The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Mines and Energy for the names of companies who are engaged as underwriters to handle the sale of Hydro shares, now the minister replied that government had not yet finalized the syndicate to handle the sale of shares. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice told the House that the underwriters had retained as their lawyers, White, Ottenheimer and Baker who in turn retained the firm of Osler, Hoskins in Toronto. Now, Mr. Speaker, the underwriters of lawyers, there must be underwriters. So I ask the minister again, who are the underwriters who will handle the sale of Hydro? When he answers, will the minister tell the House if any of the Rothschild Companies are or will be associated in any way with the underwriters underwriting the sale of Hydro shares?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, our advisors, our underwriters advising us on this sale are RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod. These are our key advisors who've helped us with the analysis work. They have lawyers and they will be a major part of the privatization, assuming it goes forward as we are proposing. They will not handle all this themselves, they will be the leaders, the lead-underwriters. They will be putting together, as is normal with any privatization of this nature, a syndicate of firms. I don't know what firms will be on that, probably every firm that's resident in Newfoundland and others will be on that syndicate but RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod are going to be the leaders on it. Rothschild's are not going to be part of that syndicate. They are not part of the selling syndicate. We have Rothschild's as independent advisors to us reviewing what is being done for us by our underwriters.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister didn't know who the underwriters were going to be, today he can tell us who two of them are but he can't tell us who the rest are going to be, Mr. Speaker. Why is the minister covering up some aspect of this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Is it government's plan to have the underwriters buy new Hydro lock, stock and barrel from the Province for a lump sum payment, I ask the minister? Won't the underwriters in effect be the owners of Hydro at the time Hydro shares go to market? Will the underwriters not be the owners?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously confused about the process here, totally, totally confused about the process and I don't have to give him a list of the names of all the investment firms in St. John's or elsewhere in Canada.

I talked just this morning to the chairman of the investment dealers group, the investment council right here in the Province and talked about the process. We are going to be having some detailed meeting with them as we get further along in the process. They will all be on the list, I'm sure. I expect they will all be on the list. Lead underwriters, we've said for months that we've been using RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod as our lead advisors, and they will continue to be our lead advisors.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister is wouldn't he confirm that the underwriters will in effect be the owners of Hydro at the time Hydro shares go to market. That is the question I asked him. Would the underwriters be the owners at that period in time? The fact is that the minister has confirmed two of the underwriters. There is no doubt he knows who all of the people participating will be.

You are already negotiating a price for the sale of Hydro with these underwriters. It is clear to everyone now that the minister has been hiding from the people, just as you've tried to hide everything else in this shameful deal. Will the minister confirm that the Province will get $500 million for Hydro from the underwriters, less than a quarter of the market value of Hydro assets and businesses?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the price that we get will be set by the market at the time the deal is done. When it is the most opportune time we would hope that we will be going forward with the deal for the maximum dollars that we can get. It is not for me to speculate on the number of dollars that we will get for this and the details of how it will be done, but it will be done to maximum benefit for the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Mines and Energy has told us a little bit about process. Let me ask the Minister of Finance, who will ultimately be responsible for this, if and when this bill goes through the House - and the conversation thus far presumes that the bill is going to go through the House. Let's assume for a moment that it will. Let me ask the minister: Has either the Province or Hydro or the investment brokers or the underwriters who will be dealing with this issued a prospectus, either a preliminary prospectus or a final prospectus for the sale of the new Hydro shares?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if and when this bill goes through the House and when we get in a position where we feel it is an opportune time, at that point in time the prospectus is issued. The hon. member knows the process. There has been no prospectus issued, preliminary or otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that. Would the minister like to tell us then why investment dealers are out today selling shares in new Hydro? Calling prospective clients, offering them shares, quoting them prices. Basically pre-selling. Now, there is nothing wrong with that if it is being done on pure speculation by those investment dealers. The question is, is it pure speculation, or do they have a preliminaries prospectus or a copy of the final prospectus, or other insider information? That's the question.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, they have no such thing because it is not released. It is just not done. I would like to point out to the hon. member that there has been discussion for quite some time now, for many, many, months, about the privatization of Hydro. I can't account for tactics of investment dealers. I suppose - and this is the first I heard of it from hon. member, but if they are doing that I suppose they are calling their normal clients and saying, if it is offered on the market would you want some of the shares? They cannot sell shares because the shares don't exist at this point in time. There may be investment dealers out there calling their normal clients and saying, if it is offered would you like to buy some? But there is no price, no shares have been offered, no prospectus. We have not gone to the market and that is simply the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that they are selling, that they are quoting a price, and they are saying they can guarantee blocks of shares to prospective buyers when the sale starts moving.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice a question, Mr Speaker, I would ring his bell, but I want to deal with the Minister of Finance at the moment.

Would the minister tell us, is there any possibility that these firms have some insider information? If not, what they are doing is unethical, if not illegal, and would the minister start an investigation into that immediately and will they put a halt to this prospective sale until we see the results of such an investigation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I say unequivocally that if there is an investment dealer out there who is actually in the process of selling shares and quoting prices, then he is not selling Hydro shares and no price has been set. If that is happening then it is a very, very unusual thing, and I suggest to the hon. member, if he has the information - and all I have is his word - would he please either let me have the information and I will investigate it, or would he, himself, contact the Securities Commission to lodge a complaint?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if the revised architectural drawings to renovate the old section of Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista to accommodate Level 2 and Level 3 care residents have been approved by his department?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, all things will be revealed in due course.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is an amount of $1.5 million carried forward from the last Budget to do those renovations. I would like to ask the minister today if he would commit that amount of money to be carried forward from the Budget we are about to hear tomorrow, to carry out this much-needed work in Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is not new money and I think we deserve an answer. This money was brought forward from the 1993-1994 Budget and I would like to ask the minister again, if he would commit that that money would be brought forward from this year to next year's Budget?

MR. TOBIN: Stand up (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member would realize that what he was asking was impossible to answer because the Budget has not yet been presented. I suppose, being a new member, certain things can be overlooked, but he should certainly know that I am not about to reveal budgetary knowledge at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

I have in my possession a copy of a paper the minister presented to Cabinet on the controversy surrounding the ATV regulations. The paper is titled: Issues Raised During Public Meetings. Since I am unable to table the document here I have arranged to distribute copies to the press.

The minister identified eighteen major problems with the regulations; I can't raise them all but let me ask the minister in relation to issue 2, `Retrieval of Kill'. Will the government concede to the request of hunters and allow the use of ATVs to retrieve kill from the wetland?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to be discussing Cabinet documents in the House. If he would like to ask me what changes were made in Cabinet, those are public now and I can reveal those but I will not respond to questions regarding a Cabinet paper.

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

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

With respect to the Cabinet paper, issue 13, admits that considerable work is required to identify wetlands and to route and plot licensed trails. How can these regulations be enforced before the work is done?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a word he said, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: The same question, Mr. Speaker.

Issue 13, admits that considerable work is required to identify wetlands and to route and plot licensed trails. How can these regulations be enforced before that work is done?

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

MS. COWAN: Very, very easily - very, very easily, Mr. Speaker, and I am sick and tired of that crowd over there who begged me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

MS. COWAN: Alright, the hon. gentlemen and the hon. lady across the way.

In particular, the hon. the Member for Humber East last year pressed me constantly to get these regulations in place. Last year they were all for them, and I am sure the hon. the Member for Humber East hasn't changed her mind because she felt very strongly about it, but now, suddenly - because I think it was the House Leader on our side said one day, you know, they get a little flurry, so they get all excited and run out, because, my gosh, there's somebody out there with a problem against government and they are going to champion it, whether it goes against their conscience or whether it doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

Obviously, the minister herself has never sat on an ATV, and she certainly doesn't know the impact these regulations are having or will have.

Issue number 6 with the concerns in the Cabinet paper dealing with enforcement date, and this is an issue that I have brought up a number of times, points out how ridiculous it is for government to proceed to implement these regulations on April 1, 1994.

Will the minister delay the regulations for a year to give cabin owners, outfitters and others time to construct trails?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I have never been on a fishing boat either, and I know the devastation that has been done to this Province's fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: I find that absolutely appalling, that somehow or other, because I have never been on an ATV, I have no right to set out regulations for it. I never drilled for a well either, and I look after the licensing of the well drillers in the Province. I have never gone out and done scientific research on water, and yet I am responsible for that in the Province. I mean, my gosh!

As for those regulations coming in on the first of April, they are coming in on the first of April. We have had enough damage done in this Province over the last seventeen years when these people were too frightened to do it because it might cause a few people in the Province to get upset, didn't do it, and allowed for seventeen years the destruction of wetlands in this Province so that it is shocking, it is a disgrace, and do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We can't blame Ottawa, we can't blame the foreigners, we did it ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Canada-Newfoundland Rural Development Corporation Agreement which was due to expire at the end of this month received a new breath of life on Friday, March 11, with the announcement of a one year extension. I would like to ask the minister that even though the announcement says a one year extension there seems to be only enough funds to allow the fifty-nine development associations to receive administration funding for a six month period. Is this the case, Mr. Minister? If so, what will happen after six months?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I didn't hear the first part of the question, I was reading some documents.

MR. ROBERTS: It was all in yesterday's Telegram anyway.

MR. FUREY: Yesterday's Telegram. Okay. If I can refer to yesterday's Telegram. Basically what we've done is both orders of government have recognized that at the end of March, this month, the rural development agreement will be terminated. We've set in place a process whereby we are going to extend by one year if necessary the funding that would be required administratively for the fifty-nine associations. The amount of money that is left from the project section of the old rural development agreement, which will expire in three weeks, will be rolled forward and converted to administrative dollars, so that all of the associations will have at least 50 per cent of their administrative requirements.

We hope that the federal-provincial task force will have reported by then. We've just developed the terms of reference. We want to go out and see how we can manage and construct and reconstruct the seventeen economic zones. If we require funding beyond that six month extension, beyond the $18,500 which we will disperse over the next two or three weeks, then we will take it from the new strategic regional diversification agreement.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Minister, is there any commitment from the federal government on a new agreement for rural development in the Province?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and good question. No problem with that question. We don't want to prejudge whether in fact we need to put in place a rural development agreement right now. What we have set in motion is a federal-provincial task force. The federal government has appointed their senior federal person in Newfoundland, Mr. Gordon Slade. I've just appointed Dr. Doug House from the Recovery Commission. Together they are formulating the terms of reference. We hope to involve the Federation of Municipalities, we hope to involve the rural development associations through their umbrella council, and others to participate, have public consultation, come back and tell us what the seventeen economic zones should look like, and how they ought to be funded. So there is no point in negotiating a new agreement, Mr. Speaker, for four or five years. This is why we've extended it. We would be prejudging the outcome of that task force.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Education. In a statement to the House yesterday the minister indicated that government intends to introduce in this session a comprehensive revision of the Schools Act. Is it the government's intention to include in that legislation the changes to denominational educational systems as outlined in Adjusting the Course - Part I?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I said in the ministerial statement yesterday that during this session of the House we will be introducing changes to the Schools Act. I would ask the hon. member to be a little bit patient and wait a few more days until the legislation is tabled. Then, rather than having to hear it secondhand from me, he will be able to take it and read it very carefully himself and know exactly what is in it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister I'm sure is well aware of the legal opinion written by legal counsel to the royal commission on education, Mr. George Furey. Mr. Furey's opinion is contained of course in Appendix III of the commission's report. I won't read it, the minister is well aware of it. Has the government, I ask, decided to ignore Mr. Furey's warnings, and are you taking a course of action that, according to Mr. Furey, is certain to tie up educational reforms in the Province perhaps for some years?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to George Furey, who is certainly one of the top lawyers in this Province today. I have the utmost respect for him. However, as good as he is, he has not yet had the opportunity to pass an opinion on the bill which is going to come forward before this House. When he does then of course I will be able to comment on his statement, but to date he hasn't seen the bill and he can't make a comment on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, a final supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister would consider again beginning serious negotiations with the churches who have given some indication that they are prepared to compromise? I am wondering if he would make another effort to reach a consensual agreement before we tie up the educational system of this Province in legal and political wrangling that might go on for the next four to five years?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting with the churches which took place, I think, late last month, when we agreed, as a group, both the church leaders and government, that there was no consensus reached, the very last words that we said to the churches before they left were: Look, our door will remain open forever. If you have something further you want to say, if you believe that there is something you could add so that we could reach a consensus, by all means come forward.

Mr. Speaker, that offer still stands, because one thing no one can accuse this government of doing is trying to ride roughshod over the churches. We are talking; we are leaning over backwards; we are doing everything in our power in the interest of reforming education to try and reach the consensus with the church leadership.

Our door is forever open; however, I must say that the people of this Province are demanding that the educational system be reformed, and we have to take our direction from what the people of the Province want.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

On February 22 the minister appointed a fact finding team to look into the operations of the Grenfell Regional Health Service. Now on February 3 I forwarded to the minister statements by physicians regarding administrative problems as well as problems relating to the opening of their mail and the cashing of their cheques.

I asked the minister in this House a week ago if these statements had been passed over to the fact finding team that he appointed. The minister refused to answer at that time, so I would like to ask the minister again: Has this fact finding team that he appointed to look into the affairs of Grenfell received the statements by physicians regarding these allegations?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is doing his tempest in a teapot bit. Any piece of paper that I get from the hon. member I forward to the appropriate place. In this particular case, I forwarded his paper as he suggested.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he forwarded it since I asked the question last week. I think that is very much appreciated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you forwarded it before, you should have answered last week. It would have saved a lot of the time of this House.

I would like to ask a question now to the Minister of Justice. I ask the Minister of Justice if a police investigation is underway regarding Grenfell and by whom it is being conducted, if it is.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge is second-hand for obvious reasons, given that my brother is the Executive Director of the Grenfell Association, as the House knows.

The arrangements are that a case where I am in a conflict position the Premier, as my alternate minister, deals with these things. I can tell the House what has happened.

My friend, the Minister of Health, referred the papers directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who I understand has referred them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the extent of my knowledge.

I understand the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will conduct an investigation in the usual way. When it comes to a conclusion, one of two results will come. As with any criminal investigation, either charges will be laid or the decision will be taken not to lay charges. I assume an appropriate public statement will be made then.

It would obviously be inappropriate, and indeed improper, to make any further comment on the matter since then. I know no more about the matter, except I do know the papers have been sent to the DPP, and he has, in turn, passed them on to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Health.

Last July, as the minister will recall, the Premier told people in Western Newfoundland that he personally had directed an immediate assessment of certain aspects of management at Western Memorial Regional Hospital. The Premier made that statement in the wake of a controversy about the government's decision to cancel intake at the hospital School of Nursing for one year; then, in response to public pressure, a decision to reverse that cancellation. Will the minister now release to the public the results of that assessment? The Premier told people in Western Newfoundland this winter that the minister would be releasing the findings and conclusions of the assessment.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report. I have no plans at the moment to release that; it is an internal document. But I'll have to talk to the Premier - if he has made commitments on the West Coast, we will have to see what commitments he has really made. We will have a chat about it and decide what to do. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have more questions for the Minister of Health.

The minister and his government have announced a plan to reorganize and consolidate health boards throughout the Province, region by region, including reorganizing in the Western region. The time frame for the consolidation in the Western region has been delayed repeatedly. I would like to ask the minister when the government is going to reorganize health boards in the Western region. And will the government, as has been proposed by health administrators in that region, establish one super board with responsibility for all hospitals, senior citizens homes, nursing homes and public health in the Western region from Port Saunders to Ramea?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, since government hasn't decided what to do yet, I can't say what we're going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It kind of makes sense. But it is true that we have had a proposal from some, but not all, of the administrators on the West Coast and a team of, I think they call themselves the Western Planning Council, that they would like to have everything rolled into one. We are considering that and discussing it with various people to see if it's the appropriate way to do it. It's a very complex - what they are doing - you see, the proposal is, that not only the five or six hospitals and nursing homes in the Western region be in one area, as we are doing it in other parts of the Province but, in addition, the public health, the home care, the single point of entry, alcohol and drug addiction, health promotion, prevention, all the health inspectors and the public health nurses be also given over to the same board. Since a lot of those services in the Western region and, indeed, elsewhere in the Province, in some areas is rudimentary. The feeling we have had up until now is that this would be - it may be that this particular part of health may be swamped by the needs of the acute and chronic care, the institutional side. So we have been a bit reluctant to put it all in one, but the proposal was made and we discussed it very genuinely when I met with that group. Not everybody, as I mentioned, feels quite the same way about it.

We are assessing the proposal very seriously but, at the moment, I am preoccupied with putting the final touches on the Eastern area and when that's done we will devote our time then to Western before proceeding to Northern - that's how we have it lined up. But we are in the process of giving serious consideration to this proposal that was made. We have not yet made up our minds and when government does make its decision, I will be announcing it.

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

MS. VERGE: I can yield to my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. Can the minister tell the House or tell me how long it normally takes for an environmental preview report to be completed by her department?

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

MS. COWAN: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker, it varies according to the extent of the research and so on that we ask the group. It usually is - did you see a preview report? Yes, it's a shorter mechanism then is the full environmental assessment process, but again, it varies from time to time and I'm sure the hon. gentleman is concerned about the environmental assessment of the highway out in his area of the Province. I have been going to get some information for him and, unfortunately, haven't been able to do that yet. I can understand his concern. So I will look after getting that information for him, but let me just say that it varies from project to project.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador has been devastated by the collapse of the Northern cod stock; and

WHEREAS the seal population has reached more than five million, and clearly created an imbalance in the ecosystem; and

WHEREAS the market is now available for the utilization of the whole animal;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse a full-fledged seal fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

MS. VERGE: Where is the Public Libraries report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition from 300 Pentecostal residents of Green Bay, more particularly, in the Springdale area.

The petition is to the House of Assembly and it says:

`We, the undersigned, adamantly reject the government's proposal, Adjusting The Course to restructure the education system of this Province.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Pentecostals of Green Bay have a constitutional right to their school system. As a denomination, the Pentecostals are probably the most fiercely protective of their school system. In addition to their contributions as taxpayers, Pentecostals in Springdale have also put hundreds of thousands of dollars of their congregations' money into their school system.

One of the tenets of the Pentecostal faith is that parents have a God-given duty to take an active involvement in the education of their children. Nowhere is this more evidenced than in Springdale where we have Kindergarten to Grade XII and the church all under one roof.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education put off dismantling the denominational system for a year, but he still claims to be committed to its destruction. Maybe, petitions like this one will help slow the government's progress towards that end. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals didn't want denominational schools to be an election issue. Just prior to the election, the Premier obtained the silence of most church leaders by promising them meaningful negotiations after the election. Well, Mr. Speaker, after the election, the church leaders found out that the Premier had tricked them; he had no intention of meeting the churches half-way.

Mr. Speaker, Green Bay has a significant Pentecostal population and during the election, the Liberal candidate went out of his way to assure them that the Liberal Party had no designs on their school system. The Liberal candidate wrote Pentecostal families telling them `not to worry', telling them that their school system was safe in the arms of Clyde Wells. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the majority of Pentecostals in Green Bay did not fall for the lie and I am pleased to be here today to present their petition.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the petition and following up from Question Period today and the minister's commentary, I am sure that all hon. members of this House are well aware of the great levels of anxiety that are out in this Province relative to the educational system. There has been extensive dialogue between the government and the churches and, of course, with the school boards, of late, and with some of the Home and School Associations as well.

I commend the government for involving more of the stakeholders than there were in the initial phases. I am pleased to say that I am encouraged by the minister's statement today, that he is prepared to sit down again with the churches. I would suggest to the minister, that he avail of some of the leading educators in this Province, some of whom are well-known to the government and who may be able to offer a third-party intercessory role, and probably we would be able to avoid having to proceed unilaterally to take away constitutional rights. I say to the hon. House, if there is a way in which we can avoid three or four years of legal and political wrangling, let's explore all of the avenues. If there are third-party people who can facilitate a dialogue that can lead to a resolution. I think it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that these avenues are taken. I commend the minister for saying in this House today that his door is still open, and I would ask, through this House, the church leaders to avail of these opportunities so that we can have a resolution and avoid the conflict that is inevitable. We owe it to the children of the Province to do nothing less.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Green Bay gets up and talks about dismantling the denominational system. Now, it is talk like that which forced the government to spend $70,000 of our taxpayers' money to make an information package available to the people of this Province, to tell them that we are not dismantling the education system in this Province. It says very clearly here in this information package: Will denominational school boards continue to exist? Of course, they will. School boards will become interdenominational, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HEWLETT: That is not denominational education.

MR. DECKER: Oh, he says that is not denominational education. What it is, Communist? What is it, Russian? What is it, Rhinoceros? We are talking about an interdenominational system. That is not denominational? The World Council of Churches is not denominational?

MR. HEWLETT: The World Council of Churches is interdenominational.

MR. DECKER: Exactly! By golly, I believe he has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: All denominations will have representation on school boards. Mr. Speaker, will religious education continue to exist? Yes. Religious education courses as well as religious observances and other activities will continue. All churches will be guaranteed access to schools for religious purposes, Mr. Speaker. What will be the role of the churches in the proposed system? The churches will continue to have jurisdiction over religious education and pastoral care, and will have an advisory role in a number of other areas. Churches will have committees at the school boards and a denominational commission to represent church interests at the provincial level, Mr. Speaker. Will denominational rights be protected? It is intended that denominational rights continue to exist with the churches acting collectively rather than individually.

Mr. Speaker, I had to call that to the hon. member's attention because he talks about dismantling the school system, dismantling the denominational education system, and this is the kind of talk that went on out in Placentia. I heard the hon. member quoted on the radio during the by-election, about tearing the crucifixes off the walls. That is pure, utter scare tactics, and that is why we had to put out this information document, so that the people of the Province can get the real truth and not second hand from members who want to make some political points and go out and tell lies about it, Mr. Speaker. Here are the real facts.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the campaign, when the Liberal candidate wrote a letter to the people out there and said: no way will we do anything with the education system. It will remain as it is, have no fear. Let us assume the hon. member is telling the truth and that is the kind of a letter he wrote. Maybe that is the reason the people in Green Bay did not elect a Liberal member. They did not agree with that because the people in this Province want reforms to the educational system. If that is the kind of a letter the Liberal member, or Liberal candidate wrote, then he deserves to be defeated and the hon. member should think himself lucky that the people of Green Bay saw through the scam and they want reforms to the educational system, as do 80 per cent of the people in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 106 residents of St. John's and environs, including Torbay, Pouch Cove, Paradise, and Shea Heights - the Member for St. John's South will be very interested - who are opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. These individuals say, as citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador that they seek to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they believe that the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been proven to be in the best interests of the citizens of the Province. They demand that 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.

They, Mr. Speaker, including the member for Shea Heights, and I spoke to another resident of St. John's South last night, they believe they have not had adequate input into this process. Some people are calling for a meeting in St. John's South to have the member there for example to meet with his constituents and discuss this issue. I don't know whether he has called that meeting yet or not. I know that editorialists around the Province, Mr. Speaker, are also raising concerns about the arrogance of certain members of the back benches in blindly following the lead of the Premier, in following the attitude of the Premier, and saying -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Did you read the editorial in The Evening Telegram today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It is interesting that the Member for Eagle River refers to the editorial in today's Telegram.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, reference is being made to the editorial in today's Telegram. It is interesting that yesterday they were telling us about yesterday's editorial. Maybe they knew about it but it didn't really appear until today. They thought it was going to appear yesterday but it didn't appear till today. That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. TOBIN: What's that, Jack? What's that?

MR. HARRIS: They were telling us yesterday to look at the editorial in the paper but it didn't appear till today. So they must have known. Who wrote it over there, Mr. Speaker? Editorialists around the Province are concerned about the attitude of members. The Member for Terra Nova was called to task for believing that she was hired by the Premier and not by the people of her district and was called down for her arrogance in not consulting the people. I think many members opposite have the same problem, they haven't consulted with their own constituents, they haven't explained the deal to them. Some of them can't even find answers to their questions, and it is no wonder that the vast majority of the people of Newfoundland oppose the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro sale just as do these petitioners.

I encourage all hon. members, even those opposite who have already made the mistake of voting once in principle, now that they've had a chance to examine their own consciences, to look at the detail of this proposed sale, perhaps to listen to the voices of their constituents. Maybe they too could have the courage to depart from the front benches' line and speak for themselves and vote for themselves, and vote for their constituents, and oppose the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro sale for the good of the Province and for the good of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The article in the Telegram is an article by a person who is very poorly informed. If you want to talk about finances -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you would just take time to listen for a minute!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they have the courtesy to listen for seven or eight minutes I will tell them why their figures are all wrong in the Telegram, I will answer them.

The Telegram states that we will save $25 million a year on the debt of Hydro. That is correct. It says that we will give up $10 million on a fee for guarantee of that debt. That is also correct. They use $25 million minus $10 million and they say that the Province is going to save $15 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having great difficulty hearing the hon. member and -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's why they are so stunned on the issue!

MR. SPEAKER: - I would like to hear what he has to say.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to support a petition. There was reference made to a Telegram article and I want to explain it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Telegram has failed to recognize that the taxpayers of this Province are putting $15 million this year, fiscal year, into a rate adjustment fund. They have failed to realize that this Province is giving back to Newfoundland Power almost $10 million we have been receiving every year, in addition to that $10 million for guarantee of the debt, under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.

Not only is it giving it away - and you could ask the Minister of Finance about this, he had it in his Budget for the last several years. This Province received $9.199 million this year, $9.99 million last year, 85 per cent of the federal corporate tax that Light and Power pays. We are giving that back to Newfoundland Power. Not only that, we are saying to New Hydro -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't interfere when they spoke.

They are also giving back; they are giving away, the 85 per cent corporate tax that the new privatized Hydro would pay, about $25 million to $30 million. We are saying we don't want it in this Province. The taxpayers are going to transfer that price onto the rate payers of electricity in this Province. We are giving that away. We are putting $30 million to $40 million of funds that are not there - it is an underfunded pension liability - we are taking that fund and we are turning it over to the new company, and we are going to take out a credit note for fifteen years, that is going to take $105 million over fifteen years, that the taxpayers are going to pay in this Province. That is only what taxpayers are going to pay, and if you look at what rate payers are going to pay in this Province - and these are facts substantiated by the Premier's documents, even though he underscored them - the rate payers of this Province are going to pay $20 million debt-related costs for the transfer.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell the motor-mouth, the Member for Eagle River, if he will listen, that there are fees and commissions of $15 million to $20 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having great difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for Ferryland. If members could hold down their views until they have a chance to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they are having great difficulty. They want to have great difficulty because their ears are closed and they don't want to hear the truth, and I will challenge them at any moment, any time, between here and forever, to stand up and debate any of these figures and costs that are here - anybody - the Premier, or you, or anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I correct the Government House Leader, yesterday, on an inaccuracy he stated to the Member for Humber East. When we said, `The securities are excluded. What about all these other rights?' he said, `We can't print the 300 and what? - 370 pages in the Corporations Act.' He said, `That is defined in the Corporations Act.' Well, I can tell the minister what is defined in the Corporations Act. I took time to read it. Here is how "securities" are defined, and you led this House to believe that it includes all rights and lands. It states, and I checked the Corporation Act, 1990, page 12 - you can check it if you wish - it says: "security" 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.

I tell the minister, it doesn't include undertakings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just one second?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't want to hear the truth, that's why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I made a note or two to say a word with respect to this petition, in response to some of the inaccurate statements given by the gentleman, the Member for Ferryland, but let me deal first with his most recent attack upon me.

What I read in the House yesterday was subsection (z), which is the one he just read. That is all I read. Now, I don't know where he is getting this fandango. I, at no point, said anything other than that the securities, as defined in the privatization bill - there is incorporated in the bill by reference as a definition, the definition from the Corporations Act. That is what I said.

Now, if the hon. gentleman didn't understand that, I'm sorry. I can only make something as plain as one can, and to quote the old phrase, `One can lead a horse to water; one cannot make him drink.'

Now, Your Honour, let me go on to deal with some other inaccuracies so that the hon. gentleman knows whereof he talks.

The $15 million he speaks of in the rate adjustment fund is a one-shot payment - the bill makes that quite clear - a one-shot payment, it is not a recurring payment.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was up whining about not being interrupted. I didn't interrupt him, let him acknowledge - let him not interrupt me.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says I am not telling the truth. Your Honour, I ask you to rule that is not parliamentary, and ask him, please, to withdraw the statement. He cannot stay here and say a member is not telling the truth. I ask for a ruling, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear exactly what the member said, but if you accuse another -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, if the hon. gentleman hasn't got the courage to stand in the House and say openly, we will let the matter stand. Now, let me carry on. The hon. gentleman's lack of courage speaks for itself. He doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand and say openly what he says sotto voce. Now, Your Honour, let me go on.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour please -

MR. SPEAKER: I heard that.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) I know it is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it. I appreciate the hon. gentleman's good grace.

Now, Your Honour, let me carry on. The $15 million, as the Premier as said, as others of my colleagues have said, is a one-time payment. Secondly, the PUITTA payment, as the Premier has explained, and I believe my friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy explained is more than offset by the revenue we will get should Newfoundland Hydro be privatized to be a taxable entity. Thirdly, and most importantly, again as we have said repeatedly over here, all of this revenue flows directly to the rate payer in the form of holding down the rates. All of this has been factored into the calculations that underlie the rate projections the Premier tabled in the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other point I would make is that hon. gentlemen opposite are consistently refusing to debate the bill. When it is called in Committee, they do anything but talk about the clauses. So I again repeat to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, and other friends on both sides of the House, if they will but bring up these questions when we are in Committee, instead of going off on paranoid fantasies of Rothschilds and - well, paranoid fantasy or fantastic paranoia as one prefers, then we can deal with these and we will gladly deal with them.

As for my hon. friend's outburst against the Telegram, all I can say is that I have had occasion to agree with the Telegram, I have had occasion to disagree with it, but I suspect whoever writes the editorials over there - be it a committee or an individual, I know not - is not the least bit concerned about the hon. gentleman. It is flattering that he reads the paper. Now, if only he understood it, Mr. Speaker, we would be one step further ahead.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of seventy-two residents of the district of Grand Bank.

MR. MURPHY: How many residents?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seventy-two, seven two, one more than seven one and one less than seven three, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: He sounds like (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I'm taking my lessons from the Government House Leader, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is doing well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know. I'll soon graduate from Kindergarten like the minister.

Mr. Speaker, all of those people on the petition - I've gone through the petition with my magnifying glass, like the Premier's honchos in his office who go through the petitions. I have taken the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I've gone through it with my magnifying glass to see if all those people are legitimate and after going through it, I can tell members opposite that all of those people who have signed this petition are from Grand Bank and Fortune. I know them all personally, I know where they live, I see most of them every weekend when I'm in my district, I know where they work, I'm happy to report that most of them still do work because the plant in Fortune is still working and the plant in Grand Bank has about 100 employees, so it's a very legitimate petition, Mr. Speaker.

These petitioners, as with many other petitions that have been presented in this House, are really calling upon the government to not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation. Yes, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, seventy-two - seventy-two very important people, I say to him. And if it were seven or it were two, I say to the minister, I would stand in this House and do what my constituents, who happen to be those petitioners -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) about Sprung, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh boy, don't be so foolish!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, will you rise above the slush in the gutter? Will you rise up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't forget about Sprung, I say to the minister, I don't forget about Sprung, but what he is going to do here now in the privatization bill which those seventy-two people of the district of Grand Bank, living in Fortune and Grand Bank, who oppose, is going to be the equivalent of fifty Sprungs, I say to the minister.

Now, if the minister finds that one Sprung of $22 million was so bad, how does he feel, Mr. Speaker, about those petitioners who are so concerned with the giveaway of this very important resource that they own, I ask the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture? Now that's not too complicated, it's not too hard to follow, Mr. Speaker.

But these people asked me to present this petition on their behalf, voicing their concern, asking this government to stop the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because it is going to cost them more as taxpayers, it is going to cost them more as rate payers. They are both the same people and I guess I can equate it to a gentleman I ran into on the parking lot of the Health Sciences Complex a few minutes ago. He was sitting in his car, he didn't want to go to the parking meter, and he recognized me and he called me over and he said: `Isn't this parking situation really something!' I asked, `Why is that?' `Well, here,' he said, `the people whom I, as a taxpayer, am employing and paying their wages, have free parking, but,' he said, `the one who pays their salaries and wages, I have to go and put my quarter into the parking meter.'

Well, I say to members opposite, this is a situation very similar to what we have here, because the taxpayers and the rate payers are getting it both ways by what this government is doing -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - in privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to the Minister of Education, in case he can't understand that. They are the same - the rate payers and the taxpayers are the same people; it is going to cost a net cost to those people in the next ten years of about $750 million, I say to the Minister of Education, when there is no need of it. There is no need of it.

The best option that the government can undertake with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to keep it and not privatize it and that is what those very important seventy-two petitioners from the district of Grand Bank, along with the thousands of others who have signed petitions and thousands more who are signing them and sending them in, that is what they are calling upon this government to do, Mr. Speaker, and I am very pleased to support the petition and to support the petitioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a man with backbone, Sir - a man with backbone!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 3:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) House and shortly it will be Private Members' Day.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know it is only seconds but, I respect the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, standing in his place and putting the petition as he should and must do on behalf of his constituents, but I say to the hon. member, that I have great difficulty with the Member for Ferryland. We will get into this, this afternoon with the Waterford - Kenmount debate. I don't know, perhaps I should call him the member for H₂O and the Member for Ferryland, Mathematics.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, I say to the Member for St. John's East, because before the afternoon is out - never called a public meeting in five years, not one did the member call.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. MURPHY: I will get back to him later this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I was going to call three o'clock.

It now being three o'clock, we are into Private Members' Day. I understand motion 6 is being called.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 6, I think, Your Honour, is the one to be called.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this afternoon and to move the following resolution:

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a great public concern that the government is moving on privatization with undue haste. Mr. Speaker, many people hold the view that this bill is being rammed through the House; they have witnessed the closure that was imposed on the House on second reading, they have expressed great concern that their viewpoints are not being communicated in this House or being recognized by the government.

It seems to the citizens of this Province that there are many questions and very few straight answers. The people of this Province deserve better than what they are getting from their elected government.

Mr. Speaker, in the last days of debate the Opposition has repeatedly asked the government to slow down, to permit the people of this Province to have some say. I was very encouraged this afternoon by the Minister of Education in his statement towards the end of question period when he said: No one can accuse the government of not listening to the people.

On the issue of education the minister has repeatedly said that he has conducted surveys and that 60 per cent, 70 per cent, or 80 per cent of the people have agreed with the government in their reforms of education as outlined in Adjusting the Course - Part I. While the government says on the matter of education that they have conducted their surveys, they have analyzed then, and they take from these surveys the encouragement to go ahead and to reform the educational system in a non-consensual manner, at the very same time on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro people are saying that they want to have their opinions voiced and they want to have their viewpoints listened to.

Ordinary people want straight answers. People have concerns about the financial aspects, about taxation, about the operational proposals and about personnel. People are concerned about jobs. They are concerned about the future operational aspects of the proposed changes to Hydro. People have repeatedly given to hon. members of this House numerous petitions which members have, as they are obliged to do, presented to this House for consideration. In some cases these petitions have been severely criticized by hon. members. They've been scrutinized by the Premier who admitted in this House two days ago that he had had his staff go over some of the names of the petitioners -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: Or he had done it himself, and he had taken it upon himself to call these people to enquire as to whether or not they indeed had signed.

I find that to be not only intimidating but a bit insulting to the ordinary citizen. It isn't every day that the ordinary resident of this Province expects the Premier to call up and ask them: Did you sign that petition? Why did you do it, and et cetera. Mr. Speaker, my point is that the petitions of the people have been criticized, scrutinized, vilified, belittled and held in contempt by members of the government. I think that is a very sad commentary that when people of their own freewill sign petitions and we come in here and present them and then members of the government make snide remarks, derogatory comments, not only of the process, but in some cases on the very people who signed the petitions.

We've had it said here by the members of the Executive, we've had it said by the Ministry, that this is the most important legislation to be placed before this House since Confederation. So why the big rush? Confederation itself took from the first Assembly in 1946 to 1949. In the meantime there had been two referendums and the people of the Province were consulted. If this particular proposal is more important than some of the great projects of the 1950s and the 1960s, why is it that the people of the Province cannot be consulted?

Government has not explained why this sale is necessary, and while members of the government a few moments ago took great joy in today's editorial of The Evening Telegram, they should have also read today's copy of The Express, or they should have listened to CBCs first ten minutes of news coverage last evening. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that today's editorial of The Evening Telegram is wrong. I am simply saying that we have a responsibility as elected people to make sure that the whole message gets out there. I am not saying either that the proposals by the government cannot be rationalized or justified. I am saying to the government: you have a responsibility to assure that a process is put in place whereby the ordinary citizens of this Province understand what is going on.

We cannot simply say: well, we were voted in last May 3 and four years from now the people can vote us out if they do not like it. I have heard that argument many times. I have heard it in City Council when I was a member of City Council, when we had members who sometimes did not want to meet constituents, and did not want to face taxpayers. They wanted to ride roughshod over the general public. I have heard members of my council over the years take the same kind of attitude, but it is not an attitude that is attuned to the good functioning of democracy. Democracy means that it is government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

There are occasions when you have to put into place a public consultative role, you have to put in a program whereby the people can have a viewpoint and can be heard. I fail to understand why the government is so adamant in its refusal to hold public hearings, why it is so adamant in its viewpoint that it will not refer this matter to a legislative review committee, or that it will not adopt some other process that will assure citizens a voice before this legislation becomes the law of this Province.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, many citizens have developed a distrust of government on this issue, a distrust that we have not seen in its severity in the last ten to twelve, or perhaps fifteen years. When the government treats the public with contempt, citizens feel insulted, they feel they are not full partners in the democratic process, and they quite predictably treat the government with the same kind of mistrust and contempt with which they have been treated. In other words they do unto the government as government is doing unto them.

Mr. Speaker, the question we must ask is: Why is government so determined to ignore the opposition to the deal? We have to ask the question, why will not the government begin a process of public dialogue? The citizens want an opportunity to share with the government reasoned and rational viewpoints. They want to get away from the emotionalism that is attached to this particular issue. All they are asking for is a forum and the means to do it.

Now, the Premier of this Province was held in great respect by the Canadian citizenry some years ago in his discussions on Meech Lake and Constitutional reform. I do not believe there is a Newfoundlander or Labradorian who at the time was not quite proud of the Premier when he stood up to Central Canada. I say that with all due respect, because at that time the Premier of this Province was the champion for participatory democracy. He was saying that this issue was so large that it should not be decided in the back rooms. It should not be decided by a small group in Ottawa, nor should it be decided by a group of premiers and their advisors meeting in a conference. What he said was that these people should meet, they should draw up their proposals, and they should share them with the entire population.

When the Premier talked about participatory democracy he was on very good, solid principles and he was doing what I believe to have been a service to all Canadians. Yet, Mr. Speaker, words like participatory democracy, constituent assemblies, these are very easy to use, but sometimes they are quite a challenge to put into practice. On this particular issue we are saying to the Premier of this Province: Let us restore the participatory democracy principles that he espoused just a few short years ago, and let him take his own advice and set in process a means whereby citizens of this Province can have some say.

A democracy functions well when the government believes it has a trust from the people and when they have a healthy respect for the electorate, and when major issues of national or provincial importance arise the government believes it has not only a moral responsibility but a political responsibility to be the voice of the people. We have made great efforts in the past few years to involve the public in the development of legislation. We see that with the ATV regulations. The hon. the minister has sponsored various forums and that is the kind of consultative dialogue that we encourage. We've seen the consultative dialogue occur in the sitting of the House just a few days ago on changes to the certified general accountants, to the chartered accountants, to their designation. Three days of meetings here in this very Chamber. We've seen public forums on the changes to the smoking legislation. We've had forums on changes to the automobile insurance legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that on this issue, the biggest issue, by the government's own admission since Confederation, there are no public hearings whatsoever.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) said that.

MR. HODDER: Said by your Minister of Finance.

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody from government said that.

MR. HODDER: I'm only saying what is in Hansard.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) show me the reference.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there is no opportunity at all for ordinary citizens to express their viewpoints. Then the government wonders why there is a mistrust out there. We all know, those of us who are in public life, that there is a general mistrust of politics and politicians, and we do nothing to restore that trust when we behave in an autocratic manner. We do not do anything to restore trust when we ignore the cry of the people to be involved in development of legislation. We cannot be surprised that in this Province today there is widespread scepticism, a widespread feeling that government isn't listening.

You see, just a few evenings ago, last Thursday evening, these galleries here were filled almost to capacity with people who were here because they cared. In the nine months that I've been here, and the many years I visited here as a student and as a resident in the region, I've rarely seen these galleries filled like that, excepting at Budget Day or some other special occasion. Yet last Thursday evening people stayed here for three or four hours to listen to the debate. Just a few days ago, two days ago, 250 citizens gathered outside of this building here. Their point was, they wanted to be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens who have been blocking the Open Line shows, the citizens who have expressed their comments in the public media, print media and electronic media, these citizens are average citizens. They are asking to be consulted, but it is their opinion that the government is stonewalling. They are pretending not to hear, and by pretending not to hear the message is conveyed that they do not care. Certainly, if you want to give the citizens the feeling that you care, first of all you assure them that you are listening.

Mr. Speaker, citizens are really concerned with the hasty passage of this bill that will, in a few weeks, I am sure, if we continue on the present route, this particular issue will be passed into law and the government then is hoping that the political storm will go away.

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for today, and the plea of this particular motion, is that we find a way to make this House a participatory, democratic institution. Make it really the people's House. I am not saying this resolution to government doesn't have the legal right to do what it is doing - not at all. The government is quite within its rights, according to the laws of this Province, to do that which they are doing, and the way in which they are proceeding; however, I do believe that the cry of the people through petitions, the cry of the people through Open Line shows, through letters to the editors, needs to be listened to, because we want to be assured that when this legislation is passed that the people of this Province have been heard.

You will note that I have not been saying much about the merits of the bill. I have been trying to address the process, and in this particular case, this resolution, has to do with the process being followed. We are calling upon the government to halt a little, do the right thing for all the right reasons, both political, moral and, of course, legal as well.

Of course, I have said before that the law is being followed; however, we want to say to the government that the people of this Province want to have a forum. They want to have unbiased, expert opinions given to them - not opinions by the Opposition, not opinions that are totally by the government. They want to be assured that this is the right thing to do, and the motion calls upon the government to set in process a methodology whereby we can have the proper consultation and, in that way, when this legislation is passed, the people of this Province will know that their opinions have been listened to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in this debate today. I must say at the outset that I do not support the resolution as moved by the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, and I will outline the reasons why.

Mr. Speaker I am happy, in a way, that this issue has finally come to the floor of this House, and indeed to the people of this Province, because ever since we have been a party in Confederation, ever since really there has been an association with political parties in this Province, many people have misunderstood, or were confused, as to what a Liberal was and what a Conservative was, because there seemed to be a wolf in sheep's clothing all the time. People were saying: Well, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the way the Liberal government is acting now and the way the Conservative government was acting the year before, or what they are doing in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased that this debate has come forward in this Province because I do believe that for the first time since Confederation we have a classic example of the difference between Liberals and Conservatives and through the next few minutes I want to outline some of the reasons. I want to say it particularly to the Member for Waterford - Kenmount because yesterday he came over to this side of the House and said to myself and other members: well, where do you come from thinking that you're a Liberal with the way you're going on. I thought it was appropriate that I do a little bit of research, Mr. Speaker, I pulled one of my little volumes off the shelf and I did so and I did take up the second volume actually of the Great Political Theories, particularly the section on liberalism and aristocratic conservatism.

There are two distinct philosophies at work here, Mr. Speaker, when you look at liberalism and you look at the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, I have to say that the - not from, I will get to that one - but, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very basic principles of liberalism. One of the principles of course is the emphasis on the individual and the rights of the individual to association, to freedom of speech and to be able to gather and form Opposition's. There's also the principle of the adherence to the rule of law, that's another very significant principle.

There's a very prominent principle in the respect for free opposition to secure liberty, Mr. Speaker, but today I want to focus on the principles as it relates to the economic theories of liberalism. They were first annunciated by Smith, Adam Smith, a long time ago. Certainly later on the classical liberalism was annunciated by Milton Friedman, Mr. Speaker, and at that point in time these hon. gentlemen and great philosophers of the day would have classified early liberalism as identified with the economic concept of laissez-faire. The removal of restrictions or control on economic behaviour and an emphasis with the market economy. Through some liberal's, such as Milton Friedman, though they still hold this view most modern liberals, such as (inaudible) have accepted the need for state intervention in the economy to a certain degree. Now modern liberals tend to emphasize to a greater degree the need for opportunities for people to act and thus pay more attention to the social environment and to economic and political organization.

That is where we are today, Mr. Speaker. We have a clear focus today on the role of government and we are now coming to the point in our history in this Province where we have consciously and intentionally, and I submit with great pride, reached the point where we have said, as the Evening Telegram has said today, that - and I quote, `Hydro's public policy purpose has now been served.' That's what the editorial in the Evening Telegram is saying today and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that's the conclusion that this government reached in keeping with the economic theories and the basic underpinnings of liberalism as it relates to economic activity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you then take the opposite side and obviously what we are seeing today, we are seeing today the classic conservatism. As a matter of fact, under political philosophy it would be defined as the classic aristocratic conservatism, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, `conservatism historically has been a response to the principles and activities stemming from the French Revolution. All conservatives theorists reject the idea of violent change and uphold the need for order and continuity,' Mr. Speaker, and I further quote from the Great Political Theories, and this is how they capsulize the individuals, `they tend to be pessimistic about human capabilities as well as political and social change. Conservatism is based chiefly on a proper recognition of human limitation. Critics of conservatism suggest that its real basis is an unwillingness to do anything for the first time.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: End of quote, Mr. Speaker.

Now today, Mr. Speaker, we have before us an issue which we have approached as a Liberal Government in keeping with our liberal principles. Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House and this Province that we have the best example of the difference between liberalism and conservatism that ever came before the people of this Province.

We went to the election of 1989 with a program for real change. We went to the electorate in 1993 with a program asking for the mandate to meet the challenges of the day. We have met the challenges of the day. What we see here today is nothing less than a government that has set its proper priorities. For one of the first times for the last twenty-four years we have now seen a government that is establishing priorities.

Priority number one. After seventeen years of devastation to the private sector of this Province, where we saw, particularly since 1975, a continuous and steady premeditated downturn in the economic activity of the private sector that was propelled by the economic policies of the day, by the people who did not want to do anything. They were sitting in their seat hoping that the world would operate and unfold as it should and prayed God that it would. Don't touch this, don't tinker with that, please don't suggest there is going to be any change in this. If there is something that can be done then if we don't want to do it let's cover it up, let's make sure that we put some money at it and make people content with their way of life. Let's not change anything, for God's sake.

We have now come to the conclusion, as I said The Evening Telegram reached today - and I have to point out that not all the time do I agree with The Evening Telegram. Today I think one would have to agree that after continuous debate, after months of debate - the Member for Ferryland got all tied up in knots. He had all of his clothing very well tied up around him. You could see the frustration; you could see the tension that was in him today. Because after four to five months of his exclamations about all the bad things that were associated with this, all the hysteria that he was creating amongst the public, all the outrageous figures that he was promising and promoting to the people, all of that today he says: Well, they are just wrong. They've just done a total consideration of all of this and they are just wrong.

The first sentence of this is very telling. They start off by saying, "Privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro makes good financial sense." Then they go on to say that, "Selling Hydro shouldn't be equated with giving away the Province's resources. Nor is it an outright sell-off to unknown interests." Number three - They say, "There is no reason for anyone to believe the Province and its people will lose ownership of water rights." Number four - and this is the one I think that is absolutely telling, the one that is the indictment, if there was such a statement ever cast on an Opposition that was in such a flurry to try to create a parade. They said, "An objective evaluation of privatization can only conclude that it serves the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. The debate must not become sidetracked by emotional arguments. Desperate economic times call for bold initiatives and privatizing Hydro is one of them." End of quote, Mr. Speaker.

I say that is it in a nutshell. We are saying that we have come to the point where Hydro's public policy purpose has been served. We have hydro-electricity into every community in this Province, down to Norman Bay, Labrador, and Pinsent Arm, the last community in this Province to ever receive it. We do not have a situation now where we have to develop more hydro-electricity dams or put more diesel in place to give people basic electricity. They are there now. We do not need a Crown corporation out there going to the market to find that ability to put a new dam on some other river so some people in this Province can get power so they can have lights, so they can have freezers, so they can have something to be able to secure their economic livelihood in terms of a fish plant and freezing capability. That is there now. We know that is there now.

So the public policy purpose that was there in 1960 when we were building this Province, when a good, solid, Liberal government started to build this Province, I submit, when the greatest Liberal who ever lived, Joseph R. Smallwood put together his program for building this Province, that is when we needed it. He created it, and as he said of the day, and what a great visionary he was, he said, I am creating this today knowing full well that it will outlive its usefulness after the private sector is up and running and we get electricity into every house in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he said of the day. What a visionary he was, and how grateful we are for what he did. I know how proud he would be today to see a Liberal government acknowledging that his vision was the right one, his vision was the proper one, his vision was the Liberal one.

I think this is a day when Liberals should be able to say to the people of this Province: we have kept our mandate to the people of yesterday in the Liberal Party, not to mention the greatest Liberal of them all, Mr. Speaker. I say the other reason why we have our priorities well established was the last sentence I just read, and that was, that desperate economic times call for bold initiatives. Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we are in desperate economic times.

The Minister of Finance tomorrow will have to deliver another Budget. We all know now that there is a $100 million deficit on current account. We know that our health care system is stretched to the limit. We know that our dollar for education has been masterfully put to use to get the best we can out of our education system. We know that. We know that the Minister of Social Services has creatively designed his social programs so that every scarce dollar can go to the people in need through no fault of their own, as Liberals do. We know that these dollars are being put there but we know that indeed they are scarce. We know that the Canadian government, one of the G7 countries, one of the top seven economic powers in this world is saying they have to come to grips with their economics, they have to come to grips with their spending, they have to cut back and adjust.

We know that, and when that is happening it is incumbent upon us to lead, it is incumbent upon us to go in concert with these powers. It is incumbent upon us to meet our responsibilities, and to meet those challenges. We will have a Minister of Finance stand in this House saying that first and foremost must be the maintenance of our social programs, in health, education, social services, in justice, and in all other aspects of this government that the people of the Province hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, that is the situation we are confronted with. We are being told daily. We see demonstrations every day, through the newspapers and through petitions. All members get telephone calls about how difficult it is going to be after May 15, and how are they going to be able to manage the health care system. The people in Forteau, Labrador are so proud today that we now have a chronic care facility in that community that took $1 million of very scarce resources to put there. It took $250,000 of very scarce resources to operate and the people who are there are so proud of that. They are so happy knowing that they have something given back to them that they need in their time of desperation when they cannot care for themselves. I know without one iota of doubt that if I were to go to every house in Forteau today and say to them: do you now want to lose the chronic care facility or do you think it is time for us to sell Hydro to get some money to maintain your chronic care centre? Mr. Speaker, if we asked them today there would be 100 per cent approval of what we are doing for the right reasons, all the right reasons, which they elected us to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: They are going to sell the house to save the fridge.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Here we have a situation where the Member for Green Banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, that was a Freudian slip if I ever heard one. The Member for Green Box, Green Backs, if ever I heard one, the $170,000 severance man.

Mr. Speaker, here we have a situation today where we know that we are missing an opportunity, where we have a good House. We have our House in order, we have our priorities set within that House, but here we have a situation today where we have the Cadillac out by the door, but not enough money to put any gas in it, and that is something that we cannot live with.

We know the responsible thing to do is to sell that Cadillac to get those dollars to keep our House in order and provide a few more dollars to make the extra adjustments in the social assistance programs, to be able to build those extra chronic care facilities, to maintain some of these small schools, to see policing into our communities, to give people the standard of living that they hold so near and dear, and the thing they are asking us to deliver on after a mandate just nine short months ago.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need the aristocratic Conservatives opposite to be standing on their high heels telling us that we should not do anything, we should not change anything. We should not change our education system; we should not change our financial operation of government, through the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro; we should stick our heads in the sand; we should ignore reality; we should absolve all authority and give the people the right to tell us, by a poll or by plebiscite from time to time, give over our responsibility to some polling firm, instead of a government and a House of Assembly we would have a brown box in here where people would do up a number of telephone polls and then call the Lieutenant-Governor and say, 60 per cent says this - execute. That is not the way to run a government. That is not the way to respect the wishes of the people who so heartily endorsed us just nine months ago.

So I would submit to all hon. gentlemen, and to all people of this Province, that today we are proud to stand here in keeping with the fundamental principles of Liberalism, as enunciated through the people that I have mentioned. Today we are true to our forefathers in that regard, and we are also true to the people and the generations that are coming after us, and that is the most important thing. We have to get our House in order. We have to keep maintaining our programs. We have to help those who, through no fault of their own, can't help themselves. We are empowered to do that, and I submit to the people of this Province, we will carry on under our leadership and our government to deliver on what they told us to do. I am confident that our course is the right one to be taking, one that is in keeping with all the tenets of Liberalism and, indeed, with responsible government in a parliamentary democracy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth, now - like (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have said more in the House this term than the hon. member said since he got elected. Then again, he is never here, I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't listen to a lot of what the Member for Eagle River had to say, because the Premier came in, and if anyone was watching the Member for Eagle River it would almost turn your stomach. It would almost turn your stomach, the way the Member for Eagle River got on when he saw the Premier. I wish the Premier would fill that Cabinet position and do whatever he is going to do so that hon. members over there could become themselves, could be their own persons.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to cause anyone any harm in what I am going to say, because I am going to say it with all sincerity: if there is anyone the Premier should put into his Cabinet, when he looks at the back benches, it is the hon. the Member for Port au Port. He is the most commonsense, level-headed individual over there in the back benches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I say I don't want to do him any harm by recommending him, but if I were the Premier of this Province, and I were looking for someone in the back benches who could do something to improve the Cabinet, there is only one, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. He doesn't say a lot in this House, but when he speaks, everyone listens.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River never shuts up, and nobody listens. And when the Premier came in, the display that the Member for Eagle River put on was almost unbelievable. What he wouldn't do to get into Cabinet!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A lot, a lot! Because that is the problem over there, boy, you are all supporting privatization.

MR. GRIMES: I think he is on the way in - one of the best speeches I ever heard.

MR. TOBIN: All I can say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is, the fact that he has agreed to support you in the leadership doesn't automatically give him a ticket to the Cabinet, because my understanding - despite the fact that you spent pretty hefty public funds, $6 million in job creation last year, divvied it out to your buddies over there to try to become the Premier, you may have stiff competition, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. But as far as we, on this side, are concerned, we are all rooting for you, I can assure you of that. The Progressive Conservative Party is supporting you, if that means anything, and I hope you can read what I mean.

We are supporting him, Mr. Speaker, and I understand the Rhinoceros Party is supporting the Minister of Forestry. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get into the meat of this debate, what it is all about. I can see members opposite, Mr. Speaker, today flipping around an editorial that was printed in The Evening Telegram. Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the editorial is that the writer of that editorial, who, I assume, is Mr. Miller Ayre, has as much right to write an editorial and to express his views as anyone else in this Province. He has as much right to do that as anyone else in this Province.

As a matter of fact, The Evening Telegram has written approximately six editorials. First, they recommended the merger, they wrote an editorial supporting that; they have written at least five others supporting privatization and merger, and that's their right and I don't quarrel. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact that only 5 per cent of Newfoundlanders support the privatization of Hydro, sends a message loud and clear as to the effect that editorials have on the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I don't quarrel, they have every right to write it. They have taken positions before which were different; they have taken positions before with which this government differed. And they have the right to write it, and Open Line holds to the right of their views.

The callers who call in, `John', who is a regular caller to Open Line has just as much right to his opinion as Miller Ayre; `Marjorie', Mr. Speaker, has just as much right to hers as Miller Ayre, so does `Vera'. All the regular callers have just as much right. Miller Ayre has just as much right - or whoever writes the editorial - to express his views as the regular callers to Open Line, and nobody should quarrel with the writer of that editorial. It is his privilege to write it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that only 5 per cent of the people of this Province support it speaks volumes. I, for one, don't quarrel with it, and if hon. members can concede and feel glee, they probably, Mr. Speaker - I don't see them flashing this around. I don't see them flashing this around, Mr. Speaker - that is Steve Neary, the former Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. WOODFORD: That the hon. member phones all the time.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and Steve might name them this weekend, from what I can understand, those who are phoning. Who is the hon. Leader's present MHA, I wonder?

MR. MURPHY: He was never elected leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South says he was never elected Leader of the Liberal Party - that does not mean he was not the leader. Mr. Speaker, when he became Leader of the Liberal Party, no one had to pass him out 50,000 bucks, I can tell him. No one had to throw 50,000 bucks in his way.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What did he say? Mr. Speaker, if there were any member in this House who should not have said what he just said, it was the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, how come I don't see anyone flashing around the editorial in today's Packet? How come there is no one flashing that around? I loaned it to my colleague there a minute ago. I don't see too many flashing that around.

MR. OLDFORD: How many Hydro letters are in it?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Trinity North asked how many Hydro letters are in it. If there is either one in it it is greater than the contribution that you've made to the Hydro debate, I say to the Member for Trinity North. You've sat in your seat and haven't opened your mouth on the issue. Stand up! At least some of them have stood up and said they support it and why. At least the Member for Terra Nova had the courage to express why she supported it. She had the courage to stand up in this House and be counted. I don't agree with what she had to say, the editorial doesn't agree with what she had to say, but unlike the Member for Trinity North, she didn't run and hide. She didn't want to try to play both ends against the middle, say one thing in here - and I ask the Member for Trinity North, did he phone Steve Neary? Let him answer that. There are some other people here I will ask before the evening is over if they phoned Steve Neary, some former colleagues of Steve Neary, I will ask if they phoned him and discussed this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You were never a colleague of Steve Neary, Sir. You were an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party when Steve Neary was there. You were President of the Progressive Conservative Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) riff-raff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the riff-raff in the Progressive Conservative Party were booted out, I say to the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Went through the door, took all the files with him.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Took the whole lot of files and documents belonging to the party with him when they kicked him out as president.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right, yes. He knows it, too.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I've never heard that before, I say to my colleague. I knew that the member was involved in books - they hit him on top of the head - but that was before we kicked him out. So imagine, we would never have had him, he would never have been in our party if the books hadn't hit him on the head first.

Anyway, I shouldn't be distracted by that. The fact of the matter is that this private member's bill today calls for public hearings. What do members have against public hearings?

MR. MURPHY: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: Well, go out and have them, I say, Mr. Speaker!

MR. MURPHY: I am.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed you are. The only public hearing you had was a public hearing with CBC. A public airing, I should say, not a public hearing.

The Member for St. John's South should have a public meeting. Because today my friend, the Member for St. John's East was up presenting petitions on behalf of his constituents. Knowing the Member for St. John's South, that bothers him, and he should go out and have them.

The Minister of Mines and Energy - he goes out to Jeffrey's for public hearings. What happens? He says: I am going to refuse to answer a question to - who was it? Someone got up and asked a question. He said: I am not going to answer your questions.

DR. GIBBONS: I did not refuse.

MR. TOBIN: You did refuse to answer their questions and you were told by the people out there to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened, the same as you refused to answer questions the other day on Open Line, because you couldn't answer them, I say to the minister. You couldn't answer the questions.

DR. GIBBONS: Put the question here now, then. What was it?

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

DR. GIBBONS: Put the question. What was it?

MR. TOBIN: What was it? The questions I asked you today, Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer, for example. I asked him today, wouldn't the underwriters, in effect, be the owners of Hydro at the time Hydro's shares go to the market? I asked him that question today. You didn't answer it, did you?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go learn the process.

MR. TOBIN: I know the process, and I know that the underwriters will own it. The underwriters will write you a cheque, and then go out and sell it. That is who is going to own it, Dominion Securities.

MS. VERGE: Make no wonder they advise them to sell it. They are going to make a killing off of it.

MR. TOBIN: Right on! That is what is happening here. The underwriters, Dominion Securities and others, come in and advise the government on Hydro, and I would suspect that they advised them to sell it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the people of Newfoundland understand what is taking place here. I really hope that the message can get out. What is happening here is that you brought in Dominion Securities and other groups, Standard and Poor's, whatever the case may be, asking for advice on the privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got your advice from Dawn Sprung.

MR. TOBIN: It is too bad they didn't put you over in the greenhouse for awhile.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that they recommended to the minister and to the Chairman of Hydro that it be sold. I would assume that is what they did, and now what happens? Who are going to be the underwriters? The minister said today, Dominion Securities and Standard and Poor's are going to be the underwriters.

AN HON. MEMBER: And ScotiaMcLeod.

MR. TOBIN: And ScotiaMcLeod, I am sorry.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I made a mistake there. ScotiaMcLeod and Dominion Securities. They are the ones who recommended that it be sold, and now they are going to sell it. How much money did they get to do the study, to advise government? I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he speaks in this debate, how much money were they paid to advise the government? Or is that part of the non-tenderized shredding machine that you brought in there? Is that part of that?

How much money will they make now when they become the underwriter, when they write the cheque and then sell the shares?

MS. VERGE: They get a cut, a percentage.

MR. TOBIN: A big one, too, on the backs of Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues. My friend from Ferryland, when he spoke on a petition today, talked about the $15 million rate adjustment fund that is going to go into it. He says it is for one year, and sure it is for one year, but it is $15 million of taxpayers' money that is going in there. I notice the editorial didn't carry that today.

Ten million in debt guarantee fees; we all know government guarantees a 1 percentage fee, I believe it is, on Hydro's debt, so they got about $10 million there that they are going to lose. Twenty-five million there, Mr. Speaker, that it sort of strikes-out the $25 million that the editorial was talking about today. Thirty to forty million a year transfers under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer, or better known as PUITTA, I didn't see that in the editorial today, I say to members opposite. Thirty to forty million contributed directly by the Province to new Hydro's pension plan, I didn't see that in the editorial, I say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You know who is taking a great chunk of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The pension plan.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here, I say everyone in this Province is entitled to a pension plan. I believe very strongly on that, and they are entitled to a funded pension plan, in my opinion.

What I say to the Member for St. John's South is that government is going to put -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am not sure yet. I was before you became a movie star, but I am not sure about you since.

Thirty to forty million dollars is going to go into a pension plan of a private company, I say to the Member for St. John's South. New Hydro becomes a private company and the government is going to put $35 million to $40 million in it, okay? But what are you going to do to the pension plan of your own employees, the governments own employees that is underfunded?

MR. GRIMES: We are trying to do it now.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you are trying to do it now, but you are not transferring $30 million to $40 million of taxpayers' money.

What's happening here, Mr. Speaker, is a cosy deal being set up for the buddies of some people who will become the shareholders of new Hydro, that's what's happening.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry I interrupted you.

MR. TOBIN: No, that's no problem.

Mr. Speaker, that's what's taking place here, a cosy deal. A new company is going to come in, Mr. Speaker, we all know who they're going to be. There's more we're going to bring out one of these days. There will be more tabled one of these days, Mr. Speaker, we had a document tabled last week by my colleague from Humber East. A document dealing with an agreement that was 98 per cent complete on the development of the Lower Churchill, 98 per cent complete that's what the document says and the Premier scuttled it. He scuttled it, Mr. Speaker, because instead of the peasants in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador making a few bucks from the development, the new shareholders, Mr. Speaker, the bag money of this country, that's who's going to make the money now.

So the Premier scuttled the deal, privatized Hydro and said: now my friends here is your chance, and I bet you the first thing they'll have is a copy of this. The first thing they'll have is a copy of this, Mr. Speaker, saying here's the agreement, I got 98 per cent done for you, you got 2 per cent left to do, the money is yours and to hell with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that's what's happening, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this deal is scuttled and that is why Hydro is being privatized, I say to members opposite, no other reason. No other reason except to look after their buddies.

MR. GRIMES: What was it again? Say it again (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has nothing better to do than to listen to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture then he deserves to miss what I said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what's happening here. Today the Member for St. John's East Extern tabled a document, Mr. Speaker, there's more to come I can tell members opposite. There will be more stuff tabled in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Dirt?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no it won't be dirt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: No one can say that's dirt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I'll ask all members opposite to stand up, when the vote is called, and vote to have public hearings and let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have input.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for me this afternoon to rise on this private members motion and to tell hon. members, you Your Honour and the people of this Province that there's no possible way that I could support this particular motion. There are so many reasons; you can run all over the place. I suppose it is difficult and I say to hon. members they may be somewhat confused. As a matter of fact, most times they're confused but that's not really the issue. The problem is that hon. members know that if we were debating today, clause-by-clause of this particular bill in third reading, we'd be able to inform the people of this Province, through the media, exactly the viewpoints that hon. members opposite have on why Hydro shouldn't be privatized and the viewpoints of hon. members on this side as to why it should but we haven't done that. We've sat in this House day in and day out and we've heard nothing only rhetoric, we haven't gotten down to the meat and potatoes of the bill.

Now this public hearing issue, I just want to remind members - and sometimes we all need to be reminded because God knows I'm constantly reminded of what I do and say and that's fine, that's fair but let me say to the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, who was a member of the Mount Pearl council, when the residents of Newtown said to that hon. member, 95 per cent of them said to him: we don't want to become part of Mount Pearl, we want our own little town. Now, did he hear them? Well, if he heard them he sure didn't heed them, because if the hon. members opposite get in their places and say: oh, 95 per cent of the people in this Province want to retain Hydro, then I say to the hon. member, he has to be ready to remember the yesterday and that is what his motion is all about, the public hearing issue. Did he hear the public outcry in Newtown? I say to hon. members opposite: N O, no, he didn't hear it, so now, all of a sudden he has a new sense, a refreshed and awakening conscience.

Now, let me ask the other question, because it was while he was the Mayor of Mount Pearl, did we have any hearings on the $28 million that we spent on cucumbers? Where were the public hearings, were there any public hearings, I ask hon. members opposite, N O, no, so why -

AN HON. MEMBER: Red herrings.

MR. MURPHY: Red herring, that's right, not public hearings, red herrings. I thank the Member for Pleasantville.

The Member for St. John's East gets up today and the Member for Burin _ Placentia West reaffirmed it: I have petitioners here from St. John's South, well, I say to the Member for St. John's East, I didn't get every vote on Shea Heights, I got most of them I didn't get them all but I got most of them, but the only member who had the courage, three-and-a-half years ago, I set out the first press release and I meant it and I will say it to this day and I will stand in this place and I will say it forever, because I am a true believer and government has no business in the private sector. We are not here to do that and my colleague from Eagle River said it loud and clear today, government's responsibility is to provide the essential services to the people of this Province.

Education, when the minister stands up tomorrow and reads out the Budget, the $800 million that is required by this government to educate our young people, is that more important I ask the hon. members opposite, the $800 million that is going to be budgeted into health care, where is that coming from I say to hon. members. Where is it coming from? What about the $625 million that this government needs on April 1, to service the debt, I say to the Member for St. John's East Extern, to service the debt of which 79 per cent was accrued by the former Tories, when the then Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East, would say to her colleague from Mount Pearl: Well, Neil, run down and get some more money, get a loan of more money. We have some problems, throw the money at it, fire the money, throw it out, dish it out. But who is going to pay for it? Oh, somebody will come along and pay for it.

But as the hon. Member for Eagle River said and said loud and clear, and never mind I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West what his intentions are; I have known the hon. member now for six years and he is an hon. member because he has nothing, nothing on his mind, only the people of Eagle River. Let me tell the hon. member that and you can talk about your motivations and talk about all the old foolishness you want, and I say to the residents and the constituents of St. John's South, ask them, you ask them, go up on Shea Heights and have a look at what's up there. Go up and look at the community since this member has had an opportunity to represent them and I thank the hon. ministers who supported me. That is what I say to him, go up and look at the seniors complex up there; go up and look at the new health care facility up there, go up and look at the recreation centre up there, go up and look at the 60 per cent provided by this government for asphalt and paving and sidewalks, go up an look at it.

DR. KITCHEN: What about St. John's Centre, when are we going to get something there?

MR. MURPHY: The Member for St. John's Centre has done fairly well, he hasn't done as well as the Member for St. John's South, but I say to him, in the New Budget, his turn is coming, probably.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I knew the Member for Ferryland was going to open up sooner or later. He could not sit there. He had to say something. Now, this new Calvert Math is after befalling this hon. House of Assembly. The member has so many figures in his head and he has brought in so many documents and so many pieces of paper in his brown folder over there, that he does not know what is right, what is wrong, what is good or what is bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I cannot take anymore I say to the hon. member. I say to the hon. member he will drive me to Holiday Inn. That is what he will do. It is beyond human comprehension to listen day in and day out to the Calvert figures.

MR. TOBIN: I am inviting you to Holiday Inn (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Pleasantville drove me out. I have to be honest with you. My meeting would not have been on that evening if I had known that his was on, I can assure the hon. member, but that is alright. Let me come back to that public meeting issue. I have had my public meetings, I say to the member. Did the Member for Humber East say anything about Hydro during the campaign? Did she say she was against it? Did you say to your constituents in Humber East: I think government should buy back Newfoundland Power? Did you say that? You did not say it, because that in essence is exactly the reverse of the position this government is taking.

Now, she knows full well, because she was a member of Cabinet, what $6 billion worth of debt in 1994 is and what kind of a yoke it is around the shoulders of the people of this Province. She knows it and she knows that the Minister of Finance - and I say to you in all honesty, as fine a Minister of Finance since 1949 as this Province has ever seen will deliver his speech tomorrow. Now, she knows that that $6 billion and the unfunded - never put a dime in -the Member for Burin - Placentia West talked about the pension plan that government has to take up. Government has a responsibility and it is not going to walk away from it. I say to the member that we are not walking away from it. There are people who have worked for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and this government is going to protect them, the same as we are protecting every citizen of the Province. We are going to protect these people because for seventeen years, I say to the Member for Ferryland, the party that he is a member of did not put a penny in, took all the money, took all the pension funding and threw it into general revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, in tough times, I say to the ex-teacher, we put $21 million in the teacher's pension fund. That is what I say to the member. It was a tough decision and I would not want to be in Cabinet to try and find the money.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you do not want to be why are you trying so hard?

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the hon. member he is entitled to his foolish response. I openly admit it, if the call comes I will take it, but I have no ambitions to be the leader like the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Scuttle the leader. Shove the Member for Burin - Placentia West down a seat, trying to nudge his way up every chance he gets. When the Member for Grand Falls is not here he has himself perched in the chair trying to figure out if it fits good. Do I feel comfortable?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no one scuttling our leader. I say to the member opposite that it is that party that knows how to scuttle leaders and not our party.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I say if Ottenheimer, who is a very close friend of the hon. member, were here he might tell him something different.

Now, do you want to get up again?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member if he gets up for nine minutes it is not east I am going, it is west, in the new district. He knows, in by Bowring Park, that is where he is going to drive me. He is going to drive me into a psychiatrist's office. I cannot take anymore of his figures. He has poor Basil right out of his head every night. Basil does not know what page to turn.

The Member for Ferryland gave me a set of figures, Kay, or Audrey, or whoever is calling in. I say to the hon. member, how in God's earthly name, if the people in this Province are not confused it is beyond me.

Because the hon. member, and other hon. members, ex-CEOs, deputy mayors, whoever, are throwing these numbers at poor old Bas. Every night Bas is there and he is trying to get through all of this, and it is incredible. Because now you have poor Bas confused.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about Bill? His numbers are pretty high.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I would say to the hon. member, you know. What has happened in the last five months is obvious. I say this sincerely. The reason - and the editorial said it today in The Evening Telegram, and they were quite right. That the government hasn't got the message out to the people. There is a reason for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are afraid to give them the message!

MR. MURPHY: There is a reason. No, they are not afraid to give them the reason. The member knows the reason. It is that we cannot get into the fine detail because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be on the stock market very soon.

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: It will be on the stock market - well, I would say to the hon. member, she was told today, or her colleague was told today, by the Minister of Finance. He has a responsibility as a citizen. Not only as a member representing Mount Pearl, who tried to represent the people of Central Newfoundland in the federal election but forgot to read the act. The Member for Mount Pearl has a responsibility to go to the Department of Justice and report it. The same as the Member for Humber East. If she knows - and she claims to know everything, she has all kinds of documents, God knows where she gets them - then she, not only as the ex-Minister of Justice, she has a responsibility under the law of the land to go to the Department of Justice and report the specific brokers who are quoting fixed prices on the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is why all the numbers are not out there. Because this government is trying to get the most it can for the people of this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) a share, just watch.

MR. MURPHY: I will say to the hon. member, $147 million interest. The Member for St. John's East gets up and he takes the $147 million and he turns it into $182 million. Nobody in this whole discussion - because it is not a debate, because we won't, you won't, on behalf of the people of the Province, put the bill on the Table and discuss it. Not this government. This government is prepared to go through the bill clause by clause, and you are not prepared to do any of that. You are just prepared to stand in your place and get on with the same constant, continuous rhetoric.

The Member for St. John's East is down there and he said to me today: The Member for St. John's South should hold a public meeting. The Member for St. John's East, who never held a public meeting in his life, not one. Where do you get the gall, I ask the member? Mr. Speaker, this pious - well, probably he doesn't have the time to hold a public meeting because everybody knows he is very busy. He is busy with the same kind of robe Your Honour has on. Running around with his little white collar on and doing the best he can for - guess! The people of St. John's East? Well, maybe, I don't know. We will have to see. Time will tell.

The Member for St. John's East doesn't need to dictate to me that he got a few names from St. John's South, because as I told the member before, and I tell the member again, in my campaign literature when I handed it out to every household in the District of St. John's South, that I advocated privatizing Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Your leader didn't.

MR. MURPHY: I advocated privatizing Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Your party didn't.

MR. MURPHY: I have been advocating the privatization of Hydro for three and a half years, I say to hon. members opposite, and I will (inaudible) -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) still not in Cabinet.

MR. MURPHY: That doesn't matter. I will continue, I say to the hon. Member for Humber East, to advocate it. Because we cannot afford to carry on with this debt any longer. We have no option. As I said to the member last night, if we could buy Newfoundland Light and Power for $500 million tomorrow, by example, it might be a good deal; that might be the way to go. Then the people of the Province would owe $7 billion. That is what we would owe, $7 billion. Now does the water change? No, the water doesn't change.

The hon. Member for Ferryland makes a big issue out of water. When the snow melts on Hinds Plains, or up in Horse Chops - and the Member knows where the Horse Chops is, surely - when it melts this spring, who owns it? Who owns the water?

MR. SULLIVAN: We do now.

MR. MURPHY: We have always owned it, I say to the hon. member. Has the hon. member fished in the Horse Chops?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. MURPHY: Never fished up there? Well this member has - a beautiful spot. I say to the member, he should go up there and try it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have time.

MR. MURPHY: No, you don't have time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, get an ATV and go in there when the ground is nice and firm.

That water belongs to the people of this Province today, tomorrow, and forever.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Today, tomorrow and forever. I do not care how the member interprets what he interprets. I couldn't care less, because his mumbo-jumbo has now confused him. When he gets to his feet he will have another set of figures.

MR. ROBERTS: It didn't take very much to do that.

MR. MURPHY: No, I will be fair to the hon. member, I say to the Government House Leader. I will be fair to him. He is a fairly intelligent fellow, but he got so wrapped up in this he confused himself with Calvert Math. The figures that have come out of the hon. member, you don't see your own colleagues' faces. They are confused, I say to the hon. member, totally confused.

I say to the hon. member, when he is up throwing out his figures like a ticker-tape, he doesn't see anybody. He doesn't see anything, and you are after going from one set of figures to another set of figures, to another set of figures, and then back to the first set of figures.

If the hon. member wants to debate his figures, what he should do is go with somebody who wants to listen to him; I can't listen to him any more; I cannot listen to the hon. member any more and his figures.

Now, the water, I heard somebody on Open Line this morning. Who referred to Open Line - the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I heard somebody on Open Line this morning talking about water, and they said, you know the day is coming when the tankers come, with Hibernia Oil, the tankers will come in here and will be taking the Newfoundland water.

I say to the hon. members opposite, and I say to the Open Line people, if somebody wants to dock a tanker next to a tail-race at any Hydro plant in this Province, they can take all the fresh water, after it has generated electricity, they want, because God is good. He was good this year. He will be good next year. Hinds Plains will flood and the Bay d'Espoir power project will fill up, and the reservoirs will fill up, and up in Horse Chops where Newfoundland Light and Power operate their five or six generating stations, the good Lord will drop the water and that will fill up again, and it belongs to the people. The people can fish. They can use it for skidoos. They can use it to hunt. They can use it for anything. Nothing has taken the water away from the people, and nothing is being taken away from the people now, so why is it we need, every time this government has to make a conscious decision on behalf of the people, have we got to have a referendum? Have we got to have public meetings?

It is less than a year ago that the people of this Province turned around and put thirty-five members on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I am sure when we get into debate, and we actually get into the bill, I say to hon. members, come on; let's treat the people of the Province fair, and let's get into the clause-by-clause in the bill, and let's get this job done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way that we can stop the privatization of Hydro. There is only one way, and there is only one man who can do that, and I say this: If the Premier shuffles his Cabinet before the final vote is taken on Bill 1, then I think we have a chance to stop the privatization of Hydro.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me explain. Members opposite, especially in the back bench, have a lot of ambition, and rightly so. Some one member or maybe two, some two probably will be moving into Cabinet. I don't want to mention any names who I figure may be going in but there'll be one or two. Sometimes you don't know, it's at the discretion of the Premier and you don't know when that call is going to come or who it's going to come to but if you get that call in the next few days then I think we have a chance for this bill not to pass in the legislature because the other backbenchers are going to be so turned off, combined with the heat coming from their constituents, that they're going to vote against this particular piece of legislation. Now that's a long shot, Mr. Speaker, that's for sure but hearing members opposite get up and talk about the Member for Ferryland not knowing anything about figures and someone else doesn't know anything about figures. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there's anybody in this Province today that got the gall - they should never get up and speak about hon. members opposite in regards to figures when members opposite since 1989, there's been nothing only deficit after deficit after deficit. They wouldn't run an outhouse over a river.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: They wouldn't run an outhouse over a river, Mr. Speaker. I certainly wouldn't want them in part of my business, I'll tell you that, I'll guarantee you that. I'd let them open my bank statement but that's it because I'm convinced that they wouldn't know how to read it. Now I don't see any Ross Perot's over there, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. With the record that that government has since 1989, deficit after deficit after deficit and what have they done every spring when they bring in a Budget? Balance the books on the backs of the employees in the Province. Very easily done, Mr. Speaker, no incentive there, no stimulus, no nothing to create jobs or do anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was no recession (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No recession - everything is blamed on the recession. Just a few months ago it was blamed on the feds, now it's the recession but they got their political cousins in Ottawa now, Mr. Speaker, so now it's come back to the recession. Now God forbid if the news waves, the air waves, CBCs of the world and the NTVs don't in the next few days start saying that the recession is over because I don't know what hon. members are going to blame it on then. I would say they'll turn on each other then, they'll turn on each other.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution deals primarily with consultation and communication. Mr. Speaker, I said a long time ago when I was serving on a council in Cormack that communication is better than confrontation. Mr. Speaker, today we've got a situation - I asked a question last Thursday night, why the rush? Nobody answered it so I asked it again today, why the rush? What's the big hurry? Mr. Speaker, to back up what I'm saying about fiscal responsibility and the management of a business, would any businessman in this Province today that has any assets that are worth anything, would the first thing he'd do when he gets in trouble is to go out and sell the best one he has?

Now come on, you don't have to be a genius or one of the top business people in this Province - if you go to the banks and get a mortgage or get a line of credit to run a business or to run a government and as soon as you get in trouble and the bank calls or interest rates go up a little bit, the first thing you do is sell off your top asset? What do the banks tell you then when you come back the next day looking for another line of credit or looking for a few more dollars to buy something? Sorry boy, you haven't got enough collateral to cover it. You don't sell the best one you have. You don't go out and get a contract to move a million dollars worth of freight across the island that takes ten trucks to move it and then the next day if you get in trouble sell two of the trucks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. WOODFORD: The minister asks why not, why not? Mr. Speaker, one of the questions, like I said earlier is, if it is so good and if this deal is so good to the people of the Province, if the people of the Province are going to benefit so much from it, why are we in such a tear? Why don't we have public hearings? Why not? I mean, if this is so good for the people of the Province, hon. members knew in 1989, when they came to power in 1989, why did it take five years to find out that this is such a good deal for the Province? The debt equity ratio of Newfoundland Hydro went from, I think, 97-something ten years ago down to 82.18 today, in ten years?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, the minister says no, all I can quote are the figures -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: In ten years, that's what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: There has been no change in the last five.

MR. WOODFORD: But I said ten years. I said from 97-something the debt equity ratio went down to 82.18 or 83.17, I think it is 82.18. That was the last ten years. Now, as I said earlier, government didn't have to go sell Hydro to get more money from Hydro. They charged 1 per cent to float their bonds four years ago, why couldn't they charge 2 per cent, and the great writer of this, whoever this is, today talked about the great $25 million that they are going to save; exactly one more percentage fee, a 2 per cent charge on the fee and they would have brought in $20 million based on last year's revenues from Newfoundland Hydro, the income. Now, granted they are down a bit from CF(L)Co, the income to Newfoundland Hydro was down a bit last year and probably will be down a bit this year because of the sales, the total revenues from that particular revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: We won't get it.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, we will get it, we will get it, but hon. members opposite are only getting what the two Ronnies are telling them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WOODFORD: The two Ronnies, because the boys over there are set up, I call them or I could go further and call them Idi and Baby Doc, because I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I can picture them around the Cabinet table now. The Minister of Mines and Energy is a good minister. He is an honest man and I stand here in my place today and will say it at any time, he does not try to mislead anybody as far as I am concerned -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh you trust him too much; don't give him too much credit.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I do, I trust him but I tell you, can you picture around the Cabinet table, when the two laddies start speaking up, anybody there trying to take them on? Come on. We have the twelve disciples who are in the Cabinet, we have Pontius Pilate up there and we have God up there, and we have the twelve disciples around Cabinet who are not going to say anything because they know if they say anything they are going out and if they go for something from the backbenchers, the backbenchers are not going to say anything because they have a chance to go in. Now that is the catch-22 that the people of the Province are in and, Mr. Speaker, we have to try to beat it into people's heads. We don't have to worry about the people, the people of the Province know but hon. members opposite, I guess, are going to learn and it is probably going to be too late when they do it.

Now, hon. members, there is an article in The Express this week that says it fairly well and more or less summarizes and really puts everything in perspective. Why the Hydro sale insults the people of Newfoundland, and then it is captioned with: The Power and The Glory, and, Mr. Speaker, they give some reasons for that and much the same as what members said in the last week or so in debate on this bill and much the same as what I have said, only in a different context and used some different words.

One of the first things it said was that opposition from almost all sectors of society and without public consultation - this is the one that sums it up - they have broken the sacred, social contract that granted them leadership last May.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the rest of the districts around this Province, but I can certainly speak for the one I ran in last May. Never, was there any mention of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They never said they were gong to sell it, and I say, Mr. Speaker, it was not brought up anywhere. The Member for St. John's South is right; he had a few clips in the paper. He was the set-up man. Why do you think the Premier wanted to bring his sidekick back? Why do you think, with all the members opposite sitting there that could have moved up into a Cabinet post he had to go ask the present Minister of Justice to come back and run? If I were sitting in the back benches I certainly would not feel too comfortable with that. I would be belittled by it in fact. He had to call him back, but there is a reason why he called him back. He called him back to help complete the job they did not finish in the 60s. Now, they are about to complete the job they started some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite show off a big editorial in the paper today. There is one sentence in that they did not read, and it is this: the market appears amenable to such a share issue, and providing the Province is able to get a fair price for the asset the opportunity should not be missed - provided the Province can get a fair price for the asset. Now, Mr. Speaker, already some of the investors, the brokerage firms and so on around this Province are at work. An individual came to me today and told me their partners had a call from, I think, it was ScotiaMcLeod. They even priced the shares, $10.00 a share, $6.00 up-front, $4.00 over six months and so on. Now, I do not have to tell members opposite, or anybody in this Province today, what is going to happen with regards to that, no problem, they will buy their $30,000 in shares, they will buy their other $20,000 and pay it out over six months, their maximum $50,000, I suppose. I do not hear tell of any minimums. Will there be a minimum of 100 shares? Will there be a minimum of fifty?

The ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian might be able to buy their thirty-five or forty shares and might be able to pay the rest out over six months or a year, but for what, Mr. Speaker? Based on what they are saying, if this is true, there will be people rolling over these shares within a few hours and gaining $2.00 or $3.00, or probably more, but at least $2.00. I venture to bet here today that there will be people buy shares, if that was announced this evening, that shares would be bought and gone within a few hours with at least a minimum of $2.00 a gain and in some cases it may go up. The sky is the limit.

Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, that would be good business. I cannot fault anybody for doing that because that is good business, but what I am saying, I am talking about the viability of this particular asset. Members opposite know full well that this is a sound corporation, a good sound fiscal responsible corporation and it cannot go anywhere but up, and looking at the debt to equity ratio in the last ten years - everybody knows, even members opposite, have used the last few years of the recession as an excuse, in some cases and in more cases they are right to say that the debt to equity ratio of Newfoundland Hydro did not come down as fast in the last five years as it did the previous. But based on five years ago, on coming down from 97 to 82, if that happened the next five years, if the economy turned around, I do not have to tell members opposite where the debt to equity ratio would be to Newfoundland Hydro. Where is the debt to equity ratio going to be with new Hydro? Fortis is running around 49-51, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: Fortis is running now?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: What is it?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Fortis is running now?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible) New Hydro would be.

MR. WOODFORD: That is what new Hydro would be.

DR. GIBBONS: Fortis isn't (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Fortis is lower than that.

DR. GIBBONS: No, that is the (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, they must have moved up a bit.

DR. GIBBONS: Anyway, that isn't the point.

MR. WOODFORD: That is not the point. The point, Mr. Speaker, is this: I am talking about the value of that asset.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I know the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture doesn't understand it, and I don't have the time. If you care to give me the time, I will explain it to you, but there is no point anyway, because according to the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a lot more time (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is shocking! That is ridiculous! I wouldn't say that about the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to say. I have only another minute or so left, I think. It is a quote from this particular article. It says: `By closing your ears to taxpayers' input, the Liberal Government have stabbed taxpayers in the back with this deal. Had they used participatory democracy, even to the point of sending the legislation to the Legislation Review Committee for public input, government might have won the respect of the people who granted them office. Instead, the government and their followers appeared to ridicule the people who elected them by ignoring democracy and offering a major Newfoundland-owned asset for sale without asking Newfoundlanders' permission.'

Now, that, Mr. Speaker, sums up in whole the situation that we are in today with regard to this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the 20 per cent maximums that an individual can have -there is one thing I noticed in the other part of the act, in the electrical generation act, that says: A person or corporation can have more than 20 per cent, but only with the prior approval of the Public Utilities Board - prior approval of the Public Utilities Board. So there is a possibility - there is a very strong possibility, that someone could own over 20 per cent maximum in New Hydro. Now, that wasn't mentioned before. That means -

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd say it is a guarantee.

MR. WOODFORD: That is very important; to me, it is very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the brochure that went to the homes.

MR. WOODFORD: It is not on it. It is not on the brochure that went out to the homes, Mr. Speaker; I tell you that. The brochure that went out to the homes, it is not on it, and I say to members opposite that they should take another look at it, and people should realize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first want to thank all hon. members for participating in the debate this afternoon, on both sides of the House. I do believe that the outcome of this resolution, as a vote of this Legislature, is predictable. It probably was predictable from the time that we introduced the motion because, obviously, the government has no intention of attempting to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to have their voices heard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on several of the commentaries that were made, and I want to thank my friend, the Member for Eagle River, for his lesson on classical liberalism. I know he has done a lot of political science, and he, indeed, has a substantive knowledge in that area; however, probably it was classical liberalism that gave us the disastrous deal of the Upper Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that I would be amiss, it probably wouldn't be even fair, if I were to mention John C. Doyle and other people who were associated with the Liberal Party in the days of Smallwood.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to also comment, and to say that my friend, the Member for St. John's South - I have to give him a couple of lessons because - and I know he is outside listening, because he doesn't miss much that goes on in the House. He made the statement that when Newtown became part of Mount Pearl, somehow, I didn't call public hearings. I want to tell the Member for St. John's South that the proposals to amalgamate Newtown with the town of Mount Pearl were government initiatives. Why would the Mayor of Mount Pearl call public hearings into a government initiative? Certainly, the government of the day had to make that decision and they either made it positively or negatively in favour of or against public hearings. So, certainly, he is casting aspersions that somehow I'm inconsistent now for calling for public hearings, which has absolutely no relevance in decisions that were made relative to amalgamation of Newtown with Mount Pearl or any other amalgamation proposals in this region. In fact, I've been a proponent of public involvement in decision-making for many, many years.

I have to go to his comment about Sprung. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell all hon. members - because many members in this House and perhaps many citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador don't really understand the geography.

Let me tell you that in 1955, when the boundaries of Mount Pearl were created, in the area just to the south of Smallwood Drive there is a river, and that river is, for the most part, the boundary. Now, let me tell all hon. members, in 1955, the land on which Sprung was built was not in Mount Pearl. In the 1963 amendments to our boundaries, the land that Sprung was built on was not included in Mount Pearl, it wasn't included there in 1975, 1985 and it won't be there in 1995. Therefore, I'm telling you that when the hon. the Member for St. John's South gets up and says that somehow, I should have called hearings into the Sprung proposals, I can only ask the hon. member: Why would the Mayor of Mount Pearl call hearings about a piece of land that wasn't even there?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that if there had been public hearings into the Sprung proposal, if that had been the case, and if the government of the day had carried out the public hearings, then probably some of the difficulties that were encountered along the way might have been overcome and identified.

Members on this side of the House have admitted, the House Leader admitted on several occasions during this debate, that we don't look with pride on the Sprung example, and we have admitted, as a party - I wasn't part of the decision, but the party here has admitted, that there were errors that were made.

Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that when I was the Mayor of Mount Pearl we had many, many public meetings, public hearings, on everything that was acquired by us under the law on which to have public hearings, and then some after that.

I was also somewhat interested in the commentary about Joey Smallwood. You know, I am pleased to see people like the Member for St. John's South applaud and laud the greatest Liberal, probably, in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, up there with Whiteway and Bond and all the others, Carson, and some of the great Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am proud to say that Joey Smallwood was a personal friend of mine, and I visited his office on many occasions at 123 Portugal Cove Road.

I can only tell you, and I say this with all sincerity, that if the Liberal Party of today held Joseph R. Smallwood in such high esteem, why do we not have an appropriate memorial outside of this building, built to the greatest Liberal in Newfoundland and Labrador's history?

MR. ROBERTS: A good suggestion!

MR. HODDER: Certainly, I say to you, I do think that it is appropriate that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have an appropriate memorial erected on this Confederation Building Hill to the Father of Confederation, and I say that because I happen to believe it.

Mr. Speaker, coming back to the -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will have public hearings on that.

MR. HODDER: We will have a public hearing on that, my colleague from Grand Bank suggests.

Mr. Speaker, what we are having here today is a discussion on whether or not we really want to involve the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador in public decision-making.

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a case today for public participation. We put forward a case to say that ways should be found to involve the citizens of this Province into the decision making processes, by way of public hearings, by way of legislative review committee, by way of a referendum, although I'm not sure whether or not I would support a referendum on this particular issue but I do believe that we should have a mechanism developed whereby we can have a guarantee that on major issues like this there is a way in which our people can participate in the decision making processes.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank all hon. members and ask for your support and I ask the Chair to call the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Signify it by standing.

CLERK (Noel): Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Ms. Verge, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. E. Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK (Mr. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Justice; The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; The hon. the Minister of Education; The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture; The hon. the Minister of Finance; The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations; Mr. L. Snow; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Crane; Mr. Murphy; The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; The hon. the Minister of Health; The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands; Mr. Tulk; Mrs. Young; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Penney; Mr. K. Aylward; Mr. Langdon; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Dumaresque; Mr. Gilbert; Mr. Whalen: Mr. Smith; Mr. L. Matthews; Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK (Mr. Noel): Mr. Speaker, fifteen `ayes' and twenty-six `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it the House is ready to adjourn rather than begin the debate on another Private Member's motion which is what the rules, strictly speaking, would require. That being so, in moving the adjournment seven minutes earlier, I will note that tomorrow of course is the day we are all waiting for, when my friend the Minister of Finance will introduce his Budget Speech. I hope the gentleman from Bonavista South will be here along with all the others -

MS. VERGE: We are bowling tonight.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, the hon. woman has some comment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) bowling.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, they are all going bowling tonight. I am literally bowled over by most of what they say, Mr. Speaker, but I will move the House adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, at two o'clock and that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I should mention to hon. members that there will be tv cameras in the House tomorrow, so dress up, clean up and you might even want to consider cleaning off your desks to make us look somewhat more presentable in theory, if not in fact.

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