The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Before beginning proceedings today I will just deal briefly with the point of order raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader the other day. Actually, it was a point of privilege. I think he indicated he was using it as an opportunity to make the point that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had not attended and to draw it to the attention of members that attendance at the Estimates hearings was, of course, requisite.

There is no point of privilege, as I mentioned on an earlier occasion in response to a point raised by the Member for Mount Pearl, and a subsequent one, that privilege resides not in the relationship of members in the House, except in very rare instances, but rather vis-à-vis our privileges and those of the general public. So, for the reasons I earlier stated, without going through those again, there is no point of privilege as such.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to return today to a topic that I raised yesterday in the House in questions to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Specifically yesterday, he will recall, I asked him some questions about the so-called workfare programs, I guess, for fishermen and plant workers who lost their jobs and their livelihoods because of federal mismanagement of the fishery in particular.

I want to ask him today about another 30,000 people in this Province whose livelihoods will be affected by the recent changes to the unemployment insurance program initiated under the federal Budget. I'm sure he is familiar with it. There will be 16,000 seasonal and part-time workers who will no longer qualify for unemployment insurance at all because of those changes, and there are another 15,000 who will receive U.I. benefits for a shorter period of time. So there is a lot of people affected here. That massive loss of income, which is estimated, as he knows, to be $262 million a year by the federal Department of Human Resources, is obviously going to place impossible demands on the job market.

I would like to ask him, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for this government, does the Provincial Government have any plan, or does it plan to have any special programs, similar to the TAGS package and program for fishermen and plant workers, to provide jobs or retraining for those other people who will be affected by those changes in the unemployment insurance program that I talked about.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not to be in any way argumentative or whatnot, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in asking the question again quotes some numbers as if these are definitive numbers. They are not, and I think everybody should understand that they are not. There have been some estimates made. Again, with things like the TAGS program, with the unemployment insurance program, there really is no definitive way to tell from one year to the next. As long as everyone understands that those numbers are not firm numbers - but there have been estimates made in which some people have quoted those numbers and some people have quoted numbers which are significantly different from those just mentioned, depending on which assumptions and which estimates are used.

But the question, I guess, in terms of what we do about it, we have acknowledged, ever since the Federal Government announced the unemployment insurance changes in the federal Budget, that there has been a new need created in Newfoundland and Labrador because of two particular circumstances: one being an acknowledgement that a certain group of people who would have qualified by meeting the previous minimum qualifications will not qualify - that is a problem - and secondly, because they will qualify for a shorter benefit period, they will have a gap in their full year's income support system, and we are looking at those two needs.

We don't have anything definitive ready to be announced at this point in time, but again all of the discussions in that area that have been continuing between ourselves and the Federal Government are in the vein of trying to target as much as we can of the $800 million that was also announced in the federal Budget by Mr. Martin, at the time, as the Finance Minister, and subsequent to that by Mr. Axworthy as the Minister for Human Resource Development, that we will try to target, because it is almost possible, in checking with federal officials, to even name the people, because these are regular U.I. claimants. The officials indicate to us that they could almost identify by name who it is that they expect might have an income need as a result of the change, and we are trying to put in place programs that can be targeted as nearly as possible to fill that gap by accessing some of the $800 million jointly with the Federal Government so we can try to fill in that new need.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for his answer. Not to be argumentative either, but the numbers I am quoting are directly from the federal Department of Human Resources. I acknowledge they are estimates - obviously, they are estimates, but in his answer he just provided he indicated that they can almost identify those who will lose out, so I would suspect that the estimate of 16,000 losing altogether, and 15,000 who will lose because of the shorter benefits, is probably a fairly good estimate. Certainly the $262 million loss is.

Just to follow up on what he talked about, accessing other programs, I want to ask him, first of all under the TAGS program the Federal Government, for example, will pay relocation costs for fishermen and plant workers who wish to leave their communities or the Province to go elsewhere to look for work. Can I ask the minister this: Does he have any plans, or is he giving any consideration, for example, to the Provincial Government either funding, or jointly funding with the Federal Government, some sort of similar relocation program for the thousands of others - I am sure we will agree the number is in the thousands of others - who will no longer have U.I. or the U.I. safety net?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that particular option, that's a part of the Atlantic Ground Fish Adjustment Strategy I guess, to which everyone is referring by the acronym of TAGS, has not been on the agenda in any expanded form for the population, the rest of the working force population, the labour force population at large. There is a smaller version of the relocation option that has always been available and in fact, maybe its a good time to point out that several of the options that are in the TAGS program, were not dreamed up brand new. Actually, they have been borrowed because similar features have already existed in either the UI program for people who are UI recipients, or in the social services program in the employment opportunities and community development. Similar types of arrangements, not exactly the same criteria, but those modified slightly have been moved into the TAGS program.

The relocation option is on a smaller scale than anticipated and suggested in the TAGS program and a version of that has always, Mr. Speaker, been available through the unemployment insurance system when people themselves can go to an area where there is a job waiting and when there isn't competition in the area that they can actually get some assistance to go to where the job is, so it's that concept and idea which has already existed for quite a period of time now under the UI program that led to the development of that as a possible option for people to consider in exiting the fishery; but we haven't discussed it in any expanded form other than the fact that there is a similar type of thing already in the UI program that other people could access to go and get a job if they wanted to.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand all of that. I guess the real point I was trying to make is that you now have suddenly, 30,000 other people outside the fishery who are suddenly, you know, going to be facing all kinds of problems and I am sure the minister would acknowledge it.

My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is related to the loss of income to which I referred, and I would like to go to the Minister of Social Services. I note in his budget estimates and documents, and those gone by, that the social assistance cost for his department have gone from $137 million back in 1991 to an estimated, this year, $204 million this fiscal year, which is a whopping increase in a little over three years of 50 per cent. I would like to ask the Minister of Social Services this: when you estimated your department's $204 million for social assistance this year, did you anticipate that your department would have thousands of new clients during this fiscal year, because of the changes in unemployment insurance that I just referred to and of course because of the problems with the fishery issue? Did you include and take into account all of those factors when you estimated your $204 million?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alludes to the fact that there's been a tremendous growth in the caseload over the past two years and that's unquestionably correct. It's pretty difficult to sort of judge what's going to happen in the future in terms of any specific planning with respect to the things that have happened economically. It's my opinion, with respect to the figure that he quotes of $204 million for this year, that that took into account the current situation in as much as we can predict that. I believe that the figures re UI came after the budget was submitted and I don't believe that figure was reckoned but I'll check that further for the hon. member.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would suggest to the minister he should do that and do it quickly because, Mr. Speaker, the federal budget came down two months ago. So a fair bit of time has passed since then. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty certain that his officials have in fact been looking very closely at this matter. So I'd like to ask him, when he can, as quickly as he can, if he would come back to the House and give us his revised estimates because the likelihood is that he's going to need a revised estimate for that social assistance figure. Specifically, I would like to know, how much will those changes to UI and the fisheries compensation situation increase the social assistance caseload and his department's budget? Those are the two specific questions.

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

MR. LUSH: With respect to the caseload, again there's so many figures coming at one from day to day that it's difficult to keep a handle on all of them but my recollection is that as a result of the UI changes that officials have speculated, it could add a caseload of somewhere between 2500 and 3000 additional to the caseload. Again, these are just figures that I'm pulling out of the air kind of thing but I'll check it to ensure that the figures are correct, but to my -

MR. SIMMS: Will you table an answer?

MR. LUSH: Yes, certainly.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of Treasury Board I would like to direct my question to the acting minister. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that government is trying to isolate teachers of the Province to provoke them into a strike to save money and get even, perhaps, for past political skirmishes. Will the minister today assure all teachers of the Province that the government is ready to begin collective bargaining, to come to the collective bargaining table without ultimatums on the 2 per cent savings clause, the three year protection letter, and the threat of legislation to remove current language from the collective agreement?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of Treasury Board let me say that there is no attempt on the part of this government to isolate any group. We are dealing with every group as openly and as fairly as we possibly can.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the real truth is that the teachers across this Province today believe that the government is out to get them. I ask the minister as a gesture of good will, will he remove from the government's opening proposals all non-monetary items, and if not, why not?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that negotiations are carried on between two parties, and he is not one of them, and I am not one of them.

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

MR. HODDER: The minister should realize that his government has a well deserved reputation for ruling by intimidation and provocation, and that they treat their employees as if they were dirt under their feet. Does the minister and this government care about the effects this collective bargaining atmosphere is having on the economy, to say nothing about the direct effects on the students of the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about these questions and the atmosphere that is there. We would very much like for the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association to come to the table and bargain with us.

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

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

My question is directed to the Minister of Health.

Can the minister confirm that the Council of Nursing Assistants, when registering new nursing assistants, are requiring those nursing assistants to pay dues back to 1985? If he can confirm that, can he explain to the House why this situation is happening?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of certain things that are happening, and certain other things which are under discussion.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the minister's answer. I wonder if he could repeat it before I ask my supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member can ask another question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, no, I have it. From what I understand the minister said that he is aware of certain things that are happening, and he is aware of certain things that aren't happening. Let me inform the minister that this is certainly one thing that he should have been aware of what was happening.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, of Bill No. 44 which was passed in this Legislature in the fall of 1993 it required that all nursing assistants be registered with the Council of Nursing Assistants. It made it mandatory. As a result of that, nursing assistants who signed up, who were not part of the Council before, were required to pay back dues to 1985. The minister should have been aware because in the act it states that the Council may, subject to the approval of the minister make regulations prescribing the registration fees payable, including fees for renewal of registration and prescribing other fees that the council considers necessary to defray its expenses.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Why did the minister sanction the Council to collect dues off people coming into an association for up to seven to nine years who had no - who were not members of the Association? Why did he approve it and why is he taking more money out of the backs of people going into the workforce?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Nursing Assistants has certain statutory powers and as long as they stay within their statutory powers I shall not be interfering.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the minister of this. That as a result, some nursing assistants have had to come up with $800 to $900 more. The Council of Nursing Assistants does have statutory powers, but for them to do this, to collect dues retroactively, they had to have the approval of the minister according to the act. Why did he let it happen? Can he explain it to the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when you set up organizations to operate, when nursing assistants are represented on that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Hold on now.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't hear the hon. minister. The member who asked the question and the Member for St. John's South are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister with members speaking back and forth across the House. I'm sure if the hon. member wants his question answered he is having equal difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. One of the cost-saving measures announced in the Budget was the consolidation of the diploma courses in the three schools of nursing in St. John's. I know the minister and his officials have had some discussions with hospital administration on this matter. Could the minister tell the House if this consolidation will go ahead as planned in September, or will the three schools continue to operate separately for another academic year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions ongoing with the schools of nursing in St. John's as to how they might implement the budgetary requirement. These discussions up until now have been at the officials level but there is an arrangement where which I will be meeting them in the very near future.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is over six weeks since the Budget announced the consolidation. The hospital and the school of nursing have no idea when the consolidation will happen and how it will happen. I ask the minister, was any planning done before the Budget announcement, and when will the schools of nursing - and the people who are waiting to find out if they are going to be accepted - know of their fate?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exercised as usual. It must be this Friday morning problem he has. There is no problem. The schools of nursing are having no problems. They are not beating on my doors for an interview or for discussion, so I would suggest that he relax a little bit and let the people who are in charge of the health system continue to operate it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the person who was in charge of the health system was doing a proper job, I wouldn't have to ask these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the problem happened in Corner Brook when student were not informed about their future.

I ask the minister, if government is not going to get the savings that it budgeted in consolidation of nursing schools here in the city, I ask him, will hospitals be expected to achieve those savings in other areas of their budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer to the first part of the question, before the supplementaries came, these matters are under discussion. We will be living within the budget as far as the Schools of Nursing are concerned. There is usually some flexibility as far as the budget is concerned in the manner in which the money is raised, and in this case the Schools of Nursing will be discussing with department officials, and shortly with me, about their response to our budgetary requests, and what modification, if any, would be necessary to meet that.

We are expecting that the amounts of money that we anticipated saving will be realized.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I would like to ask the minister if government has approved, or given any indication to Petro Canada that it may be willing to approve, the use of a floating platform to develop the Terra Nova oil field.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have had numerous discussions with Petro Canada and its partners about the future after Hibernia - Terra Nova in particular. Petro Canada has made several public pronouncements about how it sees the future moving, and it has made public presentations on various modes of development, various types of floating systems in particular. That company has done analyses of the various floating types as well as gravity-base.

We have done similar analyses, and the discussions are ongoing. We have not given any final decision on this particular matter, but we have had ongoing discussions off and on over time, and they will continue.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Petro Canada has looked at floating production platforms in several areas, including the North Sea. I also understand that recently they have been involved in discussions, let me say, over in Italy with an Italian firm regarding the use of floating platforms.

I wonder if the minister can tell me the extent of the interest –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister can't hear my question with the people yapping over there next to him.

I wonder would he tell me the extent of the interest in the Italian platform. Is it being built for Petro Canada? Is it being constructed on spec? Is it speculation that Petro Canada will have an interest in buying it after it is finished? Or does Petro Canada have any purchase or lease through other contractual agreements with that company?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the particular unit in Italy that is under construction, that the hon. member is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: No, I have not been there. I have not seen it. I am familiar with it, aware that it is under construction, that it is nearing completion. It is not being built for Petro Canada. My understanding is that it is being built on spec more than anything else, and we would call it, I guess, a vessel of opportunity that is looking for a home.

I know that they have looked at various places. A year or so ago they were proposing that it might come to the Grand Banks and be used on the Grand Banks for some future development. I am aware that Petro Canada has been approached by the people who own this rig as well. I don't know what will happen in the future relative to that rig or something else, but clearly it is a vessel that is looking for a home.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a coincidence, I say to the minister, that Petro Canada is dealing with a company that is now constructing one on spec at the same time that we are talking about developing the Terra Nova oil field.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government had a policy regarding job opportunities, in the construction stage, for these platforms. We know, Mr. Speaker, that if there were a concrete platform GBS, there would be a significant amount of work for Newfoundlanders. There was talk of building concrete floaters, there was talk of steel floaters, Mr. Speaker, of purchasing second-hand ones that would have to be brought to Newfoundland for modifications and changes, which would create work. Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If Terra Nova is developed with this new floating platform that is being constructed now in Norway, what economic benefits in terms of jobs and revenues does the government expect will occur to this Province in that stage?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to speculate on what might or might not be if something might or might not happen. Clearly, it is our interest, too, to get the maximum benefits for this Province from any development in our offshore. We would like to see maximum benefits -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Hibernia.

DR. GIBBONS: - and we are getting lots of benefits from Hibernia.

Hibernia - if the hon. the Member for Humber East is interested in knowing, at this time 40 per cent of the expenditures on Hibernia are coming directly into Newfoundland and approaching 60 per cent of the employment on Hibernia is right here in this Province. So we're getting major benefits from Hibernia with the gravity-base.

I'm not going to speculate on what might or might not happen, if something might or might not happen, but we, as a government, are certainly interested in maximizing the benefits on any future developments. We're going to be prepared to sit down and negotiate that on any future development when a development plan comes forward, when some facts come forward for discussion, and we await such facts.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in his capacity as minister responsible for human rights. Would the minister acknowledge, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the significance of the all-race elections in South Africa as bringing about the end of apartheid and a new era of freedom for blacks in South Africa? Mr. Speaker, the previous Government of Newfoundland and Labrador removed South African wines from the Newfoundland Liquor Commission stores, as a protest against apartheid, even before the official world boycott.

Will the minister also acknowledge the contribution of Oxfam Canada to this process in sending three election monitors to South Africa from our Province; Carol Anne Furlong, Ted Walsh and Joyce Hancock? Mr. Speaker, it's a very significant event for world democracy, a giant step forward for human rights, and a new era of freedom and challenge for all South Africans. Would the minister acknowledge this significance on behalf of the Government of this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to do so, particularly because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of political stripe, over the years have always supported initiatives in human rights that on the international scene have been in concert with efforts by the Canadian Government. Any efforts before, with respect to South Africa, have been in concert with actions that have been suggested by the Canadian Government in trying to bring pressure to bear, to get to the outcome that's in South Africa today.

The other part that we're always very pleased with is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as the people just mentioned by the hon. member, have always made a significant contribution on the international scene. Any time that there are Canadian delegations, they often and regularly look to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be part of those groups. I am very pleased this time that three Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had a chance to have a significant involvement in this very historic event.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question will be for the acting Minister of Finance. Some time ago now the government announced it was actively pursuing the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products. I would like to know how far along preparations are, to sell that particular Crown corporation?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I will take the matter under advisement and have it reported upon in due course.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I was expecting some earth shattering answers from the minister but I will continue on. Has the government received any indications of interest from buyers as of now? I'm interested in knowing in particular, if there has been any expression of interest from buyers as of now, and I am interested in knowing in particular if there has been any expression of interest from potential buyers in this Province? Can the minister answer that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes people get programmed and they must carry on even though they have the answers to questions, they must continue to ask their second supplementary; so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would continue with his robotic performance.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister responsible for Human Rights.

The minister, quite properly, in response to the comments by the Member for St. John's East, talked about the importance of protecting human rights in South Africa. I would like to ask the minister, when is he going to protect the human rights of gays and lesbians in Newfoundland and Labrador, by initiating an amendment to the Province's Human Rights Code, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That issue is under consideration currently and has been for some time. The position of the government has been very clear in that, when it was last reviewed a while ago, the government position, stated publicly, has not changed since that point in time, that if and when the Canadian code is changed, or if some circumstance arises - some people are suggesting that the recent ruling in Alberta may be such a circumstance - then we would look at the issue again.

We are currently analyzing and assessing that, and if that change were made to include sexual orientation in the national, the federal code, that we would look at the issue again in Newfoundland and Labrador. And in fact, I guess it may very well have been the hon. member who asked the question, who might have been minister responsible at the time when the code was last changed and who had an opportunity at that time to make that very inclusion and for some reason didn't put that before the Cabinet of the day, or didn't succeed in having it passed. But it is certainly an issue that we are still discussing; it's a current topic that will be dealt with again and we will certainly advise everybody of the outcome of the most recent discussions as soon as we can.

MS. VERGE: When?

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking forward to next week with the Budget Estimate Committees. I know the Government House Leader may not be aware of this, but last week in the Estimate Committee of Mines and Energy the meeting was adjourned without passing the heads of the department. I am just wondering if it is planned to reschedule a further meeting for that department sometime next week? If so, I would like to know what the schedule is, please?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that the committee had not concluded the discussion. I believe my friend, the Member for Harbour Main, actually moved the adjournment - I only got the Minutes of the report yesterday - and I think the Member for Humber Valley seconded the motion. The committee will obviously have to conclude its work. I guess there are two parameters. One is the fifteen-day period, although we said we are not particularly hung up, give a day or so either way. The committees are moving on very smartly with their work.

Secondly, my friend and colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, has a long standing commitment for him to lead a large delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador to a major international conference in Houston next week.

DR. GIBBONS: I am due back at mid-day on Thursday.

MR. ROBERTS: It is an important event for the energy industry in the Province.

MR. DECKER: If I could go in his place?

MR. ROBERTS: I wouldn't mind so much my friend, the Minister of Education going, but I know those on this side would be concerned if he came back.

MR. DECKER: On the other side, too, I would think!

MR. ROBERTS: We don't want to ask the people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, where I should go.

To come back to the point raised by my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, I had a note to myself this morning to speak with the Chair of the committee, and with the minister, to see what we can work out. Obviously, the minister has done such a superb job of defending his estimates that we want to make sure he has the opportunity to finish that, so perhaps next Saturday morning at 6:00 o'clock, or something, we will do it. I am sure we will get it worked out.

Is the Member for Humber Valley the Vice-Chair of the committee? That committee is chaired by the Member for Lewisporte who is here. Perhaps the two of them could have a word with me behind the Speaker's chair when we get into the dreary debate which the Opposition will offer us this morning when we get into Orders of the Day.

If that will deal with it at the moment we will let it stand.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to ask the House to continue to deal with the Electrical Power Control Act, but before we do, may I raise a matter? My friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay came to see me just before Your Honour took the Chair to say that while he had adjourned the debate yesterday, and accordingly, would normally pick it up, he hadn't spoken. He just stood up and said, `I adjourn the debate.' The Member for Waterford - Kenmount, I believe, wishes to favour us with one of his orations, and the request that my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay made of me, was, would we on this side consent to allow him to stand aside for a moment and let the Member for Waterford - Kenmount speak for his thirty minutes - and, no doubt, he will take every second of it, and then let the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay resume.

My response is that it is like going to the dentist to have a root canal done, you have to put up with it anyway, so we might as well. So, if Your Honour is amenable, my colleagues, I understand, will -

MS. VERGE: You just can't help it, can you?

MR. ROBERTS: When I look at people opposite I can't help it, I have to disclose everything, Mr. Speaker, and I commend it to hon. members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Your Fortis shares - why didn't you disclose that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I disclose the existence of my Fortis shares every time. If hon. gentleman and woman opposite want to look at the public filings that I made, they will find I have disclosed Fortis shares.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I ask my friend, the Leader of the Opposition: How many of his colleagues hold Fortis shares?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have looked up some of them and some of them do. There is nothing wrong with that. They, too, have disclosed, as have I.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) payments from Halley, Hunt, (inaudible), $10,000 a month (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, any payments I got from Halley -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say the hon. gentleman is wrong. He is not telling a lie because he does not know what he saying, but he is wrong. If he looks at the statement I filed under the old Conflict of Interest Act -

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

MR. ROBERTS: - the public statement, he will find the disclosure was full and complete.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to a point of order. The hon. gentleman should sit down and possess his soul in patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down, sit down!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all of which - given the hectoring by my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, what I am trying to say is, we, on this side, would be quite prepared to let the hon. gentleman, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount begin his root canal work. There is nobody around better at boring than the gentleman, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Government House Leader for permitting the change in the order of speaking this morning so that I can have a few comments on this bill.

The motion before the House is for a six-month hoist to the piece of legislation. We are debating the reasons why this piece of legislation should not be dealt with by the hon. House at this time, but should be hoisted, postponed, or moved to a time at least six months from now. The effect, of course, would be that this would facilitate dialogue with the citizens of the Province. This would mean that the proper consultations, the time for public hearings, the times when people of this Province can have a proper cost analysis done, all of these things, could be accomplished in that six-month period.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some aspects of the Electrical Power Resources Act deserve support from the people of this Province and the members of this House on both sides. However, those aspects of this piece of legislation which are included deliberately to facilitate the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro cannot be supported by members on this side of the House. Indeed, they cannot be supported by the citizens of the Province.

Government has inserted in the Electrical Power Resources Act five measures that are intended to make the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro more attractive to private investors. Those measures will have the effect of disguising the real cost of privatization by dispersing the cost to ratepayers and taxpayers and will pave the way for a merger between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power. More precisely, these sections in the act - that is, the Electrical Power Resources Act to which I refer - would have the effect of instructing the Public Utilities Board to base electrical rates on three criteria only: cost, maintenance of credit-worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. In effect, that would mean that the cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this Province would go up.

The act would also direct the Public Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy charged to industrial customers by the end of 1999. That would be in order to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity to major industries in the Province. We know that this subsidization to - or call it the rural subsidy - is in effect going to have a very negative impact on the rural parts of this Province. Of course, we know that the rural parts of this Province certainly can do without these changes in the rates that they pay for the cost of electricity.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this act would have the effect of transferring responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board, and that would certainly give these employees less protection than they would now have. There is nothing in this act which will guarantee that the Public Utilities Board will assure that employment, as it now stands, would remain at the level it is now. We know from the Premier's statements that privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will result in 175 jobs being lost.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that in this Province we can do without fewer jobs created by any kind of happening, particularly if that happening is a result of legislative initiatives by the Government of this Province. What happened in Nova Scotia is a lesson to all of us. In Nova Scotia, the government of the day said that there would be few jobs lost; in fact, they said there would be hardly any jobs lost at all. The effect after a year or so is that there are 400 top-paying jobs lost in Nova Scotia as a result of privatization of Nova Scotia Hydro.

Now, that is a lesson to all of us, that we should be aware here of the need for us to preserve job opportunities and job possibilities for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly when those jobs are among the highest-paid positions in our Province. Mr. Speaker, fourthly, The Electrical Power Resources Act will empower the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of electrical utility, which paves the way, of course, for a merger between the privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power.

Fifthly, the act would have the effect of refunding federal taxes paid by utilities and rebated to the Province under PUITTA. Now, Mr. Speaker, it has become quite clear that the whole intent of these five sections is to facilitate, to make more attractive the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; therefore, as I said before, to disguise the real intent of this piece of legislation and to have the effect of disbursing the cost of privatization directly to the ratepayers, directly to the taxpayers of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province do not want to pay higher rates for their electricity. They do not want to pay higher taxes, simply so that out-of-Province shareholders can make more profits.

We need to be assured that every measure is taken by this government and all future governments, to keep taxes as low as possible in this Province. We now have some of the highest taxes in this country and this measure will only have the effect of putting taxes up, putting the cost of electricity up. And we know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do without that measure, only for the effect to be, as the government has admitted, that out-of-Province shareholders would make more money on the backs of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are fortunate today if they can get a job that's paying six dollars an hour. Many people who are unemployed in this Province would be happy to get a job that pays six to seven or eight dollars an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to constituents who, a few years ago were making $75,000 to $100,000 a year. I had one gentleman in my office just a few days ago, who several years ago, his company was able to rent out the main foyer of Newfoundland Hotel for a reception for his clients. That gentleman today is living on his unemployment insurance benefits resulting from a job he had last year that paid $7 an hour. This gentleman is now unemployed, and a few days ago came to tell me that he has three weeks of unemployment left, and he is willing to take a job that pays $7 an hour.

Mr. Speaker, people who are receiving $7 to $8 to $10 an hour have great difficulty understanding why any government, of whatever stripe, would even consider for the slightest time, introducing legislative measures that would result in their having to pay higher electricity rates. It is that fear they have when they think of what is happening to them that causes them to say to the government: Wait, we don't want you to do this if it's going to have a negative effect on us.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have read and heard the government's propaganda. They have listened to what has been said, and they, some time ago, as a result of their input through public opinion polls, voted 80 per cent to tell the government to reject the privatization concept because it simply doesn't make any sense to them.

Mr. Speaker, people have, therefore, fears and trepidations. They have high levels of anxiety about the proposal to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. They are perhaps better informed on this issue than they have been on any issue of government policy in the past decade. This particular issue has been the subject of numerous letters to the editors, numerous guest commentaries in the public press. The government, itself, has spent $150,000 in a print and electronic media propaganda campaign. The government and Newfoundland Power have spent tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The minister's estimates the other day said that they have spent $1.5 million on privatization initiatives.

We have to ask ourselves all of the things that we could do with $1.5 million - how many schools we could repair. We could have $1.5 million spent to make sure that children don't sit in classrooms that are at best described as unsatisfactory, and when it rains children get wet, when their classes have to be moved from one site to another. We have classrooms in this Province which are more well-known for how many buckets are on the floor catching the rain water than we care to really acknowledge, but it is happening.

We have the closure of hospital beds. We have people on social assistance who would love to go to work, and we have spent $1.5 million on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. How many jobs could that create in this Province this year for ordinary working Newfoundlanders who would be happy today if they could get a job that paid $7 or $8 an hour.

The people of this Province do not want to be on unemployment insurance. The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador want to be employed. They are not happy with what is happening in many of the job initiatives of this Province. They are sending out resumes to hundreds of places looking for jobs, and what do they get back? No jobs available.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what we are doing with the taxpayers' money, if we can find $1.5 million to spend on a privatization concept of the Premier to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but we can't find any money to be able to put into job opportunities for the students who are graduating from our school system this year. Students who are graduating from the post-secondary institutions have so few job prospects. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we can find $150,000 to carry on a propaganda campaign, and we can find $1.5 million, but we can't find the necessary $10,000 to be able to keep families in food and necessary clothing and shelter so they can maintain some kind of dignity.

Now, we know that 80 per cent of the people of this Province have made up their minds to reject the privatization concept. Mr. Speaker, the Premier says he doesn't believe that the people of this Province understand what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro privatization is all about. You see, Mr. Speaker, governments of whatever stripe, whatever province, whatever nation, the very thing they will do and the leaders will do when people vote against them, when people's opinions are turning against them, they will blame everybody else. The Premier is very good at blaming people. He's blaming the media because - we know that the people of this Province do not believe what the Premier is saying on the benefits of privatization. The Premier has blamed the Opposition for telling the people things that he believes are not the truth or are not according to his interpretation of the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, people are responding. They responded a month ago, 80 per cent of them, saying they didn't want to have Hydro privatized. A few days ago a little poll was done again in which the numbers seem to be very consistent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the people know that privatization is wrong for them; they know that it's wrong for their children and it's wrong for the future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wells, as the Premier, wants to convince the people of this Province that his view of the world is the only correct view. Mr. Wells, as the Premier of the Province, has a long reputation for believing that his view of things is the only view that really has merit. He believes he's a fountain of all knowledge on this particular initiative of the government. He believes that things like the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be left to the lawyers, to the business people and therefore, by saying that, he believes that the population are unable to understand the implications of privatization, or worst still, he believes that the public really don't care.

Mr. Speaker, the public do care. The public are totally aware of what the government is trying to do. You see, the Premier would have us believe that privatization should be left up to his Cabinet. Leave it up to my caucus, he would say. Let the Chambers of Commerce and the business people - listen to what they have to say, they have the experience. Leave it up to the Boards of Trade, they'll express the viewpoint of the business community and if they decide in his favour and share his view of the world, then all is well. However, the Premier is having a difficult time convincing ordinary citizens of this Province that wrong is right. The people know that it is wrong for the Premier to spend $1.5 million on privatization. It is wrong to spend $150,000 trying to convince them to change their minds about something on which they've already made up their minds.

Mr. Speaker, ordinary citizens, months ago, were asking for public hearings. They were asking for an opportunity for their viewpoints to be heard and they had asked for this matter to be a topic for a Legislation Review Committee to consider.

The Premier does not want to have public hearings; he doesn't want this topic to be a subject for a Legislation Review Committee to consider. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier only wants to hear from people who share his viewpoint. He was not happy with the Chamber of Commerce in Baccalieu, in the Harbour Grace area. Why? Because they, representing that part of the Province where, of course, there are five constituencies, all represented by members opposite. That Chamber, having heard of the merits put forward by the Minister of Mines and Energy, having had the demerits as put forward by the Member for Humber East, they held a closed session, voted by secret ballot and 62 per cent of them decided that they did not agree with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier certainly has had some support from some other business people in the Province, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a long history of distrust - one of the things that any government has to be aware of, is that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have a long history of distrust of the viewpoints put forward by the Board of Trade, by the business community, when it comes to things that directly affect them. Mr. Speaker, let me explain.

For many, many generations, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador held the Water Street merchants in contempt. The viewpoint of the residents of this Province for many, many generations is that if things were good for the Water Street merchants, they were bad for the people, the ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and many of us here who sit in this House today, grew up in families where there was not a very positive view or a very positive commentary about the viewpoints of Water Street merchants. I grew up in one of those houses, so today, my philosophy of the world, and my philosophy of politics, is moulded by that kind of viewpoint. Therefore, when the Premier of this Province goes out and says the Board of Trade agrees, and when he says the Chambers of Commerce agree, well, let me tell the Premier, when he says that the lawyers of St. John's, when the merchants of St. John's, when the business people of St. John's, all say something is good for business, there is a contempt in the minds of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador which says, well, it might not be good for the ordinary citizens. So, the fisherperson up in Placentia Bay, the logger in Central Newfoundland, when they hear the Premier say that the Board of Trade is on their side when it comes to privatization, immediately, immediately there are questions that arise in the hearts of these people.

They wonder, whose side the Liberal Government of this Province is on, on this issue. Are we out to make money for the citizens or for the merchants of this Province, for the people who can put in the money to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador or, are we going to have a policy here which is going to take money out of the pockets of people who are making $10 and $12 an hour; people who are making as low as $4.50 an hour? Are we going to transfer money from the pockets of the poor so the rich of this Province can get richer? Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious as to what the government should do. The Premier of this Province is trying to convince people that wrong is right, and I can tell you right now, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not fooled. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but on this issue, 80 per cent of the people are not willing to be fooled any time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying today is that it is time for the Premier to listen to what Professor Wade Locke has been saying. Again, when the Premier has viewpoints expressed contrary to what he believes to be his view of the world, he dismisses them in an arrogant, contemptuous, condescending, egotistical manner.

Mr. Speaker, in an article published just a few days ago, on Saturday, April 23 1994, in The Evening Telegram, an article by Professor Peter Boswell, we read the following quote - second paragraph. It says: "We were told by the Premier that public hearings were unnecessary because he and the Liberal party were going to `educate' the public during the Easter recess of the House of Assembly." Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not living in Communist China. We do not want to have a revolution whereby we have to educate the people and we have to say to them: You have to go through a re-education program. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been educated. They know, and they hold in contempt what the Premier is saying to them.

Further in the article Peter Boswell writes: "In a comprehensive paper" - and he is referring to the presentation by Dr. Wade Locke - "backed up by copious spreadsheets, tables and computer analyses, Locke provided what the government should have made public months ago."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is too much conversation here. The Chair can't hear the hon. member.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Understandable, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite may be not too interested in reasons why this bill should be given a six-month hoist, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are interested in why this bill should get a six-month hoist. They believe it should be flung right out of the Legislature altogether. It should be dismissed, and they want it dismissed. They don't want this kind of legislation passed in this House.

Referring again to the article by Dr. Peter Boswell, who is quoting from the references by Dr. Wade Locke, he said: "While Locke chose to be cautious by always giving the government the benefit of the doubt, few of his listeners could have left the seminar without seriously questioning the government's wisdom. In fact, during discussion it became evident that a number of negative assumptions of privatization, such as inevitable salary increases for senior Hydro executives, had not been included" in the government's analysis.

What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying is: Show us how this will benefit us, and show us how this will help out the people who today are unemployed. Show us how it will help the people who today have to go to social services and say: Would you please give us enough money to pay our rent? Would you please give us enough money so we can feed our children? People of Newfoundland and Labrador today who are unemployed, people who have no prospects of finding a job, people who have been trained for jobs that do not exist in this Province, these people want to know why would a government spend $150,000 trying to convince them of something that they don't want to be convinced of, and spend $1.5 million on privatization while they see their hospitals closing, their schools in disarray, children who have their libraries in their communities closed down.

I just want to refer again to the article by Dr. Peter Boswell. He says: Unless the government can convincingly demonstrate that Locke has made inaccurate assumptions or used erroneous data it would appear that the proposed privatization of Hydro would be nothing less than an irreversible economic disaster for this Province.

Then Dr. Peter Boswell concludes his own opinions. He writes: Despite my initial ideological support for privatization, I am increasingly convinced that the proposal would have a costly and harmful effect on the taxpayers and economy of this Province. The benefits from a one-shot fiscal fix will be more than outweighed by the loss of ongoing and increasing consumer costs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day here, the Liberal Administration, dismisses Dr. Peter Boswell. They say he doesn't understand what he is talking about. They say that Professor Wade Locke didn't have all the information. If that is the case, it's the government's job to make sure that they get the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I might ask leave of hon. members to respond to a question that was asked of me today by the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

DR. KITCHEN: I have ascertained, with respect to the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, that an advertisement has been placed for the privatization, and that proposals are being requested, and the proposals should be in by the end of June.

Also, I have ascertained that there is considerable interest in this privatization and we look forward to a very successful completion of our endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, to a point of order, my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay yielded to the gentleman from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The Member for Placentia will get his speech yet. We look forward to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Could I speak to that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: To answer the Government House Leader's question, basically we had three people lined up to speak this morning on this debate, which were the three of us. I just substituted my time for the Member for Waterford - Kenmount. He was set for second, so I would go third, but if there is opposition to that, then we -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, there are only three members left to speak on this amendment, and they are all going to be speaking in succession, so if there is a problem, I guess we will have to follow the procedure, but there are only three, and they are intended to speak, and we just ask leave to be able to have these three people speak. I can't see what difference the order would make.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

What I have to say is that I wasn't aware of this. My friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, came to me and asked, would we agree to change the order and let the Member for Waterford - Kenmount speak ahead of him, and I said, `sure'. I have no problem with this, and the best news I have heard, if my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and my friend, the Member for Placentia speak and that's the end of it, we can -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Well, my friend, the Member for Ferryland, can we agree to put this thing to a vote before noon today?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It's now 10:15 a.m. We have three speeches. That's an hour-and-a-half at most.

MR. SULLIVAN: On the amendment?

MR. ROBERTS: On the amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: Of course.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Well, then, with that understanding we will be entertained by my friend, the Member for Placentia, and then whenever the fans of my friend, the Member for Baie Verte come, we will hear from him, and so forth.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally! It is amazing!

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about how Bill 2 would revise the Electrical Power Control Act to extend the existing law by providing for the planning, allocation and relocation of electrical power and power emergencies. If that was all the case, it would be easy; this would have been over with; it would be done. But I am here now to support the motion that was made on an earlier day, to ask and demand and request a six-month hoist so that the people of this Province would have the opportunity to have public hearings, to have a say, to let the government hear what they were doing with the power resources of this Province.

Public hearings have fallen on government ears. Polls done by individuals, corporations, have fallen on government ears. The only ones they are interested in really are the polls that point a yes to what they are doing, and they are very, very, limited, only in the cases of a couple of Chambers of Commerce in this Island.

The bill would also make Hydro very much more attractive to privatize, and while we have debated the privatization bill for weeks, we have debated last fall on a merger with Fortis, and for that reason I cannot support it, and side with my colleagues against the passing of Bill 2 and request a six-month hoist.

It is as ludicrous as what is being advocated by my friend for St. John's South to get the ferry to run into St. John's instead of Argentia.

MR. ROBERTS: There is not much support for that suggestion in the Placentia area, I guess, is there?

MR. CAREEN: No, on all sides, my friend.

The monies from the federal government, their subsidies, are getting less and less and the passengers have to pick up more and more of the charges, so with a ferry running from North Sydney to St. John's you would not see very many passengers. It was a good intention by my friend for St. John's South, to try and get a swipe at Marine Atlantic for what they did downtown in favour of Lewisporte. Anyway it is not going to work.

Getting back to the bill, the bill to make Hydro more attractive is wrong, and I am advocating a six-month hoist, as other gentlemen and our lone female here have advocated for weeks.

MR. ROBERTS: Our lone woman, now. The hon. member insists on being called a woman.

MR. CAREEN: Well, I have nothing against women, my mother was one, Sir.

MR. ROBERTS: My mother was a lady as well as a woman.

MR. CAREEN: That is right, Sir.

We are not here to attack anybody's mother.

If we stick to what is here, we can all walk out of here and talk after, as long as we do not get into any of the personalities, or the jugglers that go with it.

Anyway there is no consultation with this government with the people of this Province, and in a democracy such as ours the people must always come first. The majority are supposed to be always heard, the majority are suppose to be always the winner, but not so now. Starting last fall when the proposal first came to light about a merger, and then privatization, and now an idea coming through the back door to make something more attractive so they can sell it off. That is not good enough, and it will not fly, because out in rural Newfoundland, and here in St. John's, in our urban centres, people are more knowledgeable than they ever were at any point in Newfoundland history. They are not interested in some elected officials making decisions for the majority on a bill, or a matter, that effects so many.

The Premier himself can be thanked for doing that on the Meech Lake debate, when he went after the Mulroney government and other governments across this country for not listening to their people, for not having public consultation on a matter of so great an importance. Then it is strange that a number of years later the same Premier, with his own people - because he is the leader of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians regardless of our political stripes - the very same man now is not prepared to have public hearings around this Province. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot attack one political group or another or some other sectors of this country on a matter and then turn around and fly right in the face of it because it's affecting you and your government.

The disguise that's in this electrical power act is not going to fly. It has never gotten past the eagle eyes of the gentlemen over here and it has not and will not get past the people of this Province. They - more so today - will have more of a say then they ever had before. Other people outside this Legislature have taken an active role in making people aware of what's going on in this Province of ours. Talking about meetings, about people spending their own money, about this act, this bill and supporting the six month hoist of what we are advocating. They do not agree with the privatization. They do not agree that people, the majority of our people cannot invest and cannot hope to buy shares. The number of people that have been affected by the fisheries, the number of people that are unemployed, the number of people who are just doing it on their old age pensions, youth who do not have the money to invest, where are they going? The majority of our people and what has been said and thrown around is that 80 per cent are against it in the polls. That's too high to be fooled with, that's too high for any government to be toying around with.

While the Premier is in Ottawa now - we're told that he's up on a fishery issue and the Government of Canada is probably dragging its heels, like other governments ahead of them no matter what their political stripes are, on foreign overfishing. It's probably a good opportunity for him to raise his level of popularity again because this past number of months it has started to gradually wane. I hope it's not just for his popularity, which he's trying to build up again, that he's gone to Ottawa. This fishery matter -these people who are being cast adrift will not be able to invest in Hydro. These are the poor people of this Province, our own - because we come from that stock ourselves. No matter which side of this House we are on, we're of the same stock, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We might not have the same relatives but we are here attached to this rock trying to eke out a living and we tend to forget. Sometimes if I forget hon. members and friends opposite should remind me too because we're here for the great or good of this Province.

The people come first and so they should. Democracy is the best form of government that we know and until they find another, we got to protect this one and protect the citizens that we are elected to represent and I do not see that happening on this bill. The six month hoist should be raised up at the flag where it should be and let people see that the people of this government will listen to people.

Some members opposite have said they have only gotten a couple of phone calls from people in their district. Well I've had the privilege of going around this Province for a good many years and I know a lot of people. While there's other concerns on their plate at this time about their children getting grants to go to university, they're not going to be there. The chances are, who's going to be employed this year? The twelve weeks the federal government is advocating now is going to drastically affect the people of this Province. It is also going to affect the purse of the Minister of Social Services. More time and less money. There is `Marine Atlantic' just came into the Chamber.

It is going to affect us all. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as good a man as he is, but the money he had last year is not going to go as far this year because of all these differences that the federal regulations are going to make. I sympathize with him and his department on that matter because it affects people where I live and where he lives and where everybody else lives in this Province.

If we forget where we are, a people cast out in the North Atlantic, well, none of us should be here. Because I enjoyed it the week before last here when the Member for Eagle River got up on a private member's bill about the seals, supported by people on both sides of this House. Because it was us - us - from Cape Chidley to Cape St. Mary's, representative, that was against them, and "them" were those who were outside of this Province. That is the way it should be. Not tearing each other up or wasting time in this House when there are so many other important things that are affecting the people of this Province. Every one of us has people out there who are being affected by one element or another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: I cannot support my friend for St. John's South on the matter. He knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Yes, but if he wants my help to go after Marine Atlantic for what they are doing to downtown St. John's he has my support on that. He is a good man and hopefully, for what we are saying over here, we will take the blinkers off the good man's eyes, because he is a good man. You are not allowed to smoke in this building, and one time I used to walk a mile for a Camel, but I would walk a mile to see my friend for St. John's South. We could have a Camel together.

MR. MURPHY: Us Irishmen got to stick together.

MR. CAREEN: Newfoundlanders got to stick together. We have to stick together like we never stuck before. Because there are so many things coming down the pike after all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Labrador, yes. Labrador to me is Newfoundland. I make the distinction in certain areas, but as a province it is the Province of Newfoundland.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is not the Province of Newfoundland.

MR. CAREEN: It is the Province of Newfoundland. You don't know the difference.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. CAREEN: You were coming aboard the boats looking for apples when I was on the Labrador Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Listen to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him again.

MR. CAREEN: No I won't. God, no, he can ask.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What does that have to do with the name of the Province?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) tell you what it has to do with this bill, and what you are trying to disguise here. You are trying to hoodwink the people of this Province by making it attractive to sell something out from underneath the feet of the people of this Province. No matter where you live in this Province. Whether it is in Southern Labrador or it is in Placentia Bay.

MR. EFFORD: You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

MR. CAREEN: Now, did you hear the metal man?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The middleman.

MR. CAREEN: He is turning into a metal man. The man who advocated all the fisheries, who attacked the present Minister of Fisheries, the present Premier, Mulroney and all the rest of them, on what is happening to the fisheries? All of a sudden they put the zipper on it, across his lips. I know. I've been watching him. When people over here question the Minister of Fisheries and question the Premier on what is happening with the fishery in the Province, he is very attentive. He is the man who doesn't pat and wave to what the Premier is at.

I am afraid to say, he is turning into a metal man. He has silver in his hair, brass on his tongue, and lead in his backside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: We can't have that, sir. We can't have that. There are things very important happening in this Province. I supported you. When you attacked Cashin and all of them on the fishery I was supporting you, and I will support you again. Because you want someone outside this Legislature now who is taking a swing at the whole works of them. You need a John Efford type out there now and I support the idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: What used to be John Efford.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, what used to be. The element, the man, the heart and the swing. You have to have that. That is sadly lacking outside this building today.

AN HON. MEMBER: He voted against that resolution (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, he voted against the resolution.

He could have made a point of order but he can come back. We are a forgiving people. All you have to do is admit you're wrong and you're back in the fold, that is all. No hallelujahs, no big sermons. I went wrong, I erred, but I am back, and you are accepted by people.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lost sheep.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. I have been forgiven for lots of things, and I have had lots of help in my forty-nine years by different people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: There are lots of fine people down your way - fine, hospitable people.

Anyway, I am not getting in any poems on you today, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer his own questions.

MR. CAREEN: You will have to answer to yourself, Mister, when you go beyond - a man selling out his little country up here to the ones who can purchase stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Not you. Not you. I am talking about all over. Anybody who sells out something that is endeared to them, that is their own.

I don't blame people in Labrador for having some of those reasons. I spent a good deal of time on the Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to support it?

MR. CAREEN: Yes, I support you getting a fair shake.

For all of the riches that came out of the Labrador, there wasn't very much money that went back into her, and that's a fair assessment of it.

The bill to disguise, the bill to put it over on people, the bill to get rid of something that belongs to us - and there is not very much left that belongs to us. A family reunion in this Province now is a wake or a funeral. Just think about it - a wake or a funeral. Our children, no choices. Our nieces and nephews, our brothers and sisters, no choices. I know members opposite in here have been away themselves and come back, and I am delighted to see you here, because there are only a handful of us, a little over 500,000 - less than the population of Edmonton - and what are we at? Fighting among ourselves.

This bill should be shelved, and the other one, Bill 1, should be shelved, and let us get at the matters that are tormenting the people of this Province. Let us get at it right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: That was alright until they got them.

Anyway, this bill is being cleverly disguised to make the sale of Hydro more attractive than it should be, and on that matter alone I cannot support it.

I have been up here before on the Hydro Privatization Bill, and I was against it. I am still against it, and the people I know out there in rural Newfoundland, and here in this city, have not changed their minds one whit of what they said weeks ago, of what they said last fall when they were talking about a merger with Fortis. The people of this Province, the ordinary working stiffs –

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. CAREEN: The working stiffs of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: The working stiffs?

MR. CAREEN: Stiffs. Ordinary Joes. Do you understand terms? Learn your dictionary. Look at the old Newfoundland dictionary.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got Port de Grave slang. He doesn't understand it.

MR. CAREEN: But he has been out of there for awhile. He has been here in the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a city slicker.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, he's a city slicker - and you talk about someone slick! Oh, he is getting a bit too slick.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's losing his accent and everything.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. My old grandfather used to say: You can make a pet out of a weasel, but you never let him sleep in the henhouse - and there are too many in the henhouse over here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I am telling you, for a good man, you are letting yourself be dragged in by that man who -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) working stiff (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Is a person who works. I will talk to you after this is over today. I will explain it to you. I am not wasting my time here. Español.

The new Minister of Fisheries, go from education, what he did to health, what he did to education, and now he is going to cast us all adrift because Smallwood said, `burn your boats', and he is talking about putting that sign over there on the south side of Cape Breton that Newfoundland is closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, you've got to be one to know one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, working still.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Labourers working as if - the man with a pick on his back, anybody who's working. Now what I was leading up to is the number of other people who are just making it. We are fairly comfortable compared to other people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They cannot invest. They got less chance to invest in Hydro then some - people in here are more comfortable then a lot of the people they represent. They're more comfortable and they can invest. There's people here who are going to be investing in the privatization of Hydro but the majority of the people that they represent outside this building, cannot and that's not fair. It's not fair and it's not going to be tolerated. The people of this Province are saying loud and clear, Sir, they're saying that they do not agree with what is being advocated by the Premier and the people who are just saying yes to him with the exception of the great, the good man and the proud man that I'm associated with from Pleasantville. A totally different element. The man, like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation used to be - he used to be like that. He used to be like the man from Pleasantville. He's gone; he's disappeared right in front of our eyes. He blended into the sealskin chair. He's gone, not to come back. You're getting testy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: They're getting testy over there when you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Rather jumpy, he must have taken Mexican jumping beans after.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm advocating and supporting the members on this side of the House who want a six month hoist on this bill. It should be ten years, it should be shelved, it should be allowing us to get back as members and representatives of the people of Labrador and the Island of Newfoundland to get to the business at hand. This should be shelved and allow us to get down to the business of doing what we should be doing. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy today to stand and speak on the motion put forward for a six month hoist on the Electrical Power Control Act, Bill No. 2. Once again I think that we're being tried - legislation being rushed through and people of the Province are not having the opportunity to have a say and therefore that's why this side of the House has put forward a motion to have a six month hoist. The Hydro issue has been on the plate of many Newfoundlanders now for quite some time and a fair amount of people have spoken out. We've had several polls taken across the Province that have shown that many thousands and thousands of people oppose the act of the government on trying to put forward the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and bringing in the Electrical Power Control Act.

If I thought for a moment that we could gain power back from the Churchill with any of those pieces of legislation, I'd be fully in support of it but I believe that the chances are against us and because of the Hydro - because the government has put Hydro front and centre against all other issues of the Province, many things that are very important to this Province are being put on the sidelines while we debate for hours and hours the Hydro issue. I'd certainly step back and have a look at the whole economy of the Province and what's happening here. It seems that we are not - as far as I'm concerned - giving it the justice it deserves in this House. We are here to represent the people of the Province on every issue.

Our fishery has collapsed over the past couple of years and people are hurting all over this Province. We have families who are breaking up, we have fishermen who don't even know what the future holds, we have plant workers who don't know what the future holds and we sit here for hours and hours and debate Hydro. I have no qualms in saying that it's an important issue but I believe we have a lot of other important issues here and I believe that instead of rushing something through that we should give the people of the Province an opportunity to have their say on it.

Give the people an opportunity to have their say on it, and that is why I supported the six-month hoist. Maybe the government would propose to put a committee in place to go around the Province and hold some public hearings.

I held a meeting in my district to discuss the Hydro issue and I had a hundred people out to the meeting. I was going to hold another one but then they went into Bill No. 2. People in my district, the parts of the Hydro issue that they are concerned about are the electricity rates and in regards to who will own it and who will control it. I guess we come back to the old saying about Newfoundlanders, that we usually sell ourselves out for the mighty buck. We've done that short-term gain for long-term pain.

I think that we should look at some of the things that are coming forward and put our priorities in place. As far as I'm concerned the priority at this time is not the Hydro issue. The priority in this Province now is what is happening to the economy and especially to our fishing industry and the effects that it has on everybody in the Province.

As I looked through the Electrical Power Resources Act it seems that the reason the Premier would like to put this through is that he believes he has some, I guess, back door strategy to try to gain control of Churchill once again. Like I said earlier, I support that 100 per cent, if I thought that we would have the opportunity to get some control back from Churchill. I believe that Premier Wells may be taking a shot in the dark, because this has been tried before by a couple of premiers who have gone before us and it seems that we always come back to square one again. We signed a contract. The former premier, Joseph R. Smallwood, signed a contract with Quebec that more or less sold us out till the year 2041, I think - I stand to be corrected - about 2041. I don't think that the premier at the time felt he was doing anything wrong. I think Premier Smallwood was doing what he thought was in the best interest of the Province at the time, and that more or less he was trying to create jobs and trying to improve our economy, something that I believe the present government isn't doing.

I don't think Premier Smallwood at the time did anything wrong, it is just that he received some bad advice. One thing that we won't be able to say about the present Premier is he received advice, because he listens to nobody but himself. When you go across this Province and you talk about the Hydro issue and you talk about the education issue, you talk about any issue or any policy that this government is putting forward, most people will say: We don't have a say. A fair amount of those issues were not even part of the last election campaign. Once the government came into being after May 3 last year they decided to proceed with changes to the educational system. They brought forward the Hydro privatization act and several other pieces of legislation that were hardly mentioned during the election campaign, because they knew if the people knew what their plans were last May 3 that they wouldn't be sitting on the side of the House they are sitting on now.

It is kind of a camouflage act by the present government. Like I say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you won't fool all of the people all of the time. I guess your day of reckoning will come like everybody else. Because once, I believe, that you lose touch with the people of the Province - and as far as I'm concerned the present Premier has lost touch with the people of the Province. He has certainly lost touch with the people outside of the overpass, there is no doubt about that.

I refer to the hon. Member for St. John's South, the hon. member I will say, who is trying to take something out of the area of Placentia and move it into St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, I mean, right? The way I look at that, the hon. member would do anything to get in the media. Basically that is what it comes down to. That is an old story. That one has been rehashed before. You have no more chance of getting The Joseph and Clara Smallwood to dock in Argentia now than you have of getting -

MR. MURPHY: A seat for you.

MR. MANNING: I should say he had more chance of getting The Joseph and Clara Smallwood to dock in St. John's port than he has of getting up in the front row of the opposite side of the House. So I say he should pin his hopes on The Joseph and Clara Smallwood because he better not, right? Every now and again he steps up to the front and sits down and lives in his little dream world and that's fine. Everybody has to have dreams, but I think you have been doing a great job as the gofer for the Premier, so I think you are going to be kept on while I am here on this side, so that's okay -

AN HON. MEMBER: You will never get that job.

MR. MANNING: No, I don't want that job; I am going to be in the front seat when we go across, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, we will, I guarantee you, we will. Your Premier, I say to the Member for St. John's South, has lost touch I am sure, with the people of the Province especially the rural people as far as I am concerned and it seems that this Hydro issue is the big issue, it's a major issue for the Province but it is not front and centre when you have people out in this Province who are out of work and have problems in seeing what the future holds for them. You have young people in this Province who are concerned about what type of education they should do, what courses they should take in order to find a job and I believe these people will be referred to later on as the lost generation, Mr. Speaker, because I have talked to a fair amount of young people over the last few days in my district and they really don't know what to do or where to go or really, what the future holds for them and I am very concerned about those people.

But getting back for a minute if I could to Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act and Bill 1, the Privatization of Hydro Act, it is very important I think that we have a six-month hoist. It is very important I believe that we put this on the back burner right now and that the government put the priorities in place for the economy of this Province, that's why I support the six-month hoist, and will continue to push forward for the simple reason that this is a very complicated issue and many people are calling in asking questions and have concerns put forward and that is why I believe that if we held public hearings across the Province, that people will get the opportunity to come out, ask their questions, voice their concerns and explore the issues a bit more before they could make a detailed assessment of the acts themselves.

I believe that there is a grand plan as far as I am concerned to put this forward now and to bring it forward in a complicated manner so that people, more or less would just pass it on and that the Premier would have his own day in court with the legislation as he sees put forward. Mr. Speaker, many people with whom I talk in my district, have asked questions concerning the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and especially as it relates to the waters of Labrador and the rights and who controls these, and the concerns put forward by a lot of people is that the Public Utilities Board will still have some say, but the say they will have with a private company from outside the Province, because most of the shares as you all know, will be owned by people outside the Province.

Unemployed Newfoundlanders, the Newfoundlanders who are on social assistance, the Newfoundlanders who are on the cod moratorium, the Newfoundlanders who have no work won't be buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro. It will be people from Bay Street, the people outside this Province who have dollars to invest and it won't be owned by Newfoundlanders.

Now it is easy to say some day we may own - Newfoundland Hydro is a long ways away but still some day we may own it, but if we sell it out now, as far as I am concerned, it is a sell-out; if we sell out now and put the shares up on the market for sale, that many Newfoundlanders can't afford to buy the shares therefore the shares will be sold outside the Province, therefore we sell the control outside the Province; and the control then goes from us and the Public Utilities Board will have very little to say when it comes to controlling a company that wants to increase their rates or do whatever they want to do with the Newfoundland Hydro after they have the power.

Mr. Speaker, the public hearings is a way that Newfoundlanders right across this Province can come out and have a say on the issue of privatization, and on the whole issue of selling out one of our resources and to me, that's a very important issue and I believe that people in the Province should have a say and that is why I support the six-month hoist.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise here today and have a few comments on this six-month hoist.

AN HON. MEMBER: My bowling partner, right?

MR. SHELLEY: Bowling partner is right. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation asked a little while ago for a definition for a hoist. I say there are two definitions. The one that we are talking about right now, which is the hoist when we can have more time to debate this and hopefully it will be a six-year hoist as opposed to a six-month hoist. There is also another meaning for hoist, which means, robbery and in this case that might be exactly what I mean I say to the minister in this particular bill, in this particular issue that we might end up -

MR. WOODFORD: Bonnie and Clyde.

MR. SHELLEY: Bonnie and Clyde situation. We have to think about, we should have had the time, more than six months, I say to the minister, I say more like six years that we should have taken to give the people of this Province a chance to speak on probably one of the most important issues that we would ever get a chance to speak on in this Province, and they have not had that chance to speak.

As far as the definition of a hoist, I'm glad the Opposition House Leader brought forward the hoist. To say that in six months we would have the chance - and I would like to see somebody on the other side of the House today when we get a chance to vote on this to search their souls and to stand in this House and say: We will give the six-month hoist. Vote for it. Say: If it is such a great thing, this privatization of Hydro, then maybe we should give the six-month hoist and give people a longer opportunity to have input on this particular issue.

I understand that the Member for St. John's North soon will - I'm not sure when exactly - but has indicated that he will actually give a public meeting. Imagine a member on the government side finally going to say he is going to listen to the people. I wonder what the Premier is saying about that. I would like for the hon. member to let us know when he is going to have that meeting. I think one of our colleagues over here has already indicated that he would like to go to that meeting, to a public meeting given by somebody finally from the government side. A public meeting so that people can tell the person who they elected in this House of Assembly what they think about Hydro privatization.

I applaud the Member for St. John's North in giving the people that opportunity because obviously people, except for the Member for Pleasantville who I will speak about in a second, had the guts, I say to the hon. members, to go out and hold a public meeting. From what I understand - and I'm sure the Member for St. John's North will correct me when he gets a chance - I think that he was basically, I think it is safe to say, pressured into having a public meeting, the truth is. He was pressured into having a public meeting.

For months people have been calling open lines. We've been standing here in this House with petition after petition. Time after time government members, one by one, including the Premier, would stand up and say: You are just throwing up petitions, that doesn't mean anything. People calling the open line, that doesn't mean anything. Then he talked about the groups that have been organized like POP, Power of the People, and Take Back the Power, and the Greg Malones of the world, and these people. Then they tried to tell us or convince us that we orchestrated all this. The Opposition set all this up.

I don't know what the politics of Greg Malone is. I don't know what the politics of Mr. Vetter is. I really don't care at this point. Maybe I will care during an election but I really don't care at this point.

MS. YOUNG: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: There is some babbling going on in the back, Mr. Speaker. I hope you protect me from the hon. member over there. If she can't take it maybe she should leave.

I can't understand why anybody on the government side would say that the Opposition party were the ones who orchestrated Mr. Malone, Mr. Vetter, and these types of groups, and that we orchestrated these demonstrations that you see outside every now and then, and we organized all the people who come to the galleries to talk on it. Imagine, we orchestrated Bill Rowe's show. Bill Rowe, the staunch Liberal that he is. Imagine, we orchestrated that. I would say that Mr. Rowe can orchestrate a lot of things that happen on his own open line. I will say so, Mr. Rowe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I can't see where the hon. members would think that Greg Malone or Bill Vetter, or Bill Rowe's show or Bas' show, that we orchestrated anything. I can tell anybody over there on that side in all honesty that I certainly didn't have anything to do with open line shows or Greg Malone.

The argument goes on, and the Premier says that the Opposition party - quote now from The Evening Telegram and CBC, the Premier says that we were the ones who misled. The only reason that 80 per cent of Newfoundland is against Hydro privatization, he says, is because the Opposition party has misled and gave the wrong information.

Imagine. With our shoestring budget - I should say that - compared to $150,000 wasted in propaganda for this beautiful brochure that comes in the mail all glossed off, all looking so great, and then for me to drive home to my district on weekends as I usually do and to listen on the radio for six hours of driving about one hundred times on the radio as some advertisement comes on telling us how great Newfoundland Hydro is, according to the Premier. How great it is.

I say to all hon. members in this House on both sides, if it is so great why are you so scared of the public meetings? If it is such a great deal for Newfoundland you people, the government side, has had the best opportunity to educate the people. The people are not misled at all. As a matter of fact the people educated themselves. The instructor at the University, Mr. Wade Locke, is it, the professor at the University, Wade Locke. Who instructed him? I certainly didn't go down and instruct him. I didn't give him the numbers he came up with. I didn't give them the numbers they came up with. I certainly didn't give the Member for Ferryland all the numbers he comes up with. And every time the Member for Ferryland brings up the numbers, and shows them in black and white on paper, and has offered them to government members, and calculated it out, nobody on that side of the House can dispute it. As a matter of fact, he has challenged them time after time: `Here are the numbers. If you say we are lying or misleading, then here are the numbers and you prove me wrong.' And not once in the last three months of debate has anybody, including the Premier, come to the Member for Ferryland and said, your numbers are wrong. Here are the right numbers.

A six-month hoist is what we are debating today, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a six-month hoist that would give us more time and more opportunity, than, if this is such an important thing, to rush it through.

The best definition of a hoist is this case - it's robbery, I say to the minister, robbing a resource from this Province as was done many years ago. Then time after time in this debate, again - I am so tired of it, especially for my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, who was eight years old, when they keep referring to seventeen years of the Tories; seventeen years ago, Sprung greenhouses. I mean, I don't give a darn about Sprung greenhouses. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, and I never would support it. It was a mistake. So, what? This member was only eight years old when you bring up seventeen years ago. What if we stood here every day and talked about Churchill Falls? Sprung greenhouse is like a pocket full of change compared to that, I say to the minister, compared to what we are going to give away with Hydro. Sprung was nothing compared to the mistake of Churchill Falls.

What bothers me about this particular deal on Hydro, is that first of all, the forerunners of all this, the Premier and the hon. House Leader, forerunners again. Who were the forerunners when Churchill Falls went through? The same thing. Especially the other day when I looked at the release and it said the Rothschilds, the great investors that were so responsible and so involved in the Churchill Falls boo-boo, which it was, and everybody will agree to that. I suppose you will agree to that, will you? Thank you, very much, for agreeing to that. That $1.5 million spent so far on the privatization of Hydro - now, any hon. member over there who can stand up and justify - and maybe it is not going to go through now. Maybe it won't. The Premier, on Province-wide TV, said: If the people of this Province are against this, and I see a significant number against it, I will reconsider the Hydro privatization.

(Power failure)

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. SHELLEY: We have problems with Hydro already. I told you it was a big mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is in Ottawa this morning selling us out again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Now, there is an omen for Hydro, I say to all hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Baie Verte mines.

MR. SHELLEY: As soon as I finish talking about the $800 million that we have wasted on Churchill Falls, I say to the hon. member.

People worked in Baie Verte and that was an investment in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $800 million a year.

MR. SHELLEY: Eight hundred million a year - we shouldn't even be able to burp on what happened in Baie Verte. At least people went to work. We lose $800 million a year on Churchill Falls. Do you want to bring up seventeen years of Tory government? I keep thinking about it. I am one of the victims of that mistake, and so are you. Our children, especially, are still victims of that mistake. We shouldn't even be able to mention it. You talk about wasting money, well, let me give you a couple of quick examples. You are always saying the Opposition are opposing.

Let me give a couple of quick examples that I have just noted lately. I go to our offices, and you know what our offices are like, the worst in the building, with the stucco falling off -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Let me finish. I saw your suite, I say to the minister, and our offices - but the point I am making is that I really don't care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am having difficulty hearing my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay due to the continuous heckling and interruptions by ministers opposite. If they wish to stand up and speak on the six-month hoist, they, like every other member, will have the opportunity to do so. I request of the Speaker that he quiet down his ministers so I can hear my colleague.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon. member. Several times I have called hon. members to order. I ask hon. members to not interject and interrupt the hon. member when he is speaking, and afford him the courtesy of being heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We heard somebody speak from the other side yesterday and we didn't bother him, I don't think. I think we let him speak and have his say. I certainly didn't, I know that. I can't speak for everybody.

I would like to make a couple of more points here. For example, I was just going to talk about waste of money. The government people always ask us: What would you do? They say we don't give solutions, and we always oppose, and we never compliment. As a matter of fact we do compliment. It was just a few days ago that the Premier - well, actually, just before the last session closed -that the Premier talked about his trip to Asia and looking for investors in Asia. I stood in this House during some of the comments on my debate and said I applaud the Premier on doing that, on going looking for investors. The truth is that we can't control the media. The media is not going to say the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay complimented the Premier. They only talk abut what we oppose. As far as the media go, we play that game.

To get back to the point that the minister brought up a few minutes ago. I talked about our offices up there, and you've seen them. I have no problem with them. I watch the stucco come off the ceiling and paint come off the walls day after day. As long as I have a phone and I can work out of there and work with the people in my district, I have no problem.

MR. EFFORD: From 1985 to 1989 I occupied (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on about your business (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, let him make the point.

MR. EFFORD: - (inaudible) coming down on the desk, so don't you complain about your office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not.

MR. SHELLEY: Exactly. That is why I wanted to let the minister finish what he was saying. I am not complaining. I am just telling the reality that it is there now. To finish my comment, I have no problem with it. As a matter of fact, as long as there is a light bulb up there and a telephone and I can communicate with people in my district and work with my constituents, I have no problem. I agree with the minister, and I am not going to complain.

Here is my point. Then, I see in the Budget $2.3 million to be spent on this building again this year for renovations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going to create jobs.

MR. SHELLEY: Can anyone over there - going to create jobs. What about the $2.3 million that could have been given to students for grants? What about when the homes were closed down? Very simply, instead of going into detail, $2.3 million - and I think all hon. members have to be honest about it - we could have spent $2.3 million in these very hard economic times -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That's right, and I disagree with that, too. Two point three million dollars - especially this year, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I may be corrected on a point of order, but I will explain it and then I will leave it up to the Chair's judgement.

If I am to understand the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay correctly, he is suggesting that we not spend any money for renovations on the offices that they occupy this year. Because I just had a letter from his Leader requesting us to completely renovate the offices on the government side. I'm quite satisfied to cancel all renovations on the Opposition floor offices from here on in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order. The hon. member took the opportunity to give an explanation after a comment there by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, but there was no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I didn't think there was a point of order. He was just cutting into my time again and trying to get his two cents worth in, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Now, I will respond to the point that you did make. If you, as a government, can guarantee me that that $2.3 million that is not going to be spent on renovations to our office or anything else will be spent on something like government -

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

I just want to remind the hon. member that we are debating the amendment on the six-month hoist for the Electrical Power Control Act and that he should keep his comments relevant to that bill.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue with the six-month hoist, but there were comments made over there about the millions of dollars spent and this building here and everything else. I was just responding to the questions from there.

As far as the six-month hoist goes, I would hope that some government member, besides the Member for Pleasantville today, could stand and search his soul - and really, you are not turning down Hydro privatization. What you are saying to people in this Province is: Maybe you are right. All this propaganda that is going on, maybe they don't have enough time to educate.

I say to them again, on that argument alone, that you, the government, have had the best opportunity to educate the people on Hydro. If it is such a good thing - you just sent out this beautiful flyer, these messages on the radio every day, you had the opportunity. The Premier had a half-hour on NTV and later cried because he could only get fifteen minutes; then he engaged in a Province-wide debate. All of this happened, and lo and behold, still, 80 per cent of this Province are opposed to Hydro privatization.

Now, are you telling me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Eighty per cent, I say to the minister. Every poll that has been done, by us, by independent, by Decima, by phone-ins, by petitions, nothing is credible to the government members, especially the Premier? I mean, he had his blinders on, he doesn't believe - I don't think if a whole mob rushed through this House and said: No, we don't want it - What does he want - the whole population of Newfoundland to walk into this House? What does he want? What does it take for the Premier to stand on the word that he said - I think he was caught on CBC, I think he was caught when he said on CBC, `I would take back, I would reconsider Hydro privatization if I could see indications, significance, substantial indications, that the majority of this Province was against it.'

Now, the Premier of this Province, sooner or later, will have to live up to that commitment - I say to all hon. members, he will sooner or later have to live up to that commitment, and if some hon. members over there think that this is being smoothed out, the people are starting to look at other issues - `Boys, don't worry, we are on our first year mandate, don't worry about it'; you are telling your backbenchers, `Don't worry about it because, you know, in three years time, the public will forget, they have short memories.'

I want to remind a few of the backbenchers that every time a Newfoundlander gets his Hydro bill, his electricity bill and sees the increases go up year after year, after year, he will be reminded month after month of the mistake that this government made concerning Hydro. He will be reminded month after month of a decision that was made without consultation and against the public interests of this Province. They will be reminded, and I say to hon. members over there, the same as the federal PC Party got the message, you will get the message. When you go against the wishes of the people who voted you in - I remind you again, in the back benches, you were elected by your constituents, you weren't elected by the Premier; you weren't elected by the front benches.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been here in the House of Assembly since Orders of the Day was called and I have been sitting down listening to the members opposite about the six-month hoist motion put before the House, and I understood, and I may be corrected on this by the Chair, but I understood that motion was in relation to the Electrical Power Act; and I understood when speaking to that motion, that was the basis on which the speeches should be made, but all I have hear from the member opposite is the privatization of Hydro, and unless I am misunderstanding it, they are two separate bills.

MS. VERGE: They are interrelated.

MR. EFFORD: They are not interrelated.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the minister's point of order, what the minister is doing this morning - it is obvious now that he is standing up trying to interrupt the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, trying to distract him, trying to take away his time, and I want to say to the minister, you are partially correct, but in the Electrical Power Control Act, there is a part of that bill that deals specifically, that facilitates the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to the minister.

Now, if the minister had been here yesterday afternoon when I spoke to this control act, he would know that the only concern we have about that bill is the part that facilitates the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is quite correct in referring to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro in this debate because a part of this bill deals strictly with the privatization issue, I say to the minister. So, in debating the six-month hoist resolution to delay this bill for six months to get public input for public hearings, the member is quite right in being able to refer to that particular aspect of privatization, I say to the minister. So the minister is wrong and the member is right.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, to the point of order, Sir, the minister is entirely correct, in my judgement. The gentleman, the Member for Grand Bank is partially correct and I will just leave aside the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay for the moment because he is really inconsequential in this discussion.

The bill deals with the regulation of Electrical Power Resources in the Province. There are a number of sections that are consequential to the Hydro privatization; when the Hydro privatization becomes law, then those portions of the bill, assuming the Electrical Power Control Act also becomes law, will come into play, but the Electrical Power Control Act goes a long way beyond that and if the Hydro bill does not become law, unlikely, but certainly possible, then the sections will simply be of no consequence, they will have no force.

The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, in his anxiety to try to show he is as good as his colleagues - that's what he is trying to do in this debate, and that's not difficult, I say to him, it is not at all difficult. He is up making a speech about the privatization bill and, of course, he is out of order. If he wants to say we should have a six-month hoist on this bill for any number of reasons, that's what it's all about. I wouldn't object to that, nor would my friend, the Member for Port de Grave, who has not only been in the House a long time, but participates enthusiastically and very effectively in the debates in the House. So all I want to say to my friend, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is, `Get on with it'.

Let me say one other thing to him. He keeps saying `you'. Now one of the things we don't say in the House is `you'.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, that every remark in this House is addressed to the Chair, but he keeps saying `you'. I don't know where he thinks he is. Maybe he thinks he is addressing a mass meeting of some sort. That is fine, but in the House, we address our remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I say to him that he should heed the rules of order of this House. He should not say `you', `you', `you', `you'. He should say, `Mr. Speaker', `hon. gentlemen opposite', `hon. lady opposite', `hon. woman opposite' in my case, if we wish.

Mr. Speaker, the point of order, in my view, is well taken by my friend, the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think some members are getting a bit carried away with this point of order. We are talking really about relevancy. The only issue on the point of order is whether or not the statements of the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay are relevant to the issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the six-month hoist - there could be many, many reasons why you would want to delay for six months the passage of this bill, and the member was explaining some of them. I think he wants, like most other members on this side of the House, and perhaps some of them on the other side who aren't saying it yet, to get the privatization issue off the decks. Six months will allow us to do that - delay this bill, get the privatization off the decks, and then we can come back and debate this bill and talk about the other things.

So, if the member wants to talk about privatization in that context he is perfectly in order, is totally relevant to the motion before the floor, and should not be declared to be out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I remind hon. members that they were in second reading of a bill, and an amendment in a second reading. The bill, itself, is in reference to Hydro, and the controlling of Hydro in the Province, and second reading is approval in principle.

Second reading of bills is normally a wide-ranging debate, whereas when we get into Committee, we are at the clause-by-clause study, and in the clause-by-clause study of the bill, the debate has to be relevant to the clause-by-clause. But in this House - I have been here for five years - normally, the debate in second reading is a very wide-ranging debate, so I rule that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that ruling, for using common sense.

I mean, I can't believe - how testy are they over there this morning, I wonder! How testy is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation! They were all sitting back so quiet until I started to speak and all of a sudden, bang, bang, bang, they are popping up like ducks over there - everywhere I look.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lame ducks.

MR. SHELLEY: And lame ducks at that. What a silly, silly tactic!

I say to the front ministers here, the fellows who have been around so long - the House Leader is quite right, you have been around a lot longer than I have, and it's easy to tell that you have been around for a lot longer than I have, in a lot of different ways, I say to the member.

MR. WOODFORD: They've been around that long now, they think they're pillars.

MR. SHELLEY: They think they're pillars.

I think what we see here is what has been happening in this whole debate, inside the House and outside the House. I think it is just an indication of exactly what has been going on, and that is, all members over there are trying to evade the whole issue. That was their first tactic, to try to get around it, to try to smooth out the whole issue. Now, their next tactic, what they are doing over the last few weeks, is have the two-week break from the House, hoping the public would forget this, `We will just slide it right on through again, slide the whole thing through again, then, hopefully, some other big issues will come along and the public will forget all about it and we'll sneak in the back door and put the stamp on it and sell Hydro.'

Now, as for the six-month hoist, and what I am talking about - the point of order, I shouldn't even talk about the six-month hoist - the whole point about it is to give more opportunity for discussion and input. That's the whole idea of the six-month hoist, isn't it? I think it is, Mr. Speaker. I don't think anybody will argue that. That is the whole idea. Why did our hon. leader bring it up again? If you contend that the people have been misled, well, give us the six-month hoist, give us a chance to have our say. We challenged you time after time to come out in public debates, one-on-one. Go out to any public meeting, you give your side, and we will give our side, and let the people decide. What is the fear?

MR. EFFORD: I would love to have a chance.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you have all the chance in the world. He had his chance to speak on the fishery - he could have done it then. The member who spoke so well on everything else, he was a grand Pooh-Bah out in front of everybody else, raising his fist, the big challenge of Newfoundlanders, and since the Cabinet, Dr. Hush, not a word. Even when he gets up to answer a question in the House now, `Yes, Sir', `No, Sir', that's it.

Obviously, members don't want to admit to it but one way or another you have to dig down and say to yourself that 80 per cent - let's say it's not 80 per cent, let's say it is 70 per cent - 70 per cent of the Province is against it. Even if it is as low as 60 per cent, and you know it isn't as low as 60 per cent. I suppose all hon. members will agree with that. Even if it is 60 per cent, shouldn't the government reconsider? I am not saying even, turn it down, yet. I am not saying you even take back Hydro and forget about it - just reconsider, that's what the people are crying out for; that's what the petitions and the phone calls were all about; that's what the public meetings were all about.

And I ask all hon. members to follow, although he was pressured into it, the Member for St. John's North. Just have the gall and the guts to go sit down at a public meeting of the constituents who voted you into this House, sit down and let them have their say, and then you respond. If you have a strong argument there is no problem there - there shouldn't be a problem. Have the guts to sit back and listen to what your constituents say. Remember, you weren't voted in by ministers or premiers. You never got your 3000 or 4000 votes from the front benches; you got it on your own from your constituents.

I say to the backbenchers again, if you aspire to be in politics for as long as I do - and I do - then you had better start listening to your constituents. I say to the minister, what you twisted around before, I say that some of the front-benchers may come back for another election, but they may not. Hopefully, you will try to again get re-elected. Well, you had better start making some tough decisions, and if you think this Hydro decision is a big one, just wait until you have to vote on denominational education; wait until you have to vote on unions, public sectors, and everything else - this is only the beginning. You had better start speaking for your constituents on how you feel and not be lead around or dictated to by people in front of you, in the front benches.

I say, listen to the people. A combination of what your people are telling you and a combination of what you truly believe should give you the right answer in all of these decisions you have coming to you. A little warning to the backbenchers who aspire to be politicians for any length of time, listen to the people who put you there first, and then listen to advice from the front benches and your Premier. Sure, you should listen to them, and your Cabinet ministers. Listen to all of that but, most importantly, listen to the people who voted for you and elected you in the last election.

I say to you, if you search your soul long enough, and listen, you will have no problem realizing that 80 per cent of this Province, probably more now, because it has grown - if you think it has died, it hasn't.

MR. EFFORD: You haven't said a word yet - nothing in relation to the bill.

MR. SHELLEY: If I haven't said a word, I got you up four times, so you must have said something. If I haven't said a word, I have had four ministers up so far, so somebody is excited about something. If 80 per cent of you listened to those people, and if 80 per cent at least, and I think it has grown - some members over there said, `We don't get phone calls,' and `I only got two phone calls,' I will give you the reason why that may be. It just may be that people don't bother to call you because they know you are stuck on what you have to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MS. VERGE: Denying the people their chance to have their say.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. ROBERTS: The main question. Call the main question.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) main question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Second reading.

MS. VERGE: What a bully!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) speak on this yet.

MR. ROBERTS: It won't be long before you have the same (inaudible) all over again. Carried.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) carried!

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say from the outset that last Friday morning I spoke on the six-month hoist. It was so exciting that the table officers never even recorded it. I was going to try to get up again and speak on the six-month hoist but I thought there would be a few members opposite who might take notice of it so I wouldn't try it.

Mr. Speaker, you can get up on this particular subject for - you only have half-an-hour to speak on it but this is a subject on which you can, I suppose, go on for a number of hours and you certainly don't have to be repetitious when it comes to - you may cross over every now and again between Bill 1 and Bill 2 on certain parts of both acts, because as far as I am concerned, the latter part of Bill 2 especially, certainly has a lot to do with Bill 1, the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I asked before when the bill was introduced, was, `Why now?' And when it comes to privatization of anything, not only Newfoundland Hydro but whether it be NLCS, Newfoundland Farm Products or any other sector of our economy, when I look back and try to chronicle what's happened in the past five years, since 1989, especially as it pertains to Hydro privatization tied in with this particular act, Bill 2, the Electrical Resources Act, I would like to give members opposite and read into the record some of the events that happened since 1989 that would lead us to believe - and ask, `Why now?' and question some of the motives and actions of members opposite.

Sometime in 1989, Mr. Speaker, unknown to the public at the time, Fortis Inc. - the parent company of Newfoundland Power, formerly called Newfoundland Light and Power - approached the government with a view to purchasing rural assets of Hydro, known as the PDD area. The government rejected the offer at that time, that was sometime in 1989. In fact, I think it was in the early fall of 1989. In 1992, Fortis made a second proposal to buy part of Hydro, which the government declined at the time. The Premier disclosed in 1989 and 1992 - the Fortis offer was in November, 1993 - both those offers were disclosed in November, 1993 by the Premier at that time. On August 18, 1992, The Evening Telegram quoted the energy minister, the same minister who is there now, as saying the Wells Government looked at the idea of privatizing Hydro and decided against it because it would be of no benefit.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I correct that point. We did not, Mr. Speaker, look at privatizing Hydro at that time. What we had analyzed back at that time was the potential sale of some rural assets in response to a proposal from Newfoundland Light and Power to buy some rural assets and decided against that, not privatization of Hydro.

MS. VERGE: You don't know what the Premier was working on back then.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, on December 4, 1992 the finance minister announced in a mini-Budget that the government would begin seriously looking at all privatization options without specifying Hydro. All members remember the mini-Budget in early December, 1992, when that was mentioned in it. It did not mention Hydro, it mentioned privatization in general.

In December of 1992 the government had Hydro study the privatization, and authorized the corporation, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong on this one, in December of 1992 - because the question was put to the minister in the estimates the other morning - the government had Hydro study privatization, and authorized the corporation to engage ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion Securities, who are the Province's fiscal advisers, to study in detail whether Hydro should be privatized in any way, shape or form. This was revealed by the Premier - before the minister stands up to correct me - in November, 1993, when he disclosed that the fiscal advisers said: The status quo is viable, but if the government wished to privatize, they could do so on a stand-alone basis or by a merger with Fortis.

Now, if the minister wants a minute to tell me that is wrong, I will certainly afford him that minute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, just to correct, for the record, comments made by the hon. member - after the Finance Minister, on December 4, announced that we were going to look at privatization options for the Province, we did start to take a look at an aspect of this for Hydro, because at that same time we had again a second proposal from Fortis, essentially similar to the first one back in 1989, regarding the rural assets. So we asked the Hydro Corporation, the Hydro board, to take a look at this. They came back and said: `If we are going to look at this, what about looking at other aspects as well?'

We authorized them to analyze the proposal from Fortis, which dealt with rural assets. We said: `Study the status quo, analyze the status quo, but look at other options as well,' and it was decided to have a look at merger possibility and privatization, and stand-alone privatization, four different options, and it was in January of 1993, I believe, that the Hydro Corporation had RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod start that analysis.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister is using an opportunity to engage in debate.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: I say, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, nothing I have read so far is wrong. The minister got up and confirmed exactly what I said, except for the fact that in this case, and I will, as I go along here, mention the other area where Fortis was involved. In other words, the minister has confirmed that what I said in the chronology of events since 1989 is exactly true.

March 29, 1993, under questioning in the House of Assembly, Premier Wells denied that Hydro privatization was a current issue. Now, that is in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. I won't dig it out now, but if it is necessary, I will - March 29, 1993, I say to members. April 5, May 3, 1993, during his provincial election campaign - almost a year ago now; we will soon have an anniversary of that, in another few days - Liberal ministers seeking re-election denied rumours that Hydro privatization was a current issue. May 26, 28, 31, 1993, under questioning in the House of Assembly, both Premier Wells and Energy Minister Rex Gibbons denied Hydro privatization was a current issue. That is documented, Mr. Speaker.

Sometime in June of 1993, the Premier rejected the recommendation of ScotiaMcLeod and RBC Dominion Securities, and invited five individuals, Mr. Vic Young, Mr. John Henderson, Mr. David Templeton, Mr. Gordon MacDonald and Mr. Wallace Reid, to advise him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: A brief point of order, Mr. Speaker.

As I said a moment ago, we had asked the Hydro board to analyze the proposal that came in from Fortis to buy certain rural assets, but asked them to, in doing that, look at the electrical structure for the Province, analyze the status quo and look at other options.

We had not made any decision on privatization, but after we did receive the report which analyzed the proposal from Fortis, which analyzed the status quo, which analyzed privatization options as well, after that, and we had this report in hand, we said: Well, we are going to ask for some advice on this report from some others, and it was at that time that we asked these five very experienced people to take a look at this report and give us some advice, and it was sometime later that they met with us as a Cabinet and offered their advice. Then, in August, 1993, we made some decisions on the advice given.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the minister is quite right and confirms again exactly what I was saying with regard to the five individuals. And they did recommend verbally, as was my understanding, they verbally recommended to Cabinet and gave the impression - but the only thing about it, and the minister can correct me on this one if I am wrong, they gave the impression that a majority of the people recommended - I don't know - recommended that the government should pursue the matter, the majority of those five.

In late August, 1993 - this is exactly what the minister has just said - without saying anything to the public or publishing a general call for proposals, the government entered into talks with Fortis Inc. to set the terms for privatizing Hydro. On October 1, 1993, Premier Wells and Fortis CEO, Angus Bruneau, jointly issued a news statement publicly disclosing for the first time that the government was involved in secret talks with Fortis Inc. regarding Hydro privatization. In the release, the Premier said: `Considerable study has been done.'

On November 17, 1993, in a speech to the St. John's Board of Trade, the Premier admitted for the first time that Hydro privatization had been a current issue since 1992. Now, those are the events, I suppose, of the Hydro privatization chronicle. I don't think any of it was wrong; there might be a question on the contents of parts of the statements made on certain dates, but I don't think the minister can disagree that the sum of those are wrong.

DR. GIBBONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WOODFORD: Go ahead.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a little addition to the comments made. When, on August 5, Cabinet met with all advisers on this to make a decision on the issue, the decision made was, yes, if we can get a merger with Fortis, then we will proceed with the privatization of a merged company. That was the decision. So it was on August 30 that the Premier and I and the President of Hydro met with the Chairman of Fortis and the President of Light and Power and said: `We are considering this, if you are interested. If you are interested in this concept and if we can negotiate a merger, then we would proceed with privatization of the merged entity,' so we said, `If you are interested, let us know, but take some time to consider it.' And it was a few days later, after the August 30th meeting, that they came back and said:`Yes, we are interested in discussing this issue,' and it was at that time that both sides put negotiating teams in place to consider the possibility of a merger.

Unfortunately, after three months, December 10th came and we had not reached a merger, and it was made known on December 13th that we had not reached a merger; therefore, no privatization, accordingly, but that we would consider, continue to analyze the possibility of stand-alone privatization; it was on that that we did not make a decision until February 24th and 25th.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, again the minister - exactly what I said, the contents of what I said, is certainly not - the dates may be out a bit but the sum and substance of what I said is exactly true.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Electrical Power Resources Act of which we just finished the amendment to have a six-month hoist, this would give members opposite and the people around the Province a chance to have some input, to have public hearings and to set up a committee and go around. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, why a government which is - it's no question, this is a hot potato. Regardless of what members opposite say, this is a very hot potato, it is the worst crisis that this government has had to face since it came into office in 1989.

Now, it is not a crisis in the sense that they can hold it up. They can put it through the House of Assembly next week, if they wish, but a crisis in the sense that they have been questioned.

As we all know, when we go back to the Meech Lake debate, the thing that really raised the credibility of the Premier opposite was the Meech Lake debate - no question - he gained attention right across the country, and more specifically, in the Province. His ratings went up. The credibility factor was one of the highest in the country and the highest in the history of the Province with regard to any political figure.

It is not only this, there are a number of things. In the first Budget, and when you look at amalgamation, when you look at the tinkering with the denominational system in the Province, when you look at different things they did with regard to fees and taxes, payroll tax, school boards, no matter where you look, and then all of a sudden it came up about the privatization of Hydro, and day by day you could see a difference in people's attitudes.

People were saying, you know, enough is enough. All those other things they were willing to forgive the Premier for. In fact, it was obvious in the election of 1993. That is why the Administration opposite is in power today, it's because of the popularity, at the time, of the Premier of the Province. It wasn't because of anything specific they did with regard to policy. It wasn't with regard to any great announcements or anything like that, between 1989 and 1993, and it certainly wasn't anything due to announcements made previous to the 1993 election. It was due primarily to the credibility of the Premier of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I say today, one of the biggest mistakes this Premier ever made was going on Province-wide television. The night the Premier went on Province-wide television on the subject of the privatization of Hydro in this Province, that was the start of the downfall. In other words, there was a nick in the Teflon fact of the Premier, and once it was cracked, the credibility factor and the credibility gap started to widen, and it started to drop. People began to look and say, `My gosh, there is transparency there after all - we are starting to see through.' This was one of the factors that made the people of the Province sit up and say, `Enough is enough. We have put up with enough.' They based that primarily on his credibility and said no matter what he was going to do and no matter what he said the people more or less looked at him as a god.

Now, when the Premier spoke on the Electrical Resources bill back on March 3, 1994, one of the first statements he made was, `This would create the most favourable climate that we possibly could create 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. It will ensure the interest of the citizens of the Province, to have a good, adequate, reliable supply of hydroelectric power available to them at the lowest possible cost.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province always did, before ever there was any mention of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, have available a good supply of power at the lowest - I do not know about the lowest possible cost, but the lowest possible cost under the circumstances, and under the system we have today, and we had yesterday, and we will have tomorrow, regardless of what happens to Newfoundland Hydro.

Every time a utility in this Province had to go for an increase, they had to go to the Public Utilities Board. Now, I always said, and I was always a firm believer, that it was only academic; it wasn't so bad with Newfoundland Hydro because they're a Crown corporation and when they went for something, they could go for less, because they didn't have to have the same return. But whenever Newfoundland Light went, they pretty well guaranteed their shareholders a basic return of around 13.74 per cent and I think the last year or two it was probably 13.5 per cent. So, as soon as they go in, before ever they do up anything at all, there's a guaranteed rate of 13.5 per cent or 13.74 per cent return to their shareholders. Newfoundland Hydro, if they got between 5, 6, 7 and 8 per cent, it was okay. It was a Crown corporation and it wasn't costing - well, it was at that time because there was a $30 million subsidy paid to the PDD system, but once the government took that off the books in 1989, at a cost of $10 million a year for the next three years, there were no subsidies paid by the Province through the Crown corporation of Newfoundland Hydro.

When they charged the 1 per cent to float their bonds in the 1989 Budget, then they picked up an extra between $9 million and $10 million a year anyway. The government could have very easily gone back in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and they can go back now - the minister can go back today and ask the Crown corporation of Newfoundland Hydro for 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent or whatever. Now, the only difference that would make is this - and that is coming anyway. That means that Newfoundland Hydro would have to go to the PUB - because it affects the basic rate, they would have to go to the PUB for an increase. Whether that was done or not, it would have brought in to the government, extra funds, nothing on the books of the government, itself - it was a Crown corporation bringing in funding and it didn't cost the government a cent. Now, when the Premier, introduced the first speaker on this particular bill, that is one of the first things he mentioned.

Now, when I say that Newfoundland Hydro could have gone for a price increase because of what the government could have charged it - the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, could have gone back for more money - members opposite would argue and other people would say, `Well, they would have had to go for an increase anyway.' Sure they would, but it's obvious in what the Premier sent around this Province, Mr. Speaker - in this particular document here, it shows what the increases are going to be for the next five years, and even that's wrong; because if you base the figures that they have sent around this Province on what was done in years gone by, when Newfoundland Hydro and Newfoundland Light, went to the PUB, it doesn't come near, Mr. Speaker, to what was granted those particular utilities in the past.

In fact, I have to say it again because if it got into the ears of members opposite, even a back-bencher who never looked at the bill, if they look at one year's approval by the Public Utilities Board for Newfoundland Hydro based on the droppage of the $30 million subsidy to the PDD system in 1989, they would see that it was a 4.2 per cent increase, which went to Newfoundland Light at a bottom rate of 2.8 per cent in 1990 and 1991, which resulted - anybody can go back and see that; that is not arguable - which resulted in a $4.20 increase per month based on the minimum 700 kilowatts to every family in this Province.

That is based on 700 kilowatts. No averages of 150, no 200, no nothing, it was based on that - $4.20 a month for one rate increase based on the $30 million drop. And that was only at $10 million a year. It wasn't $30 million in one year, it was a $10 million drop on the PDD system for one year and the 1 per cent to float the bonds, which amounted to around $19 million at that time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Playing a con game with the Province.

MR. WOODFORD: They are playing the worst con game in the world with regard to the price increase. And the bottom line, regardless of what bill we look at, whether we look at Bill No. 1 or Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker, remember one thing: There is one reason for a company's existence and that is to satisfy their shareholders and create profits. Why would shareholders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bondholders (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, exactly. I'm glad the member mentioned about the bondholders. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker, in the bondholder and a shareholder. Does the hon. member know the difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Okay. So what do they do, the bondholders? If Newfoundland Hydro had to bring any more - why could Newfoundland Hydro sit on 6 per cent or 7 per cent or 8 per cent return on investment and Newfoundland Light had to have 13.74 per cent? That's the difference between bonds and shares. You still have to pay the interest. But, Mr. Speaker, the main thing in this - and the people around this Province can see that there is one reason for the existence of a company. Why would you set up a company, especially a public traded company, if you weren't going to create profits?

Why am I going to put money into a company if I am not going to get any return? It is just as well for me to put it in the bank and get 2 per cent, or 3 per cent, or 5 per cent, whatever it is today, or better still, put it into a mutual fund somewhere in an RRSP. Why am I going to put it into a company and get no return? - one reason, and that is, they satisfy their shareholders; and in order to satisfy their shareholders they have to go back to the PUB every time and ask for a rate increase. And the sad thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is that the utilities in this Province today are not competitive. They are not in competition. They have a monopoly.

Give me or you, or any member of the House today, a chance to go out and create a company like Newfoundland Light and Power, and Newfoundland Hydro, and there's not a member who has his head screwed on right in this Assembly, he or she, who wouldn't set up the company. If we were given that - if a small business person in this Province today goes to set up a company, they have all kinds of questions, there are all kinds of risks. You go to the bank, and if you don't have $200,000 in assets for a $20,000 loan, forget it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When you were in government, why didn't you nationalize Newfoundland Light?

MR. WOODFORD: Nationalize Newfoundland Light!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I could give all kinds of reasons for that, too, but I just got a notice now that I have only a couple of minutes left - I never thought thirty minutes was so short.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, they do have a monopoly. Newfoundland Hydro tomorrow - members know quite well, that all of us could get together in this House today and buy that facility, take it off the hands of the Newfoundland Government, guaranteed income - guaranteed - the bottom line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If Newfoundland Light what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: But you know what Newfoundland Light was doing at the time. They weren't even generating 10 per cent of the power in the Province at that time. Newfoundland Light, when Bay d'Espoir was built, was only Newfoundland - that's why Newfoundland Hydro was created, and hats off to the government for doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Was what, generating?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: At that time, they weren't generating anything, because Bay d'Espoir was what gave them the real boost, after it was developed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro, yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, gave Hydro the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, yes, but at the same time, what I am saying is -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) hon. member (inaudible) spoke.

MR. WOODFORD: - is today - well, the hon. gentleman knows. The Minister of Justice, one thing about him - where he is sitting there today, next to the Premier, not the right-hand man, the left-hand man; because the right-hand man and the boss sits in one chair.

MR. ROBERTS: It all depends which side (inaudible) looking at.

MR. WOODFORD: No, I won't - anyway, he is the left-hand man and he has him there for one reason. But he knows exactly. There is no trouble to tell, the Minister of Justice, buddy, I tell you, when you are telling the truth. He is a keen - he is not around for years for nothing, I tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, anyway, I'm getting distracted. One of the things you notice when you look at the top - the thing that is coming next with regard to the New Hydro, if it is privatized - when you look at the top ten performers in Atlantic Canada, who are they? Who is fifth in Atlantic Canada? Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

What is the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Two hundred and eighty-five million bucks. Look who is next. NEWTEL. Who is seventh? Fortis Inc. is seventh in Atlantic Canada. If you want to carry it further and look at Canada, look at all the other - what is going to happen after this privatization takes place? I can guarantee members in this House of Assembly that within five years, Fortis Inc. will be up, I would say, ahead of New Brunswick Power Corporation. What is New Brunswick Power Corporation doing now? They are buying out the power facilities in PEI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: May I have a minute?

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

MR. WOODFORD: May I have a minute - just a couple of minutes to clue up?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will give him leave to go to, say, 11:58 a.m. The morning is ruined, anyway, so we might as well carry on with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. HARRIS: He gave half his time to the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East may be wondering why the laugh, and I have to apologize to him. It is because I said that his recent statement is the first time the NDP has ever backed an entire horse.

MR. WOODFORD: I would say not only the morning was ruined, I would say a number of years were ruined when the member decided to come back, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Baker!

MR. WOODFORD: Bring back Baker, yes, Sir, the BBB.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take any other member's time but it seems we're just about finished for the day. In any case, I would like to finish off on this note. Mr. Speaker, - members opposite should realize - and if the back-benchers over there or someone who is not in Cabinet has been told that this piece of legislation has nothing to do with privatization, well, look again. Maybe some ministers could probably look, especially the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Look at the five headings, I'll just tell him to look at five things. They have all weekend to do it before they come back Monday. Look at this, the section of the act that says -

MS. VERGE: Your homework for the weekend, `John'.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Corner Brook on the weekend.

MR. WOODFORD: The five points I want members opposite to have a look at on the weekend, especially backbenchers before this comes to a vote next week. Instruct the Public Utilities Board to have electricity rates on three criteria; cost, maintenance, and credit-worthiness, just those, look at those. That's in this act, not in the privatization act - Instruct the Public Utilities Board to do (inaudible).

Second; direct the PUB to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy charged to industrial customers by the end of 1999 in order to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity to major industries in the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sock it to rural customers - right?

MR. WOODFORD: Sock it to rural customers, sock it to small business and again look after the major industries in the Province, the corporate giants, look after them, Mr. Speaker.

Three; transfer responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board and the Public Utilities Board. That's in Bill 2, Mr. Speaker, not Bill 1.

Four; empower the PUB to approve ownership of more then 20 per cent of the shares of an electric utility which paves the way for an eventual merger between a privatized Hydro and a Newfoundland Power. As sure as I'm standing in this House and I might have the opportunity to do it or run again in the next election and I might be on that side of the House with an Opposition Critic over here asking me why. I'll be able to tell him, because within five years, that's what's going to happen.

Nova Scotia privatized, 78 per cent of Nova Scotia Power is now owned by people outside the Province of Nova Scotia.

Number five; refund federal taxes paid by utilities and rebate it to the Province under PUITTA.

That's the five reasons that are in this particular act. It has nothing to do with privatization - except for this other section of the act, we could pass it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: We could pass this act now. You take those five headings out and we will put it through before I sit down, 11:57 a.m., I will pass it. Without even the leader being here, every member will vote for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's additional time has expired. It is now 11:58 a.m.

MR. WOODFORD: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the two minutes that I have this morning, I will make a fair beginning to the remarks that I have in mind about the principle of this bill, Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley has pointed out, is completely intertwined with its companion bill, Bill 1, the Hydro Privatization Act. This bill is predicated upon the government's privatizing Hydro, and several measures contained in this bill, which the Member for Humber Valley had just begun to enumerate, facilitate the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, this is inconsistent with privatizing Hydro, however, because the purported purpose of Bill 2, this bill, is to control the regulation of all types of power produced in the Province for the benefit of consumers in the Province, to whom power should be supplied at the lowest possible cost.

What is inconsistent is that privatizing Hydro clearly will significantly increase the cost, so the government can't have it both ways, and the only acceptable course for the government is to withdraw both pieces of legislation - both this bill and Bill 1 - in accordance to the pledge the Premier made to the people of the Province on Province-wide television on March 24 when he said that if, in the end, the majority of the population are opposed to Hydro privatization he would withdraw the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it being 12:00, I will adjourn the debate, and will continue with my remarks on this bill on Monday. Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will be quivering with anticipation all weekend as we await further disclosure by the hon. woman, the Member for Humber East.

With that said, I move that the House adjourn until Monday. On Monday we will be calling the Electrical Power Control Act again, and the hon. lady, the hon. member, can continue with her disclosure. We are always interested in disclosure from the Member for Humber East.

I move that the House do now adjourn, Sir.

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