The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries, twenty-eight Grade VI students from St. Mary's Elementary School in the District of St. John's South, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Eric Hiscock and their teacher, Mrs. Matilda Cluett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Accompanying this class, are ten students from St. Peter's School, Black Tickle, Labrador in the District of Eagle River, accompanied by their teacher, Sister Barbara Kenney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Every year, Mr. Speaker, his department usually has a capital works program. I would like to now ask the minister if he will have this regular capital works program this year consisting of approximately $57 million to $59 million for infrastructure for municipalities in the Province, or if the money used in that regular program every year will be used for the so-called new infrastructure program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me correct the hon. member's last comment. He made the comment that for the past number of years we have had $56 million approximately in the budget for capital works. Well, I quite agree with the last couple of years, in fact, since 1989, we have gone from $53 million to as high as $63 million in the budget in comparison to the previous years of $28, $32, $25, $25, and $25, so we have not done too badly. This particular government has put a tremendous amount of money into capital works and as the hon. gentleman is aware, because I suppose of his experience in Cabinet himself, we are presently into the budgetary process and I am not at liberty yet to say whether, or how much money, we will have in the capital works budget this year. I will say though, Mr. Speaker, that the government is planning to put a sizeable amount of money towards the infrastructure program this year. The basis of that infrastructure program and the criteria will be made available to municipalities and other agencies across the Province by the end of next week, giving them ample opportunity to apply for money under the other program called the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, they are putting more money into the capital program. They put in exactly what they took from municipalities over the last five years.

Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer my question. My question was: Will there be a regular capital works program this year - whatever it is, whether it is fifty, sixty, seventy, one hundred or whatever - or will that same funding be the total allocated by the Province for the new infrastructure program? That is the question I asked the minister and I would like to have an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is a budgetary decision. It is something that we are in the process of doing now, almost on a daily basis. My estimates have not been addressed yet from the municipal affairs point of view. When we get to that I'm sure that the hon. Member for Gander, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, will discuss this with me and the rest of the Cabinet colleagues and we will then make a decision on whether or not there will be a capital works allocation for this year. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that out of some of the capital works money - I suppose the total for the Province, I don't know where else it would come from - we've made a commitment to the Federal Government and municipalities that we are putting at least $25 million into the infrastructure program. So to be able to say that and make that announcement, that we have found $25 million this year, as far as I am concerned is a good announcement. What other monies will be made available will come out of the budgetary process and I guess you'll have to wait until budget day to find out exactly if there is going to be a capital works program or not.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister be able to tell the House or confirm to the House that the so-called new monies that will be used by the federal government for this infrastructure program in the Province will be actually new money and not monies that will be taken out of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Could he confirm that to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I can't confirm that one way or the other, Mr. Speaker. I don't know, I don't negotiate with the minister for ACOA. The only federal minister that I have any connection with is the Minister of Housing, that's Mr. Dingwall. There is no counterpart to me as a federal minister unless its Mr. Eggleton and he is not responsible for ACOA. I can't answer that question, I don't know. I can honestly say, I don't know. If there is going to be a reduction in ACOA money that is something that I guess you'll have to address with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology or the President of Treasury Board, because I am not able to answer that question.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, just recently the minister met with a group of people from the Burin Peninsula, regarding the health care services (inaudible) of the council. I understand he heard loud and clear from the people of the Burin Peninsula that they want the board to remain with the same responsibilities that it presently has.

Can the minister tell me now when he will be making the announcement as to the make up of that new board?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you hon. member for the question.

I will be meeting with the CEO's and Chairs in the general areas of Eastern shortly, and will inform them first what our intentions are.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm to me now that the make up of the new board will be responsible for the health care on the Burin Peninsula - that there will be a board set up that will be responsible for health care on the Burin Peninsula - and will he assure me now that all of the services presently provided by the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board on the Burin Peninsula will continue to remain on the Peninsula?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can't answer specifically on details on the Burin Peninsula, but let me tell you the generalities of the reorganizing system that we're putting in place.

The purpose of reorganization is to make sure, given the financial circumstances of the government, that we keep as much of the health care dollar where it really needs to go, and that is in looking after people who are sick, and less money available in the formalities and administration of the system. So what we are really trying to do is to keep front line health care as intact as we possibly can, and perhaps to even enhance it, and by reorganization to save money that's not as essential. So he can try to interpret that, but next week all will be revealed.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The media has reported that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology recently made a phone call to MP Jean Payne regarding an overdue loan with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Doesn't the minister regard his personal involvement in this matter somewhat unusual?

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

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's unusual. This is a case of a client of Enterprise, prior to her becoming involved in public affairs as a Member of Parliament, having a loan - her company having a loan. The loan wasn't attended to. There are a number of records that show that Enterprise tried to deal with this. It wasn't dealt with. They notified me that they couldn't reach the Member of Parliament. I reached the Member of Parliament and, in fact, there is a meeting tomorrow morning with the senior people at Enterprise to try to deal with this.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the minister's recent involvement, and given the fact that the loan was allowed to languish in arrears for some time, I must ask the minister, was he involved in this loan arrangement from the very start?

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

MR. FUREY: I guess government was involved, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member is exercising a labile mind. He makes the case that I shouldn't have gotten involved. Had I not gotten involved he would have switched tactics and jumped up and said: Why hasn't the minister gotten involved? We did the responsible thing, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't matter if it is an MP or a PM. If there is money owed to the people of this Province, the minister has the ultimate responsibility through this House, and I acted on it.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the loan in question was for the purchase of certain equipment and it was also backed up by certain personal guarantees. Would the minister be able to tell me if ENL has repossessed the equipment concerned, or has ENL acted to collect on the personal guarantees?

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

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker, Enterprise has attempted to recover the equipment. We cannot find the equipment. It was stenographic equipment and computer technology equipment used in court reporting. We have not been successful in identifying where that equipment is. I have said publicly that if we cannot, if the corporation cannot reach a satisfactory arrangement with a mutual repayment schedule satisfactory to both parties, we intend to move on the personal guarantee, and I intend to do that.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier assure the people of the Province that none of the $50,000-a-year salary supplement he got as Leader of the Opposition was paid in cash?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't do that any more than I could assure the House that none of the salary supplement paid to Mr. Peckford every year was paid in cash. I don't know. I have no idea where the money came from or how it was paid, so I can't assure the hon. member of that any more than I could assure how much Mr. Peckford was paid by the party when he sat in the House. I can't do it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has said on earlier occasions, he got his $50,000-a-year salary supplement from the Liberal Party, and the Party, in turn, got the money from private donors. Is the Premier suggesting that his own case is different from that of his former Minister of Tourism and Culture primarily because the Premier laundered his money through the Liberal Party?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member's comments are offensive and insulting. Maybe people in the House have forgotten why there was a salary supplement and maybe they ought to be reminded that it was because I gave up my law practice and became the Leader of the Liberal Party, while the man who sat here at that time, aided by advice from the hon. member, no doubt, refused for six months to call a by-election, in order to prevent me from taking the seat in the House. The Liberal Party agreed to pay me a salary to offset that and continued to do that. Now, while that same Premier, at the time, Mr. Peckford, his name was, and hon. members opposite sat there in the Cabinet and endorsed that interference with the democratic process, in the meantime, that same Premier collected his salary from the government and a salary supplement from the Conservative Party at the same time and said nothing about it. And, in the meantime, they make all these kinds of comments merely because I was open and frank. I disclosed it from the very beginning and told the whole world about it from the very beginning. It is too bad they are not sufficiently familiar with honest practices to understand how it really works.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said of his former Minister of Tourism and Culture that no benefit accrued either to him or his donor but the minister should still resign because of public perception. Now, by the Premier's own standard, shouldn't the Premier have resigned long ago? Because many people in the Province perceive that contributors, contributors of cheques, or cash, to his salary supplement have benefited substantially from the Premier's exercise of power, to wit Tom Hickman who has told several people that he contributed generously to the Premier's salary supplement, got three lucrative hospital construction contracts despite the fact that his was not the lowest bid after the Premier overruled advice of public servants. Why the double standard, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, slanderous statements of that nature would be actionable in defamation if they are made outside the House. The hon. member sits and hides behind the screen of this House to make offensive, false, slanderous, statements for the purpose of trying to aggravate the government at the time. I will not allow her to do that. I will just demonstrate to the world how lacking in integrity the hon. member is by these statements.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The person who is hiding information from the public is the Premier who has consistently and persistently refused to divulge to the citizens of this Province the list of contributors to his $50,000 a year salary supplement which he received when he sat in this House of Assembly as the Member for Windsor - Buchans, and Leader of the Opposition, right up until he was shamed into giving up the salary supplement when the 1989 election was called.

Will the Premier at long last now apply to himself the same standard he is applying to his former minister and table the list of all the contributors, people who gave cash and cheques, to his $50,000 a year salary supplement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that some people want to spend their lives digging worms doesn't mean that I have to spend valuable time dissecting them and counting them for them.

It was this government that brought in legislation that required political accountability, despite the promises from the other side for years and years, and they did nothing about it. It was this government that brought in the election act that cleaned up the election processes in this Province. It was me, Mr. Speaker, who announced to everybody, when I sought the leadership of the Liberal Party, that I was doing so on the basis that the Liberal Party would be making up my salary to roughly - and here was the basis on which it was done - the level of a Supreme Court judge at the time. They did that and continued to do that until I won the election as Leader of the Liberal Party, when it ceased to be done.

That is the basis on which it was done. It was open and disclosed to everybody, and it was paid by the Liberal Party out of its own general funds, without anybody making any contribution specifically for that purpose or for any other purpose. It was paid out of the general funds of the Liberal Party.

I operate on the assumption that Mr. Peckford's were paid out of the same funds. Now, I don't know. Maybe some people made special payments to Mr. Peckford, I don't know. I operate on the assumption that it was paid out of the same general funds, and I have no basis for thinking otherwise. Maybe it wasn't. But I have sufficient integrity not to make the kinds of false and fraudulent allegations that the hon. Member for Humber East is making today.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier: Did Jim Chalker, the chairperson of Hydro, and the lawyer whose firm is now making big money on Hydro privatization, have a part in raising, coordinating or paying the Premier's $50,000 a year salary supplement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge he had no part in raising it. I asked two or three people to make sure that anything that was done was done clearly, properly, any management of any payment of any account would be done properly, that there would be no offence. I have great confidence in Jim Chalker as a man of great competence and great integrity, and I have great confidence in his doing that. I asked Mr. Chalker and a chartered accountant to ensure that anything that was done or paid would be paid in an entirely proper way.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon, the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Premier just confirmed that Jim Chalker did have a key role in the $50,000 a year salary supplement arrangement.

Why is the Premier making such a show of taking to task the former Minister of Tourism and Culture when he himself has done much worse? Is he hoping those who are hunting elephants will be diverted by rabbit tracks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't mistake elephant hunters for worm diggers. I recognize worm diggers when I see them.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Lands. Madam Minister, have you ever received a donation from Bristol Communications Incorporated?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know who gives me donations. Those are received by the district association for Conception Bay South. I would have to go to the treasurer or the president of that organization to find out if I have received anything.

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

MR. MANNING: I would like to remind the minister of the importance of the exact wording of my questions.

My next question is: Have you ever, Madam Minister - ever - received a donation from either Browning Harvey Limited, bottlers of Pepsi Cola here in Newfoundland and Labrador, or any affiliate of the Canadian Soft Drink Association?

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

MS. COWAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, my comments would have to be the same. As a Minister of Environment and Lands, it is a very awkward position to be in because almost any company I would deal with in Newfoundland, could potentially become involved in something in the environment department, so I have chosen not to know who donates to the association.

Certainly I have received no personal donations from those individuals, and if they have donated to the association then the questions would have to be directed in that area.

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

MR. MANNING: Would the minister inform the House tomorrow of the exact amounts of her donations from the companies I have mentioned above, and whether those donations were by cash or cheque.

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

MS. COWAN: I don't know if I can or not, because I don't know if they have made donations; so I would have to see, indeed, if they had made donations. As far as I know, I am not required to disclose, at this particular stage, any information in the House, but if I receive instruction otherwise, I will.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions go to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

In view of the public discussion and public questions on the credibility of the government on recent resignations from the Premier's Cabinet, I ask the minister: Has he received any contributions from any public relation companies in the Province of Newfoundland; if so, what companies he received those donations from.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to lay all donations that were given to me on the Table of the House for the entire time I've been elected if every member is prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would remind the minister that he is a Cabinet Minister and law maker in this Province, and that public perception and credibility is of extreme importance.

In view of that fact, I would like to ask the minister another question: Has he received any donations from public relation companies in this Province? If so, what companies? Has he received any donations from the Canadian Soft Drink Association or its affiliates, and if so, how much?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, we are not required to make public any donations under the old act. That's why we brought in the new act, to make it transparent, clean and acceptable to the full public.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. All donations that came for my campaign went to my political executive assistant. They were all in the form of a cheque. They were all recorded, and my documents and receipts were all filed properly and I got an acknowledgement and a commendation from the Chief Electoral Officer in the manner in which I conducted myself.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

The minister stated in the House, on Tuesday, that the government changed its mind on returnable bottle legislation because returnable bottles is an outmoded method of dealing with such litter, and she has been so advised by the Council of Ministers of the Environment in Canada.

Now I have received information since Tuesday from every single province in Canada, and all have not only returnable bottle legislation, but many have returnable containers of every sort. Some intend to strengthen that legislation in the near future, and none have indicated any willingness to divert from that.

Now the minister stated, on November 2, 1993, on CBC Here and Now, just one month before the anti-litter campaign started, and just four months ago, and I quote, she stated: ` We would be the last province in Canada to institute such a policy and I think it is very, very important that we do this.' Will the minister now tell this House the real reason for changing her mind?

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

MS. COWAN: My goodness, Mr. Speaker, what misinformation the gentleman has! Yes, there are provinces in Canada that have deposit-refund bottles, we know that. I have mentioned that in the House and said that many of them are now sorry they went that way. Three provinces are investigating the same approach as we are - Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and we make four, are looking at the litter-type program and the recycling program that is part and parcel of it; and yes, I did say that we were the last group in Canada, I do remember saying that, and I was mistaken. I thought, indeed, we were the last group in Canada at that point to bring in deposit-refund legislation - that is what I had been told but unfortunately, I had not been told correctly.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, the others provinces she is speaking with are bringing in legislation, but they have target amounts on what a company must return; every company is held responsible in legislation and I have copies of that legislation.

Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stated, and was quoted in The Evening Telegram on Wednesday that the Minister of Environment and Lands and the former Minister of Tourism and Culture listened carefully to his advice, which was to protect the 100 or so jobs at Browning Harvey Ltd., bottlers of Pepsi Cola in St. John's. Now, the Minster of Industry, Trade and Technology stated that he looked at the least painful way to cause a clean environment without loss of job or disruption. Now, will the minister tell this House which statement is correct, her statement in the House on Tuesday or that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in The Evening Telegram on Wednesday?

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

MS. COWAN: The reason, Mr. Speaker -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Make up your mind.

MS. COWAN: The reason, Mr. Speaker - my mind is clear on my role as Minister of Environment and Lands, and I look after the environment, I don't look after employment. I have not commented on employment but employment is an issue, thus, Cabinet placing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on the committee, so that his group can explore the impacts on small businesses and on large businesses here in the Province. As well, we have on the committee, which I neglected to say yesterday, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs so that we could look into the recycling and the waste management part of the program.

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely amazes me that the member opposite is in such a state over this. I mean, he seems really to be upset and I wonder why. Fifty per cent of the litter is pop bottles, there is another 50 per cent out there that we have to get back into either recycling or properly disposed of in a waste disposal site.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five per cent.

MS. COWAN: I am sorry, 5 per cent; yes less than 5 per cent is bottles - I can't read my writing here. So we want all litter picked up. I have been watching when I go to other provinces and I look, Mr. Speaker, to see what litter is on the side of the road and I notice, for example, in New Brunswick and P.E. I., that yes, the pop bottles are picked up but the chip bags are still there, the fast food bags are still there and you know, Mr. Speaker, what makes this all such a joke - the hon. member doesn't give a hoot, what I am answering, he doesn't care to know what the truth is, all he wants to do is try to undermine what is a very good program for government, for the Province, I should say.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and I have a question concerning his January trip to the Far East.

I would like the Premier to tell the House what business people accompanied him and how they were chosen. And is the Premier prepared to make a full report to the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as to opportunities and business contacts that were made that might be of interest to business people other than just the ones who were accompanying the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the people who came, I'll provide a list of them. There is no difficulty doing that but I don't have it right off the top of my head. I can name some of them: Mr. Walter Tucker was there from the BAE Group; Mr. Bishop from Bishop and Forbes; Dr. Clarke from C-core; George Lee from CORA Group; Bob Kimberlin from HMDC; Dr. Ho from Terra Nova Fisheries; Vic Young from Fishery Products International. There were some others, Mr. Harold Baba from Canadian Helicopters; Herb Davis from Ultimate East, that is all I can think of, off the top of my head, at the moment. They were chosen simply on the basis that they wanted to go. Whoever wanted to go, it was known that we were going - we had been asked by some to make the effort and once we agreed to do it then others requested and when they requested to come they were simply added on. So anybody who wanted to, pretty well, were able to come. There was one other person who had written me beforehand who wanted to include Singapore and focus on Singapore, and focus on Singapore, and I couldn't do that. There was one other person who wrote me wanting to participate but on the basis of primarily finding investment opportunities, as I recall, in the Far East. I told him that the focus was to try to create investment opportunities here and that on another occasion I would be happy to try to help out. But anybody who wanted to could come, and as far as I know, nobody who expressed an interest was turned down.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had to pay their own way.

PREMIER WELLS: They had to pay their own way.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I would like to present the report of the Social Services Committee on Bill 58, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask that you call Motion 1 first and then we will go into Order No. 2 which is the bill, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador." It is Bill No. 2 and it will be introduced at second reading by the Premier.

Before I do so, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 o'clock. I say this is simply being done in discharge of our undertaking to allow whoever is to speak for the Opposition, I assume it is the Leader of the Opposition - my friend for Ferryland confirms that - to allow the Leader of the Opposition time to finish his remarks today. If you could put the motion there is one other matter which I will need to address in that connection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn today at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour of the motion "aye", those against "nay," carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may raise one other point. Today is Thursday and our rules provide for the procedure which we call the Late Show. I have had a word with my friend for Grand Bank and he raised a point with which I concur, let us assume by 4:00 or 4:15 - it is now 2:37 - the Premier is entitled to speak for an hour, and let us assume he takes the hour. The Leader of the Opposition may not be finished by 4:30 so my suggestion is that we have unanimous consent to postpone the start of the Late Show until the Leader of the Opposition has finished, if that is acceptable to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion to postpone the commencement of what is called the Late Show until after the Leader of the Opposition has completed his speech today, all those in favour of the motion "aye", those against "nay," carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Would you call Motion 1 before you call the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act," carried. (Bill No. 8)

On motion, Bill No. 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Order 2.

Second reading of a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador." (Bill No. 2)

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In introducing this legislation I want to take a little bit of time to lay out, not only the content of the bill and what the bill proposes to do, but to spend some time explaining the basis on which the bill is being brought forward, the reasons why this particular bill is being brought forward at this time.

First, the Strategic Economic Plan provides for a restructuring of the economy of this Province. The electrical production, transmission, distribution, and delivery is a significant part of our economy. In the process of restructuring the economy we want to create the most favourable climate we possibly can for the private sector, and this bill is intended to provide for the putting in place of a regulatory climate that will do two things that will ensure that the interests of the citizens of the Province in having a good, adequate, and reliable supply of hydro-electric power available to them at the lowest possible cost, at the same time that it maintains a reasonable regulatory regime to enable the private sector that is engaged in the provision and transmission and distribution of electric power to earn a reasonable return, and so make it an attractive climate for investment. That is really the purpose of this bill.

Secondly, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is needed and sensible legislation without regard to privatization. Even if we were not privatizing Hydro this bill could be brought forward on merit anyway. It puts forward a sound and rational basis for regulating the management of hydro-electric power in the Province. So it is important in itself, quite apart from its significance as far as the privatization of Hydro is concerned.

While it is good sound electrical management legislation, there is nothing in it that deals specifically with privatization at all, nevertheless this kind of framework is absolutely essential if we are to have two separate private electrical utilities not exactly competing, but to a degree competing, and working cooperatively to provide the entire electrical power supply that the Province needs. We need in place a regulatory regime that can deal with any difficulties that could arise, particularly in circumstances where one of the utilities - Hydro - would be generating about 90 per cent of all of the power consumed in the Province, and the other utility would only be generating about 10 per cent, and that other utility would be distributing to about 85 per cent of the costumers in the Province and Hydro would only be distributing to about 15 per cent of the customers.

So there is a substantial interaction between the two utilities. That of course is why the government felt it best to proceed with a merger of the two first as being in the best interest. When that wasn't able to be achieved readily we proceeded to seek privatization on its own. It is important that we put in place this good hydro-electric legislation in any event, but in fact I believe it is essential if we are to have a good regulatory regime in place to manage the electrical utility industry in circumstances where there would be two competing and cooperating private sector companies delivering the electrical power of the Province.

In order to lay out clearly the scheme and the purpose of this statute members might want to follow along in their copy of the bill. The first three or four pages are just the usual definitions and preliminary provisions. I won't go into that in any detail. They define the terms as they are used in the act.

The area that I want to deal more specifically with is Part I and it starts on page 7 of the bill. In this area we are declaring what will be the power policy of the Province. I should note that this part substantially tracks the Electrical Power Control Act as it presently exists. Incidentally, I should mention at the outset that there was an error in the printing. The short name of the act is going to remain the Electrical Power Control Act, not the Electrical Power Resource Act.

This section 3(a) is to be found in the existing Electrical Power Control Act, so substantially it pretty well tracks what is there. The approach is similar. It declares the power policy that the House determines to be the policy for the Province, and the Public Utilities Board and the electrical utilities involved must manage their affairs consistent with that policy. The first one provides for the way in which the rates are to be charged, and I think that is pretty well verbatim what is in the existing act, so we are not suggesting any change in roman numerals i, ii and iii of paragraph (a).

Item 4 is new. Item 4 in effect says that from here forward it is unfair to the industrial sector in the Province to saddle them with having to subsidize the delivery of rural electrical rates in the rural areas of the Province. At the moment, all of the customers in the Province, acting collectively, with the exception of those in diesel areas, pay the full cost of generating and distributing the power they consume. In the diesel generating areas it costs so much more that it is unfair to people to expect them to pay for it all. So the electrical consumers of the Province generally subsidize it so that customers in the rural areas have exactly the same rates as customers in the general areas, up to 700 kilowatt hours per month, beyond that they still get a subsidized rate. And, when you look at it, the customers in the rural areas of the Province are subsidized to the extent of about - I think, $28 million is the amount of subsidy in this current year. So it is a fairly substantial subsidy.

Now, in the past, the industrial sector - the paper mills, the Come-By-Chance refinery, and other heavy industry in the Province, subsidized that power. We think that this places an unfair burden, a kind of tax on the industry that is unfair, that places them in a situation where it is more difficult for them to compete. So we are asking the House, as a matter of policy, to separate the industrial customers from the residential and general service customers. Let the residential and general service customers pay their full costs and the industrial customers pay their costs of the power that is generated so that there would be no cross-subsidy. We think that this will help our industries better compete. Everybody knows the pressure that the paper mills are under in the Province today, everybody knows the pressures that the refining operators are under in the Province today. So it is important that we treat our industries fairly for the purpose of protecting the jobs of the people who work there. It is important that we do that.

So item 3(a) is a change from what is there now. It would provide that the rates `should be such that after December 31, 1999, industrial customers shall not be required to subsidize the cost of power provided to rural customers in the Province and those subsidies being paid by industrial customers on the date this Act comes into force shall be gradually reduced during the period prior to December 31, 1999.' So we phase out their contribution to the subsidy. That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the subsidy is going to be cut out. The subsidy is not going to be altered at all, it will remain. It is just that the industrial customers would not be contributing to it. The subsidy would remain exactly as it was. What the Opposition Leader was saying was that it was going to be cut out altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Wait until you see the whole picture.

Now, all of us will pay. All of the people in the Province will, in the end, pay more - that's right, all of us. What we are saying is that it places an unfair burden on industry to ask them to do that. We are diminishing their ability to compete. What we want to do is improve their ability to compete and that is the purpose of this. We think that that is a worthwhile purpose, Mr. Speaker, and we are asking the House to endorse it.

Now, paragraph (b), is entirely new. It takes the approach and fundamentally adopts the principle that all of the sources of power in the Province and all of the facilities for the production, transmission and distribution of power in the Province are to be used in the public interest. It puts the public interest first. It doesn't exempt any source of power at all, whether it is generated by Kruger in Deer Lake, Abitibi in Grand Falls, Newfoundland Power somewhere or Hydro somewhere else, all sources of power in this Province are intended to be used for the overall public interest with no other limitation on it except as is maybe spelled out in this act. I'll mention a couple shortly. But that is the assumption under which it operates.

Now, from time to time, in the management of an integrated electrical system, you could run into situations where entrenched contracts or contractual positions between a power company and a user or something, gives a preferred position to one or the other group. So what we are providing in this, is that the Public Utilities Board would have the ability to supervise the complete management and control of all power sources and facilities in the Province to ensure that they were managed in a manner consistent with this policy.

Here is what we are proposing be established as the basic power policy for the Province: that all sources and facilities for the production, transmission and distribution of power in the Province should be managed and operated in a manner:

One, `that would result in the most efficient production, transmission and distribution of power'. They have to operate efficiently. We can't continue to maintain inefficiencies, because that finds its way back to the ultimate consumer in the rate. So where there are inefficiencies we have to try to weed them out, and that will be a task the PU Board will have to deal with.

For example, if there are inefficiencies between the operation of the two power companies, it will be part of the task of the PU Board to see that those two power companies work together in such a way as to provide for the most efficient production and management of that power so as to result in the lowest possible cost.

Secondly, `that would result in consumers in the province having equitable access to an adequate supply of power'. Now, `equitable' is intended to ensure that there is fair treatment. `Equal' is not always necessarily fair, but the principle is, it is to be equitable.

For example, at the moment, all residential customers in the Province pay exactly the same. All those who are on the grid pay exactly the same for their power. That's equal and equitable, both. In the case of the customers in the rural areas, they pay the same for the first 700 kilowatts, but more for the amount beyond that, and the idea is to make sure that we give customers in that area access to the basic power needed to run a household at the same price - at an equal price with everybody else - but not put in prices that would induce them to use electric heat instead of oil or wood, which would be lower cost than electric power in diesel generating areas because it is so costly to run diesel. That's equitable. That ensures equity and fair treatment, at least, if it is not equal treatment. In the circumstances, we believe that, at the very least, should be done to ensure equitable treatment. Well, that's the concept that's enshrined there.

Thirdly, `that would result in power being delivered to consumers in the province at the lowest possible cost'. That is the specific direction as the power policy of this Province, and the PU Board will have to look at this and interpret it in the future and say: Our mandate is to make sure that we run an efficient operation, people are treated equitably, and we produce the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service. Now, you can cut corners and have weak systems in equipment, and have blackouts three times a day, and you would have even lower cost, but you wouldn't have a very good power system. So it has to be consistent with reliable service, but the companies that are engaged in the delivery of power must do so in a way that produces the lowest possible cost.

Fourth, `that would result in a producer having priority to consume the power it produces, subject to Part III.' Now, let me tell you what the significance and importance of that is.

Two companies, in particular, generate a great deal of the power and energy they consume. Kruger, in Corner Brook, through the Deer Lake Power Plant, generates a great portion of the power it consumes. Abitibi, through its power facilities at Grand Falls and Bishop's Falls, generates a significant portion of the power it consumes. We feel that in terms of ordinarily managing the power for the Province, it would be unfair to take that from them. That's theirs. They built their industry on the basis of that. It would be unfair to say: Well, we can get lower cost power by taking Deer Lake power or Grand Falls power from them and putting it into the general grid, and forcing the two paper companies to pay the same as everyone else. That could well put those two paper companies out of business, and they have been there and operating in that circumstance for fifty or sixty, and - well, more than that - in the case of Abitibi's mill, about ninety years, and in the case of the Kruger mill in Corner Brook, about seventy years. So this provides that a producer would have the priority to consume the power that it produces. The subject to Part III that is mentioned there is emergency situations. In emergency situations, the emergency controller would have the right to access that power too if it were necessary to meet the emergency circumstance. That is what that subject to Part III means in that context.

Fifth, `where the objectives' - those four objectives that are set out in the first four that I have just read - where those objectives `can be achieved through alternative sources of power, with the least possible interference with existing contracts' - in other words, where there are existing contracts, if those objectives of the lowest possible cost power, reliable power and so on, can be met through alternative sources, we are saying to the PU Board: Avoid interfering with existing contracts; because you want to try to make life as easy as possible for people without creating unnecessary difficulties. So, no unnecessary interference with contracts, but if it is necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the first four, then it is entirely appropriate to interfere with existing contracts.

Then, the summary direction at the end is: `where necessary, all power, sources and facilities of the Province are to be assessed and allocated and reallocated in the manner that is necessary to give effect to this policy;' in effect, the Public Utilities Board is in the ultimate control of it, and we think this is the way it should be. All power and facilities in the Province must first and foremost meet the general needs of the Province. That is why they are there. It is the nature of power -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, we didn't exempt any power. Whatever it does, it does. We didn't exempt anything. We didn't exempt Kruger. Kruger has been there since 1924. Abitibi and its predecessor, AND, and Price have been there since 1904. No power is exempt. There is no basis for exempting anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) taking back control of Churchill?

PREMIER WELLS: No, we are not taking back control. Churchill will continue to operate. But whatever is necessary, whatever the PU Board has to do, it will do, with any power in the Province, but this is not taking back control. It is not altering -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It is not doing anything with the power. It is setting in place a management regime for the Province - all power in the Province. If we say we are not prepared to exempt Abitibi, which has had rights for ninety years, and we are not prepared to exempt Kruger, which has had rights for seventy years, why should we exempt Churchill Falls which has had rights for only thirty years?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Whatever it does, it does, sobeit. All power in this Province must ultimately be under the control and management of this Legislature, it doesn't matter where it is or who generates it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, this legislation is putting in place a general management of power system that will provide for the sound management of power in the Province, all power in the Province. We think the nature of power is such, it is so essential for the orderly running of society and the efficient management of society, and the efficient operation of our economy, that it can't be allowed to be assigned privately or controlled privately. It must be managed in the overall public interest and that is the purpose of this piece of legislation. So you can see why I say that it doesn't matter whether we are privatizing or not, this is good legislation anyway, but it is also essential legislation if two private systems are to work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to move on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: All power generated in this Province (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: All power generated in this Province. It doesn't matter who generates it or where or by what means. Diesel, wind power, hydro-electric power, all power generated in this Province comes under this control.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peat power?

PREMIER WELLS: Peat, any kind of power. Now let me move on to the next item.

This provides something that in most other statutes - and what I just read - many other provinces have something similar to that in their statutes too. Many provinces have provisions similar to what I just read; many provinces have a provision similar to (c) which we have not had and is a sensible and logical thing to have, it provides for what happens in an emergency. For example, what would we do this afternoon if Bay d'Espoir went out and Bay d'Espoir was not available for power generation in this Province for six months before they could get it up and running again, what would we do? We do not have enough power in the Province to meet all the needs, who would have priority? Would we close hospitals, schools, legislatures, factories, plants, street lights, what would we do?

There is nobody and no means in place at the moment to make a decision. Now it is less of a problem but it is still a problem, that is right it is a real problem, most provinces have emergency provisions, we haven't had any. It is less of a problem where you have a Crown owned utility that you can immediately give directions to the manager to do something if that Crown owned utility got control of enough of the system to regulate it, but what about where you have another private utility that is distributing to 85 per cent of the customers so there is no real means of controlling it or set standards or rules or priorities. Do we give health institutions and schools a priority over businesses and factories, if something catastrophic happens and a major source of our power went out? Well that is what this is intended to deal with.

In the event of an emergency arising from the loss of use of generating facilities, a shortage of water etc., any of these things, it enables the emergency controller to determine the priorities, allocate and re-allocate power available and make all other necessary provisions for the supply and distribution of power so long as the emergency exists. We think it is essential and good sound provision to provide for an emergency.

Paragraph (d), really accommodates the fact that in the case of privatization, the provision for essential employees and the essential employees agreement that presently exists between Hydro and its union, under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, when Hydro is privatizing, would come under the Labour Relations Act instead of the Collective Services Bargaining Act, so we felt that this was the best way to make provision for essential employees, and the only employees who are deemed essential under this agreement are those involved with the running of the diesel plants, because you can't leave those exposed. The ordinary Hydro employees are not. I don't think that any of the normal hydro-electric employees are involved in the essential ones, so what we are providing and suggesting is that because of the nature of electrical power and the character of it and the complexity of it, it is really best if the Public Utilities Board be the body that determines who are essential employees, so we are assigning that responsibility to the Public Utilities Board instead of the Labour Relations Board and we are suggesting that that should be part of the policy of the Province.

In (e), this is the one that would authorize, would state as a matter of policy that the Province's position is: all of the income tax that is rebated to the Province under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, should go back and be contributed back to cover the cost of power so as to lower the cost of power.

Here is what happens at the moment. Hydro, as a Crown Corporation, pays no tax so the federal government, gets no tax in respect of hydro operations paid back to us. They rebate to the Province the income tax, or 85 per cent of the income tax that is paid by Newfoundland Power is given back to the Province, the Province has kept that as part of its normal, governmental revenues. Now, if Hydro is privatized, Hydro will then be subject to income tax and it would be a significant sum perhaps and it would be paid back to the Province. That could cause an increase in the cost of power so what we are suggesting is whatever income tax Hydro pays to the federal government and is rebated will be paid back, and from now on whatever tax Newfoundland Power pays to the federal government and is rebated would also be paid back to the consumers, in effect. It goes back to the companies but it goes back right to the base charge so that the cost of power to consumers is rebated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: The Minister of Finance could probably tell me but he is not here. I will find out. My guess is, I think $10 million or something we get back, $10 or $12 million. Maybe it is more than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was $9.6 last year.

PREMIER WELLS: About $10 million was right, $9.6 million.

I would expect that Hydro would be significantly more than that, so what we are proposing, in order to ensure that it goes back to the consumers in a fair way, what we are saying is, the total amount that comes back to us will be rebated to the power companies in proportion to their extent of generation. In other words if Newfoundland Power generates 10 per cent of the power they get 10 per cent of the rebate and Hydro would get 90 per cent of it because they would generate 90 per cent of the power used in the Province, so in that way it goes right back to reduce the cost of power and goes right back to the ultimate consumer, so that rebate in tax goes right back to the consumer.

Now, on the surface that might make it look like it would cost the Province the loss of that $10 million in revenue.

MR. SIMMS: It is the same consumer.

PREMIER WELLS: It would look like the provincial government would lose that much in revenue but the fact is a privatized Hydro would pay approximately the same to the Province so that together we would get out of provincial taxes about the same amount we are getting now from Power and the federal rebate in respect to Newfoundland Power at the moment. Give or take it would be neutral, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand less, or a relatively modest amount less. Give or take it would be neutral in terms of the provincial governmental revenue position, but the full rebate would go back to the consumer.

The final paragraph in the policy section - you will note in a subsequent section that the PU board is being given responsibility to ensure that planning for future power supply is done, and we are stating now that as a matter of policy, planning for future power supply of the Province shall not include nuclear power. We are saying to the PU board and those engaged in the electrical utility industry: in planning your power do not plan nuclear because we think the potential risks are too great and the costs are very high at the moment. If the circumstances change in the future that policy can always be changed, but for the moment we are saying to them: from now until you get direction otherwise, do not plan nuclear. Look at what has happened with Ontario Hydro, look at the mess they are in at the moment, partly because of their nuclear circumstances. We are saying to them for the time being there is no need to plan nuclear power, exclude it.

The next couple of clauses are pretty standard. I think they are in the act now. The next significant thing that I want to comment on is Part 11. Part 11 provides for the planning, allocation, and re-allocation of power and facilities. Section 6 is entirely new and it spells out that the Public Utilities Board will have the authority and the responsibility to ensure that adequate planning is done for future power supply. Each utility, it is contemplated, would do its planning and would be required to produce to the Public Utilities Board information on its planning and receive directions on planning from the Public Utilities Board. The whole of Section 6 deals with that.

Section 7 is entirely new and what it provides is that where any producer or retailer is concerned that it may not be able to generate enough power to meet the anticipated power needs of its customers, and its perspective customers, in the manner required by this act, that is the lowest possible cost power, it may request the Public Utilities Board to conduct an inquiry into that matter. The government could request the PU Board to do it, or the PU Board could do it of its own accord under subsection (3).

Then they are required, under 8(1) to hold a public hearing. So the whole matter has to come before a full public hearing so that everybody who has an interest in the cost of power in the Province has a means of expressing a view on how new future power supplies should be developed. That's part of the overall planning. Instead of it being done now, quietly, in Hydro's offices, or in government offices, or in the Department of Mines and Energy, it will be done in a way that has, in the end, to be very public and transparent, and require planning before the Public Utilities Board. This is what 8(1) requires.

Now subsection (2) is a very important section. It is entirely new, and what it provides is that: "Where, after the conduct of an inquiry, the Public Utilities Board is satisfied that a producer or a retailer is not or will not be able under the existing supply and allocation contracts or arrangements to satisfy the current or anticipated demands of its customers for power in the manner required by this Act" - and that's the key phrase, in the manner required by this Act - "the Public Utilities Board may, subject to subsection 11(3)" - and I will get to that in a moment - "allocate and re-allocate any or all power produced in the province and may order another producer or retailer to supply, upon those terms and conditions respecting rates, timing, duration and amounts that the Public Utilities Board determines, to the producer or retailer which would otherwise be unable to satisfy such demands for power that the Public Utilities Board considers to be necessary to implement the power policy... " of the Province; i.e., everybody in the Province having equitable access to power at the lowest possible cost.

Now where you have two utilities, as we would in the case of privatization, operating on an interconnected basis, particularly where one does 90 per cent of the generation and the other only does 10 per cent, and the distribution is reversed the other way, where you have that you have the potential for having great imbalance unless you have this kind of a clause. In any event, even without that circumstance, we think that this is a good, sound, basis for managing hydroelectric power in the Province. It's essential where the two companies will generate in that manner.

Subsection (3) provides also that it can cover facilities as well, distribution, plant, equipment and facilities, and order the use of that.

Subsection (4) would enable a company, not just in connection with getting additional power, but ordinarily to require that another company enable its facilities to be used in order to ensure fair transmission and movement of power throughout the Province on a lowest cost basis.

Subsection (5) is an important one as well. "A producer or retailer directed by an order made under subsection (2) to deliver power to another producer or retailer shall, within the limits of its capacity..."-et cetera- "notwithstanding that the producer or retailer may as a result have to reduce the amount, or cease the delivery altogether, of power then being supplied to another customer or the amount of power then being consumed for its own use." They shall comply with the order, notwithstanding that it may interfere with another arrangement, if the Public Utilities Board determines that that is what is necessary in order to ensure that the power policy that I've already described is met.

Section 9 deals with compensation (inaudible). What it provides specifically is that any person being directed to divert power to another user be compensated for the cost of that power, a reasonable allowance for the capital employed in the generation of that power, and the third thing is sort of peripheral, but it has to be fair. A customer of any company that was caused to divert power, or that company itself, may well have to cease to use a section of transmission line or distribution line because it can't any longer send that power, and it may have been designed or put in place simply for that purpose. For example, if the company were directed to divert power from Hope Brook, the cost of building that line into Hope Brook mines was exclusively for Hope Brook, if they were directed to divert that power to some other source then who is going to pay for the cost of that line? Whoever put that line in there is now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well they made a contribution. Alright but I use that as an example assuming the Province didn't. It would be unfair to the owner of that facility simply to have it rendered useless. So they are entitled to be compensated for the un-amortized balance of the cost of that line on such basis as the PU Board would determine. The purpose of the act is to try and be fair. To give priority to the public but also to try and be fair to all parties involved.

Subsection (2), is really only consequential again in relation to the use of facilities and so on.

Subsection (3), deals with another problem. It may well be that where a power company is building a facility, a particular mortgage or security had to be given or assignment of power contracts had to be made, in order to get the money to build that facility. Well if the company were directed to divert that power they may not - this would affect the security and there is no longer a flow of money to protect that or the security, the contracts that were assigned had disappeared and been rendered valueless. So subsection (3), really enables the Public Utility Board to use its discretion and make it a condition of the diversion of power that comparable security be given to the party that lost its security. Again its simply an attempt to be fair to everybody involved.

Section 10, provides that there is no liability for compliance with the order. If somebody breaches a contract or fails to meet another obligation as a result of having to comply with the PU Board order, in this regard, there is no liability if the action is taken in the public interest. If it's essential and fair in the public interest.

Section 11, you will recall that there was an exception to what could be used, what could be re-allocated. It may well be that circumstances may exist that in order to raise the money to build, say, a new generating facility you had to give a mortgage or assignment of contracts are put in place at twenty year contract. In order to build a transmission line to a new paper mill or a new mine or something of that order, you may have to enter into a long- term contract to raise the money to do it. Well if that is necessary and if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council thinks that that is necessary then the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can issue a certificate to that effect or if the Public Utilities Board is of the opinion that it is necessary in order to raise the money to build such a facility, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council thinks it's necessary in order to establish an industry in the first place to commit to a long-term power then there is a right in the PU Board to authorize a contract in excess of ten years but not exceeding thirty years.

Any such contracts, as may be especially licensed or permitted in that way, power under those contracts are not subject to the re-allocation. That is the only power that wouldn't be subject to the re-allocation. Everything else would be but anything that was done in that way specifically with the specific prior authorization of the PU Board, where the license was given, that would not be subject to reallocation and management. In any event the term could not exceed thirty years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, that would be subject to emergency. That is not exempt from the emergency provision but it would not be subject to general re-allocation for the greater good. If somebody commits, in order to build a new paper mill on the Northern Peninsula, to a supply of power for a twenty year period and people invest in the mill to do that and it is necessary to have that firm power there in order to get the mill there and the Lieutenant-governor in Council certifies it then the PU board can issue a license for that longer term but not exceeding thirty years. The companies can enter into contracts for up to ten years on their own but anything over ten years they have to have a special approval of the PU Board, but in the case of an emergency all that power comes under emergency management.

The next couple of clauses, 12 and 13, are sort of consequential clauses on the operation of those principles. You can see then that section 14 provides that: "This Part applies to all contracts for power generated in the Province whether the contracts for the power were entered into by producers or retailers before or after the coming into force of this act." So it does apply to all power in the Province.

Part III is the part dealing with an emergency. I've pretty substantially indicated the general nature of that. It provides that this Part applies to all power in the Province, whether it was given this special licence under section 11 or not. It is still covered under the emergency provisions and subject to the direction of the emergency power controller.

Section 16(1). Where the Lieutenant-Governor states or declares that a state of emergency exists, then the power controller comes into play and that power controller - and it may be one individual or it may be a committee of two or three. The statute provides for a person, but they tell me "person" includes many persons, or singular includes plural, so it could be a committee of three. So rather than make the act cumbersome with saying `or a committee,' et cetera, they say all that is necessary is to do that. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council could appoint a committee. We would have to decide in the future which was the best way to constitute the emergency power controller.

That power controller basically has the authority, in 16(2) to: "(a) establish preferences and priorities between different users or classes of users; (b) allocate and re-allocate power and, if necessary, interrupt or decrease delivery of power...; (c) regulate, and if necessary, restrict and prohibit the generation, transformation, transmission...," et cetera; and finally, in (d), "do, or order or direct to be done, any other thing the emergency controller considers necessary for the proper generation, transmission, distribution, supply and use of power in the circumstance." I believe we need that to ensure that if we end up with a catastrophic circumstance at some time we can properly manage the power in the Province.

Section 17 is essentially only an elaboration and a spelling out of detail to ensure that nothing is missed on the powers of the electrical power controllers.

Subsection (2) spells out clearly the only preferences, and this doesn't exclude it absolutely, but it creates a preference. What it says is, notwithstanding subsection (1): "... wherever it is reasonable and practical, taking into account in particular public health, safety and security, consumption by a producer of the power it produces" - like the paper mill in Corner Brook or Grand Falls - "shall be the last, and power being delivered under a contract in respect of which a licence has been issued under section 11 shall be the second last, interrupted by the emergency power controller...." That is not to say they can't interrupt it, they can, but it says, leave those as the last to be interrupted.

Section 18 really only deals with the orders of the emergency controller and provides that they are to be obeyed and who is responsible, and it provides that there is no liability for compliance with the order. Section 20 also provides for fair compensation for disruption of power in those circumstances.

Section 22 really provides for a framework within which the existing situation can continue to exist unless the Public Utilities Board were to order otherwise, and it provides that it is the Public Utilities Board and not the Labour Relations Board that does it. The balance of section 22 is really primarily procedural and consequential.

Part IV deals with the question of governance of the utility companies. At the moment there is no restriction on who can own Newfoundland Power or Fortis, the parent company of Newfoundland Power. Any one individual or group of individuals could, for example, get control of that company tomorrow. There is no restriction on it. What this clause would do is put limitations on them so that there couldn't be control.

When we first talked about the possibility of privatization, the government considered the possibility of putting an absolute limit of 15 per cent on the interest in Hydro shares, that no ownership could exist beyond 15 per cent, and we talked generally about that in public comments that were made. Then, as we looked at it and merger wasn't to take place, we had to look at the situation where only Hydro would be limited in that way and that didn't seem quite the right thing to do, if there were two private utilities, they should both be treated essentially the same, so there should be the same limitation on Power and Fortis as there should be on Hydro. In fact, one shareholder has just over 16 per cent of Fortis shares now; It is OMERS, the Ontario Municipal Employees pension fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retirement Services.

PREMIER WELLS: Retirement Services. They have just over 16 per cent of Hydro now, so obviously, we either would have to grandfather OMERS, cause them to be reduced or take some other such action if we were to apply the 15 per cent. We could have said 17 per cent but that was sort of an unusual thing. We discussed it with the two companies and with the financial advisers and they said: Well, look, some provinces have 20 per cent as the control, why don't you simply go to 20 per cent? So we changed it from 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

The second thing that we did differently was, instead of putting an absolute prohibition on it - it is conceivable that maybe ten, fifteen, twenty years from now it may well be in the public interest to allow some investor or group of investors acting together, to own more than 20 per cent, if it is in the public interest, so what we have provided is a prohibition against it unless there is prior leave of the Public Utilities Board. Then we provide that the Public Utilities Board, where they feel that it would not be contrary to the public interest, may permit more than 20 per cent to be held by a person or a group; but it is only after a public hearing before the Public Utilities Board. And then, as sort of a safety, we provided in the end, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could override the Public Utilities Board. Because the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, of course, represents the elected body that acts in the interest of the Province, not the Public Utilities Board. But the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could only act after they had been through a full hearing before the Public Utilities Board. So we feel that that is probably, generally speaking, the best of both worlds.

On to section 24. We felt that the actual company that carries on the hydroelectric business should not be able to carry on other businesses or engage in other business activity that might jeopardize its financial security or imperil the assets, the hydroelectric assets. So, sub-section (1) of section 24, provides that `a retailer shall not engage or invest in or carry on any business or activity other than the business of the production, transmission, distribution or retailing of power and the business or activity that is generally related to it.' So, a power company like new Hydro or like Newfoundland Power could not engage in that business.

Now Fortis could, because, of course, it is the company that owns 100 per cent of the shares of Newfoundland Power, but they couldn't pledge the assets or imperil the assets or put the financial viability of the company in jeopardy by causing it to undertake business activities that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know that they are operating in the name of Newfoundland Power, I wouldn't think so - but maybe they are, I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: But Newfoundland Power is certainly 100 per cent owned by Fortis.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Newfoundland Power (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, but that doesn't jeopardize the financial security of Newfoundland Power, it is independent. It may jeopardise Fortis if they did, but I think Fortis made money. Some of Fortis' operations may or may not have made money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, that is not my understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I will. Fortis Trust or Fortis Properties may have lost money but Fortis Inc. has not lost money. Fortis Inc. didn't lose money, Fortis Inc. made what Newfoundland Power made, less what they lost in Fortis Properties or Fortis Trust. So, if that is what the directors and shareholders want to do with the shareholders' dividends on their investment, that is up to them. As a matter of fact, I say to hon. members, if that kind of structure exists I have no quarrel with it because they don't imperil the assets, and at the same time, they are using the substantial financial resources of Fortis for business investment in the Province. I would like to see it, and I don't mind if they lose money on their first venture, as long as, in the end, they work to making profits because we would like to collect a little bit of tax, too, from profits they would make. But I would like to see that because it helps strengthen our private sector economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Light and Power and they have spent it on all kinds of contributions, in charitable things and everything else within the Province.

PREMIER WELLS: But that is up to them. It is their shareholders' money. It is not the consumers' money. The point is, they could have simply paid out to their shareholders. They had a right to do that, but they didn't, they reinvested some in the Province and I say, well done. I hope they reinvest more, to be honest with you.

MR. ROBERTS: Fortis Inc., according to its statements, made $30 million a year.

PREMIER WELLS: So that prohibition is there against the company actually engaged in the management of the power facilities from engaging in business that could put the power company into jeopardy.

Section 26 is a quirky thing that arises from the fact that there are a couple of operations in this Province that still have 50-cycle power, and the advisors tell us that there is presently a provision in the Hydro Act that provides for Hydro changing the `periodicity' - if anybody understands what that means - the periodicity in alternations of current. I don't know why they didn't say `frequency', but apparently frequency is something different. I don't understand how, but the word they use is the periodicity - that is, those companies that have 50-cycle power. Sometimes a converter is going to give out and they are going to have to change it and this authorizes them to do it and provides for the circumstances. It is essentially an incorporation into this statute of a provision that is presently in the Hydro Act, but it affects both companies, not just Hydro, because Newfoundland Power has a 50-cycle customer, too, in North Star Cement in Corner Brook, a 50-cycle customer of Newfoundland Power, although the power is supplied through Newfoundland Hydro.

The remainder of the act is essentially general provisions that I need not go into in any detail. It can be done in the committee stage. The final provision to which I would draw member's attention is section 34. Section 34 says that this act supersedes every other act ever passed by this Legislature to the extent that any other act may provide anything to the contrary. "An Act or contract, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act relating to a producer or a retailer shall be read and construed subject in all respects to this Act, which in a case of conflict shall, notwithstanding a provision to the contrary contained in another Act or contract, prevail over a general or special Act enacted or a contract entered into prior to the commencement of this Act."

(2) "A contract referred to in subsection (1) includes a contract authorized by or entered into under an Act."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is substantially it. It remains only for me to say that this statute, itself, in a sense, is not directly related to the privatization of Hydro except we couldn't really efficiently and effectively run two separate power companies in the Province without a controlled system of this nature in place. Whether there were privatization or not this, I think, would be a good piece of legislation, in any event, and I ask hon. members to consider that.

Tomorrow I intend to make my contribution to the second reading of the Privatization Act and I should tell hon. members why. I have to go out of the Province on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week to meet a prior commitment. The commitment was to address a major group of mining companies from all across Canada, in Toronto, and to address and meet with other companies on a business promotion effort in Toronto that unfortunately was scheduled at this time before the scheduling for this debate took place. So I have to be away and I felt it better to introduce the Privatization Bill even though we hadn't finished second reading on this bill at this stage, if we haven't by then. Assuming we don't, I felt it would be appropriate to get the second reading started on the privatization act while I could take whatever responsibility I have for the proposal by presenting it to the House.

I would ask hon. members to - and ask hon. members opposite to support second reading, to support this bill. I'm pleased to ask them, in moving second reading of this bill, I'm pleased to ask all hon. members to support it, because I think it is in the best interest of the people of this Province. Then, we can debate tomorrow what we do with the privatization of Hydro, and in days after that. That is quite another question. This piece of legislation, I believe, is clearly in the best interest of the Province and I'm pleased to ask hon. members to give it their full and wholehearted support. Thank you.

May I also say something else. Thank you for the very moderate level of interruption and interjection during the debate. I do appreciate it. Thank you, indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to apologize to the Premier for not being here for the early part of his comments. I got delayed over at CBC television doing a lengthy television interview about my views of the Premier. We had to do several takes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was it, you didn't think much of him?

MR. SIMMS: No, I was -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That's right. I'm not a harsh person like that. So I had to get them to do it over again, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: I should say to the hon. member, the media have asked me to come out and do the same, so I will have to leave during his speech to do the same thing.

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

I wonder if the hon. member could allow me to introduce the questions for the Late Show before he gets into his debate?

The first question is from the hon. the Member for Menihek: I am not satisfied with the answer given to me by the President of Treasury Board re severance pay to public employees.

The second question is from the hon. the Member for Green Bay: I am not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology concerning an ENL loan to MP Jean Payne.

The third question is from the hon. the Member for Humber East: I am not satisfied with my question to the Premier concerning the $50,000-a-year salary supplement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I apologize to the Premier for not being here for the earlier part of his comments, but I did have somebody taking some notes for me so I could try to follow what he had to say at the beginning.

Let me put his mind at ease right at the outset. We will not be supporting this piece of legislation, we will not be supporting the piece of legislation he intends to introduce tomorrow. So he doesn't need to make any further pleas, he doesn't need to have any anxieties about what we are going to do or anything else, because we will not be supporting it. Now, there are some obvious things in this piece of legislation that aren't quite as, I suppose, offensive, as we find in the other legislation, but I can tell him there are things in this legislation that we have some problems with. As it is all really part of the same package on the overall issue of privatizing Hydro, we will be opposing this legislation. As far as I know, everybody on this side - well, I can't speak for everybody on this side, but certainly, everybody on this side in the Official Opposition will not be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that a lot of the points I want to make on the privatization issue I will leave until tomorrow's debate, and I will try to contain my remarks to this piece of legislation as best I can while addressing some of the points that I understand the Premier made before I came into the House, and some of the things I heard him mention since I came into the House.

He makes at the beginning some misleading comments and misleading statements when he made reference, I understand, to it being part of the overall plan, and was understood in the Strategic Economic Plan of the Province. That is totally incorrect and not accurate at all. I am sure he would know by now, because he and I debated that point, about the matter being somehow contained in the Province's Strategic Economic Plan.

PREMIER WELLS: Not `the matter' (inaudible) stated specifically (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but the impression the Premier is trying to leave, though, is that somehow this was contained in this Province's Strategic Economic Plan. I know how he works, and I know what the impression is he is trying to leave. The reality is there was absolutely no reference to restructuring or the privatization of Hydro in that Strategic Economic Plan. He knows that. In fact, if anything, there was reference in the Strategic Economic Plan to the future continuation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I refer him, in particular, to page 53 of his Plan, section 85, where he talks about actions the Province will take dealing with energy matters: `Through the Department of Mines and Energy, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we will prepare a plan for energy efficiency, the development of various energy sources, to ensure the future balance of energy supply and demand for the Province', and so on.

On another page, I guess it's the next page, 54, under section 83, actions the Province will take, he makes mention of, in talking about the shortfall in the future: `One option for meeting the shortfall beyond the year 2000 is the development of the Lower Churchill', etcetera, etcetera. It goes on to say: `Any feasible industrial activity would have to be accommodated in Labrador, but it is dependent on an agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro Quebec.'

There are other references, as well, to the Strategic Economic Plan, but there is no reference, no mention, of restructuring or privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So we should make that point, and I want to make the point, because I understand he alluded to it when he introduced the legislation.

Another point I want to make is that he gives the impression that somehow the advisors, the Province's financial advisors, recommend this approach and this privatization, and that, too, is totally misleading. In fact, he said himself, in his speech to the Board of Trade - I am sure he remembers it well - he talked about Hydro's Board of Directors and its advisors pursuing the assessment being the other issue they were looking at at one time further, and ultimately advised the government that the status quo was obviously a viable option, but if the government wished to privatize, it could do so by either privatizing Hydro on a stand-alone basis, or by first merging with Fortis and then selling their shares.

Now, first of all, they didn't recommend privatization on a stand-alone basis as their first option. They did not recommend privatization stand-alone as their first option, these advisors. Here's what they did say. They did, however, advise that the combination with Fortis Newfoundland was preferable to a stand-alone privatization from the point of view of government, taxpayers, and rate payers.

Now, the implication there, clearly, is that the worst possible option would be the stand-alone option.

PREMIER WELLS: No, the worst possible option would be the status quo.

MR. SIMMS: No, no, no, no. The best possible option was status quo, I would argue with the Premier, and I suggest that's what they told him, too, but, in any event, we can argue that 'til the cows come home.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about providing a reasonable supply at a reasonable cost. That's what this legislation is all about. The only problem with it is that privatization adds a completely new element to the cost, and that is the profits of shareholders. That's an element that we do not have in existence now with Newfoundland Hydro.

The most efficient way to deliver electricity from a cost standpoint to the people of the Province is by a Crown corporation, I would argue - one that is not controlled by shareholders who are solely interested in getting the greatest return on their shares. I would argue that it's much more efficient to do it through a Crown corporation.

Now, I suspect one of the reasons that the Premier, for example, is introducing this bill, and not the minister, which does surprise me somewhat - the minister responsible for public utilities - is because for many a year this whole concept and this whole idea has been a bit of a personal pet project of the Premier, and he knows that. When he was Chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power, I understand that he went so far as to prepare some ideas for legislation that, in fact, are very similar to what we have here today, and spoke to a previous administration, I think, in that regard, trying to encourage them to pursue those ideas.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I see. Well, that's what the Premier says today.

PREMIER WELLS: The record is there.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I never heard the Premier mention this before. Talking about the record that's there, you never told anybody before that you had put together some draft ideas and thoughts for legislation on this whole idea. You didn't mention that before.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't boast.

MR. SIMMS: You don't boast. You don't? Since when? You're setting a new example are you? I look forward to the rest of the three years that the Premier has in office, not to hear him boast. So, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this has always been a pet project of this Premier, no question about it. Now he says: no, I can't boast about some of the things I did before in the past, but that is the real truth of the matter and that is why he's the one who is taking the lead on the issue and not the Minister responsible for Public Utilities. You would think the minister over there would be the one introducing the legislation. You would expect, if the Premier had the confidence in the minister, that he would be asked to present that legislation. So the Premier, in my view, is merely trying to accomplish today, as Premier, what he couldn't accomplish when he was Chairman of Light and Power. That's the point I make.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of industrial rates, section 3(a), - that whole section 3(a), pages 7 and 8 - the provision that phases out the contribution of industrial customers to the rural electrical rate subsidy is a benefit for industrial consumers, no question about it and it is one that we do not disagree with. In principle we don't disagree with that but the point we make and the provision that is in this legislation is not because of the concern with the cost of electricity for industrial consumers, that is not the reason that provision is in there. In my view its because the government wants to soften, in the early years, the impact of the higher increases that might be in place if that subsidy wasn't there, if that subsidy wasn't removed. It's the intent of the government to try to soften the increase in higher electricity costs that would inevitably result from the sale of Hydro. That is the purpose for having it there, it is not simply to provide some benefit to industrial consumers.

There are three principles, Mr. Speaker, for determining electricity rates; one, is the forecast costs that would be put forward; secondly, it is the ability of a utility to maintain a good credit rating; and thirdly, a just and reasonable profit for the shareholders. Those are the three basic principles for determining electricity rates. Up until now Hydro rates were determined on the basis only of the first two principles, that is the forecast costs and the ability to maintain a good credit rating. The electrical rates charged by Newfoundland Power, which as we all know is a private company, were however based on all three principles, including the profit to the shareholders, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen and what we are going to see as a result of this activity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It's too bad the Minister of Finance didn't take the Premier's advice and stop interrupting and everything, he'll get a chance to speak in the debate - but those are the three basic principles. The big difference here of course is that Hydro did not have to satisfy shareholders but new Hydro will now have to satisfy their shareholders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes and their bondholders too in Newfoundland Hydro's case but in the case of Newfoundland Power the big group that they had to satisfy were their shareholders and that is the same group and the biggest group that the new Hydro Company will have to satisfy. So, Mr. Speaker, what that meant was that the electricity rates charged by Newfoundland Power, because it had to satisfy the shareholders, were considerably higher. The rates were much, much higher than the Hydro rates ever were and much higher than those approved by the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I made a point at a press scrum yesterday, it is in today's paper, a great headline by the way, which tells the story I think to everybody if you took the time to read today's headline; "New electrical act burns consumers" : says Simms, and that is precisely what will happen. I made the point that there will be in this legislation a removal of the rest of the subsidies, the rural subsidies that are in place. I said that in fact, that was going to mean in the end, in the long run, higher electricity costs for the rest of the consumers in this Province. Premier Wells says, as usual: that is utterly false. It is either utterly false or its wrong or its inaccurate or he must correct the hon. member, in this case he said I was utterly false. It was utterly false that the cancellation of the subsidy to rural consumers in this Province would not mean that the rest of the consumers would have to pay higher rates. How so? Well I said that it would and he said that it would not because the Public Utilities Board has to deal with it, there has to be a hearing. That's his explanation for saying what I said was false. Now can you believe that for a minute? Of course, there would have to be a hearing of the Public Utilities Board. I don't know why the media didn't ask him that but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I'm frustrated when I see that kind of response from the Premier to a perfectly legitimate criticism of this legislation because of the removal of the rural subsidy. It is going to mean rate payers are going to have to pay higher increases in their electricity rates. The Premier says that is false because the subsidy for consumers would continue at the same level unless and until the Public Utilities Board has a full hearing. They have hearings all the time on electricity rate increases. That is how silly and weak the Premier's arguments have become.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I made the point that in this legislation as well the act will provide for tax concessions for electrical utilities. Now including Light and Power, and certainly for the new company, there will be sizeable tax concessions in here, and I said they amount to $30 million or $35 million. I didn't know what the exact amount was. We had an estimate done. That is from the federal 28 per cent corporate tax that the utilities now pay and that this new utility as a private company would have to pay to Ottawa, and will pay to Ottawa. Those monies come back to the Province and the Minister of Finance gleefully takes that $30 million and throws it into the mix, general revenue.

I said, under this legislation what will happen is that those funds are going to be given back to Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, they are not going to be given back to the rate payers. It is going to be given to the new company, and the minister knows what I'm talking about. Don't mislead. It will go back to the two companies. They will get a tax break, another tax break, significant. Not enough to give it to the new Hydro company, but they are also going to give it to Light and Power, which is what they had to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: You (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I brought that up, because you couldn't do it for one and not for the other. I say to the minister, just listen to this, I said that will mean $30 million, $25 million, out of the public treasury given to those utilities, and the Premier says: That is a misrepresentation. Why is it a misrepresentation? He says it is a misrepresentation because the millions of dollars will be directed back to the consumers. Which is the same little flick the Minister of Finance tried to portray out there. It flows back directly through the utilities to reduce the price of power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Let me ask the minister now, while he is in the mood to applaud, will he not acknowledge that the $30 million - let's use that as the figure - will be taken out of the general revenues of the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. SIMMS: Oh no? Where are you going to get the $30 million? It comes from the federal tax that comes back to you. It comes out of your general revenues. You will give the utilities $30 million. So they will keep the increases in electricity down in the early few years, at the early stages so it won't be noticed, that is the intent and that is the plan, and the Premier says: No, that will go back to the consumers because the electricity rates won't be so high.

Who in the name of heavens is going to replace the $30 million out of general revenue? Who? I will tell you who. The taxpayers will replace it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, so who are the taxpayers? Who are these weird, strange people out there, the taxpayers? You know who they are? Taxpayers are public servants, they are us -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are the rate payers.

MR. SIMMS: - every single person in this Province. They are the rate payers, you are correct, the Minister of Finance. So you talk about a trick? You talk about slick? You talk about smooth? That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, with this piece of legislation. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy and the Premier want us to stand to a person on this side of the House and support this legislation? Not on your life.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will explain it.

MR. SIMMS: You will explain it, yes. Like you are trying to explain the threat you've made to the public servants of the Province on severance, I guess. You got yourself into a dilly of a pickle on that one. Why don't you come out and announce immediately you are not going to do that. Put these people out of their anxiety. That is terrible for you to be doing it that way, absolutely terrible.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, so what will happen here because of the reduction of that subsidy is in fact there will be an increase in the cost of electricity for all consumers in this Province. We all know that and we understand it, even members opposite understand it and know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, we don't know. We don't know how much it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you do.

MR. SIMMS: I can only go by what the Premier says - well, let me use his own leader's comments. The Premier talked about 1.5 per cent I think for the first five years on average. But what he said also was that this is an increase above and beyond the normal increase that the Public Utilities Board may apply, under normal circumstances. Every year you go to the PUB you get rate increases, because you can factor in all of your costs, and in the legislation we are going to debate tomorrow I will point out there are a lot of other things that could be factored in that would not normally be factored in. You talk about a sweetheart of a deal. You talk about tax holidays. You talk about concessions. You wait until you go through that privatization legislation, Mr. Speaker, and you will find there is a lot of it there.

Another point I want to touch on is dealing with essential employees, section 3(d), page 9 of the Act. Now in my own, humble view, whatever that's worth - not much to the members opposite, but to others it is - in my humble view, I say to the President of Treasury Board, I really have a problem because I think it is essentially inappropriate and not proper to have a group of people, management group, administering regulations such as these, electrical distribution power regulations, and other matters, Public Utilities Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That isn't what I am saying. I didn't say that. Just wait until I finish now. Don't get too anxious. What I am saying is that I think it is essentially incorrect and inappropriate to have the Public Utilities Board make the determination as to what are and what are not essential employees. That is the kind of an issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Labour Relations Board. They are made up of people representing both sides of the issue, plus a neutral chairman. The Labour Relations Board deals with matters like that. Who on the Public Utilities Board would have the expertise or the training and the familiarity as the people on the Labour -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That's right. They would know nothing about that sort of thing. As wonderful as they might be, as individuals and persons, it just doesn't make any sense, and I just make the point because I don't think it's appropriate. I don't know how the union feels about it down there. They may agree; they may have some problems with it. I haven't had a chance to talk to Mr. Clarke about it, but it seems to me that it is inappropriate to give this kind of power and authority to a group of people who are basically sent there to listen to presentations being made about rate increases and the like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is the labour relations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon? I'm sorry, I can't hear the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Member for St. John's South, surely, with his knowledge of the labour movement, surely he supports the concept of the Labour Relations Board dealing with matters concerned with labour relations, such as designating essential employees, and those kinds of things, because the people on the Labour Relations Board have people who have some background, or some expertise, or some training - the union representative, the management representative, and a neutral chairman - but the Public Utilities Board is not there for that purpose.

MR. MURPHY: Are you saying the Public Utilities Board would not be manned by people who don't understand what is essential in the electric field?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that's quite possible.

MR. MURPHY: Oh, come on.

MR. SIMMS: Well, listen. I remember when I was in Treasury Board. You don't just sit down and argue what's essential and what's not essential. It becomes a lot more complicated and complex than that. The Minister of Finance can, I am sure, confirm for the minister, or the Member for St. John's South - not yet the minister, one who hopes to be the minister, I suppose - the Minister of Finance could tell the Member for St. John's South that the question of determining essential employees is not just a simple matter of saying: Oh, yeah, here is the argument; here is that argument. Okay, you're not essential, or you are essential.

It's not as simple as that. It's very complex, and he knows that. So my point simply is that I think it's inappropriate. If it's acceptable to everybody, well then that's fine; I guess you can't do much about it, but I just think it's an inappropriate function of this Public Utilities Board. It is now a function of the Labour Relations Board in the most cases, and they have those representatives who are neutral and, in the case of a chairman, usually a neutral chairperson, and that's where the responsibility should lie. I just want to make that point, Mr. Speaker, in passing.

Another point I would like to make on the - I don't know how you would pronounce it, or how it's been referred to in this debate - the PUITTA. It must be a way of saying it short. How do you say it?

AN HON. MEMBER: PUITTA.

MR. SIMMS: So I can call it PUITTA, I say to the minister. I thank the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I did already mention it, but I hope the minister won't be offended if I mention it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, I do have other comments, but I want to repeat once again, because I'm not sure the Member for Fogo even understood -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to tell when the cat is away how the mice will play. When the Premier was here - he even thanked us at the end of his speech for remaining so attentive and listening and being quiet. Ever since I've stood - and I shall report this to the Premier, I tell members opposite, I will give him the names, I will pass along your names. I will tell him about the interference and the interjections. The hon. Member for Fogo needn't go out and get his hair cut or anything expecting a call. He is not going to get the call. Not going to get it. He is down on the bottom. It is too late for him now to go on a diet. He is not getting into that Cabinet.

Anyway, I want to repeat it for the Minister of Finance because I firmly believe that is nothing more than a tax break for the new company. I firmly believe it will relate to increased electricity costs, down the road in particular, for all consumers in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: A decrease.

MR. SIMMS: No, an increase, not a decrease. It will mean a decrease for industrial consumers, but I will tell you, it isn't going to be a decrease for householders in this Province. If the Minster of Finance gets up to try and argue that point, I mean, surely he doesn't think people in Newfoundland are that green and that stunned that they wouldn't see through that kind of an argument.

Maybe that is their tactic, maybe that is their plan, to try to now convince people that all this is not going to mean an increase in electricity rates. I can see it now. I can see the brochures which I know are being developed now, I can see the television ads which I know are being developed now, I can hear the radio ads which I know are being developed now. To try to sell this package, to try to ram this down into the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because they've taken such a beating on the issue they figure the only way they can do it now is to spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money in some kind of a publicity campaign and ram it down their throats. I can see it coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance doesn't show the same temperament that we on this side show when he speaks. We don't interrupt him. The boss is gone. The cat is away, the mice will play. I say to the Premier, scratch the Member for Fogo off your list, sir, when you are thinking about your replacement. Scratch him off, he has been interjecting the entire time I've been speaking. Not been very courteous at all.

The argument that I make on the PUITTA or PUITTA clause, as the Minister of Finance recommended I call it, is simply that what is happening is that you are taking it out of one pocket - or it stays in one pocket, I guess - the utility, it will be taken out of the other pocket, the taxpayer. It is deception is what it is.

The Premier missed the argument. I know he won't like it and he will screw up his face and everything like that. The fact of the matter is the rate payers will pay in the end. He tried to defuse my argument or my criticism yesterday in the newspaper today, I noticed, because he says that it was a misrepresentation and that the benefits, the $30 million or whatever the amount might be that goes to this new company and Newfoundland Power, will feed back directly through the utilities to reduce the price of power. What he didn't say is where the $30 million is coming from. It is coming from the general revenues of the Province which you have received back from Ottawa, so who pays for that? The taxpayer. Who is the taxpayer? The taxpayer is the rate payer in the Province. So what is the difference?

Either way, the people of the Province are going to pay. This is only a short-term thing anyway. In the end, the longer it goes on, as we move towards three or four years after implementation, we will see what really is going to occur.

Mr. Speaker, moving to Part II of the legislation. I just want to touch on some points in Part II. The first point I want to make is that I think perhaps Part II is even more significant for what it doesn't say but it has the potential to be more significant than the other parts of the legislation. On the surface it appears Part II simply gives the Public Utilities Board the power to allocate and re-allocate power from one producer to another, on the surface, that is what Part II looks like. However, there are other provisions, clauses 7 and 8, page 11, which allow the Cabinet to ask the Public Utilities Board for an inquiry into the adequacy of the supply of power to producers and retailers in this Province. In that event, the Public Utilities Board may re-allocate power and may require a producer to make its transmission and distribution plant, its equipment and its facilities, available for the transmission and distribution of the power.

Now I want, and I would hope that some time during the debate the Premier or whomever he might designate, somebody, would clarify for us during the debate the intention of those particular sections to which I refer. I have a reason to raise it, I won't say what the reason is yet because I want to hear clarification and an explanation; we didn't hear it when the Premier introduced the bill, that specific point, I want to hear that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, will it for example, allow the Public Utilities Board to transfer power generating and transmission assets from one private utility to another?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It does not say that in the clause though.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But it would not allow for the transfer of power generating or transmission assets from one private utility to another, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Would it for example, and if it is not in the clause maybe there should be some consideration to making sure that that doesn't occur in the future. Would it, for example, allow the Public Utilities Board to transfer power generated on the Upper Churchill for example, to supply electrical demand in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the question was, would it give the authority to the Public Utilities Board to transfer power generated on the Upper Churchill, that is what I am asking and he said he would check and get -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well that is a matter for debate. We will see what the answer is first; I don't want him to just toss it aside by saying if it did, it did and if it doesn't, it doesn't. That isn't the issue, we need and deserve a better answer to the question than that so I hope he will further pursue it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on Part IV, section 23 of the legislation as well, and that is the 20 per cent ownership question that I heard the Premier refer to, and try to explain I guess, during his introduction of the legislation. For example, the only argument that Newfoundland Power would have to present to the Public Utilities Board in order to ever get control of new Hydro, the only argument is that it would be more efficient and less costly for the two companies to merge, would that be accurate? That would be the major argument? I don't want him to answer it now but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: 20 per cent role?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. Nothing would prevent merger of Newfoundland Power for example with the new Hydro company sometime down the road.

PREMIER WELLS: If there were no limitation at all or if we put in just a simple absolute prohibition against any one company owning more than 15 per cent, if we just left it at that. No one person or company can own more than 15 per cent in it than there would be nothing than would prevent merger of the two companies. That still would not prevent merger of the two companies.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, that is the question I wanted answered and that is the answer I wanted to get from the Premier. There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the two companies from getting together some time down the road. Nothing in this legislation would prevent that from occurring.

That is an interesting observation, I guess, and will no doubt plant some questions.

PREMIER WELLS: We certainly (inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, we would not.

PREMIER WELLS: We felt it should be merged to begin with.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I know. So this is another way to do it then, is what the Premier is saying.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, we will leave it out there now and we will see what people think of it. I also, in terms of the legislation, on the points I have made on the legislation, as I said at the beginning and the Premier may have gone by then, that I want to save most of the points I want to make on the privatization, the overall privatization question for tomorrow morning when he brings in the other piece of legislation.

I have said that in my view, in our view, this legislation is obviously related to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. We are firmly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, therefore we will be opposing this legislation as well, Mr. Speaker, because it is all interrelated and in order to give the government an opportunity, at least, to reconsider its approach in this entire question, I asked yesterday, I think it was, in the House of Assembly in Question Period, whether the Premier would consider holding some public hearings to give people a chance to have some input. The Premier said a firm, flat, no.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people out there who really have a hard time understanding the logic behind that answer because the Premier has shown on occasion in the past his willingness to allow for public consultation and input through public hearing processes on issues dealing with accounting, for example, which is going on right now, public hearings, a public committee of the House listening to the public input, the smoking issue, a very important issue. He had no problem sending a committee around the Province to hear people's views on that. The electoral boundaries, for heaven's sake, not only did they send them around once, they sent them around twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: And probably again.

MR. SIMMS: Maybe again. Who knows? I dare say at a cost of - I do not know - I think their budget the first time was a couple of hundred thousand dollars, if I remember.

AN HON. MEMBER: $250,000, I believe.

MR. SIMMS: There was certainly in the area of $250,000 spent on that, so I want to ask the Premier why he would not be prepared to consider having public hearings on this particular piece of legislation, one of the most significant issues to come across the desk of anybody in the House of Assembly in years, why he would not consider allowing the opportunity to the public, and to the people, to have their say, to have input, instead of planning and plotting another public relations program in their secret agenda?

I do not know if the Premier addressed this in his opening remarks because I did not hear them all, but we hear that the government is intending, or is at this very moment planning a public relations campaign, getting the brochures ready to go to every household in the Province, planning the advertising campaign on radio, the advertising campaign on television, and, I suppose, in the print media. I do not know. I just hear it. I was saying that even though the government is not prepared to have public hearings with a select committee of the House, which would cost a heck of a lot less, he is prepared to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer's dollars, if it is true, and I do not know if it is, but if it is true, tens of thousands of taxpayer's dollars to try to ram this down their throats, the people of Newfoundland, when he has not even given them any chance for any input or consultation. It is not logical. It does not jive with other actions he has shown in the cases I have talked about.

He even referred to it a couple of days ago in the Throne Speech, about how he spoke to the federal government and he felt very strongly that we should not be going out and telling people: here it is, take it. We should be consulting with the people. Yet when you ask him to use that same approach on an issue like this particular one he says a flat, no. So, what is the reason for that? Why the stalling on that particular question? Why not allow for some public input and consultation? Why not allow the public to have a chance? Maybe the government will have a better chance of explaining its side of the story, because Lord knows they've done a terrible job up till now. I don't think there's much denying that, or much argument about that, unless there is some other agenda to try to force this thing through the Legislature as fast and as quickly as he possibly can.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we received the legislation two days ago and here we are into second reading already. We received the other bill yesterday, here we are into second reading on that one tomorrow. It's pretty obvious they want to speed it up. I thought I heard him on one of the newscasts saying that he didn't expect to get this process completed by the end of March. Maybe he could clarify that, or the minister, whoever is going to speak next on that side could clarify that. I thought I heard him say that the other day.

If so, that would be a change in the position articulated by the minister and the Premier in the past on many occasions when they insisted they wanted to have it done, wrapped up, by the end of this fiscal year, presumably for other reasons, fiscal reasons.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) done by March 31 (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, well, I'm glad to hear -

PREMIER WELLS: I don't see that it could possibly be done.

MR. SIMMS: I'm glad to hear the Premier say that, because I think it would be a mistake to try to rush it and force it through, and I think it should take its proper course. There should be a full-fledged debate, all the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I hope so. None of these nonsensical all night sittings and things of that nature.

PREMIER WELLS: There may be.

MR. SIMMS: Ah ha! There may well be. Well, that is not a full, fair public debate. All night sittings, all they do is wear down the Opposition, number one, and number two, it takes away our opportunities to speak over a period of time, because you have to speak all that night and all your speakers are out of the way. It is a slick strategy, I guess, on the part of the government, if it intends to force it through.

Now the Premier just said that he didn't see any way it could be completed by the end of March. So why doesn't he let it take its proper course, use the time then to have some public hearings, have some public consultation, have some input. Send a select committee around, have somebody there to explain the government side, if you wish, or something of that nature, to at least give the people a chance to have a hearing, to have an input. Why wouldn't he -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) the hon. member said that they would do anything to stop it, they will do everything they can to stop it.

MR. SIMMS: What comment?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What comment?

MS. VERGE: What about the voters?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) television saying it. Twice I heard him on radio saying it.

MS. VERGE: What about the citizens!?

MR. SIMMS: Just a second now, let me try to clarify this. The Premier said the comment that he made was in response to what he heard me say?

PREMIER WELLS: I heard the hon. member say they would do everything they could within the rules of the Legislature to stop it.

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with that?

PREMIER WELLS: We will do everything we can within the rules of the Legislature (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The only thing is, the all night sittings are not the traditional rules. It is a practice imposed by your government over the last three or four years. That is where that came from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but he just said to me in the same breath a moment ago he didn't think it would be done by the end of March. Why doesn't he have public hearings?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) legislation (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What about the public hearings? Why not have some public hearings if it is not going to be done by the end of March? If you have the time why not give the people a chance to have some input and to consult the people?

PREMIER WELLS: Fair or not, it has to be done after the (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Such as? So once the legislation is passed, you might consider having public hearings or something?

PREMIER WELLS: A good deal has to be done (inaudible) privatization after the (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Prospectus and all that sort of thing, yes. The legislation will be passed then. The people won't have had an input or a chance to have any say.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) input (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I see. Then why are we having a public hearing on accounting practices in this Province, can he explain that one? Aren't the people here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make any sense. It is not able to be defended. This particular piece of legislation, this particular issue, deserves a lot more. I will tell you the reason he won't have the public hearings. He doesn't want to hear the public, that's the problem with it. He knows what they are going to have to say, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the rules of the House, I want to move an amendment to second reading, a traditional amendment, provided for in Beauchesne. You won't find all-night sittings in Beauchesne, but you will find this in Beauchesne. I want to move, seconded by my friend the Member for Ferryland, that Bill 2, "An Act To Regulate the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador," be amended by striking out all the words after the word `that' and substituting the following, Bill No. 2, "An Act to Regulate the Electrical Power Resource of Newfoundland and Labrador be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time six months from now." Mr. Speaker, I so move.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: With all due respect to the House Leader, I will wait for the Speaker, I guess, to give the ruling.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I will say from our point is we would (inaudible) no challenge. In our view, the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: No question, Mr. Speaker, I believe I'm entitled to another hour.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on.

MR. SIMMS: I said I believe I'm entitled to another hour, I didn't say I was going to speak for another hour. Well, I could if the Minister of Forestry insists.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes, the Late Show, I forgot about that.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. The Late Show will begin when the hon. gentleman has concluded, no problem with that. We have agreed to all of that, it's all done.

MR. SIMMS: I could adjourn the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. That motion will be defeated, I suspect.

MR. SIMMS: But I understood that the House Leaders had an agreement that I could adjourn the debate at 5:00 and have the Late Show at 5:00.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Two members can't speak at the same time. I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, there is no agreement between my hon. friend opposite and myself with respect to a six-month hoist amendment. The matter was never raised with me, there is no agreement. The hon. gentleman has made his motion, it's in order, he is entitled to speak and let him carry on with the speech. We are here to listen to him.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that the Premier would speak for an hour, the Leader of the Opposition would be afforded the opportunity to speak for an hour, if that continued until after 5:00, sobeit, then we would go straight into the Late Show. So the Leader of the Opposition will speak for his hour and he can adjourn the debate and we'll go straight to the Late Show.

MR. SIMMS: That was the agreement.

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

MR. ROBERTS: We will do the Late Show and then the House will carry on. We want to hear what the Leader of the Opposition wishes to say on the six-month hoist motion tonight.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I say to him, if those are the kinds of games you are going to play (inaudible) obviously, if you're going to offer those kinds of deals, brother, you're in for trouble. You're playing your silly little games.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the -

MR. SIMMS: Your word now is about as good as (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear the hon. the Opposition House Leader and if other members are interjecting, I can't hear what he has to say.

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

The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition can finish up his time when we get back to this order of business again.

MR. ROBERTS: Which will be today.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, then, you are breaking the agreement that you made yesterday. Again already, on the first day of debate, on the first substantial piece of legislation before this House, we find the Government House Leader reneging on an agreement that we made yesterday. If that's the way he wants to play, Mr. Speaker, sobeit.

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

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. House Leader that by agreement we are deferring the Late Show to a period. The Standing Orders clearly state that at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, the motion is deemed to have been put. Your Honour does not even have to call for a motion, the motion is before the House, and that motion is debatable for not more than thirty minutes, so we automatically adjourn. If hon. members want to debate the motion to adjourn for a few minutes, at the end of the Late Show they may do so, but they cannot go back into government business.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I represented St. John's East. Perhaps the hon. member would like to run there next time and we will have a great little fight.

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, my understanding of the agreement of the House, which required unanimous consent, was that if the Leader of the Opposition needed to go into the Late Show at 4:30 p.m. in order to complete his hour, if he so wished, then he could do so, but that if the Leader of the Opposition finishes at 4:30 and the Late Show goes ahead, well unanimous consent and the change is not needed, and we continue tomorrow with whatever the order of business was. That's my understanding of the agreement.

Now, if that is what the Leader of the Opposition does, then I don't see how the Government House Leader can manipulate the time or the date or anything else. If the Leader of the Opposition adjourns the debate at 4:30 p.m., then he continues when it next becomes part of government business.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, let me first of all say to the gentleman from Mount Pearl that he is correct. The Standing Orders do say that at 5:00 p.m. the motion shall be deemed to be put. What he neglected to add is that the House earlier adopted a motion that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., so that takes care of that, but if Your Honour feels it in order to put a motion at the end of the Late Show, then the House will decide.

Secondly, with respect to this breaking my word business, let me just set the record very clear. Hon. gentlemen opposite at no point said they intended to move a six-month hoist. They have every right to do so; I have no quarrel with that, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I simply believe in open agreements, openly arrived at, in Woodrow Wilson's phrase.

All I am saying is that the understanding between us was that the Leader of the Opposition would finish his remarks on this matter this day, and we shall make it possible for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to finish his remarks on this matter this day, Mr. Speaker. If that is straightforward we will keep our commitment, of course.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, if the House continues and debates our leader's amendment, or the six-month hoist, until his completion of one hour, the House is limiting the ability of us to move an amendment. Now, we would have been able to move an amendment in tomorrow's discussion. By limiting that amendment within this period, we are falling back on what this House agreed earlier today, to permit one hour of discussion on that specific bill. That one hour will have been completed by 4:36 p.m. If he is into moving a six-month hoist, he should not jeopardize his right to continue beyond one hour with an amendment, too. If he is still on the initial bill, he would have that right and he would have to sit down.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, in response to my friend for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker, nobody is trying to limit the hon. the Opposition Leader's right to speak for an hour. If the hon. gentleman wants to speak all night, and if it is in order for him to do so, I will gladly hear him, Mr. Speaker. I have done it before, and I will hear him again.

I say to my friend for Ferryland, with respect, I simply do not follow his point. The Opposition Leader, we are suggesting, will finish his speech today, then, when the order for the EPCA, the bill we are now debating, is called again, amendment debate will still be before us. Whoever wishes to speak in it will. Presumably, someone from this side will respond, and someone from that side and it will go on until that debate concludes. There may then be another amendment.

If hon. gentlemen opposite want to come up with dilatory amendments, and this, my friend, the Leader of the Opposition will agree, is a dilatory amendment, and a proper one - there are any number of them - if they need some advice I would be happy to give them advice on how to do it.

What we are saying is that the hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, will have the opportunity today to finish his remarks on the second reading, which he has finished, and on the six-month hoist. We are not suggesting the six-month hoist debate will come to an end this day, because I suspect it won't.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a couple of minutes recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready?

Order, please!

I apologize for the delay but there seemed to be some confusion in terms of the agreement that was struck between both House Leaders and we had to take time to retrieve Hansard to make sure that I was clear in terms of what had been agreed to and what the ruling was at the particular time, and this is the Government House Leader: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I will be permitted to move that the House do now adjourn at five o'clock. I say, this has simply been done in discharge of our undertaking to allow whomever is to speak for the Opposition, I assume it is the Leader of the Opposition. My friend for Ferryland confirms this, to allow the Leader of the Opposition time to finish his remarks today. If you could put the motion, there is one other matter which I need to address in this connection; and then the House passed the motion.

All those in favour of the motion to postpone the commencement of what is called the Late Show until after the Leader of the Opposition has completed his speech today, all those in favour of the motion, aye; nay; carried.

The Chair's interpretation is that the Opposition member is permitted to speak and he introduced an amendment, therefore the Opposition member would have another hour to speak in the debate and once he finished that debate then we would go immediately to the Late Show. So I call on the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

March 3, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLII  No. 4A

[Continuation of sitting]

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't here when all that went on, unfortunately. Although I thought the Speaker himself - not Your Honour but the Speaker himself was in the Chair and had asked for unanimous consent I'm told but I don't know how all that transpired. All I know is that my understanding is almost irrelevant anyway and who really cares because the fact of the matter is I'll speak, I'll speak tomorrow, I'll speak next week and I'll speak the week after but that isn't the point. The point is we merely moved the motion and the amendment to have a six month hoist for a very specific reason more than anything, not so much to allow me the opportunity to speak first when this debate comes up again next week because that's irrelevant, I mean I speak again tomorrow.

The point was to move the motion or the amendment so that we could argue at some point in the future, the next day or the day after, about the need for public hearings and about the need for members to speak and all that kind of thing. Whether I speak tonight for another hour is not the point although my understanding, I have to say to the Government House Leader, is clearly that there was an agreement to allow the Premier to speak for his hour and me to speak for my hour. That's what I understood was the agreement. But it was pointed out to me, it was on Thursday, that the Late Show might intervene and rather than interrupt my speaking - because I would be speaking around that time - they deferred the Late Show until that occurred.

On that basis and on that understanding I made other commitments myself today for five o'clock but I had to get somebody to change those commitments and that's rather unfortunate because of this silly move by the Government House Leader, but there it is. I don't mind making changes, changing commitments that I had and everything based on the understanding that I had -

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your fault.

MR. SIMMS: Well that's your own fault, not our fault. As long as the Government House Leader wants to continue to bully us with imposing his will upon the House, the Chair and everybody else, he can continue to do it. We'll have no difficulty in standing on our feet, responding, arguing and pointing out that there was an agreement and a commitment from our perspective. It's kind of a diversion or detraction I should say from what the Premier said only on Monday, when he got up on Monday in the Throne Speech Debate and pontificated from on high about the need for the Opposition to cooperate and why don't we consult? Why don't we throw aside partisanship and all these kind of wonderful words from the Premier. Now we see the action of the Government House Leader on this particular point which is really hardly worth talking about.

The Premier is gone now, I guess he had other commitments, and he can go and fulfil his. I can't because I have to fulfil this responsibility here now this afternoon. The Premier has been getting rather testy, and I wanted to mention that in passing. For example, when he came back from his trip to Asia, when the media asked him some questions, or wanted to ask him to give some answers to some questions about what he did in Asia and who he met with and what kind of businesses are coming over here and how many will be moving over in droves, the Premier chastised the press for asking those questions, Mr. Speaker.

Then the other day, I think it was last week, at some other press conference or some other press function I believe the Premier lectured the press once again and said - what was it he said Bill?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What?

MR. SIMMS: What was it he said to the press last week?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, they should be reporting the news and not creating it.

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes, the big lecture about: Don't be creating the news, you should be reporting the news. Now I understand today outside in the scrum area he just about went right off - well, I won't say where he went, but he went off the deep end. In a scrum with the press out there today apparently on some questions about the House activity today the Premier apparently just about blew a gasket. He lectured them when he came back from Asia and he lectured them last week about reporting the news instead of creating the news, and today I'm told outside when they asked him a question about Hydro or about this particular piece of legislation, could they do an interview with him on this particular piece of legislation, he said: Why, didn't you hear my speech? I just spoke for an hour inside the House of Assembly. As if they were up there somewhere hanging on every word that any of us say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, that's right, you won't. But you will see me on the news talking about the legislation.

Anyway, the Premier is getting a little bit testy. I know he is on medication for his flu or his cold or his throat but I didn't know that it had sort of seeped in that deeply to him. I don't know if it is affecting him or not. Perhaps he should take a rest or a nap or something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as a result of all this kerfuffle I think I only have forty-seven minutes left instead of an hour. I say to the Minister of Finance, as a result of all this kerfuffle I only have forty-seven minutes of speaking time remaining as opposed to a full hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) an hour's worth (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I appreciate that and I say to the hon. Minister of Finance that I have no trouble speaking for an hour and forty-seven minutes. I have no trouble. If members opposite want to encourage me then by all means I would welcome it, I would welcome the encouragement.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If he would only be as generous to the public service, tell him.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. As my colleague points out, if only the Minister of Finance would be as generous to the public service as he is to me here today.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, we have often said that over on this side and we haven't been quiet about it at all. The Minister of Justice knows that.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We never had any of the problems that we have dealing with the Government House Leader when we had the Member for Gander there. He took the Premier's advice that the Premier gave to us on Monday in the Throne Speech when he said: I plead with the Opposition for more co-operation, let's consult. That was the Premier's speech to us, his lecture to us, throw aside partisanship and all that stuff and that's the way the Member for Gander used to act all the time; a gentleman, a man of his word, and then all of a sudden the ghost from the political past reappears, re-emerges, he is in Cabinet, he is not elected, then he gets elected, Mr. Speaker, and the next thing you know he booted out the Member for Gander as House Leader and takes over as House Leader and tries to impose his will on the people on this side of the House. Well, it won't work; he can interrupt all he wishes. I say to the Member for St. John's South, if he wants me to get on with it, will he please talk to the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance and ask them to stop interrupting.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am glad it didn't take long. It worked, it didn't take long, you are a man of action. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will speak, I will take my time and speak; I won't be getting on with it and pushing it, I will take my time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I have several points to make. Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat a few of the points in case members weren't listening closely when I began.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I think I am as elegant as Joe Smallwood.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Eloquent.

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, who did have Joe Smallwood's eloquence? Certainly not the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it's very, very difficult to carry on with debate at this hour knowing that there is a Late Show to follow, but there are a few -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, I didn't hear the Minister of Health. He doesn't want me - okay. I have some difficulty keeping my train of thought with all of the interjections. Once again the cat has gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will. Once again the Premier is gone and you see what happens, Mr. Speaker? She falls apart over on that side. I wish -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He has gone for three days? Oh we will have a great time next week, Mr. Speaker. Can the Government House Leader tell us how soon he will be calling the night sittings?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So three days and three nights.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well not Wednesday; you won't have a night sitting, so Monday and you are in the hands -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't think there's a chance of getting that, I say to the Government House Leader, not much of a chance.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment, the six month hoist, is simply to try to tell the government that the people of this Province deserve and demand an opportunity to have some input, to be consulted on this very significant piece of legislation - not so much this one as the one tomorrow, but it's all related - and the problem is that you will hear people all the time on Open Line programs calling in morning and night; you read letters to the editor; you walk anywhere around St. John's South, people will be saying to the Member for St. John's South - I know he will confess, he will admit, people don't like the Hydro idea, and other members on that side have heard about it.

Mr. Speaker, do not forget that you can debate and argue - now the Minister of Health thinks everybody loves him but he will find out differently. Of course he will not because he will be retiring long before he has to face the people. He will not have to face the electorate. The one good thing about the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is that he has a wonderful sister out in Grand Falls who is a constituent of mine and votes for me all the time, and I can understand why.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that people have a hard time getting their views through to this government because the government will not offer the opportunity for consultation, or for any form of input, or for any public hearings, or anything of that nature. The people of the Province do not have that opportunity, even though this government is prepared to have public hearings on the issue of accounting, as important as it is, and I would like to know why that is. There are some suggestions as to why we are seeing that particular debate in committee.

Why, Mr. Speaker, this government would have public hearings and send a committee around the Province to listen to input on the issue of smoking, an important issue? Why they would do that? Why they would send their electoral boundaries review commission around the Province, and then send them around again, and maybe send them around a third time at a cost of $250,000, at least $250,000? Why they would be prepared to do that and not give the people of the Province an opportunity for input into this particular piece of legislation on this issue which is probably the most significant issue we have dealt with in this Legislature since 1949, certainly, a very significant piece of legislation? No, I guess, that is not quite true. The other one that is significant and similar in comparison, in my view, was the sell-off of the Upper Churchill.

That is what is so significant, because there are so many similarities in the approach in the way this thing is being done. I predict history will record this initiative by this government as one of the most serious mistakes ever committed by any government in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of the amendment, the six month hoist, to give the people a chance to have a say, to give the people a chance to go and listen to what the government is proposing. They will not do that. That will cost a few thousand dollars to send a committee headed by the Member for St. John's South, or somebody like that, around the Province to get some input on this, a few thousand dollars is all that would cost, but I bet you they are quite prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars in a public relations campaign to try to ram it down the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I bet you that is coming, Mr. Speaker. The brochures are being drafted now. They may be printed. The brochures are printed, the Member for St. John's South nods.

MR. MURPHY: No!

MR. SIMMS: No. Okay. They are certainly being drafted. The ads are being prepared, radio ads. Probably I can hear them now: Hello, I'm Clyde Wells. I can hear it now. Hydro is the best thing since sliced bread. That is what you are going to hear on radio. On television - you know, the best chance - there are ninety-four - Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I didn't hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I didn't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I see, okay. I didn't hear what the hon. member said but I can certainly understand why he said it. I want to confirm for him that that is why we are doing what we are doing in this legislation, because we are putting people first. That is precisely what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I would say the best chance, Mr. Speaker, for the government to try to get this legislation passed would be to put the Government House Leader on a television ad. That would probably make sure that it would carry for sure.

Anyway, I have difficulty making my point because members opposite, including the government ministers earning $100,000 a year are over there interjecting and shouting, which they wouldn't do if the Premier was here, and he knows it. Wouldn't dare do it. I don't mind. I will make my points. I'm not in any hurry. I will take my time. If hon. members over there weren't interjecting I probably would have been finished before now but I appreciate the encouragement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I haven't had a chance to make my points because you are interjecting and interrupting.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Len, why don't you ask Rex what he is being paid? After (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I want to be kind to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I won't ask him. My colleagues here want me to ask some questions of the Minister of Mines and Energy but no, I wouldn't, no, they are not really related directly to the legislation so I will be kind to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of the amendment. The other reason for the amendment, aside from trying to get the government to hold some public hearings, is to give members opposite who are today very aggressive while the Premier is out in interjecting and interrupting me when I give my speech, they are not hesitating to do that, no problem at all, but try to get one of them to speak publicly on the issue of Hydro privatization. Try to get one of them to call an open line program and explain how they feel about it. Try to get one of them to do an interview with the media on how they feel about Hydro privatization. You haven't heard a whisper, not a word, from any of them over there.

Cabinet ministers will toe the line anyway. The private members -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, I say to the Minister of Health, it is all related, my friend. The tax breaks and the tax concessions in this bill are in there to help the new company under privatization.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I know. I made that point two or three times, I say to the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: This from the man who didn't understand the tax formula when he was Minister of Finance when he went on national television.

MR. SIMMS: No, I am going to be kind to the Minister of Health. He has some relatives out in my constituency; I'm not going to say anything nasty to him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He didn't understand the tax formula when he was Minister of Finance on national television.

MR. SIMMS: So member opposite, private members in particular, are not saying a word. Nobody has spoken out on it. Nobody has expressed their views on it. I suppose it is because they are all Cabinet want-to-bes. I presume that is the reason. Private members and the members in the backbenches over there are Cabinet want-to-bes, so they are afraid to open their mouths and take issue with something they know in their gut, in their heart and in their soul is not in the best interest of the people of this Province. Private members over there feel that way. There are members who feel that way, and I know that they feel that way, but they don't have the gumption nor the political courage to express those views publicly. That is a shame.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not true.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the member for the Saltfish Corporation, it is true.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Name them.

MR. SIMMS: No I won't name them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Len, we know why the Member for Pleasantville isn't speaking. He got that much for his district from government, he can't speak.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I know why the Member for Pleasantville hasn't spoken out about it. It is because he has been bought off. The government gave him so much money under the Emergency Response Program for employment up in his district -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We were going to ask questions on your behalf, but when you told us not to do it we decided not to do it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what we have here in this legislation is a bill that gives tax breaks, tax concessions, to the new Hydro as well as to Newfoundland Power. The question I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, whenever he speaks in the debate, presumably the next speaker, is: What is to come in the budget? There are other tax breaks contained in the privatization bill which we will deal with tomorrow. But there are a couple of other items. The cancellation of the 1 per cent guarantee fee: Is that expected to come up somewhere in the future or is that going to be included?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's gone.

MR. SIMMS: It's gone. Well, it won't be gone today during the legislation. I am asking the Minister of Energy, he can address the question when he stands. What I am asking about is the $10 to $12 million that the government gets. It will show up in the budget, but I guess it will be gone. It is gone, in effect, as the House Leader says.

I want to ask him if there are any other tax credits. What about the exemption? Will there be an exemption from provincial and corporate taxes to the new Hydro? Will there be an exemption from the 3 per cent corporate capital tax for the new Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: So there will be no exemption from the 3 per cent corporate capital tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not that I am aware of.

MR. SIMMS: Not that you are aware of. Presumably the minister would be aware of it. If he isn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry; I can't hear the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. Will they have to pay the 3 per cent corporate capital tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's the point I am trying to get at. There is not much of a chance of exempting Newfoundland Power from it as well if you would end up exempting Newfoundland Hydro, or the new Hydro. There's no chance of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I know that, but to treat them the same means they will both pay the 16 per cent provincial corporate tax and the 3 per cent corporate capital tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, doesn't the minister know? You are a member of the Cabinet. We are expected to know all of that. Surely he must know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If there's a 3 per cent capital tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we have to take what the minister says with a great deal of caution, because it was only a couple of weeks ago he said that as far as he knew it wasn't being sold - not that many weeks ago - on public television. As far as I know, this is not being sold.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Didn't know about the task force.

MR. SIMMS: Didn't know anything about the task force.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he called it a committee.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he called it a committee. Remember that? So we have to listen to what the minister says and take it with a grain of salt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, so I am glad he answered that, but the $10 million to $12 million loan guarantee, the fee will no longer be received by the Province. Okay, you will lose that.

My point is, I guess then, Mr. Speaker, that we see tax breaks in this bill. We see tax breaks in the privatization bill, which we will address tomorrow, and we now find there is another break because they won't have to pay the $10 million to $12 million guarantee fee, of course. That's a break for them. Even though the Province is going to continue to guarantee the debt for the new company, there still won't be any fee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No? The minister is shaking his head. Now he is trying to ignore me because I have asked him a question and he doesn't want to answer it, I guess.

The government is going to guarantee the remaining debt, and be liable for the remaining debt, whatever it is, but the new company will not have to pay a loan guarantee fee; is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: New Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That wasn't my question. I said, the government will guarantee the debt, will continue to guarantee whatever debt is left -

AN HON. MEMBER: The new company takes responsibility for it.

MR. SIMMS: The new company takes responsibility for paying off the debt, and they do it over forty years, as a matter of fact, if the minister wants to know that. I know that. I understand all that. We will deal with that tomorrow. My question is, the government will continue to guarantee the fee. They will continue to hold the guarantee. That's in the law. My question to the minister then is: Will the new company, Hydro, pay a guarantee fee as the old Hydro did?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, well now you have confirmed my point - another tax break for the new company, because Hydro was paying a fee to the government they will not have to pay a guarantee fee even though the government will guarantee the debt and will be liable for the debt. I thank the minister very much for answering that question, we finally got a straight answer. So there's another sweetheart deal for the new company, new Hydro, Mr. Speaker. Now it's not as if we didn't know anything about this. The minister himself was on television or on the other news media on February 8 or 9, after I held a press conference.

Does the minister remember I held a press conference three weeks ago on February 8? I articulated a whole bunch of items contained in this legislation, a number of things contained in this legislation, a number of things contained in the privatization bill tomorrow. The minister remembers and he was on the news the next day saying: no, no, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Does the minister remember that? Now would he at least apologize when he stands and say you have to give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Opposition Party, we had just about everything in our statement - and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, yes. Now listen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) now don't get nasty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you guessed it.

MR. SIMMS: Yes boy, we guessed everything. All this stuff we guessed. Here's what we said, let me give you an example, I'll give you a good example to show you how much we guessed. We said in the statement - I got a copy of the statement - under the issue dealing with reorganization of Hydro: all of Hydro's assets and operations, excluding it's Labrador Hydro related subsidiaries, will be transferred to the new company. Let's call it new Hydro. Now if there isn't a hint there for you that we knew something, obviously, we even had the names of the company. Then I went on to say the other corporation that will remain, we'll call that old Hydro. That's in my statement February 8. So you only did the legislation, you only drafted the legislation after you saw my press statement. Is that what the minister is telling me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, well how come you - well you were on the next day chastising me saying I didn't know what I was talking about. So you did that without even knowing what I said? Shame on you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Most things you fellows say, you don't know what you're saying.

MR. SIMMS: Can I ask the minister another question? I hadn't intended to go on this long, I was going to -

MR. BAKER: You're having fun.

MR. SIMMS: Well I'm not having fun. This is not a fun issue. This is a serious issue I say to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance, even though there are some humorous interjections from time to time, I can tell him this is not a humorous issue. It's a very serious matter and we take it seriously. I can tell him this also, that no matter how many - the Government House Leader and the Premier talked about - the Premier in particular said to me earlier today that he heard me say publicly that we were going to fight this to the bitter end, tooth and nail. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said it many -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, if I could get my words out, Mr. Speaker, we said that, we said it, we meant it and we were sincere about it because we do believe this is a giant mistake for the people of the Province. We said we would use every tactic available to us within the rules of parliament. We will do that. The Government House Leader can do whatever he has to do. We don't care. I can tell him that we are going to fight this to the bitter end and I can tell him we will employ whatever parliamentary tactics we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us why.

MR. SIMMS: Because we oppose it. Because it is not in the best interest of the people of the Province. That is the simple answer to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture's question.

They can try all they want to muzzle us, they can try all they want to interrupt us, they can try all they want to interject, they can try all they want to ramrod their way through in this legislation, they can try any tactic they want. All night sittings - don't matter. Cancel the April Easter break - doesn't matter to us, not one bit. We will do what we have to do to uphold our responsibility, but in particular we will do it because we believe what we are doing on this particular issue is the right thing, and it is the wrong thing, the legislation that is, for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, who shouted something across and is very anxious to participate in the debate, will he tell us when the prospectus will be ready and made public? You won't tell us or you don't know?

DR. GIBBONS: I can't tell you yet.

MR. SIMMS: You can't tell me yet?

MS. VERGE: Do you know? Do you know anything?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Has the minister been told?

MS. VERGE: Do you do anything to earn your salary as a minister?

MR. SIMMS: Will he confirm what the Premier said today, that he doesn't anticipate that the legislation will be through by the end of March, the Premier indicated. So there is no deadline. He said publicly he doesn't expect it to be done by the end of March.

MR. ROBERTS: When the House is ready (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that is not what the Premier said, I say to the Government House Leader. I'm not asking you, I'm talking to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I see. You are taking over from Clyde now, are you? Answering for your ministers, are you? I'm asking the Minister of Mines and Energy, does he agree with the Premier?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The process. No, that is not what he said. I asked him about the total transaction. You said publicly a half a dozen times, as did he, it will all be over by the end of March so that you could include it in your fiscal year this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You've never said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: God, I hope the press are listening, because they will point it out.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, nice. I never ever heard the minister - that is a word that is not in the vocabulary of any minister on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, "nice."

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It certainly won't be nice when it is done.

MR. SIMMS: No. If I can try to get the minister's attention now, a serious answer. He doesn't expect this to be done by the end of March, is that what he is saying? There is no urgency for it to be done by the end of March.

DR. GIBBONS: There is no way (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Is there any urgency?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No way it can be done.

MR. SIMMS: No urgency. Okay. Now, do you expect the prospectus to be finished by the end of March and out publicly?

DR. GIBBONS: I don't know (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Does the minister know anything about this process?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no.

MR. SIMMS: Why doesn't he know that?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So if the legislation is passed you won't make the prospectus public until the legislation is proclaimed? Is that correct?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He doesn't know, poor old Rex doesn't know.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Listen, so -

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but never mind talking in riddles, answer the question. The prospectus won't be out until the legislation is proclaimed, is that correct?

DR. GIBBONS: Well, I cannot tell you the exact time (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Can you make the prospectus public if the legislation is not proclaimed?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You can't?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He doesn't know. Rex boy, give it up, don't answer any more, say you don't know.

MR. SIMMS: Why doesn't he ask the Government House Leader to answer the questions for him again because he is getting hooked. You don't know, do you? Be honest.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he doesn't know, stand up and say you don't know anything about it. Rex, be honest boy, say you don't know anything about it; Clyde has taken away your power.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, let me just further pursue this. What is the appropriate stage in the legislation to allow the prospectus to be made public; is it second reading, is it Committee stage, third reading, proclamation?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, wait, wait! The Minister of Finance has interjected. Aha! and you know what his answer is?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. SIMMS: I am asking the Minister of Energy: Do you have to have the legislation, must it be proclaimed before you put your prospectus out? I am not sure. I don't know. We can't do anything until we reach a certain stage. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister of Finance interjects, Mr. Speaker, and says: It has nothing to do with it; it has nothing to do with it. So let me ask the Minister of Finance then, I won't ask the minister, obviously he doesn't know, so could I ask the Minister of Finance, he is being co-operative and willing to help and consult and answer a question: You are saying it has nothing to do with it, what do you mean by that, you don't have to have the legislation to put the prospectus out?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Do you have to have the legislation?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Don't be cagey now like you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I didn't ask you about (inaudible). I asked you, do you have to have the legislation proclaimed? I am asking a simple question, I am asking you a question, a legitimate -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but what's the answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I think we will have to try that one in the morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Resign, boy, resign.

MR. SIMMS: I know all that, but my question -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a pitiful performance.

MS. VERGE: Speak to the issue.

MR. SIMMS: I will speak to the issue, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking the minister, I have asked that minister up there, I am asking this minister: do you have to have the legislation proclaimed in order for your prospectus to be made public?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So you don't have to have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. So are you saying to me you don't need the

Electrical Power Resources Act passed and proclaimed in order to allow the prospectus to be made public?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you answer my question? You can't answer it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we might have to pursue that one in the morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and the way to do it would be to ask the question of the Minister of Energy first, a supplementary to the Minister of Finance, and then we will ask the Premier. I'm sure he will tell us the truth. He won't avoid answering.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Energy will tell the truth.

MR. SIMMS: Well, he doesn't know. The Minister of Energy is truthful, he doesn't know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, after those few preliminary remarks, let me get into the meat now of the points I wish to bring to the attention of the House. How much time do I have left, by the way, I ask the Clerk.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Is that all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the ministers and members opposite, but I really -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I wish I could finish my sentences. I can't get the points out that I want to get out because the ministers and members opposite continuously have interrupted for the last hour. That is extremely unfortunate. They have made light of the issue. They may have even laughed at me. I don't mind that, but they have made light of the issue unfortunately in the way they have acted here in the House. The way they have acted here in the House today on this issue, the first day of debate, has put us in a very difficult position, because it is not an appropriate way to proceed. First of all, with the kerfuffle: Not off to a good start. For the last hour or forty-five minutes that I have been speaking on the amendment, the members opposite have consistently and constantly interrupted and interjected, and have made it very difficult -

AN HON. MEMBER: Untrue.

MR. SIMMS: It is not untrue. It is still happening, Mr. Speaker. They have made it very difficult for me to get the points across that I want to get across. I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, I will continue, both here inside the House and outside the House, to expose the flaws, to point out the tax concessions, the tax breaks, the sweetheart deals, that are contained in both pieces of legislation, the one we are debating today and the one tomorrow. We will do it to the bitter end for the very reason that I explained earlier, because -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: You see, Mr. Speaker, there it is now, laughter. It is almost embarrassing, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'll conclude my debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think we will adjourn debate and go with the Late Show.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The member rose and I didn't know if it was a point of order, but I understand we are going now to the Late Show.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, do we have a motion to adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The member said he concluded debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think he formally adjourned it.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think, said he concluded debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Did the hon. Leader adjourn or did he conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: I heard him say. You concluded debate, and I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition had until 6:05, if the table finds me correctly, or thereabouts, in terms of his remarks. I think we now go to the Late Show. The hon. member rose and I did not know if he had a point of order or something, but in terms of our agreement for today we now do the Late Show, as I understand it, which had unanimous agreement of the House.

MR. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition - and I just want to be clear so I know, has concluded his remarks in this debate. He will no doubt speak again at some other point in this debate. Okay, that is fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: The debate is called again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We have an agreement on the floor of the House. We are past the usual time and we should be at the Late Show, but I recognized him at the time. I did not know if he was standing, standing to speak, or had a point of order or something. That is what was happening. That being the case I presume we now go with the Late Show.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I requested to be put on the Late Show because I was not satisfied with the answer given to me by the President of Treasury Board with regards to the question I placed to him on the severance pay issue, the infamous severance pay issue, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has put the people of this Province into because of his position in the collective bargaining process in recent weeks. The severance pay package is a package that has been an negotiated item, a postponement of benefits, a benefit that these people have earned, and have signed various collective agreements with that particular benefit itemized in it. The minister himself has stated that this has been a threat, a ploy put there, similar, in the words that he used, similar as he has the option of beating his wife but he does not necessarily do it. Now, that is what the minister said, Mr. Speaker. The minister is said to have said this on a CBC Hear and Now news program.

MR. BAKER: I did not say it.

Mr. Speaker, I am repeating what the Hear and Now newscast said that he did say. The problem is that the electorate and the employees of this particular government recognize that this government has a history in collective bargaining of going through with their threats, Mr. Speaker. While his wife may have a history with the hon. gentleman she does not believe his threat that he will beat her. She does not believe it, but the employees that work with this company, this government, these school teachers, the nurses, the people in the public service, they recognize that this government has a history of following its threats because they have been legislated, they have had roll-backs, they have had wage freezes, they have been threatened with them and they have had it occur to them, Mr. Speaker.

The people are apprehensive about the fact that they may indeed have to fact a roll-back through legislation and a loss of a benefit that they have negotiated over several years, a benefit that they have earned, and they are nervous that they may lose this benefit, and to remove this uncertainty they have asked the minister to remove this from the table. That would be fair; that would be co-operative; that would be the honourable thing for this minister to do, to be part of showing the unions his honesty, his spirit of co-operation, that he doesn't intend to take this particular item away because it is so disruptive in the education process, it is so disruptive in the health care process, because this is where it is more essentially needed to have these people serving, giving their formal notices over longer periods of time because of the disruption that occurs in their particular workplace.

I am not forgetting the turmoil that this move, this strategy, this ploy, this threat, has caused in the families of the individuals, Mr. Speaker. That's bad enough, but mostly what really bothers me is what occurs in the classroom, or on the hospital wards, that people are going to go without those professional services, or as good as they did have, because it does cause problems in the classroom; it will cause and has caused problems in the wards of our hospitals.

The Minister of Finance recognized this, and he should recognize it because he has been told time and time again of what it is doing to the process of delivering these very essential services, health care, and especially education.

We can probably make do, if you will, with a general slow-down and not as efficient a delivery of government services here within Confederation Building with regard to delivery of a license plate or a marriage licence or that type of thing that other government departments do for people, the taxpayers of this Province, but what we can't tolerate and we shouldn't tolerate is the disruption in the health care service, the delivery of health care service, and a delivery of a good education to the children in the classrooms. We shouldn't tolerate it, and the people of this Province don't want to tolerate it, and all that is necessary for the minister to do is announce that that threat of removing severance pay from the collective agreements signed by this government, to remove that from the table now so that people can go on with a normal, everyday, day-to-day living in this Province without the fear of losing this benefit that they have earned over the last twenty years, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to deal first of all with the comment that the hon. member made at the beginning of his five minutes relating to an interview that I did, and then a reporting on that interview. I share his view and the view that anybody would, I suppose, feel on hearing that news story. It was an abominable, disgusting comment that I have never made and would never make. If hon. members believe opposite, believe differently, I would suggest they go to the CBC and ask to look at the field tapes of the interview. I think that would be - I think it's a misinterpretation -

MS. VERGE: They owe you an apology.

MR. BAKER: Yes, sure they do but I've experienced this a number of times in the last three or four years and only once did I ever get an apology from CBC. It's the only time they've ever done it -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I've talked to the reporter about it, that's the first step. So it was an abominable misinterpretation of the whole situation. As a matter of fact, it was just totally inaccurate. That comment was totally inaccurate.

As to the issue of severance pay, I simply want to make the point that we are into a collective bargaining process. I have made it very clear to the teachers' union that with regards to the existence of the 2 per cent clause that we are very, very, very firm on that. I have also made it clear to them, and it's in the proposal if members care to read the proposal. I'm sure they have copies of it. There's at least 10,000 around the Province - that we have put forward - we've indicated the extent of the problem we have, we indicated that the solution last year was temporary and some of that problem still exists. Had we dealt with it in a permanent manner last year there would be no problem this year at all.

Some of that problem still exists and we made some suggestions as to how to make permanent changes which would mean we wouldn't have to come back year after year. We listed five or six things we suggested could achieve our objectives and one of them was the severance pay. There were others there and it's never nice suggesting taking things out of contracts, I agree.

Never, ever, has this government or have I ever said to the teachers union that if we don't get this stuff we'll legislate it. Never, ever, ever, we've said the opposite. These are our suggestions to start collective bargaining, now let's sit down, you obviously can come back with counter-suggestions and they have not yet come back with counter-suggestions. Instead this reign of terror has been created. In an interview with the CBC on February 25, the president of the teachers' union told Mr. Miller, in an interview, that government had said that we were going to legislate all of this stuff. That is totally, absolutely inaccurate. It is simply not true.

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to explain to the members opposite and to the people in the Province who may somehow hear this through the media, that this is the beginning, it is an opening position in negotiating and it's the beginning of a collective bargaining process. I think that it's unfortunate that an opening position was put to a membership in that light, that this was something that was going to be legislated and there is no room for bargaining. Our position is exactly the opposite of that, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to make that very clear.

So far there have been resignations.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. BAKER: I think as of Monday morning - I believe it is up to 110, 111 right now, in that vicinity. These have not been all resignations. Some of them have been just expressions of intent to resign. There have been resignations and it is unfortunate this panic is going through the system out there. However, I would like to suggest to hon. members - and implicit in the member from Western Labrador in his comments was the suggestion that you can never ever change anything that is in a collective agreement, that you can never ever reduce any condition in a collective agreement - well, that is simply not so.

That is part of the process. Where management has the right to say at the end of a collective agreement: We want to change some of those things. That is part of the process. I'm surprised the hon. member doesn't understand that is part of the collective bargaining process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I'm really amazed. I'm sure, right, his employees would be glad to know that he would never remove anything and never suggest that any changes be made in a collective agreement that would change one of the provisions. I'm really amazed at that particular attitude.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say that I believe that the process that we've started should continue to a sensible conclusion. I believe that it should be possible to reach an agreement with all of our unionized workers at some point in time in the future,. I don't think it is going to be tomorrow, I don't think it is going to be next week, but I believe an agreement is here. This government will try its utmost to reach a negotiated agreement with all of its unionized workers.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Question Period today I questioned the industry minister about the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador loan to Liberal Member of Parliament Jean Payne. The minister indicated that he had personally called Ms. Payne because, as I understand what he said, his officials were having trouble getting in contact with her. The minister also indicated that officials at Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador were unable to locate the equipment that was supposed to have been purchased with this loan.

To say the least, Mr. Speaker, this matter has become rather messy. It is certainly questionable if the minister's behaviour is acceptable for a minister responsible for a lending agency, and the position of Ms. Payne was certainly not conducive to electioneering if it had become a public matter before or during the federal election. One therefore could speculate as to why this loan account was allowed to disintegrate to the point that it did and for as long as it did. In short, were there political considerations involved.

Then there is the matter of the personal guarantees. For instance, when I get a car loan to buy a car, if I default on my monthly payments then the bank usually repossesses my car. They don't usually come for my TV set or my microwave oven, or furniture, et cetera. Why, then, were personal guarantees needed on a loan to purchase equipment? If the client failed to make loan payments, surely the equipment could be repossessed.

The minister indicated that the equipment couldn't be found. I find this rather incredible. It is almost like the client didn't expect to be required to make payments, or to show proof of purchase and/or location of the equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) imagination.

MR. HEWLETT: It doesn't take much imagination to speculate in that direction at all, Mr. Speaker.

Could it be that the client expected the loan to be written off as a doubtful account? That presents us with the question as to whether or not the transaction was very doubtful from the start. Was that the reason personal guarantees were sought?

Why was the account allowed to languish in arrears for so long? If Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador officials couldn't find Mrs. Payne or the equipment, surely they could have found her at St. John's West campaign headquarters during the federal election, or more recently at her offices on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. I find it incredible that a client with such a long-term public profile could, at the same time, be so very difficult to trace so as to collect an outstanding debt.

This story tends to lead us in a round and round circus. It is almost like the dog chasing its tail. The more questions you ask, the more will come up, and the more we go around, the more we must ask why.

The story, in this particular instance, doesn't stand up, especially when you think of the fact that this is a government that has a reputation that it could, quite literally, steal the coppers off a dead man's eyes. This is a government that collects its taxes from shop keepers before they land in the till. This is a government whose loan board is hounding fishermen for loan payments. This is a government that doesn't usually lose track of a high profile client or the equipment unless, of course, maybe they want to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him to repeat the question.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a question in there somewhere. In fact I thought when the member rose in the House today I sort of trembled a little. I thought he was going to come with a vicious attack about severance, but he obviously didn't do that.

The real issue here is one of fundamental fairness, treating people fairly and decently. This particular lady, before she entered politics, took a loan in 1989. I have made all the facts public. The company wasn't successful. The revenues were not generated. The loan could not be serviced. The documents are all there, where ENL acted responsibly to try to collect on this. She became a public figure, it became a big public issue because of the unemployment problems and other problems. We are dealing with it, there is a meeting tomorrow morning. She will sit down with the officials of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and she will work out an arrangement. If she can't work out an arrangement the personal guarantee will be dealt with.

Let me tell the House something else, Mr. Speaker, we wrote off $9 million worth of loans this morning, 98.2 per cent of those are from the previous government. Talk about a job of collecting and being diligent. So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes about, I guess, as much sense now as the south end of a cat going north in search of a latrine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East has withdrawn her question.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just informed hon. members that the Member for Humber East had withdrawn her question. No further questions and it has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 a.m.