May 10, 1994                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 39


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the galleries, forty-two Levels I, II and III students from the democracy class at Ascension Collegiate, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Lorne Moores and Mr. Ed Wyling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I advised the House that while three of the four credit-rating agencies have recently reaffirmed the credit rating assigned by them to the Province over the last several years, a fourth had announced that it intended to downgrade the rating it gives the Province. Unfortunately, this was Standard and Poor's of New York, the one rating agency with which the Province had an A level credit rating. At the time I advised this hon. House that the matter would be considered quickly and the government would indicate its specific policy response at an early date.

While the downgrading by Standard and Poor's was understandably disappointing, particularly at a time when we were seeing early signs of economic improvement, nevertheless government was encouraged by the general assessment of the government's fiscal performance by all of the credit rating agencies.

In particular, I note that Moody's said, and I quote: "In spite of unfavourable economic conditions, the Province has succeeded in gradually narrowing its fiscal imbalance. Although the Province has not used a formal multi-year planning approach, as in the case of several other provinces, it has demonstrated a willingness to introduce year after year additional revenue and expenditure measures to offset unexpected pressures and maintain the deficit on a downward trajectory."

They also said: "Newfoundland currently has the highest debt burden of any province. Despite the gradual progress made in reducing deficit financing requirements, new borrowing activity and the lack of economic growth pushed the level of tax supported debt in relation to the provincial GDP above the 55 per cent mark, up from 48 per cent in the late 1980's."

They said also: "The sale of Newfoundland Hydro which is being contemplated for later this year may also provide an opportunity for the Province to improve its debt profile... The balance of sale proceeds, however, has been earmarked by the Province as funds that would be used to reduce Newfoundland's debt burden by significantly lowering, and possibly eliminating, debt issuance activities this fiscal year. Avoidance of debt issuance would also benefit the finances of the Province by generating savings in debt servicing costs."

Standard and Poor's said: "The Province has displayed impressive fiscal performance in recent years, generating operating surpluses, after adjusting for sinking fund earnings, and posting moderate deficits."

They said also: "The outlook..." - and they noted that the outlook was stable, said it - "... reflects the demonstrated strong commitment of the provincial government to continue to reduce its deficit and its borrowing requirements despite the sustained fiscal pressure anticipated from an environment of slow economic growth."

"The provincial government is proposing to sell the provincial electric utility, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Proceeds of such a sale are expected to eliminate provincial borrowing for about 1 fiscal year and thus result in reduced budgetary pressures in the near term and lower interest charges in future years."

Canadian Bond Rating Services said this:

"The Province is aiming for an operating surplus in 1995-96. At that time, and assuming Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, the Province should be in a position to begin lowering its large debt load. Further increases in debt only exacerbate Newfoundland's already curtailed fiscal flexibility."

"The Province is attempting to sell Newfoundland Hydro. The proceeds and resulting debt defeasance, would accrue to the Province. As such, the Province's long term debt issuance is expected to moderate in fiscal 1995. If Hydro's privatization does not occur, the rating could be reassessed."

Dominion Bond Rating Service said this:

"The short term ratings of R-2 (middle) with a Stable trend are confirmed for the Province of Newfoundland and its guaranteed entities as the Province continues to exercise good fiscal restraint."

"The most significant rating considerations at the present time include (1) overcoming the problems resulting from loss of the Northern Cod Fishery. (2) Privatizing the electric utility which will free the Province from having to continue to finance this capital intensive company. (3) Having to contend with a large debt and unfunded pension liability, which gives the Province at 70% GDP the highest debt/GDP rating in Canada and results in interest costs being high as a proportion of total expenditures relative to other provinces."

"The government is privatizing the electric utility in a manner that should not result in significant increases in electrical rates. The key positive factor in the privatization is the fact that it will ultimately remove $1.3 billion of debt (which is, nevertheless, self sustaining). This enables the Province to use its credit strengths to raise capital to finance its own deficit and not that of the capital intensive utility, and to accomplish this privatization without electric rate increases."

Mr. Speaker, the government believes the ability of this Province to achieve improved credit ratings in the future is entirely dependent upon continued strong fiscal performance, reduction of outstanding debt, and general improvement in the economy. It is essential, therefore, that the Province follow policies that will achieve all three of these objectives. Accordingly, the government has determined:

1) To have no further borrowings that will increase the existing outstanding debt. Some borrowing may be necessary in the immediate future in order to repay debt that will become due during that period, but this will not add to the existing debt;

2) To pursue an objective of achieving in the fiscal year 1995-1996, not only balance, but a surplus on current account that can contribute significantly to capital expenditures in that fiscal year;

3) To achieve by the fiscal year 1996-1997 a balanced total budget so that there will be no borrowing for budgetary purposes whatsoever during that fiscal year, and:

4) In each fiscal year thereafter to ensure some surplus over total current and capital account expenditures that will be available for reduction of the outstanding public debt, including that portion of the pension fund deficiencies for which the government is responsible.

This can be achieved by:

A) Continuing the policy of restraining growth in operating expenditures;

B) Limiting capital expenditures to amounts that are essential to protect existing infrastructure of the Province and meet the health, education, municipal, transportation or other public service needs that are pressing or time sensitive, and;

C) Continuing with the privatization of commercial activities carried on by the government, including Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in order to generate the revenue necessary to meet what would otherwise be budgetary shortfalls during the fiscal years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.

Mr. Speaker, to improve economic activity, the government will continue to implement the economic development policies outlined in the Strategic Economic Plan. Efforts will be made to speed up to the maximum extent possible policies aimed at providing in Newfoundland and Labrador the most attractive business investment climate possible, and further efforts at promotion, within Canada and other parts of the world, will be pursued vigorously.

There are already indications of economic improvement and reason to expect further improvement in the overall economic performance. It is noteworthy that in most recent months there have been improvements in housing starts, new automobile sales, department store sales and some other indicators. Of particular significance is the fact that the number of the workforce employed has increased in each of the last four months for a total of 7,000 additional jobs during the months of January, February, March, and April of this year.

The government's policies of sound fiscal management, expenditure restraint and private sector emphasis in economic development are starting to produce results. Now is not the time to change policies that at long last are starting to show results.

I am confident that we can undo the massive financial harm that has been done to this Province in the last twenty years or so by excessive borrowing and management policies that increased obligations but deferred them to the future. I am also confident that we will see significantly improved economic performance in the months ahead and that we can enhance that economic performance by intensifying our efforts at implementing the specific action items of the Strategic Economic Plan.

The end result will see the restoration of both the financial integrity and the economic viability of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say if we wanted to see the credit rating of this Province increase immediately the best thing that could happen would be if the Premier and his government were to resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is an extremely weak, weak, attempt to try to defend policies they have put in place for the last five years that have seen this Province run into the ground. That's what has been happening with his policies. All you ever hear about is the Strategic Economic Plan. It is something like the Sears catalogue, it is a plan but there's not much more in it.

Mr. Speaker, I said on Thursday when the Minister of Finance gave his statement on the downgrading of the Province's credit rating by Standard and Poor's, or whoever it was, that the loss of the A credit rating is an extremely important and significant factor. There is no question about that. But for the Premier to stand here today and try to put some kind of a positive light on it, really, those words ring very, very, hollow, when you look back at what the government has been doing for the last five years.

We know it will have an effect on the Province in the future. We do not know how serious that effect will be, but we know it will have an effect, and the effect really remains to be seen. What really struck me as I read the statement, and we only got it ten or fifteen minutes before the House opened, was his interpretation of what all the rating agencies had to say with respect to Hydro, or at least what he is trying to lead people to believe, Mr. Speaker.

His interpretation is only one thing, many others disagree with him. He must know that by now but for him today to try to somehow make a case for the privatization of Hydro on the backs of these statements by these credit rating agencies as if it were somehow a sound, long term beneficial fiscal policy and that it was somehow in the best long term interest of the people of this Province is nothing short of charade and a scam. That's all he's up to here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: To suggest somehow that they may be doing something of a positive nature and that the rating agencies have supported him now, that's misleading the people, Mr. Speaker, exactly what the Premier tries to suggest from time to time that I'm doing.

Now what the rating agencies, including Standard and Poor's and all the others, have really said is that this Province will get a one- time windfall that it will then use in order to avoid having to borrow for the next year, maybe a part of the following year. These agencies have not even suggested that there would be any long term benefit from the sale or privatization of Hydro, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact some of them, the Canadian Bond Rating Agency, if you read its statement you would see that their overall outlook was negative anyway for the Province. So what they are saying, Mr. Speaker, is merely what we have been saying all along, that the Province will get a limited benefit for a year or two, from a one time infusion of cash that will allow it to avoid borrowing, we've said that. There's no dispute about that. Nobody has ever disputed that but the problem is that the long term benefit is not there and the benefit from the short one-time infusion of cash will be short lived.

Mr. Speaker, the main reason for down-grading the Province's credit rating, I say to the Premier, has absolutely nothing to do with the privatization of Hydro but it has all to do with the lack of growth and decline in this economy. That's what the agencies have said, Mr. Speaker, and the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro won't do one thing to change that, not one little bit and he knows it. He can smile all he wants but he knows darn well, that problem will only change when this government gets the intestinal fortitude, shows the political will to change direction, to take a different approach, Mr. Speaker, and to try to find the right policies that will stimulate the economy and until they do that, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - we will continue to have problems with our credit rating and all the rest of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker,

During the 1993 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party, which subsequently formed the Government of Canada, gave a firm commitment that it would deal effectively with the foreign overfishing problem. This commitment was reaffirmed in the first Throne Speech under the new government. I am pleased to advise that earlier today the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Brian Tobin, tabled a bill in the Parliament of Canada which will address the serious problem of foreign overfishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: This is the first step, Mr. Speaker. The new legislation will give the Government of Canada the legislative authority to deal effectively with this problem.

This hon. House is aware fully that foreign overfishing constitutes one of the most serious challenges to the future of the major fish stocks of the Grand Banks, and our efforts to rebuild a sustainable and responsible fishery. The livelihood and future of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is linked to our ability to address this problem. I met recently with the Prime Minister to impress on him the extent of the problem. It is obvious from the legislation tabled today in Ottawa that the federal government has fully understood and responded to our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the previous federal government followed an ineffective diplomatic approach to dealing with the foreign overfishing issues. The lack of success in these efforts is demonstrated by the extent of foreign fishing efforts on the Grand Banks today. The most recent vessel reports for the NAFO area, for the week ending April 25 1994, indicated there were seventy-six - note the number - seventy-six foreign vessels fishing on the Grand Banks. That doesn't include another fourteen fishing shrimp out on the Flemish Cap. Overfishing by foreign vessels, most notably vessels from the European Union - Spain and Portugal - is thought to have exceeded 100,000 tonnes in 1993, and all indications are that foreign efforts and catches have remained high thus far in 1994. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the level of fishing by the European Union is higher this year so far than it was last year at this time, and it was higher last year than it was the year before. Despite the fact that Canada has a moratorium on its own fishery.

This sustained foreign fishing effort has been occurring at a time when the Newfoundland fishery is effectively closed; at a time when many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had to accept that they may not be able to fish until the next century. Many may never fish again. The fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador have made a major sacrifice to ensure that the groundfish stocks of the Grand Banks can recover.

I am proud and pleased that Canada is now telling the international community that it will not stand idly by and watch this sacrifice frustrated by a few foreign fishing fleets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the new federal legislation will allow Canada to enforce responsible fishing practices against all fishing vessels and for all straddling stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: For all of those stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. It represents the most significant initiative to address this serious problem ever taken by the Government of Canada. The new bill, once passed, will allow Canada to undertake surveillance and enforcement measures for the conservation and management of straddling stocks throughout the NAFO Regulatory Area, which includes the "nose" and "tail" of the Grand Banks. It enables Canada to ensure responsible conservation and management practices are enforced against all vessels fishing in the area.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has sent a clear message to the international community. Canada will no longer tolerate the wanton destruction of a world food resource in the waters contiguous to its shores. This is an act of international leadership on the part of Canada. I congratulate Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister for the courage and the foresight that they have demonstrated in the tabling of this bill. This initiative clearly affirms the federal government's commitment to deal effectively with the foreign overfishing issue, a commitment reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Tobin in this very building, Mr. Speaker, in St. John's on February 25.

I express my undying personal admiration and gratitude to both those men who showed such leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I say to members opposite, I can understand their being a little bit gleeful today. There hasn't been too much for government members to cheer about in the last year or two, so I can understand it. But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve judgement on this federal legislation the same as I reserved judgement on the new TAGS program, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They all jumped up and down, and Mr. Tobin and Mr Axworthy left the plane running at the airport, came in, and then flew off to Ottawa, and afterwards, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians came to see through the new TAGS program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Premier - and I haven't seen the legislation and I don't know if the Premier has, by the way, I say to members opposite. Read the legislation first. All that has happened since Mr. Tobin became federal Minister of Fisheries, is that foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has increased, I say to the Premier. It has not decreased. Foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Banks has increased, not decreased, by the Premier's own statistics.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this legislation will accomplish what all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. I hope that the foreigners are removed from the Grand Banks. I hope in six months time we do not have reports in this House by the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier saying there are eighty or ninety foreign vessels out fishing. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, I say to members opposite.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is not just legislation to deal with the boats that are flying the flags of convenience, that it is just not to deal with Canadian vessels, such as we saw a few weeks ago when the minister went out and arrested a Canadian vessel and brought it into port here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, if the legislation has the teeth that it should have, I will stand in my place in this House, and anywhere in this Province, and commend Brian Tobin - I will do that. But I am going to wait until I see the results of the legislation. I hope it works, Mr. Speaker. I hope the foreigners are off the Banks in a few months time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am going to wait and see, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to jump up like puppets, like members opposite.

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

No leave.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the gallery Mayor Harry Cooper of Twillingate. And secondly, a group of Improving Your Odds students from Joe Batt's Arm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked the Premier about the implications of Part 2 of the Electrical Power Resources Act, the bill which is about to face closure on second reading today. I asked him about the implications of Part 2 of that act on Abitibi-Price and Kruger. I suggested at the time that he contact the paper companies to find out whether they had any concerns that the legislation might somehow adversely affect their operations.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has there has been any contact since then with either, or both, of the paper companies, initiated either by him or the government, or by the paper companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I contacted them, but I think a Mr. Kerr contacted me, expressed some concern, and told me that his concern arose because he had a call from the Leader of the Opposition to tell him that he should be concerned about it.

I explained the position to him and I was satisfied after that explanation that he had no concern. I have had no personal contact from anybody at Abitibi since that time. Whether they've contacted anybody else or not, I don't know. Now, I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition has engendered doubts or suggestions with Kruger as well, probably. I received a telephone call from Mr. Kruger yesterday afternoon. I spoke with Mr. Kruger and he told me he had some legal opinions that raised some possible concerns so he was going to send me in a copy of the legal opinions. So far, he hasn't done that. I called this morning to say that this matter was coming on for a vote tonight in the House of Assembly on second reading - `but the committee stage is yet to go, so there's some time. So if you have any real concern, don't delay getting it in. Make sure you let me know so that if there are any genuine bases for the concerns, they can be addressed.'

The principle, Mr. Speaker, is that neither Abitibi nor Kruger would suffer any impact of this, except in one case, an emergency. I drew that to Mr. Kruger's attention, he said, `I have no quarrel at all with that. That's the way it ought to be.' I explained to him the situation with respect to part III, and that it didn't in any manner adversely impact on either Kruger or Abitibi and if -

MS. VERGE: That's Part II.

PREMIER WELLS: - Part II, Mr. Speaker - and if it would be helpful to have any additional words added that would make very clear that a company like Abitibi or Kruger had wanted to be assured that they could consume the power that they generated, I had no problem making a statement that would have that effect. I again read from page 8, `the official policy is that it would result in a producer having priority to consume the power it produces.' Now, Mr. Speaker, if we can make that clearer - I have no objection to making it clearer but there's no question about what the intent is. I doubt very much that it can be made clearer, but if it can, I have no question with that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Finally, we have gotten the truth from the Premier on this particular point that the companies have concerns about this legislation. He has now been told there are concerns and they are suggesting amendments or changes to the legislation. He just confirmed that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, he didn't confirm it. Let me ask him: Can he tell us what specific concerns the paper companies have expressed about Bill 2? Will he tell us the specific concerns they have expressed to him and have they, in fact, proposed any amendments or changes in either a written communication to the Premier or his telephone conversations or somebody else in the government, of course?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, with Abitibi, the only concern that Mr. Kerr expressed was the concern that he told me the Leader of the Opposition told him he should have with respect to it. That was the only concern that he expressed to me.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) anyway.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it isn't.

MR. SIMMS: That is a lie.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that's an improper word.

MR. SIMMS: I said, `that's a lie', I didn't call him (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I said it was a lie, and it is a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on unparliamentary language. I will take the matter under advisement and deal with it after Question Period.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Kerr and the only thing that he raised with me was the matter that had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and he told me that it was raised with him by the Leader of the Opposition. The only thing that he raised with me was that which had been raised with him by the Leader of the Opposition, attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people of the Province - Mr. Speaker, gross irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It's difficult to even recognize him as being the Leader of the Loyal Opposition, when you bear in mind what's being done, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Kruger and Mr. Bunze of Kruger yesterday afternoon. They told me they were going to send in a legal opinion they had and I said, `Well, please let me see it and if there's any merit to it or any basis for it, I would be happy to address it or see that it is addressed.' Just before I came down here, Mr. Speaker, I noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Kruger. I haven't read the letter yet, so I can't tell you what is in it, but it is not a legal opinion. It is a view of the company. I will be reading it shortly, and I will know later today exactly what the letter said, but so far they still haven't offered a legal opinion.

If I see a legal opinion that gives me any cause for concern, I will see that the matter is addressed, because the policy of the Province is to see that a producer of electricity is to have the priority to consume the electricity it produces, and that is exactly what it says.

Now let me read it again. The power policy of the Province: "...that would result in a producer having priority to consume the power it produces..." - plain, simple language.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) clause 8.

PREMIER WELLS: Clause 8 requires that this clause be enforced, what I just read. It requires that is the policy that the board is to enforce.

Now I know the Opposition have tried to foment difficulty, but the matter is adequately dealt with.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take lectures from the Premier on this or anything else, and I don't appreciate him accusing me of doing what he just accused me of doing, because it is an absolute falsehood - an absolute falsehood.

I telephoned the company in question, Abitibi, and I brought this issue to their attention in a responsible manner, and I asked them if they had any concerns. I didn't tell them they should have concerns, so don't mislead the people.

Now he is misleading them once again when he quotes Part I of -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do, and I am not going to speculate, but he knows the rules of the House as well as any of us, I suggest, and he has twice in the last thirty seconds used language which, in my submission, is unparliamentary. I would ask, please, that Your Honour address the point and make whatever ruling is appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I do, which language are you referring to?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, he accused the Premier of: a) misleading the House; and b) uttering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - of misleading the House, and he used the word `falsehood' to describe a statement by the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I would prefer to take the matter under advisement and deal with it after, and make a ruling on it.

I will allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to continue.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

The Premier has argued that the application of Part II, by the general policy statement in Part I, which he stated and articulated a moment ago that would result in the producer having the priority to consume the power, but wouldn't he agree that Part II of the bill, which explicitly gives the Public Utilities Board the power to: "...allocate and re-allocate any or all power produced in the Province...", "...notwithstanding that the producer or retailer may, as a result, have to reduce the amount, or cease the delivery altogether, of power then being supplied to another customer or the amount of power then being consumed for its own use."

Wouldn't he agree that in fact section 8 in Part II of that bill actually negates the effect of this so-called general policy statement in Part I that he articulated a moment ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: He should read the balance of the clause. I will read it very clearly so that he will understand it:

"Where, after the conduct of an inquiry, the Public Utilities Board is satisfied that a producer or a retailer is not, or will not be able, under the existing supply and allocation contracts or arrangements, to satisfy the current or anticipated demands of its customers for power in the manner required by this Act..." - part of which is the producer having the priority to consume the power it generates. That is part of the manner required by this Act.

"... the Public Utilities Board may, subject to subsection 11(3), allocate and re-allocate any or all power produced in the Province and may order another producer or retailer to supply, upon those terms and conditions respecting rates, timing, duration and amounts that the Public Utilities Board determines, to the producer or retailer which would otherwise be unable to satisfy such power demands that the Public Utilities Board considers to be necessary to implement the power policy set out in paragraph 3(b)."

Now what's the power policy set out in paragraph -

MR. SIMMS: You didn't read it all.

PREMIER WELLS: I have read it all. I have read the whole of subsection (2).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: You want me to read it again. I will read it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

PREMIER WELLS: If you want to take the time, I will read it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Premier to take his seat for a minute.

The difficulty arising in Question Period, if the Opposition asks questions, then I think there should be afforded an opportunity for an answer - and conversations back and forth I think don't aid the answer. I would be just as happy if the member asked a question and gave an opportunity for an answer and then asked another. Thank you.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it has to be done, and the only thing the Public Utilities Board can do, and they are specifically and expressly directed to do. Now, if this legislation is not sufficiently clear to make that beyond doubt then I've got no objection putting in any words that will put it beyond doubt. But I don't think it does that. All it does is direct the Public Utilities Board to apply the power policy provided in 3(b) which specifically requires that a producer have the priority to consume the power it produces. It couldn't be much more clear.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. Yesterday evening on CBC evening news the minister admitted to the use of student evaluation as a political strategy in the collective bargaining process between the NLTA and the government. He further admitted to the absolute failure of his tactic. Will the minister today apologize to the parents, the educators and the students of the Province for his willingness to use the students of this Province as pawns in his strategy to reach a collective agreement with the NLTA?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount in his question is using information that I don't know in which form it exists. In other words, it is an imaginary situation. There is no such admission, there is no such statement that even tends towards that direction, and I would like him to produce such a statement if such a statement exists.

The only thing that has happened in the last couple of days is that we have tried to insist that the teachers' union withdraw their position that requested their teachers to break the law. That request was not complied with and we have since continued discussions with the Teachers Association. Our attempt was to simply, in the event of a strike, have in our possession, or at least in the possession of the schools and the school boards, the latest possible up-to-date information on the progress of the students, which is a very responsible request, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Minister of Education distributed or caused to be distributed a confidential letter written and signed by his colleague the President of Treasury Board to the president of the NLTA. Will the President of Treasury Board confirm that this letter was distributed to all school board offices without his explicit knowledge and prior authorization?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a meeting held with the NLTA and I subsequently sent a letter to the teachers' union outlining some of the discussions in that meeting. A copy of the letter was inadvertently, by accident, not by the Minister of Education, sent to the superintendents in the system. That has been explained to the teachers' union and they accept that explanation. Yes, the letter was sent.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Will the minister therefore confirm to the House that disciplinary action has been taken against the people who distributed this letter ill-advisedly, because it is an obvious attempt to sabotage the collective bargaining process, and responsibility for this serious turn of events must rest with the Ministry? I ask the President of Treasury Board, has he taken the necessary action to ensure that this kind of process, which intimidated the teaching profession, does not occur in this round of collective bargaining again?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt to sabotage a collective bargaining process. There was no action taken to deliberately sabotage a collective bargaining process that has not even yet started. I remind the hon. gentleman that the teachers' union has rejected by an overwhelming majority, 91 per cent, a recommendation of a conciliation board which simply said, start collective bargaining. That has been rejected so there has been no collective bargaining. So there is no deliberate attempt to interfere with collective bargaining. There was a mistake made, and the only people who don't make mistakes, Mr. Speaker, are the people who never do anything.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several clauses in Bill 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, now before the Legislature, that have been inserted in the bill to carry out government's plan to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. These clauses are part of the government's privatization plan.

On May 3, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier a question, and I want to ask him today: Mr. Premier, do you intend to proceed with Bill 1, the Privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, despite the strong public opposition to it? Will you be proceeding within the next number of days, or next week, with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act, stands on its own, whether Hydro is privatized or not. It is capable of standing entirely on its own. It doesn't require the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It simply provides for a sensible, at long last, a sensible way of managing the hydroelectric resources of the Province.

The answer to the second question, Mr. Speaker, is the same as it has been each time it has been asked, yesterday and in the past, it remains the same.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier didn't answer the question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier, in a supplementary, would rise in his place today and tell us whether or not he intends to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's policy to properly run this Province for the first time in twenty years. When the Opposition were in power they devastated the economy, borrowed us silly, tripled our debt between 1975 and 1987, created all kinds of obligations and deferred them to the future, made a mess of the pension system, created all of the problems that caused the downgrading, all attributable, and did nothing to rebuild the economy. They did absolutely nothing to rebuild the economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is going to proceed with its full economic development policies and its full fiscal management policies, and that includes privatization of all aspects of commercial-type business as carried on by the government, no matter what it is. That has been the policy all along and we intend to proceed with that.

So the answer is the same as it was yesterday, and the same as it was last week. It remains precisely the same, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Premier, on May 3, categorically said to the Leader of the Opposition that government had no intention of withdrawing the Hydro bill. Now, that is what was said a few short days ago, so the Premier, in essence, is confirming that today.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is the same.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask the Premier this on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why did you, Mr. Premier, on March 24, 1994, in front of all the people of this Province on public television in the leader's debate, say the following, and I quote: `No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate support for, and by adequate I mean essentially majority support in the Province, and if the majority of the people in this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro, I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. Because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue, should use its majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.'

Further on in the debate, the Premier said, `The government will make sure that before we proceed - '

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am asking the Premier why he said this, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

`The government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of Assembly, we have the support of the people of the Province to proceed, otherwise we will not.' In the last thirty seconds of the debate, the Premier said the following: `I have said here tonight very clearly and I have said not here - I said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I have said it in other places, that no government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policy that it can't sustain public support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition, we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.' That is what the Premier said. Here is the transcript of the debate. I want to ask the Premier, in light of the answer he just gave me in my supplementary: Why did you lie to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on March 24?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The language of the hon. the Opposition House Leader is clearly unparliamentary, and in accordance with our rules, he will have to withdraw the remark. I hereby ask him to do so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I respect the request of Your Honour. I respect that you are caught in a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. On May 3, the Premier said he had no intention of withdrawing the Hydro bill. Hansard, page 1255 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On March 24, I have the transcript, the evidence is compelling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's not a matter of whether or not the Opposition House Leader or any member has evidence. It is a matter that the language, itself, is unparliamentary. It is not a matter of what one intends to say so much as a matter of the words one chooses. The language, itself, is unparliamentary and must, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, be withdrawn.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for Your Honour and the rules of the House, parliamentary procedure and parliamentary language, but I have a greater respect for the truth, and consequently, I will not withdraw what I just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again ask the hon. member if he is prepared to withdraw the statement made. Is that categorical and final? Does the hon. member wish to reconsider at this point and withdraw the remark?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I just said.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you meant to name the member or not. He appears not to have accepted your ruling, so -

MR. SPEAKER: I should say, for hon. members, I have not named any member in the Session. I am not obligated to do so, but I know that a Speaker in another House has chosen not to recognize a member in the House until the remark is withdrawn.

I believe it is traditional that both members propose, or certainly the government, or the member can't propose what would be appropriate, I will consider what, if anything, might be appropriate in the circumstances, but until then, until I make a decision, I won't recognize the member in this House unless he withdraws inappropriate remarks.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, 911 received a medical emergency call from Torbay. A woman collapsed in her home from a heart attack; 911 dispatched an ambulance, driver and an attendant. The ambulance arrived in eleven minutes. After they arrived, the ambulance attendants called 911 for more assistance; 911 then called the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department, and qualified volunteers from that department were dispatched to the home in six minutes. This woman died.

I ask the minister: Why wasn't the volunteer fire department contacted immediately? They could have been at the scene five minutes before that ambulance arrived.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation, but it is the policy that volunteer fire departments cannot guarantee that there will be appropriate people there at all times. That is why we cannot rely - the volunteer fire departments are not always available for medical emergencies with the properly trained people there. That is why the 911 service doesn't normally use voluntary fire departments, but in this particular case, I will take it under advisement and look into it to see what has happened.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the responsibility of 911 to get trained people to the scene of an emergency as quickly as possible. Those people, thirty-one people in that department, are trained and have the pager system and can respond. Now, what happened in this case, as in other cases I have documented, is that trained people available in the community were ignored because the department has a policy not to use volunteers.

Now, in this case, time is life. How many more people are going to die before the minister changes this policy?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making some very grievous charges. If he had a system by which the 911 people were always to phone volunteer fire departments and there was nobody there, or no trained person there, to respond, he would be up on his feet more frequently than he is now. That whole situation of 911 is under review and in an appropriate time we will see that if anything needs to be done, it will be done.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The time is, Mr. Speaker - when are you going to do something about it? Emergency services is a life and death matter. I ask the minister, would he call an official inquiry into the 911 system and the provision of emergency medical services in the St. John's region?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the emergency services in the St. John's region are functioning reasonably well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: You are making charges which you cannot substantiate across there. You are saying that that is what caused a death. You cannot substantiate that of your own information. You don't know. You are not a medical person. When a complaint is raised here in this House, Mr. Speaker, about services, we investigate and look into it and see if anyone is at fault, and if anyone is at fault, that is their problem. We have looked into all these cases that have been brought to our attention. We are attempting to see if there is anything we can do. But I can tell you this, that for somebody on the 911 line to have to be phoning around looking to see if a volunteer is around or not is not the appropriate way to handle medical emergencies.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. I noticed in his statement today on the Province's fiscal situation and his plans to go ahead with the privatization of Hydro that there was no mention of his commitment on Province-wide TV to seek the views of the people of the Province before proceeding with the privatization of Hydro. Is the Premier, in light of his decision, his answer to previous questions, prepared to see in this Province a `Clyde Lied' campaign which would put the other campaign last year to shame, Mr. Speaker? Is that the Premier's intention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question has little more credibility than the one asked by the Member for Grand Bank. It is hardly worthy of the hon. member to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Speaker, I thought that member wasn't to be recognized until he had withdrawn the statement.

MR. SIMMS: Ask to be recognized - you're not the Speaker, yet, either.

MR. TOBIN: When he speaks, Sir, he tells the truth, and that's more than (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this Province is facing a very difficult financial and economic circumstance, caused largely by the ill-advised policies of the former administration that borrowed us silly, that created commitments -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - that irresponsibly abandoned their responsibility to deal with the public issues of the day and dealt with them in such a way as to defer the obligation into the future - created a terrible mess. This government has been trying for two to three years to get us out of that. Part of it is the fiscal management plan that we've developed. The privatization of Hydro is a crucial part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a strong believer that the government must maintain an acceptable level of public support for policies that it seeks to implement through the House of Assembly, but the government of this Province has a responsibility to make sure that we don't manage the affairs of this Province so as to keep us on the course of destruction and bankruptcy that the former government put us on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Every single one of the credit rating agencies clearly indicated that this government had taken the kind of sound fiscal management steps to correct the irresponsible mess that had been created by the former government. Now, Mr. Speaker, we're making progress on that and we intend to proceed with those policies.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: We have two minutes to go and we don't want the Premier up here telling us what's not true, Mr. Speaker, he's been at that long enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The practice I follow is that if a member asks a question, I give whichever minister is answering, an opportunity to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It hasn't been four minutes. It was actually about one minute, thirty seconds past the end of Question Period when the hon. member raised the point of order, but as members know, if a question is asked before the end of Question Period, even if there are two or three seconds remaining, I allow the question and the appropriate time to answer it. Whether or not the Premier was still on point - I think he was, but I was having difficulty hearing him. In any event, I don't know if it's appropriate or if there's anything that needs to be said at this time but I certainly wouldn't allow any supplementary since we're past the point.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is essentially finished, Mr. Speaker, it simply remained - if I hadn't been interrupted I would have simply said, Mr. Speaker, that the circumstances of the last thirty days have made very clear the necessity for the government to continue the policy that it had proposed and the government proposes to continue with that policy.

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

There were some points of order raised during Question Period by the hon. Government House Leader that I deferred to the end of Question Period dealing with statements by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I don't know if there's anything to be added to that. I'd prefer to take a few minutes and deal with them. I think I now have a copy of the Hansard as to what was said and we'll see how accurate it is. Is there anything, either the government or the Opposition wish to add on the matter? I'll take a few minutes and then deal with it. I'll adjourn - I'm sorry,

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) any difficulties I'll just withdraw, there's no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: That certainly resolves the matter from my point of view, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: It still leaves the question of the hon. Opposition House Leader. I had given him a chance earlier to withdraw it and I feel if he doesn't do so - I'll probably deal with that now before we resume because it would be very difficult not to recognize the hon. Opposition House Leader to conduct the ordinary order of business and perhaps I'll adjourn the House for about ten or fifteen minutes and deal with the question. The House is now adjourned.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'd ask the hon. Member for Grand Bank whether or not he'd now, at this point, withdraw the remark earlier made?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Accordingly I have no option but to name the hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. William Matthews, for disregarding the authority of the Speaker's Chair and the decorum of the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess the only thing I want to say to Your Honour is that I apologize to Your Honour if I put you in a difficult position, I appreciate that. It's no reflection on the Chair or the individual who occupies the Chair. It's not a very proud day or proud moment in my life, Mr. Speaker, but there's a couple of things that I've held uppermost in my life; respect for people, respect for the truth and I put the people of the Province first, the truth to the people uppermost and that's what this day has been about. I don't need to say any more. I just apologize to you and your staff if I put you in a difficult position.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt what I have to do in this situation. I do it with regret because I think the hon. gentleman knows full well what he's doing and I have too much respect for him to think otherwise. I would move that the hon. Member for Grand Bank be suspended from the House for the balance of today's session.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I....

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak, have a few words to the motion that was made by the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My understanding is - and I will hear argument on this - that a motion such as this is non-debatable, and the motion is put to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: But I will hear it.

MR. TOBIN: Could you give us the reference, Mr. Speaker, as to where the...? It is that I've been recognized now and I wanted to speak on it.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may say, the provisions for naming are not in our Standing Orders. It is a parliamentary tradition. We have no order on it. My understanding of the rule as such is that if a member doesn't withdraw and is named then a motion for an appropriate penalty is put to the House without an opportunity for debate on either side. The House either approves the motion or rejects it. That is my understanding. Subject -

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What I say before you take your place, unless someone has specific authority contrary to that, that is my understanding of it. I will hear from members, but solely on that point.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it has been many years since I occupied the Chair that Your Honour occupies so I can't remember the precise research or background - I don't know if former Speaker Lush or whoever - but there ought to be a reference, if not in Beauchesne, or if not in our Standing Orders, then certainly a practice or tradition or whatever. The only thing I would say is that we should have an absolute ruling and a correct ruling and a proper ruling.

My recollection is simply that that has been the practice. That when the motion is put to suspend the member, to follow up after being named, my recollection is that it has not been debated. To my recollection. But I am not certain that it is not debatable. That is the difference. I think it would be helpful to all of us for the future if Your Honour were able to give us some citations, or maybe the Clerks might have something at their fingertips or whatever. Because I think it is an important ruling. We need to have a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in Beauchesne in my reading of the text, the authority, that supports anything said by my hon. friend, and there is nothing to the contrary. Beauchesne is silent. The federal procedure is a little different than here. The Speaker simply suspends the person for the rest of the day. There is nothing that addresses the point in our Standing Orders except the Speaker is given the authority to preserve decorum in the House.

I will say to my hon. friend that during my time in the House, which is longer than some, I have seen a number of members named. I don't recollect, to be honest, if I've ever been named myself. I don't think I have been. I was once suspended but that was on a matter of privilege, which is debatable. This is not a matter of privilege. This is a matter where a member has defied the Chair after repeated requests to withdraw an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Speaker, practice becomes precedent. That is the way in which our laws are made. Our Standing Order says, quite explicitly, that where our Orders are silent we go to our practices and our precedents. Practice becomes precedent. My submission quite simply would be that the motion I've made is not debatable, and in the absence of any authority to the contrary I would say I rest my case on the simple fact that it has never been debated in the House, nor has any member ever sought to debate it. Accordingly, the Chair should rule that it is not debatable.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just to - well, the Opposition House Leader has been suspended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, he has left the House, let me put it that way.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That's okay. It is a minor point.

Just further to what the Government House Leader has just said. I think he has made my case for me when he says the rules are silent, our own Standing Orders are silent, and Beauchesne is silent. That is precisely the reason I raise the matter. We may wish to debate the motion. Whether it is debatable or not is the big question. I would like to be certain, and I'm sure Your Honour would like to be certain, because it will be used perhaps in the future as reference.

I will say this to the Government House Leader. What was once a precedent several years back does not necessarily mean it will always be the precedent. You will find a citation in Beauchesne that tells you that. I remember it very clearly because it was pointed out to me by none other, I believe, than the present Government House Leader when he was leader of the Opposition, or whatever position he occupied at the time I was in the Chair. I would make those arguments and I would trust Your Honour would want to research it, because thus far I haven't heard any parliamentary references.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again I can't remember the authorities on this, but I've been in the House with a lot of namings and it has never, ever occurred that there has been a debate. I've been here probably for namings as many as most people. There has never been a debate. I can only tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is a big issue right across the British Commonwealth in terms of naming, and what most Houses do is to rest the authority with the Speaker.

Because to debate it really takes away from what the naming is supposed to do. It wouldn't achieve anything by debating. Quite obviously, I don't think we will find anywhere where it is appropriate to debate. It is an undebatable motion. I know that when I made the ruling myself that I think that we had found something. It might be in our old Standing Orders it might be in Sir Erskine May, but I think the Chair would find something somewhere on the naming. Our House, as everyone has pointed out, is silent on it. I think again the point I would make is debating the issue certainly takes away from what the naming process is supposed to achieve and therefore it wouldn't be appropriate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) authority of the Chair.

MR. LUSH: The authority of the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: As members have indicated there is no authority other than the Chair having the authority to decide questions of order and preserve decorum. I do note though that the motion proposed by the Government House Leader refers to the remainder of the session. As I understand it we are now in the second session of the 42nd General Assembly. He did say today's session, but this is not - technically speaking, each day is a sitting day. I would not want there to be any confusion, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the federal House of Commons as referred to in Beauchesne on page 54, paragraph 191, refers to the Speaker having the power under Standing Order 10 not only to preserve order but also "...the power to name Members, and to order that they withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting," which would be that sitting day. No such power is specifically given to the Speaker here. I suspect that if the Speaker were to assume such power that the House could not object, but I would not want there to be any confusion based on the Government House Leader's choice of words in his motion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It hasn't been addressed whether it is not debatable, and there have been no sources that could indicate so, because it hasn't been done before, has never been attempted before, so no precedent has been set. If it has never been attempted to be debated before, there was no need to have a precedent established, if no attempt was made before.

It is my belief that the motions that are not debatable are: motions to table are not debatable; a motion to adjourn is debatable as to time only. There is no reference made to other motions that are not able to be debated here, and they are the only two instances I have seen under rules of order, Robert's Rules of Order or otherwise, and I haven't seen any reference to Beauchesne at all as to why this motion is not debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Unless the member has some specific reference for me to consider, I think that the point is a valid one to take a few minutes and rule on, as to whether or not it is debatable, but unless someone has a specific point I don't think we need to cover the same ground - something we haven't heard already.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that since the gentleman from Grand Bank has left the Chamber, at least for the time being, Your Honour might proceed with the business of the day and just postpone a ruling on this point. Then, later in the day –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, you have already said you will not recognize the hon. gentleman from Grand Bank until this matter is resolved. It is up to Your Honour. I am simply making a suggestion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Excuse me. What I intend to say is that I wish to consider what might be appropriate in the circumstance in that the federal Speaker, rather than naming members, chooses not to recognize members, but I did not say I would do that. I said that is the reason I want to consider what would be appropriate, but our tradition in this House has been to name members instead of that.

The hon. Government House Leader had the floor. I don't know if there is anything else he wishes to add.

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, I think what I had to say, I have said.

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

MR. SIMMS: On the new point raised by the Government House Leader now, we would very strongly oppose the suggestion he made to move on, and he knows why. Obviously, we want this matter dealt with now, because if it is ruled it is debatable then we intend to debate the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, in any event, I intend to rule -

MR. SIMMS: And we intend to do that before we move to Orders of the Day for the closure motion to be introduced, and all the rest of it, as he would probably be able to pick out by now what we are -

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

MR. WINDSOR: Just very briefly, Your Honour, I don't want to delay.

The point that the Government House Leader brought up emphasized the point I wanted to make, that if there is no opportunity to debate, the Government House Leader may well have suggested that the hon. Member for Grand Bank be excluded from this House for a month.

We may agree that perhaps the language was unparliamentary, and that some penalty is merited, such as the remainder of the day's session, but if the Leader of the Opposition had suggested a month or a year, or something totally outlandish, there should at least be an opportunity for us to debate that, if not to get into debating the merits of what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take a few minutes and I will rule first on whether or not it is debatable before I consider whether or not it takes precedence over other motions before the House.

We will recess for a few minutes.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'll give a decision on the question as to whether or not this motion is debatable. First of all, as members are aware, there's no provision in our Standing Orders regarding naming, neither in which circumstance it should be done and how or if it's debatable, in what manner and if so, what rules might apply. For example could the motion be amended? What would the appropriate length of time for debate be and so on? So we have to rely on whatever the parliamentary traditions are that we discern in circumstances such as this.

In the British House of Commons and the Canadian Parliament it's a little bit easier because they've broken with tradition by passing specific rules. In both those Houses that motion is non-debatable because the Speaker himself/herself decides what the appropriate penalty is for a member who breaches the rules of decorum of the House. However, in Ottawa, when they operated essentially under the same standing rules that we did, the motion had been ruled repeatedly to be not debatable nor amendable. It's also similar in our House here. There have been many occasions on which members have been named and on at least five occasions there have been rulings that the motion is non-debatable. Those rulings were on May 10, 1978, when Speaker Ottenheimer ruled on a matter of naming William Rowe; May 6, 1975 when Speaker Russell made a ruling; December 16, 1974 in another ruling of Speaker Russell; June 1, 1972, Speaker Russell ruling on a question involving Wilson Kelland; and in 1956, April 9, a ruling of Speaker Sparkes.

In each of those instances the same question came up, it was ruled to be non-debatable. On other occasions of course the question was put with no ruling on the matter but clearly based on the rulings in the Canadian House of Parliament and in our own House of Assembly the motion is non-debatable.

All those in favour of the motion as put by the hon. Government House Leader, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: There is another matter that I would like to have clarified. I was trying to get a copy of Hansard to see what the motion was specifically. I presume the clerk, or somebody at the table has the wording of the motion.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps you can tell us clearly what the motion was. What's in Hansard?

MR. ROBERTS: The motion as I recollect it, now I did not have a written motion to read, the motion as I have it is that the member be suspended for the rest of this day's - and I may have used the word session, but if I did I clearly misspoke, it is sitting. The hon. member will be suspended for the rest of this day's sitting which will end not later than 1:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, assuming the House adopts the closure motion. As of tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock the gentleman for Grand Bank is entitled, as any of us, to take his seat. Let there be no doubt of that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Okay, it was that, because I believe the Government House Leader did use the word session. There was some doubt because, I think, you did use the word session.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We needed that clarified. Now, the other thing we need clarified is whether in fact your interpretation of the day's sitting is that it ends at 1:00 o'clock, or whether the days sitting ends at 5:00 o'clock. That is a question that I think the Speaker has to address clearly, and it is a matter I raise under a point of order because it is important that we know. Maybe the Speaker has already given this some thought, and maybe he has not. Maybe he needs to have a quick look at it.

First of all, at the moment, we are not under Orders of the Day. We have not reached Orders of the Day and there is no motion to closure. For all we know the government may have had a change of heart and may not even call closure. We do not know that. So, the question that is under discussion now, the end of the day, would that be 5:00 o'clock? Let us say there was no closure called.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is most certainly not my decision but I would make two points, number one, the matter is hypothetical until such time as it arises in a real context, and my friend would agree that it has not. Secondly, I say to him that if we get to the point that the closure motion is adopted and the House then sits later than 10:00 o'clock, which is when the parliamentary day normally ends, absent to closure motion or to some other proceeding, then this day's session will continue until the House adjourns.

Mr. Speaker, the point is hypothetical at this stage. We will see what happens if it happens and Your Honour will have to deal with it if it happens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the proper way to proceed in this matter is that as of this moment in time the House will adjourn at 5:00 o'clock in the absence of some other motion. I do not think the Chair should rule on what are known as moot points, m-o-o-t, which means points that might be hypothetical but you do not have circumstances in which you can make an appropriate ruling.

What I suggest to the House is, if the House chooses not to adjourn at 5:00 o'clock then whoever is in the Chair at that point should consider when Mr. Matthews is entitled to return in accordance with the motion that was just passed. I think it would be wrong for me to do it now because we do not have the circumstances before us.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the hon. member but I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying, point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: A new point of order.

I rise with reference to Page 141, Paragraph 481 (e). The Premier in the House today -

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the reference is to what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Is to Beauchesne, Page 141, Paragraph 481 (e) "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member." The Premier in the House today said the following, he stated that Mr. Kerr contacted him to express some concern, and told him that his concern arose because he had a call from the Leader of the Opposition telling him he should be concerned about it. He went on to say: Now, I'm aware that the Leader of the Opposition has "engendered doubts or suggestions with Kruger as well probably" with others. He went on and said in the House today: "That which had been raised with him by the Leader of the Opposition," - he was referring to Mr. Kerr - "attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, gross irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It's difficult to even recognize him as being the Leader of the Loyal Opposition, when you bear in mind what's being done...."

He imputed the motives of the Leader of the Opposition and left the impression in this House that he called and arose the fear and concerns with that, and it wasn't the fact at all. The Leader of the Opposition stated that he asked if they had a concern with that, and the Premier left the wrong impression in this House today. I ask that the Premier be asked to withdraw those remarks today and apologize to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader to the point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if I may to the point of order. I would make two submissions. The first is procedural, that a matter must be raised at once, or at the very least notice must be given, and my hon. friend for Ferryland did neither. Secondly, the Premier didn't impute bad motives or motives other than those acknowledged. He made a statement of fact. Statements of fact in my understanding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. gentlemen opposite feel that interrupting whoever is recognized by Your Honour somehow adds to the debate. It doesn't. They won't throw us off if that is their game, or they won't stop the debate by barracking and behaving like they are in a second-class bar.

Let me come back to the submission I want to make. I can say with respect to the submission I want to make that the statements by the Premier were statements of fact. If the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls chooses to deny those statements of fact then that is another matter. We will deal with them. But the Premier didn't impute any motives at all to the Leader of the Opposition. He simply said what the statements of fact were and then characterized them as what they were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader should talk about the statement of fact. We have an hon. colleague here who is not allowed in the House today because of a statement of fact, I would say to the Government House Leader.

The fact of the matter is the rules apply to all members in the House, including the Premier. He is not above the rules of the House, no more than anybody else. There is a clear statement by the Premier imputing motives. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind about that. The Premier said, and I quote it again: "... the Leader of the Opposition, attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people of the Province." That is not the case and that is clearly imputing motives. The Premier of this Province has to be subject to the same rules of the House as the Member for Grand Bank or the member for any other district in this Province.

Let me just make one other point before I take my seat. The Government House Leader states that we should get up immediately. We didn't want to waste the time of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Question period.

MR. TOBIN: During question period, number one, and then we went to Hansard so we knew exactly what was being said. We didn't want to waste the time of the House. We went to Hansard and saw what the Premier had stated and quite clearly he had imputed motives. I ask Your Honour to ensure that the Premier is not above the rules of this House, that the rules apply to him the same as everyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The rules apply to him the same as everyone else, Mr. Speaker, and that he be asked to withdraw that comment that he has made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. I have to support the Member for Ferryland and oppose what was said by the Government House Leader. Clearly this was not a statement of fact.

There are two issues here. Number one, the quotation that was just given by the Member for Burin - Placentia West clearly is designed to impute a motive; the motive is one of disruption and causing trouble. The second thing that the Premier said right after that was that: He does not deserve to be called the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. So he is imputing disloyalty on the one hand as a motive, and a second motive being imputed is one of fomenting difficulty for the government. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, if that is not the imputation of motives then I don't know what might be.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of the usual suggestion by members that the other one is wrong, or exaggerating, or clearly have a difference of opinion. This was an imputation of disloyalty on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, and an imputation of causing difficulty, mischievously causing difficulty, for the government. This is, I think, what Beauchesne is referring to when it prohibits the imputation of motives by members, so I think that the point of order is well founded and ought to be ruled in favour of the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under - does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have something further to add?

MR. SIMMS: I would like to speak to this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The Speaker has made a ruling on this.

MR. SIMMS: No, he hasn't.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I haven't made a ruling on it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since I am the individual involved in this particular point of order, I think it is appropriate that I make a few brief remarks.

First of all, I think that the point made by the Member for Burin - Placentia West about the rules applying to all members of the House, including the Premier of the Province, was a very appropriate one.

During Question Period you will see, if you review Hansard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: If you review Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will see in Question Period that I made an inappropriate comment about something the Premier had said. Some statement he made, I think I said it was a lie. I didn't accuse him of being a liar; I said it was a lie. Later on, at the end of Question Period, I think Your Honour asked me to withdraw it, and I did.

Now I withdrew it but if, in fact, you read Hansard, or at least the unedited transcript of Hansard - if I can get the attention of my colleagues - page 1 or 2, the first set of questions in Question Period, of Hansard, you will find that the comments I made were inaudible. They are not even in Hansard; yet, I still withdrew because Your Honour asked me to.

Now I think what the Member for Ferryland is trying to point out to Your Honour is that this is a point that was raised immediately upon our being able to access the transcripts from Hansard, the first opportunity to do so, because we wanted to deal with the other issue that had been raised by the Government House Leader, the motion to suspend the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, again I repeat for Your Honour's consideration, comments like this, quoted from the Premier in Hansard today: The Leader of the Opposition attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people of the Province. That is not true, and Your Honour should -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true.

MR. SIMMS: Whether it's true or not, it is... The point here is whether it is true or not, and I don't think it is. The point here is that it is unparliamentary. That is the point, and that is the point he raised. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: ...gross irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, on the point, by the way, for what it's worth, calling the paper companies to see if they had any concern with the bill is a very responsible action, not an irresponsible action, and that is why I did it. Plus, it is my constituency, in one case, and I have more concerns than members opposite, I guess.

Having made that point, he goes on to say, as the Member for St. John's East pointed out: It's difficult to even recognize him as being the leader of the Loyal Opposition, when you bear in mind what's being done.

Mr. Speaker, you will find - I can tell you now, if you haven't already researched it - if you research background examples of people being accused of imputing motives in a Legislature, you will find that one is by far stronger than many of the others that have been made where Speakers, time and time again, have asked those imputing the motives to another individual to withdraw the remarks.

So it is raised here today for the purpose of Your Honour considering the matter and asking the Premier to withdraw the remarks that he made, at the appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: I will check Hansard and make an appropriate ruling in due course.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is getting into the Government House Leader. We all know that he has the gag order brought in as it relates to Bill 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is a point of order.

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is why is he riding roughshod over the rules of the House? Your Honour never even got to calling the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker. For example, Petitions have not been called and it should be my right, Mr. Speaker, and the right of every other member in this House who have constituents to present petitions. Now the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, was bending over backwards, he was allowing us to present two petitions a day but today, Mr. Speaker, you haven't got to it and we've got petitions to present and we should be allowed to present them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I point out, the question came up yesterday, a motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House. There is no other motion before the House but Petitions in particular are in the nature of motions of the House. So even if it were the case, as the hon. member says, that Petitions were called then of course it's the prerogative, under Standing Orders, to have this motion take precedence over the others but in any event it's within the government's right to propose a motion and for the House to decide upon it. Accordingly there is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. So that hon. gentlemen have ample opportunity to debate the matters before the House, I move the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That motion is not debatable is it, Mr. Speaker, or are you recognizing me to participate in the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. member was rising on the point of order. The motion was put -

MR. SIMMS: I was rising to debate the motion to adjourn or not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the motion is not debatable. I have ruled that several times myself.

MR. SIMMS: You have ruled that?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Well I guess I can't debate.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to call Motion No. 9 and when that is disposed of we shall then go on to Order No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 9 -

MR. ROBERTS: Motion No. 9, stands in my name under Standing Order 50, it's the closure motion.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate on Bill No. 2, entitled, "An Act To Regulate the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador", standing in the name of the hon. the Premier and any amendments to that motion for second reading of Bill No. 2 shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 2 shall not be further postponed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough please, to call Order No. 5, which is the electrical power control act or electrical power resources act?

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I adjourned debate and in that case I shall simply commend the bill to my colleagues. We're ready for the vote whenever hon. members opposite wish but we're now in another round of debate, they'll be pleased to hear, in case they hadn't known so we'll carry on.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity to lead off for our side in this closure debate. This government has a tremendous amount of experience of bringing in closure. I believe it's brought in closure more times in their short time in office, five years, then anybody else has since Confederation in Newfoundland and Labrador. If they haven't, they're darn close to it. So that's not a record to be very proud of, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Government House Leader, Minister of Justice, just moments before the House closing said that he was going to bring in closure once again on this bill, he said throughout the last little while that all the members on this side of the House had spoken in the debate on second reading and that in fact, we had spoken a second time because of the amendment I had put down, the first day it was brought in, introduced by the Premier, to have a six month hoist and that may well be. Mr. Speaker, I also suggest to Your Honour that that is the perfect right of not only -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm advised by table officers that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has already spoken once in second reading of debate? We stand ready for correction but there seems to be a record of it.

I just draw it to the hon. member's attention. If that is not the case, then certainly the hon. member has a right to speak, but if he has then my understanding of the rules of procedure is that one can't speak again. I will leave it to the hon. member -

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Your Honour, I can't hear you.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The mike wasn't on.

I am advised by our table officers that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has spoken once in second reading. Thus, I guess -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading. So the question is whether or not you now have the opportunity to do so again.

It was raised by the table officers, so I raise it as a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: That is up to somebody else to rule. All I know, Your Honour, is that I was introduced to speak to the closure motion, and that is what I am doing. So if Your Honour is ruling me out of order, then -

MR. SPEAKER: No, carry on.

I am sorry; the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that once the closure motion is adopted -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. ROBERTS: If I am wrong, I am wrong, but let me state my understanding. I have been known to be wrong before, and I will be again.

Any member who has spoken may speak again for not more than twenty minutes, but if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I am just giving the House my understanding; sobeit.

MR. SPEAKER: That is fine. If there is no objection, certainly the Leader of the Opposition may continue.

MR. SIMMS: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is something we should clear up, because my understanding was the same as the Government House Leader's, and the former Government House Leader's. Where this got screwed up and balled up was when the Minister of Social Services, I believe, was in the Speaker's Chair and ruled that you could not speak. Now that is where it all got balled up.

I don't know where it stands, but I am of the understanding now that you are not calling me out of order, so I will assume that the Government House Leader's suggestion is correct, and we will have to go by that unless Your Honour wishes to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, during the closure motion.

I think, if you research the matter, the confusion came up when your predecessor made a ruling one time which now turns out to be totally irresponsible and inaccurate, I suspect.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I seem to recollect the same as the Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader, that once closure was brought in, it went back to square one again; but there was a period last year when something happened - I don't recall whether we got new information - but I don't think it is something worth delaying the House by.

My advice on it would be for the Chair to check it out, but to allow the Leader of the Opposition by consent to speak, because that has happened before, until the rule is checked - because if this person made a ruling, it was done with substance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me say that I recall back when closure - closure has been brought in so often in the past couple of years, it is hard to keep track of all the rulings that were made on it, but I tell you, there were some dandy rulings made on it. There were some beautiful rulings made on it, but my recollection, to be honest, is that there is something to the effect that those who had already spoken could not speak on the closure motion.

For my previous dozen or so years in the Legislature, we were always allowed to do it, so there is only one instance, that I can recall, that such a ruling was made, and I believe the person who made the ruling is suggesting now that we should ignore it. If that is the case, I finally agree with the Minister of Social Services as it relates to rulings.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East has the floor.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last time this question came up I was told that I was not allowed to speak, except with leave, the last time closure was introduced. When I consulted the Table, I was advised that Standing Order 53.(a), which says that no member may speak twice, does not overrule the closure motion and that Standing Order 50, which says that "no member shall thereafter speak more than once..." did not provide a right to a speaker to speak more than once, and the leave of the House was granted in order to do that. I have no objection to that new procedure.

The other alternative is to have another question or another amendment or another - a twelve-month hoist or some other amendment on and then anyone can speak to that amendment. However, the circumstances that we find ourselves in, unless the Chair is prepared to make a ruling now, if the ruling requires leave - and I say this this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the full knowledge that I've been denied leave twice this afternoon to speak, by the members of the Loyal Opposition. I say this, that I am prepared to grant leave if leave is required, because I'm told, and I'm told by members of the Table, that leave is required in these circumstances to allow members to speak more than once.

Given the importance of the issue - and already as a result of the Premier's comments today, the sun has been eclipsed - given the situation that we are in today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this debate continue. I would like to give leave to the Leader of the Opposition to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, does the House require a ruling at this point on this motion? Are we prepared to, by leave at least, allow it? Because it may take a few minutes and we are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I rule on it I will obviously need a little time. Since we are into the closure motion, I think we should perhaps recess for a few minutes and I will rule on it. We will recess for an appropriate period of time.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will rule on the question that was raised with respect to Standing Order 50. I first of all point out that what is being debated is not the closure motion. That motion is neither debatable nor amendable. What we are now doing is debating the question of second reading. Accordingly, those who have spoken on previous days are not entitled to again speak because they have already spoken to second reading, except, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, with leave. However, if the bill is amended or it is amended at second reading, then those who have spoken on previous days and not spoken to that point today may again speak, provided they don't exceed the twenty minutes.

Just to clarify, if you have spoken on second reading already you can't speak to second reading. If it is amended and you've spoken on a previous day, you can speak to the amendment, but those who have spoken today on the question of second reading are not entitled to speak to the amendment.

Having said that - and I regret his absence - in reaching these conclusions I've been greatly assisted by the well-reasoned, soundly considered and eloquently phrased ruling of Speaker Lush on April 8 1991.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly nice to have the opportunity to speak well of someone in his absence.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I guess, since I'm not able to speak in the debate. I'm glad former Speaker Lush is not here. We are going to move an amendment, I say to the Government House Leader, but I can't move it. I thank Your Honour for the ruling; it's good to have it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, before we adjourned, the hon. member was speaking with leave. Whether or not that leave continues at this point is up to the House.

MR. SIMMS: No, that is okay, I don't accept leave because I don't think that would be a very worthwhile gesture. Because all I have to do is say something that might get at the nerves of some member opposite and he would say: No leave, no leave. We don't want to be under that kind of a threat. We will abide by the ruling of the Chair and that is the ruling we will have to abide by in the future, I guess.

My friend, the Member for Ferryland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. SIMMS: My friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount hasn't spoken, my friend, the Member for Ferryland hasn't spoken, which is what I was about to say; my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl hasn't spoken, my friend, the Member for Green Bay hasn't spoken. Four of them will definitely speak, and one of them, I have no doubt, will move a reasoned amendment or something of that nature to allow all of us to speak before the evening is over.

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


 

May 10, 1994               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 39A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a few comments on the bill before the House, the Electrical Power Resources Act. Some aspects of this particular bill certainly deserve some positive commentary, and some aspects do not.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have been expressing their opinions through various forums, some through petitions, some through letters to their members in the House of Assembly, others through open line shows. Other people have expressed their opinions in various other ways, by attendance here in the House and by attendance at rallies. What these people have all said, on both this particular bill and on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, is that they want to have a chance to express their viewpoints and to have them communicated.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain parts of this particular bill that we have difficulty with, and these parts are those parts which facilitate the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Particularly in the sections of this particular act there are five items that we have some difficulty with, and I will comment briefly on them.

First is the section that would instruct the Public Utilities Board to base electricity rates on three criteria: on cost, on the maintenance of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders.

Secondly, there is a section which would direct the Public Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy that is 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.

Thirdly, there is a section that would transfer responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board.

Fourthly, there is the section that would empower the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of an electrical utility which, of course, paves the way for an eventual merger between the privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power.

Fifthly, there is a section which would refund federal taxes paid by utilities and rebated the Province under the PUITTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not wish to pay higher electricity rates. They have said that to their elected representatives. They have said that to the people who carried petitions from door to door, and they view that the intent of this particular piece of legislation is to facilitate the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they don't see any further intent of the government other than that particular purpose, and indeed the ministry has admitted to that particular motive.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want to pay higher electricity rates so that the few people in this Province who are relatively wealthy can become wealthier. The people in this Province who would pay those electricity rates would, for the most part, be paying increased rates so that out-of-Province shareholders could indeed make higher profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been party to a propaganda effort by his government. His Premier has carried on a $150,000 propaganda effort and the Minister of Mines and Energy has said that the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro thus far has cost us $1.5 million. In spite of all that, and the Premier's commitment that over the last several months he was going to reeducate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in fact we heard of the red book that was being distributed during the federal election, one would think that with the red book and the reeducation program, that one was elsewhere in the world and not in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we think of reeducation and the need for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be reeducated one would think that one was in some other jurisdiction other than in a democracy.

Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of this Province have said they do not want Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be privatized and the reason is because they have not seen any logic to it. In spite of what the Premier has said, in spite of what has been said by members of the government who have supported the Premier and have not been able to persuade him to change his mind. Only one member on the government side has dared to stand up and say: I disagree with the proposals of government to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Only the Member for Pleasantville has had the nerve and the intestinal fortitude, and the honesty to speak up to his Premier and to the leader of his party.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken. The Premier has said that he did not like the 80 per cent rejection that occurred in the opinion polls carried out earlier in the spring. He said that he would then embark on a program of spending the taxpayer's money to convince the taxpayers that something that they then owned should be sold. Well, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador disagreed with him. They knew that the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is wrong for the ordinary citizen. They knew it was wrong for their children, and it is wrong for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, the best efforts by government thus far have not changed the minds of anybody whatsoever. The people have heard the Premier's propaganda. They have heard the messages being sent out by the ministry. They listened to what has been said by the Chambers of Commerce and the boards of trade, and even these businessmen have not all agreed. In fact the Baccalieu Trail -

MS. VERGE: The number one chamber in the Province.

MR. HODDER: The number one chamber recognized in this Province - the number one Chamber of Commerce, which reflects, of course, their ability to be able to receive different opinions from different people, analyze them and to then make a decision.

This particular chamber, the Baccalieu Trails Chamber, when they heard the information presented by my colleague for Humber East, and by the Minister of Mines and Energy, they weighed it all out and they took a secret vote, a ballot method of voting. Mr. Speaker, they decided they were not going to listen to the opinions that have been expressed by government, many of them did. In fact 62 per cent of them. Two people voted against privatization for every person who voted for it, so not all Chambers of Commerce and not all members of the Board of Trade - in fact, some members of the Board of Trade in St. John's resigned from membership on the board after the board executive had made a decision to support privatization without due consultation with the membership.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in his address on March 24, laid out the ground rules, and earlier today the Member for Grand Bank quoted from the Premier's address on Province-wide television on March 24. The Premier made a solemn commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said that this will be the parameters under which my government will deal with this particular motion. These will be the rules by which we will operate when we have to come to a decision; and he said: I want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to know - and he said, in unequivocal terms - if the majority of the people of the Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro privatization, I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with the privatization legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that today is the day of reckoning. Today is the day when we weigh the Premier's comments on Province-wide television with his action. Today is the day when we say to the Premier, `Walk your talk'. Today is the day we say to the Premier, `Do what is right'. Today we say to the Premier, `Today we want you to live up to the words that you have said'.

When the Premier said he would not ask this House to proceed if a majority of the people of this Province were against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we, on this side, believed that the Premier would deliver when the time came, and we knew that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, at this stage of the debate, were not supporting the privatization concept, either through Bill 2, or Bill 1 before the House as well, that we expected that the Premier would stand in his place today and say that he was going to withdraw that particular piece of legislation. However, the Premier today stood in his place and said that he had no intention of withdrawing Bill 2, he had no intention of withdrawing Bill 1, and that this was going to be an initiative of his government that he intended to deliver to a vote and that he would ask his caucus, and therefore expected his caucus, to vote in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today in the final moments of this debate is whether or not the people of this Province want this particular piece of legislation to proceed to a vote. What we are saying here is that we believed the Premier when he made that solemn commitment, when he put up his credibility before the people and said to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: If a majority of you do not support me, I will not proceed.

However, today, in the day of judgement on this particular piece of legislation, when the truth has to be told, when actions have to count, when you have to walk your talk, the Premier has decided that he is not going to walk his talk. The Premier has laid out a game plan and said: If the people do not agree with me, I will not go down that road. Therefore, he had fully expected, I suppose, 80 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to change their minds, but they haven't changed their minds, and now he is saying: I'm sorry; I didn't really mean that if you didn't change your mind that I would live up to my word. Today we are saying to the Premier the time has come to deliver the truthfulness and the commitment that you had made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, we are sorry today to see that the Premier in his judgement has decided to proceed with this piece of legislation in spite of his comments when he said, and I quote: I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about an issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is before us. What are we doing here today? We are today being asked by the Premier and his Cabinet to do something that the people of this Province obviously don't want done. Yet the Premier, when he gave his word on March 24 in a province-wide address, we expected today that he would have it analyzed, he would rise in his place, and he would say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: I'm sorry, we've had it examined, we've had a review done of it, it is obviously not supported by a majority of the people, and so therefore we intend to withdraw this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Thank you to the Speaker for reminding of the time that is left.

Mr. Speaker, we want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we expected the integrity of the Premier, his reputation for being straightforward, we expected the Premier to do what he said he would do. But the Premier chose today to talk one way and to walk another way. That in our opinion is what this debate is about this afternoon. This debate was not expected to occur today. Because after all the petitions, after all of the meetings that have been held, and after all the meetings that were held by some members on the government side, with their constituents - and we congratulate those members.

My friend for St. John's South had a meeting, and although it wasn't the kind of meeting he would have liked to have had we have to say to him, in all honesty, he should be complimented for having the meeting. My friend for St. John's North was bulldozed, was pushed, was cajoled, was petitioned by 269 of his constituents to have a meeting. He did. We say to him: That was the right approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many did you have in your riding?

MR. HODDER: We had meetings all across this Province. Meetings in Grand Falls - Windsor, meetings in Baie Verte and Bonavista, St. Mary's, Placentia, Petty Harbour, Maddox Cove, Labrador City, Mount Pearl District, Waterford - Kenmount District. Mr. Speaker, of all of these meetings there wasn't one single meeting where a majority of the people said that they supported the privatization initiatives as outlined in Bill No. 1 or Bill No. 2. The same way happened in the meetings that were held by my colleagues on the government side. The public has said that it does not want this particular piece of legislation.

The Premier in this particular case has himself in a kind of a catch-22. He had really thought that he would be able to change the minds of the people, he thought that he would be the Messiah, that he would tell the people what was good for them, play the role of the Good Shepherd and that the sheep in the population, the people of the Province, that they would follow his voice, they would hear his voice saying to them: follow me and of course, he expected the people to follow him. However, that certainly has not happened and as Dr. Peter Boswell has said in his articles that the government was advised by him to reflect on what they were doing. Dr. Peter Boswell started off in support of privatization, however, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Peter Boswell in the last several weeks has said that this particular piece of legislation is not good for this Province, and so has Dr. Wade at the university, after having done an extensive analysis. In fact, if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had been given a proper, cost-benefit analysis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - they would have had a better opportunity to be able to give a better, considered opinion on the issue before the House and contained in this bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass a few comments on Bill 2, the government's desire to run rough shod over the people's opportunity to speak and their democratic right to voice their say in what government is doing that is completely against the wishes of the people.

Now Bill 2 has many things in it that are paving the way for the privatization of Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that?

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, there is a lot wrong with that and I tell the Member for Port de Grave there is a lot wrong with privatizing Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: That is your opinion.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why - 80 per cent of the people polled in this Province is of my opinion; that is the opinion expressed.

MR. EFFORD: You are being silly.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not being silly it is being factual. Now what government is trying to do, is, they are trying to use their majority here in this Legislature to ram through legislation that the Premier appeared on Province-wide television as stated that he would not do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for seventeen years (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't care what was done over seventeen years; it concerns me but I can't do a thing about it but what I am concerned about, is doing something right for the next 100 years - and the Premier sat in the Cabinet and approved the Upper Churchill, that's what, he approved the Upper Churchill deal. I don't care how far we go back.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) you go back (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. The reason we are going back is because the Premier is the same person who wants to put through this deal, when many of the backbenchers and Cabinet ministers are not even fully informed of what is happening; they don't know what is happening from day to day. The Premier doesn't even inform them, I am not saying the public of the Province, he doesn't inform the public, he doesn't even inform his own Cabinet ministers. He is making policy on public airwaves, that is what the Premier is doing and he is asking you to toe the line. There is only one who stood up to be counted over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, only one stood up to be counted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hard time in Deer Lake (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There was only one person who had the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - guts to stand up in this House and to say: I am going to stand up not only for my constituents but for what is right.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There have been many things done probably in seventeen years with which I didn't agree; there have been a lot of things done in the last five years with which I don't agree and there are a lot of things in the last year and they are doing things now, with which I don't agree and, whenever I am a member in this House, duly elected, I will stand up and represent the constituents of my district in what they have to say (inaudible), and I am speaking for at least 74 per cent of the constituents in my district who elected me and that is more than any member over there can stand up and say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. - I speak with a higher percentage of constituents in my district than any other member in this House and I take pride in that they saw fit to give me a majority to speak on their behalf, and I will do that, and this particular bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Bill Morey, that's true.

MR. SULLIVAN: Bill Morey doesn't live in my district; that's right. He lives in St. John's. That's right, and he ran for the PC's back several years ago and lost the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Who's that?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right; he ran for the PC's, yes.

Now, there are a few things in Bill 2 that are paving the way to privatize Hydro. Number one, one item is they are going to permit a rebate under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, to refund it back to the companies instead of staying with the Province. We are going to give Newfoundland Power back its $10 million that they pay the federal government in taxes, that we used to keep. We are going to pass that back; that's giving that opportunity in this bill. Not only that, it is saying to the new Hydro that you do not have to pay to this Province 85.5 per cent of your federal income tax. You do not have to pay it to this Province now. It will go in one door and back to this company. That's one thing it is doing.

One other point, it also -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have to shout?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have to, but I really like annoying you and if it helps the cause I will continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It empowers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister doesn't like it, he can get up and run out of the House.

It also empowers the Public Utilities Board to grant ownership of that utility of more than 20 per cent. It could (inaudible) not only opening the doors to over 20 per cent, but opening up an opportunity of a merger that was turned down flatly before by that, so it is giving this government, and is passing away, the right to be able to have control over the future destiny and delivery of that power in this Province; that is what it is doing. That is the second thing it is doing.

A third thing it is doing is transferring essential employees from the Labour Relations Board, and is passing that over to the Public Utilities Board to establish what are going to be essential employees in this Province. It is also directing the Public Utilities Board to phase out the rural subsidy program that is there. That has been empowered under this Bill 2. That is a part of the scheme or the plan to shift from the industrial consumers on to rural consumers in the Province, and they are going to kick in a fund - here is what they are going to do - they are going to kick in a little fund of $15 million so the people of this Province might get hoodwinked on rates. They won't see the effect next year, or the year after, or the year after, but in 1999 they will see the full brunt of those increases beyond the time of the next election. That's what they are trying to do, and hoodwink the people, but I can tell you, it's not going to work with the people. They are not going to be hoodwinked, because they are smarter than the members of government and the Premier who is trying to push it through.

The people know too much about it in the public forum. They know too many facts about Hydro. They know more than many members in this House of Assembly, because they are informed people. They took time to find this out. They asked for meetings; they listened. They looked for information. They sat and listened to Wade Locke. They read Peter Boswell's column. They read other columns of people out in the field who have a degree of respect. That is what they did. They made greater efforts than many members to seek out information, and now this government is going to pass something away that an informed 80 per cent of the people of this Province oppose. That is what they are intending to do.

They are also instructing the Public Utilities Board, and it is in this act here, to base electricity rates on three criteria. That is the fifth thing they are doing. Cost, of course, which is normal to do; you have to recover cost in an operation. Maintenance of credit worthiness; in other words, they can continue to borrow and have a proper financial standing in the markets. That's the second thing that is already there now. That power is there, but it is adding a third one. It is adding a third one, a guaranteed profit for shareholders. That's new. They are adding that in, and that's another thing this bill is doing here in addition to those five points that this bill is doing to ease the privatization of Hydro.

What the Leader of the Opposition asked today, he asked and he stated, he asked the paper companies if they had some concerns with the legislation there under Part II that enables this Province to recall the power from a producer of electricity even if it is not surplus to their needs, and their legal people are looking at they have concerns and they could be forwarding an amendment, and the Premier said: It's not. He passed judgement; he is the lawyer who determines that. They indicated they have concerns, and I think these concerns needed to be addressed. We need to get them in a public forum and hear is what they have to say. If there is something wrong with this legislation, it should be changed on that point because the paper companies provide valuable employment to people in this Province. They want to protect their interest in this Province, and if a company wants to come into this Province and be able to stimulate the economy, if a company wants the opportunity to expand and diversify in this Province, the last thing they want done is the Province to have the power to pull the plug on their supply of power that delivers products and services and jobs to people in this Province, and there is concern; it is concern.

I am not a legal expert, but lawyers have said there is concern. If there is, it should be determined. It should be pursued and investigated and reported back. The Premier admits, maybe there is something. He asked them to submit an amendment. There is a distinct concern.

Now, there is a much greater concern out there. There is a far greater reason why the Premier wants Hydro privatized, and why he wants this bill. There is a far greater reason. I touched very briefly on the history. Back in the 1970's we approached the partial access of power from Upper Churchill, and the Supreme Court said unanimously: It is not proper because you are breaking a contract -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that in a second. In the 1980s under the total access they tried to - in other words, what would have stripped the contract with Hydro Quebec. It would have stripped the contract with Hydro Quebec. In fact the Court ruled it interfered with the right of Hydro Quebec, I think the words, under the power contract to receive an agreed amount of power at an agreed price. If -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, tolerable?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Colourable? What was it coloured with? Yes, it was coloured. The colour was red, probably. It was coloured. They turned it down because they perceived it to undermine - the reason it was turned down was because they perceived it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for an improper purpose.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. It is an improper purpose. Because they perceived that to have a wrong purpose to undermine the right of Hydro Quebec to deliver power to their customers at an agreed price for an agreed period of time. That is why they turned it down. The agreed price was 3 mils per kilowatt up to the year of 2015, and at 2 mils on for the next twenty-five years to 2041. That is why it was turned down, because it was intended to strip the contract with Hydro Quebec.

What Part II of this act is doing is trying to empower the Public Utilities Board to be able to act upon a directive from Cabinet to request a recall. The Premier thinks that the legislation is going to give them the power because the utilities board requests, and a directive of government, to think the Supreme Court of Canada is going to fall for that little ploy because it is looking at regulating the total power in this Province. The Supreme Court is well aware of the facts and representations will be made to show that the only place in this Province that you can recall power to use is the Upper Churchill. They are not going to fall for that foolish silly little ploy the Premier is trying. It has no validity at all. The Supreme Court didn't fall for it before and they do not intend to again.

This brings us back to the Premier in 1986 when - and I have a copy - committee on future supply, final report to the board of directors, Newfoundland Light and Power Company. In fact it is stated here specifically it was set up to consider legislative changes which would give the company - that is Newfoundland Light and Power then, it was called - greater flexibility in the construction of new generating facilities and the acquisition of power generated by others at existing facilities. In fact it went on in the report, Mr. Wells' report, our Premier today, and here is what he stated. He advised: It would be appropriate for the company to become more attuned to the potential for greater participation in energy development.

That is what the Premier stated then. Mr. Wells he was then. He said: If Hydro does initiate a Labrador in-feed it will present an opportunity for the company to provide capital through the acquisition of Hydro assets on the Island. Alternatively the company may wish to participate directly in new Labrador developments.

That was a part of the total process. This was examined by lawyers and it wasn't possible. This amendment is not going to do now by the back door what could not be done by the front door before. It is just not possible. It is not going to happen. Because what could happen - here is what could happen if - in fact, let's say we are successful in recalling the power. Then if this legislation recalls it Hydro Quebec will sue for breach of contract. Because they have the contract in Quebec courts, in Quebec law - that is where the contract is based, not in Newfoundland - they have a contract to deliver prices to their consumers and they have a contract with this Province to 2041. They will sue.

That gives them the right through the bonds and they would be able to take equity to increase their shares from now that is 34.4 per cent of CF(L)Co. To take the shares to own the company, to own CF(L)Co. That option is there. That option is in the contract. It's written into the contract, and that's one of the sad realities of that.

CF(L)Co showed a profit recently of around, I think, $11 million this past year. It showed one of over $10 million. It has averaged $11 million for the past five years, the CF(L)Co portion of Hydro. It averaged $11 million; it was higher than that before. It is anticipated by the year 2000 it is going to be in a deficit position, and any deficit showing -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, let's get the point, because it was given away before and they had to buy (inaudible). Here's the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I'm going to move, at this time, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl -

MR. ROBERTS: No, he can't second it.

MR. SULLIVAN: He hasn't spoken yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just spoke.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He has.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Relax, I say to the Government House Leader. Don't get excited. We know who hasn't spoken, and we made sure we covered that little angle there, in case you're wondering.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will repeat again, if the Government House Leader will permit, I move that Bill 2, An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, be amended by striking out all the words after the word `that', and substituting the following.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Bill No. 2, An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, be not now read a second time because it is not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, I move that because it is not in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it is in the worst possible interest of Newfoundland and Labrador that this particular bill here, by passing, is opening up the doors for privatization of Hydro, and the second biggest sell-out in the history of this Province next to the Upper Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: A reasoned amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is called a reasoned amendment, Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a reasoned amendment, so everything done on this side is with reason, and very reasonable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to have a copy of the amendment to see if it's in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I, like Your Honour, have not seen the amendment, but I heard it read. If I heard it correctly, I would draw Your Honour's attention to citation 578.(1) and 578.(2) of Beauchesne.

578.(1) says: An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.

578.(2) says: An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.

Now the motion before the Chair is that this bill be now read a second time. That is the motion before the Chair. I would submit that the hon. gentleman's amendment is not a good one because it is contrary to the principles set up in 578.(1) and 578.(2).

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

MR. SIMMS: Just for Your Honour's consideration, I would say to the hon. Government House Leader, it is not even a nice try.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that is known as a reasoned amendment, an acceptable amendment on second reading. I just can't find the actual citation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It's amendments to second reading in Beauchesne; you can find it here somewhere, I am sure, no problem. Anyway, it's not for you; it's for the Speaker to determine and, Your Honour, I draw your attention to those citations. You will find that is an acceptable amendment, without question, and needless to say we sought the appropriate advice as well and we are quite certain and quite comfortable this is an acceptable motion. It has nothing to do with negativing the motion or negating the motion, or anything of that nature. That is nonsense. It is a reasoned amendment to move that the bill not proceed because of a particular reason. The reason in this case, as stated by my friend from Ferryland, is that it is not in the best interest of the people. Now that is perfectly acceptable, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, we will leave it up to you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer Your Honour to the 6th edition of Beauchesne on page 314 in Appendix 1. That Appendix contains the forms and formulae for various amendments and motions before the House. Appendix item No. 57 dealing with "Amendments to the Order for Second Reading - Reasoned Amendments," the form that is used here says as follows: "That all the words after the word `That' be deleted and the following substituted therefore: `this House declines to give second reading to Bill'" whatever it was, "`An Act...'" and then "(here state reasons)," it says.

I believe that is what the Member for Ferryland said. He said that he wanted to pass a resolution that this House not know read the bill a second time and he stated the reason: Because it is not in the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What could be closer to the forms and formulae set down by Beauchesne, the exact form of words to be used in placing a reasoned amendment before the House, than those used by the hon. Member for Ferryland?

Whatever citation or reference the Government House Leader is making he clearly hasn't looked at the form that is used for reasoned amendments on second reading as set forth in Beauchesne. There seems to be very clearly no doubt that this is in fact a reasoned amendment and is properly in order.

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

MR. ROBERTS: A very brief comment, Mr. Speaker. The forms are only forms. The citation which I gave you is from the substantive portion of Beauchesne, and I repeat again, §578(1) says: "An amendment proposing an direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order." That is what the hon. gentleman's motion does in my submission. Secondly, §578(2): "An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order."

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) the same (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, exactly, I say to my friend the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he is right; it is what I read before because it is still the valid point, in my submission. Your Honour will have to decide this. The form is as the hon. gentleman said but the form doesn't overrule the rule or the parliamentary precedent. The matter is for Your Honour to decide. I would say to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that if this amendment is not accepted, and that is for the Chair, then I could easily give him the wording of one which could be accepted without any difficulty if you would like a little advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess briefly to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

After some extensive research and consultation the Chair could not find any ruling that would substantiate the claim made by the Government House Leader that this amendment is not in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, §670 of Beauchesne states that: "It is also competent for a Member, who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill,..." and this amendment clearly does that. I rule the amendment in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland has already spoken under the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Time is up?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was still speaking on amendment. I would assume time has run out.

MR. SPEAKER: Time has run out, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: He agreed with us now, don't complicate it.

MR. SIMMS: No, but I believe there was a ruling earlier. The Clerk is just trying to check now when this occurred. I'm not sure if the Recess time actually came out of the member's time. I think he had a minute or two left, didn't he?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would concur that when the Chair takes a Recess that surely shouldn't come out of a member's time. Points of order do and so forth, but if my friend for Ferryland hasn't used up his twenty minutes surely he has whatever time is left.

MR. DECKER: But we can do it by leave.

MR. ROBERTS: We can do it by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, his time is up anyway.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to this amendment so capably put forward by my friend for Ferryland. The logic of the amendment I think cannot be denied.

MR. GRIMES: What is the amendment?

MR. WINDSOR: What is the amendment? The amendment is that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations now leave. That would be a worthwhile amendment, Mr. Speaker.

That is not it. We are talking about the act dealing with electrical power generation in the Province. We have been talking about it for some ten days now, and pretty much everything that needs to be said about it has been said, over and over, and over, again.

What is amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that hon. members opposite do not appear to be listening to what is being said. Now, we saw earlier today where the Opposition House Leader, the hon. Member for Grand Bank, made certain statements relating to the Premier for which he has been expelled from the House, because he used unparliamentary language. The Speaker, I am sure, was quite correct, because of the language that was used, in expelling the hon. member from the House because he refused to withdraw that language. The question is, why did he refuse to withdraw that language? The answer to that is also very clear, because he believed so deeply in what he said. He believed so deeply in this issue, but he also believes very deeply in what he said.

MR. ROBERTS: He just wanted to go home.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the hon. member did not want to go home I say to the hon. House Leader. None of us are in a hurry to go home. The hon. member is still here within the precincts of the House and will be here until the House adjourns I am sure. Hon. members should not be impugning such motives to the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not impugning (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, you are impugning motives. The hon. member would do us all a courtesy by leaving.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member felt very strongly that the change he made was that the hon. Premier has been inconsistent in what he has said. We saw just a few moments ago while Your Honour was out making his ruling or grabbing a bite to eat in the Common Room - and the evening news once again replayed the tape of the debate held on March 24, which clearly showed the Premier saying to the whole Province, to all the people of the Province, reassuring them that if the majority of the people of the Province did not agree with the proposal to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that the Premier and the government did not have the right to ask the Legislature to do so and that he would not do so. Those were his words, Mr. Speaker.

We also heard, on several occasions, and again today, the Premier say in this House, and Hansard has it recorded and will show, that the Premier says he has every intention of proceeding. Both statements cannot be true, unless you are assuming that the people of the Province support it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: Where? That is right. That was the obvious conclusion that my friend for Grand Bank came to, that the Premier had told an untruth, either in the House, which is a breach of privileges of the House, particularly for a Premier to say something in this House that is not accurate, that is untrue, or he said it on public television to all the people of the Province. Either way, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the position that he holds in this Province, demands more of that person that holds that position than to permit him to make two statements that are so diametrically opposed.

Now, the Premier either has to withdraw one of those statements and admit that one of them is inaccurate, that one of them is untrue, because they cannot both be true. He cannot say on television that he will not bring it before this House if the people are opposed and then come in this House and say that he is going to bring it before this House, unless the people agree. But the people do not agree, and the Premier and the government have made no effort to show that they do agree. In fact all of the very credible polls that have been done show conclusively, without any doubt, that the vast majority of the people of this Province are absolutely opposed to this proposal. What we saw today, Mr. Speaker, at the opening session of this House was the Premier coming forward with a statement dealing with the recent releases by credit rating agencies and the downgrading by Standard and Poor's from A- to BBB+, and he is trying now to use that as a whip on the backs of the people of this Province to convince them that this poor government and this poor Premier has no choice but to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to look at what those agencies said, and let us not read into what they said more than what is in them and I will go so far as to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there have been many discussions with these agencies in the last month or two, many discussions, asking these agencies to make a statement relating to the impact of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the credit rating of the Province and on their views of the credit rating; I will go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and perhaps other ministers opposite have done everything possible to coerce these agencies into saying as much as they are prepared to say without breaking their responsibility as public agencies, to give an accurate account and they have gone to the borderline, I suggest; there is nothing in here -

AN HON. MEMBER: I suggest you give them a call (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I just might give them a call. If Hydro's privatization does not occur the rating could be re-assessed, it could be, it might be, it may be, it doesn't say it will be re-assessed and re-assessment (inaudible) look at it again. It doesn't say that it will be downgraded, it doesn't say it might be downgraded, it says it could be re-assessed; nothing in any statement and that is the strongest one that is in there - proceeds of the sale are expected to eliminate provincial borrowing for about one fiscal year thus resulting in reduced budgetary pressures in the near term and lower interest charges in future years. What a damning statement that is, Mr. Speaker, we all know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are saying it is wrong, (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am not saying that's wrong, of course that's obvious; the question is, are the benefits of privatizing Hydro, the impact on the credit rating, and on the debt of this Province, are they overwhelmed by the negative of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but the millions and millions of dollars that rate payers in this Province will pay forever and ever to private Crown corporation, to the millions and millions of dollars of profit that private investors will make on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro once it is privatized. Nobody is denying that if you eliminate debt, nobody is denying that if you eliminate the need to borrow money for the next two or three years or the next year, which is about all you will get, that there is a benefit in that, the question is, how big is the benefit?

If the Minister of Finance sells his home today, that's a benefit to his personal financial situation, because he has reduced the debt, but he has to go out to rent a home to live in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You'll still have your home.

It's not a good analogy, because that home I am talking about is rented and the rent is paying for the mortgage and giving a modest profit on top of that. It is not a burden on you.

As one of the credit rating agencies said here in the Premier's statement, it says: ...will ultimately remove $1.3 billion of debt... Then, in parenthesis, ...which is, nevertheless, self-sustaining.

That's the point, Mr. Speaker. This enables the Province to use its credit strengths to raise capital to finance its own deficit and not that of the capital intensive utility. I read that, and I disagree with the credit rating agency. It's Hydro that raises its own capital, with the guarantee from the Province.

I say to this House, Mr. Speaker, and I say without any hesitation, the guarantee given to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on money which is used to return a profit, on debt which is totally self-financing, on debt which has shown, by its statements of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro released the other day, that the equity in Newfoundland, our equity in Hydro, has increased by $25 million every year for the last number of years. Our equity is going up. We didn't put any more in. We have earned $25 million in increased equity. Hydro itself retained $13.7 million of profit. Look at the equity. Maybe the Minister of Finance should read the statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, it does not. It is our equity in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The shareholders equity is now gone up to $400 and something million, I say to the Minister of Finance, who should be able to read a financial statement.

Shareholders equity is gone up to $569.8 million from $544.9 million a year before, and $524.1 million the year before that, and $501.0 million the year before that. Every year that equity increases by $25 million, approximately. In addition to that, we get $10 million in guarantee fee for that guarantee - a guarantee which could never be called on because the Public Utility Board will guarantee Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that they will make enough money to meet all of their debt obligations, pay all of their expenses, and pay the Province their $10 million. It is absolutely no risk.

MR. BAKER: How come they can't go to the market and borrow on their own?

MR. WINDSOR: They can go to the market and borrow on their own, I say to the minister, but they get a much more favourable greeting in the market, they get more favourable interest rates, by going with a government guarantee, no different than any of the municipalities we have. Well, the difference is yes, municipalities can't go on their own; they can't borrow. That is a real debt on the Province. That is a real debt, and that is a good comparison.

A debt of money borrowed by a municipality under government guarantee, when we know when we start that 90 per cent of what will have to be paid on principal and interest will be paid by the Province, not by the municipalities, that is only a charade, to say that is a municipality's debt. It is the Province's debt. One of these days we will have sense enough to say: You can't afford to pay for it. You need the water and sewer, so we will give you a grant of $300 or $400 million to build it, not a loan. What's the difference? The Province owes it anyway. You are not fooling anybody. You are not fooling the credit rating agencies or anybody else by that, but Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is different. It is totally self-sufficient. That guarantee has never and can never cost this Province one plugged nickel because it is self-sufficient, guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board.

It is the only business in the world that starts out with its profit, it's bottom line. You know what your profit will be and you work backwards to find out what your rate will be. Most people who operate public utilities would not survive in the real world where your market told you what you were going to get for it and had to come in with a cost that left you with a profit. It is easy enough to operate a utility when it is guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board. It is an automatic form of taxation on the ratepayers of this Province. We could increase taxes and eliminate the cost of electricity for everybody if we wanted to. We are hardly going to do that, but anyway you look at it, it is the same pocket that the money comes from.

How do you justify, Mr. Speaker, selling a facility which is probably the only profitable industry we have, Crown corporation that we have? There are other Crown corporations that might make modest returns.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the liquor corporation?

MR. WINDSOR: The liquor corporation is not a corporation. It is another mechanism of taxation. It is not a business. It is competing with nobody. It is the same as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is a monopoly and that is why private enterprise should not have it. The next thing the Minister of Finance is going to want to privatize is the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Why not? You can do that. All you do is tax it instead of taking the profits out of it. Sure, you can privatize the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. You are doing it today. You have closed up dozens of liquor stores in this Province and put out to liquor agencies in rural Newfoundland, liquor agencies which provide a better service by the way. I do not have a problem with that in the world, and we have cut costs by doing that. That makes sense, but they are not bottling the liquor. They are not bringing in the liquor. Government is still controlling that which it needs to control, so you are only semi-privatizing.

I have five minutes. I thank the clerk.

It is only semi-privatizing. It is not even retail in the sense that you are competing with somebody else. It is simply a distribution system. It is the same with Canada Post. That is what has been done by the Government of Canada. The cost of providing the service is still being borne by Canada Post but the operation of the post office, putting the staff there, the bricks and the mortar, of passing out the stamps and taking in the mail, is now privatized and no doubt Canada Post finds that more economical. That is what you are doing here, but you cannot do it with Newfoundland Hydro. It is a different fish altogether. You have a monopoly situation and if you turn that over to private enterprise, private enterprise then would be in control of those resources.

Now, I am not going to get into all of this racket about the minister having the right to give water - I mean, that is there, that is clear, and I am not going to get into that aspect. What I am saying is that private enterprise now has absolute, total control of our hydro electric resources. You can say that the Public Utilities Board is there, and that bothers me a little bit, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing in the act that talks about the minister. The minister is a person elected by the people of the Province to answer to them through this Legislature. The minister has very little power, if any, if these two pieces of legislation go through. The Public Utilities Board will have all the power, all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, with certain exceptions and the Minister of Finance having the right to give away water rights without even going back to Cabinet.

MR. BAKER: Oh, we are back on that now, I have too much power.

MR. WINDSOR: I am talking about the Minister of Mines and Energy who should be responsible for Hydro. The Minister of Finance is responsible only from a fiscal point of view, and the minister knows that.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that the people who own this resource are the shareholders. Like any corporation that is making a major corporate decision, particularly a decision to sell, the shareholders will make that decision, but in this case the shareholders are being denied a voice. They have spoken, and spoken loudly through the members of this Legislature, through petitions, hundreds of them that are coming in daily, through open line programs, through letters to the editor, through demonstrations on the steps of Confederation Building and across this Province, and through public opinion polls scientifically done by credible, public, polling agencies. They have said very, very conclusively: we, the shareholders do not want to privatize, we do not want to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now whether all of these other arguments are right or not, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter; the bottom line is that the people have spoken, they have said: we do not want our public utility privatized; we do not want to sell our rights in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we do not want it to go into private hands, and they are the shareholders and in any democracy, if we lived in a democracy which we do not obviously, they should have the right to decide but the Premier has taken away their democratic right to decide what happens with their corporation, and he has misled them on television and in the House, one or the other, perhaps both, he has misled them, Mr. Speaker, in saying we won't do it if you don't agree. Well they don't agree and he should either own up to that; he should either withdraw this legislation or resign for misleading the people of this Province.

He does not have the right and this government does not have the right to use the power of their majority here to force this legislation through the House of Assembly. They can do it, through the majority they have, but rest assured, Mr. Speaker, rest assured, they will pay the price. Each and every one of them will be held to account and it will be too late then; it will be too late.

If members opposite want to pass a law that says you will not smoke in the corridors of Confederation Building, that is one thing. A subsequent government can reverse that, but the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is non-reversible as the flow of water that runs down those rivers, then this government's and that Premier will be damned forever for the action they are taking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted about two hours ago or whenever it was.

MR. BAKER: We will postpone the agony Len.

MR. SIMMS: Postpone - well I will have to start all over again now, I say to my friend, the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, to the amendment, I think it is very important that members opposite pay attention to the wording of the amendment, the amendment was moved because we don't believe that this particular bill, Bill 2 -

AN HON. MEMBER: What has he done with it?

MR. SIMMS: I am going to tell him now. - is not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is the amendment and we ask that it not now be read a second time, and we should not lose sight of the reasoning for moving such an amendment. For quite some time now, on this debate on Bill 2 as well as on Bill 1, we have implored the government to hold some public meetings, some public hearings on this issue, over and over again we have raised it because, Mr. Speaker, we feel the people of this Province have a right, have every right in the world to have some input, at least to hear at a public meeting in their area, what the arguments are in favour of the privatization issue or in this case, in favour of the electrical power control legislation, but the government refuses.

The government has refused over and over again any calls for some public hearings to give the people some input. Now, Mr. Speaker, the reasoning for that is extremely difficult to understand, unless and -

AN HON. MEMBER: To an extent.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Finance, he certainly can understand it because he knows they will probably get burned on it, on the case of the privatization bill for sure, they will probably get burned on it but I say to the Minister of Finance: that is no reason not to hold public hearings on Bill 2. There doesn't appear to me to be any reason for urgently pushing this bill through the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. SIMMS: Well, what is it? Maybe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs can stand and tell us, Mr. Speaker. Is it any more urgent than the smoking legislation that the government brought in, which it referred to a Select Committee of the House to travel around the Province and hold hearings on? Is it any different than that?

Is it any more urgent than the bill to deal with the proper methods or different ways of accounting practices in the Province? We gave that to a committee of the House to hold public hearings on.

Is it any more urgent than the Electoral Boundaries Bill, which not only did you give to a commission to travel around the Province with once; because you didn't like your original recommendations, you sent them around a second time, a committee that will cost this House, I suspect - we have never received the numbers, but - at least $250,000 my guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: You put that mechanism in place.

MR. SIMMS: Put what mechanism in place, public hearings?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I know, I remember when we were the government, not to be sidetracked by the Minister of Finance, but I remember we had a Select Committee of the House travel to Labrador back in 1987 or 1988 dealing with food prices in Labrador, so it is a concept that has been around for quite some time, I say to the Minister of Finance, but that is kind of irrelevant because the Minister of Finance may try to take credit for somehow putting this mechanism in place, which isn't quite accurate, but I will give him credit for announcing they are going to have legislation referred to committees. The only problem with it is that he hasn't referred legislation that is of critical importance, such as the Hydro privatization and the Electrical Power Control Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sprung Greenhouse.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Sprung Greenhouse is much like the Upper Churchill, which cost us about forty Sprung Greenhouses for the last thirty-five years, so if you want to find blame there is lots of blame. That isn't the issue.

I say to the Minister of Finance, it's too bad he wasn't as mouthy and as outspoken around the Cabinet table and said to the Premier: Premier, you are wrong on this issue, and not only are you wrong on it, the very least you could do is hold some public meetings and some public hearings around the Province, because the people of the Province are really ticked off - ticked off with you, Premier - not only with the bill itself, or your intent to legislate, but the fact that you're holding all the information from the people; you won't hold public hearings; you won't have an open process.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance, that decision will come back to haunt him and the rest of his colleagues on that side of the House in due course.

On the bill itself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I must say, I have to be honest with the Minister of Social Services. I am not too angry or too concerned or upset about that, because I think the best thing that could happen to this Province in the next couple of years would be a change in government, because I think that's what the people of the Province need and deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to Your Honour, is what is likely to happen, too, I say to members. I don't know how many members are aware of the recent polling that has been going on, Environics polling for example, national poll.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I will just tell them that there was a poll done in March, reported in April, publicly made in April, about two weeks ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It was done in March, released publicly in April, which looked at government satisfaction for the provincial jurisdictions as well as the federal government, but in terms of provinces, let's look at the Province because the federal government is still on a bit of a honeymoon.

The Province of New Brunswick, whose Premier, Frank McKenna, has been getting raves from all across the country, The Financial Post -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Gary Filmon.

MR. SIMMS: He is also a good Premier. He is doing a lot of the right things.

Gary Filmon, by the way, has been getting similar reviews from The Financial Post and so on for being aggressive in trying to market -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, now, if I can continue for hon. members, he has been getting credit, as well as Frank McKenna, for taking an aggressive approach, which is something we have been asking Mr. Wells to do, the Premier here, but of course he rejects that.

Anyway, in March, government satisfaction, national poll, Environics Research Group, April 1994, poll done in late March. The province with the best government satisfaction rating is New Brunswick at 61 per cent; Saskatchewan, 54 per cent; Manitoba, 49 per cent; Alberta, 46 per cent; Nova Scotia, 44 per cent; Quebec, 41 per cent; British Columbia, 38 per cent; Ontario, 29 per cent; PEI, 25 per cent. Guess who is tied at the bottom in government satisfaction with PEI at 25 per cent. Guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nova Scotia.

MR. SIMMS: No, I said Nova Scotia. It is only -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, no. Mr. Speaker, there is only one province remaining, Newfoundland's satisfaction, the government satisfaction.

Here is something that is even more interesting. This is the approval of First Ministers, Premiers and First Ministers. Approval of First Ministers rating. The Prime Minister is still riding high, no question, 66 per cent. But from provincial -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sixty-six per cent. I remember a provincial leader of this Province not too long ago was riding at 76 per cent or 80 per cent or something like that, I say to the member opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, the satisfaction of the Prime Minister - I'm going to be like the municipalities in this Province and totally ignore the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Nobody pays any attention to him anyway. Sixty-six per cent is the Prime Minister. New Brunswick's Premier Frank McKenna leads the list of provincial jurisdiction at 58 per cent, Manitoba 49 per cent, Alberta 48 per cent, Saskatchewan and Quebec tied at 47 per cent. PEI, whose government satisfaction is down, has its leader up at 33 per cent, which is not real good but it is not bad. Twenty-nine per cent for the Premier of B.C., Mike Harcourt, 26 per cent for the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Savage, 22 per cent for the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae. Guess who is tied with Bob Rae at the bottom of the heat for approval of First Ministers? Newfoundland's Premier Clyde Wells at 22 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I will tell -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me say to members opposite, they know which way the polls were going and where I was in February because they saw the poll results of March 9. I tell them to listen and watch closely to the results of the Corporate Research poll under way now that will be released the first part of June. Let's just see. What I do remember from that March 9 Corporate Research poll is that the Premier's popularity dropped I think it was thirty points from November to February. I think my popularity tripled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Actually, I think it more than tripled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: Listen, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is going to make any comments about anybody's IQ let's hope to God it is not going to be his own that he is going to tell us about.

MS. VERGE: He was the one who told the Liberal convention that they were in the political wilderness for seventeen years because they gave away the Upper Churchill, and that if they sold Hydro they would be in the political wilderness for another seventeen years (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, did he? Perhaps we can get a copy of that and send it all over the world.

MS. VERGE: I would say he has been very much underestimated.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague I don't know how much time I have left but I do want to make some points on Bill No. 2 particularly. Just so members opposite understand, (inaudible) to understand our position on this particular bill.

Our position on Bill No. 2 is quite clear. I hope it has been made clear. I heard a number of my colleagues -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Oh no, wait now, let me explain it. I remember a number of my colleagues.... I remember....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I don't know if they're paying those guys $100,000 just to interject on a constant basis or just when I'm up or what.

Mr. Speaker, I'm saying Bill No. 2, right? I'm trying to say something; I can't get a word in. Our position has been articulated by several members on this side in the debate on second reading, the six-month hoist debate, and then when it went back to the main motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your position?

MR. SIMMS: What our position is, so that you understand it clearly, Part III of the bill is a part of the legislation that we support. That's the emergency power section, okay? The minister understands that? We have no difficulty with that part.

Part II of the bill, which is the section that takes away the rural subsidy, deals with the rural subsidy elimination; it is also the section of the bill -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: It's also the part of the bill that deals with the elimination of the rural subsidy, and also the part of the bill that gives the government - or the Public Utilities Board, I should say - the right to access the power from Upper Churchill, that concept that the Premier told us about on Province-wide TV.

Now with respect to Part II, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, here is our problem with Part II of the bill. First of all, we don't agree with the elimination of the rural subsidy because rural consumers and all consumers are going to end up paying that, so that's not something we can support in principle, and I am sure he, deep in his heart -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sorry. The minister opposite, I am sure, would agree, in principle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, is there something wrong with the bull moose over there, or what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: So we have a problem with that part of the bill. We have a problem with the part that the Premier told us was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The people who heard the Premier on Province-wide television on that Tuesday night, March 22, I think it was, tell us the real reason for Hydro privatization had to do with this ability of the Public Utilities Board to access the Upper Churchill power.

Now there are all kinds of arguments about that; we've got lots. The bottom line, from our perspective, is that we don't think it will work, and our concern is that you are going to spend - more than likely it will end up costing millions of dollars fighting a court case. That's our concern. That's the major concern we have with the existing part of Bill 2, without going into a whole whack of detail. I can go on about a lot of other things, but Part I of this bill, most of the clauses in Part I are there merely to make it easy to - and the Minister of Finance nods - merely to make it easier to sell off Newfoundland Hydro, privatize Newfoundland Hydro. The PUITTA clauses, the PUITTA amendments, these other kinds of - there are four or five different items in there that are in there merely for that reason.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have adamantly opposed the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, Bill 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SIMMS: We have adamantly opposed it on many, many grounds, got on Province-wide TV and explained our reasoning for it. The public supports us, no question about that, so how could we - I say to the Minister of Finance - how could we, in all conscience, support this bill when a major part of the bill has provisions in there merely to privatize Newfoundland Hydro? We oppose the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. We will not support it.

So, I say to the Minister of Finance, while we agree with the emergency measures section of the bill, while we have a lot of reservations and concerns about Part II, Part I is the major one for us because it opposes, or it's there merely to make it easier for the privatization of Hydro. We disagree with that.

So, if the government is intent on moving along and wants to get total support, or wants to get our support - maybe they don't. They don't need it, of course. They can force it through, as they are doing now in second reading stage, by using closure again next week on the committee stage, or the week after, but if you would like to try to make it more acceptable, then my suggestion to the minister and the government would be: Delete Section 1. Let's debate, then, the merits of the remaining parts of the bill and go from there.

I don't expect the government will do that. I can tell the Minister of Finance now, when we get into committee stage we will be proposing our own amendments in an attempt to try to get support from the government side.

I know there are members on that side of the House - I am absolutely positive there are members on that side of the House - who would like to see some amendments that might take away from the privatization issue, because the privatization of Hydro issue has no place in this bill. It doesn't have to be in this bill. It's not necessary to be in this bill, yet the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry about it, (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, now what a wonderful excuse, don't worry about it, it might never be used. Well why do you have it in there then?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well it could be advantageous down the road (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be advantageous down the road (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So bring it in down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you can't (inaudible), you might be in power (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But the Premier told us on Province-wide TV that he would not proceed with privatization of Hydro unless he had the support of the people. I can tell him this: If I am the Premier three years down the road, and if this privatization has not occurred, it will not occur, I can tell him that much -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I did not say that, you will never be able to buy it back. That's the problem with it. You will never be able to buy it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wouldn't you?

MR. SIMMS: Because you are going to give it away for $300 million or whatever the amount is and any government down the road that might want to nationalize it is going to have to pay a billion dollars for it, that's the problem with it, it's crazy; that would be almost as crazy and almost as much a harebrained scheme as the present deal that the government is putting through. It would be just as crazy as what you are doing now, pushing and selling Hydro, Mr. Speaker, that is the difficulty; I say to the Minister of Finance, that is the difficulty with that proposal and no, we would not be able to do that, we wouldn't be in a position to do it and I don't think any government, no government would be in a position to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is your argument, you wouldn't.

MR. SIMMS: No, no, we have never argued that, never.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) would like to put the billion (inaudible) buy it back tomorrow, the same thing.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Minister of Finance, the billion - Pardon me? I am sorry, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has -

MR. GRIMES: Would you like to have to go and guarantee the billion (inaudible) tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: No, you would not; no, that's nonsense. Don't be so silly! What kind of logic -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - is it any wonder, with logic like that from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that the Province is in the difficulty it's in and heading down the road that they are heading? There is no question about it at all, why we are in the trouble; so I say to the Minister of Finance, who seems to at least give the impression that he is interested and concerned about this issue, he at least gives that impression and I hope he will take along my comments to the Premier to make sure the Premier understands what our position is, what the amendments could be that might come forward.

Now I only have thirty seconds and I have to say on the issue of the paper companies because there have been a number of catcalls across there and I want to say to members opposite: Before they express any further catcalls, let them ask the Premier, go to the Premier and ask him if either of the paper companies, or both, has sent in proposed amendments that they need to see change that legislation before they are comfortable with it. Ask him that before you start shouting across the hall at me, catcalling across the House at me and accusing me of fomenting or whatever the word was, the Premier said, difficulty among the paper companies, because the fact of the matter is, the truth will come out, it will be proven -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - that the question I asked was a valid question and I will be exonerated because the companies do have problems with that part of the legislation and the member opposite knows it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are certain pieces of legislation that come to the floor of the House but you have to try to get yourself all pumped up, so to speak, to try to get up and speak on it. I have to hold himself, but in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, you can get up and speak on this forever and a day on this particular piece of legislation, The Electrical Resources Act, and when get into the privatization bill that will be another matter and I suppose each member could speak for twenty-four hours without taking a break, but in any case, Mr. Speaker, I never thought you would be able to speak for three or four times on this particular piece of legislation. There is a funny thing about it when you get up to speak sometimes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: He didn't remember the first one.

Mr. Speaker, there is always something happening, even if there is nothing on which to speak, you don't think you can speak on it, or you have a bunch of notes ready, you always get up and never use them, or some other member usually says something to get you going for twenty minutes or something like that. That is the secret.

Just before the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Grand Falls, sat down, the Member for Exploits made a comment that: There was no problem, you can buy it back when you get in power in a few years' time. It is nice to see that the Member for Exploits has some faith in us when we do get in in a few years' time. I don't know what he will be critic for but I doubt he will be critic for anything because I would say he will be back playing hockey probably for the Grand Falls (inaudible).

What the gentleman said, that sort of worries me. Because if we have a Cabinet minister sitting around the Cabinet table who honestly thinks that it is going to be that easy when we get in power in a few years' time and Hydro is privatized to automatically go out and say: We are going to nationalize and we are going to buy back Newfoundland Hydro, then we have some grave reason for concern.

I wish the cameras were on this side of the House. I would say the hon. member was meditating that time. He was taking everything in. He doesn't miss a thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Makes good rulings (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Good rulings. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits, if we have people like that sitting around the Cabinet table it sort of worries me. How many more members and Cabinet ministers are sitting around the table making decisions on privatizing Newfoundland Hydro and thinking along the same lines as the hon. gentleman for Exploits?

Everybody in this House - or if they don't they should go out and find out what the differences between bonds and the difference between funds and the difference between shareholders and shares. They should find out if they don't know. Any business person today in this Province when he or she is a small or big business person, or whatever, they should know the difference between that. They should know the difference between lines of credit and so on when they are dealing with bankers and everything else.

We all know that once this is privatized we are dealing with investors, we are dealing with shareholders. We are dealing with individuals around this Province and around this country, and outside this country I might add, who will be holding shares in the new Hydro. One of the things we have to look for is this. We are talking about an asset of something like $2.5 billion or something like that in assets, I believe, is what the total assets of this particular - I might be out a bit. Total assets. We will say for argument's sake we will use $1 billion in assets.

We get $300 million. What business person in this Province today would sell an asset worth $1 billion -

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the debt?

MR. WOODFORD: I will get to the debt. But when you look at the ratio, when you look at the total liabilities, even when you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, look at the net value. I know. The only thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is: once this is gone it is gone. That is the danger with this and that is the frightening thing. Once Newfoundland Hydro is sold it is gone, it is not coming back. I don't care what government gets in here next year, or the year after, and promises that they can buy that back. They will never do it, not in our lifetime. Never in our lifetime.

We are dealing with shareholders. They can pretty well ask what they like for the shares. If we happen to get $30 a share if we sell it today no shareholder is going to get hold of a public utility, not only in the Province, not only in Canada, anywhere in the world today, no shareholder, anybody who can get hold of a utility like that with a guaranteed return, is going to let it go unless they make billions on it. I in this case mean billions. Because you are dealing with, like I said, people who have money invested, you are dealing with shares, and they are going to get the best rate of return for their dollar.

Furthermore, my colleague just mentioned it there now, and I never thought of it but I heard it before, and that is under the NAFTA agreement, under the free trade agreement, if there is any shareholder outside of Canada and you went to go to try to buy it back it would be contrary to the free trade agreement. That is another problem there that this Province would run into if it ever went even to attempt to buy it back. Because that would be contrary to the free trade agreement and thereby would trigger an appeal to that tribunal.

When you look at those two factors -

AN HON. MEMBER: Free trade agreement (inaudible)?

MR. WOODFORD: The what? I say the hon. Member for Eagle River should get hold of that bill that they just introduced into the House of Commons today and take a good look at it. He should take a real good look at that.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is a good bill.

MR. WOODFORD: It is introduced in the House of Commons today, it is a motherhood issue. Why can't that be passed tonight or this week? Why can't they do it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why didn't Crosbie do it?

MR. WOODFORD: We will see, Mr. Speaker, about the bill that was introduced and what is going to happen off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. About all the promises that were made.

The hon. members just a few months ago were waving around papers over there about polls. I don't see them waving too many papers around over there now saying: Look at the polls, or check the polls. The only polls they check now are the ones numbered by Newfoundland Power because they know they are soon going to own them all. Those are the only polls they are interested in these days - and to try to collect $300 million, $400 million, $500 million to try to cover up for the mismanagement over the last five years.

One of the members said the other day, my colleague for Menihek, who is quite used to making notes and leaving them on the desks for other members to pick up and make speeches out of, he said: We are not a poor province; we are a poorly managed province. After five years of mismanagement I can see hon. gentleman sitting down around the Cabinet table and saying: What are we going to do? We are in for another year in a second term, our fifth year, and there is nothing only down, down, down. We've got to do something. What can we cling on to? They picked up the financial statement from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and said: This is it; this is the one that could make our day. It is a money maker, let's go for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I was the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans I would say I wouldn't get too comfortable. Certainly he is not worried. There is only one place the hon. member is going to be -

MR. SIMMS: He will never face me in that new riding.

MR. WOODFORD: No, never, Mr. Speaker. This is what they clung on to, this is the one. Sell that, everything will be hunky-dory for one year. One year, that is all. What happens after that? Hoping and praying that the economy will rebound, hoping and praying that - they can't hope and pray that some of their policies will take hold and people in the Province stick on to them like Velcro or something and start going with them, because there are none there.

Ask a small business person in this Province today is there any help, and I don't mean just financial help, look at the stumbling block. You have to go to the Department of Health, to rural development, to development control, to the Department of Environment and Lands, to the RST, to the vendor's number. I mean a person who has any idea, anything today, to try to get - and I'm not saying that just came in with this Administration. That has always been there. I've always been an advocate of that, that this is something that we should be doing. This would be something constructive. It is just a nightmare out there.

People get good ideas, put them in writing, put them on paper, and get out, and there is nothing but blockage after blockage after blockage, and that is it. Everywhere they turn there is a wall.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is an exaggeration.

MR. WOODFORD: No, it is not an exaggeration. I say to the Minister of Health that if he would put his head out from under the overpass out there he might know what a small business looks like. Get out and have a look at the real world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I know the member has a lot to deal with when he talks about small business people in this Province, and I mean right here in the city and not outside St. John's. That is going on all the time and everywhere.

Now, talking about credit rating agencies and so on, I ask the question, how come just a year ago, or six months ago, five months ago even, that those credit rating agencies were not in banging on the door of the Minister of Finance? How come? If there was no talk of privatizing Hydro I could see those people downgrading the credit rating of the Province, based on the deficit that is there today, and they gave some examples as the moratorium, but here they come today and say they have to downgrade the rating of this Province when they know full well that this Administration is going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Knowing that they still downgraded the credit ratings of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, why? Why now? As far as I am concerned even if the Premier picked up the phone to talk to one of those I do not think that is the only reason. I think there are other factors involved. I think they see a killing. People on the other end, the brokerage firms and so on, the people who are going to be selling those shares, can see a killing. They can see it coming and it is not going to benefit the people of the Province when you talk about shares. When you sell shares in this Province today the people of this Province can just afford to put bread and butter on the table let alone buy shares. As much as they would like to, and as much as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would like to sink $30, $40, or $50,000 into the shares of New Hydro, because it is a guaranteed investment, I am sure that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, if they had a choice, if they were ever going to put a dollar into something, that is what they would put it into, but they cannot because they do not have it, Mr. Speaker. They just do not have it.

I say to members opposite that there is still time, and to say that Bill 2, the Electrical Resources Act, has nothing to do with privatization is wrong. Granted we could vote for Part 2 and 3 of that right now, but Part 1 is the part that holds some of the things that would be conducive to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There are five. I mentioned them before in speeches in the House and those are the five particular areas that we would have some problems with.

They are, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board to base electricity rates on the three criteria, cost, maintenance and credit worthiness, and direct (inaudible) to phase out the portion of rural subsidy, three, to transfer the responsibility for the designation of essential employees. Why would you want that there if you are not going to privatize Hydro? That particular clause alone is enough to say, no, to this particular piece of legislation, and that is to transfer responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board.

Four, to empower the PUB to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares. Why would that have to be there to bring in Part 2 and 3 of this particular piece of legislation? The one dealing with the emergency needs in the Province, nobody would have a problem with that, absolutely nobody. But those particular clauses, Mr. Speaker, have all to do with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Number five is to refund federal taxes paid by utilities and rebate it to the Province under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.

Those are the five particular reasons why we just cannot support this piece of legislation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the guarantee of power to people in the Province. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Those are the five particular reasons and clauses that are in that particular piece of legislation that have all to do with that. Take those five particular clauses out and there is absolutely no reason why we can't settle this once and for all now and put this particular piece of legislation through the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, what happened in Nova Scotia, 78 per cent today of all the shares of Nova Scotia Power is owned by people outside; 78 per cent owned by people outside the Province of Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: They wouldn't say that today, and it's a different situation. Even at that there is a little different situation in Nova Scotia because of the fact that most of the power in Nova Scotia is generated by coal. That's the other thing, and I can't blame people to a certain extent, but we have one of the cleanest, purest, generations of power in the world. I don't know what other country would even compare to us with regard to the generation of electricity based on water power. We have one of the purest and most environmentally sound generations of power in the world today, and there is nothing like coming and talking to an individual, or talking to a business - in this case, new business coming into the Province - talking to the Province, when they are guaranteed a supply of electricity and guaranteed a good supply of power for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, one of the grave concerns I mentioned at the outset to this particular piece of legislation, and we will get on into debate on the privatization bill later, is that once it's gone, it's gone. We all know what happened to Churchill Falls. You would think we would learn by our mistakes. One - just one - year's income from the Churchill Falls deal - one year - $800 and some odd million, and that varies up a bit and down a bit. This year it is down a little bit. Last year it was down, but you are averaging out around $800 million that is going to Hydro Quebec. If this Province ever had that, in a couple of years it would do wonders. You wouldn't have any worries about privatizing Hydro, or privatizing anything else, and to get hold to a public utility... There is a monopoly, Mr. Speaker; it's not like a regular business. There's no competition, absolutely none, but at the same time they can come back and look for a rate increase through the PUB whenever they feel like it, based on the criteria set down in this particular piece of legislation and in the privatization act (inaudible).

Still, the bottom line is that particular business or monopoly - a business is one thing, but when you have a monopoly guaranteed a 13.74 per cent rate of return, even when they come in, before they even start talking, they are guaranteed a 13.74 per cent rate of return on income, on revenues, and that, to me, should strike fear in the hearts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they know full well what the repercussions are going to be, and that is that there is going to be an increase in Hydro rates in this Province after the three years are up, after the subsidies are off, that will be comparable to nothing that has ever happened in this Province previous to this. The rates will go up substantially. Even the government themselves, and the Premier himself, has stated categorically what the rate increases will be over the next three years, or five years, and that, as far as I am concerned, without any hesitation, the figures that the government has put out on that, they could double them and still come in, I would say, very close to what it is going to be in five years time.

I think the electrical rates and Hydro rates in this Province are going to double over the next five years, and there is nothing surer than that, and that is going to be detrimental to businesses in the Province, detrimental to the consumers in this Province, and there is going to be absolutely nothing that we can do about it - absolutely nothing - because it is going to be built in there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on this gag -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I've twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, on this gag order, on once again the death of democracy in this system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) making a fool of yourself.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the minister I'm not making a fool of myself. The only time ever I see anyone making a fool of themselves is when the minister stood out there on the front steps of the building and started to cry. That is the only time I've seen someone making a fool of themselves. Saying: They forced me out here! He with the teachers, 8,000 teachers on strike after the government giving them I believe it was 6 per cent and 7 per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when he was president of the NTA. Six per cent and 7 per cent increase and he brought them to the steps of the Confederation Building on strike and went out and cried, said: The government forced me to do it, I had no choice. Then the Premier got up today and talked about the debt that was created by this government. When one of his own ministers wasn't satisfied when they got 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Put them on strike, that is what he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what has he done since he became a minister with the teachers? He put the old hob-nailed boots to them, that is what he has done. He turned on the teachers, he attacked the teachers. I don't know if it is order or not to call someone a hypocrite and if it is not I won't but if it is I will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, how can someone stand in this House as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and say: We can't afford this and we can't afford that and the teachers are asking for too much, all that line, when the government gave them 6 per cent and 7 per cent back a few years ago and he put them on strike? No wonder the teachers of this Province have the feeling towards the minister that they have. No wonder when he went down to the NTA down in the Radisson a few weeks ago he couldn't find anyone to speak to him. He walked around and they wouldn't speak to him, they ignored him.

The other former president -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more relevant than you have in this debate.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you one thing, when you are talking about closure that is the motion, you are talking about democracy. You are talking about the death of democracy, let me say, that is what I'm talking about, and I'm talking about the death of collective bargaining in this Province since you became the minister. That is what I'm talking about.

The other former president of the NTA shouldn't laugh too loud either. Because the way she used that position of president of the NTA to get herself in the House of Assembly will never be matched. No one has ever used -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) didn't know what I was doing (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Her contribution - no, Mr. Speaker, and do you know something? I don't find that hard to believe she didn't know what she was doing. She hasn't changed; she still doesn't know what she is doing.

We talk about the gag order and everything else that has been brought in here today and we talk about democracy. Our House Leader is not in this Chamber right now because he gave a statement of fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was unparliamentary, remember?

MR. SULLIVAN: But it is true. If it is true, why should it be unparliamentary?

MR. TOBIN: Our House Leader is not here now because he gave a statement of fact in this Legislature this afternoon. That is why he is not here. Booted out, Mr. Speaker, for telling the truth. For exposing the Premier for what he really is.

Tonight I watched the newscast and here was the Premier standing up in the latest debate with my leader and the Leader of the NDP party, and what was he saying, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you what he said: No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean essentially majority support in this Province, and if the majority of the people of this Province end up, in the end being opposed to Hydro, I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation for privatizing Hydro, because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue should use it's majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people and I won't ask the members to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did he say tonight? He said: the members of my caucus are coming in and telling me the people is supporting it. Well I would like to take any member there to their constituents and have a plebiscite, I challenge you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You wouldn't know what a plebiscite is, you would think it is something you put in trees. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, does not know but a plebiscite is a parasite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture does not know a plebiscite from a parasite -

MR. SULLIVAN: Or a blight.

MR. TOBIN: - or a blight, or a bud worm. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier said tonight. The members of his caucus are telling him that the people support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's right, it is true, it is true.

MR. TOBIN: Well why are you lying to the Premier, I ask you? Why are you not telling the Premier the truth? Why are you being dishonest with your Leader? Because you know it is not true. I don't believe by the way, that the members of the caucus are telling that to the Premier. I don't feel they would be that dishonest to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: You said it at the convention.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the Liberal convention. Why doesn't the member -

MR. SIMMS: What did he say at the Liberal convention?

MS. VERGE: He said that the Liberals were in a political (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has recognized only one member and that is the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. I ask hon. members to let the member speak, in silence, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: In silence, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Be heard in silence.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no wonder we got this poll with the approval of the first ministers; no wonder the members opposite didn't come in here clean. The approval of first ministers, March 1994, Environics, the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, 66 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, my old friend the Premier of New Brunswick who, just by the way, Saturday night past, got an honourary degree -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in listening to the hon. member, I heard the same gobbledygook from the Opposition Leader and I would ask the member to use relevance. I think we are dealing with Bill 2.

MR. TOBIN: We are not, boy, we are dealing with closure. Do not be so stunned.

MR. MURPHY: It is not closure. We did not put closure on the bill, and I say to the hon. member that getting up waving old paper, one thing and another, is not doing anything for the people of the Province. He is not doing anything for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to the debate we are in now. We are not debating the closure motion. The closure motion has already been carried. We are now debating, I want to inform the hon. member, the amendment, the recent amendment put forward by his hon. colleague, so I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to that amendment.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have never wavered from what this is about. What I am saying here, and I hope Your Honour and everybody else can get the gist of what I am saying, is that because of this piece of legislation the Premier of this Province has sunk to an all time low. Do you know that he had a 22 per cent approval rating, and about the same credit rating. When the Member for Port de Grave and other people in this Province were talking about Brian Peckford having bodyguards he never went that low in the polls. Whether he stood by himself or whether he stood with security he never went that low.

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with that bill.

MR. TOBIN: It has all to do with that bill. That is one of the reasons why he is there, and another reason why he is there is because he has that member there in his office going around blowing off his mouth not knowing what he is talking about, and dragging down the government. That is another reason I say to the Member for St. John's South. We will hear more about that in the future.

Why is Frank McKenna a Premier in Atlantic Canada at 58 per cent and the Premier of this Province at 22 per cent? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: The approval rating of first ministers. In case the minister does not realize it there has been a poll done by Environics. Our leader is not a first minister but he soon will be. I say he soon will be a first minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.

I say to the Minister of Education that there was a poll conducted on first ministers and the Premier of this Province was tied for last place with Bob Ray the Premier of Ontario at 22 per cent. That is what the poll states.

MR. SIMMS: What did Graham Flight say at the Liberal convention? Read that in the record for me, will you?

MR. TOBIN: If he wants that read in the record, Mr. Speaker, I will say it. At the Liberal leadership convention in November, 1994, he said to the Liberals, when he got up to the mike to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: November, 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Forestry, the hon. Graham Flight, spoke at the Liberal convention and stated to the people, when he got up to the mike, that the Liberals in this Province have been in the political wilderness for seventeen years for selling the Upper Churchill, and if we proceed with privatization of the new Hydro, the Liberals will be in political wilderness for the next seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. TOBIN: That's what he said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, that will come back to haunt him. He will have to eat those words. He has been eating those words since.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be out of Cabinet real soon.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he might be in trouble because he spoke the truth, and this Premier is not used to someone speaking the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I only have five minutes left. I suppose I will get leave, Mr. Speaker. I assume they will give me leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I will. I will read the last paragraph of what the Premier had to say. He said: I said here tonight very clearly, and I have said it not here, I said it on CBC Radio yesterday, and I have said it in other places, no government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policies that it cannot sustain public support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.

Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have it. The Premier of this Province doesn't have it. Mr. Speaker, a man here giving a statement of fact this afternoon got kicked out for exposing the Premier for what he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. TOBIN: I can't say it, Mr. Speaker, or I will get kicked out, too, and we wouldn't want the two from the Burin Peninsula to be out the same time, but it is some tempting.

Not only the Premier, the Minister of Finance was exposed yesterday for not telling the truth, and the President of the NTA - not me, Mr. Speaker, but the President of the NTA - said he was lying. Now you have the Premier and the Deputy Premier, both of them lying.

MR. SULLIVAN: It must be contagious.

MR. TOBIN: Is it contagious? What's happening? It's not telling the truth, it's being dishonest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you.

Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out earlier that the former Premier of this Province was never as low in the polls, even when they were here hollering out everything, when they were shouting out about Sprung, when they were talking about cigars, when they were talking about having one bodyguard, they never could bring him to 22 per cent in the polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: When you ran for leader of the PC Party we were at 0 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: When you ran for leader of the PC Party you got one vote, so what's that out of 400 or 500 delegates, one vote?

MR. SULLIVAN: He didn't vote for himself? One out of 400 or 500?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he did; he voted for himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Dorothy Wyatt had two; he had one.

MR. SULLIVAN: One-fifth of 1 per cent.

MR. TOBIN: He had one-fifth of 1 percent. That's where you were in the polls when you ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. Then he got the boot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. TOBIN: Why? He knows why, and I know why, and I wouldn't do disservice to the hon. gentleman to tell the rest of you why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I will tell you one thing. One reason why we wouldn't have him in our party is because he wants to close every hospital bed in the Province. That's one reason. The other thing is he made a mess of finance and the person who is there now is not much better.

As I was saying, and now I'm delighted the Premier is here, when I talked about the poll. I'm delighted the Premier is here now to listen to it. His approval rating is tied with the Premier of Ontario. Bob Rae and the Premier, what do they have in common? They have the lowest approved rating in the history of this country, I would suspect.

MR. SIMMS: What is Frank McKenna at?

MR. TOBIN: Frank McKenna is at 58 per cent approval rating. Good premier, Mr. Speaker. By the way, on Saturday past he got an honourary degree from St. Xavier's and his son, by the way, graduated from St. Xavier's on Saturday past, I say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and what happened?

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words on this particular Bill No. 2 as well. It is probably somewhat coincidental when I turned on my t.v. this morning before coming into work, carried on I guess most national networks around the world was the inauguration of the new president of South Africa heralding the new era of democracy in that particular country which has suffered long and hard under a very difficult system. Here we are today in this particular Legislature under a closure motion finishing off debate on a certain stage of a bill concerning electrical power.

This particular debate has been confined for the most part to this particular Legislature. The government, even though this is a highly contentious and highly contested public issue, has not seen fit to bring it before the people except under very controlled circumstances. Either through televised debates, televised addresses, radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, et cetera. The government has been reluctant to expose itself in general - its members in particular - to the scrutiny of the people, the constituents of these members, on this particular issue. The Member for Pleasantville as I understand it with the Liberal Party has listened to his people and made a position on this matter somewhat different than most or all of his colleagues.

It is little wonder I guess when today the hon. Premier made reference to some federal legislation regarding foreign overfishing that the members on the Liberal benches jumped to their feet in a wild round of applause, a standing ovation. This particular issue which the government seems to be pursuing with such dogged determination has caused considerable consternation amongst the people of the Province and is no doubt in a large part responsible for the poor showing in the polls with regard to the approval rating of the Premier and the government generally, as indicated by several other speakers here this evening. It remains to be seen as to whether or not the applause on the fishery matter was somewhat premature. The television news coverage this evening indicated that no matter what Mr. Tobin puts on paper outside 200 miles the World Court may indeed intervene and take some of the teeth out of that particular legislation.

Nonetheless, even with those possible shortcomings, the members of the Liberal Party in this House had something to shout about today. Here we are on a very important public policy issue and for the most part the only time the Liberal Party members in this House have shouted is from their own seats. They have not shouted from their feet. They have not taken their place before the microphones, been recognized by Your Honour, to take part in this debate. For the most part all we've heard at least for the official transcript of this House for Hansard is silence. Most of the commentary from the Liberal bench as recorded in Hansard in this particular debate has been either under the category of `inaudible' or `An hon. member' with some small interjection.

I note as well this afternoon when one of my colleagues was speaking the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, was extremely animated on this particular matter. Having been once renowned I guess as an outspoken supporter of the downtrodden and the oppressed he was feeling somewhat, I guess, frustrated, between his loyalty to the government and his desire to stay in Cabinet, versus obviously what must be a very uncomfortable position he finds himself in in having to support such an unpopular notion as the privatization of Hydro and its companion, Bill No. 2.

Bill No. 2 has to do with laws of general application regarding electrical power resources in this Province. The main thrust of the bill, as the Premier indicated in a public television address some time ago, has to do with the ability of the Public Utilities Board to order blocks of power to be moved about willy-nilly in this Province according to orders of that Board. In so doing the Premier has indicated that it was the intention of the government to at least give itself the option, the legislative power, to possibly get at the infamous Churchill Falls contract.

This may be a matter of some personal concern for the Premier, having been in the government of the day that approved that particular legislation, but one wonders if this particular move on the part of the Premier is well-founded in law. From all that we've heard from people who are experts in the field there are considerable doubts as to whether or not the initiative in this particular bill will actually stand the test before the Supreme Court of Canada. Certainly previous attempts by previous governments of the Province to get at the Churchill Falls contract through measures of either direct or general application have not worked insofar as the Court has ruled. They've impacted negatively on an interprovincial undertaking and are therefore ultra vires the power of this particular Legislature.

Nothing seems to have changed among the learned people in the law with regard to the view on that except with regard to the particular view of the Premier. The Premier obviously has supreme confidence in his own particular legal view on this matter, and that is his right. I guess the question that we've all been asking ourselves in this Legislature is whether or not, even though the Premier may feel very strongly on this particular matter, may hold very firmly to his view this legislative initiative may lead in due course to an overturning of the Churchill Falls contract, as to whether or not that should be done in light of a general public opposition to other parts of this bill which are tied to the privatization of Hydro.

This bill has certain sections that basically facilitate the privatization of Hydro. The Premier indicated I think as late as this afternoon, I think on the t.v. news, that the privatization of Hydro was not a necessary prerequisite to any law of general application with regard to the regulation of electrical power in this Province. One has to wonder why these two companion bills, worded as they are, are currently before this House of Assembly. This particular bill is in one regard in a (inaudible) to other parts of this bill which are tied to the privatization of Hydro. This bill adds certain sections that basically facilitate the privatization of Hydro, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier indicated I think as late as this afternoon, on the TV news, that the privatization of Hydro was not a necessary prerequisite to any law of general application with regard to the regulation of electrical power in this Province, so one has to wonder why these two companion bills, worded as they are, are currently before this House of Assembly.

This particular bill is in one regard, in an attempt to regain certain rights lost to the Province under the auspices of a former government, but at the same time, tied in with it are measures relating to labour relations in the electrical industry, subsidies that are enjoyed by rural people which will be removed; certain public utilities taxes that had now accrued to the provincial Crown through the federal Crown are being transferred on to private corporations. There is a host of side issues tacked on to this bill and one has to wonder just what is the general agenda here.

If one wishes to get at the business of our right to regulate electrical power, I am sure a bill much simpler, much shorter, much less inclusive could be brought before this Legislature, and if the Premier feels as strongly as he does about it and is willing to spend several millions of the taxpayers dollars in pursuit of such a thing, then obviously such a bill could be passed but not proclaimed into law and immediately tested before the courts in this nation, and we would know as to whether or not such actions are valid, but, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are about.

Bill 2, in some regards is somewhat of an omnibus bill, it contains that general thrust plus several other things that are not at all necessary to that particular thrust and it certainly ties in very tightly with the privatization of Hydro. One must wonder why the government is so single-minded in its pursuit of Hydro privatization and, Mr. Speaker, Hydro privatization, has been touted as a part of a government general policy with regard to the shedding of various corporate and business interests of the Crown that are best left in the private sector.

In general, I think it is fair to say that our party has no particular problem with this, but, Mr. Speaker, one has to ask: is the company, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Crown corporation, really a company that is suited to the private sector in the pure sense, and I think when one views that it is a regulated public utility, essentially a monopoly outside the realm of competition in the market I should say, one has to come to the conclusion that this particular corporation is not in business as are many other corporations.

This is not a Farm Products corporation, this is not a Computer Services corporation of which there are many in the private sector; this is not a hardwoods corporation that is in competition with other lumber or woodworking industries in the Province, this is a corporation which was designed for the general public good, has done a great capital works for the general public good, and there are still other capital works for the general public good to be done through the vehicle of this corporation, and I have great concerns, Mr. Speaker, that should we go ahead with these two bills, eventually that great capital work which is left to be done, the development of the Lower Churchill River system, will be left to the hands of basically, a private electrical industry in this Province and our track record in that regard, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat less than rosy.

We are reminded on a daily basis, certainly every year when we see the statement coming out of Hydro Quebec, of the tremendous windfalls that accrue to that particular province through the Upper Churchill contract. That was a contract that was basically entered into by a company BRINCO with the Quebec Crown corporation, Quebec Hydro. That particular contract may well have served BRINCO well but it did not serve the Province well.

Here we are today, having had that very unfortunate experience, and having the Premier go on Province-wide TV saying it is one of his intentions to reverse that experience through a piece of legislation still incorporated in this legislation, and in a companion bill, is an attempt to shed ourselves of a public corporation, make it private, and again leave the remaining hydro electric development in this Province in the hands of private interests.

Hydro electricity, Mr. Speaker, certainly developments on this scale, are very much in the public domain. I think there is a good argument to be made that essentially the provision of electrical services to the body politic in any given jurisdiction is a strategic, national, provincial, whatever, interest and there is a role for the state to be played in the provision of that service. It is yet to be shown in any forum that this matter is best handled in a private sector environment. Certainly, it can never be in a purely private sector environment because it is a regulated monopoly basically, so one has to wonder just what is the underlying agenda here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Light and Power started certain things in the Province here years ago in certain population centres where it was profitable to provide electricity for the people, but when the time came to provide electricity for the mass of the people it became necessary for the Crown to intervene, for the Crown to create a vehicle to provide that public service. That particular corporation has developed dams, turbines and waterways, etc., that have a replacement value these days probably in the billions.

The Bay d'Espoir power project, for instance, is paid-off these days, and I am sure if you were to redo such a project today it would cost many hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally, if not in the billions, that particular project alone. We had a few hundreds of millions of dollars put into Cat Arm, Hinds Lake, and the Holyrood generating station.

These are all expensive projects undertaken on behalf of the people, by the people's corporation, and we are about to give away these things now, which have values in the billions, for the paltry sum of some $300 million or so, and in so doing lose the vehicle by which we can take advantage of the hydro electric resources of the Lower Churchill river system.

Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder if this is not somewhat shortsighted, and one has to wonder if influences have come to bear on the government that see great profit for themselves in such an event taking place. Certainly, we cannot see any great profit for the people. The government itself admits that it itself will benefit with a short-term infusion of cash and a modest long-term interest relief, and one has to wonder if that little gain is worth the great loss that will come from the sale of Newfoundland Hydro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak and say a few words on the amendment that Bill 2 not be read a second time, the amendment moved so capably by my colleague the Member for Ferryland and seconded by my colleague for Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: A brilliant piece of parliamentary work (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It probably was a brilliant piece of parliamentary work. It was brilliant in the sense that it allows people such as myself, a member of the provincial Legislature, to have the opportunity to speak and try and tell the people of this Province what exactly is happening with regard to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

Because that is one of the reasons I'm sure that the hon. Member for Ferryland made the amendment. He wanted to make the people more aware of the consequences of what privatization is going to have on them, how it is going to affect their lives, how it is going to affect their children's lives, and their children's lives. Because that is the affect. It is not just something that you can pass a couple of bills, privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and then next year say: Oops, we made a mistake last year, we sold Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we are going to take it back.

Such as has been suggested by my hon. friend, the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations. He suggested: Sure, if it is a mistake we can take it back next year, or when you fellows get re-elected. I think he saw the polls. That is why he threw in a little caveat that when we get elected, people on this side of the House.

PREMIER WELLS: Dream on.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Premier mentions about dream on. He has probably been losing some sleep lately so that is why he is making references to dreams. He is losing some sleep because he has seen the polls. A lot of people suggest that is why he is so testy in the House. You can't even say good-day to him now, without his blood pressure goes up, way up. As a friend of mine from Buchans says: It is up on bust now, Alec. That is what he says.

That is why he has become so testy, because he has seen the polls. Polls done by Environics that suggest that the government satisfaction - this was done in March - the federal government is doing really well, but not as well as another Liberal government, the New Brunswick government. They have an approval rating of 61 per cent. The federal government is a very close second with 57 per cent.

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought somewhere earlier this afternoon that through debate and what have you we were discussing Bill No. 2. The hon. member has been carrying on with a dissertation of polls and what have you for the last five or ten minutes and I would ask the Chair to think on the relevance associated with what the member is doing or saying.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think what my colleague is doing is pointing out quite clearly that as a result of this piece of legislation that is before the House to be voted on through the gag order, it is clearly the reason why the Premier has dropped so low in the polls.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek may continue.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I only raised it because the Premier made reference to his nightmares and my dreams. That is why I raised it. I wanted to bring out these things that are causing these nightmares and promoting my dreams, and dreams of some other people in the front benches here. Because they have some grins lately. They are out there preening now, getting new suits and getting hairdos. Because they saw the results of the polls too.

They know that this government is down to a 25 per cent rating of approval of government satisfaction. Behind Ontario, behind Bob Rae, who this government over here says that is the ultra-left wing, that is why everybody is against them. Now we see the ultra-right wing government down to 25 per cent. Even below the 29 per cent of Bob Rae.

Mr. Speaker, if that was something, if that was shock, a shock to some people causing nightmares and creating dreams of moving up a floor, moving over into the big office, being able to make big decisions about to maybe help out your colleagues who helped put you in a certain position. I can see it now in the back rooms and talking to some of these teachers, some of these fellows saying: I know you helped put me here, but did you see the poll? I might make it to be premier. Did you see what is going on here? The Premier of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) support from teachers.

MR. A. SNOW: I don't know. He may. He seems to think that he has a lot of support. Some of the people over there in the front benches seem to think that we have a lot of support. I don't know who would get the most here but it would be - I don't want to mention any names, Mr. Speaker, because that would only create a rift over there and that is the last thing I want to do. That is the last thing I want to do, is to create problems within the Cabinet or within the front ranks of this government. Because they are in enough trouble now at 22 per cent, because that is where the Premier is. He is trailing the party now.

What brought this about? He is down to 22 per cent. He is down tied with the left-wing Bob Rae. So we've got on a right wing, we've got our Premier, left wing, we've got the Premier of Ontario, and in the centre is Frank McKenna.

MR. HARRIS: Since when was Bob Rae left-wing?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, that could make for a pretty good line, I suppose. This approval rating, this occurrence has occurred, these polls results done in March I believe is a direct result of the attitude of this government and this Premier. I also have a pretty good idea why Frank McKenna is where he is in the polls, why he is at the highest in the country. It is because he truly believes in the private sector and he goes out and he works his butt off to attract industry to his Province. That is what he has been doing since he got elected. He hasn't been pussyfooting around with the Constitution, he hasn't been angering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: No he hasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been the last three years?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, he has been promoting New Brunswick as a place to invest in. What do we see this government about to do? They say that they are going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a method of attracting private sector investment. Where everybody out there in the private sector - I won't say everybody, excuse me.

People in small business don't believe in the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro being something that is going to help the economy of this Province, from their perspective. Because one of the things it is going to do, one of the things that will happen with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, yes, there will be some investment from this Province. What that will do is it will trigger an investment of capital into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, into the new Hydro. That will remove that available capital from the opportunity to be invested into small businesses.

That is a fact. It is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, I'm talking about small business, not big business that the hon. Government House Leader has been associated with. I'm talking about small business which, Mr. Speaker, we all know is to become the engine of recovery for this country's economy and not just this Province.

I raised these figures of these polls just to point out the fact of what is occurring, what the people are saying. That is why we are saying, as an Opposition, as responsible people in a Legislature, that we have to make the people more aware. We have to give the people of this Province a greater opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in this discussion on whether or not we should proceed with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

Because I'm sure that every person in this House honestly believes that this piece of legislation is more important than some of the legislation that we've dealt with here in this House and have sent it out and about the Province to allow the public to have their input. Such as the proposed name change. A committee of the House was struck and toured the Province to seek public input. I'm sure that every member of this House would agree that this bill is at least as important as that. I'm sure they would agree with that. But no, this government, which I commend for having a commitment to allowing the public when they were elected - when they were first elected they had a commitment to allow the public to have input and put in place a system of legislative review committees.

Having said that, then what do they do when the two pieces of legislation that both the Premier and the Government House Leader have suggested as the most important pieces of legislation to be presented to this House since Confederation, what do they do? They ram it through the House, don't allow public discussion, and that is why this government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when Peckford was here!

MR. A. SNOW: We are not talking about when Peckford was here. Peckford -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is why this government and this leadership, the Premier, the Premier of the day, is the lowest in the country in public opinion polls, Mr. Speaker. Because that perception that people had of being strong-willed when it was on the popular side of an argument was good sales but it isn't when you are being perceived as being arrogant. It isn't then, it is not very popular then. People disagree with it. This government is being perceived as being arrogant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: People are saying it. This government is perceived as somebody not listening. You won't listen. You don't believe public opinion polls done by Environics, you don't believe Decima, you don't believe any polls done by....

MR. TOBIN: Tobin Associates.

MR. A. SNOW: No, Tobin Associates wouldn't be the credible firm that I'm speaking of. M-5 Advertising, a local firm, probably -

AN HON. MEMBER: Market Quest.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Market Quest, (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Market Quest. They all did professional polls. Mr. Speaker, every one of them come in the ball park of 60 per cent to 80 per cent against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. This government won't listen to that. They say: No, we don't have to listen to that because we know better.

Countless times the people of this Province have been shown by other than me the economic factors why it shouldn't be sold. But then some other people - the Premier himself has suggested that the super scheme he has, the scheme to get back the economic benefit out of the Upper Churchill failure - that is what he said. Going to right this wrong. That is the reason why caucus and the Cabinet weren't allowed to speak about it in the beginning because he didn't want to colour - now the Premier is shaking his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I'm only repeating what the Premier has said. He suggested in his Province-wide address that he didn't want his caucus and his Cabinet to bring this out to the public because it may become - I believe his words were, I don't have the exact quotation here now, it is here somewhere. What he did say was that he did not want to impede Bill No. 2 by hysterical commentary, anti-Quebec feelings, and would possibly even colour the legislation, would become coloured legislation such as, I believe, the hon. House Leader suggested earlier was what the Water Rights Reversion Act was construed as by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now by saying that, the Premier said it was his super scheme. That's why people, if you don't believe the economics of the argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No. I will get it after, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few minutes to clue up here now, and I will get it.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier did say is that - first of all, he said that you would have to privatize. When he addressed on NTV, he said you would have to privatize for this scheme of his to work. Subsequent to that, in a debate with the other party leaders, he suggested it wasn't necessary, after it was proven to him by documents that he had written while he was a lawyer, I believe, on retainer by Newfoundland Light and Power to do some research on this particular problem, that they felt that it was with the recall, or the Water Rights Reversion Act in 1986, the Leader of the Opposition showed a document and the Premier confirmed then that it wasn't necessary. As it wasn't necessary in 1986, it wasn't necessary today to have the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

In other words, the truth that I told about the lie, or the misstatement on the previous debate, wasn't true. That's what he basically said in a subsequent debate on CBC and NTV when he was with the three leaders.

Mr. Speaker, to my way of thinking, if Brian Peckford's comments in a brochure coloured the legislation and made, I guess - I don't know the legal term, but - made it extraterritorial, or attempted to do something through the back door or ultra vires, made it go through the back door what they couldn't do through the front door, because that is what this legislation is about, then if it didn't work because of Brian Peckford's brochure, if it didn't work because of that, I am sure a Province-wide television address will have the same affect that Brian Peckford's brochure had. That's what I believe, and that's what lawyers have told me.

If I thought that we could benefit, if we could derive an economic benefit from the Upper Churchill by passing a bill in this House, I would vote for it immediately. I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever, because I firmly believe there was a mistake done, and the Premier was party to it back then, and maybe that's part of the reason why he is so up tight about ramming this through the House today. He is attempting to correct the wrong that he was associated with back when the Upper Churchill deal, the deal that the hon. minister responsible for forestry put as the reason for being in the political wilderness over the last seventeen years, or the previous seventeen years of the Liberal Party, because of what they did to the Upper Churchill. He so eloquently put it that they will be even longer in the political wilderness by the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I agree with him. I think they will be in the wilderness longer, but this is not about one getting into power, or changing governments, to my way of thinking anyway, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I cannot support this bill is because I don't believe that it will work. If I thought it would work and right the wrong that was done to the Upper Churchill, I could support it, but this bill is just a smoke screen as another argument to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is a bad deal for this Province today and is going to be even more of a bad deal in the future. That's why I can't support it.

It seems that the people on that side of the House, according to the Premier, have a completely different type of constituent than we have, and different than the polls are saying that they have. The Premier said tonight on provincial t.v. that the reason why he is going to proceed with the bill is that his caucus members are telling him that they are in favour of it, that people are in favour of it, that a majority of the people are in favour of it.

I don't believe that. Some people on that side of the House said: Just like you did, Alec, with Meech Lake. When I went back to my constituents during the Meech Lake debate I did go door to door. I did talk to the people in the malls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: No, I did not. As a matter of fact, it was confirmed in my district - I won't speak for every district in this Province - by a CBC poll -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it was in my district. I don't know why it was in my district. It was confirmed - very close, it was about 55-45. I said 60-40 when I came and spoke in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I believe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. A. SNOW: Can I have just one minute? Thirty seconds?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: To clue up. Just thirty seconds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds and counting. Go.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I will ask people on the other side of the House to give this amendment strong consideration and allow people of this Province to have more input into these two pieces of legislation, so that they won't be forced into a situation, such as the Upper Churchill deal, that is going to, I believe, do more damage - these two bills together will do more damage to this Province than the Upper Churchill ever did. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by one of my colleagues that the House decline to give second reading to Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, because it is not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If this bill is passed and if it leads to the court case over the Upper Churchill that the Premier is angling for to test his pet legal theory then I'm afraid the people of this Province will come to realize just how much they will lose because of this legislation. The outcome would be many years and many millions of dollars away.

The centrepiece of this bill is clause 8 which sets up the Province's Public Utilities Board to reallocate any power produced in the Province and order another producer to supply to a producer or retailer such "...which would otherwise be unable to satisfy such demands power that the public utilities board considers to be necessary..."

This is the crux of the Premier's bill. This bill bears the Premier's name, not the name of the Minister of Mines and Energy. It bears the Premier's name and it is very much the Premier's personal project. An earlier version of this bill was set out in a legal opinion written by the Premier when he was in private law practice and when he served on the board of Newfoundland Light and Power back in 1986. The idea was not his original idea - it had been advanced several years before that by one of the senior government lawyers - but the Premier adopted the idea and promoted it. He set out in his opinion for Newfoundland Light and Power an earlier version of this bill with just a slight difference in wording.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the government lawyer?

MS. VERGE: Cyril Greene.

AN HON. MEMBER: A written opinion?

MS. VERGE: Written opinion.

Mr. Speaker, this provision of the bill, according to the Premier's theory, would enable any of the utilities, when he espoused the notion in the beginning he had in mind a privately-owned Newfoundland Light and Power, which was his company, or he contemplated a publicly owned or a Crown owned Hydro, now he is saying the theory would stand a better chance of success if Hydro is privatized, but the idea involves one of the utilities going to the Public Utilities Board and asking for the board to reallocate Upper Churchill Power which now goes to Hydro Quebec under the terms of the infamous Smallwood contract, the BRINCO - Hydro Quebec Contract.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier in his 1986 legal opinion, anticipated a constitutional challenge to this legislation and suggested then that the constitutional challenge could be overcome by packaging the reallocation provision as one of general application which just incidentally happened to apply to the Upper Churchill, but Mr. Speaker, we only have four producers of power in our Province. We have CFL(C)o, producing power from the Upper Churchill, we have Newfoundland Light and Power and we have the two paper companies, and, Mr. Speaker, the Premier in one of his many, many inconsistencies, is telling the House, is telling the Leader of the Opposition that part II or Clause 8, this particular clause, does not apply to the Paper companies; he says: Part II of the act, the reallocation part of the act doesn't apply to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper or to Abitibi-Price.

AN HON. MEMBER: By general application.

MS. VERGE: Well how can he then maintain his original position that this part is of general application? I mean, the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the only source of surplus or unallocated power in the Province is the Upper Churchill, and this is clearly aimed at the Upper Churchill even though the Premier might try to pretend, when it suits his purpose, that it is of general application and just happens to coincidentally or incidentally govern the Upper Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier confessed in his first Province-wide television address, the half-hour, long address on NTV, that the real purpose of this legislation, of the whole Hydro privatization initiative, is to break the Upper Churchill contract, but, Mr. Speaker, sadly, this is doomed to failure; we have already had two rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada seven to nothing, and when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Water Rights Reversion Act as being beyond the constitutional powers of the provincial Legislature, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote: Where, however, the pith and substance of the provincial legislation is the derogation from or elimination of extra provincial rights, then even if it's cloaked in the proper constitutional form it will be ultra vires, in other words it will be beyond the competence of the Legislature; it will be struck down, it will not succeed, it will not be valid, and, Mr. Speaker, to test this legal theory, will involve three levels of court that will involve years of litigation, it will cost the provincial Treasury millions of dollars to fight the court case, but, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity cost will be worse.

The atmosphere for negotiating with Hydro Quebec over the Upper Churchill or the Lower Churchill will be poisoned. As the court case is dragging on CF(L)Co. will be going broke. In a matter of just a few years CF(L)Co.'s revenue, which it gets from selling power at a ridiculously cheap price to Hydro Quebec, which is now down below 3 mils and which will go down lower, will not meet the annual operating costs. CF(L)Co. in a few short years will go into a deficit position and the shortfall will become worse and worse as the years go on.

Then in the early part of the next century the Lobstick facility is going to have to be replaced because it was only designed to last for thirty years. That is going to cost a couple of hundred million dollars. Where is that money going to come from? Who is going to provide the money to keep CF(L)Co. solvent and to replace worn infrastructure?

There are two shareholders in CF(L)Co. Now our government owns two-thirds of the shares and Hydro Quebec owns the other one-third. But if Hydro Quebec puts in the money it has the right, under the contract, to get additional shares. We can put in more money, but we can't afford it. In the meantime the Lower Churchill remains undeveloped.

Two short years ago we could have had a fantastic deal to develop the Lower Churchill and get billions of dollars of additional revenue for the Upper Churchill to keep the company solvent, to replace Lobstick, and to net the provincial treasury over $4 billion in additional royalties and revenues over the remaining life of the Upper Churchill contract. The Premier walked away from that opportunity, and do you know why? Because of his ego. Because he thought he knew better than all the other lawyers. He thought he could do what the Peckford government and the Moores government had failed to do. He thought he alone had the legal answer, that he alone would be the saviour.

This Premier is gambling with the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it probably won't be until the millennium, until around the year 2000, that people will generally begin to comprehend the magnitude of the damage this Premier did to Newfoundland and Labrador. History will judge this Premier extremely harshly. This is a premier who has made fundamental, colossal errors in judgement, errors which will have long-lasting, negative consequences, errors that will hurt future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Premier himself admitted when challenged on the leaders' t.v. debate on March 24 that you really don't even need to privatize Hydro to test this flaky legal theory. As he originally wrote in 1986 Newfoundland Light and Power, Angus Bruneau, could go to the Public Utilities Board and apply under clause 8 of this bill to have power reallocated from the Upper Churchill to Newfoundland Light and Power, or a Crown-owned Hydro could do it, or the Cabinet could do it. What would the government do with the power if it got the power? If through some miracle this legislation were upheld as being constitutionally valid what would the government do, or what would Newfoundland Light and Power do with power from the Upper Churchill? Power that is taken away from the supply contracted for to Hydro Quebec would trigger default. Under the terms of the contract Hydro Quebec would be entitled to redeem the outstanding bonds and then gain control of CF(L)Co. What would we do with the power? Where would we use it? With the way our economy is going is it likely that we would even need it? How would we get it to the Island? Who would finance the transmission line to the Island? The federal government surely wouldn't if we are embroiled in a nasty court battle with Hydro Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this represents a lose-lose-lose proposition. It involves losing a profitable Hydro and Hydro's assets on the Island. It involves higher electricity prices forever for householders and businesses in the Province, presenting another impediment to business activity in this Province, and leaving individuals with even less disposable income. It would involve the profits earned at the rate payers' expense by a privately owned Hydro out of the Province to non-resident shareholders. It would involve a long, drawn out, protracted, hugely expensive court case which would almost surely result in a third loss before the Supreme Court of Canada while CF(L)Co. goes broke and Hydro Quebec may gain control, or the even more poverty-stricken Newfoundland and Labrador government is forced to pump millions of additional dollars into CF(L)Co. to retain what we have in CF(L)Co. Third, we would lose the opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill.

Two years ago Hydro Quebec offered this Province a fantastic opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill, to purchase surplus power beginning with about 2,500 megawatts over a thirty-year term at an escalating price, going from about 35 mils to 145 mils per kilowatt hour, averaging about 74 mils or 75 mils per kilowatt hour. At the end of that thirty-year term, which would have been about 2031 or 2032 or 2033, we would have owned Gull Island and Muskrat Falls debt free. We would have been getting additional royalties and revenues on the Upper Churchill already. We now get about $10 million a year. Perhaps by now, this year, we would have been getting about $30 million. That would have been $30 million we could have applied to solving our public sector workers problems, maintaining adequate school and health services, or at least doing a better job of it than the government can afford to do now.

Gull Island, which is considered the single most attractive remaining hydroelectric project in all of North America, could have been constructed in a few years' time in about 1996 or 1997. That would have started just as employment at Hibernia was declining and obviously when thousand of displaced fishery workers are desperate for work. It would have provided jobs that those unemployed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do. We squandered - well, we didn't squander the opportunity, the Premier squandered the opportunity, and he concealed it from the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, history will condemn this Premier and all the members who support him in this dastardly venture. When the vote comes every single member of this House will have the same vote. The Premier will have one vote and the members of the Liberal caucus will each have one vote. So far only one Liberal member has had the courage to openly oppose Hydro privatization and also the other negative aspects of this Electrical Power Resources Act, and that is the Member for Pleasantville.

I know just by looking at the members opposite that the Member for Pleasantville is not the only government member who is troubled by this legislation. We all know that 80 per cent of the people of the Province are against Hydro privatization. Repeated polls have shown that. The question is: How many of the members opposite is the Premier going to take down with him? The Premier won't be around for the next election. The Premier already has the next phase of his career planned. The Minister of Justice probably won't be around. He has been in this House so long by now that he will be entitled to a healthy public sector pension to supplement his private means.

What about all the other members over there, especially the one-termers who want to get re-elected and who are going to have to face their constituents and explain why they went along with the Premier, or they took a stand along with the Member for Pleasantville against their Premier for the sake of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, I hope in the remaining days of the debate on this bill and the related Hydro privatization bill that more members opposite will summon the necessary courage to side with their people and to take a stand for the benefit of the future of this Province. It would only take eight more of them. The Member for Windsor - Buchans was right by the way when he told the Liberal Party at the convention in Gander last November that the Liberals were in the political wilderness for seventeen years after the Upper Churchill giveaway. If the Premier succeeds in privatizing Hydro now the Liberals will be doomed to an equally long and miserable period in the political wilderness.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, as an Opposition member I do not take -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - any joy in the prospect of being a member of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - a new government formed in three years' time if we have lost Hydro. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tonight I rise to support the motion put forward by the Member for Ferryland not to pass this bill because it is not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Bill No. 2, of course, An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, is before this House for one reason, in my opinion. We've been given three so far by the Premier. The first was to deal with the emergencies that may arise in the future with respect to power in the Province. The second was on Province-wide television back in March sometime he mentioned that they could possibly use this bill in the future to access the Upper Churchill power. Of course he also said at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, that he basically muzzled the members of his party, or of government, not to bring this up in the House or in public, which the population of this Province were pretty well disgusted with, Mr. Speaker. Of course, then in the Province-wide debate with the three leaders he basically came out and said: well, it is not really necessary to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to access the Upper Churchill, that he could do it through Newfoundland Power possibly.

Now, I speak of the privatization, Mr. Speaker, because Section 1 of this bill deals with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is in there for one reason, of course, that when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized we will use this bill to try and gain access to the Upper Churchill power.

The only reason this bill is before the House, in my opinion, is because the Premier, I believe, is trying to redeem himself for sins of the past when he was involved with the Smallwood Cabinet that approved the deal on the Upper Churchill power. Himself, the hon. Premier and the Member for Naskaupi were members of the Cabinet at that point in time when the great giveaway of the Upper Churchill was completed.

I believe the hon. Government House Leader made some remarks across the House once or twice with respect to the Bay Verte crackie, which was what he called the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. Well, that leads me to think that the Premier reminds me of a Labrador retriever who is following a bone or a duck in the bay. He is going out swimming after it but the tide is bringing it further and further and he is finally that far out that he swims under.

I believe the Premier is doing that to himself and to the government at this point in time. It is not that I am really upset over that but my concern is that he will take the Province down with him. If he pursues this procedure, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is very well what may happen.

In the past a good friend, I think, of the Premier, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau, wanted to go down in history as the man who repatriated the Constitution, and, of course he did that, he brought the Constitution of Canada back but he did it without getting the signature of Quebec. We saw where that led us in future years, where the Prime Minister of the day tried to put the Meech Lake agreement through, and further to that the Charlottetown accord.

Of course the Premier of this Province had a major input in the defeating of those pieces of legislation, or agreements, whatever we refer to them as, Mr. Speaker, and I think we will pay the price for that down the road. Now, we have a Premier who is basically intent and pigheaded on getting back the Upper Churchill power contract. He is going to use this bill, Bill 2, to try and access that power. What is at risk here? I do not profess to be an expert in the legal field or an expert by any stretch of the imagination on the Upper Churchill contract, but from the information that has been given to me and from general knowledge I believe we could be pursuing a very dangerous course here. Basically we could be rolling the dice on the future of this Province. What could happen is we could lose all Upper Churchill power in the future. From my understanding if the contract is interfered with by any means, and particular with legislation, then the bonds at the time will become due and payable immediately and it could actually trigger an automatic takeover by Hydro Quebec of the Hydro Newfoundland or the Upper Churchill power.

Mr. Speaker, further to that we could actually see the Province of Newfoundland being sued for millions and maybe billions of dollars in due course. I believe the proper way to go would be to negotiate a deal, and as the Minister of Energy has confirmed in this House within the past few weeks the Province was very close to coming to an agreement on a deal with Hydro Quebec. Newfoundland and Quebec have been very close to a deal after two years of negotiations. After two years of negotiations they were very close to a deal. Of course, they would have to come to an agreement on many, many issues that would be involved in such an agreement.

Why did the government of the day, led by the hon. Premier, scuttle the deal that was very close? Because I believe that the Premier believes that he can actually access the Upper Churchill power through Bill No. 2 and the use of the Public Utilities Board. Again, I am very concerned about that.

What have we already lost by the scuttling of this deal? I am led to believe that we have already lost $20 million to $30 million per year. The deal with Quebec, of course, would gear us up for a very massive, massive project, and what would that do to the economy and the way people would look at wanting to invest in this Province? How many jobs would be lost because of the deal that has been scuttled? That remains to be seen, of course; and, of course, if we had a deal, which we were very close to, it would be a more favourable current account.

People deserve to be told why this deal did not go through. Now the Premier says, of course, that it's because there were no markets, the markets had dropped on the Eastern Seaboard and what have you, but I personally don't believe that.

If things continue to go the way they are going in this Province - I mentioned this once before in the House - and that is, I have done a lot of reading leading up to Confederation and the Commission of Government, and before that time, and back in the days of Sir Richard Squires, when the people of the Province marched on the Colonial Building of today and wanted to string up the Prime Minister of the day, that could very well happen again in the future. We saw, only a few days ago, what happened in Nova Scotia where the people dropped out of the galleries onto the floor of the House in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am not promoting it, but I am telling you, Sir, if you would listen and pay attention for once in your life you might learn something, what is going to happen in this Province if you maintain and keep on the route that you are going, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for seventeen years.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, we had that for seventeen years, and I would say to the hon. House Leader, how long are you going to blame the previous government for it? When are you going to start taking some responsibility for your own actions? How about doing that for once in your life?

Mr. Speaker, further to that we have a situation now in the Province of Quebec which basically has been, I won't say it has been promoted by the Premier of the Province, but certainly has been impacted upon by the Premier of this Province, and that is the election coming up in the Province of Quebec, which is probably the most important election in the history of this country.

We have a group, a party in the Province of Quebec, whose prime objective is to separate from this country. Now, if we privatize Hydro, and the 20 per cent clause in this bill is approved, we can have people outside this Province buying up major, major, portions or shares in the new privatized Hydro, and what would that do if we have a foreign country, basically, if the Province of Quebec did decide to separate from this country? I sincerely hope they don't do that, but if they do decide to go on, and they have major, major shares in the new privatized Hydro, we would then be controlled, or Hydro Newfoundland would be controlled, by a foreign country.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what impact that would have on the agreement now with the Upper Churchill, because it's an interprovincial agreement, and maybe if the Province of Quebec did decide to leave, then we could have a situation where that contract would not be a valid contract. Granted, the Premier may know more about this than I would at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion for the Premier, and I am sorry he won't take it, but I would suggest that he resign as Premier of this Province because basically 90 per cent of the people of this Province now are opposing him on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If he decided to do that I would suggest that he could run for the president of the new `4-H Club' in this Province that he has created. We all know that usually the 4-H Club stood for head, hands, health and heart, but the `4-H Club' today stands for heartache. Ninety per cent of the population of this Province now have heartache brought on by the government of the day through its ISP, the denominational school system which is wreaking havoc on the education system in this Province, the Hydro deal and others.

The second H would be havoc. When this Premier decided to run he promised jobs, he promised hospital beds would be opened, he promised every mother's son would return to this Province and Memorial University would expand. What has happened? Just the exact reverse has happened. Jobs have been lost by the thousands, direct thousands of jobs from the civil service and the spin-off. We have hundreds of hospital beds closed.

Another H, the third H. Harassment. Nothing less than harassment. Harassment for CUPE, for NAPE, for the nurses, teachers, towns and municipalities, et cetera. They've never seen the like in their life what is going on with the negotiations.

The last of course, the fourth H, was hunger. I don't believe that there is - and I wouldn't apply this to all the members opposite, because I don't believe it would apply to everyone over there. There are members on that side, especially in Cabinet, who do not understand the hunger that is out there in this Province. When I say hunger I am talking about hunger for bread and butter issues. There are people out there in this Province who are having real trouble putting bread and butter on the table. One of the reasons is because of the loss of jobs over the past number of years. The people out there are hungry for food, jobs, contentment, and they are hungry to stay in their own homes. Are we going to be revisiting back in the days of the 1960s, the resettlement program?

I've been stating for a number of years now, and not since I've been elected to the House but a good number of years, that the policies of this government and this Administration are directly related to resettlement. Only two weeks ago we saw the Minister of Fisheries come into this Province and announce the biggest resettlement ever in the history of this Province with the TAGS program.

I can agree with certain sections of this bill and I certainly would promote certain sections of this bill, especially in Part III which deals with the power emergencies. I agree with the intent. Other provinces have had similar legislation. I think if the sections related to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were taken out of this bill it could easily be approved or passed in this House with possibly full support of all members. I don't really see any benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador as it now stands. The Premier says that it could save $25 million a year. A lot of money, but in actual fact over a ten year period it could actually cost this Province $1 billion in increased rates, in subsidies, and tax concessions.

A very important issue is the people opposed commitment to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There are a lot of people out there who are opposed. I am opposed. The polls have shown this, the polls have substantiated the opposition. The Premier has actually gone on Province-wide t.v. and stated that he would not bring Bill No. 1 to the House and have it passed. But here tonight on the CBC news - or was it last night, I'm not sure which now - he actually came out point blank and said that he would bring this bill to the House and he would approve it. It was going ahead regardless of what the people of this Province thought. I'm sure in due course he will pay the price for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, who will benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? All I can see at this point in time is, money people, the Rothschilds of the world, people with the millions now, will benefit. They have already given them $450,000, and as I stated once before, the law firms inside and outside the Province; Curtis Dawe, $145,700; Blake, Cassels $622,000 already -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: $622,000 already when we have hospital beds closing down in this Province, Mr. Speaker; when we have $100,000 being taken out of the budget for the child abuse group; Municipalities being cut right, left and centre and we have $600,000 gone, just like that - and not even gotten into it yet, how much money is it going to cost in the long run? Unreal, unreal that the government would even be considering it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, who will lose? Of course, it is going to be the rate payers of this Province, that is who is going to lose. We will see rural rates increase as subsidies disappear, and see the people of Labrador see their electricity rates increase by as much as 30 per cent. We have $100 million a year in subsidies and tax concessions and that is what it is going to cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of course, the municipalities; they are saying now that municipalities will benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Of course, if we have two or three or four municipalities in the Province that can actually access some of that taxation to the new privatized Hydro, who is going to pay for that in the long run? It will pass directly on to the consumer, Mr. Speaker.

Now we have the loss of jobs in this Province; it has been said that the jobs will be secured; in the transition period there will be job security but there is no guarantee afterwards. Again, we have to go back and compare this, Mr. Speaker, to the situation in Nova Scotia with 400 jobs gone but were told there would be no job losses. Now, we have a government saying we will lose jobs, we don't know how many, and not only do we have a government saying there will be no jobs lost yet they lost 400, so how many are we going to lose? God only knows, Mr. Speaker. We will have higher electricity rates, there is no ifs, ands or buts about that; the government and the Premier have already stated that there will be electricity rate increases.

We have already seen the lowering of the credit rating and for some strange reason with the twisting and manipulation of words, the government is trying to say that the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will increase the credit rating, when, only the other day, after the announcements had been made and the Premier stated that he is definitely going ahead with it, we saw the credit rating for this Province dropped, and again, on another important issue, the government has no mandate to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, no mandate whatsoever, it was never discussed; previous to, and during the election it was not discussed, and was actually denied in the House when it was brought up on the first few occasions.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of public money spent at this point in time, to try and convince the people that their views are wrong. Can you imagine, taking the people's own money to try and tell them that their views are wrong, tens of thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are seeing money spent on radio clips and ads in the paper which, from my perspective, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the ads in the paper were very misleading; I don't know if that was intentional or not, but when they say that there will be no changes at all to the situation of Hydro in this Province, and we are going to privatize it and probably have 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the ownership outside the Province, obviously there are going to be changes, and major changes at that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the privatization of Hydro can't compare to ordinary or regular commercial enterprises for obvious reasons of course, because it is an utility and a monopoly. It is not the same as Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services or Farm Products, because of course, in the computer industry in this Province, we have some up and coming good companies that are very knowledgeable in the computer field, and probably it may be a good idea to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, maybe, I say, Mr. Speaker; I am not convinced of that yet because we have not, of course, seen the figures, but when the figures are made public, then of course we will make our views known on that as a specific issue.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are sections in this bill that pave the way for the merger of Fortis with Newfoundland Hydro. Now that was the first proposal that was put forward by the government opposite and the Premier and, of course, down the road in the long run that is exactly what will happen because of the fact of the 20 per cent clause in Bill 2, which will give the Public Utilities Board the right and the power to approve more than 20 per cent ownership. If that is the case and this bill is approved, of course, that is exactly what is going to happen down the road.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other sections that pave the way for a merger is the section which instructs the Public Utilities Board to base the rates on three criteria. One is cost, the other is maintenance of credit worthiness, and another would be profit for shareholders.

Another section, of course, is the section -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise here tonight and have a few words to say on the amendment put forward by my colleague here on the Electrical Act.

First of all, when we talk about Bill 2, to be specific about it, Part I of Bill 2 automatically, when you read that, before you go on any further, Part I of Bill 2 mainly deals with the privatization part. Obviously, as all members are quite aware now, the whole idea of the privatization is what this side of the House is so strongly opposed to. Therefore, it would only make sense that if Part I of Bill 2 is to do with privatization, which we are so strongly opposed to, there's hardly any need to go on to look any further to look at the bill. If you start to eat something and you don't like the first couple of bites, you don't go on with the rest of it do you? The whole point being that if we don't like Part I of Bill 2, then why are we going to like Part II or Part III or so on?

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to privatization, that's where we stop, right there. Although we've read the rest of the bill, like a lot of hon. members have, - I don't know if all hon. members have - even before we go on to Part II, we look at Part I and say: Why go on? We just started off on the wrong foot already, so why should we keep walking if we started off on the wrong foot?

I just thought I would raise a couple of points now, especially that the Premier is here. I am glad he could sit in tonight for a change, and listen to a few of the arguments that we put forward firsthand instead of maybe just reading them in Hansard or whatever. It is a good chance to make a few points tonight that we have been saying all along.

To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I would rather we were sitting here tonight talking about some other issues relating to the Province, and I say to all hon. members over there that is the whole question we have to ask: Why are we? Why are we debating something that may not go through, or may this, or may that?

I agree with the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who said, on a number of occasions: Yes, we should get on and talk about some of the other issues that are in the Province right now, the crisis in the fishery, or the education reform that's going on - all kinds of issues. I would rather be standing here 9:00 and 12:00 tonight talking about a road into Harbour Deep. I certainly would. I would like to be talking to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about all the unpaved roads still in my district. There are lots of interesting things to talk about, so I am not here of choice to speak about the privatization of Hydro. I am here because I feel obligated to the people who elected me. I feel obligated to the people who elected me to speak up on this. Now I often wondered over the last few days, and over the last few weeks, what is the strategy? What is the whole ploy behind it all, I wonder.

I think about just a little over maybe three weeks ago I would listen to the radio time after time, and a flurry of advertisements coming out supporting what a great thing Hydro was. Then we see these beautiful gloss brochures of what a great thing Hydro was.

It is a funny thing that lately, over the last few days, I wonder if it is all part of the ploy, part of the plan, the Premier saying to his members and advisors: I think we should keep everything quiet a little bit. People are starting to get caught up in other issues, the fishery crisis, the teacher's strike, and the public servants. Maybe we should let everything quieten down. People were really upset about three or four weeks ago. At least 80 per cent were against the privatization of Hydro. The Premier said to his members that maybe we should calm it all down. Haul the advertisements off the radio. We will not send out any more flyers. We will not remind anybody about what is happening with the privatization of Hydro. We will wait a couple of more weeks to let it die down and then, bang, push it through. We will keep it as quiet as we can.

The only place where we can raise it now is in the House of Assembly where you get little coverage on the Hydro privatization thing, and that is simply because there are many issues up, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, very, very important issues that we should be discussing. We on this side believe, as the hon. House Leader said earlier, way back in the debate, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation to go through this House of Assembly. Being a new member elected to this House I cannot let my conscience say to people in my district who are still opposed to this, let it go through, let us give up the fight. We know everybody is bored with it, we know everybody is tired of it, but I do not say that, Mr. Speaker.

I can stay here until three or four o'clock tomorrow morning. I can stay here until July, until the cows come home, however long it takes. All those people might have been lulled a little bit lately because it has been dragging on and there have been other issues, but we have an obligation as elected members to say, I know you are tired but we will keep up the fight because it is very important.

Now, that brings me to my next point, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help but wonder, being a new politician, a rookie politician, like some of my hon. colleagues on the other side - and I wonder if they ever thought of it. I am sure some of the newer ones have. I am sure some over on this side have, to reflect right back to many moons ago when the hon. Premier and the hon. House Leader on the other side were sitting in the House of Assembly, similar to this one, up on another floor, but similar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It was that long ago I do not remember. I think I was two years old so I have to reflect back quite a bit. I had to ask our hon. leader a few minutes ago what it was like then. What was the debate like? There was not much television in those days, just a little bit of radio, so what was it like in the public? How did the public respond to the debate on the Churchill Falls deal? Just out of curiosity more than anything else I asked our leader, but he could not remember it very well either, so I wonder how long ago it was really? What was it like as far as the public were concerned?

We have the great media of the day, the radio and the television, and the technology of the day, but I wonder what the debate was like in the public eye years ago when the deal on Churchill Falls was going through? I know there are some members who recall it quite well. Some of the hon. members who are sitting here in the House today remember that debate quite well. I wonder what the Premier and the hon. House Leader feel a lot of the time when they think back and reflect back? I am sure both of them remember sitting in the House that day and watching the Premier of the day, Joseph R. Smallwood stand and support the Churchill Falls deal. I believe they can remember right to the day the Premier standing in front of them and supporting the Churchill Falls deal. If you asked them outside the Houses, in confidence, what did you feel like that day when you heard that being supported? I bet they can remember what happened that day.

Then, I would like to ask them and get a true, honest, heartfelt answer; we ask them today if they could stand in their places and say, how do you feel about it today? How many times have you reflected back on that - well, I do not know any other way to say it and I do not think it is being nasty when I say a boo-boo. I think that is the nicest way I can say it in this House, the Churchill Falls boo-boo, the Churchill Falls mistake. I am just wondering because I try to relate it to what is happening here today.

What is the real motive? I've been wondering about that for a long time, since we started debating this. I really have. I will bet you that there are a lot of hon. members on the other side who have really sat back and honestly said: I really wonder now, how sure are we? I would really ask now all hon. members, any of them to stand and maybe have a few words on this tonight and just tell us the truth. Stand in the House and say: We've listened to the Premier's side, we've listened obviously around the caucus table, we've read all the literature that came out, and supposedly you read the bills when they came out. In all honesty just stand in your place and say: Yes, 100 per cent, no doubt in my mind, that this is the right thing to do for Newfoundland and Labrador, for my children in the next generation and their children after that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Then in thirty years from now you will be able to stand in your place - you are sure of that now - and when you are older, I say to the hon. member, seriously, and be able to stand twenty years from now and say: I was in that House that day, I was there when they supported that bill. I hope for your sake and for your family's sake that you can stand up and honestly say: Yes, I supported it then because I knew everything that needed to be known about it and I had no problem in supporting it.

But I know, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members in this House know that nobody, including the Premier, is 100 per cent sure. I guess the Premier would even admit that. Nobody is 100 per cent sure of anything in life. I mean everything you take certain risks about. Obviously the answer to that is that nobody is 100 per cent sure. That is fair enough, I can understand that. We all take risks in our lives. I'm sure the Premier for being the leader of the Province had to take risks with a lot of decisions he has made already. I'm sure he wasn't 100 per cent on this one. The next obvious question is: How sure are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I think I have no problem saying that. Maybe the Premier before the night is out will stand and say he is not 100 per cent sure it is the best deal, and we know in ten or fifteen years what the ramifications or implications of this particular bill are going to be. We certainly don't know. I would really like to ask the Premier or any hon. members how sure you are. Are you 90 per cent, 80 per cent? Give us some idea of how sure they are, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: We are not like you, 110 per cent.

MR. SHELLEY: No, and I say to the Member for Fogo, I'm not 100 per cent sure that it is the wrong thing to do. That brings me to the next question, Mr. Speaker. We've heard this time after time again, and I go through the different public indicators that we've had since this debate has started.

First of all, let's start with number one here, open lines, okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Of course, all hon. members - I was waiting for a few oohs and aahs from the hon. members opposite. That is okay, that is fair enough. I will say to the hon. member, that is fair enough. Open lines, not very credible maybe you think. They can be orchestrated and they can be fixed. I know because you fixed them last election a few times. Open lines - but they are some indication. You can't scrub them all out, you can't say all these callers are all fixed and everything else. There are some genuine people who call and maybe there are others who call because other people got them to call. Who knows? Our first indicator are the open lines. In all fairness to the Premier, that I realize that you can't take everything and judge it on open lines, but they are indicators.

Let's say that was 50-50: fifty were being honest, fifty were being led on, or whatever, orchestrated into making these calls. Let's say that. That is fair enough. Although there were some pretty good, staunch calls in there.

Now phone calls are another indicator. Phone calls to the hon. members and phone calls to our side and phone calls home. First of all, I can tell you that I certainly had more than two phone calls and I can tell you one reason that I have - it is the only reason that I can figure for the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, there is only one reason I can see why he only had two phone calls. There is only one reason and it is, either you were not in the office or, nobody will call you because they said: well the minister is not going to change his mind, he has already told the Premier that he is backing him up so -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They are not going to call you, I say to the hon. minister. Why would they call the hon. minister if he has already said publicly: boys we must have privatization, I am supporting the government on this. I mean, why are they going to call you? Well I can tell hon. members over on this side - I can tell you from this side that there have been people who said that they would not bother calling their MHAs, and we have had calls - well I tell you, I wish I had recording on my phone because I would have given it to you if you wanted proof but I can only tell you and you can take it for what it is.

I have had calls from outside my district, from Liberal districts, actually, one of the first calls I had was about something separate, it wasn't about seals and I won't tell you what it was about either, but it was about something separate and they brought up about privatization to me and I said: Well, did you ask your member about that?.... and they said: no, it is only a waste of time to ask them, they have made up their minds. Now that is as honest as I can be with the hon. member. How fast time passes by, right. How fast, how fast, too bad.

Anyway, phone calls, that is okay so we will go on, protests and demonstrations, another indicator; so we have protests and demonstrations. I can honestly tell you that there is no one on this side of the House who had anything to do with any orchestration of any demonstrations that were done, so all the people who did them, the Greg Malones of the world and the PLP and Take Back The Power, I have said it 100 times already, I don't know what the politics is, I hope they are PCs so they can vote in the next election, but I really, honestly don't know what their politics are and so, those people did that. Now, why did they do it, why did they set up these protests and demonstrations?

Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say to you is that, they listened to both sides, they listened to people on radio, they listened to the open lines, they listened to what we said here, they listened to what the government members said but, Mr. Speaker, I mean, we have to be honest about this; I mean, who had the best opportunity to inform people?

The government did, they are the ones who spent the dollars; they are they ones who had the advertisement on the radio; they are the ones who put out the beautiful brochure which I got in my mailbox; they are the ones who had all those opportunities. All we could do was get up here and shout in the House and half the time it is not covered, and, Mr. Speaker, to top it all off, to put the icing on the cake, the Premier, the leader of the whole debate, half-an-hour on Province-wide TV and he could not convince them. Half-an-hour, then he got on a debate and bungled it altogether, and the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, in this whole deal, is that it was a bungle.

When you hide in the beginning you have to hide for the rest of it and that is exactly what the Premier did here; he started out with a hidden agenda and he tried to come out in front afterward to say: I am sorry, I did not mean to hide it. I didn't mean to tell my hon. colleagues in the House of Assembly to be quiet; I didn't mean to tell my ministers to be quiet; I didn't mean-I didn't mean-I didn't mean and he kept going on. He didn't mean to hide it is what he didn't mean to do.

He didn't mean to hide, you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because he didn't trust that the people of the Province could understand it but the Premier learned a very good lesson about the people of this Province. The Premier learned a very good lesson about the people of this Province, they can't be had, they can't be fooled. The Premier of this Province underestimated the intelligence of the people of this Province but they weren't fooled, Mr. Speaker, and to listen to the Premier today and on television again this evening and say he thinks support is growing, what a ridiculous statement, Mr. Speaker.

If he thinks it is growing, then put out a plebiscite, do a referendum, do a poll, do something; don't just sit back and say: I hope it is anyway. That is what he should have said in the statement today, Mr. Speaker, by the latest press release for him today, he says that: I think the support is growing or I hope it is growing, but anyway, I believe it is growing so we are going to keep on the same course because, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was really saying to the people of this Province today: listen, I don't really care what you think, I am going ahead with this because this is my way, and I am going to do it my way and that is too bad, Mr. Speaker, because, I will tell you what: sooner or later it is going to come back to roost. There is going to come a day in the lives of these politicians here today when they stand -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will be back.

MR. SHELLEY: We will see about "we will be back." We will see who will stand on the stage in the rally the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Speak on, speak on, we will have to see that. I challenge you any day of the week to come down to my district. I talk to people in my district. I have a very simple formula. Speak to people and listen to the people who elected you. Don't ever let your head blow up too much and follow footsteps when you are not sure where they are going. That is what I say to all hon. members.

I can tell you that this will come back to roost and this will come back to haunt the now aspiring politicians in the back. Remember, Mr. Speaker, a friendly reminder to my hon. colleagues opposite. It is not too late to stand in your place and say: I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but I was elected by my district and my district is opposed to privatization. Therefore I'm opposed to privatization. I'm opposed to this bill, that is what they will say. They will say: We told you so, we told you, sir. We told you, Mr. Premier, we told you, our elected member. We told you how we felt and you didn't listen. Like our political cousins in Ottawa you will get the same message and you will get it harder I say in three years or even less than three years. You will get a message that you will never forget. You will get a message that will leave your ears ringing on election night when they say: You didn't listen to us.

That is what they will say. They will say: You weren't elected by the Premier; you were elected by us, the constituents. That is why I say to the Premier today - I wish he had to stay in the House again tonight; it was good to see him here for a few minutes. I was glad to see he wasn't up in Queen's University talking to a bunch of students about the Constitution or about the legal ramifications of the day or whatever. I was glad to see he could make a few minutes in the House today after ten days of debate, like we said. I don't know how much time the hon. Premier has spent here.

I can tell you that sooner or later it will come home to roost. This Premier of this Province, and the people who he is going to take down with him, I say he is going to take them down with him. Because once the boat starts to go down you got to get off. Unless you want to go down with the captain.

I think the main message here today is: Remember, you still have a chance to redeem yourself and stand in your place and say: I'm sorry, Premier, I'm sorry, the front benches here, but I can't support this because I really don't believe it. I'm not comfortable with it and certainly the people in my district don't believe it. I say to all hon. members here tonight that while we speak here late into the nights and use all this time of the taxpayers of this Province that we throw this out and move on to the most important issues of the day.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening, all.

MS. VERGE: What about the armed forces?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Welcome to Pluto.

I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, to support an amendment put forward earlier by a colleague.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR. SHELLEY: He is going to tell you now. Just relax and he will tell you.

MR. CAREEN: Why? Because it is not good for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Democracy is ruled by the majority, and if it is not good for the majority it cannot be supported by those who maintain a democracy and support same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Who are some of those fine people?

MR. CAREEN: Oh, I will get to some of these people after, but I have to go to my wayward friend from St. John's South who tried to get a ferry in Argentia to run him in here to St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. CAREEN: How? Okay, my friend, what was your question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this what you would do if you were in government for twenty-two years?

MR. CAREEN: Well, no. To be perfectly honest, as honest as I can be, in Opposition sometimes you use your heart, and in government you have to use your head, but you can use your heart as well. You don't have to be going around like some kind of `up in the air, nobody else knows anything.' That's the reason why I'm advocating, and always have since this started, talking to the people of this Island and Labrador in public meetings. Let them hear it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Minister of Finance?

MR. CAREEN: Well, I don't know, but I'm sure he is not going to be Minister of Transportation when he is going to cause passengers, Newfoundlanders, Labradorians, and people from off the island, to have to pay for ten extra hours on a ferry going to St. John's with 36,000 litres of fuel, when the federal government is paying less subsidies to Marine Atlantic. It is going to be the passengers or probably the crew who are going to have to pay for coming into St. John's. Ladies and gentlemen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You will have your chance if you want to speak. I will give you a chance to speak.

Anyway, the public meetings that were being advocated by people here and by people from outside this legislative body - they are not being listened to. That is not good and that is not a democracy. If our democracy is not being held onto, it is under attack by our own people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Good! Good! That is good news.

Anyway, public meetings are very, very important, because the people have to be heard. The people have to have a say. With such an economic devastation running across this Island and Labrador, a cancer spreading over the land, we should be listening more to our people. We have no other choice.

Parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth are talking about changes within our legislative bodies, changes to reflect what the people outside are saying to the representatives. We should be no different from those who want such changes.

This is a very important resource. We haven't got much left in this Province in the way of resources and this one should be held onto, handcuffed, chained to the people of this Province; not something to make someone else richer.

The people of this Province, the people who are just barely making it, people with small wages or no wages, people who are on the NCARP or the TAGS program, people on social services: these people will not be able to invest in this. They cannot hope to invest in this. Why should any of us support an enterprise in which the majority of our people cannot invest?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why? Why can't they?

MR. CAREEN: Why? Because only a chosen few can take advantage of something that belongs to us all. No, Sir, that is not right.

The Province, I said earlier, is under attack from people inside and outside the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not saying that with much conviction now.

MR. CAREEN: I know about the conviction. I could see the conviction on the 21st of February, and I'm reflecting what those people wanted then and what they want now. They want someone to stand up for their wishes, to stand where they are.

Now, everybody who knows me knows that I have short legs and that is the reason I keep them on the ground. I don't go around with my head up in the air. I'm not like that at all. I never look down at anyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You go over there with those fellows. When you have your own picking on you, you're in trouble.

Mr. Halley, a retired lawyer here in St. John's, former partner of the Minister of Justice, a couple of weeks ago was saying that he had contacted twenty other senior lawyers who thought it wasn't a good idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tories.

MR. CAREEN: I don't know what they are, to be honest, but he is supposed to be a Liberal from what I can gather. I don't care what he is, but he is a Newfoundlander and he was talking to senior lawyers who thought it wasn't a good idea. But they wouldn't come out front and say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, ha!

MR. CAREEN: You, Sir, say things, not behind closed doors but you say them. I say things, but not behind closed doors. Regardless, take us as we are or lump us. Some of these fellows don't want to speak out loud because they may be penalized for a judgeship. Well, they are not out to protect democracy either. They are not out to protect the other fellows when they hide behind closed doors. I'm out front. I'm here regardless that this deal is not a good deal for the majority of the people of this Province.

The Premier is putting forward this idea. He has been accused of different things. We saw one incident here today. We have seen other incidents over this past while. We saw what happened on t.v. tonight. They showed what he said on the actual t.v. debate.

I am going to tell you something interesting now. I looked up an old horoscope for the day after the Premier was born. Do you know what? If he had been born the day after he was, the horoscope said he would be a nicer, more generous and more pleasing human being, instead of being born the day before. I mean, for the want of a day.

Anyway, in Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you just say?

MR. CAREEN: I said, had the Premier been born the day after he was, according to the horoscope he would be a much better man.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Dr. Ruth now.

MR. CAREEN: You watch your language now. I heard you earlier today. You watch your language.

I was out in Gander over the weekend and I had to go out to the airport to see a friend of mine off. While I was out there, I ran into a couple of old friends of mine whom I hadn't seen in twenty-three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tories, no doubt.

MR. CAREEN: I don't know what their politics were when we hung around together years ago, because when we were younger some of this stuff didn't bother us as much.

When I was out at the airport seeing this person off, I saw a couple of old friends of mine whom I hadn't seen in twenty-three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who cares!

MR. CAREEN: I'll tell you who cares. I do. My friends, whether its twenty-three days, twenty-three years or forty-five years since I've seen them, are still friends of mine. When I make friends I keep them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Lloyds?

MR. CAREEN: That is the Lloyds, yes. Have you met them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No. I met the Lloyds, friends of mine, native Newfoundlanders who lived in Kitchener for years to try to make a living. It was twenty-three years since I had seen them. They have a boy. They only have one child and his name is Clyde. He is nineteen years old and I hadn't seen the boy before.

This family, Floyd and Bride Lloyd - L-l-o-y-d, because they are Newfoundlanders of Welch ancestry - were very happy to see me. But their son, Clyde, wasn't, because obviously he wanted to be somewhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde who?

MR. CAREEN: This young fellow, Clyde Lloyd. Floyd and Bride were really embarrassed because of the way their young fellow was acting in front of me. They wanted to talk to me about old times and what had happened to me since, and I wanted to find out what had happened to them. They only had one child, as I said, and he didn't want to be there where I was. Obviously, he didn't want his parents there, he wanted to be somewhere else. He kept on being obnoxious, and he started to turn red and was very embarrassed.

He said, "Mom, dad, we have an appointment somewhere else." Now I knew he wasn't telling the truth because he turned blood red. I knew for a fact that Clyde Lloyd lied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I tell you, I never felt so bad before because I could see how embarrassing it was for Floyd and Bride.

I can't get over the similarities, the way this young fellow acts - now, he was only a nineteen-year-old fellow, a teenager with all the wants and ambitions of other teenagers. I can respect people for acting like that. Well, I can't respect them but I can put up with it because I am fairly easy going.

I tell you what: There is a gag order on here and I'm agog at the gag. I tell you, I wished I had a gag that day because I would have put the gag in Clyde myself. His parents, because he is their only son and they love him, put up with Clyde's lies. I'm fond of Floyd and Bride but I am not very enthusiastic about Clyde Lloyd. He is not one of ours. He is more akin to youngsters born in Ontario than youngsters born and reared on this Island. Different type of children altogether. I mean, he is so far removed from us. He is really a typical mainlander.

You know, the children from Port de Grave are like the children in Placentia or Bay de Verde. They listen to their parents. But this fellow, he knew everything and nobody else knew anything. So I am proud to say that Floyd and Bride are the same people I knew twenty-three years ago, salt of the earth, but what they were doing with this Clyde, I'll never know. I never asked the people was he adopted. Those people were truly embarrassed. My heart goes out to them. I have a big heart, I am very sympathetic.

We parted company, Bride and Floyd and I, still good friends, but young Clyde trotted off red as a beet, muttering to himself that he was never coming back to this Island because he couldn't see how people could live here. Anyway, I have to tell you, I wasn't sad to see the back of Clyde Lloyd.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, friends, colleagues, Newfoundlanders, Labradorians, this bill is not for us or our people, simple, easygoing and straightforward. For that, as I have been saying all along, is not ours. This is not for us or our people. If someone on the mainland introduced that, we would be up in arms against it. Why should we support something just because it originated here? Let's get back to the drawing board, let's shelve that, put it back in the closet somewhere and get back to the business of the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that tomorrow the copies of Hansard will become a collector's item. There will be a rush to buy them, a rush to get them. It will go down in history as one of the greatest transcripts that was ever written here in this House, after that inspiring speech by my colleague, the Member for Placentia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on Bill 2 and the amendment to the bill. It's a piece of legislation, as we said here in this House before, Part III of the bill we can live with. Part II of the bill, with some amendments, we can live with. Part I of the bill is a true reflection of Bill 1, the act of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, today in the House we witnessed an act that I don't consider as being democratic. We saw a colleague on this side of the House get up and show the Speaker living proof of what was said. It was shown on TV; it was written in the papers, a prime example of what the leader of our Province had said. Then, by some ruling, he was asked to leave the House, not allowed to stay, because he disclosed the truth. To me, that's not a true working of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we might ask ourselves: Why are we, over here on this side, against this Bill 2? Why are we against this piece of legislation? The reason why I have a problem with it is the facts that have come forward to me from my constituents, the fact that we are privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are creating a monopoly, and we all know what happens with a monopoly. We all know what happens with a private company, that they forget, sometimes, the reason they exist and the thing that drives them is profit; and who pays for the profits?... the rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people who are struggling out there today to try to earn a living, to try to support their families, to educate their families, those are the people who will suffer.

Electricity bills - hydro is no longer a luxury in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a necessity, and that's one of the reasons why the people in my district of Bonavista South continue to tell me that they have a grave concern about this privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The government, by its own admittance, admit that electricity rates might rise by $25 million to $28 million. Most people who have brought forward facts and figures indicate that the rise of electricity will be much greater than that, probably twice as great, to the tune of probably $50 million or $60 million.

Mr. Speaker, another sad case to be brought forward by the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is, who will own this utility once it's privatized? I fear it won't be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I fear that this utility will be owned by people outside the Province, and in all probability the fear of most of the people is that it may even be outside this country.

In the past, people over here have indicated that lesser important pieces of legislation have gone out, been taken to the people, carried forward for input from the people who elected us here and brought us into this House. We have given them a chance to come forward through public hearings, put forth their views and opinions. This government, by its own admittance, by the admittance of the House Leader and the Premier, have stated that this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this House since Confederation.

If it is that important, Mr. Speaker, why aren't we affording them the same privileges of coming forward to voice their opinions, to voice their concerns, show them the facts and figures, lay it on the line, and let's show them why it is such a good deal. If it is such a good deal we've got nothing to hide. Let's show them, and we over here can be convinced as well if it is such a good deal.

This government has seen fit not to do that. It decided amongst itself it is a good deal and it doesn't matter what the people think or say because one or two individuals feel it is a good deal. They convinced the other twelve or thirteen in Cabinet and the back benches are expected to follow, fall in line and follow their leader.

Here in this House we've continued to see time after time people come forward. They've filled the galleries here. They've been out on the streets outside the building here. They've been in the lobby, they've been on the steps, continuing to voice their opposition to this privatization bill. As those people come forward people on the other side get up and throw insults at them because their views have been a little bit different from government's views.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You know who they are, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister. We speak of Cy Abery, and you talk of Peter Boswell who changed his mind on it now. Andy Wells, maybe he is, maybe he was one of them. He is entitled to his opinion. Greg Malone, Bill Vetter, Wade Locke. Those people have come out and said: Show us the facts and figures. That is all they are asking for, the same as we are over here. If you have something that you are selling and you feel it is such a wonderful thing that you have, and you have all the facts and figures on why you want to sell it, then let us know, let us see the facts and figures.

Part II of this bill refers to taking power back from the paper companies in case of an emergency. Nothing wrong with that. As the Premier and other people have said, why should the paper companies' turbines be humming, why should they be consuming electricity if there is a hospital closed down? We have no problem with that over here. We do need some clarification there.

Another item referred to there that we read into it when we look at the piece of legislation is the Premier wanting to go back and renegotiate the deal again. If the Premier can do that, more power to him. I would be with him all the way to send him off and meet him at the airport when he comes home, though I fear it will be another trip and another ten or twelve years of dragging this issue through the courts and we will be coming up 7-0 again as we've done on two occasions in the past.

If we had went in the past and came up 4-3 or 5-2 or something like that, something like that, some way, and there was some hope there of realizing that we might win a court case such as is being put forward and such as is being conceived by people on the opposite side, maybe we would have a reasonable chance. I think we have to be convinced that we do have a chance at that. I don't think anybody here on this side or anybody out there in rural Newfoundland wants to be dragged through the courts for another eight or ten years in a court battle that we will spend millions of dollars on and probably come up on the short end again. I ask the Premier to be very careful when he goes ahead with that plan because it could end up costing us one hell of a lot of money, money that we don't have and money that could be better spent in other areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the Premier for wanting to go and contest this act when you look at the amount of revenue that is seeping in to this Province from the Upper Churchill deal. Something like $21 million a year, while in excess of $800 million a year flows to the Province of Quebec. I don't blame him for wanting to change that. I would as well, especially if I was part of the government that brought that about.

We continue to hear that privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will reduce our debt. In the meantime our assets will be reduced, if you stop and consider it, even more than our debt. The short term of allowing us not to borrow money for one or two years will be a short fix solution, a band-aid solution, and in the end we will suffer much more than that when we go back to look at borrowing money again and look at what we have to offer as assets in order to secure our credit rating.

I ask the minister and I ask the people, the government on the other side of the House, to look at mistakes that were made in the past. We look at governments that haven't listened. It is alright for some of the front benchers there. I imagine the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Fisheries and some other ministers, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, may not be around for the next election. They've served their Province over the years. They are veterans now and they may not be around. They may want to take this on the shoulder and say: I won't be around to fight an election anyway.

I call on the people in the back benches, the people who want to make a career out of politics, the people who might want to stand and speak for their people, the reason why they were put here in this hon. House. I call on them to be themselves. When the time comes to vote on this privatization bill, and when the time comes later in this evening to vote on Bill No. 2, or the amendment to Bill No. 2, I call on them to stand and be counted, like the Member for Pleasantville who spoke to his people. Stand up and support the people who sent us here. That is all we are asking.

If this act of privatization would strengthen our economy we would be all in favour. We would all be in favour of it over here if we could create some jobs, if we could attract some new industries. Nobody over here would oppose that. But this act of privatization shows nothing whatsoever to create jobs or to get this economy on the move again and give our rural Newfoundlanders and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador any hope whatsoever.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations I think shouted across the floor tonight and made reference to: Why not privatize it? You fellows form the government the next time around - and I have no hesitation in saying that we will. I have no hesitation in saying that. He said: You can take it back again. Three times the cost, something unreasonable. Once it is gone it is gone forever.

We might ask: who will benefit from this sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Large industries will benefit but who will pay the shortfall. I fear that it will be the common Tom, Dick and Harry, the common Newfoundlander out there who is struggling to pay the hydro bills, and the common Floyd and Mary Lloyds of the world. Those are the people who will be paying the rates and paying the benefits that will be allowed to be taken back or allowed to be taken from the large corporations of the world. The benefits that they will derive will be passed on to the common user, the common rate payer.

Municipalities will benefit as well, some municipalities will, but who will pay the cost of that again? Half a dozen or so municipalities that happen to have some structure of Newfoundland Hydro within their boundaries, sure they will be able to collect taxes, but I do not think the taxes will come into effect until 1997 or so. There is a time frame there, but who will pay the benefits derived from those small number of municipalities? The people, the ratepayers. That is the shame of this act of privatization because those common people out there know what will happen to them. They are not being told the whole story but they are reading between the lines. They are reading between the lines and they know full well that they are going to be shortchanged down the road.

As this glossy book that was put forward a few days ago shows, this Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on which this government is about to bring in legislation to privatize, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most efficiently run, one of the most productive companies, one of the most productive utilities in all of Canada. It is ours. It is something we are proud of. It is something that belongs to us. It is something that we can use as an economic lever in years to come but today what we are trying to do here in this House of Assembly is rob Newfoundlanders, rob our children, rob our grandchildren, of probably the only economic lever, the only economic future they may have.

That is the shame of this and that is why we are asking the Premier, and that is why we are asking the government to slow down the process. The process had to be slowed down with Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker. I recall the Premier coming back and saying: what is the rush? Slow down the process. Take it to the people. Go out and listen to the people. That was an act. I know I was not here then and there are a lot of people here who can speak with much more authority on that act than I can, but if I recall the Premier came back knowing full well how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador felt about Meech Lake.

Still, because he knew they were on his side, he sent them all out to their districts to bring back the results. The mail flowed in. I can see the Premier on television now with the stacks of mail that were flowing in congratulating him because at that time he was speaking for Newfoundland and Labrador. He was standing up for the people, but now, Mr. Speaker, I fear he is on a personal dream, on a personal whim. He wants to go out and privatize this Crown corporation. He does not have the support of the people, and does not have the support of the backbenchers, but they are going to vote with him.

They are going to vote with him, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that they are hearing the same as I am hearing in the District of Bonavista South. When you look over there on the other side, when you look at the backbenchers, I can tell you that a lot of those people who will be standing up tonight will go home with a guilty conscience because they know they are separating themselves from their people. They are separating themselves from the people who elected them. They are deceiving their people, Mr. Speaker.

When I knocked on doors in Bonavista South I believe I told the same story that everybody over there should have told, and probably had to tell in order to get elected, but the difference is I am keeping my end of the bargain when I stand up to speak. I put aside my own wishes, my own thoughts, I put aside the thoughts of the Leader of the Opposition, and I get up and speak for the constituents who sent me to this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you tell the truth to the people?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I told the truth to the people and they expected nothing less than that from me. I fear that is not happening, Mr. Speaker, and that is the shame of it. That is the shame of it here when you see one or two people dominate the whole process, dominate the whole democratic process, when you see so many people running behind to jump on the bandwagon because they believe in those one or two individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for LaPoile and the Member for Port au Port, when they talk to their constituents, hear the same thing, but I do not know if they will vote with their people when they stand up.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen it here in this House where members from other districts, from the government districts, who went around and had to take up petitions to have meetings -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's North.

MR. FITZGERALD: St. John's North, a prime example, they had to shame their member into having a meeting, and as we went forward and had meetings and gave people an opportunity to speak and came back, members opposite said: you only had fifty people or you only had 100 people or you only had thirty people. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter how many people you had out, at least we, as the Opposition, we as supporters of our people went out and gave them an opportunity to come forward and speak and voice their opinions. That is all we are asking this government to do, to slow down the process, put it out, let the people come forward, let them voice their opinions, let them speak their minds and if, in the end, the majority of the people agree with the Premier's wish, the Premier's dream, then we, over here will support him as well. No problem with that because we will know that it was done in the democratic process. It was done in a democratic way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand tonight and speak on the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Ferryland. His amendment to Bill 2 is that this bill is not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how could you not agree with the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to a little over a year ago, during the election campaign when the people of this Province had to make a choice on who would lead us for the next four or five years as the government of this Province and during most of the election campaigns, promises were discussed and talked about, when people had to sit down and try to make informed decisions, but last year the election campaign was not an informed decision because this government didn't tell it all. This government didn't tell half of it, this government didn't tell any of it, as far as I am concerned this government had a hidden agenda, and part of that hidden agenda was the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and (inaudible) electrical power resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Premier.

MR. MANNING: The Premier, yes, I should say. He sought no mandate from the people of this Province and they have no mandate from the people of this Province. Now, over the past few months, since both these bills have come before the House, the government has attempted to, in their own little way, to go out across this Province and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to educate the people or make them have an informed decision on these bills, but the problem is that they are only telling one side of the issue and there are two sides to every issue, and I ask why the government refuses to allow public hearings or a referendum in this Province so the people can make the decision; the people have a right to make up the decision -

MR. DUMARESQUE: You are not reading a speech?

MR. MANNING: I am not reading a speech, I say to the Member for Eagle River. At least I can stand up, Mr. Speaker, and speak on behalf of my constituents. But over the past number of weeks and months, we have heard people on open line shows, we have seen letters in the papers; we have presented petitions to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you were on the road to getting in the good books of many Newfoundlanders because you sat in your place today, when all your colleagues were up except for the Member for Pleasantville, you knew what was coming down today, another schemozzle, another game; so if you sit in your place, Newfoundlanders would be proud of you. I have contacted several people in my district who said, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation never stood up and clapped, he knew but the Member for Eagle River did but he won't clap six months from now either, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, he will.

MR. MANNING: No, he won't. If he does, we'll all be happy, but he reserved his clap.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was proud of you today, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province were misled during the last provincial election campaign. They made a misinformed decision on May 3 of last year. They made a misinformed decision, and the people on the other side of this House of Assembly know that the people didn't know all the truth. They know that the people of this Province didn't know what the hidden agenda of this government was.

Who on the other side, except for the Member for St. John's South, mentioned the Hydro privatization during his campaign? No one mentioned it. When the Premier was asked, he shoved it off as a rumour brought on by the Leader of the Opposition and candidates on our side.

The Premier made a commitment to the people of the Province to be fair and square, and I say that he is not being fair and square on this piece of legislation that he brings before the House right now.

We looked in the booklet that was passed out just a few days ago that talks about Newfoundland Hydro, and right here on the second page Hydro pledged not to increase electrical rates in 1993, and this objective was achieved by our employees carefully controlling costs. It says that they will not increase electrical rates. Well, I say that if Hydro is privatized we all know that electricity rates will increase, but most of all they will increase in rural Newfoundland, because under the Electrical Power Control Act the subsidies will be phased out by December 31, 1999. Rural Newfoundland will be paying double, or possibly triple, the electrical rates that they are paying now, and people in rural Newfoundland will know and remember Hydro every month when they receive their bill. They will remember what this government has done to the last resource that we have.

People are out there and they are not sure, exactly, of parts of these two bills that have come before the House, and that is why they are asking for public hearings and they are asking for a referendum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The people of the Province are asking for it, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, if I thought for a moment that this piece of legislation would right some of the wrongs that were done back in the days gone by, that would right some of the wrongs that members of this Legislature now sit and know that they took part in back in the late 1960's, if I thought that this could right it, I would stand four square behind it, but it's a dream. It's a dream of some members opposite, and the thing is that I don't think we can take a chance. I don't think we can take that chance.

The Premier has been advised by several people, lawyers included, that the chances of winning this in a court of law are not very good; as a matter of fact, almost close to nil, I would say, that this can't be won.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: It's alright, maybe, on legal advice, but I say the Government House Leader should be listening to advice from somebody.

I was out in the district the other day and a constituent of mine told me that the only difference between the Government House Leader and God is that God doesn't think he's the Government House Leader, and I found that very interesting.

If I could get back to what I was saying, there were wrongs done in the 1960's. There were wrongs done with the Upper Churchill deal, and we Newfoundlanders are paying the price for it. Eight hundred million dollars a year goes off to Quebec while we receive an insulting $8 million; $800 million going off that we could use in this Province, I say. We could use it on the roads in this Province. We could use it for social assistance in this Province. We could use it for health care in this Province, but it is going off somewhere else, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, there is nothing wrong with the roads in my district. A couple of them are a bit bumpy, but I am sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will look at us favourably over the next couple of years, I say to the minister. It will even be better after this year, I say, when he has finished the work on Salmonier Line.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when they made the agreement on the Upper Churchill they thought they were doing what was right for this Province, and maybe in all honesty they thought they were doing right for the future of this Province, but we all know now that it was a mistake. It was a mistake because the people have been paying the price ever since. I say that we should not make the same mistake again, I say to the Premier.

We can't gamble what we have now as our last natural resource on one person's whim or two people's whims. It is time that we stood up and were counted. The people of this Province are standing up to be counted. There were pools taken on this privatization act, there were polls taken in this Province, and it showed 80 per cent of the people against it. Over 80 per cent of the people in this Province, I say, were against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The Premier stood as he did on his debate on t.v. and other cases and said that if the people were against this deal that he wouldn't proceed, and still we are here tonight and over the next couple of days watching it as it will proceed.

The Premier said no to public hearings, he didn't want the public hearings, but still he went along with spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign trying to persuade people to think his way. The people cannot be bought any more, I say, the people can make up their own minds. Still they want more time. Why the rush? I ask. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned before, did we get back to the Meech Lake deal? There was no rush with Meech Lake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say to the puppet from Eagle River, you would do anything for that coveted Cabinet post, but I would say I would be in Cabinet quicker than you are, I would say to the hon. Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The people will not forget, I say, Mr. Speaker. I have a few notes. The people will not forget every month as they get their electricity bills. The people will be reminded of what this government has done and the people will speak again. One thing about democracy, people will have a chance to speak, whether it is a couple of years down the road or three or four, whatever the case may be. The people won't forget. They didn't forget mistakes that were made by the previous government. They didn't forget when mistakes were made by the federal government. When the time came they spoke, and they spoke loud and clear. They will speak loud and clear again, I say. They remember what was done.

Hydro is not a burden to this Province. Can anybody show me where this Hydro costs this Province money, where Hydro costs the taxpayers and rate payers of this Province money? No. Hydro is not a burden to this Province. As a matter of fact, we are making $10 million to $12 million a year off it?

AN HON. MEMBER: How come the Minister of Mines and Energy is so quiet about this piece of legislation?

MR. MANNING: The minister of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Mines and Energy is so quiet about this piece of legislation.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Speaker, Hydro is not a burden to this Province. We are making $10 million to $12 million off it, so why should we sell something we are making money on? The only burden to this Province are the members opposite. They are taking this Province now and the few things we have left - our fishery is in a state of collapse -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. MANNING: How come you didn't stand up and clap along with your members opposite? How come you didn't stand up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, how come you didn't stand up and share with your colleagues today?

From what I can gather, the motive of this legislation by the government is to try to gain back some control from Upper Churchill, I would say, Mr. Speaker. If I thought that could be obtained I would agree. I think it is going to be a long, fought out court battle. I say that this court battle will cost the taxpayers of this Province millions of dollars. What are the chances that we will win that court battle? They are very slim.

What happened a few years ago when other governments tried to break the Churchill deal? It couldn't be done. We are tied into a deal until the year 2041 that we will pay a dear price for for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province deserve better. The people in my district of St. Mary's - The Capes deserve better. The people who voted for the government deserve better, and that is why I say that there should be public hearings held on this piece of legislation. There should be a referendum held so that people can make a choice. Eighty per cent, I say again, Mr. Speaker, are against this piece of legislation. Eighty per cent of this Province has spoken out, but the thing that bothers me most is the fact of somebody else's opinion.

There are several people in this Province, high profile people, if you want to call them that, who have spoken out on this piece of legislation, who have brought forward some real, honest, straightforward concerns, and they have been ignored, number one. Number one, they have been ignored. Number two, they have been ridiculed. Number three, they have been the subject of name calling. Number four, they have been the subject of insulting remarks by all members of the opposite side. I say: What has happened to this Province? What has happened that people cannot stand and express their opinion without the chance of being insulted and ridiculed? We live in a democracy. People should have an opportunity to have their say, and should not feel that they are wrong because of their opinion. Someone's opinion is their opinion, and they have a right to express it, and I say they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have been speaking out over the past couple of months, and members opposite know that the people of this Province don't want Hydro privatized. I had a meeting in my district, and people came out to the meeting down in St. Mary's. There were almost 100 people at the meeting, and all of them were against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro on the fact of the principle of the thing, most of them, because they didn't have enough information, they said. So I provided as much information as I could to those people.

Just a few days ago I was asked to go to another meeting in my district - as a matter of fact, on Monday night coming - down in the community of Mount Carmel, for the people of the St. Mary's Bay North area to discuss the Hydro privatization issue, so this is not a dead issue. People are still out there talking about it. It's been on kind of a low now for the past five or six weeks, but that's the game plan of the members opposite. That is the game plan of the government. They are trying to, more or less: let's keep it low and we will proceed and hopefully people won't know that we did it. But the people know what's going on. The people know because we are telling them. We are telling them, and many other people are telling them, what the government is continuing to try to do with this bill that's before the House right now.

Mr. Speaker, ownership is one thing and control is another, and I believe that the people own Newfoundland Hydro now. The people own it, and therefore we control it, and if we decide in this House - I shouldn't say `we' decide, because we won't partake in the decision - but if a decision is made in this House over the next few weeks to privatize Newfoundland Hydro and pass Bill 2, which is a partner to Bill 1 in the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, who will benefit the most? That's the question that everybody is asking. Who will benefit? Will the people of this Province who are paying their light bills every month benefit? I say no, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the people who would benefit would be the people who buy the shares in the private Newfoundland Hydro. That's who will benefit the most, the people who will buy the shares. Then we get back to who can buy the shares.

This government has put forward that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have the first opportunity to buy shares, but I say: Who in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to buy shares? Are the thousands of people in this Province now who are affected by the cod moratorium going to buy shares? I say no. They are having a job to buy clothes for their children. Are the thousands of people who are on social assistance in this Province going to buy shares? Once again, I say no. Are the thousands of people who gave up looking for work in this Province, and can't find work in this Province, are they going to buy shares? I say no.

The people who will buy shares will be the people on the mainland, the people outside this Province who will have total control and total ownership of Newfoundland Hydro, and we will only pay the cost. We will pay the price in the years ahead, Mr. Speaker.

The Public Utilities Board will have control of the new Newfoundland Hydro and the Public Utilities Board will have control. Do you think that a private company, run by people from the mainland, run by investors from the mainland, that the Public Utilities Board will have any chance of regulating this new company? I say no, Mr. Speaker.

It is owned now by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Public Utilities Board have some say in how it is regulated; they have a fair amount of say I have to admit that, but if this new Hydro that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will neither own nor control any more, it will be controlled from the mainland. If those people want to raise electricity rates in this Province, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing the Public Utilities Board will be able to do about it, they won't stand a chance of trying to stop it.

They will keep at it and keep at it until electricity rates go out through the roof and there is nothing we can do, we have no choice but to buy our electricity from Newfoundland Hydro, we have no choice whatsoever, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board will have very little say in the regulation of electricity rates in this Province because it will be a private company owned by outside investors and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will neither have ownership nor control and have no say whatsoever and I say that's a shame, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of those bills is to right the wrongs that were done in the 1960s and as I said before, if I thought that there was a chance of doing that I would say; go ahead, and I would stand behind it four square, but the thing is, you can't right a wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier is wrong tonight.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is taking too big a chance I would say and the people of this Province don't want him to do that and he should listen to the people of this Province because in the next election he will listen to them loud and clear.

Mr. Speaker, what was done in the 1960s is a done deal and there is nothing we can do about it, but we shouldn't have our children and our children's children still paying the price for what has happened in the 1960s. If there is a guilty complex in this House of Assembly, I say the proper thing is to stand by the decisions that were made years before and they are the decisions with which you have to live because if I have to live -

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up, time's up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on this particular motion because I think the motion succinctly deals with the issue that is before the House; right now it is whether or not Bill 2 is in the best interest of the people of this Province. We had the revelation, Mr. Speaker, on the night of the t.v. debate or the Premier's speech before the t.v. debate, that this legislation was to do with, amongst other things, the ability of the Province to recapture Churchill Falls power.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if one of the ultimate goals of this Province is to develop hydro-electricity in Labrador, then I would like to know which Government of Quebec is prepared to negotiate with the Government of Newfoundland while this piece of legislation is in existence? What Government of Quebec would accept that Newfoundland could take the power of the Churchill Falls contract and then sit down and negotiate with the Government of Newfoundland? Would the Parti Québécois government, would they sit down and negotiate with the Premier, or the Minister of Mines and Energy of this government, or any government, while the Premier had this ace up his sleeve, supposedly, to permit the Government of Newfoundland, or the people of Newfoundland, through the Public Utilities Board, to attack existing contracts for export of power outside of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? That argument and that roadblock exists regardless of whether the Premier is right or wrong about the legalities.

This legislation itself amounts to a roadblock to prevent further discussions with the Province of Quebec about development of the Lower Churchill or any other negotiations or renegotiations, or further discussions period, about the development of power in Labrador. So if we are content to stick with the status quo with respect to ultimate power development in Labrador, then we pass this bill. If we are content, we pass this bill. I think that would not be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I don't think that issue has been debated, or perhaps not even raised, in this debate so far.

Who will negotiate with a government that says that hidden in this piece of legislation is the ability to take back the power already contracted to Hydro Quebec, already sold by them to somebody else for the most part? That's the ace up the sleeve that the Premier told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on TV about a month or so ago.

Mr. Speaker, the second important issue that's part of the policy of this legislation is the change in the way that this legislation deals with how the Public Utilities Board is to establish rates, and how the Public Utilities Board is to determine what is a sufficient revenue to a supplier of power in the Province, and isn't the change from section 3 of the Electrical Power Control Act which is being repealed, to section 3 of the new act that's before the House, the bill before the House now, in relation to the policy of the Province with respect to rates?

Under the existing legislation, the declared policy of the Province is that rates should be established to provide sufficient revenue to a supplier of power to enable it, in the case of a private company, to earn a just and reasonable return as construed under the Public Utilities Act and, in the case of the Hydro Corporation, to recover the cost of service provided by it and a margin of profit sufficient to achieve and maintain the sound financial position as long as either of them are able to achieve and maintain a sound credit rating in the financial markets of the world.

Under the existing Electrical Power Control Act there are two standards for the setting of rates, one for private corporations and one for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro rate is established to recover the cost of service and a margin of profit sufficient to achieve and maintain a sound financial position. The government proposed to eliminate that in the new legislation and have one standard and one standard alone, and that is the same one as now applies to private companies.

Mr. Speaker, what are the goals of private companies versus existing hydro corporations? In the 1992 annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro states its financial goal and mission as follows: The mission of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro group of companies is to provide electrical power and energy on behalf of the people of the Province at the lowest cost consistent with reliable service, due consideration for the environment, and the safety of our employees and customers we serve. That is the goal of a public corporation, to provide electricity at the lowest cost consistent with reliable service.

Now, what kind of a company is this, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, this public power corporation which has a goal to do that? Is it an inefficient company or is it an efficient company? Is it a well run company or is it a sloppy company? Does it conform to the Premier's idea and the myths about public enterprise versus private enterprise, that all public corporations do not know how to do anything and they cannot run things efficiently, but private enterprise is so great and wonderful? Is that what we have?

Well, let us examine the comparisons between the public and private companies that are in the same business in the same part of North America. The four companies I want you to consider are Nova Scotia Power Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Fortis, and New Brunswick Power. These four corporations are all in the top ten income generating companies in Atlantic Canada according to the Atlantic commercial news of July/August 1993. How do they compare in efficiency?

Mr. Speaker, the largest of these companies by way of revenue is New Brunswick Power Corporation with revenues of $923 million per year. That company, the New Brunswick Power Corporation, has an income as a percentage of its revenue of 2.7 per cent. It is the third largest company by revenue in all of Atlantic Canada, 2.7 per cent. You take that and compare it to Nova Scotia Power Corporation - this is before it was privatized. In 1992 the Nova Scotia power corporation made as income on revenues of $673 million - 6.8 per cent of its revenue was income. That, Mr. Speaker, is in its first year of privatization.

The other two companies - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Fortis Incorporated - both made revenues of around the same. Three hundred and sixty-nine million revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, $351 million for Fortis Incorporated. What was the income as a percentage of the revenue? In both cases, 8.6 per cent. We've got the public corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, having income of 6.8 per cent of its revenues, exactly the same as Fortis Incorporated. In both cases higher than Nova Scotia power, and much higher by a factor of two to three - almost three times - of New Brunswick power.

By that measure of efficiency Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a very efficient, very well-run, profitable corporation owned by the people of this Province and acting in the best interest of the people of this Province. Acting under a regime, under the existing electrical power control act, that provides it adequate revenues to continue to carry out its mission, maintain its own credit rating, service its own debt, and carry out its goals for the people of this Province.

What is more than carrying out its own goals for the people of this Province in providing electricity, in generating electricity, it also provides a basis, a level of expertise, a critical mass, if you will, to allow our own people, our own experts, engineers, economists, experts in the electrical industry, to observe, control, monitor, and be a part of the electrical development industry in North America; in particular, to be aware of what our own power needs are, what is going on with the international market, in particular with the United States and northeastern United States, and keep very much up to date on the financial markets and the `what is possibles' of the financial and electrical power hydroelectric world.

In addition, it provides a critical mass in terms of cash flow and economics. It provides a financial borrowing ability that can help and support its interest in CF(L)Co. There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when CF(L)Co. is going to require an injection of capital in order to keep operating, and in order for the Newfoundland government through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to maintain its share and interest in the Upper Churchill project. If we change our policy now and adopt a policy based on the short-term goals of this government, to achieve a return of equity of some $300 million, enough to keep the public purse ticking over for perhaps a month and half, when you look at the budgetary requirements of this Province, then we are looking at a one-way ticket to disaster.

What about a policy that assumes that all hydroelectric generation in the Province is private? What about that policy? Because that is part of the policy behind this act. That by having everything private the Premier's scheme for recapturing Upper Churchill Falls' power can work - that is a part of the scheme, that is a part of the policies of this act - what about that policy? What about the policy that allows companies, even without the involvement of the Public Utilities Board, to hold 20 per cent of a utility, and with the consent of the Public Utilities Board to hold all the shares? Thirty percent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 90 per cent. With no guidelines into effect except the public interest as defined by the Public Utilities Board. No guidelines except the public interest as determined by the Public Utilities Board, an appointed group of friends of the government of the day.

Why should 20 per cent be the figure? Where does that figure come from? Does anyone reasonably believe that a widely held company can't be controlled with 15 per cent, 16 per cent, 18 per cent of the shares? Does anybody reasonably believe that a widely held public corporation can't be controlled with 15 per cent or 16 per cent or 18 per cent? Studies of Canadian corporate interlocks, corporate mergers and acquisitions, show that whole conglomerates of companies can be built on 10 per cent and 12 per cent, 13 per cent, ownership and control. Building a whole conglomerate of interrelated companies based on a very small percentage as compared with 20 per cent that the Premier's bill accepts automatically, even without going to the Public Utilities Board.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was given a five minute notice at 10:43 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My stopwatch tells me that the hon. member was speaking for twenty minutes and one second.

MR. HARRIS: I (inaudible) relying on the (inaudible), Mr. Speaker. If I could back up one second and stop the clock till I finished the sentence I would be very happy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk made a mistake, and I started the clock at the time that the member was recognized. My clock shows twenty minutes and one second. Does the hon. member have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HARRIS: I wanted to finish what I was saying, Mr. Speaker. It is important that I clue up the issue of the 20 per cent. Because what this is really all about is power, and unfortunately what is going to happen if this legislation passes is it will allow all electricity in the Province to be put in the hands of large corporate conglomerates which reside outside of the Province. I think that is where this is going to end up.

It's no accident that Paul Desmarais' corporation is called Power Corporation. It's not because it was founded by Tommy Power from Pleasant Street. It's because it has to do with the development and exercise of power, and I'm afraid that's what we'll be turning over to the power corporations of the world - if not this particular power corporation - is the electrical resources of this Province.

I am opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. I am against it, and I urge all hon. members to vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Premier now speaks he will close debate on second reading.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't keep the House long. There are just a few things that I need to say.

I haven't heard all of the debate on this, but I've heard bits and pieces of it over the last ten to fifteen days that it's been on, and I've heard most members today make some comments on it during the course of the day and this evening, and I think out of the seventeen or eighteen members sitting on the opposite side I have heard at least fifteen different versions of what I said, and I sat and listened in disbelief that members opposite could make such totally unfounded statements about what I said was the purpose of this legislation, or what I said was the purpose the government was seeking to achieve, everything from the proposition that we are seeking to destroy the Upper Churchill contract, and I kept saying, time and time and time again, that was no part of the purpose of the government in bringing forward this legislation. Yet members, for their own reason, have decided they want to characterize it that way.

Now, perhaps, members opposite will understand why I asked members on this side of the House not to address that issue during the course of the debate, because I didn't want this House of Assembly to create the same utter fiasco as was created in years gone by when they made an utter mess of the legislation because of unfounded statements that were made in the House of Assembly at the time. I tried to avoid that this time.

Once it was explained that was what was sought to be achieved, the members opposite then lined up and they couldn't seem to get to the microphones fast enough to mischaracterize this legislation and what its purpose was. With complete disregard for any harm that might be done to the Province and it's future, their sole objective was the promotion of their political interest, with total disregard and disdain for the interests of the people of this Province.

It's difficult to believe that the members of this House could have so little regard for the interests of the people of this Province in protecting their right to access -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The purpose of this legislation is first and foremost to provide for the orderly management of the hydroelectric power facilities of this Province, and the legislation does it very clearly and very explicitly. It provides, Mr. Speaker, for the use of all power generated in this Province, with the management of it in such a way as to give priority to the needs of the people of this Province. It also provides very specifically for what is to happen in the case of an emergency, which has never been provided for in all the years of this Province, an essential feature.

It needs to be done, but we have an equal need to ensure that there is access to whatever power is generated in this Province to meet first and foremost the needs of the people of this Province, and that's what this legislation provides for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And the members opposite, for their narrow political motives, are seeking to destroy and mischaracterize and misrepresent this legislation, and have done so with utterly irresponsible statements, have sought to do so with utterly irresponsible statements, without regard to the consequences to the people of this Province, they will be held to account, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They have a lot to answer for, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this Province for what they have done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you hear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: They sat here tonight one after the other, like minions tearing the hide off me on a personal basis and I express a few opinions and listen to them, listen to them like a wall of drivelling sound, not making any sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like babbling baboons.

PREMIER WELLS: Like babbling baboons, yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Not allowed to say that eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. I withdraw it in that case.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdrawn?

PREMIER WELLS: I withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, if it is an inappropriate one. Now, Mr. Speaker - maybe it is the resemblance that is causing the concern.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to protect the interests of the people of this Province. The members opposite demonstrated while they were in power that they had no regard for the people of this Province; they virtually bankrupted the Province by their financial and fiscal policies, headed it straight for the financial rocks with a course dead-aimed at the financial rocks. They created a pension liability that it will take the people of this Province years and years and years to correct. They failed to address any of the economic issues, failed to address -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am having trouble hearing the hon. Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, at long last we have a government that was prepared to face the issues in this Province; to address the fiscal issues, to address the economic issues, to address educational issues, to address health management issues, to address electrical issues, to address one after the other, we have developed a government with the political courage to address those issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, when this party sat on the opposite side of the House, we had to sit and see the then governing party, the Conservative, virtually destroy the economy of this Province as the government, we will not sit and see them seek to do it as the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will, at long last, provide for sound management of the electrical power resources of the Province in a way that is fair to everybody who is affected. It provides for fair treatment for everybody who could possibly be affected; it provides explicitly and clearly for any company that generates power having absolute priority to consume it, and if there is any doubt whatsoever, any basis for any doubt, I will be the first to stand and move an amendment to correct it to ensure it, if there is any basis for any doubt. I don't think there is any basis for any doubt but, Mr. Speaker, if there is, I have no hesitation.

I have asked the Minister of Justice to take a specific look at it and see if there is any way that it could be construed or interpreted so as to in any way impair the ability of those who generate power having priority to consume it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have had a chance to speak and they've stood there, one after the other, like I say, like minions, abusing me on a personal basis. Now at the very least give me the opportunity to express my views of it. Even though it may be somewhat abusive of the party opposite, but it is no more than fair retribution in the circumstances.

The legislation provides fairly for fair treatment. If an emergency arises and it is necessary to divert power from a producer or a retailer to meet an emergency circumstance there is provision for it being limited to the emergency circumstance. There is provision for adequate and fair compensation for the power that is diverted, and any other cost that is incurred as a result of it. There is fair provision for that.

There is fair provision for priority access by the people of this Province to power to meet the needs of the people of this Province. There is fair treatment for any company whose facilities are adversely affected by that. If transmission facilities are rendered unnecessary or unusable as a result of such diversion there is provision for fair compensation of that. That is a reasoned response. Beyond that, the people of this Province absolutely must have priority access to any power that is generated as a result of the use of the water power resources of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies to anybody for bringing forward this legislation and asking this House of Assembly to pass it.

Before I sit down I want to express appreciation to the members of the House, the members on this side of the House, who stood valiantly and supported the interests of the people of this Province, and didn't put their narrow political interests ahead of the people of this Province. I give them full credit and I say a sincere thank you to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I say a sincere thank you and express my appreciation to those patriots who put the interest of the people of this Province ahead of any narrow political interest. They are acting responsibly and they've done so responsibly. Everything in this bill protects and promotes the interest of the people of this Province. The members opposite are going to have a lot to answer for one of these days for their efforts to try and prevent the fair hearing.

Mr. Speaker, they had ten - is it eleven days or ten?

MR. ROBERTS: Eleven (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Eleven days of debate in second reading of this. Name another piece of legislation in the last forty years that has had more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Name it! Name the piece of legislation that has had more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) just name it. There may be one or two or three pieces in forty years. I hear people opposite talk about South Africa and democracy, and this closure. Mr. Speaker, the use of closure finally restored democracy to this House of Assembly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As the members opposite have sat in their places or stood in their places day after day and prevented democracy from occurring in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, we've finally restored democracy and we intend to continue to do so if, as and when it is necessary to ensure that the members of this House have the right to vote when it is appropriate that they should do so.

I would hope that the members opposite will at long last recognize that the interests of this Province ought to be put ahead of their own narrow political interests, and I hope they will stand in their places and vote in support of this motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: On the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the amendment will be put first. For hon. members I will just, perhaps, read the amendment.

It's that Bill No. 2, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador", be amended by striking out all the words after the word `that' and substituting the following: Bill No. 2, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador" be not now read a second time because it is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

Is the House ready for the question on second reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: I move it now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the...

MR. ROBERTS: We are ready, Mr. Speaker, whenever the hon. members opposite are.

MR. SPEAKER: All those who are in favour that the said bill be now read a second time, please indicate by rising.

CLERK (Noel): The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Murphy, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, Mr. Tulk, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Smith, Mr. L. Matthews, Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against second reading of the bill, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Ms. Verge, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, twenty-seven `yeas' and fifteen `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried - the order, second reading.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it that it is probably the wish of the House that we not deal with any other business tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Don't tempt us. Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment, Your Honour, may I inform the House that tomorrow of course is Private Members' Day. We will be debating a motion I think put down by my friend for Waterford - Kenmount. We will deal with that tomorrow. On Thursday we will be asking the House to move into Committee stage on the EPCA, the bill that just got second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It will be the EPCA when we get through with it, I say to my friend. The government has three or perhaps four relatively straightforward and quite minor amendments which we will be asking the Committee to deal with. I will get them to members as soon as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman would do better to keep his mouth closed and his mind open, he might learn more. I will get them, Mr. Speaker, to my friends opposite as soon as I can and then we will deal with them on that basis.

With that said I will move the House do now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Before putting the motion on adjournment the Clerk wasn't afforded an opportunity to read the bill for the second time and I think we should do so.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 2)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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