might be able to afford to go over there but there's people in this city and in this Province who wouldn't be able to afford to go if they privatize, I say to the Member for St. John's North. Getting up and talking about privatizing our Province! Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, what that would do to our health care system? Where is he coming from? No wonder he supports privatizing Hydro when he's talking about privatizing our health care system, our school system, our vocational school systems, our universities, Mr. Chairman, that's what he said.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's what he said.

MR. TOBIN: That's what he said, he's on the record and I'm repeating it for the record, Mr. Chairman. I'm repeating it for the record so that it's well written. The Member for St. John's North said privatize our Province. He supports it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes I do.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. The schools? The health care system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Pop goes the weasel.

MR. TOBIN: There you go! Mr. Chairman, there's only one pop that he supports and that's `pop goes the weasel', I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, you were speaking to the bill when you advocated privatizing our health care system. Where is that in the bill, Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, he's up again. Every time I speak he gets up on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West - his colleague earlier in the day made a very good point when he indicated that we should be referring to clauses in the bill or at least referring to the bill, and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that at least we ask the member to get back to the bill. If we don't get back to the bill well, then, we might as well not be here. I'd be happy if he got back to clause 1 because right now he's in never-never land - he's in Disneyland, he's spaced out, I do believe, Mr. Chairman, and I think a drop of cold water is what he needs to bring him back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member, when he talks about relevancy, has a point, but he probably should have realized that when he spoke in terms of irrelevancy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is here to enforce the rules, and I request hon. members to stick to the relevancy of the bill. I know it's very, very difficult to do it. But the Chair is trying to enforce the rules and if hon. members don't co-operate it's very difficult to do so. I suggest that hon. members stick to the relevance of the bill and if the hon. members would wish me to call them to order when they're irrelevant, I will do so.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that ruling and, in doing so, let me say that I probably should have followed the example set by the former speaker a few minutes ago. I don't think he deviated one bit from it - I haven't found it yet, Mr. Chairman. But I'm sure it's there where he taught school down in Churchill Falls, I'm sure it's there. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will say that your ruling is good. I say, as it relates to your ruling on the Member for St. John's North, that he should practice what he preaches. And that's what I've been trying to say since I got up, that the Member for St. John's North should be practising what he preaches. Now that the Chairman of the Committee has told you to practice what you preach, get on with it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. George's went out to his district this past weekend with this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes he did, Mr. Chairman, and he tried to deal with this piece of legislation that we're debating now - out in Jeffrey's was it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Jeffrey's I think.

MR. TOBIN: - for a public meeting, Mr. Chairman, he had the Minister of Mines and Energy with him.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he didn't want to go. He was forced to go - he didn't want to go. He got out there, Mr. Chairman, and then he refused to answer questions that were put by certain people, he and the Minister of Mines and Energy. They had to be told to answer these questions that these people have the right to have answered, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Today, when he was on Open Line, I listened to part of it and saw him tonight on television when he grabbled all his papers like a madman to try to get them in his pocket, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Trying to get a shredder.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, another shredder as it relates to this bill. Hydro had to send back, Mr. Chairman, and get a shredder and didn't even go to tenders for it - ignored and broke the public tender rule of this Province and threw it out the window, threw it out the window so that you could get a shredder, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. That's what he did to cover up, Mr. Chairman, so that the people of this Province wouldn't see what is going on. That's the charade that the Minister of Mines and Energy is practicing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ca charade, charade!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman - yes a case of charades - however many you can get in a case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm moved to speak again on this clause of the bill, particularly by the speech of the Member for St. John's North, who seems to be interested in privatizing not just Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but the whole Province - the whole Province, Mr. Chairman. He's not satisfied just to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I dare say he'll want every truck the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has, privatized and sold off to somebody. I suppose he'll be selling off the road contract. He'll probably sell off the roads themselves so that some private entrepreneur might be able to charge people to drive over them.

AN HON. MEMBER: A toll gate.

MR. ROBERTS: That's what Ontario is talking about now.

MR. HARRIS: That's the kind of idea, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for St. John's North has. He thinks the real answer is to privatize everything, get rid of everything, no such thing as a public interest. Privatize it all, let someone make a buck.

MR. ROBERTS: That's in the public interest.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Nationalize it all, it's in the public interest.

MR. HARRIS: Now, the member doesn't even give up. He says yes, it's in the public interest to sell the roads, sell the street poles, sell the Confederation Building, sell the member's chair, rent your chair. The Member for St. John's North is going to rent the chair he sits in now. Somebody should own them. Somebody should own the chair the member sits in and have him pay rent on it every day when he comes in here. Those are the kinds of ideas that are being generated over on the other side of the House. No wonder it's so easy for the Premier and the Cabinet to put things over on the Member for St. John's North. If that's the kind of thinking that's there to begin with, no wonder. I'm even surprised that he has to have five o'clock Monday afternoon caucus meetings to rein them in if those are the kinds of ideas coming from the back benches of the Liberal Party and the back benches of the government members here in this House. It should come as a great shock, Mr. Chairman, to the people of this Province to know that the Member for St. John's North's basic interest is the selling off of everything that the people own. Water is not enough, he wants to sell off the land, every tree that grows in the Province, the Member for St. John's North would sell.

I know the Member for Naskaupi, the Government House Leader, was very excited about the 1905 legislation that sold off great vast acreages of our forests. They didn't sell it off actually, Mr. Chairman - I read that bill myself several weeks ago and I couldn't find anywhere in that bill, the 1905 legislation - now the member looks very surprised. I read it from one end to the other four or five weeks ago and nowhere in that bill does it say how much the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Corporation was going to pay for this land, trees, water rights - nowhere. Now, the Member for Naskaupi wasn't speaking from memory, he was reading the bill, and there was no amount of money expressed as to what the government would receive for all of these rights. I think it was called; An Act to Encourage the Development of Pulp and Paper Industry in the Province of Newfoundland, and they encouraged it by giving these resources to a particular company.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've yet to hear - and I was hoping to ask the Member for St. John's North a question, I'll ask it of him now: Does he know, for example, what percentage of the shares of Newfoundland Light and Power are held by Newfoundlanders? What percentage of the shares? I would suggest to him that it's somewhere between 1 per cent and 4 per cent or 5 per cent at the most.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't know. The Minister of Mines and Energy doesn't know - I asked him privately earlier tonight. I'm thinking, Mr. Chairman, when or if the government proceeds with this outrageous plan to sell off Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that the number of shares held by Newfoundlanders will similarly be very, very low.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for St. John's North will also know, because he probably has had some involvement in private corporations, that when you hold shares in a company, the number of shares you have determines how many votes you get. So, if the hon. the Member for St. John's North buys one share for nine or ten dollars, he gets one vote. If somebody who has enough money to buy 1,000 shares that person gets 1,000 votes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, it can be just one person. It's not one person, one vote, I say to the Member for Fogo. He has one vote in this House but if he bought 10,000 shares he will get 10,000 votes in this company and that's how this company is going to be controlled, Mr. Chairman, by the people who own the majority of the shares.

The big difference - and I say this to the Member for St. John's North in all sincerity - the difference between a privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and a publicly-owned Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is that the privately-owned company only has one responsibility and that's to return investment to the shareholders, only one responsibility. A publicly-owned corporation has a duty to the people of this Province. Their job, Mr. Chairman, is to act in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland as dictated by the government of the day. If the government of the day said we're not getting enough return out of our interest in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Minister of Finance merely says to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, `We would like an extra $20 million,' or `We would like an extra $30 million,' just as the Minister of Finance says to the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation in his Budget - he may even say it on Thursday - `We would like an extra $1 million from you, from your sale of liquor.' And the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation dutifully goes and raises the price per bottle of liquor and turns over the million dollars to the Minister of Finance to spend.

So, Mr. Chairman, when we start talking about the value of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro assets to the people of Newfoundland, that value is really determined by the government, just as the price of the shares - if they're successful in getting this through - if they turn around and sell the shares to private investors, that price will be determined by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. And once it's gone, it's gone forever and I see that, Mr. Chairman, as a tragedy. I see it as something that the people of Newfoundland are going to regret, just as they regret the mistake that was made in Churchill Falls.

There's one value to this debate - and I say this as a New Democrat - that as a result of this debate, a lot of my friends here, the Progressive Conservative Party, are seeing the value of public ownership, of public resources. In the past, certain Tory philosophies, particularly nationally, certain Tory philosophies and Tory governments have said, `privatize, privatize, privatize.' My friends over here are seeing the wisdom of public ownership and are valiantly coming to the support of good NDP policy, coming to support and championing good NDP philosophy, Mr. Chairman. Not only are they championing it, Mr. Chairman, they're in favour of good, solid, social, democratic philosophy - public ownership of major corporations of vital concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm proud of them, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of them for adopting the policies of our party and championing them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Clause 2, are you going to carry the clause? Do you want to carry the clause? Do you want to carry clause 1?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to carry clause 1? Just let me carry clause 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

On motion, clause 1, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Chuck was recognized. Oh, well, it doesn't matter.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand to report progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member didn't stand, so I didn't see him. He didn't stand after we carried clause 1.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) ask leave to sit again, no problem.

Okay, in clause 2, what this government is proposing - in spite of what they say, if they wanted a different definition for `land' they should not have included in the definition, `water, water rights, water powers and water privileges'. I don't think it's very appropriate at all. The minister has stated that the waters will still be there from the heavens and flowing through the rivers - no doubt about it, but as long as New Hydro uses the waters for the generation and delivery of power in this Province, they will own it. The only instance where that will not happen is if the rivers dry up and the Province becomes a desert. In other words, they'll own it until the end of time. If the rivers dry up and the Province becomes a desert, who will want to live in this Province anyway?

The minister went on Open Line this morning and said we couldn't read. It's this government, under the Hon. Clyde K. Wells, Q.C., Premier, who introduced this bill in the House and it was their choice to define the terms in clause 2. They define `land' as "real property of every kind..." - every single kind of real property, not just the land itself, "...including", and it's here, we didn't write it, and if you didn't believe in it you shouldn't have put it there - "...including rights-of-way, and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges". Now, if you didn't want them to have these things you should have stated just `water privileges', because water privileges is a right to use the waters that flow through the rivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right - the right to use the waters that fall from the sky and recycle again in the water cycle and to have the privilege of using this water, not the privilege of owning the land, not the privilege of having the right-of-ways, the water rights and everything else in this Province. That's what you've given away, the entire access to the land and every single thing that is included with it, not the privilege of using it. This Province has made a grave mistake in passing on to a private enterprise anything more then the privilege of using water. It's only a privilege that we have from a well to use water that's recycled back into the system again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It's a privilege, and on Crown land you have a lease to use it. If you look at a Crown land lease, you will see that the Crown retains certain rights. It will retain certain rights to that land and certain minerals and so on that may be found on it. There are certain exclusions in the act, and here we are, going to give the Minister of Finance, who stated in this House with reference to rights - the Leader of the Opposition asked him on March 7, in this House, and he sat there nodding his head in agreement, and then he stood up and not only nodded in agreement, he stated emphatically when it was asked: "Isn't he aware, in the legislation, that in fact, undeveloped water rights are not excluded from the legislation and that in fact, the act gives the Minister of Finance the power to give away all or any of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador, at the stroke of a pen, any time in the future, without ever having to come back to this House of Assembly?" Do you know what the Minister of Finance said? He said, "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that...". He stood in his place - it's on page 177, March 7, 1994, stated here in this House.

Now, those are two grave mistakes here, two very serious mistakes: number one, to give away the privilege of using water is a great mistake; secondly to give away, to the Minister of Finance, the right to determine what is going to be excluded, rights from this agreement, I think is an injustice, improper and no one person in this Province should have that right. It should be a right of the people of this Province, represented through public forums and representation exercised here in the House of Assembly and voted by the members of the legislature. That is a right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you read the rest of the answer?

MR. SULLIVAN: The rest of the answer? It's there for anybody who wants to read it. He went on and said, if you want me to read the rest of it - it's not a very exciting answer but I'll read the rest if you want me to: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that and I am a pretty reasonable person" - that's a matter of opinion - "and have no intention of giving away anything that is not supposed to be given away, I will point that out." And there are only a couple of more sentences, bear with me. "As to his point about exclusion, Mr. Speaker, we also didn't exclude the use of Hudson's Bay, the North Atlantic or anything else.' Whoop-de-do, the North Atlantic, Hudson Bay, waters that are under the federal jurisdiction of the Province. The marine environment off the shores of this Province, beyond the high water mark, is not your authority to give away, it's the authority of the Government of Canada. What a sensible answer to such an intelligent question! "There is no exclusion in there, certainly, but that is reasonable." Now, that is the Minister's answer. There is no reference whatsoever to the Legislature of this Province, exercised here of the people. He admitted to it that he has those powers for giving away water rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little too subtle for you to understand it.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's very subtle, I might add, very subtle. The North Atlantic, Hudson Bay - the next thing, I wonder would it be the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean? I mean, what a silly answer!

I don't think anybody in this Province should be given those specific powers. If you look at - what are we talking about when we talk about `land', when we talk about `land' and `rights'? Now, I will go through a few things again. The Member for St. John's North didn't like the figures I used but he couldn't correct them and he said they're right. He admitted these figures are right. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but he admitted and agreed with me that my figures were right. He said each one is right but, he's trying to say, when you add them up the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. Well, that's a new one - I'd like to find the person who doesn't agree with the whole not being equal to the sum of its parts. Here's what water rights and giving away land is going to do for us here in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The figures don't lie.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, lies might figure.

Cat Arm - we are going to see an investment of $263 million, not only that asset itself, not only the asset that went there, not even valuing the asset, not even putting a dollar value on the rights and privileges and rights-of-way and waters in this Province - the key part of any business is having an asset that is capable of earning income and generating profit for a corporation. That is very important - not only its value, but what it can earn.

There are two components. The value of having the asset that is going to be able to generate it is important, and the potential of the asset to generate income and operate a viable business is also very important. The potential without the asset is meaningless; it is meaningless. It is like having a licence to operate a taxi and not having a car. You have to have the asset, you have to have the car, and you have to have the licence. You have to have the ability to generate profit, and you have to have the asset that is going to be able to put that specific right to be able to earn into practice. That is important in any business, and that is common sense, down-to-earth business sense and economics. That's what it is, exactly what it is. And can you imagine, in Bay d'Espoir, giving away, just giving away - a book value that is listed now at $150 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You're listening. On the books of Hydro, the depreciated value of that asset is listed at $150 million. It cost $170 million to put it there, I think, back in the late 1960s, around 1968 or whatever, 1970, and today to put it there, $1.8 billion, and we are listing it as $150 million, and that is what we are giving away, not counting the value that is placed upon the rights-of-way, the easements, the water rights, the privilege of using the water, the privilege to go out... It is a licence to make a guaranteed rate of profit into the pockets of the investors in that corporation; that is what it is doing. We haven't even put a price tag on that. If we had to put a price tag on Cat Arm, Bay d'Espoir, Hynes Lake, Upper Salmon, the Paradise River and all these projects, and total them together, there wouldn't be, I guess, investors in Canada with money enough to invest in the real value and the opportunity in the specific projects here, and what we are giving away. Still, we come back and have a fire sale.

It would be an insult to this Province, really - from a business perspective, if you were to entertain anything under $1 billion it would be an insult to the people of this Province, when you look at the evaluation of those assets collectively now, what they are worth, and looking at the opportunity to continue business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a few minutes ago -

MR. ROBERTS: When you were rudely interrupted by your own colleague.

MR. FUREY: By my own House Leader; I can't believe it.

Mr. Chairman, I listened patiently. I am suffering from the 'flu, taking some interesting drugs, so I thought that these speeches would sound much better, but they don't. They sound repetitious; they sound monotonous; they sound tiring; they sound just using words in space and time.

Listening to the hon. the Member for St. John's East speak, I thought he was going to make some sensible points, but all he did was abuse and attack personally my colleague and friend, the Member for St. John's North. It is interesting because we expect, on this side, the New Democratic Party, or the Socialist Democratic Party of Canada - I think they tried to change their name last week, but they were voted down, I think, inside their own party. That is a fact, by the way. They were going to change their name.

I would expect the New Democratic Party, and its socialist left-wing bent, to be against anything to do with the words `private sector'. That is normal; it is natural; it is understandable. We know there they are coming from. They built their whole raison d'être on nationalization.

MR. ROBERTS: We know where they are going to, as well.

MR. FUREY: That is right; they built their whole raison d'être on nationalization of whatever. I mean, if they could nationalize our grandmothers' knitting needles they would. That's their focus; that's their style; that's their bent; that's where they are coming from.

On the other hand, the Conservative Party, the great and once proud Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, built its whole dynamic - its whole reason for being, its whole fundamental philosophy, was based upon the pure private sector driving the economy.

MR. HEWLETT: Whatever happened to (inaudible)?

MR. FUREY: That is what - pardon me?

MR. HEWLETT: I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Progressive Conservative.

MR. FUREY: Oh, I see. He's a Progressive Conservative.

MR. ROBERTS: Like military intelligence, it's a bit of an oxymoron.

MR. FUREY: It is a kind of an oxymoron anyway, Progressive Conservative. It is a collision of words if ever there was.

Mr. Chairman, how can members opposite sit there with straight faces representing the business party of Canada, Newfoundland and in fact the world, wherever conservatives aspire to be politicians? Look across the way, just the faces that are beaming back, the back row - the Member for Humber Valley, a businessman, the Member for Ferryland, from a great business family - businessmen and women. The Member for Menihek - profit is not a dirty word in that member's vocabulary, I guarantee you. Profit is not a dirty word in that member's lexicon. Is `lexicon' still used?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh yes, `lexicon'. They mightn't understand it but it is still used.

MR. FUREY: Profit is not a dirty word in that member's lexicon. And there are others over there. Even the little Progressive Conservative sitting there quietly munching his thoughts. Mr. Chairman, who should be for privatization - if anybody in this House of Assembly ought to be for privatization, who ought it to be? the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Chairman, we laid out nine principles for privatization. We said that wherever the private sector can do it we ought to bow out. Now, I didn't hear one single Conservative member rise in his or her place and complain about the sale of the Marystown Shipyard. We were within a whisker of selling the Marystown Shipyard to Kvaerner Rosenberg out of Norway for $20.5 million - within a whisker. Then there was the collapse of the Gulf shares and we know the history of Hibernia and what happened - within a whisker. There wasn't a peep from the Member for Grand Bank, that great anti-private sector, anti-privatization member, not a peep from the Member for Burin - Placentia West, not a whimper. He would have been up on his feet squawking like a castrated crow if I tried to do it without full knowledge and full debate as I did here in this House of Assembly.

Let me tell you something. He should be on his feet every day saying how happy he is with this government having $160 million worth of work on the books at Marystown, putting 600 people to work for the next three years. He should be on his feet, really, commending the government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back to the clause.

MR. ROBERTS: The interpretation (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: This is an interpretative clause, and believe me, I'm interpreting liberally. We said it can strengthen the economy, number two, it will reduce the debt for the Province; it would provide needed capital to the Province; local investors would benefit, major industries would benefit, municipalities would benefit. Government would continue to control water rights. Electric power rates would be regulated and, Mr. Chairman, privatization doesn't mean a loss of jobs.

Now, let me tell you something about clause 2, and I'm interpreting this clause liberally. If you look at the statements for Newfoundland Hydro, 1992, and anybody who has them, turn to page 30. On page 30 you will see a little section buried in there that says GIPCo. GIPCo. is the Gull Island Power project. GIPCo. is to be incorporated under the laws of Canada, 1975. Its objective is to develop the hydroelectric potential at Gull Island on the Lower Churchill River in Labrador and construct a direct current transmission line system from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province.

I didn't hear the hon. lady, the Member for Humber East talk about this in her so-called great exposé that she showed to the Province tonight with this great leaked document. I didn't hear her talk about what GIPCo. is. Here is what GIPCo. is: It is $94.8 million of the debt we are trying to relieve Hydro and the Province of, and that's currently.

MR. ROBERTS: What would we get for that? Tell them what we would get for that.

MR. FUREY: That's currently; it used to be $110 million, and for that $110 million, Mr. Chairman, Premier Moores in 1975, went to Pointe Amour and then, Yankee Point and he blew one great hole through Pointe Amour and a great, big one through Yankee Point on either side of the Straits of Belle Isle and, Mr. Chairman, he called an election then. And, you know, it is really interesting because when I was up at Pointe Amour as the Minister of Tourism and Culture three or four years ago, there were a couple of old people down on the beach and I started talking to them, and I asked them: Do you remember when Premier Moores came in here in a helicopter and was going to develop the Lower Churchill, bring this transmission line across?

`Yes,' they said, `we remember.' In fact, one fellow said: `I was in charge of the flour,' and I asked: What do you mean, you were in charge of the flour - "flour" as in eating flour? He said: `Oh, yes, I had to provide twenty-five sacks of flour.' `What for?' I asked him, and he replied, `To put over the dynamite for when they had the explosion.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Twenty-five sacks of flour! I couldn't believe it. He wanted to create this big boom, and he said, that's not enough dynamite for a dramatic explosion, so they put twenty-five sacks, the old fellow said, of Robin Hood Flour on the dynamite.

AN HON. MEMBER: For $110 million.

MR. FUREY: Now, it's laughable and it's funny -

MR. ROBERTS: We are paying for it, though.

MR. FUREY: - and that's the party of business, and here is the debt that their party gave us, that we are trying to erase, $110 million for two holes to buy an election. Now that, to me, is pretty devastating.

MR. TOBIN: `Chuck', who was with him?

MR. FUREY: I don't know who was with him. You tell me who was with him.

MR. TOBIN: Probably, Bill Barry.

MR. FUREY: What was he at that time?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: And whose party was he with?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Liberals (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Whose party was he with?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) with the Liberals.

MR. ROBERTS: In fact he lost; Bill Barry lost his seat in the election that followed.

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, the rookie Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, who had his knuckles rapped earlier for telling us to stick to the clause -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I heard. Your member behind you is telling us you had your knuckles rapped. You would make a good leader, do you know that? I think he will make a good leader. He looks good, he sounds good, he holds the glass right, I think we will have this fellow for leader. There is a leader contest happening over there, we all know what's happening. `Len' is making his last stand on Hydro. He is not making any intelligent points, he has whipped it into an emotional debate, but when you look at the facts that are here - I know, as I watched the Member for Menihek on TV tonight, I know that in his blue, business heart, in his heart of hearts which loves profit, he is not against this deal; not in his heart of hearts.

Now, this farmer on the back bench who owns a business, in his blue, sort of red, heart of hearts, he is not against this deep down. It is a chance to coalesce the antis around one focus point. It is whoever is anti this or anti that, now has a common focus and that is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because what is being lost in the bigger issue - I see you are getting serious there now, my friend, the Member for Ferryland - I know in your heart of hearts, too, you would privatize.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Well, how do you know how much money we are going to get for it? We don't know what the market is going to pay for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: We do know we will be relieved of a substantial amount of debt - sorry, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has elapsed.

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to again try to say a few words about this bill, more specifically, clause 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Technology, tells a lovely story; he is a tremendous actor; he is a tremendous orator and he tells a lovely story, he entertains us very well and does his job really well. The problem I have - I believe in the private sector, I really, sincerely believe in it. I do believe it is the engine of recovery for this country, it is what built this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, having said that, I also recognize that there are times when a Crown corporation is necessary. I think that is what members have to stop and think about. There are times when it is necessary to have one. When Newfoundland Hydro was created it was necessary. The hon. members opposite have said that already. They've agreed with me that it was necessary to have it. It is agreeable I think on the other side. They don't really believe the right-wing zealot from St. John's North, that they should sell off the Health Sciences Complex. I don't think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wants to sell the Pentecostal school over in St. John's North - what is the name of it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Vaters Academy.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): The hon. the Member for St. John's North on a point of order.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would like, Mr. Chairman, to remind the Chair and the speaker that he is misrepresenting the facts and he is putting inaccurate and serious distortions on the comments that I made when I spoke. In no way did I imply any such thing as is now coming as dribble from the Opposition with respect to my position on privatization. Privatization of the Province was referred to in its largest context and in a very generic way. If, Mr. Chairman, it meant for greater efficiency and for a saving of dollars, yes, I might privatize even the hon. member's enterprises in the great district of Menihek. I trust that we will never have to contemplate something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a disagreement between two hon. members.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for St. John's North articulated his view that we should privatize - he said "we", he meant the government - this Province. Now, I don't believe in that. I think there is a role for the government to deliver services to the people of this Province. I honestly really do believe that. I think there is a role for people to be involved in certain aspects of delivering services to the people of this Province. I don't have qualms with improving the quality of education or health care. I don't think we should sell it off to somebody because we think the private sector can do a better job. That is fundamentally wrong, I think, and I think most Canadians will agree with me.

I still firmly believe in the private sector involvement. I do. But I always have that provision, when it can be done better by the public sector then we should do it in the public sector. When the people can derive a better benefit from a service that is being provided we should do it.

Last night in my district I had in excess of 200 people at a public meeting. I spoke for a few minutes and outlined my views. One of the stories I told about why I believe in the Crown corporation - and I also believe that we should sell off some of the Crown corporations that we own, but not this particular one. I told them a story of a newscast in the late 1970s in my district, in Labrador, about people from another province wanting to establish a cable company in the district of Labrador City and Wabush, in Labrador West, in Menihek. These people were from Westmount, Michele (inaudible) and his friends.

A group of local residents were talking this up one day because it was a big news item. We were going to get cable t.v.in Labrador West. These residents felt that this wasn't right. This important service that is going to be delivered to the people of Labrador City and Wabush shouldn't be controlled by people in Westmount somewhere, that the people in Labrador should control that. I think most people opposite will agree with that principle.

MR. TOBIN: What happened? Now, tell us.

MR. A. SNOW: What happened was that a group of these residents, four, to be exact -

MR. TOBIN: Headed by whom?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, they purchased a receiver and a transmitter and transmitted a signal throughout Western Labrador and provided television from the outside world, so to speak. From that illegal act, Labrador City and Wabush now receive a cable company equivalent to anywhere in Canada, I would say. And who owns it, Mr. Chairman? Who derives the benefit from it? The people of Labrador City and Wabush, the members own it. They own it, Mr. Chairman, lock, stock and barrel. Who derives the benefit? They do, Mr. Chairman, they do. They derive the benefits and they get the signal. Do you know what they do with the profits, the excess revenues after they pay off their debts, their overhead, their expenses? Do you know who gets it? The people in Labrador City and Wabush, the consumers. They've given hundreds of thousands of dollars away to athletes who travel to the island and that the government doesn't support. They gave thousands of dollars to support the ski hill, to buy a packer to make the ski hill more readily accessible. They give $37,000 a year in scholarships to high school and university students every year.

Mr. Chairman, that's when it was good to keep those profits. That Crown corporation and that community in Labrador City and Wabush worked for them and they provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to people in that community, to the owners of that mini-corporation, if you will. Mr. Chairman, the mistake that we're making with the privatization of this is 1,000 times bigger. All the profits from this are going to the same people in Westmount. That's where they will go, it is they who will derive the benefits from this and that's why I can't support it. I can agree with the sale of NLCS. I can agree with it. Because that is going to provide technology transfer, that is going to provide more opportunities for work and more opportunity for investment. It is, Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe it will, but this is not going to provide any technology transfer and it's not going to provide new jobs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, stop and think about that, stop and think and I hope the other people opposite - you have the opportunity of looking at that.

Look at what I said about the CRRS, the cable company in Western Labrador, because the only difference between that cable company and this utility company is that this is 1,000 times bigger, Mr. Chairman. The mistake that we'll be making - I didn't make a mistake when I participated in that. The people who operated that CRRS community channel, Mr. Chairman, didn't make a mistake, but we are on the eve of making a drastic mistake and it's going to be 1,000 times bigger then the mistake we almost made in Western Labrador fifteen years ago.

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That's an interesting point. Somebody asked me last night - the Member for Terra Nova should realize she should sit in her seat, by the way. She asked if I was going to purchase any shares. I don't know if people over there are going to make any money on this sale. Now, that's an interesting proviso, Mr. Chairman, because stop and think of it, there's a lot of speculation that when this is sold, when this goes on the market and the marketing scheme is going to be to allow residents of this Province - it's my understanding, I could be corrected now, the minister can correct me if I make a mistake, but it's going to be that an individual in this Province will be allowed to buy $50,000 worth of shares. Is that correct? And they will have to pay about 40 per cent down and 60 per cent in time of six months or something like that, or 60/40?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) long enough trying to get (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, there'll be some people who will do it and it's probably a good investment. It's probably going to be - a healthy pop is the expression - a healthy pop in the shares after, when the rest of the shares go on sale to the other people in the country. There will be a healthy pop. Now I don't know - a `pop', Mr. Chairman, is the expression in the industry that it'll take a little jump, a quick jump up, Mr. Chairman, in the initial offering. So Newfoundlanders can be convinced, and probably members of Cabinet - I don't know how the conflict of interest would fit into this - or private members, such as the people in the back benches over there, or people such as myself, would be able to invest money, and let's say if it's a 10 per cent to 15 per cent pop, you could make ten grand quick. But I want you to stop and think. They may make $10,000 quick bucks, but when your grandchildren start asking about what your role was, when they talk about what they are paying for electricity, will you have the gall to be able to hold your head up and say: `Well, I made $10,000 on it'?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do that?

MR. A. SNOW: Now, would you? Maybe some of the members would; I couldn't do it. I won't be able to buy any shares in it is what I am telling you, and I don't know if these people over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, maybe that's the reason why - maybe; I don't know. I am not going to question why you are going to buy shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you?

MR. A. SNOW: No, I am not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. A. SNOW: I am not going to buy shares, but maybe that's the reason why you people in the back benches will support it, because you can make a quick ten grand. Maybe that's the reason why the ministers all support it; I don't know. I am not saying it is. I can't say why you should or should not buy it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wouldn't you?

MR. A. SNOW: It doesn't matter why I would or would not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, just one minute while I clue up, please? Do I have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I would ask hon. members opposite to stop and think, that there is a role to play for government in certain Crown corporations, and in this particular case, as in the case in my district. When I explained the simple little case in my district of a company that wanted to come in from outside, it was necessary for the people to do something different, and the profits stay in Western Labrador. Use that same example, but multiply it by 1,000 and you have exactly what is occurring with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is why the people on the opposite side should vote against this bill. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have a few minutes to speak on the bill that is before the House. I guess, from the time that we become accountable through age, we go to school, we progress, we get an education, we are able to form opinions for ourselves and we are able to make decisions in life that affect us, affect our families and people, and in this case, for me, I guess, be a part of a decision that will indeed affect the people of the district I represent.

Mr. Chairman, I can well remember in Grade XI, which was some years back, probably farther than I want to think -

AN HON. MEMBER: At least four.

MR. LANGDON: At least four.

- I remember, during an economics course, just a very beginning one, where we had pointed out two different philosophies, and the two philosophies, which I can remember distinctly, having done some work with it also in the six years that I attended university, had to do with socialism in its different forms and with free enterprise, and when you look at the socialist view and look at free enterprise they are quite different. They are two philosophies and no doubt they lead in different directions. I would like to look at, Mr. Chairman, the two philosophies and how they apply to, I believe, this particular bill.

All of us can remember, no doubt, that the idea of the socialist, in whatever way you want to look at it, was expounded in England through a German, Karl Marx, who saw the atrocities and inequities that abounded in the English factory system and advocated the socialist view. However, Mr. Chairman, if one were to look in recent years at the idea, and the socialist idea that existed in the world, especially in Eastern Europe, we will see what had happened.

In 1917, in the Russian revolution, up until a few years ago, everything in the country belonged to government - was government-owned, government-run. And I think today, Mr. Chairman, we can see what has happened to that particular idea, that particular philosophy. If we were to look at, for example, the automobile, just look at the automobile itself, and we look at what had happened in the Soviet Union and we look at the Lada, and then let's look at what has happened in North America to free enterprise; look at General Motors, look at Chrysler, look at Ford, in Japan look at Toyota, look at the Nissan and you will see that competition really is what has driven the industrialized countries of the world.

Now, if we were to look at our own system here, look at our Province since 1949, I believe, and all of us will look at it regardless of political parties or where we stand or whatever, that this Province of 500,000 people has not progressed very well economically and, in fact, today, Mr. Chairman, the Province as I see it, and probably I am wrong, hinges on a precipice of disaster if we follow the present course. And I honestly believe that the government, as has already been expounded by different people here, has looked at it and said if we continue to maintain the present course, then we will continue to have much the same as we have had. Therefore, the government staked out its position only a couple years ago in the Strategic Economic Plan and this is again another plank in that particular plan of the government.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, the government has decided to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is an opportunity for private industry, private business, to -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I want to speak to the hon. the Member for Humber East. I didn't interrupt you and I don't want you to interrupt me. I want you to show that courtesy, and I do the same for other people.

The situation here is such that I believe this Province will benefit from the privatization of Hydro. The Member for Menihek, a few moments ago, was talking about how in Labrador the co-operative movement that had been formed to deliver the satellite and to beam television channels into people's homes is equivalent to that which we find in Hydro. He said, if I can remember him correctly: The profits that the company generated were put back into scholarships, put back into travel arrangements, and invested back into the community.

Now, Newfoundland Hydro, if it has a profit of $400 million or $600 million, can't do that - it is a Crown corporation. But I honestly believe, and I think time will tell, that a company when it is privatized will be able to let its tentacles go out into different facets, industries in this Province, so that we can make it better for the people we represent. I believe private industry can do that better than the government-controlled Crown corporation. If that is not the premise on which we work, then I believe it is all wrong.

It might be that three years down the road it might not work out that way, but I believe it will. I believe that the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro will be the beginning of a new era, the beginning of a new process, whereby we will look at the private sector to make things better in this Province. If we do that then I believe that the people whom we represent will indeed look at us two to three or four years from now as doing what's right for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Someone from the other side says: Public ownership of public resources. My father, my brothers and others of my relatives have been working as loggers in Central Newfoundland for years. My father is now retired as a logger. I have a brother who still works there, and they work with Abitibi-Price, which is a private company. And I honestly believe that Abitibi-Price, as a corporation, is a great asset to this Province. They contribute. They make their imprint. In fact, when I was teaching at Point Leamington and I was chairman of the Exploits Valley School Tax Authority, the Exploits Valley donated $250,000, a grant in lieu of taxes, to the Exploits Valley School Tax Authority to help in the education of the students under its jurisdiction in Central Newfoundland.

The people who work as loggers make a good living from the private company. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, some of my relatives used to work with Linerboard in Stephenville when it was a publicly-owned corporation. I heard them give me examples like this: that when the timber jacks or when the skidders came into Stephenville, the first thing that these people who were in charge of Linerboard would do, is they would automatically remove all the tires off these things, put all new different tires by different brand name on them and, in fact, there was a time when there was a warehouse full of tires and nobody could even use them.

Now, I don't believe that would happen in a private situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a prayer.

MR. LANGDON: Not a prayer. That is not the way to do business. I honestly believe that even though the Linerboard mill in Stephenville is having problems with the cost of hydro and so on, in making a profit, I believe it is a better-run company now than at any time under the public ownership of Linerboard. I believe that is true.

What we also forget here is, by the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute or two to conclude, Mr. Chairman.

We are getting benefits to our major industries under this here. They are getting the industrial companies that hire people, the Abitibi-Price, the Kruger and so on, and the Abitibi-Price in Corner Brook, or in Stephenville. To me, that's important, to keep people at work, to give people employment, and I honestly believe that by doing that, we can, as I said, make this Province a better place in which to live.

Now, also, just to conclude, I want to say, and I want to say honestly, that I try to represent the people in my district to the best of my ability. I travel in my district, as much as any member, and I have a long way to go, to do that. I want to say, and I honestly say this here, I have had one phone call from my district - one. I am not saying that there is not concern out there. I am not saying that. I wouldn't say that for a moment, but it has not been given to me, and I am not hard to get hold of; people know where I am.

I went back to my district on Friday night - it was probably one of the most difficult nights I have ever had on the road - and I met with 100 people in Seal Cove on another matter. I am telling you, among these people there were those who said they would like to have more information and so on, people who had some concern.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that meeting?

MR. LANGDON: In Seal Cove, my own area, in my own town, over 100 people.

MS. VERGE: What was the meeting about?

MR. LANGDON: It was about the problems with council and so on, infrastructure and that type of thing. Nevertheless, if the people come here, if they phone, if they write letters, then I would say so to the members of the House. I have no intention of trying to mislead. I have no intention of trying to doctor anything that I get, everything is there to be seen. I will represent the people in my district, and I honestly believe, at the end of the day that the people in the district I represent, like those in many other districts in this Province, will be better off and will see this as nothing more than a privatization of a Crown corporation that is done in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start off with a couple of comments first, relating back to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, before we finish, and maybe just make a couple of quick points on that.

The minister made a couple of remarks about the blue hearts of our colleagues over here who had business sense and that we should be pushing for privatization, we should be all jumping up and down, saying, `Yes, privatize, privatize', even to the extent of the hon. the Member for St. John's North standing and saying: P-O-P, privatize the Province. I mean, that was so ridiculous! As for privatizing, I could say to all hon. members here on this side and on the other side of the House, just for an example, I have heard the comment made that we are just opposing this for the sake of opposing, that we are not really doing this, and we can't go home and sleep at nights. What utter rubbish! The truth is, we have looked at privatization very, very openly.

I say to the members, for example, as we have said time after time here standing in this House, we have all said it, we think NLCS, the computer privatization - as the last couple of days have gone by, I have been studying the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, and I can tell you that we are looking at it very openly. I have even talked to the minister about it. From what we have seen so far, and the people we have talked to - the resource people have been investigating and researching - I can tell you now that we look at the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I say to the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that is the whole point I am making here, that right now, from what we have heard from the resource people we talked to, it looks fairly good, and I can tell you that if I really believed we should privatize Newfoundland Farm Products, then I will stand over here and vote for it, and I will bet you that if there are splits in this caucus and people think different ways, they will stand up and voice their opinions. I am sure they will do that.

I remind the Member for St. John's South, just to make a point here, about Meech Lake. I heard a little while ago about 1905, and then I heard another minister get up and talk about Robin Hood flour, and another minister - I don't know what all they were talking about, but all sorts of things - and the Sprung Greenhouse that the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture keeps throwing out. I mean, I have said it twenty times in this House, I didn't agree with Sprung, I didn't agree with Churchill and this doesn't make this any good. Why do we keep bringing up things that in the past were wrong? If they were wrong then, two wrongs don't make a right; fifteen wrongs don't make a right for sure, but will we keep making mistakes or are we going to learn from our mistakes?

I say to all hon. members that we are not posing - now, I speak for myself; I can only speak for myself while I stand, and the caucus will speak for themselves - I generally do not think this is a good deal in the long term for Newfoundland - I do not. And I concur with the Minister of Social Services when he stood - he was honest in what he was saying, and I believe he had convictions as to why he thought the Hydro - but the reason that he gave was so weak. I think he believed what he was saying, but the problem I have with it is that the reason he gave for it was so weak, he basically said he was doing it because the leader said so.

Now, he didn't give any reasons why he would like Hydro privatized; he just said he was going to follow the leader and `whatever the leader was doing I believe in the leadership'. Now, I think he believed what he said, but the reason why he believed it is the problem I have. And I think that opening of the mind and when the minister stood a little while ago and talked about, if you really look at your blue heart with privatization, and he said to the Member for Humber Valley, `if you look into your heart' - as I said the other night, I really wonder if somebody could hypnotize this whole House and put us on freeze for one second and we not knowing what party we are representing, not knowing who our leaders are, and just for two minutes while we vote in this House, people could really look at the true facts on both sides, I bet you that a vote would come out against the privatization of Hydro. I honestly believe that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're living in a vacuum.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, we will soon see if we are living in a vacuum.

We hear the comment: It is only you people, it is only the Opposition over there trying to stir up trouble, to make this into a big political scam or charade, as the minister said. If we are the only ones opposing it, what about the former Liberal Leader, Steve Neary? Who bought him off? Which one of us, I wonder, twisted his arm in order for him to say what he said? Mr. Abery, you know, the people whom you don't expect to be - he is not supposed to be anybody, he is not supposed to be an expert. I think he is an expert in the field as much so as the five wise men who came before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) speak.

MR. SHELLEY: He certainly can. He has credibility, we didn't twist his arm. Mr. Vetter has been pushing this for different reasons, but we didn't twist his arm; I don't even know his political stripe and I really don't care.

The Member for St. John's North stood up and talked about Greg Malone - I certainly don't know what Greg Malone's politics are and I really don't care. Now, if he wants to come out and support me in an election, then good for him, a smart man, I'd say, but the point is, who cares what the politics are, of it - this is not the PC Opposition. And another point I will make to hon. members now, and this is the point that has been (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him speak - let him speak.

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) parade - the only problem is going to be that he's afraid.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, if you really believe that I think you are living in a dream world; I don't think you really believe what you are saying, because the truth is, there was no parade, and if we wanted a parade, we started the parade. And I say to you, there is a lot of people in this Province and what really struck me over these last couple of days is listening to people getting up time after time and we have been referred to as, `old dogs' - I have a few written down here, just from the last four hours - `castrated parrot' - no, it was a `castrated crow' but the minister - a `parrot' by another fellow, and then we went into `lemmings' for a little while. I mean, I don't know what we are going to be described as next. But when I hear hon. members stand up - and I believe you when you say this, in all honesty, you had one phone call, as the Member for Fortune - Hermitage over there just said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

MR. SHELLEY: And you had three. You can say all of that until the cows come home, as I said, but if you really believe that there is no opposition in this Province against this privatization, if you are just saying you're getting only one or two calls, I don't know what world you are living in. I just came from my district and - I can't put words in your mouth or push ideas onto you, but I wonder why you only had three calls, I wonder why you only had one? I really honestly can't figure out why you are not getting the calls that we are getting, the letters, or the feeling one is getting in the streets.

I say to the hon. the Member for St. John's North, I mean, if you didn't get the feeling up in that hall the other night, although it was said that it was a farce, if you didn't get the feeling that there was an opposition to this then I don't know where you were. I don't know if you just closed your mind off or what. There is an opposition, a very large opposition in this Province to the privatization of Hydro and it's getting bigger every single day. And if you're denying that, then you're denying the people in this Province a right to justice and democracy, because you're shutting your eyes to it, you're saying; `Let's follow the leader and let's forget what people think.' You're really shutting out the people who elected you.

I'll submit to something that was said earlier today, that you people who have been here for a while, the Minister of Health and a few more, I won't name too many now, you're not worried too much because I don't think you're going to be here in another three years when we see the real effects of this privatization. But the people in the back-benches, like I'm in the back bench here, I think you'd better have one quick second look before you stand to make your last vote on Hydro. And search your soul nice and deep, because you should be around here for awhile. You just got elected and hopefully, you'll make a long life of politics, but you're not going to make it if you don't have the guts to stand up when the going gets tough, like the Member for Pleasantville did. They're tough decisions, I know they are. And do you know what? You'd better practice it now, making tough decisions, because this is only the beginning. You have Hydro privatization - wait until denominational education hits the system, wait until the income supplement hits you.

If you want to learn about making tough decisions and not following behind a leader - at least we're following behind a parade. The big difference between us and the hon. crowd next-door, as the minister told me I should call them, the hon. crowd - the minister said we were following a parade and you're probably absolutely right but at least we're not following one man, one leader. We're not following a dictatorship, we're following a parade of people in the Province. We're not following one man, the pied piper. We're not following the pied piper we're going with the parade. We're in with the group, we're with the people. We're not out in front being led by a fellow that pied pipes through town and expects everybody to follow him. I say to you, hon. members over there, you had better search your soul. If you think this is a tough decision you ain't seen nothing yet because when that denominational system hits and you have to stand in your place -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: - I want to remind people, in the back benches especially, you had better come to grips on that because there are a lot of tough decisions to be made. But I would like to close -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thirty seconds, okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought that perhaps by now we would have, on behalf of the people of the Province, had an opportunity to really get into the bill a little more in-depth, obviously - we should be into the clauses now.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. the Member for St. John's East, it's Christmastime for her, we're into Santa Claus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East.

MR. MURPHY: Humber East or wherever she's from. It's much of the same, about the same level of integrity and about the same level of intelligence, I should say. I say, Mr. Chairman, very strange - well, I was going to say bedfellows but I suppose that's a common phrase. But its very strange to see the socialist leader, who has trouble in his own caucus and the hon. the Member for Humber East, who also has trouble -

MS. VERGE: Just be careful.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Menihek, who was up, now you know, it's time for us - and I say to the hon. the Member for Ferryland, the member really upset about water rights, I don't understand what he is really trying to drive home. I suppose it's something that is in response to what is coming back through the Open Line shows, or something on which he is trying to make political points, but let me ask the Member for Menihek how he could stand in his place tonight and compare a cable company that is owned by 500 people in Labrador City - owned outright - to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? That's the kind of rhetoric that we have had to listen to in this House for the approximate time that it would take to do three weeks of normal business. We are still on the entry to the second clause in the bill.

If hon. members opposite - and I appreciate the political lecture of my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, the nine-month wonder, I really appreciate the lecture from him. I say to him that the Minister of Justice was then the Minister of Health when the hon. member - I don't know if the hon. member was born, even. He was probably the Minister of Health and responsible for the hon. member when he was born into the health system.

Let me get back, and try to put another face on this whole thing, if I might, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps hon. members opposite are saying, what this government should do is go to Fortis and ask them: How much is Newfoundland Power worth? We will go to the shareholders, most of whom are part of Montreal Engineering and Shawinigan, and people from all over Canada and the United States who own Newfoundland Light and Power, as I say to the Member for Ferryland, as we grew up knowing. And this government should go out and float another bond issue - if we listen to the rhetoric and theory that these people are getting on with, we should float another bond issue, find out the true value, or the book value. Now, that's a favourite phrase of the hon. the Member for Ferryland - the book value. I ask the Member for Ferryland: What's the book value on the Basilica? Is that what the Basilica is worth?

He uses all these phrases and innuendoes, and it's foolish. It makes no difference. So we should go out, borrow the money. The Member for Green Bay who was up there for ten years and saw, time after time, well, we have a problem. Some member would walk in, and the hon. A. Brian would say: Let's go get some money.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you have against him?

MR. MURPHY: I have nothing against him, absolutely nothing. But what is the book value, I ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West, of his trucking company?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Aha! But is that the true value, I ask the member? Now, let's buy Newfoundland Light and Power; let's buy it. Put it on the books. How much is it worth? I ask the member. He doesn't know; I don't know, but I would guess probably half of what Hydro is worth, because of the distribution end of Newfoundland Power, which is 90 per cent of the total power grid in the Province, Newfoundland Power.

So to reverse the decision, what you are really asking this government to do now in theory is to go out and float a bond issue, sell the bonds all over the world at 10.5 or 9.5, whatever, the same as Newfoundland Hydro is doing now, to the tune of $1.2 billion, and the Member for St. John's East knows, $147 million a year of interest. He plays around with his figures and runs it up to $180 million-plus, and says that this is what the ratepayer, taxpayer, whoever, in Newfoundland is going to be hinged with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I would say to the hon. member, that's not the way I worked out the figures. I said it before, and I will say it again, it has taken us thirty-one years to buy down 18 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now, if we look at the theory that 210 years from now, or 205 years from now, all things being equal and lucky, that we can bite on equity - because we haven't done it in the last five years - we will own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The members opposite stand in their places and leave the impression that the people of this Province own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is false and is misleading, and it is improper for any member on either side of this House to stand in his place and say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible). Boom-boom. I say to the hon. member, I was there. I was in Point-Amour. I was working for Teshmount at the time and I went down and the hon. John C. and the hon. Frank were there, and there were ribbons and balloons. As I understand it - I stand to be corrected - but the Members for St. Barbe and Strait of Belle Isle can tell me - they couldn't get a band. They went all over the place and finally they were going to bus a band up from Corner Brook, and the wheel came off the bus.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, he knows a lot about buses: `Premier, don't you mind it, Premier, those with guns are welcome. `Why are they pointing them at me, Glenn?' `Well, now, Premier, perhaps we will carry on in the bus.' So the hon. member knows a lot about buses.

Boom-boom, and I was there. It was puff of smoke, Mr. Chairman, a puff of flour - that's what it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I was working for Teshmount in fire safety and security, I say to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) booze!

MR. MURPHY: Yes, it was a fine party, I say to the hon. member, and the people of this Province are still paying for the party $110 million later.

Let me remind the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay who doesn't like to hear a little bit of history, I might add, that Fall it would break any Newfoundlander's heart to go in on the Gull Island project and see the tremendous amount of material that was stored in there to do that Gull Island project that people, for whatever reason, had gone in there in different types of machines and all-terrain vehicles and skidoos and threw thousands of dollars of equipment all over hell's half acre. It was just unbelievable.

What was really sad about it, I say to you, is that I, who had charge of security with ShawMont, told the government of the day that they should put some people in there because all of this work belonging to the taxpayers of the Province was not secure, and softly was told to mind my own business. I won't go into why because that may be an old story that doesn't need to be repeated. Because I know who the suppliers were of the day. I won't go into that.

I say to hon. members opposite, and I say it sincerely, I have no problem, and I can stand in this House and sincerely say it, I've watched Mr. Vetter take this position and I admire him - I know how hard the man has worked. And any individual who goes to his place of work and then works all day and does what he has to do - I admire and respect Mr. Vetter's interest. But I tell you what irks me, what gets me down, and I tell the hon. member opposite, is when I see a man in the disguise of a past leader of the Liberal party and left leaving the impression on this Province that he speaks for me. Well, I tell this hon. House and every person in Newfoundland tonight that Steve Neary does not speak for Tom Murphy, I can tell you that right now, under those circumstances!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: He will never speak for this member, never!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. MURPHY: I was just starting on Andy Wells but I will get around to him. I will get around to old PUB, you wait and see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one message for the Member for St. John's South: Stop phoning Steve Neary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Stop phoning Steve Neary, Mr. Chairman, and then you won't have to get up in this House to apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: On a point of order.

Mr. Chairman,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - not in my -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, thank you.

I am sorry, I am so hyped up with this tremendous introduction to the former Leader of the Liberal Party; as the former leader, I am not sure if he says representing, but I say to the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, that he has a chance of getting 100 phone calls from me for whatever reasons, but the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Steve Neary and I, have never discussed anything on any phone, on any walkie-talkie, not even smoke or drums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, when I came into this Legislature first, some twelve, thirteen, fourteen years ago, one thing that is known and that is, that the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Neary, spent most of his time in the mornings at the Holiday Inn.

MR. SULLIVAN: The only person admitted to the bar.

MR. TOBIN: I rest my case, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I adjourn the debate, so, if the Committee wants to ask leave to report progress -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, given the rollicking progress, I know my friends on this side will be willing to go on for many hours but a calmer head will prevail and I would move that the Committee rise and report absolutely astonishing progress - we have passed one of the twenty-eight clauses in this bill and at this rate we will be out of here by about Orangeman's Day for a brief recess - that the Committee should rise, report progress and please ask leave to sit again, Sir.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. It is my understanding that there is only one motion down from the other side of the House, the one I believe my friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, as I said, moved, so that will be the motion to be addressed tomorrow, and with that said, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

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